RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan

["Stephen Pearce" <sjpearceqld@bigpond.com>]

Joe 

Maybe there is a balanced position or middle ground. There is a conservative
point of view suggesting regulated diving operations supervised buy a
competent individual tracking events and coordinating any rescue if
required. The reasons behind this vary from avoiding bad PR, safety and
placing some general order around the diving activities. Then we have the
middle ground agreeing with the concept but advocating personal
responsibility. Alternately we have the third point of view suggesting an
unregulated environment. 

If I was a Psub founder or convention organiser I would be concerned about
bad PR, possible liability (remember that string) and the safety of all
attendees. This is a valid position to have. The notions of each Psub
operator being responsible for there own safety and having an emergency plan
is also a valid position to hold. The persons advocating an unrestricted
diving plan and to freedom dive as they choose is also understandable. 

Maybe a volunteer marine rescue model used here in Oz moulded to fit the
convention environment would be an acceptable compromise.  

Have a designated Coordinator who the Psubs log in and out with. The
coordinator has an info sheet on each Psub such as emergency O2 times
estimated mission time and the Psubs surface person. The Coordinator can
also let you know (give you a briefing on) how many Psubs are currently out
there and details of their respective dive plans if they chose to submit
one. The coordinator has the names of the rescue divers and access to the
required equipment and coordinates any rescue activities with the Psubs
surface person. The coordinator would in essence be like an air traffic
controller and the boat ramp the runway. 

Each Psub could dive as they pleased but have the responsibility to log in,
log out and supply the Coordinator with details such as the Psubs emergency
o2 reserves and how long this will last. 

Once the Psub is submerged it does what it likes and takes responsibility
for its own safety.

I would have to be made clear that this was a system run by the Captains for
the Captains not an extension of the Psubs conference.

At the end of the day if you are attending a Psub convention you have to
take some responsibility to protect the reputation of the organisation you
have chosen to associate your self with and respect that some people have
put years of there lives into making Psubs what it is today. I would hate to
see their efforts rewarded by some form of litigation.

Regards

Steve Pearce


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
[mailto:owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Perkel
Sent: Monday, 11 December 2006 8:08 AM
To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan

"the builder and operator of a particular PSUB is best
placed to take whatever decision they must, regardless of what convention 
rules
or the queen of England might say"

......Yes Alec, I believe this is it in a nutshell.

If I may suggest a compromise. The committee could come up with operational 
guidelines for psubs independent of any event or entity....just 
recommendations based on empirical evidence. The Alvin ops manual is nice 
but, it's for Alvin.

I would be interested in what a committee would brainstorm.

Joe

>From: "Smyth, Alec" <Alec.Smyth@compuware.com>
>Reply-To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
>Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan
>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:27:15 -0500
>
>This is a very necessary thread, though I must admit a depressing one in a 
>way. I guess you can get sued if you help organize an event and there's an 
>accident. The only foolproof way to ensure not getting sued would be to not

>hold any event. Personally I opt for diving the subs and focusing on doing 
>so as safely as possible, but I've also taken precautions such as 
>incorporating and maintaining generous insurance. Neither my approach to 
>diving the sub nor my legal precautions have anything to do with PSUBS; I 
>would do those if PSUBS didn't exist. I think we're nothing more than a 
>group of private citizens who happen to exchange emails on a common topic 
>of interest, and we're all ultimately responsible for our own actions.
>
>At the 2006 convention, the convention fees were for camping, for the 
>cookout, and for the presentations. The agenda included those items plus a 
>static display of the subs on land. The convention fees and agenda did not 
>cover anything associated with activities on the water. The agenda did 
>include "free time" in consideration to those who might want time off 
>during the day to dive subs, SCUBA dive, go to the beach, rent kayaks, 
>fish, etc. We actually do have participants at the conventions who have 
>only a secondary interest in subs (namely, spouses!)
>
>When I maintain the submersible operations were private endeavors, I do 
>believe this is no legal artifice but an accurate description of how things

>were being conducted in reality. For instance, my first dive was a totally 
>impromptu thing late at night after the cookout. We hadn't planned it that 
>way at all, it wasn't on the program or even in my own thoughts beforehand.

>But when it turned out to be a miserable rainy night, I just thought I 
>would rather get the sub into the water than sit around in a dripping leaky

>tent. Or take Dan H.'s dives in Persistence. Due do schedule conflicts, he 
>was only able to go diving after the program events had wrapped up and most

>people had left.
>
>There is a long tradition in maritime law of captains having extraordinary 
>freedoms that would not be granted to an individual on land. Captains have,

>under certain situations, rights to put people in jail, sell a ship or 
>cargo that does not belong to them, or even perform marriages. As I recall,

>there are two reasons for this. First, a vessel at sea is physically cut 
>off from the legal system governing us on land (e.g. you can't call the 
>cops). Second, emergencies may arise that require prompt action and an 
>effective command structure without second guessing. Why do I go off on 
>this tangent? Think of a PSUB in an emergency deep underwater, and whether 
>those two conditions apply. I think everyone would agree the builder and 
>operator of a particular PSUB is best placed to take whatever decision they

>must, regardless of what convention rules or the queen of England might 
>say.
>
>What I would suggest is that PSUBS as such continue to organize the land 
>based activities on the understanding that the captains are sovereign while

>afloat. This doesn't mean people cannot use emails to exchange ideas about 
>how to operate in the safest way, or to coordinate logistics. I'd welcome 
>any discussion along those lines, including the development of suggested 
>operating procedures. But as Jon pointed out, PSUBS has no authority to 
>enforce the rules. I believe this means they would not, in fact, be rules 
>at all. Just recommendations.
>
>
>thanks,
>
>Alec
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-personal_submersibles@psubs.org on behalf of sealordone@aol.com
>Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 12:23 AM
>To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan
>
>
>Jon,
>
>I realize that the liability issues have to be clarified and addressed.  I 
>am not a lawyer.  But I would sure like to speak to one.  To me that is a 
>separate track, and frankly, not the track of most interest to me.  If you 
>and Ray have already discussed these issues with an attorney in whom you 
>have confidence, I would love some education.  I assumed that because you 
>and Ray do not appear to be of entirely like mind on this, that there is 
>still some wiggle room and opportunity for discussion.
>
>I do not want to dragged into court any more than you do.  I am primarily 
>interested in comming up with good recommended safety procedures.  Whether 
>they are "rules to be enforced" or "a few safety ideas a few guys came up 
>with" is not so much the issue for me.  To me, this is like offering people

>CPR training.  If you see someone in trouble and would like to help them, 
>but don't know how, here is something you can do.
>
>I don't know much about the law.  I have heard of "Good Samaratin" laws 
>that protect well-intentioned bystanders who are trying to help out in an 
>accident.  I would never pretend to speak for PSUBS.  I am honored simply 
>to be accepted as a member.  But I think that a set of recommended safety 
>protocols is a good thing to establish and publicize.  Forcing someone to 
>obey them is to me a separate issue.
>
>In an ideal world, it could play out like this.  If this committee does 
>come out with a set of reasonable safety recommendations, it is quite 
>possible that most of the sub operators would buy into them.  If that were 
>the case, if someone ignored the recommendations, say by diving in a manner

>that interfered with a PSUB, the operators could simply surface and suspend

>operations, or some other form of agreed upon reaction.  I don't know.
>
>But again, while the enforcement/liablity track is important, it is not an 
>issue I am qualified to spend much time on.  My primary goal is to say to 
>those PSUBBERS who are looking for some guidelines for the safe operation 
>of your boats in a submarine rodeo environment, here are some ideas.
>
>Doug Farrow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jon@psubs.org
>To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>Sent: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 7:13 PM
>Subject: RE: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan
>
>
>Doug, et al,
>
> >I thought that Ray's recommendation that a small group of us get together

>and draft an set of protocols
> >for next summer's convention was an excellent suggestion.
>
>I did too, for sub-owners who want to participate in such things.  My only 
>issue is the idea of trying to assign PSUBS ownership of the protocols or 
>responsibility for their execution at this particular time.
>
>
> >IMHO, when a submersible pilot goes diving on his own, he has the 
>responsibility to himself
> >to take sufficient safety precautions to reduce his risk to what he 
>considers to be an acceptable
> >level.  When one or more pilots go diving at a PSUBS sponsored event, not

>only must the pilot
> >be satisfied with his own level of risk, but the organization must also 
>be satisfied with its level of risk.
>
>Doug, if psubs is not a sponsor of the diving, it's level of risk (my risk)

>is greatly reduced.  We can have a PSUBS convention that includes the 
>normal events of speakers, swap-tables, static sub-displays, etc; without 
>PSUBS endorsing or getting involved in the planning or providing of safety 
>for those dives.  In my opinion, any promises for substance or service in 
>the name of "psubs" as we stand today, opens up myself and Ray to personal 
>liability.  Ray can determine his own comfort level of risk.  I know where 
>mine is.
>
>This proposal is a promise that extends an expectation of a certain level 
>of safety service.  We're not talking about someone stubbing their toe on a

>table in the conference room anymore, we're talking about the real 
>potential for a serious event to occur where someone could potentially die 
>or become disabled in some manner.  Now your safety diver is no longer just

>a good samaritan providing a helping hand as best he can, he will now have 
>a duty to perform his diver safety services in a manner that a jury may 
>later decide "should have been" appropriate rather than what the committee 
>determines "was" appropriate when they wrote the procedure.  Now Doug in 
>his Kayak is no longer a nice guy who is keeping an eye out in case 
>something goes wrong, he's an integral part of a safety procedure that 
>better work right the first time.
>
>
> >PSUBS should probably consult a good lawyer about its liability, and 
>arrange for waiver of liability
> >forms for all attendees, not just the pilots of the submersibles.
>
>The first thing a good lawyer is going to say, is don't do it.  Rejecting 
>that advise, he will then follow up with advise to purchase some liability 
>insurance, and some errors and omissions insurance.  Waivers are a great 
>idea, but they don't prevent someone from filing suit against you.  So 
>perhaps part of the convention fee this year should be a surcharge that 
>each participant pays to contribute to a liability insurance policy, 
>assuming we can find an insurance company willing to underwrite such an 
>event.
>
>
> >All of the high-hazard low-risk safety-intensive enterprises (aviation, 
>petrochemical, nuclear power, etc.)
> >attribute their fine safety records to systems safety, safety based on 
>rules, standard operating practices,
> >checklists, backups, etc.  IMHO, PSUBS is behind the curve on building a 
>safety system for our
> >conventions and needs to get to it.
>
>In my opinion, this is not a realistic analogy.  Government agencies such 
>as the FAA, DOT, and NRC can adopt and enforce rules/regulations because 
>they are immune from liability.  You simply can't compare government 
>regulatory agencies with PSUBS because the government has no risk.  A 
>better analogy would be PADI and their rules for securing a PADI approved 
>diving license.  Obviously, they have developed a course of study that must

>be used to secure a diving license through them.  It seems this would be a 
>very similar case of potential liability as we are looking at.  It would be

>interesting to understand what they believe their liability is and how they

>handle it.  I don't know how we can find out that information.
>
>
> >As both Alec and Al have pointed out, we did in fact have a plan for this

>last convention.
> >We never had more than two boats in the water at any one time.
>
>This brings up the issue of enforcement, which I believe makes it difficult

>for PSUBS (the entity) to take on responsibility for safety services.  The 
>best laid rules and procedures have no meaning if they can't be enforced.  
>Our conventions have been, and will likely continue to be held in publicly 
>accessible areas.  That means a lot of control for enforcement of 
>procedures is not within our power.  What would you have done at the 2006 
>convention if two other sub-owners got impatient and said, 
>"Screw-it...nobody's telling me when I can dive, I'm launching my sub now".

>  How did your 2006 convention plan handle that situation?  What if two or 
>three observers decided to jump in the water and swim with the subs?  If 
>that were a violation of your 2006 convention plan, how would you have 
>handled the situation when you told them to leave the area and they said, 
>"Hey, this i! s a public swimming area.  I'll swim where I want".  If 
>you're going to propose a plan that promises safety and security, you 
>better have the authority you need to control both sub-divers and observers

>so you can implement that plan if it becomes necessary to execute.  If you 
>don't, your plan has a hole in it that will invite liability.   The fact is

>that even with rules and procedures, PSUBS does not have a method of 
>ensuring that all participants will adhere to them.  Absent the convention 
>on private property whereby the land owner would have the right to expel 
>the offending party from the premises, PSUBS has no power or authority to 
>enforce our "rules" on anyone that doesn't follow them.  This is why I feel

>it is best to let sub-owners be responsible for their own safety needs.  If

>that means an ad-hoc group of people get together either at the time, or 
>prior, and hammer out a set of procedures to follow; that's fine.&nbs! p; 
>But it can't be done at this time under the guise of PSUBS.! < /SPAN>
>
>
>I suggest the following.  For 2007, Doug and/or Alec should spearhead and 
>take on the responsibility of developing rules/procedures for a sub-dive 
>that will be conducted in the same time frame as the 2007 convention.  
>Rather than calling this a PSUBS sponsored committee, Doug and Alec will 
>develop the plans as individuals and/or find other individuals who have a 
>similar interest to help them out.  Doug and Alec can distribute these 
>plans to sub-owners prior to the convention.  Any sub-diving that occurs 
>will be at the perogative of sub-owners, and will not be a PSUBS sponsored 
>event.  Under Doug's CMM model, this would contribute to the maturity of 
>the procedures which could be considered for adoption by PSUBS in time for 
>the 2008 convention.  In other words, go ahead and run ! with it, but do it

>as individuals this year.  Not having PSUBS name on it won't prohibit the 
>plan from forming, developing, or working as you hope it to.
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>	----- Original Message ----
>	From: "sealordone@aol.com" <sealordone@aol.com>
>	To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>	Sent: Friday, December 8, 2006 3:23:31 PM
>	Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Convention Emergency Dive Plan
>
>
>	 Shipmates,
>
>	I thought that Ray's recommendation that a small group of us get
together 
>and draft an set of protocols for next summer's convention was an excellent

>suggestion.  I too left the convention with the feeling that "next time, we

>need a better plan".  I would envision a few basic rules of the road to 
>establish shared expectations, a basic plan for who does what when things 
>go wrong, and some sort of wavier of responsibility form to protect PSUBS.

>Is there an attorney in the house?
>
>	As both Alec and Al have pointed out, we did in fact have a plan for
this 
>last convention.  The fact that we did not inform the entire group of the 
>plan is a lesson learned for next year.  It was a simple plan, but then 
>again it was a simple dive situation.  We never had more than two boats in 
>the water at any one time.  There were lots of divers and observers.  Al 
>was on the pontoon boat as the safety diver.  He had full gear and lift 
>bags.  I was mobile in my kayak, and extra pair of eyes and ears to alert 
>Al of possible problems.  Next year we will probably have a lot more psubs 
>and surface vessels operating simultaneously.  A more complex dive 
>situation requiring, IMHO, a more complex plan.  A plan that all 
>participants know about.
>
>	Here at the FAA, as in many other places, we employ a bastardized
version 
>of a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) to assess the organizational maturity 
>of some of our safety processes.  The CMM began life about 15 years ago as 
>a metric the Air Force could use to determine which software developers 
>were mature enough to take on large development programs.  But the general 
>approach is now used in a lot of industries for a number of purposes.  The 
>idea is that an organization (say psubs) and the processes for which it is 
>responsible (say safety of its members) and be categorized into one of five

>levels of maturity:
>
>	1. Initial-"We are making this up as we go along."
>	2. Repeatable-"We can probably pull this off if we do it the same
way 
>again."
>	3. Defined-"If we write all this stuff down, anyone will be able to
do 
>it."
>	4. Managed-"Let's measure this process and improve its efficiency."
>	5. Optimized-"Let's re-engineer this process and make this puppy
sing and 
>dance."
>
>	I hope you software engineers will forgive my flip treatment of your

>model.  Over the years, I think our conventions have moved from Initial to 
>Repeatable, and it is now time to move to Defined, as Ray suggested.  We 
>began with no conventions.  Then we planned a convention but had to cancel 
>it.  Then we had a convention, but there were no PSUBS.  Then we had a 
>convention with PSUBS, but they were on static display in a parking lot.  
>Only one was operational (Maynard's K-350), while Piere's BIG was under 
>construction and my Undaunted had not been in the water since the 1970's.
>
>	Then last year we had a convention with five PSUBS, three of which
we 
>launched and two that were on static display.  Instead of spending the day 
>inside looking at powerpoints, we spent the day on the water diving PSUBS.

>Next year I am guessing many more PSUBS and surface vessels, with a need 
>for some minimal central oversight.
>
>	IMHO, when a submersible pilot goes diving on his own, he has the 
>responsibility to himself to take sufficient safety precautions to reduce 
>his risk to what he considers to be an acceptable level.  When one or more 
>pilots go diving at a PSUBS sponsored event, not only must the pilot be 
>satisfied with his own level of risk, but the organization must also be 
>satisfied with its level of risk.  Both personal and organizational risk 
>must be identified and mitigated.  The pilot will have his standard 
>operating procedures and checklists for his own submersible, and PSUBS will

>have its own organizational standard operation procedures and checklists.  
>The pilot will have no liability concerns, because frankly, no one is going

>to insure him while diving in a home-made submersible.  His safety 
>precautions are all the insurance he is going to get! .  PSUBS should 
>probably consult a good lawyer about its liability, and arrange for waiver 
>of liability forms for all attendees, not just the pilots of the 
>submersibles.
>
>	I read a number of posts from folks who were quite cool to Ray's 
>suggestions.  But I did not read anything that made me change my mind.  The

>safety business is, whether we like it or not, a rule-based business.  All 
>of the high-hazard low-risk safety-intensive enterprises (aviation, 
>petrochemical, nuclear power, etc.) attribute their fine safety records to 
>systems safety, safety based on rules, standard operating practices, 
>checklists, backups, etc.  IMHO, PSUBS is behind the curve on building a 
>safety system for our conventions and needs to get to it.
>
>	Ray, I volunteer to support, or even to lead, an ad hoc committee to
put 
>together a series of recommended protocols for normal and abnormal 
>operations for new year's convention.  We will also address the issue of 
>liability and the viability of waiver of liability forms.
>
>	Doug Farrow
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Check out the new AOL 
><http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> 
>. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to 
>millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and 
>more.
>
>The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It 
>contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named 
>addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or 
>disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us 
>immediately and then destroy it.


><< winmail.dat >>





************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************





************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 311
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************