First, people in positions of authority/responsibility should be held accountable. The captain almost certainly going to be indicted again. What more is there to say about that? We’ll see what happens.
I personally don’t care about this captain anymore than I do any other person I don’t know that I read about in the news. Why should I?
If we are going to attribute motive to forum members here than why is it when the subject of the role of the company or the regulators comes up people try to change the subject? Are they trying to shield those parties from criticism?
Judges love to hear about normal operating procedures and how you account for that in a company that says it follows the rules or thinks its employees do.
The indictment against Jerry Nehl Boylan accused him of causing the deaths of the 34 people “by his misconduct, negligence, and inattention to his duties,” including failing to have someone awake at night watching the boat or rotating shifts through a roving patrol, as required by federal regulations and the boat’s U.S. Coast Guard certification.
But it didn’t accuse Boylan of acting with gross negligence, a legal element that U.S. District Judge George H. Wu concluded is required to justify a charge of seaman’s manslaughter under federal maritime law.
Wu, a 2007 Bush appointee, granted a dismissal motion brought by Boylan’s public defenders, who said though the statute doesn’t not explicitly require gross negligence, “under a long line of Ninth Circuit decisions,” it does.
I thought it was fine debate and while a certain perception of advocacy is perhaps unavoidable, the facts generally speak for themselves but people choose to weigh them according to their preferences or the preferences of their in-group. I wonder what kind of errors in-group bias and projection can generate? Rhetorical of course.
so that means the USCG but like companies they get away with as hard to put an organisation into the dock.
So easy to just pin it on one person thats just a link in the chain
Yes, going after the CG would be like trying to land a punch on a fog bank.
I was mostly referring to the captain and crew. They need to be held accountable but I don’ t think that’s an issue in this case. The captain is likely in serous legal jeopardy.
Pointing out that the Conception should have had connected fire detectors and adequate escape routes isn’t necessarily an attempt to somehow shift the blame.
Not sure about that, the fed issues you a licence with unlimited liability to captain the same feds most dangerously designed vessel the world has ever seen, proven to kill people.
Why is the tax payer supporting the USCG to make no to poor or no rules?
The US consumer may be better off without them?
( just stick to search and rescue?)
Cruise ship I was on back in the day had a digital flashlight device thing that had to be touched in specific spots on all decks of the vessel at different points. It would record that the device was physically present at that location and at what time. Basically forced you to wander around the boat. There was some base station on the bridge that kept a record of it all.
I was on another cruise ship built in the 60’s and it had these clock looking things that you wore around your chest that basically did the same thing. Watch guys looked like an old school version of Flavor Flav.
“Necessarily”? No, of course it isn’t, but it’s exactly what someone would do if they were trying to, and since it is indistinguishable, it deserves to be put in context to prevent confusing it with such an attempt.
In analyzing a specific incident, a conclusion that “The Conception should have had…” can only be made if the boat was required to have a certain arrangement and didn’t have such arrangement. Expressed in the manner you are using, it would be more appropriate to say,”all small passenger vessels should have…” - you want a higher standard to exist, and that can only be a forward looking consideration and thus irrelevant to analysis of a past accident save in speculating on the kinds of arrangements that might have helped and would be practical and achievable going forward and not just that, but universally applied or universally applied in some new created subset of vessels that will be required to meet the additional higher standard based on specific criteria—specialized service &/or new construction after a certain date perhaps. (Unless we’re just talking about one vessel and one owner who simply decides to maintain a much higher standard in his boats at his much higher cost and willingness to take on such above the common rules.)
Now, if someone were trying to shift blame, they would fudge over that kind of thinking. They’d argue, “my client is being punished because of the horrible outcome of # of passengers having died grisly deaths, but far fewer would have died grisly deaths if only the standard was higher! If only these vessels were required to have fixed heat activated sprinklers, carbon monoxide sensors, passenger escape drills…don’t punish my client for the compromises made two decades ago!” They could easily end with your exact words—“ the Conception should have had connected fire detectors and adequate escape routes” and suddenly some abstract, unidentified agent (or better—an unfeeling inefficient govt agency!) is part of the cause of the grisly deaths, these arrangements weren’t there, because someone failed to put them there in hopes that some moiety of responsibility might transfer in the minds of people judging it. Why would they? Bias.
The regulatory environment in which the Conception operated is metaphorically no different than a marine environment, a channel she might navigate and just as fixed when considered in accident analysis. Put in peril by being navigated outside safe channel, we can wish the rock wasn’t there or the draft less, but like the regulatory environment, these are not changeable when the incident unfolds, so it is more proper to look at the sets of actions against these constant fixtures, and evaluate these variables, not the fixed environment. Changing this regulatory environment can only be done after and then a bunch of other considerations will be present including the evaluation of these incidents. Metaphorically dredging a wider channel because one or two captains recklessly left the safe one. Can we make a cheaper fix? Is any fix really necessary?
If the USCG is going to inspect and certificate small passenger vessels, they should do it well.
If the USCG does not want to do a good thorough job of it, it might be better to let these vessels operate uninspected. Leave it to the owners, insurance companies, consumers and the courts to keep the vessels safe.
A defective regulatory scheme that gives the appearance of safety without actually accomplishing it does more harm than good.
The USCG is so focused on being “the military” and “homeland security” and anti-terrorizm and drug interdiction, that they really do not seem to be interested anymore in mundane tasks like licensing and inspection.
A new civilian licensing and inspection agency is needed.
How about some USCG rules for the amount of double adapters you can add to a single outlet?
How about a fire resistant surface to allow any lithium ion device to be charged on?
Interesting, so, your theory is the captain of this boat would have actually posted the required night watch if only there were more crew that no one asked for, or complained about. Meanwhile, there is no evidence the vessel was not manned in full compliance with the law. Solid theory…
The USCG routinely specifies manning levels so low that it’s impossible to comply with the rest hours requirements. That’s not bias, it’s a frequently observed fact, that many of us have to live with on a daily basis.
Sailors complain all the time; they are genetically programmed, and specially trained to do so. They certainly complain about having too much work and not enough crew. Then owners say “more crew is not USCG required by the COI.”
I have to wonder about your sailing experience? Union deep sea? Yachts? Hard to believe you have any small commercial vessel sailing experience.
Lithium ion batteries combined with a GRP structure is a recipe for disaster. It is very difficult to extinguish a Li-ion battery fire and impossible to control a burning GRP hull. Therefore, early detection is fundamental to giving the crew/passenger list any chance of survival.
It beggars belief that these commercial vessels are not retro fitted with a complete networked system of both fire, heat and carbon monoxide detectors. Had this been the case, I would suggest that we would not be having this conversation. The finger should be pointed at the regulator for this oversight. It is well and good to discuss roving patrols yet we are dealing with potentially fatigued individuals who may well fall asleep……not a sound saveall.
Many commercial and recreational vessels are now running Li-ion house battery banks which require special chargers. This represents another potential source of ignition. It would represent good regulation to insist on;
Networked heat/smoke sensors above Li-ion house banks.
A complete networked system of smoke detectors throughout.
A dedicated space, with non combustible surrounds and smoke detection, for the charging of portable Li-ion batteries and devices.
Sounds like you should employ that ‘programming’, direct it to a letter, sign it with your credential number and offer to give testimony to the USCG about these facts if you want to change things instead of this.
