USCG Auxiliary Collides with Recreational Boater

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  USCG Auxiliary Collides with Recreational Boater

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   USCG Auxiliary Collides with Recreational Boater

whalerron posted 03-16-2006 11:21 PM ET (US)
Here is a film clip of an accident on Lake Michigan. Although the recreational boat was the "stand on" boat, did the USCG have the right-of-way? Whenever I am out on the water, I get out of the way of the Marine Police boats and the USCG vessels. Do they actually have the right-of-way when they are not restricted by water depth?
Video
[MacOS Users: Install Flip4Mac to watch this .wmv file in your QuickTime Player.]
rtk posted 03-17-2006 12:03 AM ET (US)
I didn't watch the video, I was asked to install a windows media program to watch, but in general I too just give way to any law enforcement or govermental entity on the water.
I don't know what the maritime laws are regarging this situation is but I would not be inclined to assert my right of way right upon an entity that is typically regarded, (or is in my perception, I'm not familiar with the exact and present definition of the Coast Guard) as a branch of our armed forces.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say the Coast Guard has absolute right of way, as there currently is strict rules as to how close civilian watercraft can engage a military vessel, when a military vessel is underway.
As far as liability for an accident is concerned, that is a different matter.
I look at it as a civilian vessel vs military vessel underway issue.
Please pardon my ignorance of the United States Coast Guard, I have a great deal of respect for those who serve. It seems the definition of the entity has been fluid over the years.
Rich
Bridgedeck posted 03-17-2006 12:40 AM ET (US)
I have know idea if the CG gets some special reason for not having to go along with the rules we've had for that very reason for a very long time. If it were me, I'd fight it with everything I had if they do. That CG vessel did some seriously stupid stuff there. They had plenty of time to avoid that one too. Pure stupidity.
maverick posted 03-17-2006 04:51 AM ET (US)
I was always taught that the rule of thumb on the water is: YIELD TO THE BOAT ON YOUR RIGHT.
In the video, I didn't hear a siren, and I don't know if they had blue lights on....wow. Was the cutter skipper hailing the runabout? I didn't hear the loudspeaker. If he was, why not pull the throttles back on the cutter a bit knowing an accident is impending? Key word is "knowing", or aware, I believe. That said, just because an ambulance or LE vehicle on the highway has blue lights and siren on - or is going to a call is NOT carte blanche to challenge other vehicles that may or may not be in the right of way when an accident is imminent or avoidable. The fact that the USCG was filming this for several seconds, and was in fact aware of a potential and likely impending collision, and was therefore likely cognizant that the USCG could have avoided the accident - regardless of fault or right of way - is indicative that I would not want to try and defend the boys in blue in court on this case for liability and damages. That is not to say that the folks in the runabout weren't using good judgement either, but LE is supposed to be the example setter, and it is reasonably clear from the video that the accident could have been avoided by pulling back on the throttles of the cutter. Mav
PeteB88 posted 03-17-2006 07:13 AM ET (US)
That collision was avoidable - the "safety" guys blew it. Clearly the dudes in the runabout were looking to starboard at something. Must be the same thing the dudes at the helm of the cutter were looking at - perhaps a boat full of hooter's babes?
DaveS posted 03-17-2006 07:44 AM ET (US)
I was wondering where my wife and her friends went that day in my Outrage! :)
phatwhaler posted 03-17-2006 07:54 AM ET (US)
Yeah, that was a clear violation of the rules of the road. By both parties.
The runabout was the "give way" vessel and should have slowed or altered course. It was also not maintaining a proper lookout.
The CG vessel was the "stand on" vessel but when it became clear that a collision wasn't to be avoided, the CG vessel should have taken action to avoid the collision.
What's weird about this video is it almost seems like it was all intentional. These guys were out running around with a camera onboard, with light blue shirts, helo flying around and a 41 footer too. The 41 footer is not the vessel that was in the collision. The vessel that was in the collision was some type of non standard small boat. Maybe a stern drive Whaler Sentry?
Other observations:
The CG crew had their sar vests on but no PFD's. Later there was a crew memeber in the waster, with no life jacket on.
This video is very old, at least 12 years old.
ph out.
royaloakwhaler posted 03-17-2006 08:49 AM ET (US)
Phat, I think you have that backwards. The boat on the right is the stand-on boat and has the right-of-way and the Coast Guard boat is the give-way vessel and must yield.
GradyFan posted 03-17-2006 08:53 AM ET (US)
PhatWhaler,
The runabout was to the starboard of the CG vessel making her the "stand on vessel". It seems the CG vessel should have given way.
Chuck Tribolet posted 03-17-2006 09:04 AM ET (US)
This video has been kicking around for a while. Does anyone
know the actual outcome?

Chuck
phatwhaler posted 03-17-2006 09:17 AM ET (US)
How about that. I suppose I was still asleep when I posted that. I have been known to talk with out thinking. I guess I typed without thinking this time. Thanks for clearing up my dumb a$$ post.
you guys hava great day,
phatwhaler out.
Sheila posted 03-17-2006 09:27 AM ET (US)
It is difficult to make out in the video clip shown here, but the boat involved in that collision is an Auxiliary facility, not a gold side vessel. I watched a much longer tape of the incident when I took our Team Coordination Training course in February.
The CG Auxiliary vessel that is involved in the collision had a News crew on board and was "showing off" for the cameras. In the original, you can see that the crew is not even in the correct uniform, wearing Trops instead of working blue.

The video is used in training as an example of why situational awareness is so important. In this instance, the helmsman/coxswain was busy barking at the runabout over his hailer, rather than yielding as required per the NavRules. The Aux patrol boat was very most definitely at fault, and I'd bet that Coxswain is no longer a Coxswain. This is also why it will be very tough to ever put a news crew on an Aux patrol boat again.

The "SAR vest" is actually our PFD. I have one just like it.
jimh posted 03-17-2006 09:32 AM ET (US)
If this is a 12-year-old video, I bet the Coast Guard is probably sorry to see it resurface. The pilot of the Coast Guard vessel should have taken action to avoid a collision. All vessels must take action to avoid a collision.
phatwhaler posted 03-17-2006 09:36 AM ET (US)
A few more thoughts:
1. I was thinking it must have been Auxilliary.
2. Isn't the Coast Guard vessel always the stand on vessel?
3. I guess I need to post something extremely obscene so jimh deletes this thread.
Sheila posted 03-17-2006 09:52 AM ET (US)
One more tiny correction, Phatwhaler, and again, this point was more clear in the longer video that I saw in TCT:
The two PIW were both from the little runabout.
Larry Keith posted 03-17-2006 10:17 AM ET (US)
There was a collsion several years ago in Miami between a small passenger boat and a USCG RIB. You can read all about it on the NTSB web site, read the PDF version. First off, everybody that is involved in a collsion is "At Fault" because if the rules are followed there would be no collsions. In the incident in Miami, the USCG boat was found be in violation of several rules. The passenger boat was in violation of the requirements of it's COI, by being short one deckhand. The USCG boat was also found to not have sufficent verticale seperation between the centerline navigation light fixtures and the side light fixtures.
Robob2003 posted 03-17-2006 10:31 AM ET (US)
I don't care if mine is the "stand on vessel", I am not going to tangle with any boat on a collision course, especially a C.G. or police boat.
The other guy "being at fault" is small comfort if you are in the water, possibly injured or dead and your pride and joy (Whaler) is destroyed.
Bob on Tampa Bay
And ALWAYS alert:-)
mikeyairtime posted 03-17-2006 10:49 AM ET (US)
The guys saying both were at fault are correct. Fault in a maritime accident is assigned in percentage. That's why you always just want to stay away from everyone no matter the right of way. You guys with tickets (Coast Guard licenses) will get to sit before a Coast Guard board of review if you're ever involved in a collision. The more I learned about the rules the more I learned to stay clear of everyone at all cost. My buddy was running the city of LA's yacht the Angelina and a jet ski trying to jump his wake slammed right into the back of the boat. The kid was so scared he got on his ski and ran. My buddy couldn't have been happier.
jimh posted 03-17-2006 11:11 AM ET (US)
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005323.html
Another account of a USCG collision.
pglein posted 03-17-2006 11:22 AM ET (US)
Starbord vessel had the right of way. USCG captain saw him and even tried to get his attention, and did not give way, even though he was the burdened vessel.
Seems to me like the USCG is going to be buying that guy a new boat.
cold feet posted 03-17-2006 11:29 AM ET (US)
Right of way or not, if you see another boat that is not changing course/giving way and is creating a possible collision situation wouldn't you do what you can to avoid being a part of the accident? A little common sense and situational awareness by the Coasties here would have prevented this accident!
Binkie posted 03-17-2006 12:06 PM ET (US)
cold feet is right. If a crash is imminent, you do what you can to avoid it, whatever the type of vehicle your driving. No time to be worrying who has the right of way. It was evident that the people in the runabout, were looking the other way, an possibly the Coastie boat was running on auto pilot with no one one look out. Don`t assume that all coast Guardsmen are seasoned old salts like many people here. When I went to CG boot camp I found a lot of recruits to be midwest farm boys, who couldn`t even swim, and had never laid eyes on a body of water bigger than a farm pond. Very few recruits have any boating experience at all until they joined up. BTW, if you ever get boarded, be carful they don`t crash into you.
Sheila posted 03-17-2006 12:07 PM ET (US)
As I noted previously, this vessel was an Auxiliary facility. Auxiliarists don't board boats.
Perry posted 03-17-2006 12:21 PM ET (US)
If you look closely, you can see that the Coast Guard boat initiates a turn to port just before the collision. It doesn't appear to slow down, just turn. In any case, it was not much of an attemt to avoid the collision.
Binkie posted 03-17-2006 12:23 PM ET (US)
Sheila
Do you have some info that states the boat was an Auxiliary boat. The lead in to the film clip shows what looks to be a GC Cutter, maybe a 41 footer. I can`t read the ID on the bow, but the first two numbers would indicate the footage of the boat. The pics that show the victims climbing over the stern of the rescue boat to be a boat with a narrower beam.
Sheila posted 03-17-2006 12:27 PM ET (US)
No, Binkie, I can't offer you proof. As I said, I viewed a longer tape of the incident at TCT. In that footage, it was clear that the Auxiliary vessel was carrying the media, and they were taping the larger gold side boat. The PIW were picked up by the Auxiliary vessel with which they collided.
Sheila posted 03-17-2006 12:31 PM ET (US)
Also, in the longer tape that I viewed, it is clear that the Auxiliary facility is not on autopilot. The man who can be heard hailing the runabout was at the helm of the Auxiliary facility.
Don88outrage posted 03-17-2006 12:45 PM ET (US)
Makes you think back to the submarine incident off Hawaii which cost innocent lives due to a crew trying to impress some dignataries. If this incident was caused by similar events just for the media perhaps our "officials" on the water should rethink their policies for those types of activities.
rtk posted 03-17-2006 01:02 PM ET (US)
That is something else, I don't think I have ever seen anything like that, except for the beginner kids in the junior sailing programs playing bumper boats.
I have seen stuff like that in sailboat racing. Skipper calls starboard and makes no effort to avoid collision because he has the right of way. It gives me great pleasure to watch those individuals get tossed for failing to avoid a collision, even though he had rights.
Obviously some collisions cannot be avoided under certain circumstances, but this one should not have happened.
What struck me was the individual in the recreational boat plainly said he did not see the coast guard boat until it hit them. Weather and seas looked good, so visibilty was not a factor. Just was not paying attention, which is a mortal sin on the water.
Kinda scary when you think about it. Weekends around here in the afternoon is literally a free for all. Survival and collision avoidance is the game. Running the Oyster Creek Channel at 2 or 3 on a beautiful Saturday afternoon in the summer is something everyone should experience at least once in their life. It's freeway driving at rush hour.
Be Safe Out There!
Rich

maverick posted 03-17-2006 02:05 PM ET (US)
The runabout with (old Chrysler motor) does NOT appear to be a Whaler prior to the collision, and definitely is NOT a Whaler as it sunk. A Whaler would've stayed topside. "Yield to the boat on your right" is what I was always taught. Mav
erik selis posted 03-17-2006 03:23 PM ET (US)
In Europe the vessel coming from the starboard side has the right of way. No matter if it's a coast guard vessel or not. It would be a different story if a police or coast guard vessel would have it's siren and flashing blue lights on but this was clearly not the case. The captain of the coast guard vessel should have also taken all precautions to avoid the accident. To me it looked like he didn't even slow down when it was clear he was going to hit the other boat. A true amateur at work.
Erik
TightPenny posted 03-17-2006 03:48 PM ET (US)
RTK,
You have that right. That is why I clear the inlet early in the morning (before they get up), and try to get back in around 4ish. A lot of the crazies are missing by then and the most of the cigarettes are out of fuel. Can't get rid of the jetskis though.
deepwater posted 03-17-2006 04:18 PM ET (US)
when something like this happens ,, its not about who's right its about who's left ,, i do not take it for granted that i am seen or that i see everything around me ,, i scan the area like there is a sniper out there,,
ctoolman posted 03-17-2006 06:03 PM ET (US)
the way i have read and understand the [unrecognized abbreviation] boating guide,you have the rules of the water and then you (captain) have the responsibility to avoid a collision at all cost, regardless of the right of way.
David Livingstone posted 03-17-2006 06:11 PM ET (US)
Is there photoshop for videos? Cause the runabout is the stand on vessel unless the the vessel to his/her port was a sailing vessel or a vessel restricted in his/her manuvarability.
What is that John Chrisom line I'm looking for the giveway vessel that hit the runabout? " ....you must stupid, stupid, stupid..
jimh posted 03-17-2006 09:24 PM ET (US)
From time to time, it happens that people like to post their interpretation of what the boating regulations say, but it is my very strong preference to avoid having lengthy discussions about what people think the rules say. The rules say exactly what they say. To find out what the rules say, you should read them. You can download a copy of the U.S. Coast Guard publication that contains the rules. That is the way to find out what the rules say.
Download the Navigation Rules
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.htm
Regarding this situation where the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliarist failed to take action to avoid a collision with another boat, it appears to be a clear violation of the rules.
Cf. RULE 8, Action to Avoid Collision
j abrams posted 03-17-2006 09:32 PM ET (US)
This video has been around for a least a year or so. It was featured on the TV show "Caught on Tape". At that time they mentioned that the Coast Guard was at fault for this accident. I don't think I'm having a senior moment but that is how I remember the final disposition of the case.
towboater posted 03-19-2006 03:25 AM ET (US)
Heed the good advice from Jim folks.
I have a "USCG Inland Masters Ticket".
Rule 15 (crossing vessels);
Yeild to boats on your right.
This version works for me;
If you see RED/PORT/LEFT side of a boat crossing your bow, you should yield...just as you would stop for a red light or stop sign in a car. IF or WHEN IN DOUBT, use Rule 2 b.
Im not going to defend the CG Skipper, but, I have a bit of sympathy for his nearly fatal hesitation not to yeild.
His boat seems well marked. Clearly his speed IMPLIES he is on a mission. Other info indicates he has "rookie" Seamen aboard (media & loose cargo). One might consider his vessel was somewhat "restricted in its ability to maneauver". It is possible the Skipper assumed the skiff had a proper lookout & considered a sudden turn might injure his crew.
I agree, this is a very weak excuse & poor judgement.
His BIG MISTAKE was using the PA instead of sounding the DANGER SIGNAL (4 or more blasts). I just cant believe he tried to warn them with a PA...it's nuts, arrogant.
He probably lost his Licence for that reason alone.
Yet,
When the skiff Skipper is shown looking away and admits he wasnt watching, he violated RULE 5, "maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing..."
IF HE HAD, there should not have been a collision under Rule 2b. Boaters are expected to know & understand Rule 2 b but a experianced, Licenced Skipper knows better than to assume they do. knock, knock.
*RULE 2b, aka, The General Prudential Rule
(b) "In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules nessesary to avoid immediate danger."
amen
I have taken extra care to make sure Rule 2b is quoted & punctuated EXACTLY as it reads in the Rules but dont take it from me, see for yourselves. This is the big boy, IMO, it points a long finger at the skiff Skipper.
Michael K
jimh posted 03-19-2006 10:54 AM ET (US)
In my copy of the rules, they spelled "necessary" correctly.
highanddry posted 03-19-2006 11:33 AM ET (US)
Imagine running over a person or hitting another car and killing a mother or child or hitting some child's dog or cat just because you had the right away and you are not about to give way because your in a hurry and so important. Sometimes being right is wrong. J
Sheila posted 03-19-2006 11:43 AM ET (US)
As the helmsman was an Auxiliarist, it's not necessarily the case that he has a license to operate the vessel, beyong a coxswain's qualification from the AUX (which he may well no longer have).
I always understood (and forgive me, Jimh, for the irresistable impulse to intrepret the Navigation Rules) "constrained in ability to maneuver" to relate to the deployment of commercial fishing gear, or a dredge. I would not imagine that operating at such a high rate of speed that one cannot safely take evasive action would qualify under that particular rule.
I don't recall seeing any shots in the tape offered here that indicate how well marked the Auxiliary facility was. I only recall seeing good images of the gold side vessel that was also in the water at the time.
jimh posted 03-19-2006 11:58 AM ET (US)
Assignment of responsibility in a maritime accident is usually the work of a court or tribunal. If you want to read some of these decisions, here is a good example of a dispute and its resolution. After a 29-day trial and initial decision, the case went all the way to the United States Court of Appeals:
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/oct95/95a0311p.06.html
Armchair jurists can have opinions, but usually it takes a court decision or two to sort it out.
jimh posted 03-19-2006 12:29 PM ET (US)
Accidents involving recreational boats usually are not investigated by the NTSB. However, there are exceptions. Here is a thorough accident investigation report involving a collision between two recreational boats:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2001/MAB0101.pdf
Reading this report will have a sobering effect. All aboard both boats died as a result of this collision.
RJG posted 03-19-2006 01:25 PM ET (US)
This sort of thing is my biggest fear while on the water and even more so when my son and his friends leave the dock. I know that he is always aware of who is around him but people still come around blind corners of the river on the wrong side. What ever the rules say, this was clearly avoidable. Right now as spring approaches we should all be mindful that some clown, with a cooler full of beer, is getting ready to launch his new "go fast". I make it a point to avoid people in shiny new boats. Lets all keep an eye out for each other and be safe:)
Binkie posted 03-19-2006 03:16 PM ET (US)
towboater I think we all agree that the operator of the skiff was at fault, but just because the clown driving the auxialiry boat had the right of way saying he could have sounded his horn 4 times and kept on trucking,is rediculous. Common sense would tell anyone driving a boat in that situation, that he should keep a good look out, and when he saw this situation arrising, all he had to do was slow down and steer to starboard, and pass behind the skiffs stern. Do you notice that fire trucks and police cars slow down when they go through intersections with their sirons blaring.Everyone knows they have the right of way but there are a lot of idiots out there. I don`t think the auxilialiry driver was worried about spilling the crews martini glasses at all, in my opinion, he is just a small minded person with a uniform on,with a sense of power, and had just past a test on the rules of the road, and knew he had the right of way be damned.
I`m glad this didn`t involve the regular Coast Guard. The Auxialiry,I can believe it. I once saw a small Auxialiry boat on the wrong side of the channel markers, and when they ran into less than a foot of water, they tried to blast their was out,by revving the throttle and making a rooster tail full of mud. They were`nt going anywhere but were too embarrased to ask for a tow, because when I went by they all looked the other way. LOL. I would have been glad to throw them a line.
towboater posted 03-19-2006 05:14 PM ET (US)
Binkie
I need to do a better job of proofreading my midnight rambles. sorry for any confusion.
Im not defending the Aux Skipper. Im sorry if calling him "nuts, arrogant" & IMO, he should loose his licence does not make that clear to you.
I am also NOT saying the horn blast would have covered his a$$. I assume a USCG Certified Vessel would have a loud horn mounted & working. Again, even if a court deemed him restricted, the Skipper is dead wrong to take it for granted the skiff was watching where he was going, he should have slowed down. Sounding A DANGER SIGNAL is not a free pass to bury the throttles, it is just another tool (covered within the Rules)that might have avoided this collision...using it it is far from rediculous.
NOT using it is negligent.
The boat was well marked in my opinion, mainly because I recognized several commercial grade bright orange vests with white logos but the hull itself in not typical. I see these aux vessels at work all the time, the hulls vary the but life vests are strong indicators of USCG. Thx for the heads up, Im sure not gonna argue that it is not possible another skipper wouldnt instantly recognize it as a USCG Util boat at work.
As for liability, I held back commenting quite awhile. I have always felt the Util Skipper was 100% dead wrong for not backing off his throttles. But when the thread started quoting the Rules as if this crossing situation is written in blood, I jumped in. PLEASE READ 2B again.

If you put me in a Jury, Rule 15 & 2b convicts the Licenced Skipper with 90% liability even tho the lookout Rule 5 points a long finger at the skiff, hooks around the back of his collar & sits him down alongside his Council.
Maybe USCG & Courts allowed this video to leak because it is a TEXTBOOK trainer that they cant endorse. Download the rules from Jims link, read em. Then read em again.
When in doubt, use 2b.

michael k
Marlin posted 03-19-2006 09:44 PM ET (US)
One interesting aspect to this is the evasive action taken by the USCG Aux vessel. It's difficult to determine exactly when this action was initiated, since the camera field of view is narrow and there's not much in the way of visual references, but it's clear that the USCG Aux vessel turned hard to port in the seconds before the collision. Had the coxswain instead turned hard to starboard, there would have been no collision. When in a potential collision situation, turning in a direction that prolongs the time in which your vessel is close to another seems like a poor choice.
-Bob
nooner posted 03-20-2006 05:53 PM ET (US)
the bottom line for me is the fact that the two guys in the boat were not paying attention. It is required to always have at least one lookout right? The fact thet they were'nt aware of a coast guard vessel traveling at a high rate of speed is just plain irresponsible. I'm from San Diego where the bay is filled with naval security, border patrol, coast guard, and police vessels, so this definitely will make me more careful.
AS for the coast guard, i think the use of their horn might have been helpful, along with not assuming that everyone on the water is familiar with boating safety and regulations, which well all know is not true. whether or not there should be a required test I don't know, but this was a very preventable accident.
Bridgedeck posted 03-20-2006 10:11 PM ET (US)
The bottom line for me is that the CG aux. did not have the right of way. And they did not avoid an avoidable accident. Not to mention a complete fool behind the wheel. It reminds me of the moron that was screaming at the top of his lungs to me that sailboats under sail always have the right of way. Cutting within inches of my bow. From where I was sitting on top of my pilot house, with my dinner and beer, I could clearly see that, yes, I did have my anchor down. He was going to hit my boat purly for the fact that he thought he had the right of way. Maybe the auxiliary idiot thought he had the right of way too......
Yes, one of the ski boat guys should have been paying more attention to where they were going. They were definitly ogling that big yacht for sure.
nooner posted 03-21-2006 04:03 AM ET (US)
I agree, obviously the coast guard needs to reevaluate the competence of its auxiliary membership.If they were in such a rush to another accident code 3, they should have had some lights and sirens going. I wonder what the legal outcome of this incident was.
fno posted 03-21-2006 07:53 AM ET (US)
It's all fun until somebody gets an eye poked out. That's why us adults get to run with scissors, we're supposed to have some common sense.
K Albus posted 03-21-2006 10:46 AM ET (US)
Here's a link to an NTSB Marine Accident Report involving a 24 foot Boston Whaler Guardian Coast Guard Patrol Boat: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/MAR0205.pdf . I believe this is the incident referred to above by Larry Keith. The Coast Guard boat was traveling at a high rate of speed in a no-wake zone at night and collided with a small tour boat. The Coast Guard personnel were thrown from their boat, and the kill switch lanyards failed to work properly, which resulted in the Guardian circling at full throttle and striking the tour boat a second time. The NTSB found that the Coast Guard boat caused the accident by traveling at an unsafe speed in conditions of limited visibility due to darkness and background lighting.
K Albus posted 03-21-2006 10:54 AM ET (US)
The report identified in my previous post identifies the Boston Whaler Guardian as a "Nonstandard Patrol Boat". It also states that in 2001, more than 70 Coast Guard members were ejected from "nonstandard boats". This would appear to be a good argument in favor of using the kill switch lanyard. However, that argument would be somewhat undermined by the failure of the kill switch lanyards to operate in this incident.
Sheila posted 03-21-2006 11:25 AM ET (US)
Nooner, a few thoughts on your post:
Auxiliary facilities are not authorized to run with sirens nor blue lamps. We do run with red and amber safety lamps, when appropriate, but they don't seem to draw much attention from the public.
Our Coxswains must be qualified and approved by the gold side and must demonstrate a wide range of skills and knowledge to earn that qualification. Then they must complete both annual and five-year currency checks to demonstrate that they've kept their edge.
All that said, they're volunteers(and human beings, just like the rest of us). I'd bet the farm that the coxswain in the incident under discussion here lost his qualification as a result.
nooner posted 03-21-2006 06:18 PM ET (US)
Shiela thank you for addressing my post. I did not in any way intend to criticize the competency of auxiliary coastguardsmen or women except for those in control of the vessel in the video above. As a person with political experience in the highest level of the executive branch of government, I never take for granted the service of those dedicated to protecting our homeland.
What would you recommend be a way for coustguard vessels, such as the one in the video,to command more attention while underway, especially en route to an emergency in order to prevent and more incidents such as this one. There has been similar controversy with regard to law enforcement agencies and how well they make known their authority and intentions as officers; and a lot of legislation has been passed with the intention of curbing the problem of police failures in correctly identifying themselves correctly to criminals, effective lighting of ambulances and cruisers to get the attention of other drivers, etc...). Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.
Sheila posted 03-21-2006 11:18 PM ET (US)
You're welcome. As I am new to the Auxiliary, and still training as boat crew, I passed your comments along to a more experienced member. The reply:
There really isn't much to be done at this point - Only Law Enforcement and regular Coast Guard vessels are allowed to use the blue lights and sirens. The main thing for ALL skippers is maintaining the proper lookouts and situational awareness - which is the point of the video as used in the TCT class.

It would be NICE if we could use blue lights and sirens, but each state regulates that as well. Not to mention the fact that sooner or later, some yahoo auxiliarist would misuse the devices. We don't have many of those, and the qualifying process is intended to ferret them out, it happens.

The best solution are:
Education of the boating public
Maintaining situational awareness
Following the NavRules
Using your horn (Danger signal) as required by the NavRules to gain the attention of an unobservant boater if the situation warrants.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.