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.[/QUOTE]
That’s the beauty of the “attraction vessel” category. It was “inspected” at every different COTP zone it entered (basically every different port) in order for it to be allowed to give tours but the inspections only covered life saving gear and first aid kits (it failed once because the aspirin was expired).
In June 2008, soon after being placed back in service, the vessel began to leak a significant amount of water. The leaking was far greater than it had been before the overhaul at Boothbay. Coastwise brought the vessel to Fairhaven Shipyard to investigate and repair the leaking. After certain repairs were made, the vessel was soon relaunched. The leaking continued, though at a tolerable level for the remainder of the summer season.
In October 2008, the vessel returned to Fairhaven for a rehauling and investigation. Water was seen dripping from bungs on planks below the waterline, and empty fastening holes were discovered beneath removed bungs. The vessel was recaulked and relaunched to make room on the railway and, soon afterward, was rehauled at Fairhaven for further inspection. Boothbay personnel came to inspect the vessel. They acknowledged that Boothbay had performed defective workmanship on the vessel, and Doane Heselton, Vice President of Boothbay, proposed to fix the problems at Boothbay Harbor Shipyard at no cost to Coastwise.
pg. 4
From October 2008 until June 2009, Fairhaven identified numerous defects in Boothbay’s workmanship. It found, among other things, missing bungs, empty fastener holes, improperly installed fasteners, use of an improper sealant, overly wide caulking seams, poorly installed caulking, and too-short futtock overlaps.
[QUOTE=Topsail;99101]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…[/QUOTE]
There is sufficient evidence from his own statements, his widow’s, and others to indicate that his “condition” did not come on “suddenly.”
After hearing the Testimony of the Boatswain it sounds like the Bounty had a couple of seams open up. When asked where the water was coming from and if these leaks were from the planks that were replaced, she said the leaks were not from the areas near the replaced planks.
It did sound like the CG was trying to find out if the replaced planking added to or was the cause but it does not sound like that is what happened.
It does seem that the Shenandoah job was faulty but the shipyard took the responsibly and costs. Likely they would not want a repeat and fixed what ever went wrong. They are not going to stay in business long working for nothing correcting error on past jobs.
[QUOTE=renoun;99138] this kind of workmanship would doom even a well managed vessel. [/QUOTE]
I don’t necessary agree. Ship crews constantly find and correct problems. If your ship was leaking you would not just turn on the pumps and obliviously continue sailing, you’d recognize you had a problem, monitor it and avoid “testing” the hull in heavy weather in a situation with no options.
So I’m still trying to figure it out, what a complex web of loopholes…The thing was inspected, yet is an uninspected passenger vessel. Can of goddamn worms! Sounds like it complied with the regular uninspected passenger vessel rules for general condition and safety gear, plus whatever rules for a dockside attraction.
Does anyone have a way of getting a copy of the COI? I take it the COI was just for the dockside attraction aspect.
Here is the result of my research via the USCG PSIX:
Vessel Information: Vessel Particulars:
Vessel Name: BOUNTY
VIN: 960956
Hull Number:
Vessel Flag: UNITED STATES
Vessel Call Sign: WDD9114
Build Year: 1960 [I][B]Service: Passenger (Uninspected)[/B][/I]
Length: 111.0 ft
Breadth: 31.6 ft
Depth: 21.3 ft
Tonnage Information:
Service Status: Out of Service
Out Of Service Date: 10/29/2012 2:09:53 PM
Last Removed From Service By: Sector North Carolina Deadweight:
[I][B]Gross Tonnage(GRT): 266[/B][/I]
Net Tonnage(NRT): 181
Gross Tonnage(GT ITC): 409
Cargo Authority:
[I][B]CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION USCG July 25, 2012 July 31, 2013[/B][/I]
[I][B]Tonnage Certificate, International ABS July 16, 2012[/B][/I]
4451590 Not Associated With a Case SOUTH PORTLAND, ME [B][I]September 24, 2012 Vessel Inspection/PSC
[/I][/B]
to the best of my knowledge there is NO COI issued to a dockside attraction vessel but the USCG or USCG Auxiliary conducts a safety examination and issues the vessel its sticker.
[B]Uninspected Passenger Vessels
[/B]
Uninspected Passenger Vessel (UPV)Generally, operations that carry 6 or fewer passengers for hire are referred to as Uninspected Passenger Vessels (UPV), 6 Passenger (pax), or 6 Pack operations. These are your typical charter boat fishing guide or tour boat operations that may use a state numbered boat. UPV operations traveling on navigable waters of the United States under U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction are not required to be inspected by the Coast Guard. They must comply with minimal federal standards for safety, navigation, pollution prevention and the vessel operator must hold an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license issued by the Coast Guard.
Successful completion of a safety examination results in the issuing of a UPV Safety Decal (see below). The decal, valid for two years and demonstates your commitment to safe operating practices. It MAY reduce the likelihood of Coast Guard at-sea boardings and MAY be considered by marine insureance underwriters when setting insurance rates. To assist in the successful completion of the UPV Safety Examination, LANT & PACAREA has put together the “USCG Requirements for Uninspected Passenger Vessels” job aid.
The job aid is a useful guide for UPV requirements and is used to conduct a “No Fault/No Penalty” pierside safety examinations for most uninspected vessels that carry passengers for hire, commonly called charter boats or “six packs”. The UPV Examination Booklet is also used for a safety examination and intended to summarize the regulations and requirements. These are not necessarily all-inclusive but were developed to assist vessel owners, operators and Coast Guard personnel during dockside or at-sea examinations.
The Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary provide courtesy UPV examinations to assist you. These examinations are free of charge, comprehensive and confidential. Contact your local UPV Coordinator to schedule your examination today!
Even though this page only speaks of an uninspected 6 pax vessel, if over 100grt but under 300grt you can operate as a 12pax with no difference in regulations for compliance other that the OUPV must meet the higher tonnage restriction. this isthe D-17 form used
Really everything you want to know about this is all contained in NVIC 7-94 located here.
So, with that in mind, why the hell does it have a COI to be an uninspected passenger vessel. Uninspected, yet…Certificate Of [B]Inspection[/B]? What am I missing? Maybe its obvious but I don’t know. I could see it being a passenger or sailing school vessel and having a COI but no way for an uninspected vessel.
With that said and it being under 300 tons and operated as a noncommercial vessel aka yacht why the hell did it even need a licensed crew? The classification and inspection status is leaving me scratching my head.
Small passenger vessel (inspected)= Licensed master
Private vessel/No pax <300 tons= no licensed
Uninspected passenger vessel= master of uninspected passenger vessel, one additional; operator for voyages exceeding x number of hours blahblahblah?
It seems like both the bounty and uscg made this thing way more complicated than it had to be.
I’m piecing it together…interpretetion of it all another story.
per that NVIC…
Vessels of at Least 100 Gross Tons but Less Than 300 Gross Tons and Former Public
Vessels of at Least 100 Gross Tons but Less Than 500 Gross Tons - An exemption was
provided in the law for certain vessels that fall within the tonnage and status limitations above.
This exemption is limited to existing vessels that have been in charter operations sometime in the
year prior to enactment of the law (December 20, 1992 - December 20, 1993). The majority of
10these vessels are constructed of materials, and are of such arrangement, that prohibit them from
complying with the passenger vessel regulations. Although the actual size and operation of these
vessels are similar to small passenger vessels and in most cases the inspection and manning
regulations for small passenger vessels are more appropriate, these vessels have not taken
advantage of tonnage reductions to bring their gross tonnages below 100. In order to be exempted
from the provisions of the Act, vessel owners must have made written application for this
exemption before June 21, 1994, with the local Coast Guard Marine Safety Office. Consequently,
there is a fixed number of vessels receiving this exemption. After June 21, 1994, all other vessels
of at least 100 gross tons that are chartered and carrying more than 12 passengers will require
inspection as passenger vessels. Vessels receiving this exemption will be limited to domestic
voyages and a maximum passenger capacity of 150. Vessels receiving this exemption may also
be eligible for the extension under Section 5 13 of the Act if they are chartered with no crew
provided.
What a mess of regulations. So thats starting to make sense now “what it actually was.”
But it was NOT operating as a certificated “attraction vessel” when the incident occurred.
It was operating strictly as an uninspected vessel (far beyond the route and scope of any inspection certificate it had ever had) when the incident occurred.
Its not uncommon for an inspected small passenger boats to be operated as uninspected vessels while being delivered down the coast from a summer area of operation to a winter area of operation.
Here is the meat of the matter. It was an uninspected vessel when it was at sea.
a. In recognition of the reduced safety risks associated with a vessel that is
moored to a fixed structure, an attraction vessel may be issued a Certificate
of Inspection (COI) to permit operation as a passenger vessel if the OCMI is
satisfied that the vessel can operate safely while moored. A COI may be
issued under this policy with a period of validity up to one year and will
contain specific operating restrictions, including those addressing local
conditions. An attraction vessel with a valid COI issued under this policy that
relocates in another OCMI zone will undergo subsequent reinspection by the
cognizant OCMI to determine the need to specify operating restrictions
based upon local port conditions.
b. Regardless of the period of validity of the COI, an attraction vessel will be
considered to be operating under the terms of its COI only while it is moored
at the location(s) and during the period authorized, as specifically endorsed
on the COI by the OCMI.
After listening to the supposed Engineer Testify, they would have been just as well off without one. This guy has no business even calling himself an Engineer!
He did not know much about the bilge piping besides what he had worked around and it was not his job to pump the bilges. Also, when they were loosing a generator and a Mate was working on it he was out of the E.R. taking a break because it was hot in the E.R. Surprise Surprise who would have thought an E.R. would be hot. It may have been that this guy was seasick and could not do his job but he does not come off as a real gang buster of a Crew Mate.
When asked who gave him his walk through he said the Second Mate. Now this is the mate that kept referring to the Engineer that knew how to operate the Hydraulic Pumps but the Engineer said he never knew how to run the Hydraulic Pumps.
They questioned him on the broken Sight Glass on the day tank. When asked what the tank held he said 250 gallons, or so he thought. When asked if there was a strong smell of diesel fuel in the E.R. due to the broken sight glass, he said no but with all of the water it would have been diluted. Now anyone that has ever had even a little bit of Diesel Fuel in the bilge knows how much it stinks!
I am getting a Headache just listening to this guy!!!
So far it sounds like the Owner did not look real hard for a Real Engineer.
[QUOTE=Tugs;99540]After listening to the supposed Engineer Testify, they would have been just as well off without one. This guy has no business even calling himself an Engineer!
He did not know much about the bilge piping besides what he had worked around and it was not his job to pump the bilges. Also, when they were loosing a generator and a Mate was working on it he was out of the E.R. taking a break because it was hot in the E.R. Surprise Surprise who would have thought an E.R. would be hot. It may have been that this guy was seasick and could not do his job but he does not come off as a real gang buster of a Crew Mate.
When asked who gave him his walk through he said the Second Mate. Now this is the mate that kept referring to the Engineer that knew how to operate the Hydraulic Pumps but the Engineer said he never knew how to run the Hydraulic Pumps.
They questioned him on the broken Sight Glass on the day tank. When asked what the tank held he said 250 gallons, or so he thought. When asked if there was a strong smell of diesel fuel in the E.R. due to the broken sight glass, he said no but with all of the water it would have been diluted. Now anyone that has ever had even a little bit of Diesel Fuel in the bilge knows how much it stinks!
I am getting a Headache just listening to this guy!!!
So far it sounds like the Owner did not look real hard for a Real Engineer.[/QUOTE]
Amazing, considering the owner could have snapped up someone fairly easily, even if only for one trip.
This guy said his background was in Horticulture. Maybe he should stick to growing things unless he was shitty at that too
[QUOTE=catherder;99541]This guy said his background was in Horticulture. Maybe he should stick to growing things unless he was shitty at that too[/QUOTE]
Yeah…isn’t he a lawnmower repairman in real life or maybe he only cuts grass and isn’t qualified to even put fuel into the machines? Either way, I read COMPLETE BOOB here!
