Jump to content

Duck boat sinks in Branson, at least 13 dead

Celery Man

By Celery Man
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Fuuuuuuck. 

The owner of the company "stretched" the boats length, and didn't consult with any engineers.  He just fucking winged it.  

 

On 7/23/2018 at 8:20 PM, RPM said:

safety and liability were not at the forefront of their business model.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoogey

Stoogey 219

Posted
Posted
On 7/23/2018 at 8:20 PM, RPM said:

So you think it's perfectly safe and reasonable to let a child (who by your definition can't even touch the controls) take control of a moving commercial vehicle? It doesn't matter if it's on land, air or water. Is it cute? Hellz yes. Is it safe? Hellz no. Is it covered by their insurance? Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna say no way in hell is that covered. I'm sure you have no problems letting a kid drive the school bus, because hey it's dry land. What could possibly go wrong?

I do admire your twisting this into a completely different conversation than safety and liability were not at the forefront of their business model. Well played.

You fucking cunt. I can't stand it when people lie to support an argument. Who said the commercial vehicle was moving? It isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted

Where does it say only when the boat isn't moving? I'll hang up and wait for you to post the link. Also good to see you're starting to lose your shit over this. You need to learn to relax, or hang out at the old site. Lotsa shit flying around there.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

Grasping for a story here. The ducks have been stretched for years, were USCG inspected, and the stretching likely played no part in this incident.

You don't know that.  You're probably correct that under normal operating conditions, a 4% stretch probably wouldn't push the vehicle past the point of reasonably safe performance.  History tells us that.  Under extreme wave action?  That's beyond conjecture.  Most likely a standard duck would have been at risk in that water, and the modified design just made things worse.

But it's not just the stretch -- he either modified existing vehicles or built new ones from the ground up, both of which could have severely compromised the design, as he had no training in engineering or vehicle manufacture.  That dude is probably in a world of trouble, even though he sold the company.  I suppose it might come down to disclosures upon sale, but my gut says he fucked up big time and is about to be dragged into this whole mess.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You don't know that.  You're most likely correct that under normal operating conditions, a 4% stretch probably wouldn't push the vehicle past the point of reasonably safe performance.  Under extreme wave action?  That's beyond conjecture.  Most likely a standard duck would have been at risk in that water, and the modified design just made things worse.

But it's not just the stretch -- he either modified existing vehicles or built ones from the ground up, both of which could have severely compromised the design, as he had no training in engineering or vehicle manufacture.  That dude is probably in a world of trouble, even though he sold the company.  I suppose it might come down to disclosures upon sale, but my gut says he fucked up big time and is about to be dragged into this whole mess.

The Coast Guard approves all construction and vessel modifications for these boats and sets operating parameters based on stability tests of each individually constructed vessel.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Casual Encounter said:

The Coast Guard approves all construction and vessel modifications for these boats and sets operating parameters based on stability tests of each individually constructed vessel.

Up to and including those conditions?  I highly doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Up to and including those conditions?  I highly doubt it.

I just stated they were operating outside the approved parameters, didn’t I? Since you’re having hard time understanding, maybe I can spell it out better for you.

Man wants to build or modify inspected passenger boat. Man submits plans to Coast Guard. Trained Coast Guard man reviews, approves, and oversees construction. Stability calculations and test is completed to establish operating parameters. Coast Guard issues letter to man indicating what wind/wave height man can operate vessel at. Man isn’t responsible for future idiot operating outside of approved parameters.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't have a hard time understanding.  For instance, I understand that the NTSB has issued findings that basically state these things are deathtraps, but they don't have the regulatory power to curtail manufacture or operation.  I also understand that there doesn't seem to be any record of engineering control over the design or manufacture of this particular boat.  Do you have evidence that your "trained Coast Guard man" reviewed the entire design for structural and operational safety?  Or is it more likely that the boat merely passed 3rd-party outsourced annual inspection (which it did)?

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have a hard time understanding.  For instance, I understand that the NTSB has issued findings that basically state these things are deathtraps, but they don't have the regulatory power to curtail manufacture or operation.  I also understand that there doesn't seem to be any record of engineering control over the design or manufacture of this particular boat.  Do you have evidence that your "trained Coast Guard man" reviewed the entire design for structural and operational safety?  Or is it more likely that the boat merely passed 3rd-party outsourced annual inspection (which it did)?

The Coast Guard does maintain records and inspect these annually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted

OK, we're obviously not going to get anywhere here.  If you're OK with a layman "engineering" a boat design and having it fabricated at a random metal shop, then fine.  As a mechanical engineer, I find just about everything in this story extremely fishy.  Carry on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, we're obviously not going to get anywhere here.  If you're OK with a layman "engineering" a boat design and having it fabricated at a random metal shop, then fine.  As a mechanical engineer, I find just about everything in this story extremely fishy.  Carry on.

It doesn’t matter if I’m ok with it, or you’re ok with it. The regulations allow it for these small boats. Larger vessels require more engineering oversight. In an effort to facilitate small business, smaller passenger vessels are can be built in a garage. 

Edited by Casual Encounter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted

They'd not only have to do an engineering review of the plans, they'd have to confirm that the vehicles were built to plan if this "signoff" is going to have any chance of holding up.  I don't believe for a minute the Coast Guard has that level of expertise out in the field working on some dipshit's tour boats he built using advice from a fucking high school football coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which of those dozens of guidelines do you think apply to this particular vehicle?

Dozen? Try again. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Commercial-Regulations-standards-CG-5PS/Marine-Safety-Center-MSC/Plan-Review-Guides/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted

Could you be a bigger cock?  I googled what you asked, and found a page with DOZENS of pdf files for various vessel regulations.

What is your angle here?  Are you USCG?  A boat pilot?  It strains credibility that anyone with a functioning brain would think there's nothing concerning about a person with zero engineering background stretching questionable water-going vehicles and then building them in random metal shops. 

Do you have an engineering background?  This is tiresome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Casual Encounter said:

This would probably be most relevant to the current conversation.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/MSC/PRG/PRG.H1-01.2018.04.20.Review_of_Stability_for_Small_Passenger_Vessels_(T).pdf

Holy smokes.  First, I quote the last paragraph in the document:

Quote

This guidance is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it itself a rule. It is not intended to nor does it impose legally-binding requirements on any party. It represents the Coast Guard’s current thinking on this topic and may assist industry, mariners, the general public, and the Coast Guard, as well as other federal and state regulators, in applying statutory and regulatory requirements. You can use an alternative approach for complying with these requirements if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative, you may contact MSC, the unit responsible for implementing this guidance.

Second, I see nothing specific about design requirements for water-going vessels, and certainly nothing in that short little document about how to assess those designs.  It's about stability testing.  Passing a stability test is hardly the only bar a design must clear to be deemed worthy.

Third, it's from this year.  It has no (necessary) relation to requirements in 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
woohorn

woohorn 1131

Posted
Posted

Engineers are great and all, but what is the point here? Y'all think that one of the "real" original WW2 duckboats straight off the streets of River Oaks wouldn't have ended up in Davey Jones' locker?

Shouldn't have been out there, roof should have exit skylights, curtains should have velcro/zippers, and 1yos should have had life jackets. Everyone involved is going to lose everything whether these were repro/lengthened/etc.

LENGTH DOESN'T MATTER!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31488

Posted
Posted

Whether the boat was actually seaworthy (lakeworthy as it were) will be largely irrelevant except it's just another data point reflecting that this whole operation seems to be shot through with negligence.  I'm going to have to guess that they'll be bankrupt in months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy smokes.  First, I quote the last paragraph in the document:

Second, I see nothing specific about design requirements for water-going vessels, and certainly nothing in that short little document about how to assess those designs.  It's about stability testing.  Passing a stability test is hardly the only bar a design must clear to be deemed worthy.

Third, it's from this year.  It has no (necessary) relation to requirements in 1996.

Because it’s only a guide for plan submission for a specific requirement, ass. It’s not the law, regulation, or any other legal document. There are guides for all the requirements, evidently and they probably get updated as information or procedures change. The legal statement basically states there are alternatives to compliance but still must be approved.

My entire point was, people crying gross negligence for an owner making a modification many years ago, which had Coast Guard approval and oversight, are ignorant about the process and grasping for a story outside of the only one which matters. The captain shouldn’t have been out there.

Go ahead and read a few tidbits until you find something you feel supports your opinion that the Coast Guard doesn’t have the technical expertise or oversight on the construction/modification process and continue to beat your chest. We’re all buying it... 

Edited by Casual Encounter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoTex

CoTex 1160

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, rage-a-holic said:

It's due to the fact you aren't breathing compressed air underwater.

 

Wrong as usual.

It is a result of gas absorbed in your tissues under pressure (from depth under water), expanding when the pressure is released (ascending).

if you’re only down at 40 feet for a few seconds, history tells us you won’t absorb much gas.  Deeper for longer and it starts to approach problem time.  There are tables and dive computers that will tell you how deep/long is safe.

there is also something called an expansion injury where you take a deep breath at depth and then don’t exhale as you ascend.

 

i doubt any of these deaths were caused by  either of these.

 

more likely, these people breathed water instead of air when they couldn’t escape the cage/duck boat.  I’m sure they were terrified and in pain.

Terrible way to die.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17545

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Casual Encounter said:

Because it’s only a guide for plan submission for a specific requirement, ass. It’s not the law, regulation, or any other legal document. There are guides for all the requirements, evidently and they probably get updated as information or procedures change. The legal statement basically states there are alternatives to compliance but still must be approved.

My entire point was, people crying gross negligence for an owner making a modification many years ago, which had Coast Guard approval and oversight, are ignorant about the process and grasping for a story outside of the only one which matters. The captain shouldn’t have been out there.

Go ahead and read a few tidbits until you find something you feel supports your opinion that the Coast Guard doesn’t have the technical expertise or oversight on the construction/modification process and continue to beat your chest. We’re all buying it... 

While I'm not versed with these specific regulations, generally speaking complying with regulations does not mean one cannot be found negligent. That is to say that most regulations function as a minimum floor for what is required, but do not establish the standard of care for the industry (i.e. what one should do). He could have complied with all regulations. The boat could have been inspected and approved by the Coast Guard. And a jury could still find him negligent (or grossly negligent) in the manufacturer or design of the vehicle.

That being said, you may be right that the design didn't cause or contribute to the accident. I don't believe we have enough information to know that at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76800

Posted
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Hawndoh said:

This thread has shipwrecked. 

The legend lives on from Shaggy on down
to the big board we all now call Surly 
silly arguments, it's said, always bring with them dread
when the offseason comes way to early

Edited by Deej
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Stoogey said:

Urm, sixty years of vacationing. 

You are a liar. Do not presume to put "facts" in the discussion.

I'm not lying about anything. Just asked for you to quote your source. Still waiting, btw. 

Why are you so adamant about defending this company? They look like greedy folks that ran a slipshod business whose major concerns were not safety and liability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted

I took my daughter up to Caddo a few years ago and out of abundance of caution, they canceled the boat tour we wanted to take because of an incoming storm. Eventually we did get to tour the lake in a small boat with one of the guides, and it was awesome, and I highly recommend it to anybody.

I wonder though -- those Caddo guides all seem to be local lake rats. I mean, they can interpret every last ripple in the lake and every single cloud in the sky, even without radar. These Branson folks just seem like hired guns, more worried about a timetable and a bottom line than anything else. Not that they intended this...just that they were ignorant of what could happen and what that lake could do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21817

Posted
Posted
On 7/25/2018 at 4:40 PM, relapse98 said:

Seriously, wtf is wrong with people?

The grandma that taped the duck sinking has been receiving less than uplifting messages.

Uh yeah. Let's see, everyone else was already dialing 911. Inundating the 911 center isn't going to help one bit. She can't rescue them herself while sitting inside of a giant moving paddlewheel boat. There's just about literally nothing she could do other than what she did - tape what happened and provide that to the authorities so they have a clearer picture of the events.

 

Man people can be such pieces of shit.

 

Edit: including one who commented on the above article

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't have jumped off of a giant moving paddlewheeler into those waves. 100% guarantee you. While he does appear to be a captain at the Titanic exhibit in Branson, I'm not sure that relates to any real world useful skills.

Most of the time, it's best to stay out of the way and let the pros handle it.  Too often the "Good Samaritans" end up just getting in the way and harming the process.  Reminds me of the people who tried to help the Thai soccer players and ended up pumping water into the cave.  And in this event in particular, you're right, there wasn't anything a civilian bystander could do but hope and pray for those who were tasked with trying to rescue.

I don't think the lengthening of the boats had anything to do with this.  The boats aren't made to be out in bad weather.  That was the problem.  The boats could have gone on forever if they operated them in calm waters only, as they were intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
relapse98

relapse98 634

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Fuuuuuuck. 

The owner of the company "stretched" the boats length, and didn't consult with any engineers.  He just fucking winged it.  

The lawsuits are going to hit him, Herschend and Ripley. They are all going to get to have some fun time in court now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

Whatever happened to glass bottom boats? That seems like an idea ripe for disaster, maybe we need to hang anyone who runs such an operation before anything bad happens just to set an example.

Flex Tape was cheaper.

o6eGFeah.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoogey

Stoogey 219

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RPM said:

I'm not lying about anything. Just asked for you to quote your source. Still waiting, btw. 

Why are you so adamant about defending this company? They look like greedy folks that ran a slipshod business whose major concerns were not safety and liability. 

You stupid fuck. I am talking about DUKWs in other cities. Pay attention or shut the fuck up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coelenterate Fuccboi

Coelenterate Fuccboi 13097

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

They signed off on glass bottom boats.

Yeah, but I’m sure there were no engineering requirements or analysis done. Hell, they’d probably approve a recycled paper hull.

*Just couldn’t use plastic straws for structural support in California.

Edited by Casual Encounter
Phone typing impatience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...