Jump to content

Duck boat sinks in Branson, at least 13 dead

Celery Man

By Celery Man
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14921

Posted
Posted
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.
 


But he’s right, those things only happen if you’re breathing compressed air under water. That’s why free divers don’t get the bends or gas embolisms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoTex

CoTex 1160

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 


But he’s right, those things only happen if you’re breathing compressed air under water. That’s why free divers don’t get the bends or gas embolisms.

 

Well we’re pretty far off track from duck boat sinking now but, I would rather speak truth to silliness than maintain order.

 

Free divers do get the bends - you’re wrong.

http://www.skin-diver.com/departments/ScubaMed/FreedivingCauseDCS.asp?theID=626

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoogey

Stoogey 219

Posted
Posted
On 7/29/2018 at 7:08 PM, CoTex said:

Free divers do get the bends - you’re wrong.

Ama, the topless Japanese female pearl divers, on surfacing exhale with a long whistling sound to prevent the bends. 

You don't have to be diving to be susceptible. 300 feet below Milwaukee there is a 17 mile long system of tunnels created to prevent sewage overflows into Lake Michigan during thunderstorms. Each worksite had a hyperbaric chamber in the event of decompression sickness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoTex

CoTex 1160

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Stoogey said:

Ama, the topless Japanese female pearl divers, on surfacing exhale with a long whistling sound to prevent the bends. 

You don't have to be diving to be susceptible. 300 feet below Milwaukee there is a 17 mile long system of tunnels created to prevent sewage overflows into Lake Michigan during thunderstorms. Each worksite had a hyperbaric chamber in the event of decompression sickness.

If you ever think your job sucks, remember, at least you don’t have decompression sickness in a sewage tunnel underneath Milwaukee.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14260

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Stoogey said:

Ama, the topless Japanese female pearl divers, on surfacing exhale with a long whistling sound to prevent the bends. 

You don't have to be diving to be susceptible. 300 feet below Milwaukee there is a 17 mile long system of tunnels created to prevent sewage overflows into Lake Michigan during thunderstorms. Each worksite had a hyperbaric chamber in the event of decompression sickness.

Say what now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14921

Posted
Posted
Well we’re pretty far off track from duck boat sinking now but, I would rather speak truth to silliness than maintain order.
 
Free divers do get the bends - you’re wrong.
http://www.skin-diver.com/departments/ScubaMed/FreedivingCauseDCS.asp?theID=626


Not on single dives. It has to be loads and loads of repetitive dives to saturate the blood, as with the one weird oddball case you managed to dig up. Doesn’t apply to these folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Diablo

El Diablo 4232

Posted
Posted
On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 7:08 PM, CoTex said:

Well we’re pretty far off track from duck boat sinking now but, I would rather speak truth to silliness than maintain order.

 

Free divers do get the bends - you’re wrong.

http://www.skin-diver.com/departments/ScubaMed/FreedivingCauseDCS.asp?theID=626

Ain't nothing free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
crash_davis

crash_davis 23113

Posted
Posted

damn. this is a bold strategy from the duckboat owners.

https://www.ajc.com/news/how-1851-law-being-used-deny-liability-duck-boat-tragedy-that-killed/zz9L6viFpJVDkGE2TkKi1H/

Quote

The companies, Branson Duck Vehicles and Ripley Entertainment, cited an 1851 maritime law to limit or eliminate liability for the tragedy that killed 17 people in July, according to Tia Coleman's lawyers. 

In a filing in federal court in Missouri, the defendants denied negligence in the sinking of the boat. But the filing said that if a court does find negligence, their liability is zero. That's because "the Vessel was a total loss and has no current value. No freight was pending on the Vessel."          

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ERhine

ERhine 1894

Posted
Posted
damn. this is a bold strategy from the duckboat owners.
https://www.ajc.com/news/how-1851-law-being-used-deny-liability-duck-boat-tragedy-that-killed/zz9L6viFpJVDkGE2TkKi1H/

The companies, Branson Duck Vehicles and Ripley Entertainment, cited an 1851 maritime law to limit or eliminate liability for the tragedy that killed 17 people in July, according to Tia Coleman's lawyers. 

In a filing in federal court in Missouri, the defendants denied negligence in the sinking of the boat. But the filing said that if a court does find negligence, their liability is zero. That's because "the Vessel was a total loss and has no current value. No freight was pending on the Vessel."          

 


Just to be clear the Limitation of Liability Act is not some obscure/ancient/never used law. Yes it dates back ages, but is regularly used by Defendant’s in maritime cases today.

I think I currently have 5 cases where the shipowner has filed a Petition under the act in an attempt to limit what my injured Client can recover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45963

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ERhine said:

 Just to be clear the Limitation of Liability Act is not some obscure/ancient/never used law. Yes it dates back ages, but is regularly used by Defendant’s in maritime cases today.

I think I currently have 5 cases where the shipowner has filed a Petition under the act in an attempt to limit what my injured Client can recover.

What's the rationale?  Assumed risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
irishtexan

irishtexan 11519

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, ERhine said:

 Just to be clear the Limitation of Liability Act is not some obscure/ancient/never used law. Yes it dates back ages, but is regularly used by Defendant’s in maritime cases today.

I think I currently have 5 cases where the shipowner has filed a Petition under the act in an attempt to limit what my injured Client can recover.

You've got 5 cases where people were hurt on boats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ERhine

ERhine 1894

Posted
Posted
What's the rationale?  Assumed risk?


Rationale being it was 1851 and Congress wanted to help out/encourage development of maritime industry. I think there were similar provisions a number of other countries had in place, and Congress wanted to equalize the playing field.

It applies to more than just personal injury/death claims. Applies to collisions/allisions, cargo loss, sunk vessels, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/20/2018 at 9:35 AM, kevwun said:

It didn't because it wasn't designed for open water.  It was supposed to ferry men from larger ships to shore where it would be going with the waves on to the beach and then once inland to be able to cross rivers.  The top that they added to it just made it ride lower in the water.  Whoever was driving it should have turned with the wind and headed for the closest land.  That thing had no chance going in to the waves.

Wrong. First of all they shouldn't have been out there with pending bad weather, but when you get stuck out in it you NEVER want to turn with the wind. You want to keep the bow into the wind/waves. The fastest way to swamp a boat is to try to turn it around and have it sideways to big swells. If they had enough time to head to the nearest bank then fine,  but if not you have to keep the nose of the boat into the waves. And what a ridiculous looking boat. At least the owner has the balls to speak honestly and take responsibility. That boat definitely should not have been out there. What a fucking nightmare for those people  

Edited by immortal13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15790

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Wrong. First of all they shouldn't have been out there with pending bad weather, but when you get stuck out in it you NEVER want to turn with the wind. You want to keep the bow into the wind/waves. The fastest way to swamp a boat is to try to turn it around and have it sideways to big swells. If they had enough time to head to the nearest bank then fine,  but if not you have to keep the nose of the boat into the waves. And what a ridiculous looking boat. At least the owner has the balls to speak honestly and take responsibility. That boat definitely should not have been out there. What a fucking nightmare for those people  

That's boat isn't capable of jogging in to the wind.  It doesn't have a bow like a ship designed for actual open water does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Speak honestly and takw responsibility? The same owner trying to weasel out of paying the victims? Real stand up guy, we should all be like him.

 

Apologoes if you meant some other owner but this one is proving to be a piece of shit.

That isn't what I meant and i didn't know about any "weaseling". I'm just saying in response to the post about him making a remark the insurance company wouldn't like. Sounds like he was making an honest statement as to the boat being out there or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The shape.  It can't cut waves and they will break right over the front of it and swamp it.

Ok gotcha. In that case as a captain, I would have bee-lined to the nearest bank. If there wasn't a near bank, then the next option is still bow into the wind....no other choice.

Edited by immortal13
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...