https://gcaptain.com/conception-dive-boat-captain-charged-with-seamans-manslaughter/
There are plenty to blame here. The T Boat regulations allow a great deal of latitude regarding escape hatch locations and sizes, and USCG inspectors are also given a great deal of latitude. The vessel had been inspected since early 1980s and had a pretty good history of passing inspection if you look and USCG PSIX information. It is hard to go after the USCG or the Owner if the vessel was found to meet requirements each year. The NTSB points out the lack of a safety management system contributed to a culture of non-compliance with operational requirements. And ultimately the Captain of each vessel is responsible for compliance with operational regulations like roving patrols etc… It is a good case study for the protection a good SMS provides a captain. If you have an approved SMS on your vessel and vigorously enforce it, it would be difficult for authorities to prove negligence. With out it the captain is responsible (rather than an approved manual) to every USCG inspector, NTSB investigator and District Attorneys interpretation of how the requirements of CFR 46 and CFR 33 are applicable to the incident.
2 Likes
The lawyers, will get paid, regardless.
7 Likes
It was interesting in the recent NTSB hearing presenting the findings they used the almost over used moniker “normalization of deviance” meaning operational person got use to breaking rules.
I remember going on the Conception on its 2-3 trip in 1983-4…and also was a regular on the dive boats at 22nd street landing in San Pedro in my late teens…my favorite was Capt Eddie on the Golden Doubloon… and they never had a roving patrol? People always boarded the night before departure with no crew onboard and no orientation…,
This is not “normalization of deviance” , this industry was never in compliance… for decades. The USCG has culpability for allowing this on their watch… just my two cents worth…
3 Likes
Another question I have about it is a 4 man crew for how many guests. Seems pretty light and let us suppose that everybody works a 12 hour maybe plus day just doing the cruise how do you assign a rover without breaking that rest rule. A catch-22. Manning is just cost a cost item until, wow, if there was just 1 half asleep guy in the galley he MIGHT have noticed, but if he’s working 18 maybe he’d have been sleeping too. And then how do you fight a fire with four people? And maybe at the moment the fire started that guy is out on deck checking something else for half an hour. Maybe smoke detectors all over, a fairly cheap, no sleeping, no wandering continuous means of checking for fire should have been required, specs need to be reviewed and updated. Had them on the ships I was on last.
Not that it makes a lot of difference but they were carrying a crew of 6 and are allowed a two watch system per regulation as a small passenger vessel (under 100 GRT). That would be crew of three up 12 hours each day… which is hard to believe with 33 divers getting on and off boat, filling tanks, cooking burgers and serving as dive master…
The NTSB has pointed to crew fatigue in many many marine casualty investigations… but as we all know USCG regulation has been firmly controlled by the various industries and with crew being the single biggest expense for most business models… I would not expect any changes any time soon…
The trouble is crew is often viewed as the single most controllable expense. Most other costs are fairly fixed.
2 Likes
What rest rule applied to that boat?
Maybe companies need to start realizing that the minimum to legally operate a vessel isn’t always the minimum to safely operate a vessel.
3 Likes
46 USC 8104 “watches” limits licensed crew on vessels 100 tons and under from working more than 12 hours in a day while underway. Deck crews work hours on vessels under 100 tons are not regulated.
And the factors controlling the replacement of older vessels is not Jones Act? The cost difference for this class of vessel after paying for USCG inspections over seas and transportation to SoCal would not be much over a 20 year life of the vessel. These boats are just too small to play that card. It is regulatory improvement and enforcement ( and the lack there of). As long as vessel owners and operators continue to control the regulatory process and the USCG enforcement policies sub standard and even unsafe boats will be allowed to operate.
The lack of a night watch is the easy button for blame here. But why was there no fire/smoke detector system? Why is there any question that a 40 year old glass over plywood boat would burn fast? How was a single very small and arguably inaccessible escape hatch deemed adequate for over 40 years? The vessel passed an annual USCG inspection each year. What is being inspected?
3 Likes
Posting a legal notice on a boat may sway opinions among general public and make a plausible narrative for lawyers but it’s not an effective way to ensure compliance with regulations.
The captain of the USS Fitzgerald put in his night orders to call him for CPAs of less then so many yards. Those words left an opening for a narrative that the OOD, not the captain was to blame. But the goal is not to ensure someone else is blamed, the goal is to avoid collisions.
Those words written in the night orders didn’t help the captain’s legal position or the families of the seven sailors killed. Posting a notice on a boat and never checking for compliance only works for people shore-side.
1 Like
Of course that’s true. My post was written in reference to the indictments and the captain’s fate. The general public are the very people who will make up the jury and it’s doubtful that even one of them will be a professional mariner and therefore have a clue about CG inspections, crew requirements, COIs or anything else relating to the industry. The captain’s lawyers will have the burden of educating them about those and assign at least part of the blame on the CG and the operators. They will point to their failure to correct the insufficient means of escape from the bunkroom, their failure to monitor the crew’s duty hours, their failure to ensure that the crew conducted fire drills, that fire alarms were installed and functioning, that night watches were assigned etc etc…
The prosecution will have a much lighter burden. All they have to do is prove that the captain failed to comply with one simple condition of the COI which resulted in the loss of 34 lives.
The eyes of many loved ones of those who perished will be on the jury. I expect that what will stick in their minds is the much simpler narrative presented by the prosecution: the captain was negligent because either he wasn’t aware of the conditions posted on the COI or knew about them and chose to ignore them.
While society and the maritime industry owes to the ideal of avoiding accidents, it’s not within the court’s purview.
My focus is on the captain’s fate because I’ve held the same position on dive boats of similar age and design in the Bahamas where there’s even less enforcement. Did I have concerns about how the boats were operated? You bet. Enough so that as much fun as the barefoot carefree lifestyle was, the lack of professionalism and lack of concern for safety concerned me enough to move on.
This touches home for me. As a matter of course I posted anchor watches. While it was highly unusual for everyone onboard to be fast asleep on a calm night at anchor, can I say with 100% certainty that it never ever happened on my watch?
“There but for the grace of God go I.”
I’m not an expert in legal matters. It’s possible that there may be questions raised about crew training, experience and so forth.
I do know that in many cases where it’s important that crew members know something there is often a document to sign that they have read and understood it.
Any evidence applicable to this case? Change ‘prove’ to ‘convince the jury’. As you’re no doubt aware, courtroom tactics aren’t about achieving justice, they’re about winning and the captain is the only one in the crosshairs.
2 Likes
Sadly the Conception captain doesn’t have the same legal representation quality that BP and Transocean provided their officers and executives. Ever notice that the discussion of loss of lives is different when it is a small operation compared to multinational corporations?
3 Likes
Easy to blame the Captain, the guy with the smallest pockets; picking on the little kid is textbook-bullying at it best.
Ask the USCG why Conception & Pride of America (or any pax ship visiting Miami or Seattle) have vastly different safety systems, standards & requirements; sure one is a 40 year old plywood boat, but the regulators have a duty to protect the passengers. T-boats have a different cost-structure and operational standards; but clearly the human-value of their passengers is equal, the Captain didn’t set those standards? Certainly the Owners knew that a 6-man crew on a 33 pax overnight vessel was “slim”; they have bills to pay & were compliant with the minimum standards. In so many ways this all points back to how politically effected the regulatory agencies are & who they are seeking to protect.
1 Like
This tragedy occurred on a typical small passenger dive tour vessel. Typical of the local industry. Which was run by a company popular and well thought of by it’s customers.
At first when none of them understood what happened the company was still supported by It’s customer base and the public. Until crappy escape hatches and a lack of rounds became known. Now the public is angry and demanding someone pays.
Is the guy guilty? To be guilty of criminal negligence, requires knowing and understanding your actions or lack of actions were wrong when you chose to act or not act. A judge and jury will decide.
This particular guy probably held the lowest possible certification In existence to be in charge of a passenger vessel.
He was running the vessel according to the standard company and industry practice existing at the time. In use for decades. Which he had learned by working in the industry for this company. Which was never question by the inspector.
He was just doing what all the other skippers in charge of similar boats were doing.
I doubt very much if he actually knew or understood what the regulations he is in breach of required.
After going through the whole trail we will only have an answered the simple question. Guilty or Not Guilty.
Hanging him from the yard arm 34 times is not going to change what happened. Or prevent it from happening again.
If you want to prevent it happening again. Wait for the NTSB to make recommendations. Then implement them.
2 Likes
The NTSB’s full report with recommendations was released in October:
1 Like
Oh yeah … how well has that worked so far?
" Federal law in 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) states broadly that “no part” of the NTSB’s Final. Accident Report may be admitted into evidence or “used” in civil litigation."
Until that is changed and the ambulance chasers start going for the deep pockets and politicians little if anything will be any different than it has for the past few generations. No one in the CG or Congress is held liable for anything and until some horror like the Conception occurs, little is even mentioned in the press. There is a reason why the FAA and CG are know as “tombstone” agencies, until there are too many tombstones to ignore, nothing changes.
2 Likes