Safety: WSF vs. BC Ferries

[Neil]

Reacting to the deal BC Ferries has made with the Town of Sidney to manage their terminal, WSF spokesperson Susan Harris outlined one of WSF's concerns. She said,
"Washington State Ferries has an extensive safety management system, and we have an extremely good safety record. BC Ferries' record is... questionable at best."

Is there anyone with knowledge of both systems who has any thoughts on this? What is the overall comparison between WSF and BC Ferries on safety equipment, preparedness, crew qualifications, vessel safety maintenance, accident record, and other issues? Is she right in claiming that their operation is basically safer than ours, or is she reacting to a couple of very high profile incidents?

[Queen of Nanaimo Teen]

What does WSF use for safety equipment? (BC Ferries is sorta outdated in that they still use lifeboats)

[Low Light Mike]

klitsa said:

What does WSF use for safety equipment? (BC Ferries is sorta outdated in that they still use lifeboats)

I challenge your premise.

BC Ferries has been moving to new lifesaving equipment, and has been phasing out old lifeboats for the past few years.

[Queen of Nanaimo Teen]

Yes, yes, I do realize that. And as far as I see it, (unfortunately) the V's will only be around for a few more years, so it would be a waste of money to upgrade.

[Barnacle]

Well, 'high-profile' incidents don't go away after a few years' time. I only know of one death caused directly by WSF operations, and that was a Fauntleroy dock employee named Wayne McLelland who was killed when the San Mateo failed to reverse in 1958. The bicycle courier was killed by his own belligerence and stupidity (he refused to get down off the rail while wearing his backpack; even his friends called him "Toothless Tony" as a result of his accident-prone nature), and until someone comes up with a body, I don't believe deckhand Steve Brown fell overboard. He may have been helped over, or smuggled off, but I don't think it was accidental either way.

WSF uses inflatable evacuation systems and liferafts exclusively; the boats on deck are for use in towing the IBA/MES units away or for rescue purposes. On the other hand, the only vessels with 100% liferaft capacity are the SOLAS boats.

BC Ferries' passenger/bystander death toll is simply higher than WSF's.

Oh yeah, and then there's that whole sinking thing--regardless of how it happened, calling it an 'isolated high-profile incident' still means it happened.

However, do I think Susan Harris-Huether took a cheap shot? Yes.

Do I also believe that WSF may simply have been luckier than BCF? You bet.

[WettCoast]

The average age of WSF vessels is, I believe, more than that for BCF? Are they not operating some vessels that are well beyond age 50? What about hull stability standards? I assume most if not all WSF have one compartment stability as is the case with most of the BCF fleet.

Having said all that it does look as if WSF has a superior set of safety stats? Could this be the benefit of being state owned?

[EGfleet]

Given the size of both systems I'd say they are both pretty good. BCF, however does have a higher passenger/bystander death toll than WSF and, let's face it, at least to date, WSF in 56 years of operation has never lost a vessel. Given the age of some of those vessels, that's pretty remarkable too.

Incidentally, for the record I think it was cheap shot by Susan Harris to make and very unprofessional. What WSF has really gotten their knickers in a bunch about is that part of their overblown, grandiose plans for the Anacortes terminal included moving all customs operations to the Sidney dock and off the Anacortes dock:

“Thirdly, we have 50 years experience dealing with Customs. We’ve been developing some revolutionary ideas [around dealing with Customs issues], but now we’re going to have to step back.”

Personally I think it's complete hype about ending the run. Lord knows I've been wrong before, but if it comes right down to the crux of it, if the promise is to keep the same schedule with WSF as they for years now, WSF is really going to have to try hard to come up with a valid reason to try to end operations to Sidney. The City of Anacortes will fight it, the City of Sidney will fight it, and they're not going to find a heck of a lot of support for trying to end the run when it comes to some tinsel-thin plan to move customs to Sidney which would have been some three years down the road anyway.

The safety issue? Just grandstanding and personally I hope Harris is taken to task for it.

[EGfleet]

wetcoastkidjst said:

The average age of WSF vessels is, I believe, more than that for BCF? Are they not operating some vessels that are well beyond age 50? What about hull stability standards? I assume most if not all WSF have one compartment stability as is the case with most of the BCF fleet.

Having said all that it does look as if WSF has a superior set of safety stats? Could this be the benefit of being state owned?

The average age is 41. Average, with the oldest being the Steel Electrics at 80. Only they are one compartment vessels and actually considered "one and a half." All the others in the fleet are more. All the ferries meet current US Coast Guard stability standards or they would not be in service.

As for the benefit of being State owned? Perhaps? That, and, as Barnacle pointed out, some luck in there too.

It's funny, though, given that they're the two largest systems in North America if not the world I've never really compared the two. The vessels themselves are a great deal different, and WSF routes are, for the most part, puddle jumps compared to the average routes in B.C.

That's one of the reasons I've never really compared the food service for example...face it, with your average trip on a WSF ferry being 35 minutes, you don't have time to sit down for a really nice meal like you do with the hour plus crossings on B.C. Ferries, which gives a chance to get REAL food. Having had a very nice actual breakfast on the Queen of Oak Bay all I could think was, "Gee, WSF ferry food sucks!"

But I digress. To me its always been like apples and oranges...yes they're both fruits, but very different...and despite the basic similarities between WSF and BCF, there is a world of difference between the two. This is why I think it was rather disingenuous for Harris to make the slam about the safety record.

[Barnacle]

And as a follow-up to the average age point, if you remove the Steel-Electrics from the averaging, the number drops to 33 1/2 years. Those old codgers are really skewing the numbers.

[Political Incorrectness]

No kidding, but what happens if you add 0's instead of 80s into that?? Does it remain at 33 1/2 or goes lower?

[Barnacle]

I removed the 320 years from the average, and divided by 20 instead of 24. If four new boats were to miraculously appear, the number would be 27 years, 10 months.

I used 24 for the number of boats to keep this on a RORO basis--the PAX boats aren't really being compared here.

[WettCoast]

The other point that I would make is that BCFS should be co-operating with WSF, making them more than welcome in Sidney, and maybe even providing a vessel (a B Class, perhaps) to enhance service between Anacortes, the San Juans, and Vancouver Island. On our side of the 49th we need to be a little more neighbourly sometimes and BCFS should be mindful of this, rather than treating this as an opportunity for profit.

[Political Incorrectness]

Wet Coastal Kid, how bout I redirect you to the Sidney terminal thread.

ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=bcferriesnews&action=display&thread=1170794676&page=2

[Neil]

Back to Barnacle's point, I certainly wasn't trying to dismiss the 'North sinking by refering to it as an isolated incident. You're right- it's part of the record, and WSF has nothing comparable.

How about operational mishaps- has WSF had their own versions of RAD malfunctions- unscheduled departures and the like? How about rough landings or wayward vessels? Any impaired captains? The Morfitt inquiry remarked on BC Ferries' quality safety equipment- how good (and/or modern) is WSF's ?
I think Susan Harris's remark is the first time I've ever heard anyone from either operation say something disparaging about the other. That it should be about something like safety is rather surprising.

[Political Incorrectness]

WSF has had many rough landing and quite a few dock chewings. The Elwha had three of those in her years. We have had docks damaged due to windstorms which BCFS has not. We have had groundings in the past too like the Quinalt grounding in Keystone.

[Hardy]

Sounds like typical "chest-thumping" grandstanding to me. I am sure that WSF doesn't want to lose face back in their own backyard, so they have to take a hardline and come out swinging.

Find me an American, any American, in any field, that is willing to stand up, after someone takes away one of his "toys" and can say "I am second best, and I like being second best. Someone else is number one".

Don't get on your soapbox right away, I am not saying that was her quote at all, or even her thinly veiled message. Just making a GENERAL observation .....

[Barnacle]

Let's see... in order:

WetCoastalKid: A foreign-flagged (from a US point of view) cannot operate between two US ports, period, without violating the Jones Act, which reserves internal transport for US business. To re-flag a BC ferry under US registry requires an act of Congress. I'm not sure we'd know how to cope with a true single-ender at any rate.

Hornbyguy: we have suffered a few unscheduled departures a la RAD, but not in recent decades. (I'm not diminishing the events, but they were well in the past.) The Issaquah-class boats were famous for their erratic performance in the early 1980s, as our first attempt at controllable-pitch propellers and computer-controlled propulsion. You'll notice that only the Rhody was converted to controllable-pitch, although the new ferries will be subjected to it as well (over the wishes of many of us in the fleet).

Our safety equipment... well, what do you mean by modern or good? I like our evacuation slides and our liferafts, and I am absolutely in love with our rescue boats, but I still hope like nobody's business that I never have to use them. ;D

There's always the question of where you draw the line at 'rough landings,' of course. I can think of one 'recent' (1996) grounding that was caused by a wayward vessel as a result of an impaired captain, covering all three categories. Two other scrapes were caused by inattention, both involving the Sealth in 2001 and 2004. There were no injuries in any of these that I am aware of.

Both systems are run by humans, and there will be mistakes leading to casualties. And for Susan Harris to take a fling at BC Ferries' safety record was inexcusable IMHO. It isn't like terminal operations have anything to do with vessel operations.

And it certainly isn't like WSF's gripe has anything to do with safety... it's that they didn't wish to pick up the ball on the Sidney terminal, and are now being told they can't do what they want to it--which is relocate US Customs to Sidney. I know WSF hasn't addressed the issue that US Customs inspectors carry firearms, and I'd be pretty surprised if the plan to relocate Customs has been run past the federal level... Of course, I could be wrong, and the GWB administration might see a relocation of Customs as an opportunity to get a fingerhold in the annexation of British Columbia.

[Barnacle]

cascade said:

I think if you look back at WSF own figures for this route - [perfect figures / data - BCFS pls take notice] - there has been a steady decline - well before 9/11. It was high lighted in the report done in the early 2000 - so they were thinking of closing this section down.

Due to the problems that BCFS now finds itself in - regarding reports on safety - the former Safety Director quiting and of course the issue of the sinking.
There appears to be no love lost between the two companies. So remarks about safety in a public press briefing on the subject of the Sidney terminal - does not really surprise me. It was to stir up problems for BCFS management - and to score points for WSF.

You will know that I have followed this subject - [Sidney terminal] for some time - and having knowledge of what WSF think of the way that the Township of Sidney pulled a master stroke in getting BCFS on-board - has broken a few tea cups within WSF - but also set them up perfectly to drop the route - due to....what ever excuse they may find - via BCFS.

Once again, Cascade, you are looking at severely outdated information from the Thorne era. I have little interest in continuing this particular thread if you keep quoting outdated material. While I admit the Sidney numbers are down, it's been my understanding that the numbers are down all over the system and the route with the smallest shrinkage is Sidney. At least, using my own slightly fresher information from 2004.

Looking from within WSF, I don't think SH-H scored any points for WSF--I felt it was an immature fling taken out of frustration. But I also think you give WSF a good deal more credit for deviousness than they deserve.

[Political Incorrectness]

Mr Barnacle, if you say that cascade is looking at outdated information, would those projections in the long range draft be from the Micheal Thorne days?

[Barnacle]

I'm not sure which long-range projections you refer to, but if the 'long-range' plans date from about 2001-2004, then yes. (I think. I've blotted out most of the Thorne era from my memory and I'm a little fuzzy on dates.) And also bear in mind that any long-range projections are rather pie-in-the-sky in any case... the long range plan dated 1983 had bridges connecting the San Juan Island about seven years ago.

[Dane]

... and long term plans had BC Ferries starting passenger only service downtown-downtown Vic/Van this year

[Doug]

Why does WSF's mentioning of safety records come as no surprise to me?

[Political Incorrectness]

Maybe cause our last bad accident was in 00 when the Sealth rammed Colman Dock. 04 was the last grounding.

[Queen of Vancouver]

I think BCF is safer then WSF if you look at all aspects between them. Like BCF has more ships/more runs per day/carry more pepole, cars and trucks then WSF.

[Barnacle]

Unless the numbers have changed substantially, I do believe WSF is still the bigger people-mover. But, there's a large variety of ways to compare the two systems, and frankly you can make the numbers/arguments lay down pretty much any way you want.

For instance, I can think of five Washington State Ferries that have sunk.

Mind you, they didn't sink until well after they'd passed out of WSF ownership, but it's all a semantics game eventually. ;D