posted 10-25-2011 01:51 AM ET (US)        

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/MAR1103.pdf

In my opinion the report reveals many rather startling facts about this collision, and of those, the most disturbing is the very high speed of the USCG vessel prior to and at the time of the collision. The USCG boat crew was responding to a non-emergency situation, yet they operated their vessel at speeds that exceeded all guidelines and were reserved only for "hot pursuit" law-enforcement or emergency-only situations. The harbor was crowded with boats watching a boat parade, and the investigation concludes that a maximum safe speed would have been about 8-knots. The USCG vessel was observed making 42-knots, based on the analysis by the NTSB of available data.

I am also disturbed that of the five crew of the USCG vessel, three did not consent to be interviewed by the NTSB in its investigation. The two USCG crew who did participate in the investigation were not involved in the operation or navigation of the boat. The helmsman of the USCG vessel did not participate. Other USCG personnel on other USCG vessels also declined to be interviewed by the NTSB in the investigation.

It is also disappointing that the USCG vessel was underway without its AIS transponder operating. If the AIS transponder were operating it would have transmitted detailed data about the vessel's speed and movements, providing the investigators with a reliable source of data about the collision. No explanation was available for why the vessel was underway without its AIS transponder operating.

posted 10-26-2011 09:31 AM ET (US)            

This is bothersome. It would seem that in an accident investigation, a branch of the military should co-operate to the limit of not divulging classified or other such information.

But I suppose then, as we have seen in many other scenarios, the USCG personnel would refuse to answer on the grounds of "national security" whenever an embarassing question was posed.

posted 10-28-2011 09:20 AM ET (US)            

The highest ranking crew, a petty officer 2nd-class, who would ostensibly be the commander of the vessel, pled guilty to a single charge of dereliction of duty. He received a cut in pay and agreed to immediately resign from the USCG.

The helmsman, a petty office 3rd-class, also pled guilty to a single charge of dereliction of duty. He was sentenced to three months in military jail, demoted one rank, and also given a monetary fine of $3,900.

The lookout, a boatswain's mate 3rd-class, also pled guilty to a single charge of dereliction of duty. She received a letter of reprimand, which will have the effect of making her ineligible for promotion for one year.

posted 10-28-2011 05:21 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

It is also disappointing that the USCG vessel was underway without its AIS transponder operating. If the AIS transponder were operating it would have transmitted detailed data about the vessel's speed and movements, providing the investigators with a reliable source of data about the collision. No explanation was available for why the vessel was underway without its AIS transponder operating.

---

Back when I was a snot-nosed young airplane jockey, (long before I started flying respectably), it was standard to turn off your transponder before "flat-hatting"*, and for the very same reasons... to reduce the chances of detection. Also, being from San Diego, a border town, sqwawking "OFF" was a way to get intercepted by DEA, who would track you off your primary echo. I was never intercepted.

*flat-hatting
http://aboutww2.com/flat-hatting/flat-hatting.html

posted 02-04-2013 02:14 AM ET (US)            

--the 33-foot boat, a Special Purpose Craft--Law Enforcement boat, has a characteristic of bow rise at certain speeds between 10-knots and 27-knots which impedes the field of vision of the coxswain (helmsman);

--the 33-foot boat cabin design has window frames which obstruct the field of vision of the coxswain;

--the 33-foot boat has raised seats which require the occupants of the rear seats to bend down in order to see out of the windows without the upper window frame obstructing the view;

--the above characteristics were well known characteristics of the 33-foot boat which should have been known to the coxswain and crew, who should have made compensations for these deficiencies;

--the Officer In Charge of the station was involved in an "inappropriate relationship" with the section leader of the duty section which the crew of the boat was drawn from;

--the section leader of the duty section which the crew of the boat was drawn from had a reputation for taking advantage of the (perhaps informal) practice that allowed on-duty personnel to go home if there were more than the minimum number of watch-standers required for a ready crew;

--that the inappropriate relationship between the section leader and the Officer In Charge of the station contributed to the section leader withdrawing from daily management responsibilities. These management responsibilities were subsequently taken up by junior personnel, who then ran the duty section;

posted 02-04-2013 10:49 AM ET (US)            

If the investigation of the accident was deemed to be more important than punishment of the actors, immunity to criminal charges could have been granted.

Apparently the authorities felt punishment was more important.

Butch

posted 02-05-2013 10:09 AM ET (US)            

The thing that many are missing is that the USCG is not the military, IE: Unless federalized by order of congress in time of war, at which point it comes under the operational control of the Navy, it is just another uniformed police agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security. Formerly it was Department of Transportation. Neither are/were part of the Department of Defense (The "Military"). There is no USCG representation in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example.

The status of the USCG is kept legally vague for a number of reasons, the most important one from a constitutional standpoint being that they are legally allowed to "conduct safety at sea inspections" (IE: warrantless searches) that would be illegal for any other organization in the United States. This alone is their value as a police organization. Carry one USCG boarding officer among a team of 12 FBI agents and you can search anything remotely maritime without a warrant.

The fact that nobody has challenged their use of the UCMJ for disciplinary actions or their use of mandatory enlistment periods for their member speaks more to lack of interest in the matter than in their standing under constitutionally grounded law. The bottom line is that they have the same exact historical background as the Public Health Service and NOAA (Formerly the Coast and Geodedic Servce), both of which have Uniformed Comissioned Officers who wear uniforms that are virtually identical to USCG uniforms, but neither of which pretend to be part of the military.

The original domestic maritime serves were the following

Lighthouse service, responsible for aids to navigation.
Lifesaving Service, responsible for SAR
Revenue Cutter Service, responsible for placing customs agents aboard ships.
USC&GS, responsible for charts
PHS, responsible for clearing inbound ships as disease free.

The first three were joined together as the USCG.

The USC&GS became NOAA and is still a uniformed branch of government service, having both NOAA Officers as well as non-uniformed NOAA employees.

The PHS is also a uniformed branch of government service, with both PHS Officers as well as non-uniformed PHS employees.

Only the USCG pretends to be a military service. It only pretends, because although it looks like one and acts like one the DHS is not the DOD. It's... just...more...police.

Dave

.

posted 02-05-2013 12:10 PM ET (US)            

I'm waiting for their Carte Blanche "privilege" to look for safety violations in my shaving kit to be challenged in court. I'd gladly contribute $10k to any legal fund set up to end their nonsense. Being threatened with arrest last year for refusing to produce a drivers license for simply standing on the dock assisting a friend recover a boat onto the trailer after they decided to carry out a "safety inspection" on the boat made me their adversary for life. Welcome to Wisconsin! Terrorist capital of Lake Michigan ;-)

Dave

posted 02-05-2013 12:13 PM ET (US)            

http://www.soldier.net/five-branches-of-the-military/
Apparently you were never in the Armed Forces of the United States, or you would surely know this.

You like to come across as as a former military man, be it a test pilot for the US Air Force, salvage diver for the Navy, Marine sniper, or what ever else strikes your fancy and fits the thread you are posting on.
When I was in the Coast Guard they operated under the Treasury Department in peace time and under the US Navy in time of war. They saw action in every war in the 20th and 21 century. I know all of your knowledge comes from the Internet, so look it up and I hope you apologize.

Unfortunately the CG now is under Home Land Security.

posted 02-05-2013 12:20 PM ET (US)            

http://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/history.aspx

This is interesting as well:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_United_States

Don't confuse a uniformed service with a military service. The USCG is a uniformed federal police force. It's value rests mainly in its historically antiquitated powers to search without warrant. I'm a believer that this anachronism should be reviewed in court.

Dave

.

posted 02-05-2013 12:34 PM ET (US)            

The coast guard that you and four generations of my family served is no longer. It's a dim memory. It's gone... Be proud you served in the good USCG. Today's is a disgrace. Station San Diego cannot even keep its skipper from diddling the Chief. Read the report.

The coast guard of today is a federal police force that seems mainly directed at the citizens. Bring armed men to the launching ramp and demand that I show a drivers license or be arrested.. For standing there and taking lines? . Sorry: you're not on my side any longer.

Civics lesson:

There are 7 uniformed services.

There are 5 armed services.

There are 4 military services.

The USCG is an armed federal uniformed service.

It is not a military service unless activated in time of war as an arm of the Navy.

Dave

.

posted 02-05-2013 03:01 PM ET (US)         

And after a quick Google search...

posted 02-05-2013 07:41 PM ET (US)            

I don't know you but I'm sure you're a good guy and you obviously believe you're correct in your assertion.

I suggest you do some further research before you bet the farm on this question.

The internet is a pretty good resource but it may not be easy to find all the US Statutes pertaining to military personnel issues. In a previous life when planning for reductions in force for military officers we found the language to be, at times, so lawyeresq that we had to ask for legal opinions from the Army Counsel before proceeding.

The military has been around for as long as we've been a nation and laws have been passed during the entire time. It's a complex subject.

posted 02-05-2013 07:55 PM ET (US)            

Most of the following is not from internet reading, but rather is from my late Father, who was a 39 year USCG veteran, having spend 19 years enlisted and 20 as an officer, retiring as O-6 (Captain). He was an amateur historian of the USCG and was spurred to same by our family traditions: His father was USCG, grandfather lost his life in the line of duty in the USLSS and his great-grandfather was a crewmember of the Lifeboat NEW JERSEY, which pre-dated any federal life saving service. It's family history.

The USCG boarding laws for "boarding without warrent" stem from the original misson of the Revenue Cutter Service, and in that service it was obvious that placing offices aboard any ship they met in order to look for smuggling was the mission of the day.

Then as the USCG was formed from the trio of the RCS, USLFS, and USLHS, the boarding laws from the 1700's were segued into boarding for the purpose of safety inspections. I mean, who could argue that the USCG should not check for life jackets and flares?

Subsequently, this loophole in the interpretation of the 4th Amendment has been exploited by the DHS to conduct warrentless searches of vessels on US waters, or of US flag vessels anywhere worldwide, in order to perform searches that are anything but for the purpose of an actual vessel safety check. This adversarial role change has caused many, including myself, to no longer view the USCG as a benign protector, but as a well armed police force who is able to work outside of the normal rules and who, s it appears, is pretty heavyu handed in a lot of areas where it is not at all in keeping with the needs of the people it "serves".

It's a unique position legally, being an Uniformed Armed Service, answerable not to the DOD but to the DHS, and one with far broader search powers than any other police force in the USA. Do not think for one moment that the DHS does not exploit this loophole for all it's worth.

Dave

.

posted 02-05-2013 10:24 PM ET (US)            

Thing is, you were dealing with active duty personnel from one of the US Armed Services. If you go to the next disaster area where the National Guard, or the Army or Marines are activated, you would get the same treatment, if you drew suspicion.

posted 02-05-2013 10:45 PM ET (US)            

This is 2013, not the 1960's. Your stories are quaint. They also have no bearing on todays realpolitik of dealing with the grossly overwhelming numbers of cops and wanna-catch-a-terrorist alphabet-characgter groups that boaters need to deal with on a daily basis.

The collision that is cited in the report above is a typical "adventure" for these over-funded, over-staffed, over-toyed, over-aggressive kids who think that their eney is, in the immortal words of Pogo: "Us". The only difference here is that they got caught, after killing someone.

Now: As an American Citizen, I do not need to produce identification to *anyone* upon demand if I am not suspected to be behaving in a criminal manner. Not to the police, FBI, USCG, Dog-Catcher, or anyone. I am perfectly within my rights under the 4th amendment to refuse. You might take a remedial course in US Constitutional law if you do not believe me.

For the USCG to insist on a *motor vehicle license* to be displayed for *line handling* when standing on a dock, at a boat launching ramp takes it one step further. A *drivers license* is not my American Citizenship identification Card. I was not driving: I was standing. I was not boating: I was catching a line. Drivers License? Give me a break.

The fact of the matter is that I was personally threatened with arrest if I did not produce a drivers license. I was really not trying to b difficult: I was not driving, and in fact my wallet was two miles away in the glove compartment of a different car.

The reason they insist on the drivers license is so they can run it for criminal warrants in their computer, no differently than any other cop at a traffic stop. If you are not willing to "wear the number of the beast" in the DHS world-view, you are a terrorist. No drivers license? Ye-Gads... a SUSPECT! Get out the handcuffs...

"Papers Please... your Papers Please..." Ja-Wohl!

Dave

posted 02-06-2013 12:25 AM ET (US)            

I agree with Dave: the notion that someone would be required to show a driver's license when they were simply standing somewhere, not driving a car, is very strange. And especially when the person asking for it is not what most of us consider a law enforcement officer.

Let's get back to the USCG Small Boat Collision; the conclusion of all the investigations is quite clear: the USCG boat was being operated in an unsafe manner and there was no good reason for the speed being used. Maybe someone should have pulled them over and asked to see their driver's licenses?

posted 02-06-2013 05:13 PM ET (US)            

The San Diego Station has the following boat assets:

--two 41-foot Utility Boats
--two 21-foot RHI boats (rigid-hull inflatible)
--one 25-foot Response Boat-HS (refers to boats made prior to August 2003)
--three 25-foot Response Boat-Small

They appear to no longer have a 33-foot Special Purpose Craft-Law Enforcement (33 SPC-LE) available at the station.

Cf.: http://www.uscg.mil/d11/stasandiego/

I could not find information specific to the 33 SPC-LE in the collision, but this class of boat is described as being capable of speeds over 60-MPH. That is with the configuration of triple 275-HP engines. The 33-foot SPC-LE involved in this collision had triple 300-HP engines. Its maximum speed is potentially even faster.

http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/international/33spcle.asp .

There is a conflict in the stated mission of the SPC-LE.

A USCG website says the mission of the 33 SPC-LE boat is primarily for high speed pursuit cases. The 33 SPC-LE is described being used to perform an authorized mission requiring specialized capability that cannot be met within the standardized boat fleet.

http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/spc-le.asp

The Coast Guard report (cited and linked above) says the mission of the SPC-LE is as follows:

quote:

---

Characteristics of 33-foot SPC-LE

All 33-foot SPC-LEs are equipped with three 300-horsepower outboard engines. They are designed to conduct the following missions:

--Defense Operations,
--Port Safety and Security,
--Recreational Boating Safety,
--Marine Environmental Protection,
--Enforcement of Laws and Treaties,
--Marine Safety and Security, and
--Search and Rescue.

---