Active Pass Safety?

[Scott]

Avoiding risk is good, but you can take it too far. If I really wanted to be safe, I wouldn't drive when it's dark and rainy out. Then I'd be at home where I'm safer... but I'd have to stay away from the mircrowave in case it blew up...

[Doug]

Remember not to turn on the furnace in case it starts a fire. Don't go upstairs either, in case the floor gives way.

[sgrant]

People are making the point that BC Ferries, and North American ferries in general have an excellent safety record. A worthwhile point, certainly. But as for citing the Active Pass "meeting", it cuts both ways. Perhaps the lack of accidents means accidents are very unlikely in the long run. Or it might mean an accident is overdue. That's why both the circumstances and the record are worth considering when evaluating risk.

Just because BC Ferry accidents are rare does not mean we should ignore easy opportunities to widen the margin of safety. Also, the consequences have to be weighed. The most that can happen in a car accident or lightning strike is one or a few people hurt or killed. Compare that to two ferries sinking.

Accident probability is a function of the total of all the different things that can go wrong, and the chances of each, that can lead to an accident. Reducing any of those individual risks lowers the overall risk. At some point, the cost of reducing a given risk is too much greater than the benefit. I may be out to lunch on this, but I'm still not convinced that avoiding this "meeting" would not be worth the cost.

Kam's position is the ferries should not pass each other in Active Pass entirely. I'd be satisfied if they didn't meet in just the south entrance. That would require about 20 seconds adjustment, not 15 minutes. I don't think the ferries take 15 minutes to travel Active Pass anyway.

Achieving this by changing the schedules by 20 seconds or a few minutes often won't work anyway, because the ferries sometimes are not exactly on schedule:-) It has to be done during the run.

I understand there have been a grounding and a freighter/ferry collision in or near Active Pass. The more recent Prevost Island incident, if it had happened a few minutes earlier, would have been in Active Pass. So it may be just luck nothing worse has happened. Of course, there's no way to know. But that "not knowing" is where one should err on the side of caution. If the cost of that caution is that one ferry has to slow down early as it approaches Active Pass so they don't meet another ferry as both come about for the east end of the pass, then that seems like a small sacrifice.

As for there being only two deaths resulting from BC Ferries operations, were there not deaths associated with vehicles that fell off boarding ramps? Hard to blame those on anyone else. I'm not sure about who got the blame on the cabin cruiser run over near Swartz Bay, but wasn't that also a fatal accident?

And I think everyone agrees that the toll in the Queen of the North incident was very low only by a combination of very lucky circumstances.

I agree that ferries have plenty of control alternatives compared to ships like freighters. But they are still large ships moving at relatively good speeds in relatively close proximity while coming about in that east end of Active Pass. While I see the logic in comparing a docking to a collision, a docking is performed at low speeds and in a predictable, defined and controlled manner. Quite unlike one ferry slicing into another in Active Pass with a closing speed of, say, 24knots.

Something else I neglected to mention is the currents in that part of Active Pass. That further reduces the margin of safety, and the room/time needed to operate safely.

I don't know quite what to conclude from the disussion here on this subject. On one hand, some simply agree with what I said. Of course, they might also be wrong. Some have strongly held positions, backed up by reasoning, that there is not a significant hazard. I worry that the same could have been said before the Queen of the North accident. Anyway, other than the few ridiculous quips, thanks for considering and commenting on it.

[Retrovision]

One safety measure that I've witnessed a few times is that vessels will not pass each other in the narrow passage off of Helen Point at the Gulf Islands side of Active Pass. Instead, the late vessel, coming from Swartz Bay in these cases on route 1 (TSA-SB), will sit relatively idle in Trincomali Channel waiting for the passing, on-time vessel, as seen in this pic...

[Low Light Mike]

Whatever the conclusion, I think this was good, interesting discussion. I don't think we all need to agree. (besides, that would be impossible).

SGrant, thank you for initiating this discussion.

[Scott]

Yeah, it probably wouldn't be too hard for ferries to adjust speed to meet at least in certain parts of the pass. I mean, we can see where the ships are online, I'm sure they have charts or maps showing the location of other nearby ferries. So if you did want to be extra careful, that wouldn't be too much of an adjustment.

I'm not entirely sure about the Prevost Island incident, but I think the ferry was back on auto-pilot with a wrong setting after having cleared Active Pass.

And not to downplay a collission between two ferries in Active Pass, but I don't think they would sink. The ferries would probably hit above water, probably not compromising the hull below the waterline. It wouldn't be nice though, and it's quite possible people would die and lots would be injured.

Maybe a bigger concern is smaller boats. Remember there was a collision with one of the high-speed passenger ferries and the Queen of Saanich back in the 1990s. But that wasn't even in the Pass but near the entrance.

[Low Light Mike]

sgrant said:

Anyway, other than the few ridiculous quips, thanks for considering and commenting on it.

......searching for signs of humour, finding none.


We like to have fun here, too. Some of us try not to take things too seriously, and to mix fair-comment with slapstick.

[sgrant]

From my map, it looks like what I've been calling "the east entrance to Active Pass" is between Helen Point on Mayne Island and Collinson Point on Galiano. Though I haven't been on this route hundreds of times, I have never seen one ferry stand off while another exits the pass.

I wonder if this is at the discretion of the captain? And if there is no problem, why would they do this occasionally? How long ago have you seen this happen?

[sgrant]

flugelhorn said:

sgrant said:

Anyway, other than the few ridiculous quips, thanks for considering and commenting on it.

......searching for signs of humour, finding none.


We like to have fun here, too. Some of us try not to take things too seriously, and to mix fair-comment with slapstick.

Fair enough. I guess I've been on too many forums where people say rather silly things, and are completely serious.

[Low Light Mike]

re past accidents:

A tug-barge combo hit a fishing? boat in Active Pass, and some members of a Galiano family were killed.

tug-barge was Arctic-Taglu, and it happened in summer-1993.

www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/tsb/marine/1995-recs/M93W0006/en/M93W0006_E1.htm

[Low Light Mike]

sgrant said:

flugelhorn said:

......searching for signs of humour, finding none.


We like to have fun here, too. Some of us try not to take things too seriously, and to mix fair-comment with slapstick.

Fair enough. I guess I've been on too many forums where people say rather silly things, and are completely serious.

Aha, now I understand you. You're saying that people are completely serious about silly things. That would be very frustrating.....where some people need a booster-shot dose of reality. Yes, we've had some of that here too.....mostly re the possible uses of the Mill Bay Ferry.

I try to remember to use the emoticons as much as possible, to remove all doubt of my intent. Sometimes I forget.

[Retrovision]

sgrant said:

Kam's position is the ferries should not pass each other in Active Pass entirely. I'd be satisfied if they didn't meet in just the south entrance. That would require about 20 seconds adjustment, not 15 minutes. I don't think the ferries take 15 minutes to travel Active Pass anyway.

Although time flies when you're having fun, such as transiting active pass, I would peg the average transit time of most vessels through Active Pass at between 5 and 15 minutes, the latter being from Gossip Shoals at the nothern entrance, to Enterprise Reef outside of the pass in the south, where vessels slow down or resume revenue-service speed.

sgrant said:

While I see the logic in comparing a docking to a collision, a docking is performed at low speeds and in a predictable, defined and controlled manner. Quite unlike one ferry slicing into another in Active Pass with a closing speed of, say, 24knots.

I doubt that our ferries have ever reached that kind of speed during any revenue-service run ever (with the exception of the Pacificats' short-lived revenue-service life), let alone through Active Pass.

[sgrant]

I was referring to the closing speed, which is the sum of the velocities of the two ferries. Someone earlier quoted a speed range for Active Pass, which is consistent with my estimate, and which no one contradicted.

[Retrovision]

sgrant said:

I was referring to the closing speed, which is the sum of the velocities of the two ferries. Someone earlier quoted a speed range for Active Pass, which is consistent with my estimate, and which no one contradicted.

My bad... our interpretation of wording and the range of styles of writing in the often skimmed-over threads (especially such as one with this kind of activity in one night) can be the difference between an argument and understanding, beligerence and being open to accepting our own mistakes on a forum such as ours. I myself just dealt with such a mis-understanding of my own comments in a different thread the other day.

[Dane]

sgrant said:

People are making the point that BC Ferries, and North American ferries in general have an excellent safety record. A worthwhile point, certainly. But as for citing the Active Pass "meeting", it cuts both ways. Perhaps the lack of accidents means accidents are very unlikely in the long run. Or it might mean an accident is overdue. That's why both the circumstances and the record are worth considering when evaluating risk.

It must be a little of A, and a little of B. There has been an accident in Active Pass, in fact there have been several; a few of them have been noted in this thread.

sgrant said:

Just because BC Ferry accidents are rare does not mean we should ignore easy opportunities to widen the margin of safety. Also, the consequences have to be weighed. The most that can happen in a car accident or lightning strike is one or a few people hurt or killed. Compare that to two ferries sinking.

I agree with the principle of this statement - my hessitation and disgreement in previous threads was based on my experience working for an organization, where danger is a large part of what we do going too far in the name of safety. There is a line of obserdity. I'll grow on this as I move in through your reply.

sgrant said:

Accident probability is a function of the total of all the different things that can go wrong, and the chances of each, that can lead to an accident. Reducing any of those individual risks lowers the overall risk. At some point, the cost of reducing a given risk is too much greater than the benefit. I may be out to lunch on this, but I'm still not convinced that avoiding this "meeting" would not be worth the cost.

Given the safeties in place, the variables that effect the ferries, and on and on even if the ships were staggered they would still meat one another at the point in question very often - not to marginalize your point - but the exact ontime performance of BC Ferries is very poor, the suggestion of the ferries finding where one another is and slowing to make a "safe" (I quote as we know my feelings on this ) is probably the most reasonable in this thread.

sgrant said:

Kam's position is the ferries should not pass each other in Active
Achieving this by changing the schedules by 20 seconds or a few minutes often won't work anyway, because the ferries sometimes are not exactly on schedule:-) It has to be done during the run.

Indeed - see above.

sgrant said:

I understand there have been a grounding and a freighter/ferry collision in or near Active Pass. The more recent Prevost Island incident, if it had happened a few minutes earlier, would have been in Active Pass.

It would not have been possible in Active Pass - the watch level is greater during this portion of the voyage.

sgrant said:

So it may be just luck nothing worse has happened. Of course, there's no way to know. But that "not knowing" is where one should err on the side of caution. If the cost of that caution is that one ferry has to slow down early as it approaches Active Pass so they don't meet another ferry as both come about for the east end of the pass, then that seems like a small sacrifice.

I would agree - but again I don't see this as a large issue facing BC Ferries, there are other matters that effect safety in a much more 'real' manner.

sgrant said:

As for there being only two deaths resulting from BC Ferries operations, were there not deaths associated with vehicles that fell off boarding ramps? Hard to blame those on anyone else.

This, sadly, has happened a few times. It has lead to deaths twice, to the best of my knowledge. Once it was entirely BC Ferries fault. Long sotry short the signals from the dock to the bridge were poor and the ferry pulled out while the ramp was down. Cameras were installed and the red flashing lights now mark 1 minute to departure when there should be no activity between the ramp and the ferry.

sgrant said:

I'm not sure about who got the blame on the cabin cruiser run over near Swartz Bay, but wasn't that also a fatal accident?

The non-BCF people. Fatal, yes.

sgrant said:

And I think everyone agrees that the toll in the Queen of the North incident was very low only by a combination of very lucky circumstances.

I believe it was low because of world class training and resources. The accident itself shouldn't have happened but washing the whole with the actions of a few is obviously a poor idea. Luck always comes into play.

sgrant said:

I agree that ferries have plenty of control alternatives compared to ships like freighters. But they are still large ships moving at relatively good speeds in relatively close proximity while coming about in that east end of Active Pass. While I see the logic in comparing a docking to a collision, a docking is performed at low speeds and in a predictable, defined and controlled manner. Quite unlike one ferry slicing into another in Active Pass with a closing speed of, say, 24knots.

Active Pass, if memory serves me correctly (and it may not!) is around 12 knots, that's not a point, just FYI.

sgrant said:

Something else I neglected to mention is the currents in that part of Active Pass. That further reduces the margin of safety, and the room/time needed to operate safely.

True - and it does effect operations, but the size to current ratio works very well for the ferries.

Cheers

[Political Incorrectness]

Correction with your dates cascade, the Vic was hit in 1970.

[kylefossett]

arctic taglu incident was july of 1993.

further back in this thread somebody mentioned adding the route 9 vessel coming reverse out of village bay to the mix. even without radar or sight of other vessels in the lane to active pass the bridge crew coming out of village bay should know to make the 180 turn just by feel of timing.

if we stagger the route one vessel times this may make it busier in the pass because then you could have a spirit, the nanny and a cap class vessel in the pass.

i feel just as safe going through active pass as i do walking down the street

[sgrant]

Maybe the solution would be to rename Collinson Point to Collision Point, and mount a huge convex mirror on the point so the captains can see who's coming.

[Ferryman]

lol! Huge convex mirror? All of the Ferries are equipped with Radars and VHF radios for a reason. Sorry, I'm not trying to stir up any anger here. Going through Active Pass is my favourite part about trip, when I'm on Route 1, or any other route that runs through there. The last time I went through, I was on the Vancouver, and the Saanich and Cumberland were coming in the opposite direction, while we were just behind the Nanaimo. It worked out fine of course, all of the Ferries just had to wait their turn to make the 2 main turns through the Pass.

[sgrant]

I was just joking. Earlier someone felt I was being humourless.

[Low Light Mike]

Ulysses S. Grant, I like your humour.

Now, is there room in BCFS's budget for the windex-spray to keep that mirror clean ?

;D

[sgrant]

They'll contract it out and let the contractor worry about cleaning supplies.

[WettCoast]

How about if the cut a canal across Helen Pt to provide north bound vessels with their own route? Then they could put a casino on Helen Island.

[Political Incorrectness]

cascade, if you had someone by the anchor gear during transit, logically wouldn't that be so that they can release the anchor gear as soon as they are told to without having to run down to it since every second counts.

[Ferryman]

When I was standing near the bow on the Queen of Vancouver, while going through the pass, about a month ago, a crew member released some sort of emergency brake on the chain. Once it looked like we had cleared the final corner out of Active Pass, the brake was tightened up again, and the crew member resumed his other duties. I'm assuming this is to prevent a grounding, like the Queen of Alberni grounding in the early 1980s. I don't know if there's a major speed restriction through the pass, but I think they only slow down a few knots. I'll have to watch the ship tracking GPS and see how fast the Route 1 Ferries go inside and outside the pass.