From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 6 12:48:09 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. ? 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. ? 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. ? WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon ? From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 6 12:56:48 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (River Dolfi via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 12:56:48 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jon, PSUBS needs a lawyer on retainer. This is an existential threat. Thanks, -River J. Dolfi 412-997-2526 rdolfi7 at gmail.com On Wed, Aug 6, 2025, 12:49 via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to > personal_submersibles at psubs.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Great White Submarine FOR SALE > (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) > 2. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) > 3. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) > 4. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) > 5. USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications > (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:36:53 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion > > Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Great White Submarine FOR SALE > Message-ID: <1968732794.589786.1751816213378 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hello folks, > > Great White, a highly modified K-250 owned by Scott Cassell, is being > offered for sale with an asking price of $25,000 (USD) including the > trailer. This vessel is being sold NOT OPERATING and there is a Liability > Release required to be signed for the purchase. > > Inquiries: jon.wallace at yahoo.com or scottcassell at live.com > > Here is a description from Scott Cassell: > > Originally built by George Kittredge in 1974, it was upgraded in 2006, > 2013, 2023 and is currently located in Osprey, Florida, USA. > > Her 24VDC and 12VDC need to be re-wired due to salt-intrusion but the base > wiring is in place to use as a template if you wish to wire her the same > way we did. The salt intrusion was only once and it happened last year > during a long-ocean tow and a storm hit us and the dome hatch was cracked > open. The huge waves delivered water into the hull 4 inches deep getting > ALL the wiring wet. Now electrical shorts are starting to happen and up to > 85% of the wiring needs to be replaced. Also, the exterior DSP&L wiring for > the four LED lights are UV rotted and need to be spliced. > > Her dome ring / hatch needs a new "O" ring and the four ballast solenoids > need to be installed (12V system) to the already existing interior 12V > buttons. The thruster batteries still work well but need replacing soon > (Nellis Engineering in California is manuf). > > The thrusters, batteries and lights are all included along with chargers, > oxygen whips and other support equipment. She could be easily diving with > just 20 hours work and she includes most everything you will need. > > Tested depth is 550 ffw (Lake Tahoe) > Locations she has dove: Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake, Tioman, Philippines, > Switzerland, California Coast, Florida Keys > > Total dives 1,212 > Total Time Underwater 3,301 hours > > Dimensions > Length 12 feet 6 inches > Width 6 feet 4 inches > Height 5 feet 2 inches > Weight 3,300 pounds > > Systems > Thruster Power 62 VDC > House Power 24VDC > Four DSP&L LED Lights > Solenoid Valves (4 ballast) 12VDC > Main Thrusters Genesis DPV Reversible > Vertical Thruster MinnKota 24 VDC compensated > > Personnel Two, mission specialist & pilot > Ballast Air Provided by Two Blue Steel 149 cuft tanks > Ballast Pontoons Two aluminum 12 ft long x 1 ft wide & tall (one on either > side) > Ports; One Main Dome (1? thick), 16? bow port (2? thick) and two on tower > (3? thick) > Drop Weight 300 pounds on belly > Communications OTS SSB 2010 > Oxygen Two Blue Steel 50 cuft tanks > Life Support O2 injection CO2 removal > Max Duration 24 Hours Life Support > Electrical Power 4 hrs full speed, 16 hrs > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 18:03:30 -0400 > From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles > > To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Someone must have a contact in Australia. > > About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped > submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? > > What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" > made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the > fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other > overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. > > > Mike > > > On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > > designs look like and how effective they would be. > -- > > The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 00:06:56 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" > Message-ID: <1748714034.680643.1751846816592 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar > article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug > subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe > them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to > sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic > after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? > Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch > someone's eye. > > > https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 > > Jon > > > > > On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 06:09:37 PM EDT, Michael Holt via > Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > > > > > Someone must have a contact in Australia. > > About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped > submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? > > What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" > made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the > fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other > overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. > > > Mike > > > On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > > designs look like and how effective they would be. > -- > > The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 22:19:58 -0400 > From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Thanks for the link. > > The cover of /Fortean Times /offers "The World's Weirdest News" and "The > World of Strange Phenomena." That should be sufficient warning!? The > same person who told me about that told me that /People/ magazine had an > article about the /Titan/, but it was off the stands before I could get it. > > > Mike > > > On 7/6/2025 8:06 PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar > article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug > subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe > them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to > sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic > after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? > Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch > someone's eye. > > > > > https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 > > > > Jon > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20250707/09d2c336/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) > From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > > To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion > > Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and > Ramifications > Message-ID: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Psubbers, > > This is a long message, but please read. > > The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the > Titan submersible implosion at > > https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF > > Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible > industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official > discussion relative to our own organization. > > Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick > in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement > to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing > this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define > our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE > the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible > fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be > recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect > us. > > >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that > private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to > regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? > It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational > submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 > (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. > To wit: > > USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 > ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels > manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or > chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this > category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating > Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not > apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating > restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case > basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of > a recreational submersible.? > > As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, > the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should > have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our > interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers > (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in > research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy > quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it > should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. > > > > The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the > USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target > vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the > following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related > pursuits. > > 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working > group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible > industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on > operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast > Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners > from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also > potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant > operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to > clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. > > PSUBS POSITION > PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to > update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot > afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government > itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the > USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in > discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never > accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some > responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often > taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of > mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no > longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG > Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group > organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may > impact our organization.? Addit! > ionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to > conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns > relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering > communication between us. > > ? > > 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which > requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity > or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant > other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and > maintained under those standards. > > PSUBS POSITION > Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a > serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it > essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the > current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger > carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it > would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an > occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this > unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary > passengers who are not for hire. > > ? > > 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel > documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. > submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a > USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned > and recorded in the MISLE database. > > PSUBS POSITION > We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used > to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and > science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the > range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board > could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that > this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from > providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. > > ? > > WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) > Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of > the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how > this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern > if it has not been addressed already. > > Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should > address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak > with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need > to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present > ourselves. > > Jon > > ? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 > ***************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 6 14:37:11 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Greg via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 13:37:11 -0500 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1EB2413F-1A05-4994-9271-CD265236B7CF@edison.tech> Agree! > > On Aug 6, 2025 at 11:50 AM, wrote: > > > > Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future. While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA. It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests. Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator. We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant. While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us. We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input. It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention. Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach. This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization. Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper. This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles. If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified. It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA. This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February. The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 6 14:46:17 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 18:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <930509605.1444230.1754505977135@mail.yahoo.com> My apologies for not having time to read the original post right now.? However after the 2010 Psubs convention we developed protocols and safety standards for any Psubs sanctioned event.? Any person diving in a sub whether as pilot or passenger is required to first sign an informed waiver.? We also designate a Safety Officer for each diving event.? That's not to say there is no need to review everything and possibly update something from time to time. ?As far as the Titan goes, there's no way I would have even considered going down in that thing.? I will not make any comment regarding it beyond that.? The differences between most of the Psubs submersibles and deep sea submersibles is analogous to the difference between a light aircraft and the Space Shuttle.?It's helpful if you include your name with you comment since it doesn't necessarily identify the source unless you intentionally prefer to remain anonymous.?Thanks,Jim Todd In a message dated 8/6/2025 11:57:15 AM Central Daylight Time, personal_submersibles at psubs.org writes:? Jon,PSUBS needs a lawyer on retainer. This is an existential threat.?Thanks,?-River J. Dolfi 412-997-2526rdolfi7 at gmail.com On Wed, Aug 6, 2025, 12:49 via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles at psubs.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ? ? ? ? http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org You can reach the person managing the list at ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..." Today's Topics: ? ?1. Great White Submarine FOR SALE ? ? ? (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?2. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?3. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?4. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?5. USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications ? ? ? (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:36:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion ? ? ? ? Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Great White Submarine FOR SALE Message-ID: <1968732794.589786.1751816213378 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello folks, Great White, a highly modified K-250 owned by Scott Cassell, is being offered for sale with an asking price of $25,000 (USD) including the trailer. This vessel is being sold NOT OPERATING and there is a Liability Release required to be signed for the purchase. Inquiries: jon.wallace at yahoo.com or scottcassell at live.com Here is a description from Scott Cassell: Originally built by George Kittredge in 1974, it was upgraded in 2006, 2013, 2023 and is currently located in Osprey, Florida, USA. Her 24VDC and 12VDC need to be re-wired due to salt-intrusion but the base wiring is in place to use as a template if you wish to wire her the same way we did. The salt intrusion was only once and it happened last year during a long-ocean tow and a storm hit us and the dome hatch was cracked open. The huge waves delivered water into the hull 4 inches deep getting ALL the wiring wet. Now electrical shorts are starting to happen and up to 85% of the wiring needs to be replaced. Also, the exterior DSP&L wiring for the four LED lights are UV rotted and need to be spliced. Her dome ring / hatch needs a new "O" ring and the four ballast solenoids need to be installed (12V system) to the already existing interior 12V buttons. The thruster batteries still work well but need replacing soon (Nellis Engineering in California is manuf). The thrusters, batteries and lights are all included along with chargers, oxygen whips and other support equipment. She could be easily diving with just 20 hours work and she includes most everything you will need. Tested depth is 550 ffw (Lake Tahoe) Locations she has dove: Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake, Tioman, Philippines, Switzerland, California Coast, Florida Keys Total dives 1,212 Total Time Underwater 3,301 hours Dimensions Length 12 feet 6 inches Width 6 feet 4 inches Height 5 feet 2 inches Weight 3,300 pounds Systems Thruster Power 62 VDC House Power 24VDC Four DSP&L LED Lights Solenoid Valves (4 ballast) 12VDC Main Thrusters Genesis DPV Reversible Vertical Thruster MinnKota 24 VDC compensated Personnel Two, mission specialist & pilot Ballast Air Provided by Two Blue Steel 149 cuft tanks Ballast Pontoons Two aluminum 12 ft long x 1 ft wide & tall (one on either side) Ports; One Main Dome (1? thick), 16? bow port (2? thick) and two on tower (3? thick) Drop Weight 300 pounds on belly Communications OTS SSB 2010 Oxygen Two Blue Steel 50 cuft tanks Life Support O2 injection CO2 removal Max Duration 24 Hours Life Support Electrical Power 4 hrs full speed, 16 hrs ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 18:03:30 -0400 From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Someone must have a contact in Australia. About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. Mike On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > designs look like and how effective they would be. -- The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 00:06:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: <1748714034.680643.1751846816592 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch someone's eye. https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 Jon On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 06:09:37 PM EDT, Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Someone must have a contact in Australia. About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. Mike On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > designs look like and how effective they would be. -- The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 22:19:58 -0400 From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Thanks for the link. The cover of /Fortean Times /offers "The World's Weirdest News" and "The World of Strange Phenomena." That should be sufficient warning!? The same person who told me about that told me that /People/ magazine had an article about the /Titan/, but it was off the stands before I could get it. Mike On 7/6/2025 8:06 PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch someone's eye. > > https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 > > Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion ? ? ? ? Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and ? ? ? ? Ramifications Message-ID: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Addit! ?ionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. ? 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. ? 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. ? WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon ? ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 ***************************************************** _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 6 20:16:32 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 00:16:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <930509605.1444230.1754505977135@mail.yahoo.com> References: <930509605.1444230.1754505977135@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1378544097.1504871.1754525792630@mail.yahoo.com> Jon,?The work day is over now, and I've read your complete post.? I completely support your comments and recommendations.?Psubs and its members have an excellent safety record which is quite demonstrable.? However the USCG is going to be concerned that some renegade amateur will build and operate a dangerous vessel resulting in a casualty, and then they will be blamed for failing to establish and enforce non-commercial certification standards.? Also it seems to be the nature of any government agency to attempt to extend their regulatory domain.?Best regards,Jim T. In a message dated 8/6/2025 1:46:33 PM Central Daylight Time, personal_submersibles at psubs.org writes:? My apologies for not having time to read the original post right now.? However after the 2010 Psubs convention we developed protocols and safety standards for any Psubs sanctioned event.? Any person diving in a sub whether as pilot or passenger is required to first sign an informed waiver.? We also designate a Safety Officer for each diving event.? That's not to say there is no need to review everything and possibly update something from time to time. ?As far as the Titan goes, there's no way I would have even considered going down in that thing.? I will not make any comment regarding it beyond that.? The differences between most of the Psubs submersibles and deep sea submersibles is analogous to the difference between a light aircraft and the Space Shuttle.?It's helpful if you include your name with you comment since it doesn't necessarily identify the source unless you intentionally prefer to remain anonymous.?Thanks,Jim Todd In a message dated 8/6/2025 11:57:15 AM Central Daylight Time, personal_submersibles at psubs.org writes:? Jon,PSUBS needs a lawyer on retainer. This is an existential threat.?Thanks,?-River J. Dolfi 412-997-2526rdolfi7 at gmail.com On Wed, Aug 6, 2025, 12:49 via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles at psubs.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ? ? ? ? http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org You can reach the person managing the list at ? ? ? ? personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..." Today's Topics: ? ?1. Great White Submarine FOR SALE ? ? ? (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?2. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?3. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?4. Re: "SUB-TERFUGE" (Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles) ? ?5. USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications ? ? ? (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:36:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion ? ? ? ? Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Great White Submarine FOR SALE Message-ID: <1968732794.589786.1751816213378 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello folks, Great White, a highly modified K-250 owned by Scott Cassell, is being offered for sale with an asking price of $25,000 (USD) including the trailer. This vessel is being sold NOT OPERATING and there is a Liability Release required to be signed for the purchase. Inquiries: jon.wallace at yahoo.com or scottcassell at live.com Here is a description from Scott Cassell: Originally built by George Kittredge in 1974, it was upgraded in 2006, 2013, 2023 and is currently located in Osprey, Florida, USA. Her 24VDC and 12VDC need to be re-wired due to salt-intrusion but the base wiring is in place to use as a template if you wish to wire her the same way we did. The salt intrusion was only once and it happened last year during a long-ocean tow and a storm hit us and the dome hatch was cracked open. The huge waves delivered water into the hull 4 inches deep getting ALL the wiring wet. Now electrical shorts are starting to happen and up to 85% of the wiring needs to be replaced. Also, the exterior DSP&L wiring for the four LED lights are UV rotted and need to be spliced. Her dome ring / hatch needs a new "O" ring and the four ballast solenoids need to be installed (12V system) to the already existing interior 12V buttons. The thruster batteries still work well but need replacing soon (Nellis Engineering in California is manuf). The thrusters, batteries and lights are all included along with chargers, oxygen whips and other support equipment. She could be easily diving with just 20 hours work and she includes most everything you will need. Tested depth is 550 ffw (Lake Tahoe) Locations she has dove: Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake, Tioman, Philippines, Switzerland, California Coast, Florida Keys Total dives 1,212 Total Time Underwater 3,301 hours Dimensions Length 12 feet 6 inches Width 6 feet 4 inches Height 5 feet 2 inches Weight 3,300 pounds Systems Thruster Power 62 VDC House Power 24VDC Four DSP&L LED Lights Solenoid Valves (4 ballast) 12VDC Main Thrusters Genesis DPV Reversible Vertical Thruster MinnKota 24 VDC compensated Personnel Two, mission specialist & pilot Ballast Air Provided by Two Blue Steel 149 cuft tanks Ballast Pontoons Two aluminum 12 ft long x 1 ft wide & tall (one on either side) Ports; One Main Dome (1? thick), 16? bow port (2? thick) and two on tower (3? thick) Drop Weight 300 pounds on belly Communications OTS SSB 2010 Oxygen Two Blue Steel 50 cuft tanks Life Support O2 injection CO2 removal Max Duration 24 Hours Life Support Electrical Power 4 hrs full speed, 16 hrs ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 18:03:30 -0400 From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Someone must have a contact in Australia. About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. Mike On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > designs look like and how effective they would be. -- The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 00:06:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: <1748714034.680643.1751846816592 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch someone's eye. https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 Jon On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 06:09:37 PM EDT, Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Someone must have a contact in Australia. About? ten years ago someone here talked about a shark-shaped submarine.? Would a squid be a model for a drug submarine? What might happen if a pod of orca encountered a "hyper-realistic whale" made of fiberglass?? Is it possible that someone wading out to meet the fake crocodile found that it was a real croc?? As with every other overly-clever dodge, the potential for disaster is unlimited. Mike On 7/5/2025 1:36 AM, James Huffman via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > That's an interesting idea. Would be interesting to see what thier > designs look like and how effective they would be. -- The amusement value of humans cannot be overestimated. _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 22:19:58 -0400 From: Michael Holt via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] "SUB-TERFUGE" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Thanks for the link. The cover of /Fortean Times /offers "The World's Weirdest News" and "The World of Strange Phenomena." That should be sufficient warning!? The same person who told me about that told me that /People/ magazine had an article about the /Titan/, but it was off the stands before I could get it. Mike On 7/6/2025 8:06 PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > I searched but was unable to find a photo of one.? I did find a similar article in "The Advertiser" from Queensland that referenced the same drug subs but did not use adjectives such as "hyper-realistic" to describe them.? I suspect the Fortean Times used a little literary license to sensationalize their article and the actual vessels are not so realistic after all.? The Marlin S-101 submarine used to be painted in Orca colors.? Not what I would consider hyper-realistic but close enough to catch someone's eye. > > https://i0.wp.com/makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/image2.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 > > Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles ? ? ? ? To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion ? ? ? ? Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and ? ? ? ? Ramifications Message-ID: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Addit! ?ionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. ? 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. ? 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. ? WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon ? ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 1 ***************************************************** _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Aug 8 08:55:34 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 12:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PC2026 Announcement In-Reply-To: <947561344.221225.1745280338527@mail.yahoo.com> References: <947561344.221225.1745280338527.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <947561344.221225.1745280338527@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <226535686.3338020.1754657734701@mail.yahoo.com> IMPORTANT NOTICE - DATE CHANGE We have changed the dates of PC2026 to Feb 11-14, 2026 to take advantage of sea conditions.? Details will be posted later however Technical Sessions are planned for Saturday Feb 14.?? Jon From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Aug 11 09:19:20 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:19:20 +0200 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! Br, Emile -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 Aan: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future. While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA. It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests. Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator. We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant. While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us. We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input. It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention. Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach. This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization. Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper. This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles. If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified. It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA. This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February. The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Aug 11 15:05:51 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:05:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> Message-ID: <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> To put it in perspective, in 2024 there were 556deaths in the USA attributed to recreational boating accidents, and 300,000 drowning deaths World wide.?Most of those deaths could have been prevented if everyone wore life jackets while?swimming & boating. But no one is going toagree to that.Alan Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 1:21 am, via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! Br, Emilegoing? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 Aan: Personal Submersibles Generalre? ?Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Mon Aug 11 17:52:10 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:52:10 +1200 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a601dc0b0a$32a86ef0$97f94cd0$@gmail.com> Hi Jon, It is time to review the options. Carsten Standfuss is an inspector for Swiss Lloyds, which have recognition for small submersibles such as ours. Although I do not have a certified sub, I have followed a path of genuine attempt to comply with ABS and GL limited by my budget. The extent to which I have gone is in keeping with what I understand as Carsten's requirements as follows: 1. Designed to comply with ABS, 2 Designed to ASME PVHO-1 2007 3. Passed FEA from Predictive Engineering for ASME / ABS approval 4. Manufactured PVHO with full inspection and pressure testing to 1.3 times Max depth, witnessed by SGS. 5. Employed consultant and specs for manufacture of fibreglass integral craft 6. Have Lloyds approved manufacture of viewports 7. Full manufacturing drawings 8. Maintenance manual 9. Operating manual 10. Stability Calculations (to be supported by stability testing) 11. Testing regime ( To be completed) 12. Ability to meet life support for 72 / 96 hrs (ABS / GL Req.) While it is cost prohibitive for some others to have similar claims, it may be possible for P-subs to have an inspector to get qualified to do an inspection similar to Carsten's position. Could we engage with the USCG and others to demonstrate and get an approval they are happy with. Pleasure craft are able to pursue their enjoyment as are microlight aircraft. Could we have a questionnaire derived from Cliff's, design/build, Kittredge subs and some others that if signed off show responsible builds, and some form of inspection. Hugh -----Original Message----- From: Personal_Submersibles On Behalf Of via Personal_Submersibles Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2025 7:06 am To: personal_submersibles at psubs.org Subject: Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 5 Send Personal_Submersibles mailing list submissions to personal_submersibles at psubs.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to personal_submersibles-request at psubs.org You can reach the person managing the list at personal_submersibles-owner at psubs.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Personal_Submersibles digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: PC2026 Announcement (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) 2. Re: USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications (via Personal_Submersibles) 3. Re: USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 12:55:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] PC2026 Announcement Message-ID: <226535686.3338020.1754657734701 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 IMPORTANT NOTICE - DATE CHANGE We have changed the dates of PC2026 to Feb 11-14, 2026 to take advantage of sea conditions.? Details will be posted later however Technical Sessions are planned for Saturday Feb 14.?? Jon ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:19:20 +0200 From: via Personal_Submersibles To: "'Personal Submersibles General Discussion'" Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Message-ID: <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! Br, Emile -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 Aan: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN %20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future. While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA. It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests. Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator. We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant. While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us. We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input. It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention. Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach. This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization. Addit! ionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper. This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles. If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified. It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA. This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February. The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:05:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Alan James via Personal_Submersibles To: Personal Submersibles General Discussion Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Message-ID: <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037 at mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To put it in perspective, in 2024 there were 556deaths in the USA attributed to recreational boating accidents, and 300,000 drowning deaths World wide.?Most of those deaths could have been prevented if everyone wore life jackets while?swimming & boating. But no one is going toagree to that.Alan Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 1:21 am, via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! Br, Emilegoing? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 Aan: Personal Submersibles Generalre? ?Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN %20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Addit! ionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.whoweb.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ------------------------------ End of Personal_Submersibles Digest, Vol 140, Issue 5 ***************************************************** From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Aug 12 14:00:18 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (David Colombo via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 11:00:18 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alan, hmm, I always wear my life preserver when diving inside the sub. Best Regards, David Colombo 804 College Ave Santa Rosa, CA. 95404 (707) 328-1224 www.SeaQuestor.com On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:06?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > To put it in perspective, in 2024 there were 556 > deaths in the USA attributed to recreational boating accidents, and > 300,000 drowning deaths World wide. > Most of those deaths could have been prevented if everyone wore life > jackets while > swimming & boating. But no one is going to > agree to that. > Alan > > Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 1:21 am, via Personal_Submersibles > wrote: > Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! > > Br, Emilegoing > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Personal_Submersibles > Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles > Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 > Aan: Personal Submersibles Generalre Discussion < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> > Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and > Ramifications > > Psubbers, > > This is a long message, but please read. > > The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the > Titan submersible implosion at > https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF > > Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible > industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official > discussion relative to our own organization. > > Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick > in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement > to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing > this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define > our future. While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE > the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible > fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be > recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect > us. > > From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that > private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to > regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA. > It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational > submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 > (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. > To wit: > > USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 > ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels > manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or > chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this > category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating > Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not > apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating > restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case > basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of > a recreational submersible.? > > As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, > the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should > have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our > interests. Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers > (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in > research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator. We enjoy > quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it > should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. > > > > The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the > USCG Commandant. While the majority of these recommendations target > vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the > following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related > pursuits. > > 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working > group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible > industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on > operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast > Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners > from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also > potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant > operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to > clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. > > PSUBS POSITION > PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to > update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us. We cannot > afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government > itself to revise this document without our input. It is notable that the > USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in > discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never > accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention. Regrettably, we own some > responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often > taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of > mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no > longer afford to take this approach. This month I will be writing the USCG > Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group > organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may > impact our organization. Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send > a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members > regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible > industry and to start fostering communication between us. > > > > 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which > requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity > or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant > other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and > maintained under those standards. > > PSUBS POSITION > Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a > serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it > essentially is a show stopper. This recommendation goes well beyond the > current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger > carrying, and recreational submersibles. If implemented as suggested it > would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an > occupant unless the vessel was certified. It is PSUBS position that this > unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary > passengers who are not for hire. > > > > 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel > documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. > submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a > USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned > and recorded in the MISLE database. > > PSUBS POSITION > We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used > to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and > science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the > range of SCUBA. This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board > could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that > this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from > providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. > > > > WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) > Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of > the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how > this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern > if it has not been addressed already. > > Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should > address with the USCG at PC2026 in February. The more that we can speak > with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need > to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present > ourselves. > > Jon > > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Aug 12 19:21:50 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Tim Novak via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:21:50 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Boating regs state that along with life jackets onboard, we must have a bailer too. In my case, rather than bailing water out of the boat, I have to bail air into it. Tim On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 11:00?AM David Colombo via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Alan, hmm, I always wear my life preserver when diving inside the sub. > Best Regards, > David Colombo > > 804 College Ave > Santa Rosa, CA. 95404 > (707) 328-1224 > www.SeaQuestor.com > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:06?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> To put it in perspective, in 2024 there were 556 >> deaths in the USA attributed to recreational boating accidents, and >> 300,000 drowning deaths World wide. >> Most of those deaths could have been prevented if everyone wore life >> jackets while >> swimming & boating. But no one is going to >> agree to that. >> Alan >> >> Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 1:21 am, via Personal_Submersibles >> wrote: >> Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! >> >> Br, Emilegoing >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: Personal_Submersibles >> Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles >> Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 >> Aan: Personal Submersibles Generalre Discussion < >> personal_submersibles at psubs.org> >> Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and >> Ramifications >> >> Psubbers, >> >> This is a long message, but please read. >> >> The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the >> Titan submersible implosion at >> https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF >> >> Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible >> industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official >> discussion relative to our own organization. >> >> Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick >> in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement >> to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing >> this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define >> our future. While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE >> the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible >> fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be >> recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect >> us. >> >> From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that >> private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to >> regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA. >> It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational >> submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 >> (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. >> To wit: >> >> USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 >> ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels >> manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or >> chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this >> category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating >> Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not >> apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating >> restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case >> basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of >> a recreational submersible.? >> >> As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, >> the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should >> have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our >> interests. Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers >> (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in >> research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator. We enjoy >> quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it >> should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. >> >> >> >> The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the >> USCG Commandant. While the majority of these recommendations target >> vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the >> following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related >> pursuits. >> >> 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working >> group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible >> industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on >> operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast >> Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners >> from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also >> potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant >> operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to >> clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. >> >> PSUBS POSITION >> PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to >> update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us. We cannot >> afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government >> itself to revise this document without our input. It is notable that the >> USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in >> discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never >> accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention. Regrettably, we own some >> responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often >> taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of >> mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no >> longer afford to take this approach. This month I will be writing the USCG >> Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group >> organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may >> impact our organization. Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send >> a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members >> regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible >> industry and to start fostering communication between us. >> >> >> >> 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which >> requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity >> or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant >> other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and >> maintained under those standards. >> >> PSUBS POSITION >> Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is >> a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it >> essentially is a show stopper. This recommendation goes well beyond the >> current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger >> carrying, and recreational submersibles. If implemented as suggested it >> would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an >> occupant unless the vessel was certified. It is PSUBS position that this >> unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary >> passengers who are not for hire. >> >> >> >> 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel >> documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. >> submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a >> USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned >> and recorded in the MISLE database. >> >> PSUBS POSITION >> We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used >> to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and >> science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the >> range of SCUBA. This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board >> could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that >> this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from >> providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. >> >> >> >> WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) >> Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of >> the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how >> this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern >> if it has not been addressed already. >> >> Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should >> address with the USCG at PC2026 in February. The more that we can speak >> with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need >> to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present >> ourselves. >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Tue Aug 12 20:41:46 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] =?utf-8?q?USCG_Marine_Investigation_Report_and=09?= =?utf-8?q?Ramifications?= In-Reply-To: References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <667631466.4855643.1755045706712@mail.yahoo.com> But not swimming.?I was mainly comparing other more dangerous water activities like swimming. That we could sight if authorities got too stringent with personal submersible regulations.?There are lots of examples. You can dive with sharks without a shark cage. Or row your 10ft dinghy in a storm.Alan Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 at 6:02 am, David Colombo via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Alan, hmm, I always?wear my life preserver when diving inside the sub.?Best Regards, David Colombo 804 College Ave Santa Rosa, CA. 95404 (707) 328-1224 www.SeaQuestor.com On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:06?PM Alan James via Personal_Submersibles wrote: To put it in perspective, in 2024 there were 556deaths in the USA attributed to recreational boating accidents, and 300,000 drowning deaths World wide.?Most of those deaths could have been prevented if everyone wore life jackets while?swimming & boating. But no one is going toagree to that.Alan Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 1:21 am, via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Thanks Jon, Will read it for sure! Br, Emilegoing? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Personal_Submersibles Namens Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles Verzonden: woensdag 6 augustus 2025 18:48 Aan: Personal Submersibles Generalre? ?Discussion Onderwerp: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Psubbers, This is a long message, but please read. The US Coast Guard has released their Marine Investigation report of the Titan submersible implosion at https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF Since this report is going to generate chatter throughout the submersible industry I thought it appropriate to make a statement and start an official discussion relative to our own organization. Now that the Marine Boards report is public we are sure to see an uptick in attention to the operation of our vessels and potentially some movement to save ourselves, from ourselves, and need to be proactive in addressing this issue rather than allowing some other agency or organization to define our future.? While we are not the largest organization in the world, we ARE the largest organization in the world associated with private submersible fabrication, operation, and ownership and therefore have standing to be recognized and heard regarding any government regulation that might affect us. >From PSUBS beginning it has always been my position, and still is, that private recreational use of our vessels is difficult for the government to regulate due to the ?pursuit of happiness? founding principles of the USA.? It is my opinion, for example, that this was one reason recreational submersibles had a specific section carved out for them in USCG NVIC 5-93 (see Chapter 1, B, 4) and were equated to pleasure surface boats. To wit: USCG NVIC 5-93, Chapter 1, B, 4 ?Recreational vessels, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(25), are vessels manufactured or operated primarily for pleasure, or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure. Submersibles within this category are subject to the requirements of 33 CFR Subchapter S - Boating Safety, Parts 173-183. The guidelines in this circular generally do not apply; however, depending on the area of operation, COTP operating restrictions may be appropriate. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines may be of assistance to a manufacturer or owner of a recreational submersible.? As optimistic as I am regarding our rights as private submersible owners, the Titan disaster does represent a potential impact to us and we should have a message ready to deliver to the US Coast Guard to protect our interests.? Specifically, I have concerns related to carrying passengers (not for hire) and impacts to private submersibles participating in research and/or acting as a non-passenger commercial operator.? We enjoy quite a bit of latitude given the language of NVIC 5-93, 1, B, 4 and it should be our goal to preserve it as currently written. The USCG Marine Investigation Board made 14 safety recommendations to the USCG Commandant.? While the majority of these recommendations target vessels conducting commercial and oceanographic research operations, the following draw my concern as potential serious impacts to our PSUBS related pursuits. 8.1.1. Recommendation #1: The USCG should establish an industry working group to review and update NVIC 5-93. During the investigation, submersible industry leaders indicated to the MBI that current USCG limitations on operating parameters, including the maximum depth of 150-feet for Coast Guard inspected passenger submersibles, was stifling submersible owners from exploring new passenger operations in U.S. navigable waters and also potentially incentivizing operators like OceanGate to conduct non compliant operations. An update to the NVIC would also provide an opportunity to clearly outline the process for certifying submersibles of novel design. PSUBS POSITION PSUBS *must* be included in any working group the government creates to update NVIC 5-93 and/or create regulations that may impact us.? We cannot afford to sit idly by and allow ?industry leaders? and/or the government itself to revise this document without our input.? It is notable that the USCG regularly attends the MTS Underwater Intervention and participates in discussions with MUV commercial attendees; however the USCG has never accepted an invitation to a PSUBS convention.? Regrettably, we own some responsibility for lack of communication with the USCG since we have often taken the philosophy of ?let sleeping dogs lie? and ?out of sight, out of mind? when considering our interaction with them; however I think we can no longer afford to take this approach.? This month I will be writing the USCG Commandant seeking inclusion of a PSUBS representative in any working group organized to review NVIC 5-93 and/or any other regulatory act that may impact our organization.? Additionally, I will be requesting the USCG send a representative to PC2026 to conduct discussions with PSUBS members regarding issues and concerns relative to our segment of the submersible industry and to start fostering communication between us. 8.1.6. Recommendation #6: The USCG should pursue a new regulation which requires all submersibles manufactured, owned, or operated by a U.S. entity or any submersible operating in U.S. navigable waters carrying any occupant other than the owner to be built to the standards of a USCG RO and maintained under those standards. PSUBS POSITION Any language requiring certification for privately owned submersibles is a serious detriment to our pursuits since from a financial perspective it essentially is a show stopper.? This recommendation goes well beyond the current wording in NVIC 5-93 which clearly demarcates commercial, passenger carrying, and recreational submersibles.? If implemented as suggested it would prevent us from carrying our own spouses, families, and friends as an occupant unless the vessel was certified.? It is PSUBS position that this unreasonably restricts our right to pursue sharing our hobby with voluntary passengers who are not for hire. 8.1.7. Recommendation #7: The USCG should pursue an update to the vessel documentation requirements in 46 CFR ? 67.7, to require all U.S. submersibles that conduct commercial or scientific operations to obtain a USCG Certificate of Documentation (COD) with an Official Number assigned and recorded in the MISLE database. PSUBS POSITION We currently have a number of privately owned submersibles that are used to conduct various types of research, free of charge, for universities and science organizations whom have a need for a deep diving vessel beyond the range of SCUBA.? This recommendation by the Marine Investigative board could have severe impact on those missions and it is PSUBS position that this recommendation unreasonably restricts a private submersible owner from providing a donated service targeted for the advance of science. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO (right now) Minimally all PSUBS members should read the ?Recommendations? section of the USCG Marine Investigation Board starting on page 324 and consider how this impacts you personally or our organization and raise it as a concern if it has not been addressed already. Additionally, start thinking now about issues and concerns we should address with the USCG at PC2026 in February.? The more that we can speak with one consistent message in terms of specific issues that we feel need to be preserved or modified to our benefit, the better we will present ourselves. Jon _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 13 00:19:04 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 04:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] =?utf-8?q?USCG_Marine_Investigation_Report_and=09?= =?utf-8?q?Ramifications?= In-Reply-To: <667631466.4855643.1755045706712@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <00e501dc0ac2$8d2c5be0$a78513a0$@airesearch.nl> <1125630987.4293670.1754939151037@mail.yahoo.com> <667631466.4855643.1755045706712@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1785996446.4894813.1755058744990@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks for the feedback folks.? I read all the messages and give due weight to everyone?s comments and suggestions.? Let me address some issues that have been brought up thus far. As Jim Todd and Hugh Fulton have suggested, PSUBS is a safety conscious organization and we need to highlight to the Coast Guard the fact that we have a 28 year record of self-imposed safety guidelines to our credit.? For example, we have numerous publicly available documents on our website that demonstrate our commitment to safety including: 1)????? PSUBS member agreement published at http://www.psubs.org/membership/PSUBSMembershipAgreement.pdf 2)????? Links to ABS, ASME, and Germainischer Lloyd AG certifying authorities. 3)????? An established collection of official PSUBS guidelines including Design, Construction, and Operations of submersibles as well as event related guidelines including ?Dive Ops Planning Guide?, ?Vessel Emergency Plan? and checklists published at http://www.psubs.org/guidelines/PSUBS/ 4)????? An online submission form that provides members with an opportunity to submit additions and/or changes to our collection of guidelines. 5)????? Links to existing US and Canadian Laws and/or Regulations that affect recreational submarines. 6)????? A PSUBS side project called http://WWW.SUBDB.INFO where private/recreational submarines can register themselves and upload information/documentation pertaining to their vessel.? In the event of an emergency situation this vessel information is always available online to help foster rescue and recovery using detailed data about the vessel. As referenced above, over our nearly three decades of existence we have adopted and published a considerable amount of safety related material for public consumption.? These were established and adopted of our own volition to foster safety and responsibility in our underwater pursuits.? Not only should we be proud of what we have produced (all of us are contributors) but our collection should draw the respect of the Coast Guard and other government entities. In regards to a PSUBS inspector as suggested by Hugh Fulton, I have had the same thought numerous times over the years and it is my opinion that PSUBS could perhaps become some sort of overseer of the recreational submersible market if it made sense to do so.? I could see a PSUBS ?approval? being a badge of honor and potentially valuable asset thereby encouraging members to participate in achieving it.? On the other hand, in the case of a denial I can also see such oversight leading to a loss of membership by those who think they have built a safe vessel and end up viewing PSUBS as ?red tape?.? It would be a big commitment for the organization and there would be numerous hurdles to overcome such as determining criteria for an approval and probably the need to stipulate ?grandfathering? clauses for older vessels.? As Hugh correctly observed some items in his list would be out of reach for many home builders and we would have to keep that in mind.? Additionally, this is not something I could do by myself and would require some commitment from other dedicated members.? Overall, definitely not out of the realm of possibilities but a lot of work to conceptualize and then formalize. Alan James observation is well taken and I think our message to the Coast Guard must include those kinds of analogies.? Comparing apples to apples, a home built surface boat is not immune from foundering or involvement in an accident with loss of life.? When such an event does occur it does not seem to be a first priority of the government to severely regulate such vessels by limiting their occupancy to only the owner and it seems hypocritical to take that approach with our submersible vessels. In summary, thanks for all your comments and please keep them coming.? As an update to my previous message, I am authoring a letter to Coast Guard leadership and will share that when it is complete.? I have two immediate goals, the first is for PSUBS to be included in any ?industry working group? that the government creates; and second, ongoing participation by Coast Guard representatives at PSUBS conventions equitable to their participation at the MTS underwater intervention.? In the event I do not receive a response in a reasonable time we will need to take additional steps and potentially author a petition that we can send to our combined congressional delegations.? I will be looking for your cooperation should we need to take that approach. Additionally, I have approved River Dolfi acting as a PSUBS representative to the Coast Guard effective immediately.? River has extensive oceanographic work experience, is a ?psubber? currently refurbishing his own personal submarine, and more importantly was part of the Titan recovery team which allowed him to build associations with some Marine Investigation Board Coast Guard officials.? River will be seeking audience with his CG contacts concurrent with our letter to CG leadership.? I have impressed upon River the importance of zealously defending PSUBS interests and I have confidence he will do so. As always, I will keep you informed of updates. Jon From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 13 10:50:47 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (John Bussard via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:50:47 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1785996446.4894813.1755058744990@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1785996446.4894813.1755058744990@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Awesome to see this all coalescing- When Titan happened I was dismissive of concerns about potential impacts, but once there is any board suggesting regulation, I expect someone will latch onto it. A potential avenue for useful information may be the advocacy experience of a similar group: General aviation, and specifically the homebuilt set. John Bussard Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 12, 2025, at 21:29, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ?Thanks for the feedback folks. I read all the messages and give due weight to everyone?s comments and suggestions. Let me address some issues that have been brought up thus far. > > As Jim Todd and Hugh Fulton have suggested, PSUBS is a safety conscious organization and we need to highlight to the Coast Guard the fact that we have a 28 year record of self-imposed safety guidelines to our credit. For example, we have numerous publicly available documents on our website that demonstrate our commitment to safety including: > > 1) PSUBS member agreement published at http://www.psubs.org/membership/PSUBSMembershipAgreement.pdf > > 2) Links to ABS, ASME, and Germainischer Lloyd AG certifying authorities. > > 3) An established collection of official PSUBS guidelines including Design, Construction, and Operations of submersibles as well as event related guidelines including ?Dive Ops Planning Guide?, ?Vessel Emergency Plan? and checklists published at http://www.psubs.org/guidelines/PSUBS/ > > 4) An online submission form that provides members with an opportunity to submit additions and/or changes to our collection of guidelines. > > 5) Links to existing US and Canadian Laws and/or Regulations that affect recreational submarines. > > 6) A PSUBS side project called http://WWW.SUBDB.INFO where private/recreational submarines can register themselves and upload information/documentation pertaining to their vessel. In the event of an emergency situation this vessel information is always available online to help foster rescue and recovery using detailed data about the vessel. > > As referenced above, over our nearly three decades of existence we have adopted and published a considerable amount of safety related material for public consumption. These were established and adopted of our own volition to foster safety and responsibility in our underwater pursuits. Not only should we be proud of what we have produced (all of us are contributors) but our collection should draw the respect of the Coast Guard and other government entities. > > In regards to a PSUBS inspector as suggested by Hugh Fulton, I have had the same thought numerous times over the years and it is my opinion that PSUBS could perhaps become some sort of overseer of the recreational submersible market if it made sense to do so. I could see a PSUBS ?approval? being a badge of honor and potentially valuable asset thereby encouraging members to participate in achieving it. On the other hand, in the case of a denial I can also see such oversight leading to a loss of membership by those who think they have built a safe vessel and end up viewing PSUBS as ?red tape?. It would be a big commitment for the organization and there would be numerous hurdles to overcome such as determining criteria for an approval and probably the need to stipulate ?grandfathering? clauses for older vessels. As Hugh correctly observed some items in his list would be out of reach for many home builders and we would have to keep that in mind. Additionally, this is not something I could do by myself and would require some commitment from other dedicated members. Overall, definitely not out of the realm of possibilities but a lot of work to conceptualize and then formalize. > > Alan James observation is well taken and I think our message to the Coast Guard must include those kinds of analogies. Comparing apples to apples, a home built surface boat is not immune from foundering or involvement in an accident with loss of life. When such an event does occur it does not seem to be a first priority of the government to severely regulate such vessels by limiting their occupancy to only the owner and it seems hypocritical to take that approach with our submersible vessels. > > In summary, thanks for all your comments and please keep them coming. As an update to my previous message, I am authoring a letter to Coast Guard leadership and will share that when it is complete. I have two immediate goals, the first is for PSUBS to be included in any ?industry working group? that the government creates; and second, ongoing participation by Coast Guard representatives at PSUBS conventions equitable to their participation at the MTS underwater intervention. In the event I do not receive a response in a reasonable time we will need to take additional steps and potentially author a petition that we can send to our combined congressional delegations. I will be looking for your cooperation should we need to take that approach. > > Additionally, I have approved River Dolfi acting as a PSUBS representative to the Coast Guard effective immediately. River has extensive oceanographic work experience, is a ?psubber? currently refurbishing his own personal submarine, and more importantly was part of the Titan recovery team which allowed him to build associations with some Marine Investigation Board Coast Guard officials. River will be seeking audience with his CG contacts concurrent with our letter to CG leadership. I have impressed upon River the importance of zealously defending PSUBS interests and I have confidence he will do so. > > As always, I will keep you informed of updates. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Aug 14 17:59:02 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 21:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below.? They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well.? :)? ?I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization.? ENJOY! Dear Mr. Wallace, Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. Sincerely, Tom LCDR Tom Whalen National Technical Advisor USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Aug 14 18:53:32 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alan James via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <800077048.96647.1755212012797@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Jon, very good.It might pay to mention in your upcoming conversation that in the past Psubs has reached out in situations where we have seen dangerous creations.There was the Chinese oil barrel submarine that we predicted may implode at 15ft rather than the builders proposed 30ft depth.I tracked him down through the reporter, who was also concerned. The reporter then directed him to our Psubs site where he was suitably impressed with our builds and neededour warnings.Another was a young guy in New York (I think) who was building a sub out of plastic drainage pipe. And there was a YouTube guru who was building using two bathtubs, that we made contact with.?Not to mention the general safety advice for people new to the field & the readiness of members to give advice.Alan Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 10:01 am, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below.? They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well.? :)? ?I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to mreationsake PSUBS a successful andhere? respected organization.? ENJOY!theb Dear Mr. Wallace, Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. Sincerely, Tom LCDR Tom Whalen National Technical Advisor USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Thu Aug 14 20:41:43 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:41:43 -0400 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> References: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5D0F6B12-691F-4274-B1E3-495D8E46FD7C@gmail.com> Well, that could hardly be a better start. Thank you so much Jon for your efforts. Now we?d better all show up at the convention with a fresh coat of paint on our subs! Alec > On Aug 14, 2025, at 7:01?PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ?Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below. They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well. :) I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization. ENJOY! > > > > Dear Mr. Wallace, > > Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. > > Sincerely, > Tom > LCDR Tom Whalen > National Technical Advisor > USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Aug 15 08:35:17 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:35:17 +0200 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <5D0F6B12-691F-4274-B1E3-495D8E46FD7C@gmail.com> References: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> <5D0F6B12-691F-4274-B1E3-495D8E46FD7C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001f01dc0de1$0efd3470$2cf79d50$@gmx.de> Dear Jon, I know that the SOG (https://submersibleoperators.com/) has very similar ambitions/challenges as they are as affected by this report. Perhaps it would be a good idea if both communities would connect and align. BR Beram -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Personal_Submersibles Im Auftrag von Alec Smyth via Personal_Submersibles Gesendet: Freitag, 15. August 2025 02:42 An: Submersibles General Discussion Personal Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Well, that could hardly be a better start. Thank you so much Jon for your efforts. Now we?d better all show up at the convention with a fresh coat of paint on our subs! Alec > On Aug 14, 2025, at 7:01?PM, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ?Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below. They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well. :) I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization. ENJOY! > > > > Dear Mr. Wallace, > > Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. > > Sincerely, > Tom > LCDR Tom Whalen > National Technical Advisor > USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Aug 15 17:58:01 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (MerlinSub@t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 23:58:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1755295081067.172550.69e9bc271155398fb8167c0a6929ec8ede0652d6@spica.telekom.de> Good.. :-) -----Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications Datum: 2025-08-15T00:00:23+0200 Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles" An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below.? They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well.? :)? ?I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization.? ENJOY! Dear Mr. Wallace, Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. Sincerely, Tom LCDR Tom Whalen National Technical Advisor USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise _______________________________________________ Personal_Submersibles mailing list Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles ? From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Fri Aug 15 19:18:04 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 23:18:04 +0000 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: <1755295081067.172550.69e9bc271155398fb8167c0a6929ec8ede0652d6@spica.telekom.de> References: <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1942712885.2621594.1754498889210@mail.yahoo.com> <938463466.69035.1755208743443@mail.yahoo.com> <1755295081067.172550.69e9bc271155398fb8167c0a6929ec8ede0652d6@spica.telekom.de> Message-ID: This is the most relevant thing I could find from the Canadian angle: https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-safety/marine/2024/m23a0169/m23a0169-01-24.html I wonder if there is merit in reaching out to Transport Canada in a similar manner as you did to the USCG? Perhaps just looping the director in on your email exchange with USCG with a request for parallel comment? Sean -------- Original Message -------- On 2025-08-15 14:59, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > Good.. :-) > > -----Original-Nachricht----- > Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications > Datum: 2025-08-15T00:00:23+0200 > Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles" > An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" > > Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below.? They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well.? :)? ?I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization.? ENJOY! > > Dear Mr. Wallace, > > Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. > > Sincerely, > Tom > LCDR Tom Whalen > National Technical Advisor > USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > ? > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 20 11:00:59 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:00:59 -0600 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, I just asked transport Canada to register my diesel sub, and they sent me the forms as if it is a boat. Seems like it will be quite simple. I want to register it ahead of any changes so I can grandfather it in. Hank Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 15, 2025, at 5:18?PM, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles wrote: > > ?This is the most relevant thing I could find from the Canadian angle: > > https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-safety/marine/2024/m23a0169/m23a0169-01-24.html > > I wonder if there is merit in reaching out to Transport Canada in a similar manner as you did to the USCG? Perhaps just looping the director in on your email exchange with USCG with a request for parallel comment? > > Sean > > > > -------- Original Message -------- >> On 2025-08-15 14:59, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles wrote: >> >> Good.. :-) >> >> -----Original-Nachricht----- >> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications >> Datum: 2025-08-15T00:00:23+0200 >> Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles" >> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" >> >> Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received their response today; see below. They got our name wrong but in fairness when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well. :) I hope when you absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected organization. ENJOY! >> >> Dear Mr. Wallace, >> >> Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and collaboration. >> >> Sincerely, >> Tom >> LCDR Tom Whalen >> National Technical Advisor >> USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> ? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles >> > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles From personal_submersibles at psubs.org Wed Aug 20 13:22:58 2025 From: personal_submersibles at psubs.org (Tim Novak via Personal_Submersibles) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:22:58 -0700 Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and Ramifications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anecdotal divergence of thread: I licensed my sub for the Bellingham PSubs conference so that I wouldn't have any potential issues crossing the Canada - US border. I had no problems crossing south or north that day. Since it has less than 10hp there is no requirement to be licensed or registered in Canada. But several US states don't allow unregistered - unlicensed vessels (even canoes) to operate in state waters. Better to be safe. Couriously, Nuytco had a problem bringing two DeepWorker 2000's home from the NASA/CSA project in Florida several years ago. US Customs seized them northbound because the shipper's paperwork incorrectly stated them as certified to a depth of 2000 metres, not their actual 2000 feet. Apparently, 3000m certified submersibles are technology not allowed to leave the US, even though these vehicles were manufactured and owned in Canada. It took several months before Nuytco could repatriate their property. Attached are a couple photos of some young people who purchased a Curtis wet sub in Port Townsend, WA and brought it home to San Diego, CA. They refurbished it, tested it in their swimming pool, and took it to a local beach to test. The USCG noticed them, and told them that since they were California residents they could not operate an out of state vessel in California. So being young and energetic, they just took it south a few miles to Mexico to complete their tests. They subsequently re-registered it in California and continued their adventures. Tim Tim On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 8:01?AM hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles < personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > Hi All, I just asked transport Canada to register my diesel sub, and they > sent me the forms as if it is a boat. Seems like it will be quite simple. > I want to register it ahead of any changes so I can grandfather it in. > Hank > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 15, 2025, at 5:18?PM, Sean T. Stevenson via Personal_Submersibles > wrote: > > > > ?This is the most relevant thing I could find from the Canadian angle: > > > > > https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/securite-safety/marine/2024/m23a0169/m23a0169-01-24.html > > > > I wonder if there is merit in reaching out to Transport Canada in a > similar manner as you did to the USCG? Perhaps just looping the director in > on your email exchange with USCG with a request for parallel comment? > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > >> On 2025-08-15 14:59, MerlinSub at t-online.de via Personal_Submersibles < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote: > >> > >> Good.. :-) > >> > >> -----Original-Nachricht----- > >> Betreff: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] USCG Marine Investigation Report and > Ramifications > >> Datum: 2025-08-15T00:00:23+0200 > >> Von: "Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles" < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> > >> An: "Personal Submersibles General Discussion" < > personal_submersibles at psubs.org> > >> > >> Psubbers, I sent an email to the US Coast Guard yesterday and received > their response today; see below. They got our name wrong but in fairness > when I wrote my letter I misspelled theirs as well. :) I hope when you > absorb how the USCG views our organization you feel some pride in the > contributions you have made to make PSUBS a successful and respected > organization. ENJOY! > >> > >> Dear Mr. Wallace, > >> > >> Thank you for your email outlining the aims of the Professional > Submersible Boat Society (PSUBS). My name is LCDR Tom Whalen, and I am the > Lead Investigator for the TITAN investigation. We have received your > request for collaboration with the US Coast Guard and appreciate you > reaching out. The US Coast Guard greatly respects the invaluable work and > expertise of organizations like PSUBS. Your dedication to professionalism, > safety, and responsible operation within the submersible industry is truly > commendable. We recognize PSUBS as a leading voice and an essential partner > in shaping the future of this critical sector. While historically the USCG > has been more focused on the commercial aspects of submersible operations, > we are committed to expanding our understanding and oversight to encompass > all facets of the industry, and we see extreme value in your organization's > contributions to achieving this goal. We are eager to establish a > productive and collaborative working relationship with your group, and as > such, we will actively advocate for PSUBS representation in any future > submersible industry working groups related to rules and regulations. We > believe that your members' firsthand experience and specialized knowledge > are vital for developing effective and practical regulations that enhance > safety without hindering innovation. Furthermore, we are committed to > ensuring USCG representation at future PSUBS conventions. These events > provide an invaluable opportunity for us to directly engage with your > members, learn from their experiences, and foster a strong working > relationship built on mutual understanding and respect. To further discuss > the specifics of our future collaboration and how we can best facilitate > these interactions, I would like to schedule a telephone call at your > earliest convenience. Please let me know what time and day works best for > you. The US Coast Guard is committed to a transparent and collaborative > approach in our oversight of the submersible industry. We recognize that > your expertise is essential to this process, and we value the opportunity > to work alongside PSUBS to promote the highest standards of safety and > responsible operation. We look forward to ongoing dialogue and > collaboration. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Tom > >> LCDR Tom Whalen > >> National Technical Advisor > >> USCG Investigations National Center of Expertise > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list > >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > >> ? > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Personal_Submersibles mailing list > >> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > >> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > > > _______________________________________________ > Personal_Submersibles mailing list > Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org > http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1656.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 169088 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_7691.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 386125 bytes Desc: not available URL: