[PSUBS-MAILIST] Submersible Rules

Thu Jul 20 10:00:31 EDT 2017

Further complicating the regulatory question is the fact that the ABS rules, and I presume others, make a distinction between "passenger" submersibles and non "passenger" submersibles, both of which when classed are commercial vessels, so simply defining on the basis of money changing hands would appear disingenuous.

Sean

On July 19, 2017 10:34:43 PM MDT, 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 submarine 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/ef28fdce/attachment-0001.html>