Active Pass Safety?

[sgrant]

It seems no one noticed my letter to the Editor of the Vancouver Sun today, in which I raised the issue of the safety of ferry movements in the SW entrance to Active Pass.

Anyway, here's what I said:

"It's impossible for most citizens to conclude whether BC Ferries is operating safely. While the corporation's record is mostly good, there are enough blemishes to give pause to any reasonable observer.

While photograhing on Twawassen - Swartz Bay runs, I noticed the scheduling resulted in a tendency for two ships to meet just inside the southern dog-leg exit of Active Pass. Having one ferry make a sharp turn inside and close to the path of another turning ferry, with the close island backdrops, made for outstanding video. But it occurred to me that if either ship suffered control problems, there would be no time to avoid a collision. Especially at the speeds the ferries travel while transiting Active Pass.

A ferry staffer reassured me that due to redundant systems, no such complete loss of control could happen. Then the Queen of Oak Bay crashed into Horseshoe Bay. So I used BC Ferries' website to mention my concern to them at an official level. I got no response.

The point here is that since a gross safety hazard can exist seemingly even in plain sight, reassurances from BC Ferries about their operating safety must be regarded with caution. "

Since the corporation hasn't responded to this, would anyone care to comment informally?

[Doug]

The Queen of Oak Bay is "flawed" along with her other four sisters. She is a large double-ended ship with a propeller at each end. Two engines can move either prop at any given time via a gearbox in the center...they were built before the diesel-electric technology started taking over propulsion systems onboard modern vessels.

However, each of the ferries between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay have two propellers and at least two engines. I believe the two older ships (which are more susceptible to lose steering) have a direct shaft connection between each engine and each propeller.

I think what drove the Queen of Oak Bay to lose both her engines is because a governor broke or something, and the engine did what it wanted to do - speed up. Due to the mechanical connection between the two engines, so did the other engine. Eventually the safety tripping device kicked in, and both engines shut down.

Won't happen on a "S" or "V" Class ferry.

[Low Light Mike]

I mentioned the issue to the 2 ships passing in the narrow pass to another member last month, and the comment was that it does make for some great photos.

I agree that it's ironic that the 2 ships would be scheduled to meet at that most-risky place.

I agree that recent events (SOCB & QNM) mentioned in the media last month, coupled with the 2005/06 incidents with OakBay and Q-North mean that the "Nothing will go wrong" default-presumption is changing.

These recent incidents mean that the inherent risk of Active Pass is that much more relevant.

Add to the mix a Queen of Nanaimo/Tsawwassen backing out of Village Bay in the fog, and there's more risk still.

good points.

re the Sun letter: Usually Great-Big-Nimpkish is all over the Vancouver Sun's items......

[sgrant]

Glad to hear I'm not the only person on the planet who thought this is unnecessarily risky. I don't know if the schedule causes this meeting point, but I noticed it happened more often than not, so probably it is a function of the schedules.

I should add my letter was printed on page 3 of the Westoast News section, as opposed to being with the Letters to the Editor in the main section of the Sun.

[Dane]

dougubell said:

The Queen of Oak Bay is "flawed" along with her other four sisters. She is a large double-ended ship with a propeller at each end. Two engines can move either prop at any given time via a gearbox in the center...they were built before the diesel-electric technology started taking over propulsion systems onboard modern vessels.

However, each of the ferries between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay have two propellers and at least two engines. I believe the two older ships (which are more susceptible to lose steering) have a direct shaft connection between each engine and each propeller.

I think what drove the Queen of Oak Bay to lose both her engines is because a governor broke or something, and the engine did what it wanted to do - speed up. Due to the mechanical connection between the two engines, so did the other engine. Eventually the safety tripping device kicked in, and both engines shut down.

Won't happen on a "S" or "V" Class ferry.

Wrong. The C's aren't more likely than other vessels. That's media glorification to get a story.

The very specific thing that happened to the Oak Bay couldn't happen to a V or S, but the general issue could happen to any vessel, or really any tpe of transport. Your cars auto-steering could go and it would be an issue.

I don't see a concern re: active pass.

Really it's not that dangerous. You're taking a statistical anomily, saying it's possible to happen again, which it is, and then generalizing there is a risk. You are much more likely to get hit by lightening than a BC Ferry loosing steering.

Some other things you're more likely to see happen
- you personally get biten by a deadly snake and die
- you personally, assuming you're under 25, getting the flu and dying from it
- you getting hit by a train in BC

... needless risk requires there being a risk in the first place byond the ussual in the first place.

[Political Incorrectness]

I don't believe this is that big of an issue cause did anyone consider why they have deckhands near the anchor gear while travelling through Active Pass?

[Scott]

My subscription ran out and I didn't renew it:) It woke up the baby when it came at 5 in the morning:)

The letter brings up a good observation. Active Pass is a potentially dangerous location. I guess there are two points that immediately come to mind.

1. It's almost impossible for the ferries not to meet in Active Pass. You would have to stagger the schedule really badly to accomplish the feat. Ferries leaving Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen at the same time are naturally going to meet in the Pass. Ideally, I think, they meet in the middle of the pass where there is a short straight stretch. However, if one is a few minutes late, then you never know where they will pass... I've seen them pass all over the place. I suppose you could have one ferry leave Tsawwassen at 9am, for example, and one leave Swartz Bay at 9:30, but then you sort of mess up the schedule. It would be something like this... 7, 9:30, 11, 1:30, etc. So you'd have a 2 1/2 hour wait between ferries, then a 1 1/2 hour wait. And when you get into hourly departures in the summer, plus late ferries, then you can't control anything.

2. This sounds contradictory, but I think Active Pass is probably one of the safest times on a ferry. I say this for a number of reasons. The crew is going to be most alert during the journey going through the pass. I'm pretty sure the ship is being controlled manually at this point, and not by autopilot. I'd be more worried about an "easy" strectch where perhaps people aren't paying so much attention. Another point is that the ships are going slower than they do regularly. And also, if you've been at the bow of the ship while a ship goes through Active Pass, you'll notice that there's always a crew member standing watch at the very front of the ship. That's also where the anchor systems are operated from, so if the ship did lose power, the anchor could be lowered immediately.

I personally don't think there's a problem at all with how it is now, and in my opinion it's probably the safest part of the trip.

[Islander15]

Actually if both ships are on time they SHOULD meet at Matthews Bluff(on galiano island) in Active Pass. However if the Swartz Bay sailing is late sometimes they meet a little closer to Hellen Point. If the Tsawwasen sailing is late they meet closer to Miner's Bay. Obviously the pass is a dangerous part of the sailing but I don't think any scheduling change is necessary. Both ships have multiple redundencies in case of an emergency and anchors are at the ready in case of a total power/steering loss.

[Neil]

Jeez, how many times since 1960 have ferries passed each other at pretty much precisely the same spot? Eight times a day in winter, sixteen in summer. How many collisions, or even close misses, have occured? Give me a break.

CanWest sells advertising by preying on people's fears. A couple of years back they were terrifying us with SARS (remember that?). Now we're in dire danger when we step on a ferry.

[Low Light Mike]

sgrant said:

Glad to hear I'm not the only person on the planet who thought this is unnecessarily risky.

While I agree that the scheduled meeting at Active Pass is risky, and this risk is real, I wonder if this is an "acceptable risk".

The comments above in this thread indicate that most people here think it's an acceptable risk, because it's managed well by various mitigating procedures.

[sgrant]

Interesting points.

True, that the ferries probably are being operated more cautiously in Active Pass. So is this an argument that there is more or less danger?

My point was that when the ferries meet while both are turning in the narrowest part of the Pass, why not just use radio communications to slow one or both of them so that they don't meet for those 20 seconds or so in the tightest part of the pass? Yes, it's not reasonable to avoid meeting in the entire pass, but I was concerned only about that one spot. Surely 20 seconds on 50% of sailings is not unreasonable to reduce the risk to zero, even if it is already low.

As for dropping the anchor, if this is such a good strategy, why didn't the Queen of the North do this to try to keep the ship out of deep water, and why didn't the Queen of Oak Bay do so? (Because the release was painted in place?)

And I'm not going to not worry about a collision in the exit of Active Pass just because the anchor might be dropped afterwards.

Is there no International safety organization that could judge the safety of Active Pass movements?

[Dane]

sgrant said:

Is there no International safety organization that could judge the safety of Active Pass movements?

Compared to N. Europe passages there is a world of room in Active Pass.

Given what we know about the Queen of the North incident dropping the anchor wouldn't have made sense, generally when a ship is taking on water you don't want to add a downwards force to the situation. There was an issue with the anchor on the Oak Bay... which is inexcusable. That said on an Active Pass run there need be someone manning the anchor -> note the case with a C Class (or any vessel in BCF) coming into dock. If a C Class was in Active Pass that issue wouldn't have been able to occur.

The ferries reduce their speed, very roughly, 33% in the Pass.

Given the fact that by the very nature of their operations every ferry has a controlled crash at the end of its sailing ferries are almost the safest form of transportation in the world, and BC Ferries has only had two deaths that are attributed as the Corporation/Companies (time dependant) fault.

[Scott]

When I was on the Queen of Capilano for a few days as a work experience student, I believe that we checked (operated?) the anchor at least one night. Could anyone who works on BC Ferries confirm that the anchoring systems are tested quite often? The news last week that the C-class anchor was stuck because of a paint job really is inexcusable, like Dane said.

[Barnacle]

I do hope the anchor windlasses on BC Ferries are different than those upon WSF... ours don't have a powered recovery method. We have to either hand-crank, hook up a drill motor, or slip the wire and buoy it if we want to recover. And even if we do crank it back into place, we can't re-seat it on most of our boats. So very few of us have ever gotten to launch an anchor on a WSF. I guess the logic is if we have to drop the pick, we'll worry about how to get it back later. ;D

There's one spot in the San Juan Islands that has three old anchors within a half-mile or so of each other... and we can't recover any of them because they're in a cable area.

[NMcKay]

I have been on the Bridge of the Spirit Of BC during the transit in active pass (I got to blow the whistle) and i can confirm, Yes, they are on Manual Control During Active Pass, and they do have a Crew Member standing by at anchor should anything go wrong, they also have crew standing by at the engines should steering be lost, the engineer can shut down the engine, the anchor can be dropped, and the vessel should come to a stop in about 2 of its own lengths (depends of the time / speed)

[bcfcbccsscollector]

"Pronounced as Mister "EE-fac lat-SAY-oc". (call me "Efac")"

OK, most will be able to figure that one out, but how many are going to be able to understand your avatar? Even if I say JOHNNY GAGE!!

[Kam]

dane said:

dougubell said:

The Queen of Oak Bay is "flawed" along with her other four sisters. She is a large double-ended ship with a propeller at each end. Two engines can move either prop at any given time via a gearbox in the center...they were built before the diesel-electric technology started taking over propulsion systems onboard modern vessels.

However, each of the ferries between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay have two propellers and at least two engines. I believe the two older ships (which are more susceptible to lose steering) have a direct shaft connection between each engine and each propeller.

I think what drove the Queen of Oak Bay to lose both her engines is because a governor broke or something, and the engine did what it wanted to do - speed up. Due to the mechanical connection between the two engines, so did the other engine. Eventually the safety tripping device kicked in, and both engines shut down.

Won't happen on a "S" or "V" Class ferry.

Wrong. The C's aren't more likely than other vessels. That's media glorification to get a story.


Really it's not that dangerous. You're taking a statistical anomily, saying it's possible to happen again, which it is, and then generalizing there is a risk. You are much more likely to get hit by lightening than a BC Ferry loosing steering.

Some other things you're more likely to see happen
- you personally get biten by a deadly snake and die
- you personally, assuming you're under 25, getting the flu and dying from it
- you getting hit by a train in BC

... needless risk requires there being a risk in the first place byond the ussual in the first place.

Just because something is a low risk doesn’t mean there is no more room to further reduce that risk. Statistically speaking you are in fact more likely to get hit by lightning, but even in that case you can take common sense precautions to avoid getting lit up. Like not standing in the middle of a field waving a golf club around…. It's about risk reduction, and to offset the schedules by 15 minutes to reduce the risk seems like a reasonable and respectable idea to me. Having two vessels schedules to cross paths in the pass feels the same as waving a golf club around in a thunderstorm to me.

[Dane]

kam said:

Just because something is a low risk doesn’t mean there is no more room to further reduce that risk.

I agree with your point. That is why BC Ferries has so many safeguards, which have been brought up in great detail in this thread.

kam said:

Statistically speaking you are in fact more likely to get hit by lightning, but even in that case you can take common sense precautions to avoid getting lit up.

I agree again - but same response as above.

kam said:

Like not standing in the middle of a field waving a golf club around…. It's about risk reduction, and to offset the schedules by 15 minutes to reduce the risk seems like a reasonable and respectable idea to me.

If this seems reasonable to you then I hope you don't drive a car where the aspect of risk on blind corners, multilane roads and such is a much greater risk, despite the fact there are more variables than sailing a vessel through Active Pass.

kam said:

Having two vessels schedules to cross paths in the pass feels the same as waving a golf club around in a thunderstorm to me.

Then you are not well familiar with the operations of these vessels in the Pass.

[Islander15]

Yes I can confirm that the anchors are regularly tested ( atleast once every 8 days).

[Low Light Mike]

bcfcbccsscollector said:

"Pronounced as Mister "EE-fac lat-SAY-oc". (call me "Efac")"

OK, most will be able to figure that one out, but how many are going to be able to understand your avatar? Even if I say JOHNNY GAGE!!

I've got a radio-phone that can contact Rampart General Hospital.

[bcfcbccsscollector]

I've got a radio-phone that can contact Rampart General Hospital.

I always got a charge out of Kelly Brackett's signature line, "Start an IV D5W TKO and transport as soon as possible" ........Ahhh, 70s drama.

What does this have to do with Active Pass?...Nothing. Better quit here Efac, before we get toasted for thread jacking.

[Mike C]

"The our of purification is at hand!"
We will try to divert the convo from Efac Latsaoc (no, I don't get it, new generation, remember?)
And now, we will return to our original programming. The programming that was intended.

I'll go first.

I've noticed on the vessel watch that the ferries do slow down in the Pass, generally in the neighbourhood from 19-20 to 10-11.
Also, the Queen of Alberni accident of 1979 occured in Active Pass. Though I'm not too sure why, it was probably mentioned above.

This is the Mikey verdict. Cheers.

[bcfcbccsscollector]

I will try to pull myself out of the gutter for a moment....

The Queen of Alberni grounded for a number of reasons. Mainly, there was a ton of recreational fishing boats at the entrance to the pass. That, coupled with an oncoming ferry, a deep "V" hull the captain was not familiar and as he put it, "I was trying to miss everything", led to the grounding. Made for a spectacular front page pic in the Colonist. Because of that incident, stricter regulations were introduced in regards to keeping the entrances clear of pleasure craft. Hope this helps.

[WettCoast]

wetcoastkidjst said:

Graham,

Here is a summer 1980 schedule that you might want to add to your documentation album [credit JST - wetcoastkid].



This is from the BCFC Passage newsletter [volume one - number three], which was given away on BCF ships at that time.

Note 20 sailings daily during the summer on route 1 with a capacity of ~3700 vehicles daily. Today, in the summer of 2006, they are running 14 to 16 sailings daily, with a capacity of ~6000 vehicles daily. In that they don't seem to use the main car deck ramps much, if at all, these days, actual capacity today may be more like 5000 vs 3000 in 1980.

Considering the growth in traffic since then has service improved?

This 1980 schedule confirms that they did try staggering vessels in the past. Swartz Bay based vessels ran 15 minutes late compared to their mainland-based counterparts. The staggering was done to reduce congestion in Active Pass, and was one result of the Alberni grounding.

This experiment was ended after only a year or two.

[Low Light Mike]

Jim, you never cease to amaze me with your bag of memorabilia.

Awesome!