Ethan Allen capsize: Lake George

I agree Stephen. Seems very odd to me that so much attention is being given to the PFD and crew requirements. EVEN on boating message boards! I seriously doubt that an additional crew member would have prevented the accident.

Kelly Cook

 

This issue is also being discussed over on the WoodenBoat forum, and the commentary focuses on PFD's and operator competence quite a bit. This is a bit of what I wrote on that forum:

"Folks, with the greatest of respect for your concerns about whether or not wearing PFD's should be mandatory on commercial tour boats, that issue is, IMHO, secondary to the real question here.

Why did the boat capsize in the first place?

There should be no way in God's green earth that a commercial tour boat should be able to be capsized by the wake of another, larger, boat in a lake, near shore, on a clear, calm summer's day. None. Zip. Nada.

Legislate that an accurate linesplan is required for all commercial passenger-carrying hulls - if not available from the designer/builder, measure the boat. Require that such boats have calculated ultimate stability and conditional stability in multiple loading conditions, including worst case scenario. Make it a requirement of licesure for operating a tour boat that the captain understands the principles of stability and can understand a stability booklet. Confirm the boat's displacement and centre of gravity by conducting an inclining experiment prior to issuing a certificate of seaworthiness. Prove that the boat has sufficient stability to be safe in all operating conditions. Then inspect the boat on a regular schedule to enforce compliance. Legislate that any changes to the boat arrangements, structure, or powering requires re-certification.

Draconian? Yes, definitely. But if it keeps someone's Granny from drowning in her wheelchair, it is worth the effort, IMHO.

(rant over...) "

 

I hadn't noticed CDBarry's earlier post. He's a Coast Guard naval architect, and he would know. I would still submit, however, that 46 CFR 178.330 is the applicable standard that the State of New York should have been using (and should employ now as one useful tool in its investigation).

 

ethan allen

Hi I am new to this board and am trying to learn more about the simplified stability test.

Does anyone know of the background of the simplified stability tests Specifically the development of the formula used within the regulations? Has there been anything written about it's development or critical of it? Has anyone evaluated it's adequacy in terms of ensuring safety? I'd like to know where the 6 came from in the formuala below and the basis for that number as opposed to using another?

Also can someone explain to me how does stability associate to capacity on a passenger vessel? What other factors need to be considered if one was to review a passenger vessel and it's allowable number of passengers?

Mp = (W) (Bp)/6; or

Mw = (P) (A) (H)

where:

Mp = passenger heeling moment in kilogram-meters (foot-pounds);

W = the total passenger weight using 72.6 kilograms (160 pounds) per passenger, or, if the vessel operates exclusively on protected waters and the passenger load consists of men, women, and children, 63.5 kilograms (140 pounds) per passenger may be used;

 

Does it really matter whether the passengers were wearing lifejackets or whether there was one or two crewmembers or how old the captain is or whether there was a wake from a passing boat, etc? The plain fact is that the boat capsized in benign circumstances while carring fewer than rated capacity of passengers. Seems to me like they are looking for a scapegoat.

This is a case where the operative body governing such boats in New York state did not do their job properly. We, me included, chafe at the intrusions in our lives by government. Here, more and certainly more effective control should been exercised.

The only passenger carrying boat I have been concerned with fell under USCG jurisdiction and stability testing was carried out which determined how many passengers, what level they could be on on the boat, how many could be on one side on the upper deck and where the boat was allowed to operate when carrying passengers. If any such testing was ever done on this boat, the regs need revision.

Of course, I may be wrong but things like this should not happen even is all the things they are pointing to all occured at the same time..

 

Latest news on the investigation:

(Toronto Star, Oct. 6/05)

Perhaps this will provide some insight into the cause of the wreck....

 

On another recent small passenger vessel tragedy:

http://www.sname.org/sections/chesapeake/papers/05-9-ppt.pdf

 

A closer look at the Ethan Allen's design - Starting with a top-of-the-line (if 40 year old) Dyer 40 bare hull: http://www.dyerboats.com/dyer40.html



Then "innards and superstructure would have been fitted on by the first buyer, a Groton, Conn., company that used it for tours of the submarine base there."

Next "have decking installed at the height of the gunwales and have windows and a roof extending high above the waterline" http://timesunion.com/AspStories/st...tegory=CAPSIZE&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=10/7/2005

Add seating benches (http://www.timesunion.com/specialreports/capsize/ , link to "Ethan Allen", lower left).



And you have this shallow, top-heavy boat; a former skipper "said the boat handled well, but he always was careful to make sure passengers were evenly spaced, especially when it was windy. The best way to avoid an imbalance... was to make sure tourists stayed in their seats." http://www.freep.com/news/nw/captain5e_20051005.htm



Add 47 elderly passengers, average weight 174 lbs: http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/nation/story/2783480p-11400440c.html


For contrast, a tourboat I am familiar with on the coast of Maine - a converted 50' Navy utility boat, for 64 passengers. The photo shows a tourist sitting on a continuous high bench just inside the gunwale - the deck is about 5' BELOW the gunwale, midships. If a passenger were to be thrown from a bench by rough seas, s/he would land "safely" in the bottom of the boat.


Sal's Dad

 

SNAME Report

The SNAME Report is quite interesting. I'd like to know how the new recommended weight was determined. I also wonder if that weight change would apply to formulas used for stability tests on other vessels. -JT

 

Just remember one thing - 47 people on a 38 foot boat is asking for trouble! It's OK if they all SIT STILL! But passengers being people and as in all these kind of tragedies they move around! especially if they are landlubbers (you wouldn't get that many seamen on a boat that size they'd get off or wouldn't get on! No good blaming the skipper hes told it will take that many people, he's earning his living, as faras he's concerned these people are cargo - the worst bloody cargo you can get IT MOVES OF IT'S OWN FREE WILL!

 

An inclining test (or simplified version) has now been performed by NTSB. Here's the New York Times report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/nyregion/06devels.html

This pretty much confirms my suspicion that the Ethan Allen just plain lacked sufficient intact stability to carry 47 adult passengers, and I agree with Tom L. (a few posts previous) that NYS has screwed up (in a way that the Coast Guard would not have on an USCG inspected vessel). But I'm now more satisfied that the NTSB <http://www.ntsb.gov/Surface/marine/marine.htm> and NYS <http://nysparks.state.ny.us/boating/services.asp> are on the right track in their response.

Concerning the viability of the simplified test, Newsday notes today that the NTSB had already recommended that the Coast Guard abandon the 140 pound per person weight assumption and instead use 174 pounds as the assumed weight of each person. It will be interesting to see if the Coast Guard makes this change to 46 CFR 178.330 when it is next republished.

It might be helpful going forward if there were a quick screening that could be done to all the passenger vessels regulated by 50 states based on published particulars. Those that fared poorly in the initial screening could then be singled out for further analysis. ABYC has a formula for capacity intended for boats under 26 feet, but one has to purchase the booklet and/or be a member. It's ABYC H-5, last revised in 2003. Since I'm not familliar with it, I don't know if the variables have any relationship to intact stability.

 

A lot of people seem to think the boat company is at fault here & have all sorts of ideas and remedies etc. If there is a complete investigation made we may never hear the conclusions reached by what ever authority conducts it? Often times it seems to take months before a decision is made & publicly announced. It's a shame things have to move so slowly & the injured parties deserve better treatment than to wait so long for closure.

 

The way the reports are reading. No one with be reponsible because they were understaffed or not properly trained in capacity determination. Would like to, could have, should have, on and on. Maybe in 2 to 5 years we can give it to the US Coast Guard. They inspect all our 6 passenger speed boats and 13 passenger boat. We are a non-profit museum. How the hell can a state inspection be of a lower standard than a federal standard for a ride for profit business?

 

Here again plays the "moneygame" between the insurance companies an important role. The process of investigation is very importan and will finally play an important role in he trial against the owners/operators that will be definately a result of this tragedy.
An unsuitable boat has been used w/o the necessary tests to perform a task it has not been designed for. The boat rides high and is clearly top-heavy. Look at the first picture where she clearly shows no draft.

 

ABYC for boats under 26' recomendations as of 7/04 state that:

H-5.6.3.1 Maximum weight capacity is determind by obtaining the boats cubic capacity below the static floatplane(defined as somthing similar to the margin line) converting this value to the weight of water it would displace,subtracting the boats weight, and permitting one pound of load capacity for every seven pounds of remaining displacement.

5.6.3.2.1 The number of persons shall not exceed the value determined by dividing the quantiy of 32, plus the posted persons pound capacity, by 141 and rounding up or down to the nearest whole number.