34' Sailboat Capsizes in SF Bay 100 Yards From Marina

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mr B

In Australia all boats have a maximum limit for people on board, It attracts large fines if you exceed that Maximum

And if you have a flybridge, there is a second limit on how many can be on it, at least in QLD.

From the Latitude 38 report: "The flybridge was full of people."

[Mr B]

Just checked the Victorian rules, Its mandatory for all kids under ten years old to have a life jacket on at all times while under way, and it has to be one that they cant slip out off,

There is a bit more to it, But this is enough info for now
Google, safety equipment for boats in Australia, it has all the different states requirements in PDF form, It does vary a bit from state to state,

[Dirk Williams]

Saw this on the news tonight, a sad picture, of a infant being pulled onto the bottom of the vessel, by a concerned citizen. Greed, seems to be a partial motivator. If I understood correctly these were paying customers.

In 25 years as a cop, I learned early on, " you can't fix stupid".

I also have to ask myself what responsibility the paying customers bear. I'm thinking if I showed up at a boat and saw even 1/2 that number on the boat, I would weigh heavily going aboard.

Bottom line poor choices were made by all or most in this application.

Prayers out.

Dirk

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Dirk Williams

Saw this on the news tonight, a sad picture, of a infant being pulled onto the bottom of the vessel, by a concerned citizen. Greed, seems to be a partial motivator. If I understood correctly these were paying customers.

In 25 years as a cop, I learned early on, " you can't fix stupid".

I also have to ask myself what responsibility the paying customers bear. I'm thinking if I showed up at a boat and saw even 1/2 that number on the boat, I would weigh heavily going aboard.

Bottom line poor choices were made by all or most in this application.

Prayers out.

Dirk

Oh, my gosh! A charter? Oh, dear. It's pretty likely to generate lawsuits. Likely the skipper will lose his ticket. What were they all thinking?

According to this link, https://sfbay.ca/2016/10/10/crews-se...-after-rescue/ two children were taken to the hospital, both have been released.

Like you said above, Dirk, "you can't fix stupid."

Ann

[Panope]

I have borrowed (from a friend) a big gas guzzling aircraft that could seat 9 with room to walk up and down the isle. Twice I loaded it to the gills with clueless friends for partying adventures. Before takeoff, I announced "If you all wander to the back of the plane, we will all die". Worked great. Everyone stayed where they were supposed to be during the flight.

Steve

[Mikado]

According to this report 4 hrs ago the boat was privately owned and the passengers were guests, but it's anybody's guess because they are still saying it's a sailboat. What horrible reporting across the board on this story. With the hundreds of witnesses and dozens of people involved it shouldn't take much effort to get the story correct.

SAN FRANCISCO — The search for a boat that capsized and tossed 30 people into the cold waters of San Francisco Bay continued Monday, with the San Francisco Police Department’s Marine Patrol division scouring the Bay.

The 34-foot sailboat Khaleesi, sunk below the waters after capsizing about 100 yards off Pier 45 around 4 p.m. on Saturday. Two young boys were among those who went into the water.

A 5-year-old boy was rushed to the hospital after receiving CPR from a good Samaritan after being pulled from the water unconscious. He was in good condition on Monday, according to San Francisco Department of Public Health spokeswoman Rachael Kagan. A second child whose age was not given also was rushed to a hospital in critical condition but since has been released.

The Marine Patrol unit began the search for the boat at 10 a.m. and was expected to be on the waters all day.

Authorities still were investigating what caused the accident, which left some of the boat’s riders trapped underneath the hull, and have not released details. According to the Coast Guard, the boat is privately owned. San Francisco police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said the boat is owned by San Francisco residents and the passengers were invited guests.

[JPA Cate]

And so, the fight for reliable data for considering the issue continues.

Ann

[Dirk Williams]

I saw the vid, I did not see a keel, or a board slot. The boat was turtled. They focused a camera shot long enough to circle the infant and its rescuer climbing onto the boats bottom, which looked like a vee hull to me.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Sorry.

Dirk

[Mikado]

Originally Posted by Dirk Williams

I saw the vid, I did not see a keel, or a board slot. The boat was turtled. They focused a camera shot long enough to circle the infant and its rescuer climbing onto the boats bottom, which looked like a vee hull to me.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Sorry.

Dirk

Dirk, I believe that you are 100% correct.

I'm not sure what you do for a living but you might consider changing careers because you are a more accurate reporter than all the other "professionals" that have written about this story.

[Mikado]

This latest report should put this story to bed.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Police say a sailboat that capsized near San Francisco’s Pier 45 may have been overloaded.
San Francisco Police Office Jack Nyce tells the San Francisco Chronicle (Boat that capsized off Fisherman’s Wharf overloaded, police say - SFGate) the a 34-foot Silverton cabin cruiser was designed to safely carry between 10 or 12 people but it was carrying 27 adults and three children when it flipped and sank Saturday.
Rescue crews transported five adults and three children, two of them in critical conditions, to area hospitals.
All have been released, including a 4-year-old boy who had stopped breathing when he was plucked from the water. Fire Department spokesman Jonathan Baxter says he was sent home Monday.
Officials said there were a lot of recreational and rescue boats on the water because of Fleet Week, and crews were able to reach the distressed sailboat quickly.
The Marine Unit of the San Francisco Police Department on Monday located the sunken vessel, which remains underwater.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

criminally negligent, eh? Could be, that's in the poor sod's future, too, but the terror, the shame for bad judgment, the loss of the boat and its sequelae, that's some "consequences" already...

We never, ever took more than 6 other people on the 30 footer, and it was a sailboat, so not liable to sink the way the power boat did. Maybe he didn't think about it, Maybe he did, we're not likely to know.

When you think we have 3 threads now on CF about criminal negligence, that's pretty amazing. We've the one resulting from the loss of the men on the Beneteau, Cheeki Rafiki, the one about the cruiser in Tonga whose wife died following a beating he gave her, and now, perhaps this one, if the number of people here who think it was criminal negligence prevail.

I ask again who among us has not made a stupid mistake? "The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven....."

Ann

Everyone has made a stupid mistake, the question is, did we nearly drown 30 people as a result of that mistake? My mistakes run more along the lines of forgetting to let the dogs out to potty before I go run errands.

If one were to go through the prisons and determine how most of the inmates got there, we could probably classify most of their actions leading up to their convictions as stupid mistakes. They also happened to be criminal in that someone got killed or injured. Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't always require intent to harm in order to get a conviction. Let's say 3 friends talk a 4th friend who owns a car into driving them to the store. While the driver waits in the car, the 3 friends rob the store and kill the clerk. As they leave, the cops open fire and accidentally kill an innocent bystander.

At the trial, all 4 of them get charged with a double murder, even though the driver never pulled a trigger or even had any idea what was going to happen. His only mistake was being a nice guy to 3 idiots and giving them a ride to the store.

In all of those examples, they certainly weren't smart mistakes.

[JPA Cate]

Ya know, Socaldmax,

I've been agreeing with you since I read that it was a charter. If that turns out to be the case, the skipper (rightfully) will lose his license, and the parent company will be legally responsible, regardless of whose idea it was to overload the cabin cruiser.

As of my latest reading, it is unclear whether it was a privately owned cabin cruiser or not, and whether it was a paid charter or not.

If criminal action is pending, there won't be much more in the papers. But might not, anyway, because everybody's okay, although for the child who had lost consciousness, there may be long term sequelae, and those would be actionable in civil court if not criminal.

I don't think there's any way to factor in "stupid" to law......like if you're as smart as you are, would you be treated under law more harshly than say, the driver of the car in the example you gave above? I don't think so. I think for "the law" it is simply yes or no obedience or disobedience.

There are times when one just must harden one's heart and vote guilty with full knowledge of the potential consequences for the defendant.

Ann

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Mikado

This latest report should put this story to bed.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Police say a sailboat that capsized near San Francisco’s Pier 45 may have been overloaded.
San Francisco Police Office Jack Nyce tells the San Francisco Chronicle (Boat that capsized off Fisherman’s Wharf overloaded, police say - SFGate) the a 34-foot Silverton cabin cruiser was designed to safely carry between 10 or 12 people but it was carrying 27 adults and three children when it flipped and sank Saturday.
Rescue crews transported five adults and three children, two of them in critical conditions, to area hospitals.
All have been released, including a 4-year-old boy who had stopped breathing when he was plucked from the water. Fire Department spokesman Jonathan Baxter says he was sent home Monday.
Officials said there were a lot of recreational and rescue boats on the water because of Fleet Week, and crews were able to reach the distressed sailboat quickly.
The Marine Unit of the San Francisco Police Department on Monday located the sunken vessel, which remains underwater.

Gee, and to think that the same reporters are writing up political analysis and stories. No wonder we're in a mess we're in as a country.

[Polux]

I don't think that being a motor boat or a sailboat is relevant, 30 persons on a 34ft boat is the relevant issue.

I don't understand the news report absence in what regards criminal charges. In Europe such an accident with a boat with several times the number of persons it is allowed to carry would bring automatically criminal charges to the boat owner.

Are not in the US private boats certified for a given number of persons, according with the use? You can put any number of guests on a private boat? The skipper of a boat can have an accident, with victims, due to excessive load and get away with it?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't think that being a motor boat or a sailboat is relevant, 30 persons on a 34ft boat is the relevant issue.

I disagree..... Powerboats can have a great deal more reserve buoyancy due to their wide hull design and lack of ballast.
There are a number of water taxis around 35 ft that are licensed to carry 30 Pax.