The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.
On 1/18/2011 10:21 AM, Smyth, Alec wrote:
EVENT
OPERATIONS
1. All boats must have communications. Sending a
diver down to bang on the hull just doesn't cut it.
You'll note that in the pre-launch checklist I
put online, underwater communications (UWC) will now be required
equipment. No UWC, no diving at PSUBS sponsored events. Also note
that in the pre-dive checklist, the UWC must be tested and proven to work or the
sub will not be given permission to submerge.
2. Any member attending an event should be able to
black-ball a sub from diving. This is like the famous Toyota practice (at the
time revolutionary but now accepted) that any worker can stop the production
line when they see something wrong. In the past, we've talked about a
committee approving subs to dive. This is hard, because who would want the
liability of "approving" a sub? But letting anyone who sees trouble halt
operations seems to me common sense and less troublesome. In this instance, I
know people at Ft Pearce who saw the problems with the boat while she was
still on the dock.
Agreed, everyone should in fact feel responsible to report any safety
issues they have concern about. However, black-balling is a powerful word
that insinuates such action would prevent the sub from diving. I have seen
this happen before and what results is either the loudest person wins, or
peer-pressure can cause the person with the concern to back down. We are
much better off getting past our liability fears and having a dedicated safety
team that can discuss the issue and either grant diving privileges with
conditions, or not approve the sub for diving. Such teams working under
the color of the LLC are personally protected from liability by the LLC.
You also have to consider that there are MANY personalities in our organization,
and I think from a peer perspective it might be difficult for a single person to
stand up and demand that a sub not dive.
AS:
Yes, you've got a point. Also, PSUBS really can't prohibit someone from
diving, since we're talking about privately registered vessels using a public
space. I'm not sure about the LLC granting legal coverage, just because I'm
not a lawyer, and so would not want to be on such a committee. But maybe
all we need is the understanding that anyone can raise a red flag, and indeed
should be encouraged to do so if they are worried by something. Concerns could
be raised to the coordinator of the event, who would have the
responsibility of discussing them with the owner in question.
3. Organizers should have lift bags on hand. Dan
Lance tells me that since the convention, he's acquired some huge lift bags
just for this purpose.
I disagree if you mean
in terms of recovery. Each sub owner should be responsible for their own
sub. Getting it to and from the event, but also having a recovery plan if
necessary. I can understand a desire to have as much equipment as possible
available at an event, however we also have to understand the costs associated
with it and to whom we are going to entrust bringing that equipment.
4. Although it was not relevant in this instance, I
would also suggest organizers should have on hand tools and an agreed methods
for getting into the cabin of attending boats. These tools and methods should
be supplied by the owners. In the case of externally operable hatches there's
no issue. But with a K-250, for instance, you might need a battery operated
drill or saw capable of cutting through the acrylic dome.
What you are describing is
a safety plan, or emergency plan. I agree and you will see that I have
added "operating manual" and "Emergency plan" to the pre-launch checklist.
No plans, no diving at PSUBS sponsored events. Better yet, owners SHOULD
add these documents to their entry in the SUBDB.INFO website so that it is
available online and can be accessed in the field.
Citing your specific
example, I think hatch compliance with ABS requirements providing
locking/unlocking capability both inside and outside the cabin should be a
requirement and K250 and K350 owners should retrofit their hatches
accordingly. We also have to recognize that having the correct tools on
hand won't ensure a speedy recovery. The plan to raise BIONIC GUPPY was
easy and straight forward, and we had all the correct tools. Unplug some
plugs here, put in an hose there, displace the water, and up she goes. But
even with the right equipment that took an entire day. The plugs were
difficult to remove, the rags inside clogged the water outlet. I can't
imagine if we had to attempt to cut through the 2.5 inch acrylic dome on the
BIONIC GUPPY. Working underwater is very difficult.
AS:
Sorry, I didn't mean underwater. I'm just referring to the fact we may someday
have to reach a passed-out crew inside a sub. It's easy enough to raise a sub
that's not flooded, I was just taking it the next step. Now it's on the surface,
then what? I agree we're not responsible for having the tools to do that,
but it just seems like a good idea to ask owners to do so. Sort of like
having an ambulance on hand at a car race. As for refitting a K-250, I've been thinking about that one
for a long time. It's really not an easy mod because the hatch ring is very
thin, and putting heat into either the ring or the coning tower close to
the land could easily distort and ruin parts that would then be very hard
to re-machine flat. I'm eagerly following that other thread about getting
the drawings for the Deep Worker latches, as those might work. But on the other
hand my hatch needs quite a lot of clamping force to seal, and I'm not sure the
Deep Worker style latches would provide enough. They're hatches and lands are
much better machined, so probably although the latches are very robust for
lifting the whole sub by the hatch cage, I'm not sure they need to provide a lot
of clamping force.
5. When an incident or accident does happen despite
everyone's best efforts, don't stay quiet about it. It prevents us all from
learning, and it puts us all at risk of regulation for not acting maturely.
Speaking for the organization, I can only
repeat that there was no concerted effort to keep quiet about this
incident. While I agree with you in principal, there were numerous other
people who did provide very good reasons not to talk about it in a public
forum. In my mind it was up to each person individually to decide if they
wanted to bring up the topic. As the list maintainer, I did not prohibit
anyone from bringing up the topic, and any inference that doing so would result
in their expulsion from the group is absolute nonsense.
We can
learn from this incident, but not by pointing fingers or trying to publicize
blame. Mistakes were made throughout the day, however nobody wants to have
their noses rubbed in it on a public forum. I think most of us attending
the convention were sensitive to that.
Jon