Coolerking

More than 30 killed off santa cruz island

Recommended Posts

Fuck. I mean just fuck. I hope these investigator humans are good......That pic makes me so sad in so many ways.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I hope that they find the OCMI that last signed off on the burned dive boat and take him over to the sister ship and film him hauling his fat desk jockey ass up and out of that top bunk escape hatch in the dark!  He has probably already been shipped off to the the most remote CG post in Alaska!

Cold Bay in the Aluetians! Sounds like a lovely place... Population 46. Average commute: 6 minutes

https://livability.com/ak/cold-bay

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/237cfc3

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

     I hope that they find the OCMI that last signed off on the burned dive boat and take him over to the sister ship and film him hauling his fat desk jockey ass up and out of that top bunk escape hatch in the dark!  He has probably already been shipped off to the the most remote CG post in Alaska!

Cold Bay in the Aluetians! Sounds like a lovely place... Population 46. Average commute: 6 minutes

https://livability.com/ak/cold-bay

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/237cfc3

Related image

That is an absurdly unfair statement.  This whole things sucks for everybody.  Nobody awake on watch... that is unconscionable if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

That is an absurdly unfair statement.  This whole things sucks for everybody.  Nobody awake on watch... that is unconscionable if true.

So do you suppose the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection should not actually have tried for himself to go through the contortions that the convoluted escape hatch over the 3rd tier bunk? If you had been in that role would you not have tried for yourself to see if it was even possible or how long it took? Would you felt you had fulfilled your duty and responsibility towards the passengers and put your name down on the inspection form? Not to mention that the escape hatch put one right back into the compartment that was on fire and preventing your egress from the other passage.  That is what is absurd and unconscionable in this matter. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

So do you suppose the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection should not actually have tried for himself to go through the contortions that the convoluted escape hatch over the 3rd tier bunk? If you had been in that role would you not have tried for yourself to see if it was even possible or how long it took? Would you felt you had fulfilled your duty and responsibility towards the passengers and put your name down on the inspection form? Not to mention that the escape hatch put one right back into the compartment that was on fire and preventing your egress from the other passage.  That is what is absurd and unconscionable in this matter. 

Its easy to criticize when you ain't walked a mile...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I think you each have a fair point here.  OCMI can only enforce the regs as written, and I'm not sure (Fast can confirm here) but pretty sure the regs just say there has to be a secondary emergency escape hatch, not how many people have to be able to get thru it in a given time period, or that it has to exit to a different space than the main exit...

Where the OCMI organization as a whole HAS failed, is in not recognizing that the regs are woefully inadequate, and that vessels built to them have serious design deficiencies...

And I'm pretty sure the emergency escape issue is not the only design deficiency...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

So do you suppose the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection should not actually have tried for himself to go through the contortions that the convoluted escape hatch over the 3rd tier bunk? If you had been in that role would you not have tried for yourself to see if it was even possible or how long it took? Would you felt you had fulfilled your duty and responsibility towards the passengers and put your name down on the inspection form? Not to mention that the escape hatch put one right back into the compartment that was on fire and preventing your egress from the other passage.  That is what is absurd and unconscionable in this matter. 

If you do, you just accused every previous inspector of malfeasance. Won't be a fun day at the office after THAT and then the dive boat company sues over made up rules written down nowhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know which mile I might have walked Wess? I have been dealing with OCMI's and the the regs and inspected passenger vessels every week now for 5 years and can promise you that heads are rolling in the CG T-boat world as we speak. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if reports that they died in their sleep due to smoke inhalation and not burns are true then its also not even root cause related.  And I ain't saying I like it.  But as someone who has to make those calls in a different field where folks die either way (too much or too little regulation) I am simply saying its not easy and that end of day society's opinion is reflected in the laws passed by those we vote into office and the regulations come from that and at the end of the day the regulator (in this case the OCMI) is bound by the regs and precedent.  Its easy for assholes on the internet to throw stones.  Hindsight is an amazing thing. Reality and real time and real life are a bit more complicated.

What does seem clear is that if there had been an active and awake roving watch this could not and should not have played out the way it did but even that ain't 100% certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing can eliminate 100% of risk. Everything is a trade-off, and regulators would consider the whole system in evaluating the risk.   So for a fire safety system, Conception had no propane, no built in gasoline, no doubt the electrical system had appropriate sized-wire, fuses and breakers, fire extinguishers, an engine room fire suppression system, smoke detectors (apparently in the bunk room), an annual inspection, a COI that required a watch, crew training (presumably) in fire fighting and prevention, and finally, if all else fails, a small emergency exit from the bunk area.  All of this sounded extensive and pretty safe up until a couple weeks ago.

Assuming a fire started from a charging device in the mess area (above the bunk room), what parts of this system failed?

1.  The mess is above the bunk room, smoke/heat rises, so smoke detectors may not have warned the passengers and crew until it was too late.
2.  No watch.  
3.  Inadequate emergency exit.  

And of course the system did not contemplate risk from charging portable devices at all. 

The lack of a watch and perhaps no smoke detectors where the fire started results in the fire not being discovered until the entire mess hall/galley area is fully involved, rendering any firefighting equipment and training useless.

Two apparent problems with the exit - the difficulty of locating it and actually getting through it in an emergency, and that it exits to the same general area as the main exit. 

In fairness to designers and regulators, it was probably assumed that should there be a fire, it would be discovered long before both exits were fully involved, and worst case, fire fighting efforts would slow the fire long enough for people to escape.  The emergency exit was the last in a long list of fire safety items and after everything else fails, it was not enough (and we don't know if the passengers even had a chance to try to  escape through it).

It's tragic that it takes something like this to reveal deficiencies that in hindsight should have been more obvious.  But then no one expected flooding in more than 4 watertight compartments on the Titanic either.  Humans aren't perfect, but hopefully we learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If you do, you just accused every previous inspector of malfeasance. Won't be a fun day at the office after THAT and then the dive boat company sues over made up rules written down nowhere.

Which is why IF the OCMI could have objected (either not a viable hatch or not legit because not really do a different space) then I would start looking to apply sanction to the command chain at least a few levels up from the OCMI unless this is the only OCMI that would have passed that boat (we know that's not true as the boat has been in operation for decades).

Enforcement/inspection organizations don't react well to front line heroes (aka shit disturbers). They just make everybody else look bad. Lenience may even be a conscious choice if, as often happens, some influential person has convinced the enforcement body leadership that the regs are overzealous, killing jobs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

The Administrative Procedures Act (Congress) requires Federal agencies to go through public notice and comment, consider economic burden etc. when developing regulations.  

good thing your man doesn't give even pretend to follow it

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Back in the day I guess it was assumed airplanes would never ever crash, 

The earlier in aviation, the more crashes.  The design compromises were accepted because they assumed a crash was fatal anyways. Discoverer mentality and all that.  "I don't need to learn to swim - if I fall overboard, I'd rather die quickly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the fire started in the aft salon:

Quote

After the fire started, one crewmember woke up upon hearing a noise and got up to investigate, and he saw flames rising from the aft end of the main deck level salon compartment, one level above the passenger berthing area.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ntsb-all-crew-were-asleep-when-dive-boat-fire-broke-out-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

good thing your man doesn't give even pretend to follow it

Without getting into politics or taking sides, historically speaking, Donald Trump is not the first President to try to find ways around the Administrative Procedures Act, and certainly will not be the last. Not to mention the Act was passed in direct reaction to FDR's New Deal and actions taken by his administration in the years prior to and then during WWII.

I also note that the Act says it applies to the "proposal of, and issuing of regulations."  So does that mean It does not apply to the abolishment of regulations?  Again, historically speaking, we've sure created more regulations than we've abolished.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mark Set said:

I’m no fire investigator but I’m not sure we can conclude it started in the aft salon. We know it was first noticed as flames rising from the aft end but that may be an artifact of construction. From the safety video the space is relatively open to the stern with the other three sides walled in with smaller windows.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Crash said:

So does that mean It does not apply to the abolishment of regulations?  Again, historically speaking, we've sure created more regulations than we've abolished.

Getting rid of a regulation is same as any other act.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

or

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

 

According to moonduster, regulation has nuthin' to do with it. I wonder how the 'ya just can't legislate (insert here)' crowd would explain it.  Lawsuits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read about the Winecoff Hotel fire in Atlanta.  It lead to some very successful regulation.  I like my automatic sprinklers, fire alarms and emergency exits.  Regulations can be oppressive or they can be very effective.  Read the book.  There are several about that tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

or

USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

 

There is no doubt vehicles are safer now. The IIHS have compelling data on that.

My grandfather, as a physician, saw what happened to people after they passed through the windshield in a crash. He retrofitted his car (it was a 40s Packard) with aircraft harnesses as seatbelts were not available yet.

It’s clear that regulation did a lot to drive safety improvements. Not all regulations were that smart. Citroen DSs were actually quite safe cars, ahead of American design. They were designed so the passenger compartment would ride up over the engine in an accident creating an energy absorbing crumple zone before that was a “thing”. The DS also had a low bumper for aerodynamics and pedestrian safety. A pedestrian would roll up over the car rather than being pushed forward and under it. The DS was also very fuel efficient so on a per mile basis polluted less than US behemoths. Citroen gave up importing the DS to north America because it did not meet safety and pollution regulations even though it was probably safer and less polluting than most cars that did...

It's also true that the market place (and pressure from insurance companies) did a lot to drive demand for safer cars. Volvo invented the three point seat belt in 1959. By the mid sixties and early seventies Volvo marketing emphasised safety allowing it to charge a real price premium.

The particular graphic above probably combines a number of trends. Clearly safer cars but also things like substantial increase in quality of road infrastructure and average trip length, 1974 reduction in speed limit to 55, reduced drinking and driving etc. (partly regulatory partly social pressure).

So I think a combination of regulation, market pressure and changing behaviour have all had an effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advances in emergency medicine and response also must have had an effect in the 70's and 80's vehicle death rate.  Scoop and run with any old non ems trained ambulance driver was not as effective as our modern 911 system with nearby, local fire stations responding with EMTs and in many cases paramedics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NotTrueWind said:

scuba divers tend to be on the zaftig side, from my experience.

I had to look that one up.

Image result for zaftig

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NotTrueWind said:

scuba divers tend to be on the zaftig side, from my experience.

True and if you were to pick a group oriented to not panicking and dealing with navigating confined spaces - experienced divers would be right up there. (if you've had to buddy breath in a cave - you appreciate calm sequenced response)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

good thing your man doesn't give even pretend to follow it

Maybe your guy, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 1:35 PM, CruiserJim said:

Nothing can eliminate 100% of risk. Everything is a trade-off, and regulators would consider the whole system in evaluating the risk.   So for a fire safety system, Conception had no propane, no built in gasoline, no doubt the electrical system had appropriate sized-wire, fuses and breakers, fire extinguishers, an engine room fire suppression system, smoke detectors (apparently in the bunk room), an annual inspection, a COI that required a watch, crew training (presumably) in fire fighting and prevention, and finally, if all else fails, a small emergency exit from the bunk area.  All of this sounded extensive and pretty safe up until a couple weeks ago.

Assuming a fire started from a charging device in the mess area (above the bunk room), what parts of this system failed?

1.  The mess is above the bunk room, smoke/heat rises, so smoke detectors may not have warned the passengers and crew until it was too late.
2.  No watch.  
3.  Inadequate emergency exit.  

And of course the system did not contemplate risk from charging portable devices at all. 

The lack of a watch and perhaps no smoke detectors where the fire started results in the fire not being discovered until the entire mess hall/galley area is fully involved, rendering any firefighting equipment and training useless.

Two apparent problems with the exit - the difficulty of locating it and actually getting through it in an emergency, and that it exits to the same general area as the main exit. 

In fairness to designers and regulators, it was probably assumed that should there be a fire, it would be discovered long before both exits were fully involved, and worst case, fire fighting efforts would slow the fire long enough for people to escape.  The emergency exit was the last in a long list of fire safety items and after everything else fails, it was not enough (and we don't know if the passengers even had a chance to try to  escape through it).

It's tragic that it takes something like this to reveal deficiencies that in hindsight should have been more obvious.  But then no one expected flooding in more than 4 watertight compartments on the Titanic either.  Humans aren't perfect, but hopefully we learn.

Let me point out to you that we all were aware of the systemic deficienciess in subchapter T long before this disaster. In an eerie and tragic way, this was an expected result. Just took a while.

NO! you say? Well, there was that old saying I wrote earlier...

One of the things I learned recently was that while the original owner designed the boat, he ran all the sketches through a Naval Architect, who then submittted them to plan review (in 1980 or so). I haven't found out who the naval architect was. It would be a terrible feeling, to be him. Sleepless nights are part of the design process. Waking up from bad dreams, going to the office the next day and rechecking stuff.

I will note that while the strictly written rules are silent on the two egress going to one space, in practice this has always been a no-no. The regulations explicitly state the reason for widely separating escapes--which in a somewhat obtuse manner recommends that they not go to the same space, but without specifically saying that. See attached. But T boats can be very small--this is a problem with simple prescriptive rules (which the T boat are at a basis). Hw far apart is far when a boat is 40 feet long? Or even 75 feet? (You get the idea).  But the OTHER thing that that thoughtful argument between Wess and Rasp misses is that indeed, the OCMI is empowered to make judgement calls that are not specifically written in either the CFR, an NVIC, or a MTM. You can find language in the CFR supporting this. So in that respect, Rasp is completely correct that, (1) the OCMI is probably feeling extremely bad right now and (2) the whole USCG inspection system is under scrutiny.

 

image.thumb.png.f76e2a555c10f48f005d8b10036acfe0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Minimize" is not the same as "entirely preclude". In a small vessel (even 75 feet) it seems possible that the entire topside could become involved very quickly. And there are always tradeoffs - for example additional doors in bulkheads below the waterline that would improve fire egress would also increase the possibility of catastrophic progressive flooding.

Interesting in paragraph (f) the spec for an escape hatch used exclusively by crew is smaller than a hatch to be used by passengers.

I'm also guessing (just guessing) that most of the victims will be found to have quickly succumbed to smoke inhalation in their bunks and were never able to make a move toward any exits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fastyacht posted the paragraph 177.500 Means of Escape.  Section (f) requires the escape hatch to,  "... be not less than 810 millimeters (32 inches) in width."  

Looking at the photo below, does anyone think that hatch opening (top bunk) is 32 inches wide?  I don't think so.

 

Capture - Conception exit 2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Morgan Crewed said:

Fastyacht posted the paragraph 177.500 Means of Escape.  Section (f) requires the escape hatch to,  "... be not less than 810 millimeters (32 inches) in width."  

Looking at the photo below, does anyone think that hatch opening (top bunk) is 32 inches wide?  I don't think so.

 

Capture - Conception exit 2.JPG

It is worth noting that the rules have been rewritten over the years. I'm still looking for 1980. I found a copy from 1991.

 

image.thumb.png.fd7e103808ae0ad3f7eeb8058080fbe5.png

18 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

"Minimize" is not the same as "entirely preclude". In a small vessel (even 75 feet) it seems possible that the entire topside could become involved very quickly. And there are always tradeoffs - for example additional doors in bulkheads below the waterline that would improve fire egress would also increase the possibility of catastrophic progressive flooding.

Interesting in paragraph (f) the spec for an escape hatch used exclusively by crew is smaller than a hatch to be used by passengers.

I'm also guessing (just guessing) that most of the victims will be found to have quickly succumbed to smoke inhalation in their bunks and were never able to make a move toward any exits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

"Minimize" is not the same as "entirely preclude". In a small vessel (even 75 feet) it seems possible that the entire topside could become involved very quickly. And there are always tradeoffs - for example additional doors in bulkheads below the waterline that would improve fire egress would also increase the possibility of catastrophic progressive flooding.

Interesting in paragraph (f) the spec for an escape hatch used exclusively by crew is smaller than a hatch to be used by passengers.

I'm also guessing (just guessing) that most of the victims will be found to have quickly succumbed to smoke inhalation in their bunks and were never able to make a move toward any exits. 

Yes this is exactly the point I was making with respect to size and the difficulty with prescriptive rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Possibly.

What about this wording? Interesting.

image.png.c3592291cb7caf1576658725cbf8f557.png

That is what has been on all the news outlets today.

No doubt there will be Regs for

  • Charging stations and Li Batteries.
  • Sprinkler systems on certain sized boats capable of carrying lots of passengers.
  • Escape hatches, size and access with egress to different areas.

Maybe no more old flammable wood boats??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

word on the street is TA only had insurance limit of $1M to cover this loss for passenger liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mark Set said:

word on the street is TA only had insurance limit of $1M to cover this loss for passenger liability.

That will not come close.

I know this is not exactly comparable but for reference the US Department of Transportation in 2016 determined the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) was $9.6 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

That is what has been on all the news outlets today.

No doubt there will be Regs for

  • Charging stations and Li Batteries.
  • Sprinkler systems on certain sized boats capable of carrying lots of passengers.
  • Escape hatches, size and access with egress to different areas.

Maybe no more old flammable wood boats??

Unfortunately, fiberglass boats are extremely flammable once the surrounding soft goods, wood trim and the other fiberglass surfaces adjacent  to the source of fire have ignited.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just been given permission to join this forum. Thank you mods. I am not a sailer persay. I am a diver who dives off boats, so I have some understanding of boats, but not as much as most of you. 

I am a staff writer for X-Ray Mag (first digital scuba diving magazine). I have written two articles about Conception. This might help bring some sense to this tragedy. There has been a heck of a lot of mis-reporting by the mainstream media because they don't understand diving and boats.  

https://xray-mag.com/content/californian-dive-boat-fatal-fire

https://xray-mag.com/content/ntsb-releases-preliminary-report-conception-fire

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roz said:

I have just been given permission to join this forum. Thank you mods. I am not a sailer persay. I am a diver who dives off boats, so I have some understanding of boats, but not as much as most of you. 

I am a staff writer for X-Ray Mag (first digital scuba diving magazine). I have written two articles about Conception. This might help bring some sense to this tragedy. There has been a heck of a lot of mis-reporting by the mainstream media because they don't understand diving and boats.  

https://xray-mag.com/content/californian-dive-boat-fatal-fire

https://xray-mag.com/content/ntsb-releases-preliminary-report-conception-fire

 

Quote

persay.

Staff writer, huh?  Tha fuck does persay mean?

 

 

Quote

There has been a heck of a lot of mis-reporting by the mainstream media because they don't understand diving and boats

Shocked.  Just shocked.

 

No one here was confused by the mainstream reports, but thanks for joining.  Do you have anything new to add or just more summaries?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Tha fuck does persay mean?

Itsa corrptione of a latin frase, per se, meaneng "by ittselfe".  Latin throes me forra loope to.                                        :)                        

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Staff writer, huh?  Tha fuck does persay mean?

 

 

Shocked.  Just shocked.

 

No one here was confused by the mainstream reports, but thanks for joining.  Do you have anything new to add or just more summaries?

 

 

no shit. he lost me at "sailer".

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, European Bloke said:

An I the only one loving the fact that Snaggy is the man with the language lessons?

When it countes, the Snags has the pedantic precision à la Webster required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Staff writer, huh?  Tha fuck does persay mean?

snip

 

I thought the correct spelling was "da fucque"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Itsa corrptione of a latin frase, per se, meaneng "by ittselfe".  Latin throes me forra loope to.                                        :)                        

I thought persay was per se as typed by @Snaggletooth.

In any case I can’t see how the “Latin” definition would make any sense in this context...”I’m not a sailor in itself

Nor can I see how the legal usage of “illegal per se” or “negligence per se” would apply here. Although I suspect some non sailing spouses might consider sailing as an illegal act regardless of intent, so maybe at least in marital discourse sailing may be illegal per se.

Many of us on this forum are nonchalant in our poor grammar, typos, and other abuse of language. (Snagg raises it to an art form - language as cubist expression) However there are some circumstances that call for a bit more care (as I pointed out to a banker circulating an investment teaser that misspelled his employer's name twice on the first page).

Introducing your self as a staff writer of an English language publication would be one of those situations were you would want to avoid two errors in your first sentence.

But then I’m sooo old fashioned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just hilarious to see blockhead yanking the chain of some other wannabe "staff writer". Talk about pot calling kettle black or blind leading the blind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roz said:

I have just been given permission to join this forum. Thank you mods. I am not a sailer persay. I am a diver who dives off boats, so I have some understanding of boats, but not as much as most of you. 

 

Welcome to the forum and please try to ignore the retards. They don’t actually sail either, they just spend all their time accumulating fake internet points by posting on this forum.  
 

Welcome your thoughts or especially any experience you might have had on this boat or similar operations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 7:42 PM, Controversial_posts said:

Welcome to the forum and please try to ignore the retards. They don’t actually sail either, they just spend all their time accumulating fake internet points by posting on this forum.  
 

Welcome your thoughts or especially any experience you might have had on this boat or similar operations.

Did you read his articles? Did you see the grammar mistakes? Did he actually cover in more detail or with more clarity what we have dug up ourselves here?

I think not.

Nice try though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Did you read his articles? Did you see the grammar mistakes? Did he actually cover in more detail or with more clarity what we have dug up ourselves here?

I think not.

Nice try though.

Well, if he's making grammar mistakes, has little clarity and partial overviews of a topic, then it sounds like he really is one a those Ree- Port- Tar types.  Time was when it was a profession, now-a-days, not so much and respect for that profession is pretty much unwarranted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 2:40 PM, KC375 said:

But then I’m sooo old fashioned.

Ritte theire with you brothare!!!                :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Squalamax said:

It’s a she guys, not a he. 

 I didn't I didn't even bother to look at the byline. Read article, shook my head, moved on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roz,  there will be some divers on this forum, but you'll have to wade through some, uh, "diffident" characters to get to wherever it is you want to get with them (which isn't clear to me from your post, unless it's just "exposure").

Might I suggest scubaboard.com?  Well-known in the UK and worldwide, and dedicated to scuba.  They (me included) have hashed this tragedy over at great length, through several threads, over the past two months.  If you're trying to find out something, go there.  If you are trying to enlighten them because you have something "new" or different from the NTSB or Coast Guard output so far, have at it, but several of the threads have been closed weeks ago. 

What's the "plethora of misinformation" from the "mainstream media" you're talking about?  I thought they did okay with the information they had as it became available, and didn't seem agenda-driven to me.  And there is a Commandant-appointed Marine Board of Investigation,  jointly with the NTSB, which will have hearings once the investigation phase is ripe for it.

I'm a diver.  I've slept on dive boats similar in general layout to the Conception, though these were repurposed passenger crewboats with a long history of safe operation, though in the Gulf of Mexico.  I've slept in those below-decks bunks, and I've on occasion been a Mate or assistant Captain on them, and had the night watch.  Also have been a Coast Guard inspector and investigator.  And a maritime lawyer.  Beyond that, I don't know much...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 6:25 PM, Moonduster said:

It's just hilarious to see blockhead yanking the chain of some other wannabe "staff writer". Talk about pot calling kettle black or blind leading the blind.

 

It's almost like you talking about safety equipment and navigation on a boat after dropping one to the bottom of the ocean and losing it all.  Being covered with soot, do you experience racism Mr. Kettle? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Roz, before you go.

Could you give me a like? I’d appreciate it. 
 

I kind of collect them around these parts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Hey Roz, before you go.

Could you give me a like? I’d appreciate it. 
 

I kind of collect them around these parts.

I'm not sure she's going to read any of this thread after she received the big blow-off on account of her bad copyediting and her sort of presumptuous attitude about who may be "spreading disinformation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope her contact info is included in the link so I can ask her to come back just one more time.

And Controversial_Post doesn’t know how valuable those points are around here. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

I'm not sure she's going to read any of this thread after she received the big blow-off on account of her bad copyediting and her sort of presumptuous attitude about who may be "spreading disinformation."

'persay' ain't copyediting.  It's basic knowledge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the famous Chicago Flood, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock was putting in piling clusters on each side of the Kinsey Street Bridge in the Chicago River.  These piling clusters take a hit when a barge misses the opening, rather than damaging the bridge base.  When they drove the pilings in, the pilings hit an old tunnel that carried coal and other supplies to downtown Chicago buildings.  The water started pouring into the tunnel and filling the sub-basements of downtown buildings.  This shut down many buildings for many days losing lots of business.

The collision of their piling driving into a tunnel was the proximate cause.

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock applied for "limitation" and was granted it. So all they were liable for was the value of their barge, and the crane on the barge which was worth about $200,000 which they paid.

Man, was the City of Chicago pissed!

On 9/6/2019 at 9:57 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

The point of filing the motion was to ensure that all cases are heard in federal court.  Whether the boat owner's liability is limited is a question of fact.  I'm not sure the level of culpability required or how the owning entity's insurance policies figure into the 1851 Act, but some level of negligence (by the crew, the owner, the maintainer, the designer, etc.) will likely prevent the damage limitation from being effective.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

In the famous Chicago Flood, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock was putting in piling clusters on each side of the Kinsey Street Bridge in the Chicago River.  These piling clusters take a hit when a barge misses the opening, rather than damaging the bridge base.  When they drove the pilings in, the pilings hit an old tunnel that carried coal and other supplies to downtown Chicago buildings.  The water started pouring into the tunnel and filling the sub-basements of downtown buildings.  This shut down many buildings for many days losing lots of business.

The collision of their piling driving into a tunnel was the proximate cause.

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock applied for "limitation" and was granted it. So all they were liable for was the value of their barge, and the crane on the barge which was worth about $200,000 which they paid.

Man, was the City of Chicago pissed!

 

Completely different issues at play in GL Dredge & Dock (which is required reading in admiralty classes), but still a fun case to read if you're a maritime law wonk.  The issue was not liability, but jurisdiction.  Also distinguishable from the dive boat was the fact that the negligence was not at all established to be that of the dredging crew.  It took seven months for the hole to open up, and there was quite a lot of talk about the city's negligent maintenance of the channel and its supports.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=326885113913360634&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

In the famous Chicago Flood, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock was putting in piling clusters on each side of the Kinsey Street Bridge in the Chicago River.  These piling clusters take a hit when a barge misses the opening, rather than damaging the bridge base.  When they drove the pilings in, the pilings hit an old tunnel that carried coal and other supplies to downtown Chicago buildings.  The water started pouring into the tunnel and filling the sub-basements of downtown buildings.  This shut down many buildings for many days losing lots of business.

The collision of their piling driving into a tunnel was the proximate cause.

Great Lakes Dredge and Dock applied for "limitation" and was granted it. So all they were liable for was the value of their barge, and the crane on the barge which was worth about $200,000 which they paid.

Man, was the City of Chicago pissed!

 

 

2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Completely different issues at play in GL Dredge & Dock (which is required reading in admiralty classes), but still a fun case to read if you're a maritime law wonk.  The issue was not liability, but jurisdiction.  Also distinguishable from the dive boat was the fact that the negligence was not at all established to be that of the dredging crew.  It took seven months for the hole to open up, and there was quite a lot of talk about the city's negligent maintenance of the channel and its supports.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=326885113913360634&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006

And GLD&D is a going concern today. They even do huge projects about as far from the Great Lakes as you can get--the Gulf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 6:35 AM, fastyacht said:

Sleepless nights are part of the design process. Waking up from bad dreams, going to the office the next day and rechecking stuff.

I tell the younger engineers "Is this going to let you sleep well at night? " I try to use the same test on my own work, unless its for me. Never told my wife the design loads for the bridge deck cabin of our catamaran were on the low side ☺

On 9/26/2019 at 6:35 AM, fastyacht said:

OCMI is empowered to make judgement calls that are not specifically written in either the CFR, an NVIC, or a MTM

Totally. Don't piss off the local inspector and pray he/she is not fresh from the Academy and was born in Kansas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 2:40 PM, Zonker said:

I tell the younger engineers "Is this going to let you sleep well at night? " I try to use the same test on my own work, unless its for me. Never told my wife the design loads for the bridge deck cabin of our catamaran were on the low side ☺

Totally. Don't piss off the local inspector and pray he/she is not fresh from the Academy and was born in Kansas.

I think that applies to any Govt authority. The stories of people pissing off OSHA by giving an inspector attitude and living to regret it are legion. One voyage south I spent a *lot* of time being nicey-nice to an inspector who was aboard in response to an earlier safety violation and was now auditing how things were done. I got her to the point where we just had to paint a yellow line on the trawl deck to indicate the 'no pass' without a clipped on harness zone. Which was only common sense anyway but the reason she was aboard was, common sense - isn't common.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now