[PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

Mon Jul 17 21:46:55 EDT 2017

Jon,
I think the best is a self regulating amateur body.  There could be more
than one category possibly,  Retro approved and full compliance.  ASME
allows some bending of the rules for vessels by way of calcs if it can be
demonstrated by NDA testing that it is safe. 
In NZ if the sub is owned by a commercial organisation or company then it
has to comply with ABS or GL but if it is owned by a private individual then
it does not have to be compliant as long it is not used for commercial
purposes in any way.
The answer for me is Swiss Lloyds for International use. Carsten is an
approved inspector,.  From what I remember from our discussion he required
:-
Vessel Calcs, (P-subs has these)
Buoyancy calcs, ( Easily Done)
Drawings, (including Electrical & hydraulic/pneumatic circuits)
Material Certificates, (Easily obtained)
Pressure tests, (Witnessed)
Instrumentation minimums, (according to ABS / GL)
Life support systems,
Drop weights as per ABS / GL
Operating manual. ( Carsten placed a lot of importance on this aspect)
Emergency procedures.
Witnessed test dive.
(Carsten can correct all this)

Generally Clubs for motor sports and Home built microlight aircraft  will
have their own set of regs.  A registered Marine surveyor could well certify
a sub as they do for a vessel going off-shore racing or cruising.
Unfortunately we are in the age of regulation and if we self regulate and
have a register then it is more likely to be accepted.  I am sure we could
come up with a relatively simple approval procedure with the help of someone
like Carsten.  Swiss Lloyds recognised the differences between a Commercial
Submarine and a submersible.  

Just my pennies worth.
Hugh

-----Original Message-----
From: Personal_Submersibles [mailto:personal_submersibles-bounces at psubs.org]
On Behalf Of Alan via Personal_Submersibles
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017 12:59 PM
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

Jon,
they may be shooting themselves in the foot if they want a demarcation
between certified & non certified. I wonder how many people that buy
certified submersibles would bother keeping up the certification. It may be
relevant if they were operating commercially & diving every day, but going
through a certification process every year when you aren't using the vessel
frequently would be a waste of time & money. If I had a G.L. certified sub
in N.Z. I would probably have to fly an inspector out from Germany!
Hopefully we will have an input in this process & opportunity to debate
proposals before they become law!
Cheers Alan 

Sent from my iPad

> On 18/07/2017, at 11:55 AM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles
<personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Good point regarding the taxi comparison.  However, regarding commercial
fabricators, the issue is not to differentiate between commercial and
non-commercial use, but rather certified vs home-built submarines for
private use.  An overlap in the "personal" or "private" submarine category
exists because commercial fabricators do have a market to supply rich people
a submarine "toy" for their own personal use.  What we are seeing, I
believe, is a desire from some commercial fabricators to differentiate, in
as obvious way as possible, their certified vessel from a home-built vessel
to protect their business from any public misconception about "personal"
submarines that might result from an accident involving a home-built.
What's the easiest and most obvious way to do that?  Diminish the perceived
quality and/or reliability of non-certified home-built submarines by
slapping a label on them such as "experimental".
> 
> As you illustrated with your taxi and private surface boat examples, it
would be much better from our perspective if certified submarines were
identified in some manner such as having a sticker from the certifying
authority, or "CERTIFIED" emblazoned upon their hull, if they really believe
demarcation is necessary to protect their business.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
>> On 7/17/2017 4:55 PM, Alan via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
>> Thanks for searching that out Jon,
>> if they require a differentiation between commercial & non commercial 
>> submersibles then the onus should be on the commercial vehicles to 
>> mark their submersibles. ie. cars don't have "private vehicle" 
>> emblazoned on them, but taxis have "taxi" written on them. Would a 
>> surface boat under 20ft be required to have non commercial vessel written
on it? I doubt it.
>>    I remember hearing that the MTS didn't include submersibles 
>> originally & it was the submarine people that wanted in.  From what I 
>> have seen of Will Kohnen's submersibles, they are a rich persons toy 
>> rather than a commercial vehicle; so his interests would lie in limiting
any rules for personal submersibles.
>> Regards Alan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles