Bottom Cleaner Killed in Palm Beach

[BandB]

Benthic2, your opinions, which I won`t even quote, are not getting any better. How about waiting until what happened is established? A coronial inquiry, (depending how USA does things) is certain to be held.

There will be an investigation by FWC and local law enforcement. District Attorney would get involved if possible charges to be made. In the US, the Coroner only offers an opinion as to probable cause of death, but doesn't make charges or do other things beyond forming an opinion of cause of death like they do in the UK and perhaps in Australia.

Coroner's report is typically quick, other than waiting for Toxicology reports. In a case like this one the Coroner would primarily check to see if there was anything that might have contributed to the death, other than the obvious. While that's unlikely, it could include anything from a blow on the head prior to the thruster, a stroke, heart attack, or electrocution, drugs or alcohol in their his system. In some cases it's even homicide vs. accident vs. suicide. Coroner's are doctors.

Law enforcement will question all witnesses and others present including any crew members, any other divers or employees of the dive company and other bystanders. There's been no mention who employed the diver and they will examine whether he was legally able to perform the work. Typically on a boat this size there would be more than one diver present.

The big question will be who turned the thruster on and what did they have to do to do so, was there any lock on the system, what precautions were taken.

This may very well lead to another push for stronger requirements and policing of those requirements to dive and clean a boat. There has been an ongoing battle between OSHA and divers over bottom cleaning and requiring the divers to be licensed commercial divers.

After any legal determinations, any criminal charges, then you have all the civil cases. Someone will be held civilly liable for the death. That could be the boat owner, the marina, the captain, the dive company, or a combination and would include any insurers. While contracts for bottom cleaning came up in another thread for very different reasons, this is a reason boat owners need to have contracts on the work.

This shouldn't be a difficult or time consuming case to determine what happened. Assigning legal responsibility may be a very lengthy process.

 

[psneeld]

Few wait for investigation conclusions on boat or ship mishaps.

When someone makes a personal attack with language like that, the post is yanked almost immediately, well except for the last time and one person that seems to do it.

I see both sides of this, one was cold and callous from someone who has done it for a living, the other from one who does not.

I have no dog in the fight, but these posts have lasted out of charachter.

 

[dhays]

My wife and I were once on our sailboat during the wet and cold season at our home dock. We hears some funny noise and I went up in the cockpit to find our diver cleaning and his gear on the dock.

He may have looked to see if the boat was occupied, but with us below in a sailboat he likely wouldn't have spotted us. I couldn't have started the engine without being up in the cockpit, but that is not the case on my Trawler.

We sometimes spend the weekend on our boat at the dock. We may be up as early as the diver. It is unlikely, but possible to envision a scenario where the divers looks to see if the boat is occupied but doesn't see us and I don't see the diver or gear and fire up the engine to depart.

Economically, there is no way that a diver will have a spotter or that a diver will require an owner representative be present. We all just need to be cognizant of the potential for these accidents.

BTW, the diver may have made a mistake, or someone on the yacht may have made an error. In any case, the loss of this father is something that I mourn.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Not only callous but cold and insensitive. Kinda paints you as an ass.

Only if he's 100% wrong.

 

[BruceK]

Thanks B & B for detail on USA Coroner functions. Here a Coroner, as a judicial officer, can determine cause of death in both the medical and non medical sense and make recommendations on avoiding a similar occurrence. If the Coroner finds a prima facie criminally responsible party,the Inquiry gets terminated immediately. So it appears determination of cause comes from another form of inquiry.
As to psneeld`s observations about removal of posts in context of Bethic2`s posts which I won`t quote in general, to me the part of not even mourning the death of the boat cleaner seemed exceptionally offensive.
To my observation, some highly unattractive posts are just left swinging in the breeze, for all to see.

 

[BandB]

To my observation, some highly unattractive posts are just left swinging in the breeze, for all to see.

This is definitely not the only place there are highly offensive things being said for the world to see. Some people only care how many twitter followers they have.

Now, as to the tragedy, some think our precautions are overboard but I never apologize for being too careful and avoiding incidents like this. Not saying that any of our procedures would have prevented this but perhaps. On the surface it appears they might have.

My remaining biggest fear is what some adjacent boater might do and/or a diver cleaning an adjacent boat.

I feel horribly in this case for the family of the victim and for the owner and crew of the boat, as well as the witnesses.

 

[Benthic2]

I'm genuinely surprised at the reaction my two posts got. If the majority find them offensive, and apparently it does, I'd delete or retract them if I could.

I seem to recall many posts in the past that have referenced Darwin Awards and such that did not seem to rankle the masses as much as has happened here. I don't understand the difference.

A guy made a mistake and died for it. If this was about a guy who light up a cigarette while he was refueling and died.....or a didn't have any lifejackets and died in a storm would the reaction be the same ? Am I the only one that sees those as the same kind of thing ? If the answer is, "we don't know what happened yet"......There are only 2 possibilities: #1. A homicidal crewmember saw an opportunity to kill someone and took it. (While possible, I'd have to consider it highly unlikely) and, #2: Insufficient action was taken to prevent the thruster being activated. How do we know it was insufficient ? Because it happened. Someone said it's not cost effective to have a diver's helper on the bridge. Why didn't that offend anyone. What would that cost ? $20 bucks an hour for 5 hours ? A hundred bucks. So.... didn't that comment say that the diver's life wasn't worth $100 ?? No one found THAT offensive ?!?!? I can't even venture a guess as to what the daily operating costs of a vessel that size are, but I'm sure there was a cost effective way to disable the thruster. Whether its a lockout switch as some have mentioned....disconnecting the hot lead on a bank of batteries that run it.....heck...stick an iron bar through it while you are near it.

Yes, any death is unfortunate, but this simply a case of a guy who gambled and lost. If you go out without any life jackets, most of the time you'll be OK....but there's a chance it will cost you dearly. If you clean thrusters without sufficiently disabling them...most of the time you'll be ok....but there's a chance of it costing you dearly.

If this story was "Boater without life jacket drowns", I think most people would say "well...that's what happens...." So why is this any different ??

 

[BruceK]

...Now, as to the tragedy, some think our precautions are overboard but I never apologize for being too careful and avoiding incidents like this. Not saying that any of our procedures would have prevented this but perhaps. On the surface it appears they might have.
My remaining biggest fear is what some adjacent boater might do and/or a diver cleaning an adjacent boat....

Well said. A sad occurrence like this can be turned to a positive, by encouraging rethinking precautions which boat and diver might put in place. If it make others safer in similar circumstances, that`s something achieved.
In industrial law, there are many safety regulations. It has been said the only truly safe industrial machine is one so well guarded it cannot be used, and that you cannot legislate commonsense.
There is probably a good argument for notifying adjacent marina boats of a diver in the water, actual or expected. A divers flag is not necessarily going to be located where everyone who needs to can actually see it.

 

[diver dave]

I would consider using several signs on the dock, like the ubiquious "wet floor" Rubbermaid products. These would say Caution, diver down, etc. The divers I see working seem to favor a covert type operation. Sometimes, all you see is the truck in the parking lot. We can see that is not a good idea.
Thinking back, most of the bottom scrapings I've done on my boats have been in the ocean, adrift, with a diver down flag on the boat. There is some hazard in that too, but at least no one is onboard. Hopefully, some effective solution to this kind of hazard will roll out.

 

[DCBD]

In my marina if a diver is required, they have to follow WorkSafe BC rules which requires 2 divers and a lookout, plus obvious signage on the dock and consultation with the boat owner if available.

It doesn't pay to have them come to change zincs, for me anyway. I always thought it was excessive to have this many people but after reading this it makes sense to me now.

Condolences to his friends and family. However this happened, it was a terrible accident.

 

[menzies]

OK you lot, there is an an auld Irish saying.

Wind yer necks in, all of you.

A man, possibly son and father, is dead. In absolutely horrible circumstances.

So just wind yer necks in, wait for those that are responsible for gathering the information and issuing the investigative results.

Anything else is insensitive and crude.

You are better than this.

 

[Seevee]

First, I don't know why this story affected me so much, but I'm almost in tears about this guy I never knew. Horribly tragic, and probably preventable.

And my diver comes to my boat without notice and I only see his hooka running to know he's down there. Fortunately, I'd have to trip over it to get to the boat, but you bet your bippy he will know about this story. I don't want another tragedy so I'll spread the word.

If nothing else a sign on a post by the boat that says DIVER BELOW so anyone can see it.

Benthic2,
Your post may or may not be appropriate, but right now we don't know if the diver took reasonable precautions and someone just ignored them? With a huge boat there are probably many of the crew that can operate the thrusters..... maybe notice was there, but the guy on the bridge never saw it... maybe the thruster operator thought it wouldn't be an issue (stupid, but...)....

After we hear what the investigators say, we'll know. Up to then it's only speculation.

Again, my heart goes out to the loved ones he left behind.......

 

[Tom.B]

I'll tell you one thing... I have never looked for diver down flags when pulling into a marina, like ever. But I'll damn sure do it from now on! Our diver is a good friend and I would get out of boating if I hurt him from my own lack of awareness.

 

[Jeff F]

I'll tell you one thing... I have never looked for diver down flags when pulling into a marina, like ever. But I'll damn sure do it from now on! Our diver is a good friend and I would get out of boating if I hurt him from my own lack of awareness.

Ditto. We all share responsibility. Sometime it takes talking about a tragic event like this from different points of view to drive that home.

 

[Islandr8]

In my marina if a diver is required, they have to follow WorkSafe BC rules which requires 2 divers and a lookout, plus obvious signage on the dock and consultation with the boat owner if available.

It doesn't pay to have them come to change zincs, for me anyway. I always thought it was excessive to have this many people but after reading this it makes sense to me now.

Exactly ! BC Govt rules (WorkSafe BC ) require a Supervisor (not just a lookout) on the dock, and at least 2 divers. There was a post a few months ago complaining about having to pay 3 people to do 1 persons job. Its for a reason.
Accidents can still happen, but many of us have zero accident policies or goals at our workplaces. Diving is a workplace. You are the employer.
Terrible situation, tragic outcome.

 

[BandB]

Yes, any death is unfortunate, but this simply a case of a guy who gambled and lost.

First, I do think the loss of life in any situation needs to be taken with compassion and respect, even if it was or is through doing something totally stupid. I value life highly and I also find "Darwinism" comments bothersome. I hurt for every kid every day who dies from a heroin overdose. We see ships head into hurricanes, sailors try to prove their immortality, a lot of unwise things. Still, I believe we should show reverence toward the victims while aggressively pursuing the causes. By causes, I don't just mean the direct ones, but indirect as well. Things like pressure on captains or failure to take all possible protective steps. And, let's assume your theory of gambled but lost is correct, his family didn't gamble, they did nothing wrong. They're the ones suffering.

Second, you're making assumptions of facts not in evidence. We don't know the diver did anything wrong. Perhaps no one was there when he arrived and he would not have had access to the interior of the boat. Should he have put up signs or something? Probably one should always, but then that's training. He also might have spoken to the Captain or Chief Engineer and been told the ignition would be locked or whatever their normal process. Perhaps an Engineer was there and stepped away and the Captain stepped on board. We just have no idea and shouldn't jump at any conclusions. There is a lot to be investigated and it's obvious that one or more people made huge mistakes and kids lost their father and the lives of others who played a role damaged tremendously. They may never recover. I can't imagine the pain.

This should lead to all of us reevaluating our procedures. Those of us who own boats and all in the bottom cleaning business. When we're at home, we find it easy to work with the diver as we have a protected area and we assure no use of boat and another person there to watch. When we're cruising, we try for the same, but often times it's a real struggle to achieve and we've had issues with divers who didn't want to follow our rules. I think we might all benefit with a thread on precautionary steps that could be taken to protect divers from our own boat and others around.

Now, I don't go so far as to attack you as a person based on a single comment, but just to dislike the comments you made, feeling the tone was inappropriate at this time. I also do feel we go too far the other way if we don't analyze what happened and we may very well point our finger at the victim when the facts are in. Still, I'll never accept implying he got what he deserved. I will accept, if the facts support it, that he holds responsibility for his death. I don't know those facts yet.

In the pursuit of facts, I find the starting of the thrusters on a docked boat to be highly unusual. Why were they started? What was being done? Could it have been to try to clean something out of them so the diver could then clean them? If so, a serious mistake. I don't know. I do know I've never once been tempted to jump on a boat I had docked and go start the thruster. I think that would indicate the generator was also running.

I would also be very surprised if there was only one diver there to clean a boat this size. You're cleaning over 5000 sq ft of hull. Was he part of a company, trained, licensed, bonded, insured or just someone found who did this?

 

[Benthic2]

Thanks for your well thought out response. I appreciate your distinction between objecting to me as a person, vs. objecting to my comments. You also raised some good points: The timing of my comments so close to the event was insensitive, and the fact that the family suffers when they didn't do anything wrong. I had not even thought of the devastating effect this will have on whoever threw the switch. I'm a professional analyst. I've worked for hospitals and insurance companies and tend to be clinical and dispassionate when I work. Perhaps too much so.

You also brought up a very good point about why the thruster was turned on. Was the vessel about to leave ? Surely the engines would have been running if it was, and the diver would have heard that. I would assume when he spoke to someone on the crew they would have told him "we're pulling out at noon" if they were planning to leave.

I still maintain however that he didn't take adequate precautions to prevent this, and the proof of that is that it happened. Perhaps there are others who share that responsibility with him however, as you pointed out with your examples.

This has been an enlightening thread for me, and I will try to be more sensitive going forward. Here's to hoping the under-sensitive and the over-sensitive can all get along.

 

[BandB]

Thanks for your well thought out response. I appreciate your distinction between objecting to me as a person, vs. objecting to my comments. You also raised some good points: The timing of my comments so close to the event was insensitive, and the fact that the family suffers when they didn't do anything wrong. I had not even thought of the devastating effect this will have on whoever threw the switch. I'm a professional analyst. I've worked for hospitals and insurance companies and tend to be clinical and dispassionate when I work. Perhaps too much so.

You also brought up a very good point about why the thruster was turned on. Was the vessel about to leave ? Surely the engines would have been running if it was, and the diver would have heard that. I would assume when he spoke to someone on the crew they would have told him "we're pulling out at noon" if they were planning to leave.

I still maintain however that he didn't take adequate precautions to prevent this, and the proof of that is that it happened. Perhaps there are others who share that responsibility with him however, as you pointed out with your examples.

This has been an enlightening thread for me, and I will try to be more sensitive going forward. Here's to hoping the under-sensitive and the over-sensitive can all get along.

Beautiful post.

 

[BruceK]

Exactly ! BC Govt rules (WorkSafe BC ) require a Supervisor (not just a lookout) on the dock, and at least 2 divers....
Accidents can still happen, but many of us have zero accident policies or goals at our workplaces. Diving is a workplace. You are the employer....

Canadian and or US law likely differs from here, but here I suspect the boat owner who engages a diver who is running his own business,seeking work generally, organizing his own business operations, sending bills, not working under supervision /direction, perhaps told what to do but not how to do it,maybe engaging staff,providing his own equipment, is perhaps incorporated,etc,is not an employer.
Generalizations are risky but, more likely the diver is an independent contractor. Which is not to say there is no responsibility and the boat owner should not be taking care,he should, but probably not the duty of an employer to an employee, which here can amount to absolute liability.

 

[Donna]

Diver down buoy flags remain in the back of my divers truck. When I see them, I'll keep an eye on them. I think this is the responsibility of us all. Divers, boat owners, marina owners a like. I will never start an engine without clearing the boat ever again.

 

[angus99]

Nicely handled controversy on this thread. Instead of degenerating into personal attacks and name-calling, the back and forth largely stayed focused on the issues and folks actually reflected on how their words were being perceived. A good example of how a disagreement can be hashed out without resorting to scorched earth.

 

[psneeld]

Guess I misread post #24 then....

 

[fstbttms]

In 2004 Osha introduced rules/standards for commercial diving operations. I haven't read them.

OSHA regulations only apply to companies that have actual employees, which the vast majority of hull cleaning services do not.

 

[rwidman]

"In the pursuit of facts, I find the starting of the thrusters on a docked boat to be highly unusual. Why were they started? "


Someone told me long ago to test the thrusters (and the steering) before leaving the dock. Leaving the dock and finding that your thrusters don't work could be a problem.


This accident and death is tragic and I feel sorry for him and anyone who knows him. Also for the person who activated the equipment even though he/she didn't do it in order to harm someone.


The hard fact is, those of us who do physical work for a living have a much greater chance of accidental injury or death than those who sit behind a desk or perhaps work a sales floor. A friend of mine worked in a school and came in early to adjust the lights in the auditorium. They found him dead on the floor having fallen forty feet or so.


Two railroad workers were killed a few days ago in Washington, DC when a train ran over them. It was in the news.


Accidents happen. We try to prevent them but they will still happen. Diving is a dangerous occupation compared to most occupations. A guy diving on boats is far more likely to be injured and killed on the job than a guy selling DVD players at Best Buy.


I can't comment on OSHA or on what precautions divers take when working on mega yachts but at my marina, they come and go at will and work by themselves. At best they might leave a piece of equipment on the dock but most folks aren't going to equate that with a diver or any sort of danger. Perhaps they will start putting up signs if they learn about this accident.


It's up to the worker to work safely. He or she is the one who suffers when things go wrong. I remember one time I was asked to go up on an electric scaffold without the outriggers in place. I refused. Someone else called me "chicken" and went up. Nothing bad happened but I was looking out for myself. He was willing to take the risk, I wasn't.

 

[psneeld]

The use of tbe concept "human factors in accidents" has neen around for at least 20 years.

It essentially defines that human error accounts for the vast majority of accidentts, or as the military prefers "incidents" or "mishaps" as the word accident makes it sound like nothing can be done to prevent the same from happening in the future.

Human factors focuses from the birth of a product or proceedure and assigns human errors to the designers if the very essence of something is an accident waiting to happen, whether machine or proceedure. It them follows through to the end game where everything is functioning as planned.

While a complex idea, it allows different levels of management to see where their inputs can be most effective in removing the possibility of injury, death or loss of equipment.

This incident is ripe for finding possible safeguards at many levels. The beauty of bothering to use a systematic method in finding any one of dozens of safeguards might have prevented the incident. So the next time, numerous simple safeguards can be put into place, assuming that only some or none were used this time.

 

[cappy208]

Never mind what happened there, please take away the knowledge to ensure this never happens to you, your vessel or your crew. The old adage "Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" comes to mind.

 

[BandB]

There is no doubt diving has some inherent risks. However, the purpose of safety procedures and policies is to minimize those risks. In the case of hull cleaning, certainly the company doing the work should have safety procedures and should insist their employees follow them. Then, you as boat owner, I feel have three responsibilities. First, to make sure the diving company or diver you use has such procedures. Second, to make sure they follow them. Third to make sure you have your own procedures for having your hull cleaned. Safety is the responsibility then of every individual involved. We all need to learn from accidents of this nature.

Oh, the diving company at the center of the fight with OSHA was Scuba Clean in St. Petersburg, FL. They are no longer in business. I don't know if their principals are operating under a different company or not.

 

[rwidman]

There is no doubt diving has some inherent risks. However, the purpose of safety procedures and policies is to minimize those risks. In the case of hull cleaning, certainly the company doing the work should have safety procedures and should insist their employees follow them. Then, you as boat owner, I feel have three responsibilities. First, to make sure the diving company or diver you use has such procedures. Second, to make sure they follow them. Third to make sure you have your own procedures for having your hull cleaned. Safety is the responsibility then of every individual involved. We all need to learn from accidents of this nature.

Oh, the diving company at the center of the fight with OSHA was Scuba Clean in St. Petersburg, FL. They are no longer in business. I don't know if their principals are operating under a different company or not.

You may have missed what many people have stated; that their divers are local self employed people who come and go to marinas and boats as necessary. Most of us are not around when our divers come. We don't know if they have formal safety procedures and if they follow them. Our concern is the cost and the results.

We leave it up to our divers to do what is necessary including working safely. There is very little we can do other than try to notice if a diver is working on our boat when we arrive or investigating if we hear strange noises while on our boats.


While again, this is a tragic accident, we don't know how often this happens and we don't know how often it happens for every X number of boat cleanings. It's entirely possible that more divers are killed in auto accidents on the way to and from cleanings than are actually killed on the job.

 

[diver dave]

A small excerpt from a decade old Time mag. story:


We pride ourselves on being the only species that understands the concept
of risk, yet we have a confounding habit of worrying about mere
possibilities while ignoring probabilities, building barricades against
perceived dangers while leaving ourselves exposed to real ones. Six
Muslims traveling from a religious conference were thrown off a plane last
week in Minneapolis, Minn., even as unscreened cargo continues to stream
into ports on both coasts. Shoppers still look askance at a bag of spinach for
fear of E. coli bacteria while filling their carts with fat-sodden French fries
and salt-crusted nachos. We put filters on faucets, install air ionizers in our
homes and lather ourselves with antibacterial soap. "We used to measure
contaminants down to the parts per million," says Dan McGinn, a former
Capitol Hill staff member and now a private risk consultant. "Now it's parts
per billion."
At the same time, 20% of all adults still smoke; nearly 20% of drivers and
more than 30% of backseat passengers don't use seat belts; two-thirds of us
are overweight or obese. We dash across the street against the light and
build our homes in hurricane-prone areas--and when they're demolished by
a storm, we rebuild in the same spot. Sensible calculation of real-world
risks is a multidimensional math problem that sometimes seems entirely
beyond us. And while it may be true that it's something we'll never do
exceptionally well, it's almost certainly something we can learn to do better.

 

[fstbttms]

While again, this is a tragic accident, we don't know how often this happens and we don't know how often it happens for every X number of boat cleanings. It's entirely possible that more divers are killed in auto accidents on the way to and from cleanings than are actually killed on the job.

I can say with absolute certainty that on-the-job injuries or deaths are relatively rare in the recreational boat bottom cleaning industry. Yes, sometimes they do occur (and one that comes immediately to mind was a female hull cleaner badly mangled by a megayacht's prop a few years ago, also in Florida) but as has been mentioned, most hull cleaners work alone, on boats that typically have nobody aboard. The danger is low. In the case of a very large powerboat, lock out/tag out procedures should be in place, especially since there are likely to be multiple crew and other service providers aboard at all times, who may or may not be aware of the diver's presence. In this instance, we don't yet know if LO/TO was in place. And it is entirely possible that the diver had limited English (as immigrant workers are often used in this business, especially in Southern California and South Florida) and may not have been able to communicate effectively with the crew. In any event, it is the diver's personal responsibly to make sure LO/TO procedures are in place and to not rely on a crew member or boat owner to do it.