Whale watching boat sunk

IN the USA the coasties require an actual stability test (not just a piece of paper) that consists of sand bags or drums full of water on ONE rail to assess the number of pax that can be carried.

The vessel can loose 1/2 the freeboard , if there are no opening ports on that side.

Subchapter T

 

how about a max passenger on the top deck depending what is on and under the top deck?
bit like putting heavy containers on top on a box ship with no ballast

 

Legislating aesthetics is not workable. To me most catamarans look like "a pile of crap". In itself it means nothing.

 

Yes tad. I agree cats are not pretty. I was referring to stability which makes cats suitable for tourist vessels. The boat that sunk just doesn't look right with so much weight up top. And that wheelhouse perched up high makes it look worse.

 

I think you are talking about the USCG "Simplified Stability Test'. In Canada such a test is not accepted. Vessels the size and passenger capacity of Leviathan II must undergo a witnessed inclining and creation of a full stability book covering numerous load cases including the passenger heeling load.

The Simplified Stability Test requires tanks to be at 3/4 full. In Canada stability requirements must be met with tanks at 10%, a much more stringent requirement.

 

Would it be prudent then to bring other tanks into ballast & maintain the best stability condition, surely this cant be so hard on a small vessel or does cost drive this?

Also the rails to the upper deck appear to be aligned with the cabin sides, I seems to remember that ferries and charter boats in the past brought upper deck rails well inboard.

So if Canada applies more stringent analysis what has gone wrong here... could it be assessed as "just" passing & that some other issues aligned to contribute to tragedy?

Jeff.

 

The only reason to install ballast (tanks or otherwise), would be if the vessel did not meet TC stability requirements (which are the IMO requirements). As far as we've been told so far, Leviathan met the current stability requirements.

Moving rails inboard (limiting passenger movement) could be done, but again would be done if needed to meet requirements.

We don't know what went wrong, other than that the vessel capsized. Why it capsized is a complex question and pointing fingers at lack of stability or regulation is way premature......

 

Does a shift in weight from one side of the boat to the other, which is what happens routinely on whale spotting tours, effect the safety (stability) differently, according to how rapidly it happens ? As in, the crowd rushing across, or moving more casually ? Obviously the momentum of moving (human) bodies is greater the faster they are moving, and that momentum is transferred to the boat as they reach the rail.

 

Cats are well adapted for whale tourism, being fast enough to have more 'loiter" time where the whales happen to be, and shorter transit times to and fro. Also the amount of heel when weight shifts to one side is less, and passengers can easily be unnerved by listing boats. There must be sufficient good reasons, because cats dominate the trade in my part of the world.

 

I agree, cats do dominate the market, where I live these vessels often do commuter runs at start and end of day & a tourist trade/whale watching in between.....
Seems like a pretty picture regardless of aesthetic opinion, my preference would be for a cat based on performance and aesthetics.

Jeff.

 

I wouldn't seriously argue against a catamaran for this use, yes, it would be great. But no one is going to legislate the use of catamarans for whale-watching.

I don't know where you are in Australia but I suspect your tourist season may be fairly long compared to that here. Economics dictate the amount of investment that becomes sensible. We have a very short season, and if the weather is bad, which it often is, people just stay ashore. Thus the use of re-purposed boats. This accident is a black mark on the industry though, and it will have repercussions which might include a temporary down-turn. That opens the field for a shiny new fleet of "super-safe" catamarans.

 

Hi Tad
Problem is those financial contstrants are not conducive to "as safe as we can make it" unfortunatley.

 

That is the case with every engineered structure ever. Almost nothing is built as safe as possible, and for good reason.

 

The Apollo program was about as close as anything ever came to making it "safe as possible" and don't count the expense doing it.