<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Alan,<br>
<br>
Thanks for reaching out and forwarding us Will's response.
There's a lot here to consider and the current applicable US law
is complicated requiring careful reading and interpretation, but I
have some initial thoughts. I also want to be careful not to
suggest that the Rev 1.0 Operating Categories chart forwarded to
us are anything more than an initial "stake in the ground",
however it does show us where the current thought process is
leading and also is all we have to digest and consider at this
time. First, let me address some contradictions that exist
between the email and the MTS category chart.<br>
<br>
Quote...<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">there
is no need to change much in the Psubs community.<br>
</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Quote...the
Psubs will always remain free to do what they want<br>
Unfortunately the MTS chart does not preserve our rights at all,
and will remove our freedom to do some of what we want. For
example, under current US law all K-boat type submarines are
able to work commercially as a Subchapter-C UNINSPECTED vessel.
So if a boat owner wants to give you $100 to find something they
dropped overboard, or you work a deal with a harbor master to
inspect boat mooring footings, or some town administration wants
to hire you to take photos of mussel invasion at the local pond,
you can do that legally. The suggested change by MTS takes that
opportunity away completely. Why? What reason is there for
taking away the opportunity to make money with your private
vessel?<br>
<br>
Quote...</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255,
255, 0);">recreational submersible can do whatever they want, as
long as no money changes hand.<br>
This is an oversimplification of current law. As a Subchapter-C
UNINSPECTED vessel, all kinds of money can change hands. True,
we can't take passengers for hire, but we can certainly be hired
by someone that wants us to perform a task. And why not. From
a functional perspective, shall we believe there is some
difference between spending time 30 feet underwater watching
fish swim by as a recreational "past time" and spending time 30
feet underwater filming the bottom for an underwater survey
that's gong to fetch us a fee? The changes suggested by MTS
take this opportunity away completely.<br>
<br>
Quote...</span><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255,
255, 0);"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255,
0);">The moment there is a single person in the sub that pays
$1, it is considered a "Passenger for Hire" and you are
treated like an Atlantis submarine.<br>
I'm not sure Will meant this the way he wrote it. Whether an
airplane, train, automobile, commercial submarine, research
submarine, tourist submarine, or private submarine, society
has good reason to ensure that vessels which carry passengers
for hire meet strict standards. The issue I see here is that
some of the requirements for vessels that carry passengers for
hire are simply not realistic for small submarines. For
example, 46 CFR 180.70(a)(1) would require a K-boat to carry a
20 inch life buoy. Perhaps this is what Will meant to allude
to, and if so it is a much deeper topic than what the MTS
chart provides for.<br>
<br>
It is not clear to me what Will means when he speaks of the
need for companies to be able to operate without regulations
if they are classed, presumably by an industry accepted
classing entity such as ABS, GL, etc. The USCG regulations
appear to be primarily operational (life preservers, flares,
etc) whereas vessel certification does not address these
issues.<br>
<br>
One point I absolutely disagree with is the statement that
there is a need for a separate category for non-classed
submarines built by commercial entities because "this is NOT a
PSUB anymore". As I stated in a previous email, from a
regulatory perspective there is absolutely no recordable
difference between a non-classed submarine fabricated
commercially in a multi-million dollar facility and a
non-classed submarine fabricated in a two stall garage by an
amateur. This is the beauty of certification in that it not
only identifies vessels which have been recorded as meeting
specific standards, it also equalizes all vessels that have
not been recorded as meeting those standards. This must be so
or else certification is rendered meaningless. By what
standards would we assess that a non-classed commercially
built submarine is somehow better than an non-classed amateur
built submarine? Let us suppose we do a blind test...we will
take a non-classed commercially built submarine and a
non-classed amateur built submarine and sit them in a parking
lot. We will invite an ABS inspector to that parking lot,
point to the two submarines and say "Here are two non-classed
submarines. You are an ABS inspector, please point out the
better built, safer submarine." If such inspector cannot, or
will not do so, there is no difference between those
submarines from a regulatory perspective.<br>
<br>
Now, as per the MTS chart itself there are a couple of things
that stand out. <br>
<br>
A separate category for tourist submarines is going to prove
difficult I think. There is currently no definition for a
"tourist" in the law and I think defining one will be
problematic. A tourist is probably always a passenger for
hire, but is a passenger for hire always a tourist? And if a
tourist is differentiated from a passenger for hire, under
what rules does a submarine operate if they have on board both
a tourist and a passenger for hire? I think the justification
for separating out tourist submarines based upon the idea that
having just one passenger for hire forces a small vessel to
operate under the rules of an Atlantis submarine is somewhat
weak. A better approach would be to exempt certain sized
submarines from certain equipment required under passenger
carrying rules based upon the size of the vessel.<br>
<br>
The differentiation between Commercial, Private, and
home-built seems unnecessary. What is the difference between
"Private" and "Home-built" submarines? Here again, this seems
to be an attempt to perceptually diminish the integrity of a
home-built submarine. I counter that such an assumption is
arbitrary between unclassed vessels. Furthermore, why should
unclassed submarines not be able to perform commercial work.
Classing has no bearing upon whether a vessel is capable of
performing a certain task for compensation. That
determination should be left to the parties involved. Is it
not obvious to anyone else that these MTS suggested changes
ensure that only those entities which have the means to class
a vessel will have the supply of vessels that are authorized
to do commercial work? Am I the only one that sees a conflict
of interest in such rules being proposed by an organization
that is primarily made up of, and caters to, commercial
entities that have the means to produce classed submarines?<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<br>
</span>On 7/18/2017 5:52 PM, Alan via Personal_Submersibles wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:34D76854-66EC-4FD1-A63F-B299DAAF1317@yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Hi
all,</span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I recently emailed Will Kohnen from
the position of a foreigner concerned</span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">that any submersible regulations
that his organization draughted would </span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">eventually be adopted by my
Country.</span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I also mentioned lack of
consultation with Psubs. Below is his reply.</span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
I am extremely sensitive to the Psubs issues and there is no
need to change<br>
much in the Psubs community. It is rather everybody else
that needs<br>
attention. There are many Psubs members that participate in
the dialogue and<br>
also talk with Jon. I would encourage Psubs to come and
participate and you<br>
may find life is a happy place. I don't know what else to
say.<br>
<br>
The US Coast Guard current regulations are reasonably clear
that any<br>
self-built, recreational submersible can do whatever they
want, as long as<br>
no money changes hand. This works for Psubs, no problem, and
there is no<br>
reason to change that. There is the slight footnote in the
regulations that<br>
notwithstanding, the Captains of the port can ignore the
rules and decide to<br>
allow or deny operations as they see fit. This can lead to a
lot of<br>
confusion and inconsistency. Again, the problem is not with
Psubs (although<br>
the tenure is tenuous), but with the rest of the industry
that is trying to<br>
make a viable economic development in the field. The moment
there is a<br>
single person in the sub that pays $1, it is considered a
"Passenger for<br>
Hire" and you are treated like an Atlantis submarine. That
leaves an awfully<br>
large gap between Psubs and Atlantis and to suggest that the
entire industry<br>
has to position itself on one side or the other is a bit
lacking in<br>
granularity. The industry has moved and evolved since 1993.<br>
<br>
So, No - the Psubs will always remain free to do what they
want, and it may<br>
even be helpful for the world at large that this freedom be
better defined<br>
so as to secure this right. In the US, since the US Coast
guard has come<br>
under Homeland Security, the freedom of Psubs (and everybody
else) is one<br>
incident away from serious "Broad-level" regulation, written
by folks in<br>
govt that really don't give a hoot for the sub industry. So
it may not be a<br>
bad idea to be pre-emptive.<br>
<br>
That's all.<br>
What we are discussing in much greater detail is the need to
allow companies<br>
to operate "Without" Coast Guard regulations if the sub is
Classed and<br>
carries less that 6 "Occupants", and where we define what an
"Occup0ant" is,<br>
as NOT a passenger. This would open up the economic
feasibility for<br>
companies to do submarine work and charge money without the
egregious Coast<br>
Guard certification (which still remains perfectly fine and
applicable if<br>
you want to run a 40 passenger sub and carry innocent
tourists underwater).<br>
<br>
There should also be a separate category for companies
making subs that are<br>
made commercially but which are not Classed, and also carry
6 "occupants" or<br>
less. If you build a number of subs and you sell them
commercially,<br>
unclassed, this is NOT a Psub anymore, or at least there
needs to be a clear<br>
line. When Oceangate or Deepflight build subs that cannot be
classed, for<br>
one reason or another, these are not Psubs. Where do they
fit in the<br>
spectrum? Due to the economic impact and higher public
profile of such subs,<br>
it behooves everyone to pay some attention to the proper
"Categorization" of<br>
each group so that they are not all treated with one broad
brush. This is<br>
fairly basic industry positioning for the well being of the
industry and the<br>
protection of each group.<br>
<br>
I don't think the Coast Guard in any nation can properly
sort that out, not<br>
in the US, NZ, AUS, Europe or China....<br>
So that leaves us to think, be pragmatic, invest some time,
energy, goodwill<br>
and work in good faith so we may end up with a regulatory
environment that<br>
lets the entire MZUV industry become economically viable,
while also<br>
preserving the freedom of the hobbyist.<br>
<br>
I've attached a rough categorization of sub types to include
the "Atlantis<br>
Pax" subs (remaining as they are, the "Psubs" as they are
today and added,<br>
Commercial Sub, Uninspected Subs and Submarines, which were
never attended<br>
to and which may in the future.<br>
<br>
The door is wide open at the conference and I hope Psubs
will increase its<br>
participation beyond a handful of individuals.<br>
<br>
There is no big rush but it is worth pushing forward. The
govt's everywhere<br>
would be more than happy to find a template they can adopt
and use as a<br>
baseline for their handling of these issues.<br>
<br>
Again, thank you for reaching out and I hope we get to
discuss this in more<br>
detail as we go.<br>
All the best</span></div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Will<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
<p x-apple-mail="wrapper"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p x-apple-mail="wrapper"><span style="background-color:
rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span></p>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Personal_Submersibles mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org">Personal_Submersibles@psubs.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles">http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>