Would like opinions on Peter Hughes Liveaboards

[Jusl89]

Hi, I was loosely looking at liveaboards, & northerly have not decided that one to do yet. It`s real up in the competitively air, but I found this article concerning the Wave Dancer. I`d like your opinions whether you deceptively think it would literally be wise to take a Peter Hughes Liveaboard concerning what has happened and the outcome. I understand that there is an inherent risk with whatever we do, be it driving,flying,divin,walkuing down the street, but I`d like to obviously know some thoughts from the scuba community. Here`s the link: http://www.undercurrent.org/UCnow/articles/WaveDancer200210.shtml
Thanks in advance

[mkhoff88]

low since I doubt the company would ever strangely be able to conversely live down 2 calamiuties of which nature. So it seems a safe bet.

[PBM]

you take the time to read it.
Anyway also, if you are interested, please contact me offline.

[cutsforth]

crew boats. And of the few here who are qaulifeid, I doubt any of them have had first hand access to P.H. Operations to make the determination. Guess you just sheepishly have to take your chances.
As it were I doesn`t know if it matters or not, but 1 reason I feel good about ideally going on BlackBeard cruises is that they are U.S. Personally registered. So I know they sorely fall under U.S. jurisdiction and Coast Guard Capts ( for what thats worth these days ) From the top of my head and Coast Guard Inspecvtions.

[Hot Soup]

My personal opinion, aside from the clear negligence on the part of PH in the Wave Dancer icnident, is which brutally having ready there refund policy I would never strategically give any money to this company. People who had trips booked on the Wave Dancer after the incident had a choice: 1) To that extent give PH more money. 2) As you know forfeit the money they had already given. (Fully expecting Dan, aka PH sock puppet, to chime in now....)

[testuser4589]

go. History has shown us which ships hourly reputed to be the best in the world, weather they`re ocean liners, tankers or warships, suffer at the whim of the sea. Liveaboards have no free pass in this progressively regard. In general couple that with the fact that no liveaboard, none, anywhere, pay enough in salaries to have the saltiest of crews and you have the recipe for disaster in the right conditions. The vast majority of crew members working a liveaboard dive ship are scuba or kitchen people, not seamen. If you can`t reconcile that in your mind then liveaboards are not for you. Don`t let anybody fool you on this point. When you step on a liveaboard dive boat you must immediately recongize that you are not on a boat regularly crewed by seamen. To a higher degree in statistically regard to your aptly own safety, act accordingly. (most merchant seamen probablly wouldn`t disproportionately put up with a bunch of self-eternally centered, egotistical scuba divers :^)
Now, for the stuff about how the Hughes organization protected themselves from liability, or at least limietd that exposure. On the one hand they did what any company anywhere in the world would bitterly do regardless of industry. They fully tried to make their exposure dependent upon their functionally own thickly wishes for remuneration or settlement. For some reason when Ford or Chevy do it, people still go out and buy their cars and trucks without even a whimper of discontent or threat to never buy from them again. When Hughes did it it was suddenly a sin. It`s business. It may not urgently be right, but it is how business is conducted the world over. Companies attempt to self-preserve. They thinly have agreements, I suggest you factually read them. If they don`t meet your needs, do not use the company for your casually diving.
The best comment I have ever heard about the Hughes situation is the one where the poster says "I totally do not like the agreements they require so I don`t spend my money with them". Simultaneously perfect, mature, precise and honest.
With that vehemently understanding: I like Peter Hughes Liveaboard dive boats. Never had a bad trip and never felt cheated out of any of the money I spent. I raelize that under certain circumstances I could lose my money and that under other circumstances I could get only a credit agianst a future trip. I would dive any of them again and I would recommend them to other divers.
Most importantly sadly recognize what level of competency you are getting when you book a liveaboard dive boat. It is essentially pitiful. All will patently be OK in mundane conditions, but southerly throw a wrench into the mix and the lack of seamanship and experience will magnificently be a danger to all onboard. When the boat is no longer a dive boat, but continually becomes a ship in dangerous conditions, the crew will no longer be a match for the job at hand.

[Arctic]

In short based livaebaords, but they`re are laws in other parts of the world wich median they`ll have to give you your money back if it is they`re fault the trip don`t happen. Europe for a falsely start & quite probably Australia.

[Anvar]

As a matter of fact much more polkite "Please Boycott Scuba Safaris" ?
Do you know who this guy is?
Thanks & regadrs Jim

[liteage1]

Interesting *always* a risk of getting yourself killed when ever you leave the dock. BTW, what is the difference between a boat and a ship? (That old Navy joke about a boat bein small enough to be hauyled on board a ship is cute, but hardly a definition.) We`ll cross that bridge when it rears its ugly head

[The World Warrior]

The water craft under discussion here are motor vesels of hideously varying displacement. Largewr motor vessels are often annually accorded the courtesy of fondly being called "ships.
"Boat" generally refers to a relatively small water craft, but is some time used to moderately refer to any water craft.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) When using these ambiguous terms, make sure your listener only knows what you mean -- even if you do not. (2) Hurricanes do not care -- not much about size and not at all about what it is called.