Tragic accident: USCG & pleasure boat

Oh and just a slight correction...


according to that article, there were 13 people aboard a 24' vessel.

Not 26'.

Even better.

Yep, even more reason to run them down and kill their kid and put a few more in the hospital and cost the tax payer millions of dollars....

If that's what you're suggesting, I suggest you seek professional help.

It becomes obvious by the comments of those who have and those who have NOT had to interface with the American public in the conduct of their official, uniformed (ill fitting or not) duties. There are no more difficult, condescending or demanding people in the world ESPECIALLY when they are wrong or legitimately questioned.

Walk a mile in those jack boots and report back to me then, sailors. You will have a far different opinion after having to deal with a hot rod go fast driver with more grease on his head than his IO drive and enough gold around his neck to fill all of our teeth.

Never forget that every at every encounter the men & women in uniform must be prepared to protect themselves and the public from a potential crack head with a Glock.

That is not the say that every agency (ICE, DEA, police, USCG, military, etc) is not repleat with their share of individual nut case, Napolean-complexed, jerks who want to demonstrate their power; however, to paint every public official in uniform with the same demeaning brush would be as incorrect as any other ignorant stereotype.

Regarding the SAN accident, that's why they call them "accidents." Again, without walking in the coxswain's shoes, hearing the SOS call, and seeing what he saw and/or was told; to condemn an entire organization for his actions is plain wrong. From experience, sure he was going too fast because his speed obviously exceeded his range of vision, but having run very large yachts on nightly cocktails cruises in perhaps the world's busiest harbor of Victoria in Hong Kong surrounded by nav lights and lights reflecting from all angles and heights on all sides of the harbor with radar contacts too numerous to track, having 3 other officers on the bridge constantly calculating/estimating right-of-way and crossing situations; one thing you learn is to point to the dark hole where, in the darkness contrasted with millions of lights, there appears to be nothing. When an unlighted junk - or boatload of party people - appear out of nowhere dead ahead, it gets hairy backing 1500 tons of moving mass in a timely manner without spilling drinks.

Perhaps the coxswain saw the black hole escape route but not the unlighted 23 footer that was filling the gap, yet if he could not come to DIW within his range of sight; he was going too fast.

Poorly trained, I doubt it. Inexperienced, surely. Purposefully macho, probably not. Bad judgment regarding speed management, absolutely. Out of work and punished, most likely.

Finally, with all due respect, I do not believe the arrogance and general dismissal of public opinion by the current Administration is reflected in or indicative of the professionalism and service demonstrated by our uniformed men and women on a 24/7 basis. They have low paying, thankless jobs where at times self respect is all you have to make it seem worthwhile.

Are you trying to make some sort of point? Do you seriously believe that if there were fewer people on that boat the CG driver would not have hit him?

The victim got hit because the CG boat was speeding through a crowded anchorage in the dark with no one looking where they were going. You might as well say it was the victim's own fault because his boat was fiberglass instead of aluminum.

Why are you struggling to find some way to believe that the blame for this lies with the victims? What kind of thought process can possibly lead you to think that the number of people on that victim's boat had the slightest thing to do with this tragedy?

Why is it so important for you to deny the fact that the CG screwed up so horribly that you are ready to blame the innocent victims? That is so very sick.

It's called mitigating circumstances; contributing factors. If the boat is blacked out due too many persons on board obscuring the running lights or unable to move out of the way due to weight maybe the coxwaine only deserves life in prison instead of execution.

This was no more an accident than when a drunk driver hits someone. There are more than enough examples of what is likely to happen when driving drunk or speeding through the dark with no one looking where they are going.

So the official report is that the victim's boat was unlighted? I was not aware the investigation was complete and that was in the findings. Saying that as if it were a fact is no different than saying the coxswain was drunk or stoned.

Punished for what? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Has the investigation been completed and the court marshal already finished? What were the charges and what was the guy punished for? If you know the findings how about sharing them?

If the coxswain was properly trained this would not have happened, period. There is no way to counter that fact. Proper training would have instilled the the knowledge that high speed operation in dark waterways crowded with recreational boats is likely to lead to a collision. Proper training would have lead to the use of radar, searchlight and eyeballs, and limited speed or a different course to avoid a congested area.

Proper training and supervision would have prevented this tragedy. The CG itself admits its small boat operators have not been trained properly and they lack adequate supervision. Read their own investigative reports.

They have jobs they volunteered to do. Their rate of pay does not change their responsibility to adhere to safe operating practices.

Do you really believe what you just wrote? Where are the nav lights on the victim boat that they would be blocked? Is there a minimum evasion speed requirement in the vicinity of CG boats now?

I have something to tell you that might not make you feel very good; there is no Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny is a fictional character, and no matter how much you love the flag and get all aquiver at the sight of a young man in a uniform, the CG has a bunch of poorly trained and inadequately supervised small boat operators running around. One of them just killed an 8 year old boy.

And so far, there are only two of you posting here who suggest execution or imprisonment for the coxswain. Both of you are struggling to blame the victim for some reason.

According to the SR site their bow rider models are 175, 205, 230 & 270. This appears to be a 230. The nav lights are located exactly where a person in the bow seats would drape their arm, especially in an over-crowded boat. Mitigating factors are not by definition vindicating factors and equating an accident involving a CG vessel responding to a call to a drive-by shooting or a drunk driver is beyond irresponsible. It destroys your credibility. I will not respond further to your rants nor waste any more time reading them.

Upon closer examination it appears that at least one YF member is unable to connect thoughts and must take statements totally out of context. Reading and copying is not enough, you must at least try comprehend as well.

If you are driving at night, perhaps a little too quickly, arrive at a dark intersection, decide that there is no crossing traffic and continue through the intersection only to hit a car crossing from the right (who has the right of way but no lights on), who is at fault? You are speeding (coxswain), the other has the right of way (being overtaken) but lights not on (who knows - lights off, blocked or just not seen)?

Take off your blinders and try to understand that there are two sides, sometimes more, to every story. There is no doubt that the CG coxswain has some measure of culpability, but there MAY indeed be some mitigating circumstances about which we only surmise.

Belligerence does not imply correctness, it is just loud noise. This discussion has become more like the deaf members of Congress - unable to hear, listen to or consider the insights that other perspectives may offer - rather than a professionally minded maritime exchange of information and experiences.

Think I'll go back to the sidelines.........

It is rather difficult to take the statement declaring that the victim boat was showing no lights in any other context. It is equally difficult to take out of context a statement that the coxswain has been punished.

And if you are going to play the sympathy card, I believe the father of the dead child holds a better hand than the underpaid and undervalued coastie who would have been better served with self control than self esteem.

If you are going to weigh in and add more to the "blame the victim" movement here by pretending to know the victim was unlighted, overloaded, and somehow shares responsibility for his son's death, you have to expect to be called on for it. If you can't handle being taken to task for claiming circumstances that have not been shown to be fact then the sidelines are a better place to stand.

And to the good captain from New YorK:

The dead child's father stated that the CG boat was approaching from behind at a rapid rate of speed. As a highly qualified Son of Magellan with many renewals on your 100-ton ticket you must have at some time known the angles of visibility of side lights. Do you believe they were visible from astern? No? Well then why are you trying so hard to blame the victim just because someone might have had an elbow over a light that would have been invisible in any event? And how good are you at picking out a stern light among the background of who knows how many other boats and the shore lights? By your reasoning, the victim is at fault because he was there ... or his simply being there is mitigation enough because if he was not there the blind and speeding coxswain would have missed him.

As far as overloading goes, if you knew how to read a boat's limitations placard, you would know that it states the number of persons / maximum weight. That means that if 5 or 6 of those passengers were children the boat was most likely well under the maximum allowed. Do you have some insight you haven't cared to share or does that fact not fit in with the "blame the victim" argument?

Is the problem that your faith in the CG is fractured or is it that you really can't understand the risk of running at high speed at night through a crowded anchorage without looking where you are going? If you guys need to find something to mitigate this tragedy, look for something other than nonsense about elbows and overloading.

There is no mitigation for the incident itself. There probably is for the coxswain, it is an institutional failure to provide him with the skill to prevent the collision. All you have to do is read the CG's own investigative reports to find the reasons this tragedy occurred. The cost to the taxpayer for this tragedy would have gone a long way toward better training and supervision.

No, I was pointing out the irrelevance of your comment. How many people are on what boat has no mitigating factor on them being run down.

That is not the scenario though. Regardless the lighting on any particular vessel, that is a crowded anchorage ever since the SDHD forced all the boats out of the anchorage off Shelter Island 20+ years ago and put in moorings. There were even more people there that evening for the boat parade. To blast through that area under any circumstances, much less the ones given, is to operate at an unsafe speed. Heck, there are people out there rowing small dinghys back and forth to their boats that need only carry a flashlight. That's all there is to it, there is no mitigation for that. The CG Coxswain and his CO have COMPLETE culpability in this accident.

It amuses me that you follow an extreme and denigrating generalization with an admonishment not to generalize.

It saddens me that you are rationalizing the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset pervasive within US law enforcement agencies today. A local police agency recently showed off its new "ghost cars" - marked in the same color as the paint, no roof lights, etc. - in order to not prevent lawbreaking but to catch people breaking the law.

When did we become this nation?

(9/12/01)

Clearly stated that vessel was "in the channel" not the anchorage area.

You might have hit the nail on the head right there, Cap.

Who clearly stated that?

The problem is the USCG has young men that are 21 +/- years old running these 60 mph boats. While they may or may not have the proper training. I just don't believe that a lot of have the maturity to make the proper decisions in some rescue situations.

The news article stated that it was a 26' Searay. It says nothing about the operator not having the proper safety equipment or that his NAV lights were not working.

If you want to get in a quote war ... the San Diego newspaper article clearly stated the following"

"It was going really fast and there were a lot of boats anchored in that area."

"The boat was among a dozen anchored on the bay to view the parade."

So there, my quotes fit my argument better than your quotes ... if you would like to wait for the investigation you will have a stronger position. As is you are generalizing and dreaming of a way to blame the victim in order to find some way to excuse the CG for not training or supervising yet one more of its small boat operators.

If you want the CG's own version of the underlying cause of this tragedy, all you have to do is read their own reports of recent similar incidents. Why you think this one is any different is beyond comprehension unless it is a blind adherence to some belief that the CG can do no wrong. Do you deny the CG's own findings of inadequate training and supervision?

Can you deny the fundamental truth that the CG boat was operating at too high a speed for the conditions and did not use every means at its disposal to prevent a collision? The fact that the collision occurred is proof of that condition. The fact that it happened is proof that the training was inadequate to prevent speeding in the dark without knowledge of what lie ahead.