Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

Change the law! My dad was killed on that boat. Chapter 46, Code of
Federal Regulation, part 185.508 needs to be changed to take the
decision to make the passengers wear PFD's out of the hands of the
master of a vessel. Make it a requirement to wear PFD's when crossing
any inlet or bar. To bulky, or cumbersome? Got to be macho? Then
you're stupid, and selfish. Wearing a PFD for 10 (ten) minutes while
crossing an inlet or bar will not ruin your trip. Not wearing a PFD
could end up costing you your life, and those that love you a large
chunk of theirs. I ask that you contact your senators and congressmen
and ask them to change this ambiguous law to be more specific. If not
every time when crossing a bar or inlet, then at a minimum when the
Coast Guard has issued a small craft advisory. Great to be
macho...DUMB to be dead.

Sorry about your dad.

The law that says the master of the vessel can order the passengers into PFD is
a good one.

The situation here resulted from the charter skipper's reluctance to use his
authority, as well as a combination of bad luck and poor judgment, rather than
an absence of law.

Had your dad worn a PFD, he would either have survived or would have been the
*only* fatality among the group to have been wearing a PFD. They are effective
in certain situations. The PFD wearers were resuced because they stayed afloat
long enough to be hauled out of the water by folks watching from shore. If the
chrater boat had gone down a few miles offshore and rescue wasn't on site
within ten or fifteen minutes, some of the PFD passenges would begin succumbing
to hypothermia.

Up here in Puget Sound, the SAR people can all tell stories about finding
little fishing boats adrift with beautiful PFD's stowed under the seat "out of
the way". The corresponding body is usually found somewhere nearby.

There is a difference between a charter passenger and the operator of a
personal fishing boat. There is less reason to presume that a guy who goes
charter fishing, maybe for the first time in his entire life, should be in a
position to be able to evaluate the risks and make an informed decision about
PFD. (Obviously, if your dad and the other passengers knew what was in store
for them that morning, their decision would have been not to set foot on the
boat......rather than simply to wear a PFD).

While a law might not pass, or even be needed, nothing now prevents a charter
company from requiring all of its skippers to require all the passengers to
wear a PFD while crossing a bar or when conditions are less than ideal. If
everybody on the boat is wearing one *including the skipper* there is no
"wussiness" involved.
(In fact, if the first thing the skipper had done when boarding that charter
boat was to make a rather obvious show about putting on a PFD and even just
asking around, "Who else wants a PFD? Better to have it and not need it than to
need it and not have it!" more of the passengers would have been wearing one).

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare when
conditions warrant their use.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
Sorry to hear about your dad and the others that died in that
incident.

But the regulation does not appear to be too ambiguous. It says that
master of the vessel *shall* require passengers to don life jackets...
To say that lifejackets should be worn when crossing ANY bar or inlet
is overkill as not all are hazardous.


Sec. 185.508 Wearing of life jackets.

(a) The master of a vessel shall require passengers to don
life
jackets when possible hazardous conditions exist, including, but not
limited to:
(1) When transiting hazardous bars and inlets;
(2) During severe weather;
(3) In event of flooding, fire, or other events that may possibly
call for evacuation; and
(4) When the vessel is being towed, except a non-self-propelled
vessel under normal operating conditions.
(b) The master or crew shall assist each passenger in obtaining a
life jacket and donning it, as necessary.



(Carl) wrote in message
. com...
Change the law! My dad was killed on that boat. Chapter 46, Code of
Federal Regulation, part 185.508 needs to be changed to take the
decision to make the passengers wear PFD's out of the hands of the
master of a vessel. Make it a requirement to wear PFD's when crossing
any inlet or bar. To bulky, or cumbersome? Got to be macho? Then
you're stupid, and selfish. Wearing a PFD for 10 (ten) minutes while
crossing an inlet or bar will not ruin your trip. Not wearing a PFD
could end up costing you your life, and those that love you a large
chunk of theirs. I ask that you contact your senators and congressmen
and ask them to change this ambiguous law to be more specific. If not
every time when crossing a bar or inlet, then at a minimum when the
Coast Guard has issued a small craft advisory. Great to be
macho...DUMB to be dead.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Steve Alexanderson"
Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...
My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders
the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but
the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best
to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare
when
conditions warrant their use.


Your points about the Captian's motivations are all logical and
valid. Except that, just as with air-line pilots, we assume the
skipper doesn't want to die or be on a sinking vessel either.

Also, if you don't have faith in your Captain (or if your faith is
misplaced) then you've got more problems than just PFDs.

That Captain is responsible for an aweful lot of things. Makes
lots of decisions. You basically either have to agree to put
your life in his/her hands (and mind) or dont go.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Carl" wrote in message
om...
Change the law! My dad was killed on that boat. Chapter 46, Code of
Federal Regulation, part 185.508 needs to be changed to take the
decision to make the passengers wear PFD's out of the hands of the
master of a vessel. Make it a requirement to wear PFD's when crossing
any inlet or bar. To bulky, or cumbersome? Got to be macho? Then
you're stupid, and selfish. Wearing a PFD for 10 (ten) minutes while
crossing an inlet or bar will not ruin your trip. Not wearing a PFD
could end up costing you your life, and those that love you a large
chunk of theirs. I ask that you contact your senators and congressmen
and ask them to change this ambiguous law to be more specific. If not
every time when crossing a bar or inlet, then at a minimum when the
Coast Guard has issued a small craft advisory. Great to be
macho...DUMB to be dead.


If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Gary Warner" wrote in message ...
"Steve Alexanderson"
Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...
My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders
the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but
the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best
to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare
when
conditions warrant their use.


Your points about the Captian's motivations are all logical and
valid. Except that, just as with air-line pilots, we assume the
skipper doesn't want to die or be on a sinking vessel either.

Also, if you don't have faith in your Captain (or if your faith is
misplaced) then you've got more problems than just PFDs.

That Captain is responsible for an aweful lot of things. Makes
lots of decisions. You basically either have to agree to put
your life in his/her hands (and mind) or dont go.

First, Thank you all for your condolances. Many of you that have
written in response to my post have written many things I have thought
or talked about. In reference to this particular post: you Gary, have
struck a chord that is worth much debate. On the 17th of June, as my
brother and I were driving back to Spokane from picking up my fathers
remains and personal effects, I spoke with a representative of the
NTSB. This gentleman stated to the effect that the charter fishing
industry is much like the airline industry WAS 20 to 30 years ago.
It took many airliner crashes, and the tremendous loss of life with
that, to initiate change in the laws to create the rigorous safety
standards that are in place today. While comercial airliners still do
crash, the instances are relatively few and far between. Why can't
the charter fishing industry withstand the same type of rigorous
safety laws? I understand that the implications of such laws will
create greater overhead, and thus a smaller bottom line for fishing
charters, but just like airlines did, isn't paying a few more dollars
for a fishing trip worth the added safety? I believe so.

As for the added cost of PFD's going bad through daily use...buy in
bulk. It is much more cost effective. More PFD's equal more jobs.
Might be simplistic, but is one way to look at it.

Again, thank you for your condolances.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

This gentleman stated to the effect that the charter fishing
industry is much like the airline industry WAS 20 to 30 years ago.
It took many airliner crashes, and the tremendous loss of life with
that, to initiate change in the laws to create the rigorous safety
standards that are in place today.

Some differences between fishing charters and airline travel are
-- Fishing charters are almost/all for pleasure and thus a choice.
-- Airline travel is often for business. Less choice & more impact on
economy.
-- Size in $$ and people flying is vastly greater than fishing charters.

Still, it's an intersting and poignant point.

It's hard to think about this so coldly knowing of your loss.
I really hope this discussion helps in even the smallest way.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20030729120816.06890.00000651@mb-

Had your dad worn a PFD, he would either have survived or would have been
the
*only* fatality among the group to have been wearing a PFD.

There was one fatality on the boat by a passenger wearing a PFD who ended up
trapped inside.

Pretty much depressed everybody in Oregon. Personally, I can't imagine
going out over the bar and into the Pacific without some sort of PFD, but
who's to say? The Pacific Ocean is patently user-unfriendly.

:/

They won't be forgotten.

=c

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your family,
YMMV.

-c

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your family,
YMMV.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.

Works for me, as long as the people who
knowingly and deliberately disregard, PFD, helmets, and seat belts remember
that nobody else is "responsible" to go looking for their sorry carcass and
society at large is not "responsible" for keeping them alive after insurance
and personal fortunes are exhausted.

OOPS! What's this? The guy who cracks his head open because he wasn't wearing a
helmet still expects the public ambulance to come and try to save him?
The guy who drowns for lack of a PFD still expects publicly funded SAR to
search for his body, and still expects publicly funded social security to
provide widows and orphans benefits to his widow and minor children?

And Oops! Everybody belonging to the same health insurance plan is indirectly
footing the increased bill?

So, what happened to "personal responsibility"?

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

I agree to some extent. I believe it should be your right to wear or not to
wear protective devices, helmet, seatbelt, pfd..etc. same as it is to smoke
or not to smoke. I don't think insurance should cover "negligence". In this
day and age personal responsability has fallen to the wayside and lawsuits
and insurance claims took its place. Thats the reason the U.S. is in the
shape its in. We need to wake up and put the responsibility back into the
hands of the people and enforce it. Hit people in the pocket book.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Steve" wrote in message
...

1. The PFDs on charter boats, by and large, are not designed, nor are they
durable enough for frequent and daily use. I would imagine that they would
have to be replaced (or repaired ) at least once a season. Broken
buckles,
straps knotted or torn loose buy people without and understanding of how
to
put them on or take them off.

Jeez...they're expensive. The orange bulky ones, which work just fine, are
under ten bucks at West Marine. Not the same as the even bulkier ones that I
see designated as "offshore vests", but still.....ten bucks.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Steve Alexanderson"
Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...

I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

How could they enforce it? It's like saying land-based cops should be
everywhere at once, which is obviously impossible.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"-v-" wrote in message
.. .

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your
family,
YMMV.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.


Frankly, I agree. My 14 yr old son dons a vest more often than I tell him
to, based on his intuition about the water on any given day. The more
boating accident news stories I show him, the more he uses the vest. It's up
to each person to be safe. But, having said that, it should be obvious that
if the captain gives an order, it should be followed.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"-v-" wrote in message news:dTOVa.2883

I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your
family,
YMMV.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.

Certainly, but if you willingly chose to needlessly endanger yourself, and
you're, say, a parent, you're being very irresponsible.

For most family men, it's not your job to be cavalier and comfortable on
fishing excursions; it's to provide leadership, protection, guidance and
shelter for your family. Even if you don't have children, the damage that
you might cause to your loved ones is irreparable and irresponsible.

Kinda like committing suicide.

-c



Its not your business to define my "job"

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.


Works for me, as long as the people who
knowingly and deliberately disregard, PFD, helmets, and seat belts remember
that nobody else is "responsible" to go looking for their sorry carcass and
society at large is not "responsible" for keeping them alive after insurance
and personal fortunes are exhausted.

OOPS! What's this? The guy who cracks his head open because he wasn't wearing a
helmet still expects the public ambulance to come and try to save him?
The guy who drowns for lack of a PFD still expects publicly funded SAR to
search for his body, and still expects publicly funded social security to
provide widows and orphans benefits to his widow and minor children?

And Oops! Everybody belonging to the same health insurance plan is indirectly
footing the increased bill?

So, what happened to "personal responsibility"?

Gone with the wind I am afraid. Maybe all the roads should be made of
rubber :-)

It's sad when someone loses someone close. But we all make choices, and
should be able to make them as we see fit..

Capt Jack R..

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

My condolences on your loss. But as to requiring PFD's to be worn at all
times on the water when entering or leaving the harbor, which is what you
are really requiring, is ludicrous. We have had one party boat roll over
and cause drowning in all the years I have been in the SF Bay area (60). It
was not entering or leaving, it was fishing and a wave came out of the West
on a semi-calm day and rolled the boat. Also covered a 60' high rock at
Bodega bay. San Francisco entrance is listed as the 2nd or 3rd most
dangerous entrance on the West Coast. We have had party boats that had to
be rescued but not in the entrance, but from a mechanical failure, or a hole
in the boat. Private boats should be allowed to make their own rules
regards wearing of PFD's. Personnel responsibility. Sure it costs the
people to find their bodies or recue them, but they pay taxes just like all
the others. Now you want to reqire PFD's all the time. How many commercial
party boats have sunk in the last 50 years going through your inlet?
Bill

"Carl" wrote in message
om...
"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...
"Steve Alexanderson"

Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...
My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting
the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and
orders
the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending
good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back,
but
the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be
best
to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities
declare
when
conditions warrant their use.


Your points about the Captian's motivations are all logical and
valid. Except that, just as with air-line pilots, we assume the
skipper doesn't want to die or be on a sinking vessel either.

Also, if you don't have faith in your Captain (or if your faith is
misplaced) then you've got more problems than just PFDs.

That Captain is responsible for an aweful lot of things. Makes
lots of decisions. You basically either have to agree to put
your life in his/her hands (and mind) or dont go.

First, Thank you all for your condolances. Many of you that have
written in response to my post have written many things I have thought
or talked about. In reference to this particular post: you Gary, have
struck a chord that is worth much debate. On the 17th of June, as my
brother and I were driving back to Spokane from picking up my fathers
remains and personal effects, I spoke with a representative of the
NTSB. This gentleman stated to the effect that the charter fishing
industry is much like the airline industry WAS 20 to 30 years ago.
It took many airliner crashes, and the tremendous loss of life with
that, to initiate change in the laws to create the rigorous safety
standards that are in place today. While comercial airliners still do
crash, the instances are relatively few and far between. Why can't
the charter fishing industry withstand the same type of rigorous
safety laws? I understand that the implications of such laws will
create greater overhead, and thus a smaller bottom line for fishing
charters, but just like airlines did, isn't paying a few more dollars
for a fishing trip worth the added safety? I believe so.

As for the added cost of PFD's going bad through daily use...buy in
bulk. It is much more cost effective. More PFD's equal more jobs.
Might be simplistic, but is one way to look at it.

Again, thank you for your condolances.

Taki Tooo disaster - Garibaldi, Oregon
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

... and a wave came out of the West
on a semi-calm day and rolled the boat. Also covered a 60' high rock at
Bodega bay.

A friend of mine used to live north of SF. She used to tell me about beach
swimmers getting blindsided by what she called "rogue waves", much bigger
than the 6-footer that sneaks into every 100 4-footers on the South Shore
of
Long Island on an average calm day. I always thought she was exaggerating.
This is for real?



Unfortunately for real. Talked to one of the survivors a couple of years
ago. They were off Bird Rock near Bodega head. Said the swells were about
8', which is pretty normal here. And the sea just rose up and the ship
rolled. Do not remember the number of dead, but the Tides wharf used to be
where all the party boats departed from, was sued and lost. They closed
down the party boats from that wharf. There is a picture of the wave
breaking over the rock from a shore bound photog that just happened to be
shooting. I think the picture is still at the Tides. As to the beach goers
that get it, we have bad rip tides and the people panic. Couple of weeks
ago, we were over to Stern Grove in the City for a concert and went to Ocean
Beach afterwards. There was a surfer rescuing 4 people who got too deep in
the rip. Couple of people had drowned the day before. You also have to
realize the water here is cold. A little offshore, the temps range 48-55
year round. We look for tuna at a temp break of 60 degrees and that is
normally 15-20+ miles offshore. Was in Santa Cruz yesterday fishing a mile
offshore and Monterey bay was only 59 degrees. We have deep canyons close
to shore, so the upwellings cause fog and other nastiness. The ocean is
5000' deep a mile and a half out from Monterey.
Bill