Would it be correct to that the Bounty was a commercial for profit vessel when alongside and a private yacht when at sea? Or a vessel with less then 6 passengers when at sea?
Perhaps the C.G. should require this type of vessel to get the equivalent of an excursion permit on a trip by trip basis if moved off the dock with route and weather limits.
The sinking of the Bounty, a “teaching moment”.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;98840]Would it be correct to that the Bounty was a commercial for profit vessel when alongside and a private yacht when at sea? Or a vessel with less then 6 passengers when at sea?
Perhaps the C.G. should require this type of vessel to get the equivalent of an excursion permit on a trip by trip basis if moved off the dock with route and weather limits.[/QUOTE]
any vessel over 100grt can carry up to 12 paying passengers without having a COI. They are only issued a safety examination sticker by the USCG. They just need a coastwise trade endorsement, a licensed master and mate, an required safety equipment specified in 46CFR subchapter C. There is no hull examination required and only a loadline if over 79’ and sailing out past the baseline. There are no regulations for watertight subdivision or structural fire protection either.
[QUOTE=c.captain;98856]any vessel over 100grt can carry up to 12 paying passengers without having a COI. They are only issued a safety examination sticker by the USCG. They just need a coastwise trade endorsement, a licensed master and mate, an required safety equipment specified in 46CFR subchapter C. There is no hull examination required and only a loadline if over 79’ and sailing out past the baseline. There are no regulations for watertight subdivision or structural fire protection either.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense, so I assume that the “dockside attraction” designation allows them to carry more then 12 paying passengers as long as they don’t leave the dock?
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;98840]Would it be correct to that the Bounty was a commercial for profit vessel when alongside and a private yacht when at sea? Or a vessel with less then 6 passengers when at sea?
Perhaps the C.G. should require this type of vessel to get the equivalent of an excursion permit on a trip by trip basis if moved off the dock with route and weather limits.[/QUOTE]
As I recall, the six passenger exemption comes from the motorboat act and it only applies to vessels that are (1) less than 65 feet, and (2) carrying six or less passengers for hire. These vessels require a USCG licensed “operator of uninspected passenger vessels” license – maybe they are calling that some sort of “master” now. This is what is commonly known as a “six-pack” license.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;98859]Makes sense, so I assume that the “dockside attraction” designation allows them to carry more then 12 paying passengers as long as they don’t leave the dock?[/QUOTE]
I think “dockside attraction” means that the USCG does not consider it to be a “vessel in navigation” and therefore NOT subject to any USCG regulation while it is “permanently affixed to the shore.”
I believe that the “permanently affixed to the shore” terminology is interpreted to mean — very well secured by chains and cables in such a way that it could not get underway without alerting all persons onboard and giving them ample time to get ashore.
[QUOTE=c.captain;98856]any vessel over 100grt can carry up to 12 paying passengers without having a COI. They are only issued a safety examination sticker by the USCG. They just need a coastwise trade endorsement, a licensed master and mate, an required safety equipment specified in 46CFR subchapter C. There is no hull examination required and only a loadline if over 79’ and sailing out past the baseline. There are no regulations for watertight subdivision or structural fire protection either.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know much about this rule. I believe the USCG 12 paying passenger rule is a different type of rule that was intended to track the similar SOLAS exemption. As I recall it was originally intended to apply only to uninspected private yachts that are sometimes chartered to a group for a week or two. I don’t think it was intended to apply to a vessel that sells tickets one at a time to the general public. I think the US built requirement might also be waived for these vessels if they are over 200 tons. At least there are some foreign built vessels over 200 tons using this 12 passenger exemption.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;98868]I don’t know much about this rule. I believe the USCG 12 paying passenger rule is a different type of rule that was intended to track the similar SOLAS exemption. As I recall it was originally intended to apply only to uninspected private yachts that are sometimes chartered to a group for a week or two. I don’t think it was intended to apply to a vessel that sells tickets one at a time to the general public. I think the US built requirement might also be waived for these vessels if they are over 200 tons. At least there are some foreign built vessels over 200 tons using this 12 passenger exemption.[/QUOTE]
correct that the uninspected 12pax applies generally to charter yachts but there is no restriction at all against selling tickets either and these vessels have no route restrictions to the best of my knowledge.
The foreign build exemption is also written into the regulations but does require a waiver to be granted by MarAd which pretty much is automatic unless someone with a US vessel objects saying they’ll be harmed commercially by the foreign built vessel and even then the waivers are still often granted.
[QUOTE=“cmakin;98810”]
Just which regulatory agencies are involved with the BOUNTY? I haven’t been paying too much attention, to be honest. I did see where there were some ABS load line requirements that were apparently not addressed. My guess is that the BOUNTY might not have been Classed, however may have carried a Load Line, issued on behalf of the Flag State by ABS. This is not an uncommon arrangement for some non-cargo carrying vessels, especially harbor tugs, research vessels, etc.[/QUOTE]
She did not have a load line certificate, she was trying to get one and never did because the repairs were too expensive.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;98913]She did not have a load line certificate, she was trying to get one and never did because the repairs were too expensive.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. She got ‘caught’ with unauthorized repairs/ structural changes that altered her admeasurement so she would have (if they left the changes in place) had to completely comply with SOLAS and ABS. Once they removed the altered partitions and she was ‘under tonnage’ she simply went to a temporary letter good for the voyage (enough to escape spain) and return to domestic waters. As it was, she only went over to Europe out of Walbridge, and the owners ineptitude. Once there and ‘caught’ they skedaddled back.
Mario Vittone has a good post up on gcaptain. I caught a few minutes of the hearings in an off and on fashion and I think the post captures the essence well.
So the Bounty did not have a load line. One thing however the post says COI and I think it should have been COD.
Another point, the friendship with the insurance surveyor is interesting. Fits in with what was posted on the other thread. The surveyor may have deferred to Walbridge’s expertise.
I think there will be a big change on the way the Coast Guard will look at these tall ships. There was a mention of the Marine Electric sinking, a big change after this that the Coast Guard really started to inspect and not allow the old argument that we will fix it on the next trip. This enforcement started the removal of a lot of the US rust bucket fleet, most were WW2 conversions.
Sitting here watching the hearing, (retirement Sucks) and all that I can say is after seeing what the Boatswain looks like is WOW! I want to know why we never had any A/B’s that looked like that on any vessel that I ever sailed on???
As for her experience, she said that she started as Deckhand then went to A/B and finally Boatswain all in Three Years. She is a college grad and holds a 100 ton N/C Sail License and a A/B Special.
From listening to the crew that has testified so far it sounds like the Bounty got their crew from the same pool as Sea Shepard. Granted they seem to really loved what they did but they must of had some other income as I do not see them paying a living wage. IIRC, The shoreside supervisor said that Claudene Christian was paid $100.00 per week Gross, I sure as hell could not live on that, even if I lived on the vessel.
Still sitting here watching the CG hearing. It sounds like she knew what she was doing.
One thing that the CG keeps asking is where the Captain was at a given time. Most of the answers are I am not sure or I do not remember. This really makes me wonder what he was doing. Example, She was talking about a broken spar and was asked if the Captain was on deck and she said no and she did not know where the Captain was. You would think that if your vessel is having major problems the Captain would be on deck.
It was interesting that one minute she says she informed the Captain of an issue but does not remember where he was. I realize that they were in some shit weather but some of the things that she does not remember would be burned in my mind. She talked about attending an Officers Meeting and could remember everyone that was there but did not remember what was said. Kind of sounds like selective memory loss to me.
They are on break until 1730.
[QUOTE=“Kennebec Captain;99001”]One thing however the post says COI and I think it should have been COD.[/QUOTE]
The Bounty had a COI not a COD. It was only applicable when giving dockside tours and listed minimum safe manning levels and required safety equipment.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;99083]The Bounty had a COI not a COD. It was only applicable when giving dockside tours and listed minimum safe manning levels and required safety equipment.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure? If that’s the case then it was undocumented and inspected. If it had a COI it should have at least some kind of record of inspections.
So no COD, no load line?
Edit : It did have a COI and a COD, also a stability letter and a tonnage cert. The link is here
When Walbridge realized that the BOUNTY had lost her battle against the water ingress, he called all hands to debrief about what they could have done better so not to reach that non return stage of flooding. Nobody nor any officers found a comprehensive answer !!! Then, the master so to speak, sent them down below to rest. Man … it was not the time to go to rest but to abandon ship in a safely, an orderly and feasibly time frame. 
Thank you very much Boatswain Laura Groves for your very interesting testimony. You have done the very best that you could do in those frightening circumstances that you were put into.
[QUOTE=“Kennebec Captain;99084”]
Are you sure? If that’s the case then it was undocumented and inspected. If it had a COI it should have at least some kind of record of inspections.
So no COD, no load line?
Edit : It did have a COI and a COD, also a stability letter and a tonnage cert. The link is here[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I did not mean to imply it didn’t also have a COD (I couldn’t remember if it did) but to say that it did have a COI and it wasn’t a typo of COD like you seemed to think.
I hope that Commander Kevin Carroll will subpoenaed a psychiatrist or a psychologist or an engineer in human factor or a shaman to find out how a reputed sound human being could suddenly turn into a dangerous bravado. In his conclusion, I hope he will propose an industrial psychologist as part of the compulsory medical examination to get rid of these mentally unwell captain.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;99099]Sorry, I did not mean to imply it didn’t also have a COD (I couldn’t remember if it did) but to say that it did have a COI and it wasn’t a typo of COD like you seemed to think.[/QUOTE]
I had it firmly in my mind that it was an uninspected vessel. I thought that was the whole point, that no inspections had been done and the hull was no good.
Because it was inspected it does seem like it should have had the equivalent of a excursion permit if it
is used in a different service.