From San Francisco Chronicle: The Fishing Report May 8,2008.

quote:

It would have been sort of funny even if it was made up, but it wasn't made up, so OK. James Smith runs the party boat California Dawn and Monday evening he loaned the expensive vessel to a guy he calls a dear friend. This friend, who's in the Coast Guard Auxiliary, needed the boat to teach a class to other local members of the auxiliary. So they headed out, minus Smith, in the evening, motoring from the boat's berth at Berkeley Marina and into the bay. They did or talked about whatever it was they were supposed to do or talk about, and they headed back. The dear friend approached the marina. The dear friend then plowed the nose of the boat into a piling. The evening's course, of course, and no lie: Navigational Skills. End result was a trip to dry dock for the Cal Dawn, at least $2,000 in damage, two full fishing loads lost and likely significant embarrassment to said dear friend. The moral of this little tale, as told by Smith: "Don't ever lend your boat to the Coast Guard."

I did a little research. Here is the website for the California Dawn. That is one big boat to run into a piling.

Now if the Auxie told the captain the boat was being taken under orders, is the CG liable for the misrepresentation of the Auxie? If not maybe the AuxCen should offer to hawk CA Dawn merchandise to help pay for the damage.

If it wasn't a facility then no orders. No orders, no coverage. Sounds like we might be losing a coxswain and a member...

--M

quote:

"Don't ever lend your boat to the Coast Guard."

Well now that is not entirely fair.

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:
No orders, no coverage.
--M

It appears that coverage may not be granted even if one is on orders...

Recently, an AUXAIR facility -- while flying on orders on an MEP mission -- experienced a voltage regulator failure causing an over-voltage. The over-voltage caused thousands of dollars in damage to various avionics. A claim was submitted, an investigation was conducted by the AIRSTA -- and the findings of the investigation were that the pilot acted in accordance with proper emergency procedures -- attempting to isolate the alternator, turn off systems not required for continued flight, and landing as soon as practical when an electrical burning odor was observed in the cockpit (was over water and proceeded direct to the closest airport). The investigating officer from the AIRSTA detrermined the claim was valid and the CO sent it up the chain for processing.

However, the Claims & Litigation Branch denied the claim because the damage did not amount to at least 10% of the total declared value of the aircraft... Evidently, this applies to surface vessels as well as aircraft. Claims for less than $200 will be paid -- and those resulting in at least 10% of the total value will be paid -- but anything between $200 and 10% of the value of the facility will be denied. However, they will tell you in the denial letter that they "appreciate your civic-mindedness -- and that they hope this denial decision will not dissuade your continued fine service to the USCG"...

This "policy" is not communicated to Auxiliarists at the time of the Offer for Use -- nor is it mentioned in the Auxiliary Claims Manual. However, it creates an effective "gap in coverage" because the aircraft owner's personal aircraft insurance does not apply while the aircraft is operated under USCG orders.

Regarding the boat accident: a prime example of the fallacy that any auxiliary coxswain can handle any size boat. That is the reason I will not turn over the helm of my ten and a half ton OPFAC to just anybody.

quote:

Originally posted by flyandscuba:

quote:

Originally posted by 7555925:
No orders, no coverage.
--M

It appears that coverage may not be granted even if one is on orders...

Recently, an AUXAIR facility -- while flying on orders on an MEP mission -- experienced a voltage regulator failure causing an over-voltage. The over-voltage caused thousands of dollars in damage to various avionics. A claim was submitted, an investigation was conducted by the AIRSTA -- and the findings of the investigation were that the pilot acted in accordance with proper emergency procedures -- attempting to isolate the alternator, turn off systems not required for continued flight, and landing as soon as practical when an electrical burning odor was observed in the cockpit (was over water and proceeded direct to the closest airport). The investigating officer from the AIRSTA detrermined the claim was valid and the CO sent it up the chain for processing.

However, the Claims & Litigation Branch denied the claim because the damage did not amount to at least 10% of the total declared value of the aircraft... Evidently, this applies to surface vessels as well as aircraft. Claims for less than $200 will be paid -- and those resulting in at least 10% of the total value will be paid -- but anything between $200 and 10% of the value of the facility will be denied. However, they will tell you in the denial letter that they "appreciate your civic-mindedness -- and that they hope this denial decision will not dissuade your continued fine service to the USCG"...

This "policy" is not communicated to Auxiliarists at the time of the Offer for Use -- nor is it mentioned in the Auxiliary Claims Manual. However, it creates an effective "gap in coverage" because the aircraft owner's personal aircraft insurance does not apply while the aircraft is operated under USCG orders.

That truely sucks. I'll have to mention it to a few people locally...

--M

I know at our conference recently the glod-side rep there was stressing over and over agin for us to mark the replacement cost of anything on the OPFACs because, he said, if we were logging our hours and could show we'd been doing maint and such they'd get us the full replacement. It sounded too good to be true though.

I'll be keeping tally as I rebuild Wyvern though, just in case.

Good luck. This aircraft OPFAC is utilized for USCG orders 75-85% of it's flight hours and complete records kept -- including the avionics upgrade in 2005. If the damage does not equal at least 10% of the total value of the vessel/aircraft, the claim will be denied under the current application of the CG Claims & Litigation policies & procedures.

DIRAUX took the issue as high up the gold side chain that he could with no success. The OPFAC owner always has the option to complain in writing to his Congressman (which will trickle back down to the Admiral) -- but I'm not sure he'll do so.

You are also not covered for anything on a surface OPFAC that is not listedd on the Offer For Use. This may not effect the smaller facilities but the larger ones, particularly the sport fisherman owner maybe in for a surprise in the event of a casualty. The CG (actually DOJ/DOL) will not reimburse you for the cost of the extra ice/bait freezer you added to the boat. It will not reimburse you for the several thousand dollars worth of rods, reels and other fishing equipment on board - etc.

They will tell you that such equipment is not needed on a patrol and if you were concerned about loss you should have removed it before the patrol. If you add it to the Offer for Use and the VE signs off that it is there, an alert 'someone' up th chain will remove it as soon as they see it.

You guys offering yer privately owned facilites for use in the USCGAUX on authorized "ordered" missions of the USCGAUX probably oughta read chapter 2 of the AUX OPS manual, especially section "D". Especially para 2, subpara "e".

It's entitled "patrol causes" and from what I read it pretty much says just being on an authorized "ordered" USCGAUX mission does NOT qualify you for reimbursement just based on the fact that you were on an authorized mission and something breaks or craps out. You have to be able to identify and it has to be verified by the investigators that something that actually happened on the patrol as the direct link to the failure/breakage. Just being "on patrol" as an authorized "ordered" mission isn't enough.

These is no "coverall" blanket type coverage from the USCG or AUX about this.

I do kinda understand this ina way because this is a private facility only occasionally under official gov't orders, but I think there should be some leeway given instead of just a defacto "if you can't prove the failure had something DIRECTLY ta do with the ordered, authorized mission, then we just gonna deny it", which is pretty much exactly how it reads in the OPS manual.

What FLY N SCUBA reported about a friends AUXAIR facility sounds like a perfect example, although the official denial of claim reason sounds like pure grade "A", BS.

On an authorized, "ordered" mission something aboard the facility craps out and causes damage to the facility, something broke, something "FUBARED", something "SNAFUED", BUT because it sounds like the failure, FUBAR, whatever can't specifically identified and then verified by investigators as something that occured asa result of the patrol(and apparently just being on patrol isn't enough), Claim DENIED.

So, ya probably should remember that and educate yourself before ya go telling the USCG and the AUX Please let me use my privately owned facility for Gov't missions. First, doing so will null and void any private coverage ya might have for the duration, and second, they(they being the USCG and AUX) probably ain't gonna pay any claims in the 1st place.

Remember, in the AUX you have the right to "just say NO" to any activity or mission, well apparently the Gov't has the same right to if ya file a claim for something that happened during an authorized "ordered" mission-JRC

You seem to forget that there is also a catastrophic fund that covers repairs to AUXFACs even when the cause can't be pinpointed to a problem while on patrol. It even covers the AUXFAC if it isn't on patrol. You need to follow the same procedures as a patrol claim - report to the OIA, log the hours in use for personal vis-a-vis Auxiliary, get multiple quotes, maintenance records, etc.

This worked very efficiently for me for a new lower unit and for a friend for a new engine. My lower unit was completely covered since I had logged a total of five hours out of 1200 for personal use. My friend's engine was covered about 30% talking in account its age, replacement cost, time of ownership, etc.

My claim was paid promptly, but my friend had to negotiate a little - they originally didn't pay for shipping and tax. He spoke with the claims people and they sent him another check to cover those items.

You seem to forget that there is also a catastrophic fund that covers repairs to AUXFACs even when the cause can't be pinpointed to a problem while on patrol.

You happened to get lucky on your timing. The catastrophic fund isn't always 'funded'. Up until about a year or two ago, you had to wait years to get paid - if you ever got paid. I remember reading when they finally started paying off the old claims a few years ago the oldest in the pipeline had been there 7 years.

I don't know what happened if you had a claim in the pipeline and quite or died before they started paying again. I don't know if you got the gold mine or the shaft.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FL51D7,

CAPTKLM-

How'd yer lower unit go out???? I was Merc, OMC, certified for over 20 years and about 95% of the lower units I repaired or replaced were trashed from one(or more) of 3 things-

Ya hit something with it

Ya abused it

Ya didn't maintain it

That ain't the point of my response, I'm just curious!!

And I DID read the castastrophic failure part of claims.

And it starts with the sentence "The Coast Guard MAY(emphasis mine)reimburse" and it goes on just like ya said.

Matter of fact, I just re-read and it sounds like thats the same damage claim theory they applied to FLY N SCUBAs AUXAIR friend.

No specific mission related incident caused the malfunction, something just crapped out while on an authorized "ordered" mission, caused other damage, the claim didn't meet the "pro-rated" 10% of total value, and they denied it.

You and your friends claim got approved , FLY N SCUBAs friends didn't.

And I also don't fully understand why yer leg got totally covered. Irregardless of % of use Personal V AUX, its still supposed to be "pro-rated" on the depreciated value. "1200 hours of use" is 1200 hours of use, and the value of the outdrive is no longer what it was brand new.

The OPFAC I spent 100% of my AUX time on was an old 32' Trojan witha couple REALLY tired 318 christers in it. The use of this OPFAC was 100% AUX, thing was outfitted with more SAR stuff than a 41UTB.

Me and the owner were gonna repower it and he inquired into if the USCG would fund any of it. He was told to not even bother submitting a claim.

I left the AUX shortly after that(or more correctly,got thrown out)and have no idea if the repower was ever done.

I think the point I was trying to make in my 1st post is that there is NO defintive policy on damage claims, and I think alot of people in the AUX are under the mis-guided notion that there is.

I mean, I was kinda shocked that the USCG wouldn't even throw the owner of the AUXFAC I mentioned a couple hundred bucks or something. The ONLY THING this vsl was used for was the AUX, the owner bent over backwards in any and every way possible for the USCG, and they wouldn't even throw him a bone-JRC

In case anyone wants proof about the historic lack of funding for catastrophic claims, I present

The Navigator Fall 2004, "Relieve The Watch" COMO Edgerton, NACO, page 6.

quote:

On the not so positive side, I was unable to obtain Coast Guard funding for the Standard Auxiliary Maintenance Allowance (SAMA) program and claims for catastrophic failures, or the maintenance funds to fully support the transfer of Coast Guard UTL-Ts as Coast Guard owned-Auxiliary operated facilities.

It would not be until the Navigator Winter 2005-2006 page 8, that ChDirDux could report:

quote:

Successfully arguing for the first-ever boat Standardized Auxiliary Maintenance Allowance (SAMA) and obtaining facility catastrophic failure funds

SAMA was the 'first' - catastrophic failure funding had been suppressed for about 7 years.

This little ditty on catastrophic failure is from the OpsPolMan 2.D.4. Catastrophic Failure.

Notice "may be payable" and the subject to "availability of funds" and the logging requirement. "Shall" in CG-speak is a requirement. If you don't have a log book for your boat and log all use then you are SOOL for a filing a catastrophic failure claim. That would include the years you owned the boat before you joined the Aux.

quote:

When there is a catastrophic failure to an Auxiliary facility, where the facility is damaged by reason of its use, such a claim may be payable for repair and replacement of the facility or equipment subject to the availability of funds. More information about catastrophic failure is available in the Coast Guard Claims and Litigation Manual, COMDTINST M5890.9 (series). An Auxiliarist shall maintain a facility log book documenting all (including personal and CGAUX) hours of use. A Coast Guard approved log book is available at the Auxiliary center.

I wonder why a facility log book isn't on the offer for use inspection form? Oversight? I wonder how many facility owners actually maintain one.

Personally, I think I'm mostly with Pach on this one. Just because something broke while on an Aux mission doesn't necessarily mean that the CG should pay for it. However, it is a very tricky line to define.

For example, what if the airplane part flyandscuba mentioned caused the plane to crash and kill the occupants? The ultimate cause would still have been the same, the results just would have been much more serious.

Very tricky issue and I can't see any way to do it other than on a case-by-case basis.

I wonder why a facility log book isn't on the offer for use inspection form? Oversight?

It isn't there because it isn't required. You only need it if you are going to file a claim. This leads to a great Aux Catch-22.

You don't need the log book to patrol and no one checks for it and probably most owners don't have one. However, have a loss of certain types and you cannot file a claim without it.

And as an owner you cannot claim you didn't know. The log book requirement is in the OpsPolMan, AuxMan and Claim Manual. It isn't the CG's fault if you didn't read the manuals like you were supposed to.

And the lack of log books probably saves the CG a small fortune in claims in doesn't have to pay - so the CG has no real incentive to make the requirement better known.

quote:

It isn't there because it isn't required.

The regulation you qouted says that it is required to have one, though you would be right if you consider that it isn't required to be on board the boat at time of inspection as things currently stand. Perhaps that needs to change?

The regulation you qouted says that it is required to have one

I read the regulation in terms of 'required to have' in terms of being needed to file the claim. I can also see the justification for your interpretation. That being said, I crewed for a lot of coxswains who owned their own boats and took out non-coxswain owned boats. Not a single one of them ever logged personal vs Aux time. Most had no log at all.

It doesn't really break it down that way. It is a stand alone statement and though it is in the damage section, it doesn't say that you only need it if you're going to submit a claim.