[PSUBS-MAILIST] Submersible Rules

Thu Jul 20 09:08:20 EDT 2017

Everyone keeps thinking in terms of 1atm subs, but I've never seen any
classification rules regarding ambients. How would they fit into the
proposed regulatory scheme? They let untrained tourists use those bubble
helmet wet subs. That would certainly qualify as commercial. Where does one
draw the line between a scuba scooter and a wet sub? More importantly, does
your average 19yo Coast Guard auxiliary-man know or care about the nuances
separating a 1 ATM, dry ambient, partial dry ambient, and wet sub?
-River Dolfi
rdolfi7 at gmail.com
412-997-2526

On Jul 20, 2017 3:03 AM, "via Personal_Submersibles" <
personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:

Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to
        personal_submersibles at psubs.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Submersible Rules (Alan via Personal_Submersibles)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:01:08 +1200
From: Alan via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion
        <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Submersible Rules
Message-ID: <C466967F-91E6-4F04-A6D4-7937BD3E1ECC at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks Jon,
you should be a politician!
With regard to a category for non classed subs that are built commercially;
this is an issue encountered in other industries.
You can build a boat in your garage & sell it on ebay, but if you build
50 of them then you are categorised as  commercial, however the same boat
will
now need to comply with industry standards.
Graeme Hawke is pushing the boundaries with his unclassified subs; his
latest dragon submersible has I think 24 hrs life support instead of 3 or 4
days that ABS or GL require!
Our current certification regulations may be extreme for shallow diving
vessels,
but relevant for commercial deep diving vessels.
I wouldn't want to be draughting any rules, as on the one hand you don't
want an
unsafe sub taking an unwitting public down; but what is safe? In other
underwater sports
such as scuba diving, you can buy equipment that numerous people die using
every
year (146 World wide 2016).
There is the bionic dolphin that could potentially dive under the water at
speed &
entangle in an obstacle giving you a short period of time to get out if you
survived
the impact. Also in the mix are ambient subs, wet subs & scooters!
Would be pleased for you to get involved with the decision process if you
felt
inclined!
Regards Alan

Sent from my iPad

> On 20/07/2017, at 4:34 PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <
personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> Thanks for reaching out and forwarding us Will's response.  There's a lot
here to consider and the current applicable US law is complicated requiring
careful reading and interpretation, but I have some initial thoughts.  I
also want to be careful not to suggest that the Rev 1.0 Operating
Categories chart forwarded to us are anything more than an initial "stake
in the ground", however it does show us where the current thought process
is leading and also is all we have to digest and consider at this time.
First, let me address some contradictions that exist between the email and
the MTS category chart.
>
> Quote...there is no need to change much in the Psubs community.
> Quote...the Psubs will always remain free to do what they want
> Unfortunately the MTS chart does not preserve our rights at all, and will
remove our freedom to do some of what we want.  For example, under current
US law all K-boat type submarines are able to work commercially as a
Subchapter-C UNINSPECTED vessel.  So if a boat owner wants to give you $100
to find something they dropped overboard, or you work a deal with a harbor
master to inspect boat mooring footings, or some town administration wants
to hire you to take photos of mussel invasion at the local pond, you can do
that legally.  The suggested change by MTS takes that opportunity away
completely.  Why?  What reason is there for taking away the opportunity to
make money with your private vessel?
>
> Quote...recreational submersible can do whatever they want, as long as no
money changes hand.
> This is an oversimplification of current law.  As a Subchapter-C
UNINSPECTED vessel, all kinds of money can change hands.  True, we can't
take passengers for hire, but we can certainly be hired by someone that
wants us to perform a task.  And why not.  From a functional perspective,
shall we believe there is some difference between spending time 30 feet
underwater watching fish swim by as a recreational "past time" and spending
time 30 feet underwater filming the bottom for an underwater survey that's
gong to fetch us a fee?  The changes suggested by MTS take this opportunity
away completely.
>
> Quote...The moment there is a single person in the sub that pays $1, it
is considered a "Passenger for Hire" and you are treated like an Atlantis
submarine.
> I'm not sure Will meant this the way he wrote it.  Whether an airplane,
train, automobile, commercial submarine, research submarine, tourist
submarine, or private submarine, society has good reason to ensure that
vessels which carry passengers for hire meet strict standards.  The issue I
see here is that some of the requirements for vessels that carry passengers
for hire are simply not realistic for small submarines.  For example, 46
CFR 180.70(a)(1) would require a K-boat to carry a 20 inch life buoy.
Perhaps this is what Will meant to allude to, and if so it is a much deeper
topic than what the MTS chart provides for.
>
> It is not clear to me what Will means when he speaks of the need for
companies to be able to operate without regulations if they are classed,
presumably by an industry accepted classing entity such as ABS, GL, etc.
The USCG regulations appear to be primarily operational (life preservers,
flares, etc) whereas vessel certification does not address these issues.
>
> One point I absolutely disagree with is the statement that there is a
need for a separate category for non-classed submarines built by commercial
entities because "this is NOT a PSUB anymore".  As I stated in a previous
email, from a regulatory perspective there is absolutely no recordable
difference between a non-classed submarine fabricated commercially in a
multi-million dollar facility and a non-classed submarine fabricated in a
two stall garage by an amateur.  This is the beauty of certification in
that it not only identifies vessels which have been recorded as meeting
specific standards, it also equalizes all vessels that have not been
recorded as meeting those standards.  This must be so or else certification
is rendered meaningless.  By what standards would we assess that a
non-classed commercially built submarine is somehow better than an
non-classed amateur built submarine?  Let us suppose we do a blind
test...we will take a non-classed commercially built submari!
 ne and a non-classed amateur built submarine and sit them in a parking
lot.  We will invite an ABS inspector to that parking lot, point to the two
submarines and say "Here are two non-classed submarines.  You are an ABS
inspector, please point out the better built, safer submarine."  If such
inspector cannot, or will not do so, there is no difference between those
submarines from a regulatory perspective.
>
> Now, as per the MTS chart itself there are a couple of things that stand
out.
>
> A separate category for tourist submarines is going to prove difficult I
think.  There is currently no definition for a "tourist" in the law and I
think defining one will be problematic.  A tourist is probably always a
passenger for hire, but is a passenger for hire always a tourist?  And if a
tourist is differentiated from a passenger for hire, under what rules does
a submarine operate if they have on board both a tourist and a passenger
for hire?  I think the justification for separating out tourist submarines
based upon the idea that having just one passenger for hire forces a small
vessel to operate under the rules of an Atlantis submarine is somewhat
weak.  A better approach would be to exempt certain sized submarines from
certain equipment required under passenger carrying rules based upon the
size of the vessel.
>
> The differentiation between Commercial, Private, and home-built seems
unnecessary.  What is the difference between "Private" and "Home-built"
submarines?  Here again, this seems to be an attempt to perceptually
diminish the integrity of a home-built submarine.  I counter that such an
assumption is arbitrary between unclassed vessels.  Furthermore, why should
unclassed submarines not be able to perform commercial work.  Classing has
no bearing upon whether a vessel is capable of performing a certain task
for compensation.  That determination should be left to the parties
involved.  Is it not obvious to anyone else that these MTS suggested
changes ensure that only those entities which have the means to class a
vessel will have the supply of vessels that are authorized to do commercial
work?  Am I the only one that sees a conflict of interest in such rules
being proposed by an organization that is primarily made up of, and caters
to, commercial entities that have the means to!
  produce classed submarines?
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>> On 7/18/2017 5:52 PM, Alan via Personal_Submersibles wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I recently emailed Will Kohnen from the position of a foreigner concerned
>> that any submersible regulations that his organization draughted would
>> eventually be adopted by my Country.
>> I also mentioned lack of consultation with Psubs. Below is his reply.
>>
>> I am extremely sensitive to the Psubs issues and there is no need to
change
>> much in the Psubs community. It is rather everybody else that needs
>> attention. There are many Psubs members that participate in the dialogue
and
>> also talk with Jon. I would encourage Psubs to come and participate and
you
>> may find life is a happy place. I don't know what else to say.
>>
>> The US Coast Guard current regulations are reasonably clear that any
>> self-built, recreational submersible can do whatever they want, as long
as
>> no money changes hand. This works for Psubs, no problem, and there is no
>> reason to change that. There is the slight footnote in the regulations
that
>> notwithstanding, the Captains of the port can ignore the rules and
decide to
>> allow or deny operations as they see fit. This can lead to a lot of
>> confusion and inconsistency. Again, the problem is not with Psubs
(although
>> the tenure is tenuous), but with the rest of the industry that is trying
to
>> make a viable economic development in the field. The moment there is a
>> single person in the sub that pays $1, it is considered a "Passenger for
>> Hire" and you are treated like an Atlantis submarine. That leaves an
awfully
>> large gap between Psubs and Atlantis and to suggest that the entire
industry
>> has to position itself on one side or the other is a bit lacking in
>> granularity. The industry has moved and evolved since 1993.
>>
>> So, No - the Psubs will always remain free to do what they want, and it
may
>> even be helpful for the world at large that this freedom be better
defined
>> so as to secure this right. In the US, since the US Coast guard has come
>> under Homeland Security, the freedom of Psubs (and everybody else) is one
>> incident away from serious "Broad-level" regulation, written by folks in
>> govt that really don't give a hoot for the sub industry. So it may not
be a
>> bad idea to be pre-emptive.
>>
>> That's all.
>> What we are discussing in much greater detail is the need to allow
companies
>> to operate "Without" Coast Guard regulations if the sub is Classed and
>> carries less that 6 "Occupants", and where we define what an "Occup0ant"
is,
>> as NOT a passenger. This would open up the economic feasibility for
>> companies to do submarine work and charge money without the egregious
Coast
>> Guard certification (which still remains perfectly fine and applicable if
>> you want to run a 40 passenger sub and carry innocent tourists
underwater).
>>
>> There should also be a separate category for companies making subs that
are
>> made commercially but which are not Classed, and also carry 6
"occupants" or
>> less. If you build a number of subs and you sell them commercially,
>> unclassed, this is NOT a Psub anymore, or at least there needs to be a
clear
>> line. When Oceangate or Deepflight build subs that cannot be classed, for
>> one reason or another, these are not Psubs. Where do they fit in the
>> spectrum? Due to the economic impact and higher public profile of such
subs,
>> it behooves everyone to pay some attention to the proper
"Categorization" of
>> each group so that they are not all treated with one broad brush. This is
>> fairly basic industry positioning for the well being of the industry and
the
>> protection of each group.
>>
>> I don't think the Coast Guard in any nation can properly sort that out,
not
>> in the US, NZ, AUS, Europe or China....
>> So that leaves us to think, be pragmatic, invest some time, energy,
goodwill
>> and work in good faith so we may end up with a regulatory environment
that
>> lets the entire MZUV industry become economically viable, while also
>> preserving the freedom of the hobbyist.
>>
>> I've attached a rough categorization of sub types to include the
"Atlantis
>> Pax" subs (remaining as they are, the "Psubs" as they are today and
added,
>> Commercial Sub, Uninspected Subs and Submarines, which were never
attended
>> to and which may in the future.
>>
>> The door is wide open at the conference and I hope Psubs will increase
its
>> participation beyond a handful of individuals.
>>
>> There is no big rush but it is worth pushing forward. The govt's
everywhere
>> would be more than happy to find a template they can adopt and use as a
>> baseline for their handling of these issues.
>>
>> Again, thank you for reaching out and I hope we get to discuss this in
more
>> detail as we go.
>> All the best
>> Will
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/
20170720/cd8b7e03/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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

------------------------------

End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 49, Issue 102
******************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20170720/f757254b/attachment-0001.html>