Prosecutors release report on parasail mishap // DOCUMENT

PANAMA CITY — The captain of parasailing vessel involved in a mishap that nearly killed two Indiana teens last summer will not face criminal charges, but a report detailing the findings of a lengthy investigation recommends the U.S. Coast Guard begin proceedings to suspend or revoke his license.

The report, released Thursday by the State Attorney’s Office following a review for possible criminal charges, found “substantial evidence” Capt. Tyler Churchwell committed “acts of negligence and/or misconduct” that led to the injuries sustained by Sidney Good and Alexis Fairchild after the line towing them on July 1, 2013 failed and they were tossed by the wind into a condominium, power lines, parked vehicles and finally the ground.

Prosecutor Megan Ford said the state lacked evidence to prove Churchwell acted with recklessness or careless indifference.

“The State is unable to prove criminal negligence on the part of the defendant,” Ford said in a prepared statement released Thursday. “Reviewing all of the circumstances presented, including the weather, the condition of the boat, the defendant's training and abilities and the actions of other similar companies, nothing individually or taken as a whole meets the burden of proving ‘reckless indifference’ or ‘grossly careless’ beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The investigation was conducted by the state Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board. The results of the investigation were turned over to the State Attorney’s Office.

Churchwell and other employees of Aquatic Adventures, the company that owns the “Why Knot” and is being sued by the families of both girls, failed to properly monitor weather forecasts even though the boat was equipped with a functional marine radio with a weather channel. Because he was too close to the shore, he didn’t have enough room to maneuver the boat appropriately when the trouble started, the report says.

The report says Fairchild and Good were in the air for about 15 minutes before the storm kicked up winds at speeds nearly double the recommended speed for the particular parasail Churchwell employed that day, which is a large one designed to be used in low winds.

Around 3:55 p.m., Churchwell attempted to pull Good and Fairchild back in using the winch mounted to the boat, but the force of the wind in the large parasail was more than the winch could handle. The parasail began to pull the boat in reverse toward shore.

Churchwell dropped the anchor and increased the throttle in an attempt to increase the power available to the winch; the result was “counterintuitive,” the report says.

“Due to properties of hydraulic fluid under pressure, lower RPMs result in greater winch tension,” it says. “In this marine casualty then, as [Churchwell] increased RPMs to the engine, thinking it would increase the winch tension, it actually accomplished the opposite.”

The parasail canopy is larger than the canopies in existence at the time the winch was installed on the Why Knot, and might have exceeded the capacities of the winch system, the report said.

Churchwell, who passed drug and alcohol screenings after the wreck, isn’t the only one who made mistakes that day.

The report said other employees, including the Aquatic Adventures “safety officer,” failed to monitor the weather according to the company’s training manual and should have suspended operations — but the ultimate responsibility was the captain’s. The report noted that he is paid on commission.

When reached by telephone Thursday, Churchwell said he had not seen the report and declined to comment. Aquatic Adventures has hired an attorney to defend the company in the civil suit, and he has said he would not comment while the case is pending.

The report recommends that the Coast Guard create a parasail endorsement and require operators to hold it, as well as “research and consider developing regulations regarding parasail operations or inspect parasail equipment on all parasail vessels that carry at least one passenger for hire … regulations would proactively address known latent unsafe conditions, and guide, encourage, and compel parasail companies to promote safety.”

The report acknowledges that the Coast Guard doesn’t have authority currently to regulate or inspect the vessels. It does, however, assert that the Coast Guard expects licensed parasail operators to follow voluntary standards and can take enforcement actions against those who don’t.

“The lack of enforceable standards specific to parasailing does not prohibit the Coast Guard from taking measures that serve as a deterrent and reduce the frequency of similar casualties,” the report notes.