[PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

Fri Jul 14 07:34:24 EDT 2017

While PSUBS as an organization may not have any obligation to the public, some individuals may be obligated by law as a result of their memberships in professional organizations. In Canada, registered Professional Engineers and Professional Technologists must sit an ethics exam as a prerequisite to professional registration, and are actually contractually obligated  to intervene when public safety is threatened.  Of course, laws vary by jurisdiction, and it is less clear whether one or more individuals building an unsafe vehicle constitutes a "public" safety risk. Any such obligated person should be aware of the extent of their responsibilities. 

That said, as with any incidence of observing unsafe behaviour, if that behaviour is the result of ignorance, it is incumbent upon any informed person to inform in the interest of preserving life. That is not a legal obligation, but a societal one. Of course, any such information offered may be disregarded, but at that point it is reasonable to conclude that your duty of care has been met.

Sean

On July 13, 2017 10:33:06 PM MDT, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>
>I do not believe PSUBS as an organization has an ethical obligation to
>inform anyone, unsolicited, that their design/construction techniques
>are flawed.  Members who feel a personal obligation are free of course
>to contact such persons and help them individually or encourage them to
>join the group.  But "obligation" is a pretty heavy concept which would
>seem to invoke a "duty", which I think is unrealistic and impractical
>for this organization to take on.  We should call out bad designs
>within our own discussions and discourage anyone in our organization
>from following such designs, and we should not be afraid to speak out
>about bad designs when we are solicited to opine about them whether
>privately or publicly.  
>PSUBS already has guidelines for design, construction, and operation of
>submarines for recreational use.  We have an online mechanism for
>members to contribute additions, revisions, and removal of those
>guidelines.  See PSUBS.ORG > Resources & Reference > Guidelines &
>Standards > PSUBS Guidelines.  I would love to see more people become
>more involved with this part of the business.
>Regarding MUV MTS, you will have a difficult time convincing me that
>they are acting in the best interest of the underwater community as a
>whole.  Do you not find it strange that PSUBS, which has existed for 21
>years and undoubtedly is the largest organization representing
>recreational use submarines has never been invited to participate in
>this "safety board"?  I remember well, when PSUBS first started and
>many in the underwater industry, particularly those associated with
>manned underwater vehicles of the Marine Technology Society considered
>PSUBS a bunch of nutjobs, weekend warriors, who were going to endanger
>the entire industry because we were all idiots with no discipline.
> Unfortunately, some in MTS have never changed their initial opinion of
>PSUBS and would like nothing more than if PSUBS just disappeared.
> There is little in common operationally between the MTS community and
>the PSUBS community.  Their primary markets are commercial, research,
>and professional piloting; ours is personal use by individuals.  I have
>been to numerous UI conventions and the only time they talk personal
>submarines is when PSUBS goes there to present a topic on it.  The idea
>that they now seek to set rules affecting our submarines, without our
>input, is particularly distasteful to me especially since they are so
>terrified of the government setting rules upon them without their
>input.  The idea that the Coast Guard and/or government is so close to
>handcuffing the industry that we have to come up with unifying rules
>and regulations, including marking home-builts as "experimental" has
>only ever been out of the mouths of MTS.  A couple of years ago (I will
>have to track down the email) I was contacted by someone who was
>pushing the same MTS story about how the Coast Guard was one accident
>away from destroying the industry with rules and regulations, and how
>MTS was going to cure it with a unified set of rules for all
>submarines.  I was even given the name of the CG official who
>supposedly was speaking to MTS about the urgent need for such rules,
>"or else".  I contacted that CG official and quite contrary they were
>in no hurry for such rules and didn't even want to be involved with
>enforcing such rules.  My message to MTS and other industry partners is
>this, no entity is in a position to better represent the unique issues
>of submarines used for personal purposes than PSUBS.  No rules
>submitted to the CG or other government agency will be adopted without
>public input and when that occurs PSUBS will fight to protect our own
>interests, specifically that the Coast Guard adopt PSUBS rules and
>regulations for personal submarines.  And more specifically, submarines
>for personal use are NOT going to required to have "experimental"
>emblazoned upon them.  THAT, is a suggestion by some in MTS to protect
>their own business interests, not to better serve the underwater
>community.
>Jon 
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20170714/326c20cc/attachment.html>