[PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

[Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles]

Could we stand to refine the language of the PSubs guidelines in order to clearly differentiate between what parts of the standard are required to be adhered to (I.e. pressure boundary geometry, safety systems, etc.), and what is acceptable for a homebuilder to forgo (i.e. construction under survey, strain gauge validation, material testing, etc.)?


On July 14, 2017 10:28:49 AM MDT, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>Sean, exactly!
>PSUBS Design Guidelines for Personal Submersibles1 GENERAL1.1 Adoption
>of ABS and ASME Standards1.1.1 Applicability.Except where defined
>elsewhere within this document, all designs in whole or in part shall
>conform to the latest standards defined by the American Bureau of
>Shipping (ABS) and/or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
>(ASME).
>PSUBS Construction Guidelines for Personal Submersibles1 GENERAL1.1
>Adoption of ABS and ASME Standards1.1.1 Applicability.Except where
>defined elsewhere within this document, all construction and
>fabrication techniques in whole or in part shall conform to the latest
>standards defined by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and/or the
>American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
>We have already adopted the gold standard for design and fabrication
>and therefore your question, where is the vaccum in regulations, is
>exactly on target.
>In the USA, personal submarines operate as small boats on the surface
>and are subject to the same rules as small surface vessels.  Submerged,
>personal submarines are akin to SCUBA and adoption of those rules seems
>appropriate for reasonable safety during operations.
>The word "experimental" emblazoned on a personal submarine accomplishes
>what?  It was adopted for aircraft purposes because the aircraft
>industry *is* heavily regulated including certifications and
>licensing...all that we want to avoid.  Aircraft are not a proper
>correlation to personal submarines.  The proper correlation is
>home-built canoes, row-boats, and powered boats; none of which is
>required to be identified as experimental.  There is no logical
>argument for it when certification is the historical and existing
>standard.  There can only be two possibilities with submarines,
>certified or not.  Therefore, a submarine built by the best commercial
>fabricator on the planet, which is NOT certified, is identical to a
>home-built submarine in the context that they are BOTH non-certified
>vessels.  From a regulation perspective it doesn't matter one wit, that
>one was fabricated in a multi-million dollar facility and the other was
>fabricated in a two stall garage.
>Jon 
>
>On Friday, July 14, 2017 10:08 AM, Sean T. Stevenson via
>Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
> 
>
>Where do they perceive a vacuum in the regulations regarding
>submarines? Construction standards abound, and existing regulations for
>small craft should apply (i.e licensing over 10 HP, etc.) Operational
>rules already exist in the form of the International Regulations for
>the Prevention of Collisions at Sea. Surfacing / diving as a special
>consideration would appear to be covered by the requirement for
>maintaining a competent watch.What specifically do they want to
>regulate that doesn't already exist?Sean
>
>
>   
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20170714/2175d458/attachment.html>