|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 30, 2007 14:15:17 GMT -8
From the WSF service bulletin:
"Truckers and other users of the Pt. Defiance-Tahlequah ferry who bring across vehicles 7’6” and higher are alerted to new restrictions on this route. Beginning immediately and until further notice, the total amount of overheight vehicles allowed on any sailing of the M/V Rhododendron may not exceed the length of one full lane of traffic on board."
I wonder what caused this restriction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 15:34:28 GMT -8
I would say that the USCG has an issue with the vessel's stability.
Last week a WSDOT spokesman implied that all the liabilty in the operation of WSF's older vessels in respect to structure rests with the Guard.
So, it was most definetly an invitation to get tuff.
They (USCG) have mandated internal hull inspections for all the Steels, and if they aren't up to snuff--it's tie-up time.
You might also see weight related stability restrictions restrictions on the Elwha & E-State.
It all depends on how far the Guard wants to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 16:27:07 GMT -8
I might add that the debacle that now seems to be unfolding at WSF is in direct relation to the Staten Island ferry disaster.
A judge recently removed the Admiralty Law monetary limit to damage claims of no more than the value of the vessel. Seems like NY has $2.5 Billion in claims--because management knowingly allowed landings with only one Pilot.
With the Klickitat, if the Crack had not been repaired before the Wave there was the real chance of a Queen of the North incident, alibet with a lot less crew and a lot more passengers.
I assume WSDOT has realized this--and have taken off running.
It all depends what the USCG assumes their liability to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 30, 2007 17:13:15 GMT -8
Why on the Elwha brassman, second off, what comparison is there to the Queen of the North incident and the Staten Island ferry disaster? The Staten Island Ferry disaster and Queen of the North accident were human error. Why must we compare a cracked hull with human error disasters? It does not make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 30, 2007 17:26:36 GMT -8
Why on the Elwha brassman, second off, what comparison is there to the Queen of the North incident and the Staten Island ferry disaster? The Staten Island Ferry disaster and Queen of the North accident were human error. Why must we compare a cracked hull with human error disasters? It does not make any sense. I can answer the Elwha bit. When they refit her, some bright individual decided to put the elevator and the emergency generator on the same side--and put the generator on the texas deck. This makes the Elwha a wee bit top heavy--and the Supers are all a bit top heavy to begin with, so this didn't improve matters. The Evergreen of course got top heavy when they raised her and then plated over her formerly open girder texas deck. They did put additional ballast in her, but that was taken out several years ago when they were going to replace her engines (which they never did) and it was never put back. Here's a shot of what the Evergreen's texas deck used to look like...I'm not sure why it never entered anyone's head that putting steel plates over all this wouldn't do something to her stability, given the amount that had to be covered.  |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 30, 2007 17:42:04 GMT -8
There is, of course, the speculation that the roof was assembled on the beach, in a modular fashion, upside down... and that they failed to flip it over when putting it on, or found they didn't have a means to flip it over, or some such. I dunno how much credence I give that story, but it does make me snicker.  |
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 18:12:06 GMT -8
Well Barnacle, that story of the E-State's overhead installed upside down came from the Old-timers.
The Queen of the North shows what happens when a one compartment boat splits open--it rolls & it sinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 19:00:06 GMT -8
I should clarify that by a one compartment boat what I meant was one-compartment stability, ie. flood more than one compartment and the ship loses stability--which would mean the ship would heel over.
Whereas the Staten Island ferry disaster was pilot error, the bulk of the resonsibility was assigned to management. They allowed the boats to operate with one person in the pilothouse. The Staten Island Ferry boss received a one year prison sentence, while the pilot received one month.
When the judge removed the limit on monetary damages under Admiralty law the dollar amount of these claims went into the stratosphere.
What it means is if management knowingly operates a faulty boat (be it the operation or infrastructure) they assume an unlimited risk.
This is what WSDOT seems to have realized, and basically said they will abandon a run rather than assume the risk.
They punted to the USCG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 30, 2007 19:09:21 GMT -8
first off, you have not warranted your queen of the north statement because the connections are very narrow in between. IT IS NOT DESIGN IT WAS HUMAN ERROR. You may have a point on the hull but then again, the steelys are different. Second off, what to monetary damages have to do with this? The DOT knows so what do you mean with the punting to the USCG, shouldn't the USCG give it to WSF?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 19:22:08 GMT -8
A catastrophic accident generally has a chain of human errors. As for the Klickitat, the incident of the Crack would be one of subpoena and sworn testimony--no accident happened, but wouldn't the USCG & State law makers want to know why?
I sure would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 30, 2007 19:33:12 GMT -8
This is going far too off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 30, 2007 19:33:52 GMT -8
The QotN grounding punched holes in at least 3 locations on the ship's starboard side. No ship, including ones of the most up-to-date stability designs would have survived. As it was the ship took 80 minutes to go down. The ship was abandoned* with a half hour to spare.
*Yes, I do realize, that for some unknown reason two souls never made it off++.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 19:41:54 GMT -8
It doesn't matter how the water got in there, it only matters that it is in there.
As far as a car ferry there are some real fears, and one of them is what happens when a boat heels over.
At what list does the deck load shift.
It would seem that it would capsize darn quick. This is the history of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Estonia, and the Queen of the North.
It is really a serious concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 30, 2007 20:00:04 GMT -8
It doesn't matter how the water got in there, it only matters that it is in there. As far as a car ferry there are some real fears, and one of them is what happens when a boat heels over. At what list does the deck load shift. It would seem that it would capsize darn quick. This is the history of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Estonia, and the Queen of the North. It is really a serious concern. B.R. Assman: are you saying that the Queen of the North capsized? It sure sounds like it...... |
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 30, 2007 20:10:40 GMT -8
Tell me how it sunk?
Could be "heel" fore & aft. Then deck load shifts even easier.
A ship sinking dead level?
What of the Queen's bilge pumps? Damage control?
We know that the deck watch was incompetent, what about the rest? What were the Policies & Procedures and training at BC Ferries?
At the end of the night all that mattered was a ship was at the bottom of the sea.
It did help that with a crew of 80, there were only 20 passengers. 2 dead = 10% passenger fatality!
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 30, 2007 21:13:50 GMT -8
Brassman, I suggest you clarify your figures due to the fact that your argument is completely pointless.
First off 101 passengers and crew, second off, crew was 42 and not 80 so 10% fatality is completely inaccurate. Second off, who cares if it was 10%? With 1000 pax, sure sounds like alot but with 20, that is not much. I suggest you go to the general discussion through the 28 pages of North sank, that's where you'll find some answers along with BC Ferries Divisional Report.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 31, 2007 6:10:49 GMT -8
Will do.
This proves something that I should know: If you don't know what your talking about--shut the ****-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 31, 2007 7:04:56 GMT -8
I just read the Divisional Report.
42 crew, 59 passengers (5 of whom were BC ferry employees), and 16 vehicles.
Massive hull breach, so vessel loss was unavoidable.
Ship evacuted at 15% list in calm weather with a crew to passenger ratio of 75% (excluding non-assigned BC Ferry employees).
Ship had few vehicles aboard, so I would the assume vehicle wieght on stability was minimal.
In other words, except for the massive hull breach, the Queen of the North sank in ideal conditions.
Passenger fatality rate was 3.7% (excluding the non-assigned ferry employees).
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 31, 2007 7:12:13 GMT -8
Hey Brassman: I invite you to make a post under the "New members" thread (located in the forum rules & regs page, near the bottom of the home page list). Your telling a bit about yourself and your interests/viewpoints might help us understand where you're coming from re some of your posts, and allow us to better respond to your posts. Otherwise, it's easy for a reader to misunderstand your intentions, perhaps........as you can come across blunt. So, I like to be direct and say that I don't get you, and find some of your posts antagonizing. So this is an opportunity to please clear up any misconceptions on my (and maybe others) part. Thanks. (ps: I tried this with another new member/guest once before, and his response to this told me everything that I needed to know.... .) |
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 31, 2007 7:16:00 GMT -8
An interesting comparision is that the Staten Island Ferry falality rate was less than 1% (and a 5% injury rate).
....and Billions in claims.
(apx. 1500 pass, 11 deaths, 71 inuries.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 31, 2007 8:18:15 GMT -8
At what list does the deck load shift. Typically in terms of stability calculations, it is assumed that deck cargo, unless firmly secured, begins to shift at around 15 degrees of list, which of course blows the calculations right out the hawsepipe. At least from what I remember from my Stability & Ship's Design prof. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Apr 1, 2007 15:06:49 GMT -8
B.R. Assman: are you saying that the Queen of the North capsized? It sure sounds like it...... Why do you guys get so worked up over this. This thread isn't about the Queen of the North. Brassman was making a point - and a good one. I'm always shocked that so many "fans" go after the professionals so harshly on forums such as this. Personally, I love the insight that the professionals can give to a topic - insight that takes the discussion to a whole new level. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 1, 2007 15:25:45 GMT -8
northwesterner, are you implying brassman is a professional? The reason why we criticize "professionals" is due to the fact that you cannot just swallow whatever they say easily, along with having your own opinion on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 1, 2007 17:36:24 GMT -8
B.R. Assman: are you saying that the Queen of the North capsized? It sure sounds like it...... Why do you guys get so worked up over this. This thread isn't about the Queen of the North. Brassman was making a point - and a good one. I'm always shocked that so many "fans" go after the professionals so harshly on forums such as this. Personally, I love the insight that the professionals can give to a topic - insight that takes the discussion to a whole new level. Oh, so Brassman is a "professional". I went after him because I actually thought he was some sort of a beligerant troll. Sorry for my not keeping better track of who he is. (I'm being honest, not sarcastic, about this) Brassman sounded like he was saying that the QotN capsized, and so I posted to clarify whether I was misunderstanding him or not. His response was kind of cold, matter-of-factly stuff that didn't seem like a discussion. His answer seemed to be a short spurt of "heeled at the fore of aft?", with no explanation or colour. Sort of a machine-gun-burst style of communication, perhaps? It reminded me of talking to my left-brained boss. I'll wait and see if he has a response to this. I like to be direct in saying how I've taken a poster's content. Sometimes, the person responds and I actually learn a bit about the reasons for their style, and that helps me to understand them, and then I can better appreciate what they are saying. Other times, my questioning is just ignored, and so I go on misunderstanding them. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Apr 1, 2007 18:52:46 GMT -8
Oh, so Brassman is a "professional". I went after him because I actually thought he was some sort of a beligerant troll. Sorry for my not keeping better track of who he is. (I'm being honest, not sarcastic, about this) Brassman sounded like he was saying that the QotN capsized, and so I posted to clarify whether I was misunderstanding him or not. His response was kind of cold, matter-of-factly stuff that didn't seem like a discussion. His answer seemed to be a short spurt of "heeled at the fore of aft?", with no explanation or colour. Sort of a machine-gun-burst style of communication, perhaps? It reminded me of talking to my left-brained boss. I'll wait and see if he has a response to this. I like to be direct in saying how I've taken a poster's content. Sometimes, the person responds and I actually learn a bit about the reasons for their style, and that helps me to understand them, and then I can better appreciate what they are saying. Other times, my questioning is just ignored, and so I go on misunderstanding them. I appreciate your honesty. But I stand by my post. The attacks on this forum on this thread over the Queen of the North details were rediculous. They were nitpicky arguments that were irrelevant to the bigger picture, which is what the thread was about. I haven't read all 35 pages of the Q of the N thread. I stopped after about 10. But I can bet she didn't go down on the level. When large ships sink, they tend to fill with water unevenly and go down at an angle, possibly even rolling over (capsizing). I don't know if that's how Q of the N went down. Apparently neither did Brassman. But it doesn't matter to the relevance of this discussion, as it seemed he tried to point out. I'm assuming that Brassman is a WSF employee (ship based) due to the information in his posts. I could be wrong. But I certainly like his style. It can be a breath of fresh air here on this forum and certainly is a new perspective. |
|
