feel free anyone to correct me
1 - the cg was not concerned so much that the victim drown but that the rescue was not conducted in accordance to their standards - they want a floatation device thrown and a flotation device on the rescuer and a rope attached - none of that was done - the mates doing the GOOD thing in jumping in to save the victim, was not the RIGHT thing because no flotation divice was thrown/worn/ or rope tie to rescuer so the CAPT/OWNER is at fault
2 - no documented training other than man overboard drill - not done but not required( am i correct?) and so the dive operator is at fault
3 use of under qualified crew - with no clear training program set up by the cg but operator found negligent
Now if i am correct, the family of said victim will now use these findings to pursue the loss of the victim because the the operator/owner is found negligent by the coast guard? i am asking a question - i mean if the family is looking to find a way to sue for negligence on the operater/owner part, the family does not have to prove anything, just present the cg findings and collect the reward based on the jury/judge ruling - this is where i am thinking this is going to go
and what about the question of weather or not the diver was qualified to be diving - the owner/operator can only be at fault because they let the victim dive - if you let someone dive that is qualified then you r going to get sued and if you let someone dive who is not qualified ( in the eyes of the court) the you r going to be sued - so you r done either way -
before this cg finding was documented, the attitude was/is in the past (and correct me if i am wrong) is just "I am driving the bus" what the diver does off the boat does not impact the capt/owner/operator/crew - what this finding shows is that this is not true at all - the owner is negligent so they r in trouble on the punitive level at the very least.
i feel for the crew who usually collect no monetary reward such as in a "real job or employment" to try to rescue a diver, (who in the best of my knowledge had been rescued before), and be found negligent by the coast guard makes me want to say something else bad
i think the CG instead of working with the dive operators to make the situation better and safer have now opened the door to putting the dive industry as a whole into risk by finding them negligent for the handling of an emergency which is just that - an emergency - of course i am not sure that was not the plan from the very beginning - if they cg makes it impossible to be found in compliance as a operator of a dive boat, then the dive boats will all go away and the problem will be solved from their point of view
Look, there are so many ways to look at this situation, i am sure some will disagree with my interpretation - honestly i am still coming up to speed with it all -and will be watching what happens in the future
that is all
the bartman-mosb
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »