Posted by Ken Kurtis on July 30, 2002 at 23:47:57:
In Reply to: Iron Eagle Slam posted by Dan Adler on July 30, 2002 at 13:18:02:
Dan Adler wrote: "Frankly, I don't know why Ken has chosen to involve himself in my business, as I have no dealings with him or his store. Those of you who work with Reef Seekers know about his aversion to NITROX, and to Reef Seekers preponderance of OW1 single day charter schedules, both reasons for us NOT to do business together."
Gee, thanks for the cheap shot. (Like there's something WRONG with newbies and single-day trips????) And, since you talk about getting facts straight, it's "Kurtis" not "Curtis."
Let's discuss my motives first. Although you don't do business directly with me or Reef Seekers, you do business with a SoCal diving community (boats, stores, operators, etc.) that I not only love but also an industry that I work hard to promote, hopefully for the good of all. So any "problem" - especially of the magnitude we're discussing - reflects not just on the principals involved but on our entire industry.
And just for the record, I have no desire to get into a pissing match on this but since you asked why I got involved, I figure you deserved an answer. I also think, based on information I've been given, that we're not getting full disclosure from you but are merely getting the pieces of the story that cast you in a favorable light. (And sometimes I just let my moral outrage get the better of me and . . . well, here we are.)
I wrestled long and hard with whether or not I should say anything. In this industry, there are sometimes unflattering things that we "insiders" (shops, operators, etc.) are privy to but choose to keep private and not reveal publicly. However, at some point, the public's right-to-know supersedes all that, especially when it may impact areas of diver safety. To make it sound incredibly noble, someone in this industry's got to have a social conscience and if, in this case, it's going to be me, so be it. That's also why I always sign my name and leave my true e-mail address.
At the same time, there are also certainly nasty (and untrue) rumors that are floated. I think we who want to consider oursevles responsbile individuals have an equal obligation to help squelch those rumors with the same fervor that we would use to ferret out the hidden blemishes. And that's why I posted my clarificaiton (which I clarify further below) about your COI.
But it also seems to me that you're painting a picture that only includes the parts favorable to you and leaving out other stuff. I know a bunch of the divers from the Thanksgiving weekend debacle (where you decided to live-boat a shallow airplane wreck and then, as wind and rain came upon you, "lost" the divers and had them retrieved by Baywatch and another dive boat) and they still talk about being scared. I know a number of the people who were on the December 9 "Victory-at-Sea" trip where the dinghy sank and the dinghy driver was in the water for half an hour and could have died had he not been spotted and picked up by the Psalty V. You characterize it pretty benignly. ("Thankfully, other than the dinghy loss and some upset stomachs in this extraordinary storm, we got home with no problems.") You even seem to think it was a benefit for some. (" . . . of course all lost equipment was replaced with new.")
Others on the trip have painted a different picture for me.
On to specifics.
Seems to me that the yanking of a COI (Certificate of Inspection) is a pretty serious thing since basically it's illegal to operate a commercial boat without one. When I was told Wednesday evening that your COI had been pulled (the source was a friend of mine - who happened to be on your Thanksgiving weekend trip - who had talked to the chief USCG investigator), it got my attention. When I saw all the postings about it's a bad boat, it's a great boat, etc., etc., I felt this was one other piece of the puzzle (public information, BTW) that needed to be aired.
Where I erred was in how I phrased my question to the USCG. I asked, "Have you pulled the COI for the Iron Eagle?" I was told, "The Iron Eagle has a current COI, issued on July 3, 2002." What I should have followed up with was "Has the COI recently been pulled and then re-instated?" Because it seems that's the complete answer.
So here's a simple question, Dan: Has your COI been pulled, for any reason or for any length of time, within the last 6 months?
I should also reveal, in all candor, that I placed a call to USCG Lt. Cmndr. John Fassero of the USCG investigative unit Monday afternoon to get some direct information. He called me back this morning (Tuesday) and left a voicemail message not only giving me the recent history of your COI (the USCG website vessel search is only updated through May 14), but also some info detailing the events of this past weekend and the contact they had with you and actions they took on Monday of this week. I called him back this afternoon, left a message, and hope to talk with him directly on Wednesday. Once I do, I will relay the pertinent information to this board, since this has now elevated itself to public discussion, and you all can make up your own minds.
I've got no ax to grind with you, Dan, or with your crew, or with the boat. But I also feel that, as a responsible and somewhat visible member of this diving community, when someone's saying, "No big deal. Everything's fine. Don't worry about anything," and I happen to know differently, I have an obligation to speak up.
Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA