Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

That is incorrect, no license is required to take that boat on that delivery. You need a license to take passengers and some cargo operations for hire. No license is legally required to have a job running a private yacht.

Not entirely sure about that last sentence. Once the owner and his passengers are on board wouldn't he technically be taking passengers for hire (not that I've ever seen it pursued, but it seems sort of gray)?

Not unless the owner is charging his guests. Guests are not passengers for hire. "Passenger for Hire" means each passenger pays by the head.

No. Were that the case, every owner would be required to have charter insurance in case they had guests aboard. If the owner is also running the boat, in your scenario he would have to be a licensed captain if he is somehow compensated in cash ("we'll chip in for fuel") or in kind ("we'll do business with your company," "we'll buy you dinner").

Again, just playing devil's advocate here, but are you permitted to run a charter fishing boat without a license? Technically that's exactly what you described.

Hi,

As a commercial charter yacht you can currenty have 12 Guests max onboard ( not talking about parties at the dock)

Those 12 are all considered paying passengers even though the Charter Agreement is only with one of the passengers maybe a couple or sometimes a company owned by one of the guests.

How do you differentiate between a Charger guest that has actually paid the bill and someone he or she has invited to join the charter party?

That is correct and backed by multiple court findings. Is it enforced, not on its face as in I invite my friends out on the boat for the day and they bring food and booze. There are people though who advertise for crew who need to contribute to the "cruising kitty". That is on the other side of the line. Typically it is not taken on in and of itself, but it comes up in an injury/casualty accident as an underlying factor and has been used to establish Gross Negligence (attitude is what establishes the gross part) in the civil end of things.

While generally true, there are regional caveats to that.

If you have guests over to your home for the weekend and they bring a bottle of wine, are you now a hotelier?

Guests invited on a cruise who chip in for food, fuel, or booze do not contractually (verbal or written) obligate the owner to take them to a destination. That's the difference between charter passengers and guests. At least, it was the case according to our insurance carrier and attorneys.

Where is that?

Here in the US for example. There is no classification defined and termed as "a commercial charter yacht" that is automatically relegated to 12 pax. Here you have "Inspected Passenger Vessels" and "Uninspected Passenger Vessels". Inspected Passenger Vessels are assigned their passenger limit on an application by application basis depending on the build. Uninspected Passenger vessels of less than 100 tons are restricted to 6 passengers, greater than 100 are allowed 12. You can operate under a demise or bareboat contract, but then there are no "passengers for hire". There is one person who charters the boat and the rest are his guest. There is a complication in that the owner of the boat may not be onboard, and must not provide the crew. He may make a choice of crews available, but if the charterer insists on crewing the boat with his crew, this must be allowed. This was a very common way we used to do weddings and funerals on big uninspected sailboats. You charter the boat from one agent, another agent provides the crew list and off you go.

Not the way I interpret the CFR's.


CFR 15.401 subpart C- Manning requirements; all vessels

A person may not employ or engage an individual, and an individual may not serve, in a position in which an individual is required by law or regulation to hold a license, cretificate of registry, or an MMD, unless that individual holds a valid license, certificate of registry, or MMD, as appropriate, authorizing service in the capacity in which the individual is engaged or employed and the individual serves within any restrictions placed on the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariners document.

That's the operative part of it there. There is no law or regulation in the US for that vessel to be operated by a licensed person. If the vessel had passengers for hire running out on a half day fishing charter, then there would be a licensed captain required. Since everybody on board was crew of a privately owned vessel, no license required.

Picture 34, the helm, I understand that the helm pushed back to the helm seats, but where are the single lever controls and the steering wheel, when the helm pushed back, shouldn't there be damage to the electronics from the steering wheel and single lever controls?

As my previous post stated, I am very interested in what the Captains statement shows. If he did not hit something, I am very surprised he has not been heard from. I could have never kept quiet if I had nothing to hide. In any case, I am afraid I agree, there still seems to be a latent defect that either caused the causality, or contributed to it. Btw, after researching back over the last 2 years, I am glad Shazam is gone, clearly he has a bur under his saddle, and Capt. J is not far behind. I will be checking back like a lot of people, and still hope the truth comes out. Unfortunately, I can’t say it looks real good for us (Bertram loyalist) and it would be nice if the factory stepped up little more. The letter from the owner really didn’t change much IMO.

This entire event would not be such a concern if not for this.......... hard to say the same thing didn't happen, and this time coming off a wave lady luck was asleep.

Bertram45, you're glad that people that have spoken differing views are being banned or are no longer posting on the site? YF, if the member in question are not banned then please accept my apologies.

Regardless, considering the Bertram 630 failures that have been documented on YF and the others that have been rumored to have failed, when does the USCG step in and take a look at what's going on? Aren't there underlying safety issues that need to be investigated here?

The captain is screwed and he knows it. He's gonna shut up and not p- anybody off. He knows that if this doesn't settle, his mistake of not checking the paperwork is going to make him the whipping boy. The jury will hold him liable. Problem is that he doesn't have $1.8 million, so it will come down to establishing the relationship to Marine Max and their E&O insurance.

I don't know if there is a rule against this, but I've got a Benjamin that says this will get paid by Marine Max's E&O in the end of it. The only caveat against me is where the owner instructed the vessel be operated uninsured. I have not heard and real information on that, but I have also never heard it mentioned in company line responses here, so I doubt that situation exists.

At the end of the day, my bet is that Marine Max to be found primarily liable for the replacement. Bertram's position now makes sense to me since they are no longer affiliated with Marine Max and the current ownership did not build that vessel. Marine Max's insurance lawyers are probably running their program because they are in the worst position. I don't know if they will be able to subrogate on the new Bertram organization.

There doesn't have to be a cause for the loss to be found either. The main point to case will be who is responsible for the oversight in insurance, and that is the captain. If it was not an oversight, and all indicators say it was an oversight, and the owner declined requiring insurance, then it's on the owner. I do not believe that scenario to exist. When you take the job of captain, your taking that job incurs liability to use best practices.

Even a having the insurance waived by the owner will not absolve him from administrative action and admonition from the USCG assuming he holds a license, as there is pollution insurance legally required to be in effect. If that finding comes out before the civil procedure, that finding can sway the jury that even if the owner said to run it uninsured, it should not have been allowed as an option.