[QUOTE=Lookout;171364]Anyone ever rode an enclosed life-raft in 140 mph winds and 50’+ seas? Anyone ever attempted to launch any type of survival craft in such conditions and lived to tell about it? I am very grateful to say I have not had such an experience. I hope I never do.
I wonder if the crew of El Faro even had the time to attempt a launch of its survival craft? Beam-to in the trough, listing by 15 degrees, a ro-ro ship flooding with the potential for a lot of free-surface effect. Rogue waves. I’m just speculating but sometimes we have to recognize the fact that no matter the equipment, the frequency of drills, safety regulations and how smart we think we are, the sea is a wilderness and an overwhelming force that can swallow any vessel, old or state-of-the art, with impunity and without discretion.
That being said, perhaps we as American Mariners can once again petition out representatives to point out that many American Seamen work aboard vessels that were built over 30 years ago. By contrast, European seafaring nations are leading the way with cutting edge technology at sea. Maybe the problem in the U.S. isn’t the building and designing of better safety equipment but the structure of the Maritime Industry itself. Namely, marine business interest holding too much power over government regulators and maritime labors almost non-existent voice in meaningful marine innovation.
Mean while, the structure of Maritime Industry in Europe seems to be more of a triumvirate predicated on three main interest. The marine business sector, government regulation sector, and the maritime labor sector. Each sector enjoys equal access and influence over maritime safety, design, and profitability. The influence of the maritime triumvirate influences maritime education, not only for future mariners but for future Marine Executives and Maritime Regulators. It seems to be working quite well for all interest involved in other maritime nations. Perhaps its time for a cultural shift in the American Maritime Industry paradigm.
The Sea will always have its way but innovative and improved safety technology will save countless lives and millions of dollars in property. I would suspect the savings would translate into increased profitability for business and increased demands for good-paying jobs for Labor.
What say You?[/QUOTE]
Has anyone ever tried recovering a enclosed lifeboat in a two foot chop and light winds where the davits are 90 feet from the water?
It’s my view that requiring lifeboats designed for worse possbible scenario would be a waste of money. I’d rather see the money spent somewhere else , upgrading the NWS / NHC computers and sending more mariners to heavy weather avoidance class. For example. It has been noted by CJS that that’s not the choice of course.
With regards to upgrading the Jones act fleet. I think the quesiton should not be how will this effect the Jones Act but how will it affect the Jones Act Fleet. I"ve had a few conversations with pilots agents etc over the years and my impression is that other countries deliberately use the tax coce, deprecation for example and a more rigorous inspection and regulatory regime to encourage more frequent vessel replacement. I noticed for example that ports in Europe replaced the conventional tugs with tractor much quicker then did the U.S. The U.S. East Coast in particular. Let’s not even get started on the ATB loophole.
As far as lobor having a seat at the table, this has been discussed here on numerous occasions.