Coast Guard procedures

[48d north]

Ann, Our thoughts exactly, slow down and think. Unfortunately with their refusal to speak to us and coming along side very fast the first time it left us with no time to prepare. Urgh....
14murs14, I believe you are right in that they were all young and we were told it was an inspection requirement day for them and they go out no matter the weather. Unfortunately for us they were a bit inexperienced.

Mike O', As we live on the border at TB most of our sailing is in Canada as well. 35 years there and never boarded by either. Both sides of the border generally go out of their way to make life smoother for you.



Well, life's an adventure and we're still learning.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by 14murs14

There is no "culture" unless one considers doing ones job a culture, and it's most certainly not done for "training" or because the folks doing the boardings enjoy them (most would rather be doing anything but) or just woke up with a wild hair that day and decided to go harass some folks. The Coast Guard has a requirement to conduct safety boardings, it's a mission that's funded and dictated by Congess. If you're a member of the military (which all active duty and reserve Coasties are) you do what your boss, the American public through our elected officials, pays you to do. The Coast Guard also does SAR, pollution enforcement, aids to navigation, Homeland security, drug enforcement, and a myriad of other missions because they're exactly that, statutory missions. I didn't like doing migrant interdiction or marijuana busts, but the day I put on the uniform was the day I stopped having a say in what the mission was beyond that of any other citizen voter. If you want that mission to go away contact your Congressman, not the military guy who is following a lawful order and doing the job you the voter told him to do.

What's the justification for the requirement? I wasn't there when the deliberations were being made. I do know that I had to risk my life a number of times rescuing boaters who lacked proper safety equipment. I also know a number of people needlessly die every year because they lack the required safety equipment. And I know that we have hundereds of pollution incidents every year from folks that don't have systems configured properly. Those are all things that a boarding looks at. The last thing they're looking for is criminal activity outside dumping pollution or something like a BWI that makes everyone on the water less safe.

That said, the vast majority of Coasties are professionals. A number of the folks crewing small boats are very junior and very young (could be a 20 year old just a couple years out of high school) and some of them occasionally need some guidance, either to improve their judgement or their skill. If you see them do something you honestly feel was unsafe or just ill advised from a seamanship perspective, by all means call up and ask to talk to their officer in charge. They'll welcome hearing from you, otherwise it's hard for them to know what their folks are doing because they're a long way away from the office. I would be shocked if you got anything other than a professional reception from doing so, and although retired I'd probably call them up myself if someone credible here posted that they received anything less.

Hi, you are obviously a long timer in the CG and show that with your detailed explanation of all that NEEDS to be done by the CG, but I do have to ask how most of the rest of the world manages without all this inspection and interdiction.
We just seem to be going about our own business with minimal supervision, how we manage is beyond me!

[Sojourner]

In truly dangerous boarding conditions I would have literally lost my everloving **** and told them to f off and sailed to the nearest safe harbor, informing them more or less politely of the danger to my vessel and my crew. I sailed thru a french firing range a few months back in a bad storm because the detour would have been a few hours, so I didn't so much as ask, but told.....what are they gonna do? shoot? Course, I am a bit of a hothead, and have gotten away with dishing out major rations of chit to border guards in a dozen countries for one bribe or another (some justified, some later learned not....ooops). 100% success rate so far...as they say, don't let the bastards grind you down

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Hi, you are obviously a long timer in the CG and show that with your detailed explanation of all that NEEDS to be done by the CG, but I do have to ask how most of the rest of the world manages without all this inspection and interdiction.
We just seem to be going about our own business with minimal supervision, how we manage is beyond me!

good question

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/au...ferry-disaster

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...05-gvzfta.html

Sydney Circular Quay ferry accident leaves 19 people injured - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kiribati devastated as ferry disaster leaves 23 school students missing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a6ea6447b189cd

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...c49eb9cbfa3eb3

[14murs14]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Hi, you are obviously a long timer in the CG and show that with your detailed explanation of all that NEEDS to be done by the CG, but I do have to ask how most of the rest of the world manages without all this inspection and interdiction.
We just seem to be going about our own business with minimal supervision, how we manage is beyond me!

Actually a good point. I'll admit I myself wonder how much data analysis goes into the rules Congress imposes on us and if you did a regression on mishaps and loss of life vs how rigorous safety inspection were in various jurisdictions I'd love to see the results. Like I said, pretty much every Coastie would prefer to do SAR and not have to do boardings, the small boat crewman wasn't the one who decided the NEED, and neither was I.

That said, I just wanted to dispel the idea, especially by one of the earlier posters, that Coasties are some gumbn't force of jack booted thugs violating people's constitutional rights on a whim, with alleged retribution to anyone who cares complain to boot! Sadly everyone in law enforcement everywhere ends up being required to enforce some ascinine rules with dubious value. After all until recently taxi drivers were getting fined $100 in NSW for wearing brown shoes because there was a law that made it illegal to wear an improper uniform in a taxi rank. How taxi drivers in the rest of the world manage is beyond me!

[Group9]

Originally Posted by CharlzO

I'm curious if there is any liability placed on them for the damage to the stanchions. And as the OP said, if it were a lesser boat, it could've been even more damage. So would they be held accountable to repair that, or is it like many powers of authority where if it happens in the line of them "doing their job", tough cookies?

All you have to do is request a federal tort claim form and list the damage. They usually pay without much protest.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by 14murs14

That said, the vast majority of Coasties are professionals. A number of the folks crewing small boats are very junior and very young (could be a 20 year old just a couple years out of high school) and some of them occasionally need some guidance, either to improve their judgement or their skill. If you see them do something you honestly feel was unsafe or just ill advised from a seamanship perspective, by all means call up and ask to talk to their officer in charge. They'll welcome hearing from you, .

LOL. You mean like two years ago when Station Sodus brought a cruiser in tied alongside and promptly ran the thing into the dock?


Officer in charge, right. That's like complaining to the USFWS Agent in Charge. Or calling the United Airlines manager in Honolulu and complaining about his rude staff. You're then talking to the person who is the problem, not the solution. A properly run station doesn't have these kind of problems because they have leadership. When juniors run amok or make absolutely stupid decisions (such as boarding a boat in bad weather) it can be traced to the person in charge.



Stop defending an organization and staff that demonstrate deficiency. I'm sure some USCG stations are well run. In my experience, those on Lake Ontario are not- and apparently not on Lake Erie either.


Whatever pisspoor armchair logic is used, there is no reasonable excuse to board a boat under sail on Lake Erie during challenging conditions.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by DotDun

good question

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/au...ferry-disaster

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...05-gvzfta.html

Sydney Circular Quay ferry accident leaves 19 people injured - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kiribati devastated as ferry disaster leaves 23 school students missing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...a6ea6447b189cd

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...c49eb9cbfa3eb3

Well done, a series of commercial ferry accidents from various parts of the world but nothing re privately owned and operated pleasure vessels.
I am sure that a thorough search of google will reveal that accidents in this category happen everywhere and that the apparently rigorous inspection and interdiction program carried out by the USCG doesn't alter the statistical outcome much if at all.

[Jim Cate]

A look at the CG's own accident reports shows that cruising size sailboats are involved in a tiny, tiny fraction of incidents, accidents or BWI busts. I don't think that I've seen any data about drug interdiction events relative to type and size of boats, so can't speak to that issue. However, to justify stopping a sailing yacht in bad weather as adding to our safety afloat seems a bit askew, and to deny the request to carry out the inspection in a nearby safe harbor does not reflect well upon the wisdom and seamanship of the boarding officers.

We've been out of the country for many years now, but in the 70s and 80s when we sailed in SF Bay, all our interactions with the CG were carried out safely and with respect on both sides. It's sad to hear what that proud service has become.

Jim

[bletso]

Originally Posted by Sojourner

In truly dangerous boarding conditions I would have literally lost my everloving **** and told them to f off and sailed to the nearest safe harbor, informing them more or less politely of the danger to my vessel and my crew. I sailed thru a french firing range a few months back in a bad storm because the detour would have been a few hours, so I didn't so much as ask, but told.....what are they gonna do? shoot? Course, I am a bit of a hothead, and have gotten away with dishing out major rations of chit to border guards in a dozen countries for one bribe or another (some justified, some later learned not....ooops). 100% success rate so far...as they say, don't let the bastards grind you down

Yes, I have done that as well, but there are countries where that is not a prudent thing to do such as the US.

[14murs14]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

LOL. You mean like two years ago when Station Sodus brought a cruiser in tied alongside and promptly ran the thing into the dock?


Officer in charge, right. That's like complaining to the USFWS Agent in Charge. Or calling the United Airlines manager in Honolulu and complaining about his rude staff. You're then talking to the person who is the problem, not the solution. A properly run station doesn't have these kind of problems because they have leadership. When juniors run amok or make absolutely stupid decisions (such as boarding a boat in bad weather) it can be traced to the person in charge.



Stop defending an organization and staff that demonstrate deficiency. I'm sure some USCG stations are well run. In my experience, those on Lake Ontario are not- and apparently not on Lake Erie either.


Whatever pisspoor armchair logic is used, there is no reasonable excuse to board a boat under sail on Lake Erie during challenging conditions.

Just to be clear, you've never called a Coast Guard officer in charge to report something that concerned you. But you did have a bad experience with a United Airlines station manager in Honolulu once, so clearly it's pointless to call a Coast Guard station officer in charge? Just making sure I had the logic right on that one.

Tetepare's misplaced anger issues aside, it is really doing everyone a disservice if you don't call when you see an issue. Like I said, you've got a bunch of young kids who's boss often can't be out on the water with them by design of a 24/7 operation and for sure some of them will act imprudently. The officer in charge is genuinely helped out when a boater with decades of experience calls in to report their concerns, and that makes the station more professional which helps all boaters. If you're professional you'll get a professional response, if anyone has actually experienced otherwise I'd love to hear it, although I think it reasonable to ask that you refrain from sharing your experience with Indian call centers when trying to get your cell service sorted as a handy substitute to make some kind of point?

As an aside, the Coast Guard has max 4 year tours for everyone. With the exception of some rare extensions, the staff at a given small boat station will be completely different in 4 years from the staff today, and every year roughly 1/4 of the staff come from elsewhere. The stations are also starting to get a pretty robust standardization program for both training and operation to ensure they all operate in the same manner. As a result, any kind of broad brush conclusion that "the stations on X all have people who Y" doesn't really make a lot of sense. Of course even less so when based on 2 data points deduced from an armchair in Ohio.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Well done, a series of commercial ferry accidents from various parts of the world but nothing re privately owned and operated pleasure vessels.
I am sure that a thorough search of google will reveal that accidents in this category happen everywhere and that the apparently rigorous inspection and interdiction program carried out by the USCG doesn't alter the statistical outcome much if at all.

Please provide the results of your search....

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by 14murs14

..... As a result, any kind of broad brush conclusion that "the stations on X all have people who Y" doesn't really make a lot of sense. Of course even less so when based on 2 data points deduced from an armchair in Ohio.

14murs14, don't let 'em wear you down! Those complaining are, as you surmise, cantankerous arm chair old farts that have a genetic defect that causes them to complain about everything.

[Mike OReilly]

I have great respect for the men and women who risk their lives in the coast guards. The thing I take exception to is the arbitrary, without-cause, stops of any boater. Unlike a land police stop, there must be at least the pretext of a just cause. Not so on the water.

I too would love to see the evidence which shows these arbitrary and random “safety checks” do anything to improve safety. I’m willing to bet the effect is minimal to negligible.

But even if it does result in improved safety stats, that still doesn’t justify the exercise of arbitrary authority in a so-called free society. If safety is the only goal, then enforcing a tough and updatable boating license scheme would likely do far more. Or heck, we could stop allowing people on the water in recreational boats; THAT would make everyone safer.

I don’t think it is unreasonable for people who apparently live in a free society to question any arbitrary action by its police or military.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have great respect for the men and women who risk their lives in the coast guards. The thing I take exception to is the arbitrary, without-cause, stops of any boater. Unlike a land police stop, there must be at least the pretext of a just cause. Not so on the water.

I too would love to see the evidence which shows these arbitrary and random “safety checks” do anything to improve safety. I’m willing to bet the effect is minimal to negligible.

But even if it does result in improved safety stats, that still doesn’t justify the exercise of arbitrary authority in a so-called free society. If safety is the only goal, then enforcing a tough and updatable boating license scheme would likely do far more. Or heck, we could stop allowing people on the water in recreational boats; THAT would make everyone safer.

I don’t think it is unreasonable for people who apparently live in a free society to question any arbitrary action by its police or military.

So the question is, how does having this discussion in this venue affect any change to the protested actions?

How many that are here complaining are actually conveying their thoughts to those that are able to make changes?

Yeah, I get upset when people complain about elected officials only to find out those complaining didn't even vote!