USCG MARINE SAFETY OFFICES!!

[marinelaw]

Why is it that the leaders of National BSA base are breaking the USCG laws. Not only now but according to the USCG Marine Inspector(MIami FL.) since 1996! Certainly blatent disreguard for Federal Marine Law should not be taught to children. Nor should these laws be broken simply for our money. Aside from the risk at which OUR children are placed in!! One would question there INTEGRITY....HONESTY...RESPECT... I think you know where I am going... And why is it that we are not being informed of this as we send our children off to NATIONAL SCOUT CAMP!!! Apparently our money, and not our opinion is their concern. What about our choice in the matter, these are our kids, their health and safety is now the responsibility of the National Councl????? According to the USCG offices (Wash. DC and Lt. CMDR at Miami Fl) it is NOW and has been illegal to carry more than 6 passsengers aboard an uninspected vessels!! let alone day trips but certainly for overnight passages without extra crew other than a Lic. Captain. If your planning a High Adventure At Sea.....Question this, and request USCG "confirmable"documentation authorizng such authority to operate "above the law", when all is said and done and the unfortunate happens.....you will be responsible and they......lets face it will hide behind the pen! Operations have been shut down once this year(but I am sure you were already told this...weren't you?)

[FScouter]

Lots of troops do "afloat" activities. BSA requires that leaders be certified in the "Safety Afloat" training, and tour permits are not issued for trips where the leaders do not have the required training. Most canoes and most small boats don't carry 6 people. What are the Coast Guard inspection requirements for vessels that carry 6 or more? Do the requirements apply to inland waters too?

[scoutldr]

Are you referring to Sea Base in Florida? It's hard to tell what your issue is, amongst the ranting and raving.

 

This is a forum of volunteers...if you have an issue, I suggest a well-worded (better than your posting) letter to National Headquarters, BSA, Irving, Texas. Then let us know what they say.

[marinelaw]

Sorry, I failed to add the SEA between "National BSA" and "base". YES, I am referring to the "Florida National High Adventure Sea Base, Islamorada Florida". Our friends in Irving, more importantly the directors of Sea Base, are failing to inform us that they are and have been "operating illegally SINCE 1996 when an MUO(mutual undrstanding of organizations) expired due to changes in Admiralty and Maritime Law".(LT. CMDR Bates/USCG Marine inspections office Miami Fl.). The program was shut down by the Coast Guard once this year already due to this fact, but we all knew this....right? Wrong. After returning from the FSB, discussions found that they obviously have a lack of respect for rules. It was obvious to a number of our parents that they turn a blind eye to the 300lb high adventure weight regulation rule for safety, this would not happen at Philmont, and quite possibly the 13 years old age requirement, from what was seen at the base. One child was asked his age by a parent, his quick response was "ele....thirteen". What is going on there? Our Captains didn't seem to have any answers either, it seems they are kept in the dark as well. They too were aware of a number of things that "are not right...but, won't change" Apparently there is quite a bit "sliding" under its current leadership. We were also told of a veteran skipper who was fired after refusing to leave the dock with an inexperienced crew of children, during small craft warning conditions, when he was demanded to by the Director. Lets get some answers here! It seems that while costs and profits are on the rise, safety and legal concern is on the serious decline here. Does it really need to come to injury or death before we press this issue? This is of serious concern for me as well as the rest of the families which WE are responsible for. Lets make sure these life experiences are remembered forever for the right reasons before something horrific occurs and they are not forgotten for the wrong reasons. This has been brought up to Irving with no response.(This message has been edited by marinelaw)(This message has been edited by marinelaw)

[FScouter]

If "this has been brought up to Irving with no response", it's not hard to see why. You have not specified anything at all that indicates anything wrong. What Coast Guard regulation has been violated? What safety rules are not being followed? What things "are not right...but, won't change" ? What accusations are you making about 300 pounds, and 13 years old?

[Bob White]

Welcome marinelaw. I hope you will stay and give us some calm, rational, discussion on this. Verbal arm flailing will not help the situation or help you to convey your message clearly.

 

The BSA has nothing to gain by ignoring any law, and has for years worked closely with the USCG on a number of events and programs throughout the BSA.

 

An example of there willingness to comply is this document from 1994.

http://www.seascout.org/for_leaders/safe_boating_standards.html

Please pay particular attention to the following items extracted from this document.

 

"Thus, BSA owned vessels are not considered "small passenger vessels" or "passenger vessels" regardless of the number of Scouts or Venturers on board, and therefore not subject to U.S. Coast Guard operator's licensing and inspection. (USCG letter of 10/06/94 and the USCG publication titled Federal Requirements and Safety Tips for Recreational Boats are attached)"

 

and

 

"6- When a vessel is cruising for more than 12 hours of continuous operation, these minimum crew guidelines will be doubled to provide two (2) watches."

 

So as you see the Florida Sea Base was indeed made aware by the BSA that a second watch was required some ten-years ago.

 

We had a few units visit the base in the last two years and all were very positive in their reports.

Now, what specifically happened that you are aware of on a first hand basis. Please no more rumors about what you heard about from someone else. While I agree that a person over 300-lbs is a safety risk to himself and others, a scout who lies about his age is hardly the fault of the BSA.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

Great topic, I hope it applies to inland waters as well.

 

Most of the boys in this unit are too young to attend SeaBase so I only have the word of others to go by. However, many small craft ARE capable of carrying more than 6 passengers (most pontoons actually) and I agree with the jist of the post.

 

I see scout units on the water sometimes in my work, often with more than 6 on the craft (I've seen double that on occasion). I doubt they are aware of the regulation mentioned in the original post.

They are only occasionally all in lifejackets.

Moreover, even when the scouts ARE, the leaders often are NOT, setting a bad example. I sometimes am able to mention this to them. They sometimes ignore me.

 

After losing friends to unexpected circumstances on the water many years ago, I am very sensitive to these water safety issues. I would like to hear more.

[marinelaw]

This does not apply to kayak trips and rowboats or canoes that are troop owned or used at camps and such. We are talking Charter boats here. Vessel which are hired for commercial operation with licensed Captains. When refering to the FSB and vessels owned by the BSA, you need to understand that, the sailboats used at the base are not owned by the BSA, they hired for charter. They are all independantly owned and operated charteboats. The Sea Base "charters" these vessels from their owners. ANY uninspected vessel used in Commercial operation for paying passengers is subject to the law of "Not more than 6 passengers". This law applies to any charter vessel, reguardless of who owns it. The only vessels allowed to carry more than 6, are subject to USCG Commercial inspection to obtain certification. For a vessel to obtain this C.O.I (certificate of inspection) it is subject to strict areas of commpliance. These areas cover extremely specific aspects of the vessel as well as it systems. Some examples would include water tight collision bulkheads foreward, certain types and numbers of liferafts, other safety equipment as well as firefighting and crew requirements, things even as stringent as using wire nuts anywhere in the boats electrical system is non-compliant. The vessels the BSA uses for its Sea Exploring program(which carry more than 6) are all USCG Commercially inspected. They carry appropriate COI's because of their strict compliance to annual inspection and bi-annual out of water hull inspections. These vessels are also properly crewed and equiped for carrying such numbers. The vessels running with more than 6 passengers are operating against the law. When the Sea Base was shut down earlier this season BY THE USCG, they were frantic to hire additional boats to reduce the numbers to 6 passengers on each vessel in order to continue its charter operation. All of this information can be found through the Coast Guard web sites. Simply research the federal regulations covering Uninspected "6 pack" or "OUPV"vessels for coastwise operation as well as the regulations covering inspected vessels. This CG link will clearly express the limitations of an uninspected passenger vessel.

www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/ 2004CommFishDigest/2004CommercialDigestCoastGuard.pdf

 

Nothing to gain by breaking the law? Do the math for how much revenue the Coral Reef Sailing Program generates through chartering boats for us. Avg 34 boats at 26 weeks a year at the not so great rate of $4400/week(they even post the illegality on their web site as 6min/8MAX!!) Through minimal research you can find comparable charter vessels/voyages operating within the limits of the laws/with lic. crew at considerable saving. The vessel owners are getting $2100 of the $4400 Fee. If you dont want to bother here it is. 26(weeks)*34(boats)=884 884(total week trips)*4400 US$=3,889,600 Million Dollars. Reduce that by what THEY pay for the boats YOU charter (1,638,000) leaves the BSA with a nice $2,251,600.00 for providing??? two cheap unit priced meals on property a patch and maybe $50 woth of bulk/unit priced food for the week. All vessels carry their own insurance and are owner operated. Those that are not owner operated pay their own crews out of pocket. I wont begin to cover the overloaded/undercrewed scuba that we saw. This I have yet to research deeply but being a diver, I know the Captain has to be a Licensed Divemaster as well. must also carry a licensed divemaster onboard as a mate when carrying more than 6, above the instructor/instructors that are in the water with the students. Perhaps this too should be looked at. Simply call the Coast Guard and inquire as to the laws and regulations governing vessel carrying more than six passengers for hire, they are happy to help.(This message has been edited by marinelaw)

[FScouter]

What makes you think that BSA operates uninspected, illegal boats? Are you employed by the Coast Guard, or BSA, or what? Are you a volunteer leader in BSA, an interested parent, or ??

[marinelaw]

It's not just a thought, it's a fact which was confirmed by the USCG Marine officer mentioned in the earlier post. I am a concerned commercial marine operator/supporter of the BSA with a family lineage of Eagles scouts and past attendant of the Coral Reef program (when I asked, the FSB Director told me they were licensed by the CG for such operation). I was also made aware of this fact through a proffessional mariners forum which discovered this as well. Upon our findings and questions as to this operation of uninspected vessels with more than 6 passengers, a gorup of owner/operators began to inquire with the Coast Guard as to the application process to operate legally with more than 6 onboard an uninspected vessel. Believe you me, we all figured that if they were operating this way, being a National Boy Scout organization chartering commercially, that certainly this must be legal somehow. Needles to say, all our inquiries to this office, as well as the CG office in Washington DC found there is no such certification available, we became just as shocked! The rest of the information as to the shut down and illegal operation since 1996 and the coast guards concern for the unsafe and illegal operation of commercial chartered vessels was obtained from the LT. CMDR in charge of such operations. They were responsible for the immediate shut down upon their findings. This isnt' fiction we are dealing with, these are the fact of the issue. You seem to be strongly opposed to the idea, that hat such illegal activity would be conducteed by such a well respected organization responsible for the health and safety of our children. Are you on staff at Sea Base, or the National Council which is partaking in the smoke and mirrors of hiding the facts? It seems such information would only grow concern in scout leaders and parents alike. I dont feel an angered position oposing the facts of the issue will benefit or aid in its rectification in anyway, you seem to be really upset by this information for some reason.

[mich632]

Marinelaw posted two issues which I can speak directly to.

I leave for Seabase in 6 days.

 

1. Weight limits. Seabase requires a signed physical from the doctor certifing that you meet certain weight standards. The doctor must weigh you and sign that you not only do not exceed the max weight but the correct weight for your height.

 

I am 5'6" and had to lose 10 pounds. I could not weigh over 167. PERIOD.

 

2. Age requirements. We had to provide drivers license or birth certificates for everyone going to PROVE our age. Even me at 47.

[Bob White]

Excuse me but if the boats in question are not the BSA's wasn't it the Boat owner/operator who was at fault if the proper marine laws were not followed.

 

If I charter a boat it is not my resonsibility to see that they have the proper crew, although I agree it is in my best interest that they do. So who exactly was found to have violated the maritime rules, the owner/operator or the BSA?

[fotoscout]

Are the boats flagged in the US, or are they flagged by one the Caribbean nations?

 

If I charter a boat it is not my responsibility to see that they have the proper crew, although I agree it is in my best interest that they do. So who exactly was found to have violated the maritime rules, the owner/operator or the BSA?

 

Bob, this is not a reasonable viewpoint with respect to the potential safety issue at hand. You can't pass the buck if a Scout drowns because you failed to do do diligence with respect to the legitimacy of your charter.

 

[marinelaw]

Apparently the CG went directly to the Sea Base. Most likely, due to the fact that they are the organization in charge of the operation. They(FSB) charter the boats from the owners and then basically sublet them to the Scouts they bring in. It seems as though there is false information passed on to the owners here as well to obtain signiatures on these charter agreements. Now, and this comes directly from a 'scout boat' owner at sea base, as they have raised this concern in the past to their superiors. They were told by the powers that be at FSB they do have approval from the USCG to operate in this manner. Lets face it, if your boss told you to do something and that it was okay, it must be, as your 'authority' has given this permission. Commercially speaking, I would agree with you that the owners/operators would be liable as well. Being the Captain, they are ultimately the governing body over their vessel. Now we need to keep in mind that unfortunately job security and their futures at Sea Base come into to play here.

Commercially speaking if I was told I had to operate over legal ocupancy, and that I was approved for such operation, you would need to provide me proof of this from the governing authority(the CG MSO(marine safety office or marine inspections office) granting me legal permission, prior to obtaining a charter contract for such operation. Whether it be a copy or an actual certification document being vessel specific form the USCG directly I would demand something to protect myself, prior to obtaining a signed contract from me. Operating without it certainly puts the not only the vessel, but the captains license, the vessels federal documentation certificate, the vessels commercial insurance policy as well as their proffessional reputation, and business at risk. Not to mention the passenger risk or the fines which are applicable. Contact a scout boat owner directly through one of their websites, several of them have one for charter privately. You can note that they all state 6 as there maximum legal passengers. Adding more passengers surely raises the take, so why do they not advertise 8? Simply put because it would be illegal to carry more than 6 on an uninspected vessel. Not only does a vessels Documentation for uninspected operation clearly reads these limits, but the commercial insurance policy covering the vessels legal limits contains such specifics as passenger operation as well as legal areas of operation. Such unlawful operation would clearly void such policies.

Start questioning for your own protection. If you think about it should the God forbid unfortunate arise, Maritime law would find you aboard an overcapacity, illegal charterboat with no insurance. Knowing this leaves the responsibility on parents and leaders too!

Here are a few of the scout boats websites to see the legal capacities of the uninspected vessels. (obtained from boats and crews at the base)

http://www.calypsosailing.com/Sailboat%20Poet.htm

http://www.sailsalacia.com

http://www.dutchlove.com/cost.htm

There is more you just need to find them, but this should sufice

 

[marinelaw]

Thank you fotoscout! These vessels are documented under US flag. As you can not operate a foriegn flag vessel for commerce in the US without a waiver of the "Jones Act".