Bad stuff in BC
- Thread starter C-Dawg
- Start date
Some food for thought. More of a a snack, really.
http://blog.tadroberts.ca/2015/10/levia ... y-issues/#
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3293618
http://blog.tadroberts.ca/2015/10/levia ... y-issues/#
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3293618
AstoriaDave
New member
The second link has critical info in it. With no stability testing after modification, it might be difficult for the skipper to know what the tipping point is.Chester":1j048e24 said:
From the beginning, however, this has sounded like a larger swell than typical for that day washed across a shallow area and popped a steep wave, perhaps even a breaker, across the boat. With the passengers crowding the down rail, these factors combined to roll the boat, as it broached.
Chester's links are very important. The LEVIATHAN II was built as a crew boat, and then redone as an excursion boat in 1996. The issue of stability, with a partial load may not be addressed in stability tests (She was "certified" for 46 and 24 passengers were aboard--and most likely on the upper deck. The stability would be different with 46 aboard.
The second link implies that the vessel might not have undergone full stability tests after the upper deck was added in 1996.
New Years 2000, I wanted to be the "first boat on the bay". The boat was a 41 foot LOA 14.5 feet beam draft 3.5" MY, Documented Gross Tonnage 30 with a flying bridge and Sundeck--configuration, not unlike the excursion vessel, where a lot of weight was aloft if many were on the flying bridge. The excursion vessel, although 30% longer, only had 7" more beam, and the same draft with only 2 more gross tons--(not equal to displacement). Thus I would expect LEVIATHAN II was less stable. As I recollect, we had about a dozen on the flying bridge, and two of my friends thought it would be "funny" to see how much they could get the vessel to roll, by walking back and forth across the foredeck in rhythm with the roll. They were very successful...I stopped it almost immediately--but it brought home, how little, shifting weight (about 350; Lb in that case), would change the stability of a vessel!
Another time, I had to take 34 passengers across a choppy bay. I made sure that enough people were in the cabin below to increase the stability.
The second link implies that the vessel might not have undergone full stability tests after the upper deck was added in 1996.
New Years 2000, I wanted to be the "first boat on the bay". The boat was a 41 foot LOA 14.5 feet beam draft 3.5" MY, Documented Gross Tonnage 30 with a flying bridge and Sundeck--configuration, not unlike the excursion vessel, where a lot of weight was aloft if many were on the flying bridge. The excursion vessel, although 30% longer, only had 7" more beam, and the same draft with only 2 more gross tons--(not equal to displacement). Thus I would expect LEVIATHAN II was less stable. As I recollect, we had about a dozen on the flying bridge, and two of my friends thought it would be "funny" to see how much they could get the vessel to roll, by walking back and forth across the foredeck in rhythm with the roll. They were very successful...I stopped it almost immediately--but it brought home, how little, shifting weight (about 350; Lb in that case), would change the stability of a vessel!
Another time, I had to take 34 passengers across a choppy bay. I made sure that enough people were in the cabin below to increase the stability.
We were in Tofino a couple weeks ago and return there this weekend. Our friend has a B&B across from Jamie's and he and the Village are much in shock over this accident. The good folks over in Ahousat were on scene very quickly to get people out of the water. Thank god for their actions.
This vessel had a good track record over 20 years and as we know, all it takes is one wave, especially in open ocean. It's early in the investigation, but I think it will be found with so many people up top and few if any on the lower deck that the stability was affected.
This vessel had a good track record over 20 years and as we know, all it takes is one wave, especially in open ocean. It's early in the investigation, but I think it will be found with so many people up top and few if any on the lower deck that the stability was affected.
Marco Flamingo
Active member
rogerbum":5ns97kxz said:
That's the problem with calling something a rogue wave. It might have been only the biggest wave in an intermittent set. What surfers call a "bomb." They'll wait an hour for it. Still not what I would call a rogue wave. A rogue wave is way outside the norm and boats close enough to see the distress signal would have also seen and felt the huge wave.
I wasn't sure from the articles if it was certified for 46 passengers when it was apparently a Crown Zellerbach boat transporting loggers (sitting in a lower enclosed cabin). Seems like a different stability test would be required after a modification and maybe that's where the idea of signs limiting the passengers in the viewing area came into play. But the idea that passengers will self-regulate based on a sign? The captain announces "There's a mommy and baby otter playing in the kelp right beside the boat! Only one third of the passengers can look at a time and don't lean over the railing." I assume that the crew works partly for tips, so they aren't going to yell at the violators.
I'm impressed that the industry has as good of a safety record as it has.
Mark
Marco Flamingo
Active member
In the second post, Sea Wolf says the seas were 10-13 foot. So twice as high as the top 30% of the waves would be a 26 foot wave. If the passengers from Indiana turned around and saw a wave towering over their heads when they were on the upper deck, then they saw a rogue wave. I'm just guessing that they saw a regular wave, although maybe one of the bigger ones that day.
Another description of a rogue wave could be that any wave that knocks over your wine glass. I suppose it could be what kind of wave you are used to.
Mark
Another description of a rogue wave could be that any wave that knocks over your wine glass. I suppose it could be what kind of wave you are used to.
Mark
I don't know the regulations for Canadian Coast Guard Inspection. I have been told their regulations for captaining a boat are not as stringent as the US Coast Guard's, especially with respect to 12 passenger or fewer vessels.
In the US, boats with a passenger rating beyond an "uninspected vessel" (generally called a 6-Pac, due to the OUPV (Operator of an Uninspected Passenger Vessel) captain license, allowing no more than 6 passengers. Our boats have an annual Coast Guard Inspection. There are different requirements for "open water" and "protected water" vessels. The boats the company I work for are considered small passenger vessels - less than 100 tons. The inspections are extensive. I have been through these with each of the companies I have worked for. Periodically, the boats have to be inspected out of the water, as well. The inspections are extensive, and include practical testing with crew on the water.
Any structural change(s) require a new COI (Certificate of Inspection), which means another inspection and a stability test. The number of allowable passengers and crew will be determined after that test. The stability tests are done by moving sandbags to determine the amount of heel; estimates for anticipated water conditions are calculated. Seating is also considered.
My assumption is that Canadian vessels must have similar inspections, but (again) I am not familiar with their process.
Beyond the Coast Guard inspection/testing/licensing, captains operating around wildlife must know the federal, state, and local regulations concerning operating distances and speeds around various wildlife and protected shorelines. In US waters, I see NOAA and WDFW enforcement vessels almost daily; operating in Canadian waters, it is rare to see an enforcement vessel. That is an observation, nothing else implied. The viewing distances are different in Canadian waters.
We also have company policies that we have to follow, around wildlife, other boats, and shorelines/rocks/water depths. Those are not industry-wide, but are in place for safety and respectful viewing that our captains are required to adhere to.
The PNW offers amazing variety on the water. People come from all over the world to take the different wildlife tours. Our company does extensive safety training, beyond what is required. First mates/naturalists are required to take part in all crew training. The responsibility is not taken lightly; safe operation is a part of every decision/move made at the helm. It doesn't matter how many times one has covered the same water - every trip is different. You can't get complacent.
Jim
In the US, boats with a passenger rating beyond an "uninspected vessel" (generally called a 6-Pac, due to the OUPV (Operator of an Uninspected Passenger Vessel) captain license, allowing no more than 6 passengers. Our boats have an annual Coast Guard Inspection. There are different requirements for "open water" and "protected water" vessels. The boats the company I work for are considered small passenger vessels - less than 100 tons. The inspections are extensive. I have been through these with each of the companies I have worked for. Periodically, the boats have to be inspected out of the water, as well. The inspections are extensive, and include practical testing with crew on the water.
Any structural change(s) require a new COI (Certificate of Inspection), which means another inspection and a stability test. The number of allowable passengers and crew will be determined after that test. The stability tests are done by moving sandbags to determine the amount of heel; estimates for anticipated water conditions are calculated. Seating is also considered.
My assumption is that Canadian vessels must have similar inspections, but (again) I am not familiar with their process.
Beyond the Coast Guard inspection/testing/licensing, captains operating around wildlife must know the federal, state, and local regulations concerning operating distances and speeds around various wildlife and protected shorelines. In US waters, I see NOAA and WDFW enforcement vessels almost daily; operating in Canadian waters, it is rare to see an enforcement vessel. That is an observation, nothing else implied. The viewing distances are different in Canadian waters.
We also have company policies that we have to follow, around wildlife, other boats, and shorelines/rocks/water depths. Those are not industry-wide, but are in place for safety and respectful viewing that our captains are required to adhere to.
The PNW offers amazing variety on the water. People come from all over the world to take the different wildlife tours. Our company does extensive safety training, beyond what is required. First mates/naturalists are required to take part in all crew training. The responsibility is not taken lightly; safe operation is a part of every decision/move made at the helm. It doesn't matter how many times one has covered the same water - every trip is different. You can't get complacent.
Jim
The fishersmen of Ahousaht saved the lives of those 24 passengers and should be commended for it. There is a strong belief on the Island that the coastal first nations should be trained and funded to provide rescue operational capability. I think they have proven the need for it.
Another angle I have been thinking about is the probability factor. For 20 years they did the same thing twice every day and then one day....
How often has this happened to all of us! For 10 years we launched the boat without issue and then one day we forgot the plug! How many times have we tied the same knot over and over and then one day....
I don't know what to do about this. The thought scares me, but is seems to be a reality that we are all faced with.
We are all subject to the "and then one day" factor!
How often has this happened to all of us! For 10 years we launched the boat without issue and then one day we forgot the plug! How many times have we tied the same knot over and over and then one day....
I don't know what to do about this. The thought scares me, but is seems to be a reality that we are all faced with.
We are all subject to the "and then one day" factor!
C-jeep":2coqjo0r said:
Agreed except I might change "need" to Deserve.
C-Val, Your thoughts on "improbability" happening struck a chord. I have been crossing Juan de Fuca several times a year for 9 years now, and in general, the crossings are less than exciting, or memorable for any particularly noteworthy event.
On 2 occasions I have had very memorable experiences. One was written up as a thread (A Wake(Up) Story)
http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ge+falling
and the other I didn't because I never thought about what it was, except just a weird experience. On a day where there were noticeable large long period rollers I felt an extra lift, I didn't notice it approach from the port beam before I begin to feel the lift, then it was like an elevator, up, up and away, then down. I was in deep water, 280 to 350 feet, but up on that lift I could see a long way, then I was down behind it, and I could not see Whidbey Island when I dropped into the trough behind that crest. The typical swells had been about 6 feet. This one was at least twice that, and then it was gone, no curl or break, and maybe slightly a bit steeper, but barely.
Was it a rogue wave? I don't know and had not thought of it that way. Maybe so. If it was, I'm glad it was when I was out in the deep open water, not crossing the shallows entering into Cattle Pass.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
