[PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

Mon Jul 17 11:50:07 EDT 2017

Jon,
Would you contact me offsite?
Vance

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Sent: Mon, Jul 17, 2017 11:30 am
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Ethical obligation to inform

      Alan,

      I've been contemplating options.  I happen to agree with Phil's      suggestion that being a primary contributor to MTS is in many ways      missing the point.  Additionally, I am convinced that the MUVMTS      leadership will not accept anything less than labeling or      categorizing personal submarines in a pretense to provide the CG      an ability to severely regulate their use, and so my personal      belief is that our efforts would simply fall on deaf ears.  I      believe our best course is to move beyond MTS and start demanding      the CG and other government entities deal with PSUBS directly for      any issues of concern regarding personal submarines.

      I looked back in my email archive and did find an exchange with      Will Kohnen in late February of 2014 that I had forgotten about.       On 2/24/2014 I was contacted by a PSUBS member to make me aware      that Will Kohnen was telling folks there was talk that the USCG      was looking to "regulate home-built subs" (direct quote).  I      contacted Kohnen via email and asked what was going on and whom at      the CG was the primary contact seeking such regulations.  He      responded that it was the Marine Safety Division and in particular      an official named Ken Smith that was in charge of seeking rules      from MTS.  The plan, according to Kohnen, was to attach these      rules/regulations to the ASME PVHO document.  Since the document      is used for self regulation there would be no immediate impact on      anyone, however the idea was that the CG could then adopt these      rules because they were now ASME rules, an industry standard.

      I contacted Ken Smith at the USCG on 2/25/2014 and talked to him      about this issue.  I do not remember the details of that      conversation however I did write another PSUBS member on 2/26/2014      via email thereby preserving my thoughts at the time.  My message      to the psubber was:

      "I called Ken Smith at the CG yesterday and          talked to him about this.  He claims the CG is has no current          intention to regulate and Congress has not asked them to come          up with any regulations.  Of course, if something happened          they may be inclined to, but they don't see it as a major          issue right now.  He suggested we work with ASME if we want to          be proactive but of course they are not likely to listen to          us.  So he suggested that I could filter things through          him...he has a contact at ASME."

      Based upon my conversation with the CG there was an obvious      conflict between what Kohnen was asserting and what the CG was      asserting in regards to the need for personal submarine      regulations.  I engaged Kohnen further and learned that he      believed a clear demarcation was necessary to separate commercial      and personal submarines, rationalizing it as a need required by      the public because they wouldn't be able to differentiate between      the two disciplines if a personal submarine had an accident.  He      further suggested, "The biggest concern of the USCG is that lack      of differentiation in the submersible industry. They are aware      that this type of cross-over linkage between the Personal and      Commercial vehicles can put them in the spot light and they will      be ill equipped to explain the differences. It is not to say there      isn't a difference at the moment, but once the headlines are out      there, the damage is done - unless something tangible can be      shown."

      It seemed clear to me that at least part of Kohnen's justification      in creating these regulations was because he was worried about      what the public thinks given a critical event involving a personal      submarine, and a mechanism to bail out the USCG who might not be      prepared to articulate the differences between commercial and      personal submarines in such an event.  I believe those are      illegitimate purposes for creating regulations.  I responded to      Kohnen that labels of any kind targeting PSUBS was an issue for us      and that there seemed to be "an element of contempt" for personal      submersibles by some in the commercial industry.  I also wrote at      length describing why I believed it was not axiomatic that an      accident involving a personal submarine would negatively impact      the commercial market.  Kohnen's response was "I am afraid it      doesn't matter so much what we both believe."  This solidified in      my mind that no matter what PSUBS recommended, MTS already had      their minds made up.

      That is the history I have on the matter other than what has been      discussed in recent days.  I don't like the back-door approach      being taken with the ASME PVHO document and expect I will be      contacting the USCG shortly to reopen this matter with them.  If      nothing else, I want to know definitively whether the CG is      talking out of both sides of their mouths or if they are just      being used as a vehicle for MTS to initiate regulations on      personal submarines for their own purposes.

      Jon

      On 7/15/2017 7:34 AM, Alan via Personal_Submersibles wrote:

Jon,

any thoughts on where we want to go        with this?

_______________________________________________
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/20170717/cdb2fa07/attachment-0001.html>