sad news from the boating world

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by boatsail

I think we might actually be on the same page.

I don't have the same ability to post as clear a message as you have. Hopefully, I'll get better with time.

There is a rule to have 1 life jacket for each person. It is a "regulation". They did not follow it. People, paid a hefty price. The regulation itself did not prevent the accident. Enforcement of regulations already in place is often better than creating more regulations. We don't need another rule about life jackets it already exists. We don't need to regulate something else, the rule is already there. The regulation ALREADY IN PLACE, was not followed.

I wrote "The stupid don't follow the regs"

The smart always have a life jacket per person and even if it were not a rule/reg would still have it on their boat.

How do you further regulate? check in/ check out procedures to ensure that life jackets are on board? See what I'm saying. To regulate that simple rule anymore would become really absurd.

Yes I think we are on the same page. I'm saying enforce the rules we have. As I noted, my sailing town's one police boat was out. But it would have been a golden training opportunity for the CG...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by speedoo

Boatowner's lawyer says boat might not have been overloaded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/ny...1&ref=nyregion

Lawyer was hired by the boatowner's insurance company. Nassau County is contemplating criminal charges, but no one has hired a criminal attorney. Yet.

US Power Squadron uses that dumb length x beam capacity formula, apparently. I think that will change shortly, if true.

Of course his lawyer says the boat wasn't overloaded. That's why it broached or whatever so easily. It wasn't overloaded.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Not so sure that anywhere it said that there wasn't enough jackets i just believed the children inside the cabin were not wearing any which would be quite normal/acceptable.

Also a previous posting said there were no requirements on loading on private vessels....

Yes that is a very strange formulae......

You know until the truth comes out the boat may well have been suffering from some other problem, ie bilges may have been flooded, we really don't know many details other than the sad result...

I'm going to say it again.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT NOT WEARING LIFE JACKETS WAS THE PROBLEM.

We're saying that if the boat had been INSPECTED and that problem found, they would have been turned back, and the deaths would never have happened.

Then probably the owner would have been complaining about unnecessary police intrusion into his life, but three children would still be with us.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by sailinman

you assume they didnt ahve sufficient number of vests... suppose they did? what then???

Yes, I am assuming that. I think it's always been clear that it was a guess. I think it's very likely, however.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by David M

For everyone involved in this little spat. Stop it now or this thread gets closed. It does not matter who is right or wrong.

Just stop...period.

isn't that an over-reaction? What's wrong with discussing this? I don't get it. Pull inappropriate posts -- there have been very few.

[donradcliffe]

I hear a lot of second guessers on this forum saying the boat was overloaded to the point it was unsafe. That is unfortunately a proven fact, but how do you know that ahead of time? If you are standing on the dock and someone says 'come with us', when do you say no? If you are the captain and your wife says 'Joe and Betty want to come", when do you say no?

If you want something positive to come out of this thread, lets have a discussion on how to predict stability in a loaded boat. It ain't that easy, and there are examples throughout the ages. From the Wikipedia for the Swedish ship Vasa, which also rolled over and sank in 1628:

Vasa was built top-heavy and had insufficient ballast. Despite an obvious lack of stability in port, it was allowed to set sail and foundered only a few minutes after it first encountered a wind stronger than a breeze. The impulsive move to set sail was the result of a combination of factors: Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, who was leading the army on the continent on the date of its maiden voyage, was impatient to see it join the Baltic fleet in the Thirty Years' War; at the same time, the king's subordinates lacked the political courage to discuss the ship's structural problems frankly or to have the maiden voyage postponed. An inquiry was organized by the Swedish privy council to find personal responsibility for the disaster, but in the end no one was punished for the fiasco.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

BTW -- I don't think criminal charges should be filed. These were family and friends out for a good time -- the skipper will carry a heavy burden for the rest of his life, and the loss is immeasurable. It will take a heavy toll as it is. You can't fix stupid with jail time. Likely there will be lawsuits and some public servant will prosecute to further his career too. In the end, many lives ruined and lost -- a tragedy.

I agree that you can't fix stupid with jail time, but IMO nonetheless there do need to be legal penalties for the effects of stupidity - for deterrent to the half-wits if nothing else.

Likely they will have a lifetime of regret, but could also have a lifetime of thinking to themselves that it was all bad luck / someone (or something) else's fault. Unlikely to do it again, but...........

Seems like the authorities are taking a close look, and at this stage that is all that could be expected.

The Lawyer (with his claim of not being overloaded is just doing his job, would be saying the same thing if it had been 127 onboard!). My bet though is that the insurance company is carefully reading the fine print.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I'm sorry but I don't buy that. If the CG had been out there and seen that overloaded boat, I bet they would have counted the life jackets and sent them back in. Three innocent lives would have been saved.

Raku:

Maybe. I suspect the Coast Guard was already busy keeping the other hundreds of boaters from getting too close to the fireworks barge inside the harbor. They were probably already stretched pretty thin that night covering other areas of the Sound with fireworks shows like Port Jefferson etc... I still wonder what this boat was doing out in Long Island Sound. Perhaps they wanted to observe the fireworks off of Bayville beach as well as the fireworks along the Connecticut coast too. Or maybe the owner knew as you mentioned that he might be hassled by some marine authority with such an overloaded boat in the harbor and so headed out where the authorities were less likely to "bother" him. IMO along with an overloaded boat it was a fatal decision. The wakes from speeding power boats would be much greater and the fetch from the approaching thunderstorm would also make for rougher conditions out in the Sound too.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

If you want something positive to come out of this thread, lets have a discussion on how to predict stability in a loaded boat. It ain't that easy, and there are examples throughout the ages. From the Wikipedia for the Swedish ship Vasa, which also rolled over and sank in 1628:

Obviously they never predicted that she would be unstable before she was built (but my bet is that not everyone was happy - even if partly to cover backside! - human nature ain't changed much over the centuries!)....but clearly once built most could predict the upcoming stability issues - they just did SFA about it (for obvious reasons).

Personally am not a big one on numbers and maths, but step on any boat and it's easy enough to get a good handle on how far from the dock you would be comfortable going! just by what happens when you board - as a broad rule, if she feels a bit funny under foot things ain't good. and throw in how much personal space you have, plus how many are onboard usually / on other boats / how many berths does she have.......kinda like a car, the 4 seats are a big clue on capacity.

My bet is that the folks onboard (especially the Owner) knew that things were not quite right (even if not sure why) but chose to ignore it on the basis that he wanted a nice day / evening out and didn't want to dissapoint anyone (nor to admit that he had made a booboo on the invites? or that his wonderful boat was not everything he had claimed / read in the brochure - "fun for the entire family and freinds" )........ ....Remember that we live in an age of what folks want they are entitled to. Physics and common sense be damned!

[sabray]

I have no desire to speculate nor heart in this case to comment directly. I am reminded of a simple night at anchor. In a place I know is sketchy in certain winds. Even the harbor master I had chatted it up with thought everything would remain benign. It didn't and several boats were near losses. Sometimes everything looks real good when you start it can change very quickly sometimes with little warning.

[youmeandthed]

The insurance company is backing the Captain as an accident because if it was negligence they are probably liable to be sued.... Insurance companies don't care about anything but what they will have to pay out.

I agree that the court system is messed in the states and this would probably never make it in. But putting out more enforcement is a waste of money, and this case shows that it doesn't work.

So I guess when they say the Captain should be the last off the boat, that doesn't apply unless you a have a Captains ticket. There is a lot of debate on this, but nothing will happen, it never does. It is one thing to enforce the rules and hand out tickets, but when it comes to an event where the rules were broken and the aftermath is a worse case scenario; we don't punish. At least charge the owner for the time of the rescuers, and removal of his boat, maybe hand him one of those tickets for not enough life jackets or something.

The new headlines "Boat Operator (not officially a captain because lacked schooling) kills 3 children, gets $30 ticket"

[sailinman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I'm going to say it again.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT NOT WEARING LIFE JACKETS WAS THE PROBLEM.

We're saying that if the boat had been INSPECTED and that problem found, they would have been turned back, and the deaths would never have happened.

Then probably the owner would have been complaining about unnecessary police intrusion into his life, but three children would still be with us.

IF they would have a flat tire on the way there, they never would have gotten on the boat, blah blah blah...

to speculate on what if, is an exercise in futility...

[sailinman]

Originally Posted by mbianka

Raku:

Maybe. I suspect the Coast Guard was already busy keeping the other hundreds of boaters from getting too close to the fireworks barge inside the harbor. They were probably already stretched pretty thin that night covering other areas of the Sound with fireworks shows like Port Jefferson etc....

this is my point in this and many other discussion re: LE

they typically try to enforce stupid rules, and rules that have little to no consequence of safety...

when resources are tight, or limited, LE needs to focus on higher priority or higher probability issues...

HOPING that finding a lesser crime, will deter or turn back a person/boater, and thereby avoid a death/accident is crazy...

finding and catching a real significant safety violation is or should be the priority until such time we have too much time and resources...

[carstenb]

I'll look at that formula again. I have a 40 footer that is 13 feet wide (sailboat). The formula quoted here say I can load 34.666 persons on board (hell lets just round off to 34). At say 140 lbs each = 4760 lbs. = 2.1 metric tons

Jeanneau (the boat manufacturer) states clearly on a plate in the cockpit that in "C" grade waters (protected and sheltered no heavy weather) there is a limit of 12 persons. Total load (including 360 liters of water and 130 liters of diesel = 500 kilos), persons and baggage is 2450 kilos. Subtract the water and diesel and other accumulated junk (say 300 kilos for cockpit tent, books, cups saucer glasses etc etc) and there is a grand total of 1650 kilos left for persons and their baggage.

Guess what? no way to put 34 persons on board. I should say even the 12 Jeanneau allows would be pushing the limit.

The operator should have looked at his boat and known it was over the limit