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
If it was up to the CG, recreational diving as we know it would be conducted under the same procedures that commercial diving is done. 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.
Thanks for posting active links. I'm using I.E. with AOL and the link you provided I had to cut and paste in the search bar and that resulted in "can't find website". Computers aren't my strong point, I'm lucky I can find the button to turn them on.
Re: Attention Dive - boat, captains, crew, shops et all
O boy, next comes the lawyers. I feel for her. I hope she gsts a really good lawyer for her appeal. Although I don't disagree with some amount of not showing due caution their feeding her to the wolves. Capt. Bill
Re: Attention Dive - boat, captains, crew, shops et all
Bill, your right. As a long time diver, mate and operator I can side with the manner she conducted the emergency. I think many if not most dive boats at least here in the NE conduct operations in a similar manner. From this ruling it appears for hire boats must have "professional" trained crew members, The DM and crew member for the "day" is unacceptable.
What's really concerning is this ruling now sets precedent for all future and pending lawsuits. Not just with the CG but with civil suits. I also have to assume that crew members can now also be included, especially in civil suits. Scary stuff happening and the dive boat industry needs to take a really hard look at itself and address the issues presented by the court. I also have to ask, will crew members holding an MMC be held to a "higher" standard than a non-licensed members? Another concern, what about the tradition of 2 licensed capts. onboard, one not the official master of the vessel but performing as a crew member EXCEPT while the master is diving.
Bill, NOT trying to be funny, but your reference of going to the "head" is real according to the court. You better maintain a "pee" bottle and bed pan at the helm or on deck!
Re: Attention Dive - boat, captains, crew, shops et all
My take is they are making an example after years of not really being able (capable) of doing anything. Let's face it, the CG for the most part has no clue how small dive boats work.
If you read between the lines, even going to the head would not be allowed.
There is a lot to get out of the final ruling. Record keeping, training, up to date drug testing kits etc.
What's interesting is reading a bit more and you can find the same diver having the same issue 1-2 years prior. Positive outcome that time.
Disclaimer of Liability: The materials on the NJ Scuba Divers Message Board web site are provided to you free of charge, "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD OR BOARDHOST.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, USE, OR DATA WHETHER BROUGHT IN CONTRACT OR TORT, ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH ANY NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD POST OR BOARDHOST.COM WEB SITE OR THE USE, RELIANCE UPON OR PERFORMANCE OF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN OR ACCESSED FROM ANY NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD POST OR BOARDHOST.COM WEB SITE.
Link Disclaimer: We provide links to web sites operated by other parties. The links are provided for your convenience only. The presence of a link does not imply any endorsement of the material on the web sites or any association with the web site's operators. We do not operate, control or endorse any information, products or services provided by third parties through the Internet. We are not responsible for the content and performance of these sites. Use of linked sites is strictly at your own risk including any risks associated with destructive viruses.
If you like this website, and would like to give something in return, you can make a donation Your donation will be used to pay for domain & maintenance costs ONLY! Click the PayPal Donate button below....THANK YOU!
on 11/6/2013, 9:56 am
