Duck Boat tragedy

Trust me, if I were calling you something, you'd know it.

This fallacy is called "confirmation bias". You are only believing what you want to believe.

What facts? All I see here is speculation by you.

The "skipper" (probably just a minimum wage driver/ tour guide) was most likely unaware or had limited information about both the impending weather (they did not head out into the storm) and even the (lack of) mechanical "sea worthiness" that was going to overwhelm the capabilities of their vehicle. So they (crew and managers) made a bad decision that cost a bunch of people their lives.

This much is true. And I'm sure an army of lawyers are already sharpening their pencils.

So you are one of those weirdos that spend their entire time aboard a 20K ton cruise ship wearing their lifevest? (I am kidding not name calling).

Are you kidding? Small boats are lost so often that it doesn't even make the news.

Again, you are assuming that the "skipper" (person in charge of the truck) could perceive and make a correct and prudent command decision in the face of a rare and sudden crisis. And also make the horrible choice of either keep doing what they know has always worked before (drive it out) or throw elderly people and small children overboard in 4' waves. Recall the "cognitive bias" problem from earlier.

You fill a 40' boat 1/2 full of water and its going to squat there like a rock too.

Goes down with their truck apparently. I am not debating that the duck's capabilities were exceeded, by extreme and non-typical conditions. What I am telling you (over and over) is that for the ordinary and customary use of this vehicle, it/they are perfectly safe. Human history is full instances where nature or bad luck has gotten the best of man. Your solution here is as ridiculous as giving it all up and going back to live in caves (trees are too dangerous, you might fall out!).

Speculation again. People do what they are trained to do and what they are used to doing. Their policy was not to vest-up specifically because of the "flotation trap" problem. The driver was trained to head for the ramp in case of emergency, not throw passengers overboard.

 

What you don't get from video or drawing is just how BIG these are. All the frame and powertrain takes up a fraction of the hull's volume. The rest is just airspace from the belly to the deck. Probably a couple thousand cubic feet in total. Any of these operating (esp. by commercial operators) should be filled with foam and compartmentalized so that even when they lose power to the bilge pump it will keep floating. I imagine that will be a requirement now if "Fallguy" doesn't get his way and sends them all to the scrapyard.

 

Boys, boys, boys, 17 people died here, surely you can do better than this bickering back and forth.
It doesn't strike me as very productive given the circumstances.

They could be banned commercially, but that wouldn't help the private realm.
I have been a commercial mariner for 28 years, working in search and rescue for 5 of them.
I am a mechanical engineer by education.
What I see as a possibility is a floating release mechanism in the canopy supports.
As water rises, in and around the vertical supports, an internal float releases the canopy.
Multiple pillars could make for a sectional canopy.
Smaller, more manageable pieces to deal with and more fail safe.

However, drills ( by far the best way to prepare for calamity at sea ) may have avoided the canopy issue.
Simply moving some passengers aft may have helped enough to get the vessel ashore.
Obviously, PFD's should have been donned as soon as the crew felt uncomfortable.
And passengers made ready to abandon ship via the large aft doorway or even the windows if need be.
With two crew, delegating one to crowd control would have been key.
Group think can be a tragic trait of human nature.

Given the history of these craft, I see no excuse for this catastrophic event.
A lack of training and preparation is sadly evident.

My condolences to all involved.
It's an ugly, ugly thing to recover bodies.

 

James now 5 pages in suggests buoyancy foam is possible. First cogent comment in 5 pages of defending the vessel.

Go back and read the first post I wrote real slow. (I asked a simple question that was followed by lotsa thrashing.)

Then read this article.

Inspector said he warned Branson duck boat company about glaring danger https://fox4kc.com/2018/07/23/inspector-said-he-warned-branson-duck-boat-company-about-glaring-danger/amp/

There are so many wrongs here.

This one just adds to the others.

 

Confirmation bias?

I asked about the design.

Open slate.

I just figured if someone was going to defend the vessel so staunchly; devil's advocacy would be wise.

Ask twenty people who had confirmation bias here James. It was the guy who opened with saying there is nothing wrong.

 

Court records show duck boat in Missouri disaster was designed by entrepreneur with no engineering training | LA Times

U.S. Coast Guard records show multiple duck boat deficiencies nationwide | KMBC News

 

The wrongs here are so many; it will be hard to pin them all down.

The old skipper coulda, woulda shudda isn't part of it. To suggest a slower speed or turning away from head seas are all wild guesses. For the old fellow to order abandon ship; another wild guess. He would have been credited for drownings if..

For all the windows on one side to be open or blown in and the others all closed as now known means the vessel had water gushing in which agrees with survivor accounts.

There would be low likelihood of escape for anyone in this effective sinking car.

Anecdotal studies have shown the only way to survive a sinking car is to wait and time your escape when pressures are equalized between inside and out. I am guessing the vessel was probably headed fast for the bottom when pressures and currents slowed enough to swim. Add the factor of multiple persons trying to escape on a single side which is now apparent; sort of, and the chances of escape are still narrower (if the open side were up).

The grounding of them until they have positive flotation seems prudent.

What person would allow their kids to go to sea in their car?

This is effectively what is going on. Just because it usually floats does not a boat make.

 

I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of boats don't have positive floatation, and don't float when flooded.

 

What is there to learn from this loss?
What would you have done as Captain to save your passengers?

Don life jackets and out the back door.
There were lots of vessels of opportunity around.
Few people drown in life jackets.

You can't compare pressure issues of a car with an open vessel.

 

According to the reports it only had port side windows open iirc. Since it s more like a bus than a boat, I think demanding a way to afford escape is important.

 

I understand not all boats have positive flotation. The trouble with these is they are inescapable when in trouble.

Someone will credit the old skipper for not disembarking everyone to water, but things got sour ultra quick.

 

In the comments section of the article "The aquatic version of a spork."

 

It looks to me that the loading ramp/stairs on the stern would effectively block the rear exit. You'd have to crawl over the seats on either side to get out the back. I believe there was plexiglass over the side windows and it looks like no provision for a front exit. It would be hard to get out of there with 31 people on board.

Here's a video from the other DUKW that was behind them...
Dallas mom describes terrifying ride aboard duck boat on Table Rock Lake https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article215276090.html


This is the boat that sunk...

 

Yeah. And IFRC it took him a decade to do it.

 

Half Safe was a GAP amphibious Jeep, much smaller than a DUCW.
Ford GPA - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GPA
Nocookies https://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/the-great-escape-ben-carlins-travels-in-an-amphibious-jeep/news-story/bfd5deaec2fb6066eef04da4b7c5ffbe