Donating a three hour sunset cruise

[soin2la]

Point 1- Different jurisdictions won't operate under different rules where CG is in play.

Point 2- Government departments and legal regulations in cases like these, usually come about from boaters who say "no one said I couldn't" and customers who say "I nicked my head on some stupid red light on the side of the boat and won the lottery.

 

[Omikeoreilly]

Thank you all for your valuable insight. My Insurance broker seem's to think it is fine. No different than taking friends out.I will reach out to our local US Coast Guard office. I am hesitant now for many reason's shared. Maybe easier to write a check and not lose sleep

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Draw the line, but it doesn't mean it is against the law.


The people who enforce it may not see gray....so I suggest the only way to be sure is call them and get it in writing.

I guess what I meant to say is, that the regulatory agency in question (not me) has likely already drawn that line, after multiple requests for interpretation and enforcement actions, and it is likely drawn just on the other side of passengers giving consideration, more than the master (or owner) receiving it.

This is also regularly litigated (and endlessly argued) for charity airplane flights under similar circumstances. However, the FAA does have a compassion flight exception to commercial operations, within certain parameters - chiefly being, you must pay for every aspect of the flight and accept no cost sharing whatsoever.

 

[soin2la]

That won't get you around the USCG licensing requirements, which apply when a passenger pays, even if not to you. And if it isn't legal, good chance it is not insured.

I’m always intrigued by this type of question on social media.
Many answers are given on the basis of “I have a friend who has done it with no problems.” Others come from what could be classified as lunchroom lawyers.

IMO, MYTraveller has put it in easy logical terms; seek proper advice; legal and insurance.

While I have no personal experience, I do know an individual who "donated" an afternoon in the Broughtons, with proceeds to the local RCMSAR. Whales were mentioned in the promo.

Some time later he was visited by the RCMP. Fortunately, small town, everyone knows everyone, so it went no further than a "sorry but" message.

It was let known, a whale watching company had lodged a complaint with the feds, which the RCMP were aboliged to chase down.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. "...it's the world we live in." I think it's the country you live in, to be frank. I know of no where else where a "good Samaritan" could be charged for trying to help, with the best of intentions.

 

[Porgy]

Greetings,
Mr. s. "...it's the world we live in." I think it's the country you live in, to be frank. I know of no where else where a "good Samaritan" could be charged for trying to help, with the best of intentions.

I don’t think of donating to a charity as a Good Samaritan situation. I see it as donating to a charity. But maybe that term has a much broader meaning.

What if the captain was grossly incompetent and unfit to operate a boat and kept the boat in a hazardous condition. I’d guess many who would bid on a boat ride might be completely ignorant of boating and boat operation and thus might not know this was abnormal. (I know I don’t need a boat ride, I have a boat.)

If things then go badly and people are hurt or killed, does the owner/captain get a pass because he “meant well” and had “good intentions” or “it was all for charity.” Personally I don’t think so. It may seem an extreme example but, we all have seen grossly incompetent boat operation. What’s to stop those people from donating boat rides for charity. Looking at the video posted here of Haulover Inlet alone scares the hell out me at the thought.

 

[markpierce]

I stopped claiming taxable income deductions (so-called tax-deductions) for compensation made to eligible organizations. Doesn't feel right for other tax payers to subsidize my giving.

 

[rgano]

Thank you all for your valuable insight. My Insurance broker seem's to think it is fine. No different than taking friends out.I will reach out to our local US Coast Guard office. I am hesitant now for many reason's shared. Maybe easier to write a check and not lose sleep

Maybe the best way for one to loan one's boat and services to charitable organizations is to remove any financial aspects from the offer. Something like offering to the XX number person to enter the aution site or other more imaginative ideas.

 

[Fletcher500]

I am all for donating to charities, and my wife and I are active in this regard including past board member for Make a Wish.

However...We took a fairly large group of people out for a memorial service for my good friend of 35 years who died too young at age 56. His elderly father was on the upper deck and went from vertical to horizontal. No major injuries and he recovered, but it was eye an eye opener, especially when guests I don’t know are consuming adult beverages. Things happen on rolling boats which is nothing new for anyone on here, but I am very careful who I bring out, especially after that occurred.

 

[markpierce]

Someone loses balance in your house and breaks a hip. How is this different on your boat? Isn't that why one carries liability insurance?

 

[Fletcher500]

Someone loses balance in your house and breaks a hip. How is this different on your boat? Isn't that why one carries liability insurance?

Agree, but I would say the chances of someone getting hurt on a dynamic rolling/pitching boat, are much higher than your static house. Especially elderly people and those that have not spent time on boats before. That is why we are more careful about who comes aboard. No guarantees in life regardless.

 

[Alaskaflyer]

“Hey USCG, I want to take some people who paid money to a charity for the privilege of a cruise on my uninspected vessel. No, I have no masters license, why do you ask?”

 

[FWT]

Agree, but I would say the chances of someone getting hurt on a dynamic rolling/pitching boat, are much higher than your static house. Especially elderly people and those that have not spent time on boats before. That is why we are more careful about who comes aboard. No guarantees in life regardless.

I kinda agree with the thrust of what Fletcher is saying.

The real rub is the situation takes you from knowing who you have aboard, to complete strangers. They might be great people it becomes a treasure to meet. New friends. But they might also be complete jerks too. Jerks who won't behave safely, not stay out of the way when they need to, etc.

 

[Porgy]

I know it’s not entirely relevant to the OP’s intent but, this discussion reminded me of the capsize on Long Island Sound in 2012.

27 people on a 34 Silverton convertible to watch fireworks. Owner claimed to have 25 years experience. Three children drowned 8, 11 and 12. Trapped below and couldn’t escape, their bodies recovered from the sunk boat.

Sorry to be maudlin but having a bunch of people on your boat and for which you and you alone are responsible is pretty sobering to me. We have friends aboard, hey let’s go on a trip. Go over the safety and operation stuff and all’s great. I hadn’t consciously stopped and thought to myself that I hold my friend’s very life in my hands. A brief moment of reflection like that might make all the difference some day.

 

[tiltrider1]

Since there is already case law on this subject you might want to contact David Weil at "The Log". I bet he has already written an article on it.

If your response from the Coast Guard is favorable then get it in writing. My bet is they wont give you an answer or they will refer you to the case law.

 

[psneeld]

I say get the word directly from the USCG, your insurance company and your heart.


I have done more dangerous things in scouting activities as a volunteer than taking some people for a simple boatride.


Every day many are exposed to lawsuits from all directions.... life shouldn't be crippling.

 

[Portage_Bay]

When listing the auction item the boat owner can specify the number of guests allowed.

Then get all guests sign a release of damages and liability. Run the whole concept through your insurer.

I'd be comfortable with that.

I know it’s not entirely relevant to the OP’s intent but, this discussion reminded me of the capsize on Long Island Sound in 2012.

27 people on a 34 Silverton convertible to watch fireworks. Owner claimed to have 25 years experience. Three children drowned 8, 11 and 12. Trapped below and couldn’t escape, their bodies recovered from the sunk boat.

Sorry to be maudlin but having a bunch of people on your boat and for which you and you alone are responsible is pretty sobering to me. We have friends aboard, hey let’s go on a trip. Go over the safety and operation stuff and all’s great. I hadn’t consciously stopped and thought to myself that I hold my friend’s very life in my hands. A brief moment of reflection like that might make all the difference some day.

 

[MYTraveler]

get all guests sign a release of damages and liability.

Better run that release past your lawyer. I suspect you will be told that in order to be enforceable, the release would have to be "knowing" -- the passenger would have to understand the risks he is waiving. So, you would have to disclose, as a part of that release, that the charter may not be legal, and that as such the charter entails additional risks. The catch 22 is that since the charterer was aware of the (at least potential) the illegality and attendant risk, the release should not be enforced as a matter of public policy.

 

[backinblue]

I stopped claiming taxable income deductions (so-called tax-deductions) for compensation made to eligible organizations. Doesn't feel right for other tax payers to subsidize my giving.

Although that sounds noble, I'd look at it a different way. The tax deduction is there to encourage and increase donations. Let's say you really care about a certain charity and a $5K donation will result in $1K less in taxes. You would help the charity more by donating $6K and taking the deduction than $5K and not. (not perfect math I know, just making a point). I wouldn't look at it as being subsidized by other taxpayers. It's all part of the general fund and budget. Look at it as $1K less that the some politician gets to waste on their pet project.

 

[psneeld]

Somebody came through and emailed me this... while this I assume applies to vessels that are regularly used as UPVs.... this may be an opening that the USCG isn't hard core about "the law" by allowing exceptions.



46CFR26.03-6



§ 26.03-6 Special permit.
(a) If the owner, operator, or agent donates the use of an uninspected passenger vessel to a charity for fundraising activities, and the vessel's activity would subject it to Coast Guard inspection, the OCMI may issue a special permit to the owner, operator, or agent for this purpose if, in the opinion of the OCMI, the vessel can be safely operated. Each special permit is valid for only one voyage of a donated vessel, which is used for a charitable purpose. Applications are considered and approved on a case-by-case basis.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/26.03-6

 

[Alaskaflyer]

Excellent find. One wonders if the permit would require a licensed master be in command, depending on the circumstance

 

[Portage_Bay]

Great info! Now a question for you as an ex Coastie. How do you suggest an owner go about applying for the exemption? Direct contact to OCMI appropriate sector? Or?

Somebody came through and emailed me this... while this I assume applies to vessels that are regularly used as UPVs.... this may be an opening that the USCG isn't hard core about "the law" by allowing exceptions.



46CFR26.03-6



§ 26.03-6 Special permit.
(a) If the owner, operator, or agent donates the use of an uninspected passenger vessel to a charity for fundraising activities, and the vessel's activity would subject it to Coast Guard inspection, the OCMI may issue a special permit to the owner, operator, or agent for this purpose if, in the opinion of the OCMI, the vessel can be safely operated. Each special permit is valid for only one voyage of a donated vessel, which is used for a charitable purpose. Applications are considered and approved on a case-by-case basis.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/26.03-6

 

[psneeld]

Yes...but just spent an hours calling from Maine to Portsmouth, VA at several levels and getting someone knowledgeable on the subject wasn't happening. Also tried live chat with National Maritime Center, they suggested I call a sector. So going live to a sector when I knew someone with the paperwork was going to be there would be my first start but it would have to be months ahead of the even to hope it happening.


My cut.....


No, maybe no licensed individual is needed because the exception talks more about the vessel than the person and if the UPV met the requirements and so did the operator, then there would be no problem...so getting the exception permit is about drawing outside the lines someplace.


Because the part I referenced was about a UPV...not just some private vessel....they may just be worried you have sufficient equipment for the voyage or the permit will limit the voyage it sounds.


I still think the part about the definition of "consideration" is awfully grey unless the Charity is considered an "Agent" of the individual...but if nothing "flows" to the contributor of the vessel...then I am not sure ...thus without something in writing from the USCG I would be hesitant.


It's weird calling around and searching the net for whom to speak to in the USCG. It is so different organizationally from when I was in ....but at the station level and mission execution it really hasn't changed much that I can tell.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Yes, working well in advance is key. I do know from experience that when wrestling with the CG office of marine inspection it can be helpful to go in with the relevant federal regs in hand and politely but firmly ask to speak to the OCMI. But, since 9/11 things have changed and civilians can no longer just walk into the office.



I do think I might have an edge being licensed with a lot of local experience where the sunset cruise would take place.

 

[IronZebra]

[/B]

Obviously different jurisdictions operate under differing rules. However, I think it is a little sad when government departments and legal regulations make it difficult for people to donate time and resources to help out good causes.

I find it interesting how different government agencies treat something like this. I am a Hot Air Balloon pilot. Certified as a sport pilot, working on my commercial certificate. A sport pilot can not charge for balloon rides and a commercial pilot can. However the FAA has said it is ok for a sport pilot to donate rides to charity. The FAA also allows an individual riding with a sport pilot to provide a proportional share of the fuel cost.

I am not saying one is right and one is wrong. Just an observation that they are different.

Of course the difference in the federal agency decision making may include the fact a sport pilot has at least had to prove themselves capable for flying a balloon. All that is needed to give a boat ride is a boat.

 

[MYTraveler]

I still think the part about the definition of "consideration" is awfully grey unless the Charity is considered an "Agent" of the individual...but if nothing "flows" to the contributor of the vessel...then I am not sure ...thus without something in writing from the USCG I would be hesitant.

The language of the code, as I recall, doesn't require that the consideration flow to the owner / operator of the vessel. It is sufficient that the passenger provides consideration in exchange. In the context of a charity auction, that requirement is met.

 

[psneeld]

The language of the code, as I recall, doesn't require that the consideration flow to the owner / operator of the vessel. It is sufficient that the passenger provides consideration in exchange. In the context of a charity auction, that requirement is met.

Here is part of the USCGs definition of consideration. The other segments of consideration really don't change much...


"Consideration means an economic benefit, inducement, right, or profit, including pecuniary payment accruing to an individual, person, or entity but not including a voluntary sharing of the actual expenses of the voyage by monetary contribution or donation of fuel, food, beverage, or other supplies."


As NO consideration makes it back to the boat or owner except in the possibility of a tax deduction...is there really consideration to make the boat or captain a true passenger vessel?


I would strongly believe it does not and based on the example I gave before there is some flexibility in the USCG's eyes when it comes to charity.

 

[Seevee]

I guess what I meant to say is, that the regulatory agency in question (not me) has likely already drawn that line, after multiple requests for interpretation and enforcement actions, and it is likely drawn just on the other side of passengers giving consideration, more than the master (or owner) receiving it.

This is also regularly litigated (and endlessly argued) for charity airplane flights under similar circumstances. However, the FAA does have a compassion flight exception to commercial operations, within certain parameters - chiefly being, you must pay for every aspect of the flight and accept no cost sharing whatsoever.

Good points. Now we know that there are charity exceptions, both in aviation and boating.


What becomes difficult to accept is that our government is hell bent on anyone making a profit without being under their thumb. And why does the exchange of money force the level of safety up from not making money. Shouldn't we give ANY of our passengers the same level. We do brief them and have a safe ship, don't we? And, I could argue in any case, we have to educate them as to the risks and issues of boating and let them make up their own mind.



However, I have no issue if a commercial operator who is in the business of openly providing rides to the public, for a charge, is held to a higher standard.



Another thing that is irritating, it that the captain is "guilty" until proven innocent and assumed liable for anything that happens on his ship. What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility? Well, guess the lawyers killed that.

 

[backinblue]

Good points. Now we know that there are charity exceptions, both in aviation and boating.


What becomes difficult to accept is that our government is hell bent on anyone making a profit without being under their thumb. And why does the exchange of money force the level of safety up from not making money. Shouldn't we give ANY of our passengers the same level. We do brief them and have a safe ship, don't we? And, I could argue in any case, we have to educate them as to the risks and issues of boating and let them make up their own mind.



However, I have no issue if a commercial operator who is in the business of openly providing rides to the public, for a charge, is held to a higher standard.



Another thing that is irritating, it that the captain is "guilty" until proven innocent and assumed liable for anything that happens on his ship. What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility? Well, guess the lawyers killed that.

But isn't that true of most property, not just a boat? Somebody slips and falls in your house or on a commercial property like a mall, could easily have a lawsuit as well. True story, someone here sued the city because they were crossing a street and tripped on a curb that was cracked. City is responsible for maintenance of the curb, responsibility of the person walking has nothing to do with it.

 

[MYTraveler]

Here is part of the USCGs definition of consideration. The other segments of consideration really don't change much...

If I get a chance, I will do some research. I had previously considered including my boat in a charity cruise but looked into it and was surprised to learn that the consideration need not flow to the owner/operator -- it is enough that the passengers pay anyone for the privilege.