Tragic accident: USCG & pleasure boat

It kinda sounds like Ramos shouldn't have been in command of anything much more complicated than a mop.

Three Coast Guard Members Face Court-Martial

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

The U.S. Coast Guard announced Wednesday that three personnel are to be court-martialed over a December 2009 collision that killed an 8-year old boy.

The U.S. Coast Guard released the following information regarding the charges:

Petty Officer Paul A. Ramos, the boat coxswain, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated assault, negligently hazarding a vessel, and dereliction of duty. Ramos has been referred to a general court-martial.

Petty Officer Ian M. Howell, has been charged with negligent homicide assault, negligently suffering a vessel to be hazarded, and dereliction of duty. Howell has been referred to special court-martial.

Petty Officer Brittany N. Rasmussen, has been charged with negligent homicide, assault, and dereliction of duty. She also has been referred to special court-martial.

The Coast Guard explained, “there are three types of courts-martial -- general, special and summary. A general court-martial is composed of not less than five members, presided over by a military judge, and may impose any sentence authorized in the manual for courts-martial for offenses of which the accused is found guilty. A special court-martial is composed of not less than three members, presided over by a military judge, and may impose a maximum punishment of up to 12 months confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 12 months, reduction to lowest pay grade and a bad conduct discharge.”

The 33-ft Coast Guard vessel was en route to aide a grounded vessel when it collided with a 26-ft Sea Ray, a recreational boat. Eight year old Anthony DeWeese was killed and 5 others were severely injured in the accident, that took place while the family was out to see the annual Parade of Lights in the San Diego Bay. Two other children were taken to Rady Children's Hospital, and three adults were transported to University of California, San Diego Medical Center.

Crowds of people gathered to see the parade reported hearing the collision.

The families on board the boat have sued the Coast Guard. Crew onboard the USCG patrol vessel claim their boat had issues when operating, obstructing their line of sight.

That sounds like it came from an attorney....IDIOT. Doesn't he know that argument will be met with 'then he should have stopped'.
It sounds like nothing is being swept under any rugs. Ramos is in it up to his eyeballs. The others will have ruined careers and lives. All will be living with the memory of this tragedy. And the CG will be paying out big time. Sad for all; especially the families of the victims.

Maybe nut much under the rug but these guys are whipping boys for the people who are ultimately responsible. The CG has known for years that their small boat training was inadequate and the boats were being operated without due regard for safety.

There are a few names missing on the charge sheets.

It all comes down to $$$$$. The lawsuit will undoubtedly mean even less for training or the cuts will come elsewhere, but they'll come. Unfortunately there will be no good answers for the public nor the victims nor the personnel.

President Obama signs Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010

President Obama signs Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.
"Finishing organizational realignment of the service means using the best processes to ensure Coast Guard men and women have the training, tools, and leadership necessary to safely and successfully fulfill our missions of maritime safety, security and stewardship."



http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewAr...hash=080R&goback=.gde_1798138_member_32414443

latest dirt......improper cell phone usage and text messaging instead of attention to boat operation....jeeeesus, these guys are gonna get hung....thanks to the phones, time and date stamps are all over them

It looks like the charges against some of the crew have been reduced because of new evidence concerning the use of cell phones. It appears that none were in use at the time of the collision. The NTSB was supplied times that were not corrected for the time zone.

What is interesting though, especially in light of the defense of CG training and supervision posted on this site, are the statments made by the CG officer responsible for the charges.

"While saying that charges are justified, a report from the preliminary-hearing officer backed up some of the defense’s claims — that the petty officers were working under weak leadership at the San Diego small-boats operation and that they were given a 33-foot patrol craft with known blind spots and too much speed for the bay."

“The Coast Guard delivered these platforms to Station San Diego with no overall training program and very limited guidance. ... This appears to have resulted in boat crews operating 33s for missions they arguably weren’t designed for — i.e. inner harbor operations,” said the report by Cmdr. J.R. Hamilton, released Wednesday.



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/cg-petty-officer-gets-general-court-martial-dewees/

That's very good to hear. With all the driving while texting and no hands-free that goes on on our highways it's good to hear that wasn't an issue. For the NTSB not to have considered time zones though is terrible. That only puts them off by an hour or more. Duh! As to the speed the boats are capable of and "blindspots", that sounds like defense lawyer BS. You can always pull back on a throttle and how many boats (or cars, trucks, airplanes,etc.) don't have blind spots? Rediculous argument! Sounds like the old 'throw enough s--- at the wall maybe some of it will stick' defense. I suspect they'll need better than that.

i think the co of the base should be the first one charged as he is the leader of the group and the rest are supposed to follow his command and example ,you can have the best sailors in the world but if you don't have a leader you don't have any thing ,

just a thought travler

The NTSB used the data supplied by the phone carrier. The carrier supplied the wrong information.

The "blindspots" information came from the prosecution. The CG admits that the boats have large areas of poor vision below certain speeds. It admits their use in confined waters at certain speeds imposes a greater need for attention, and that the training of those crews did not provide the knowledge and skills or supervision needed to prevent a tragedy such as occurred.

This is not "defense lawyer BS" it is the CG itself admitting that the boats are not suitable for the mission they are commonly assigned and the crews are not properly trained or supervised. Kind of what I wrote way back when ...

It's on the NTSB to get that straight. It can't be the first time anyone has dealt with that. Not critical, but they should have before making a statement like "some crewmembers on each Coast Guard accident vessel had been using cellular telephones to engage in text-messaging activities or conversations that were unrelated to vessel operations or to the mission at hand."
Blindspots are something you live with and deal with in every type of vehicle unless you're in an open boat and even then you have bow rise and misplaced bodies. Poor excuse.
Training could always be better and is very much tied to budget. At least there's a little good news on that front as mentioned in post 186 "President Obama signs Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010".

"Charged", I doubt it. He'd have had to committed an illegal act. Disciplined though? I doubt he's having a good year.

If Boeing says the engine on one of their airplanes was installed on a certain date is the NTSB supposed to cross reference that with the Mayan or Phoenician calendars?

Who is making an excuse? The CG itself says the boats have blindspots and they now admit that poor training and leadership failed to impress the danger of that fact upon the people they set loose in the things. That is not defense attorney BS.

Are you still struggling to defend the CG and the driver of that boat or your own misplaced belief in their infallibility, or just being argumentative?

So far your apologist approach to this atrocity has been shown to be totally at odds with reality. At this stage when even the CG admits they failed in training and supervision, why don't you just accept that the system is broken -fatally broken - and a few others should be on trial along with that coxswain.

Just argumentative. I don't believe in condemning people or our military until all the facts are in and judgements are rendered. Then let the chips fall where they may. As shown in the NTSB statement things are not always as they seem at first blush. For now, I'm satisfied to let the investigation and trials proceed before the hangings. You'd apparently like to reverse that process. Let me know when they pronounce you king and we'll do it your way. Till then this is still a country of laws and procedures.

i think you need to look hard i think the way it goes is HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULE'S

TRAVLER

That's the way it is until you run into that pesky piece of paper (the Constitution) or people who feel they have nothing left to lose (no piece of paper stops them).

Hypocrite. Go back and read your comments on the destroyer collision, the speedboat/bridge collision, and the beginning of this thread.

The destroyer collision is a good one, I just got the results of a FOIA request this morning and the Navy has clammed up because they are getting sued. There are no charges against the small boat ... perhaps you might reread your comments and see how they square with your claim quoted above.

You constantly and consistenly blame the victim or someone you think might not hold a license as vaunted as your own and seem to never wait until "the facts are in" before posting your ill informed judgement on this site.

Name calling? Is that the best you can come up with? And to support it, you cite that I believe fault most likely lies with the skipper of a 21' pleasure boat rather than the commander of a destroyer on maneuvers when a minor collision occurs, and support that with the fact that some ambulance chaser thinks money can be made by suing our government. Please! Or that I expect fault to be found on the part of a go-fast skipper who puts his boat 100 yards onto an island on a Saturday night in a 5 mph zone that I'm personally familiar with. That being a skipper whose blood alcohol level eventually proved him to be drunk at the time.
Yes, I will always try (although I'm not perfect as some seem to think they are) to give the benefit of the doubt to the professional mariner or to those serving our country. And there will be no apologies for that. So continue your vendetta against the CG and our military for not living up to your standards of perfection, and have fun with that. I'll refrain from name calling, although anybody who has witnessed your rants can fill in the blanks on their own with little problem.

NY CAP

have you ever served in the armed forces of this country

travler