Well I wouldn't want to be the CoastGuard officials who decided not to implement the previous recomendation of bouyancy.

As per the initial post, several other operators have fitted them and whilst they don't quite look the same, there is a massive difference between risk levels in war time military scenarios and peacwtime leisure activities.

This was the original post https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=442325

Also wasn't this one where they were trying to implement some ancient 1851 marine act limiting liability to the cost of the vessel?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I think the dive boat that burned was the one where they were trying to use that law to limit liability.
In this case, it sounded like all claims had been paid, if I remember right.

It was this one as well.

According to this report it's all down to whether the lake was a "navigable waterway".
https://eu.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks...

Not sure how this affects the settlements already made.

Now seems all have been settled so there was no requirement to decide if this act applied or not, as far as I can see.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2020...

But Criminal charges are being filed also.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.