You think diving is expensive now, wait until they try an implement USCG, OSHA and ADC requirements, just for the diving portion.
Anyone who has dove often enough and long enough here in the Northeast has seen this exact type of rescue-recovery in the past. I am not a strong swimmer and if I am not moving in the water I can’t stay afloat. So I would not think of jumping in the water without a floatation device. But, ever watch a real surfer do a rescue attempt? Very strong swimmer, very comfortable in the water in less then ideal conditions, and no hesitation to jump in and assist, without additional floatation.
Reading through the decision my best guess is had the Captain (USCG Master) been on deck searching the water for “free ascent” divers and had the dive master and 2nd crew both been suited up with mask fins and snorkel and had they both jumped in with wetsuits but without a float device and the life ring been thrown, the hearing results would be the same.
Ever try and swim with a PFD? With a PFD on top of a dry suit?
USCG rescue swimmers can and do swim with a dry suit, mask fins, snorkel lifting harness, helmet and a PFD. But they are extremely well trained, physically and mentally and for the most part are 18-26 year olds, in the best of health.
Captains and crew are being held to a higher standard then the customers, and now it seems that they will be held to an even higher standard.
What I didn’t see in the decision was why 2 crew members on board who were in fact watching as lookouts, was not sufficient and that the master was also required to be a lookout. It is not disputed that a diver was up early, and in distress and situation was promptly announced to all those on the boat, yet she still got hammered for going below.
The boat in question was a “T-Boat”, CG terms for an inspected small passenger vessel. There are tons of requirements that go with that designation, but recreational diving is not addressed.
The days as being the “taxi” are over.
Were there things done wrong, yes, should the crew had thrown the life ring and donned a PFD, carried an additional PFD and be tethered to the boat, yes. Should the crew have been a qualified to USCG requirements of a rescue swimmer? Of course not, but do you see that coming?
Were 3 crew on board sufficient? Sure with 14 passengers.
How about with 14 passengers in the water diving? See a requirement for have “X” amount of people in the water and the requirement of “X” amount of suited and ready to go rescue divers?
A standby-rescue diver in commercial ops is a qualified diver, on deck in full gear including connected umbilical with only his helmet not on his head, but ready to don in an instant.
Ever watch the CG’s 47 leave Manasquan? A 47’ boat that has a “minimum” crew of 4 and typically 7 or 8 highly trained, young crew members, who don’t do anything until ordered.
Do you know why the 47 is now the boat that is used? After having multiple instances of the 44 and 41’s roll over, some with a loss of life, the CG determined they needed a boat that would “self right” in the event of a roll over, hopefully saving the crew from themselves.
Reading the entire decision it is plain to see, the CG threw a lot of “stuff” on the wall to see what would stick. The findings of fact were technical, and so was the decision.
"These proceedings are remedial, not penal in nature" (page 26)
Does anyone believe the master will not be penalized?
The owner of the boat will be next.
The civil suit will be a real eye opener.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »