People will queue up to ride in a DC3. Not a bad aircraft by any means but most are 70+ years old now. But then B52s and KC135s which are still in front line service are 50+. By comparison with the DUKW these are are great designs.

Regards
Ashtree
"Any water can be made potable if you filter it through enough money"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_tour and scroll down to incidents.

Sinkings and issues with the canopies trapping people with and without life vests has happened previously.

I've been in fairly close proximity to these SIX TONNE monsters a few times and on land they are very ungainly and have very poor visibility and on the water are basically big open top tubs susceptible to roll, wave over boarding and sinking. Being flat bottomed with only a small amount of water they will roll very easily.

In engineering terms they were a product of their time but like most multi-purpose things, end up doing none of them very well. For a vehicle essentially designed for a few months operation and with a specific purpose in mind they have lasted a phenomenal time but once you start using them for public use as opposed to military then you need lots more safety and reliability. Much more modern versions of the same thing exist now and not these museum pieces.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Military aircraft were manufactured in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The design standards of these aircraft was not the same as for modern commercial airplanes.

The maintenance standards are not as high as the standards required for commercial airplanes.

Depending on the location, the recreational flights may not be controlled by air traffic control.

The level of pilot training and health is unknown.

These factors make the risk of flying as a passenger on one of the old military planes much higher than for a commercial airplane.

Many of the same issues as the Ducks.

It's sad and it didn't need to happen.

A number of incidents weren't caused because it was a DUKW.

The Canadian incident listed wasn't a DUKW.

Putting roofs and windows on them might not be the best idea.

Assuming it's true, having the captain tell passengers to not get the life jackets as the weather hit doesn't make much sense.

Still, compare the incident number vs the success numbers. I think you'd find the odds aren't against them any worse than many other things we as humans do.

The best use of the Duck Boats here in Boston is for parades to celebrate our great sports teams!


Walt

Quote (ashtree)

But then B52s and KC135s which are still in front line service are 50+.

And in those 50+ years, the average military aircraft, like a B52 or a KC135, will make only a fraction of the landings and takeoffs and spend an order of magnitude less time in the air than most airliners would do in only a few years of normal commercial service. Actually the biggest problem with older aircraft is not the time they spend in the air, but rather the conditions which they are subjected to during long periods of time when they are simply setting on the ground being exposed to the elements with their systems sitting idle, collecting dust.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Speaking of old aircraft (sorry bimr, we are now thoroughly detoured from the original post) has anyone ridden a Ford Tri-motor? There is a tour going around to various locations across the country, and I believe it's presently at Oshkosh.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

https://www.apnews.com/48602fad390741c99e6458f5cc3...

Ford Tri's make helicopters seem quiet by comparison.
That center engine causes the entire plane to resonate.
I would trust a DC-3, at least it isn't rotted out.

As for the DUKs, if a tour boat doesn't have a Coast Guard registration I won't get on it.
You will notice that none of these are in use on CG run waters.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

My understanding is that the USCG has jurisdiction over ANY navigable US waterways, which would include any US portion of the Great Lakes and all navigable rivers.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

One of the biggest problems faced by the Duck fleet is regulation: Being part-boat and part-bus, they can't really comply properly with either set of construction rules and it's always hard to work out which set of regulators ought to be trying to make sure that they do.

No lifejackets? Once stuff had started getting really hairy, I can sort of imagine that the captain was desperate for the passengers to stay seated. With the boat swamped, I doubt there was a lot of stability left and it probably felt like any movement (for instance to collect lifejackets) would prompt a capsize. For as long as he thought there was still a chance of recovering the situation, the captain had an incentive to leave the jackets in the locker. Probably not the ideal decision, but certainly not one I'd like to be called on to make.

A.

There was an incident some years ago in Western Canada when some driftwood broke a headlight on one of those amphibs' and caused the craft to sink.
From the reported losses in wartime, they seemed to be a better target than a watercraft.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

I'm not sure I'd want a life jacket on inside an enclosed space. If submerged the life jacket would drag me up to the ceiling and perhaps inhibit me swimming "down" through a window to get out.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

JAE ... That is basic Coast Guard training. Learned that during my boating course given by the Coast Guard in 1988.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Because the boats travel on land and in water, they are regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard requires life jackets on boats but leaves it to the vessel's master to tell passengers when to wear the jackets during hazardous situations. The NTSB has recommended passengers not wear life jackets on boats that have canopies because when the vehicles sink, the life jackets can float passengers into the canopy, preventing escape.

The NTSB, which makes non-binding safety recommendations, has urged the removal of canopies from the vehicles to reduce the risk of drowning.

The agency has also recommended the highway administration regulate the vehicles for over-the-road travel with requirements for passenger seat belts, while saying that passengers shouldn't wear seat belts while the vehicle is in the water.

Starting out with a sketchy vehicle/craft to begin with, and now it comes out that they've been significantly modified.

http://www.wctrib.com/news/accidents/4477559-self-...

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

From gCaptain, the concern was that such operations avoid people with seafaring licenses and open water experience**. Since the vessel remains intact and typical stress engineering doesn't deal with sea worthiness, and every vessel of any size may encounter weather that exceeds its ability to remain afloat, I'd stick with their opinion that the captain/driver is most responsible for the sinking***, though the owners have significant responsibility for the captain/driver.

**It was suggested by an sailor who had sought such employment during the recession when offshore operations dropped off and may be biased - however the gCaptain forum members seem to be the sort who treat the job(s) seriously and the professionalism is very consistent.

***As expressed by dismay that severe weather warnings were issued in sufficient time to be off the water when they arrived. Most all were of the opinion that the main decision was based on not issuing refunds, if there was any interest in potential weather at all.

They have amphibious boats in San Diego harbor https://www.sealtours.com/?phta=sdsharbor&utm_...

Whilst they are called Duck boats by some , they bear no resemblance to the old wartime DUKW They are a barge with a 15* single chine hull mounted on a ten ton truck chassis. To enhance roll stability they have sections of 6" diameter bar welded on struts just below the truck chassis. In the water they are powered by twin screws driven from a transfer case like a four wheel drive vehicle. the vehicle is two wheel drive. I do not think even a vessel like this can stand the sea state shown in the pictures in Missouri although these boats appear to have more freeboard. The waves in that case were breaking over the boat.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

Berkshire, for what it’s worth, they claim to be foam filled and positively buoyant.

Quote:

The $379,000 Hydra Terra was the first vehicle which used CAMI's patented positive-buoyancy foam-filled compartments and CAMI is so confident of the design of the vehicle that it is claiming the bus is unsinkable, even with the drain plugs removed and the engine room flooded.

https://newatlas.com/cami-hydra-gator-budget-amphi...

There’s a used one for sale in Florida for $150K if you’re on the market.

"The NTSB has recommended passengers not wear life jackets on boats that have canopies because when the vehicles sink, the life jackets can float passengers into the canopy, preventing escape."

I find this to be crazy! I would prefer to have the jacket on to be able to exit sides as water level rose. If you wait for vessel to sink and get pinned against fabric top, then either pierce top, make way to edge, or slip jacket off. I can't imagine there was not one concerned person passing out jackets at the first wave! I'll trust my 60+ years of boating experience and instincts over the NTSB "recommendations"!


Walt

A recent article stated that the water surface became very 'choppy' and very quickly. If the lake is shallow, wave mechanics show that the amplitude of the waves can increase dramatically with a slight increase in wind velocity. We have a similar condition on Lake Winnipeg which is huge in area, but I understand has a maximum depth of about 20'. Waves can set up very fast and the lake can become treacherous in a very short period of time.

Dik

Quote (Strong)

I would prefer to have the jacket on to be able to exit sides as water level rose.

I think that probably depends on whether you're expecting the boat to swamp then sink on an even keel, or to capsize suddenly. I've seen too many reports (this is the first that springs to mind) of people getting pinned underneath capsized boats to want to dismiss the NTSB advice out of hand.

In a different case, lifejackets were handed round and people were told to put them on, but the majority of passengers didn't have time to don them before abandoning (this one, unlike Table Rock Lake, was an even-keel foundering in flat calm conditions).

Foam filling for positive buoyancy isn't a universal panacea. In the case of the Liverpool sinking in the video above, it turned out they hadn't been able to fit nearly as much foam into the available space as they thought. A couple of months later in London, another Duck had to be abandoned into the water when buoyancy foam that had been packed too close round the engine compartment caught fire.

A.

Quote (zeus)

g (this one was an even-keel foundering, but then the conditions were flat calm).

From the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44895391

It happened as a line of powerful thunderstorms rolled through the American Midwest, uprooting trees and felling power lines.

At the time of the accident, winds reached around 65mph (104 km/h), according to the National Weather Service.

Dik

@dik: I hadn't meant it to be read that way. Original post since edited to make it clearer that I was contrasting with a different (and mercifully less tragic) Duck sinking. Thanks for pointing it out.

A.

zeus: what is even keel floundering?

Dik

Foundering (with no L in the middle) means filling with water and sinking. Doing it on an even keel means that the vessel stays the right way up all the way through the process. This is what you see happening in the Wacker Quacker 1 video.

What often happens when boats swamp is that their natural stability gets eroded (by a mixture of free surface effect and loss of Gm due to their sitting lower in the water) and they capsize (often very quickly and with next to no warning). The capsize usually causes downflooding into the remaining dry spaces and what started as "sinking slowly" can turn into "suddenly just disappeared" - from the perspective of the occupant, "water sloshing round your ankles" can very suddenly turn into "wall of freezing cold water blasting through the wheelhouse door and windows, while the whole world turns upside down". There seems to have been a bit of this about the Table Rock Lake accident.

There's a whole science (damage-case stability calculations) in predicting which way it will go, but weather conditions and the behaviour of passengers make a difference. A big determinant of success in the Mediterranean migrant rescues seems to be persuading the migrants to sit still for long enough to be rescued.

A.

Quote (dik)

A recent article stated that the water surface became very 'choppy' and very quickly.

NTSB published an initial review of the onboard video recordings yesterday. Relevant entries:





Very quickly indeed.

A.

zeus: Thanks and thanks for the spelling correction... been spelling it wrong all my life.

Dik

Interesting comments. I've driven a DUK a few times and ridden in them many times, a friend uses one for hauling supplies around the Alaskan bush. I can't say I see anything overly wrong with the design. In the water they're more stable than most of the boats I've been in. On land they're not the easiest to drive but no worse than many large trucks, which is still significantly better than driving heavy armor down the freeway with hatches closed using periscopes as many of our 18 year old servicemen do. Personally, I'd worry more about the currently low state of drivers' licensing standards in this country than a few businesses operating DUKWs.

19:00:25 to 19:08:27 - 8 minutes is an excruciating eternity when the fertilizer is impinging the oscillator!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Ornery... we call them fans in Canada...

Dik

rotary oscillator

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

Dik, we do too, just being facetious. We also do not call it "fertilizer".

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Keep in mind - people died.

Quote (dik (Structural) )

zeus: Thanks and thanks for the spelling correction... been spelling it wrong all my life.

Dik

Flounder was the guy in Animal House:

"fertilizer is impinging the oscillator"
"we call them fans in Canada"
Telling stories out of school here:
My wife lost all interest in being a fan of bull riding events when she was impinged with some fertilizer at a local Bull-arama".
True story, no BS.-- Bad choice of words but you know what I mean.
grin

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Salamander Amphibious Vehicles

Almost into production, being designed in Ireland in response to the DUK accidents. Kicked off by a tour company in Dublin who has run several DUKs for a number of years.

It is being designed to meet all relevant road and marine regulations

The new Salamander appears to retain many of the design flaws that were inherent in the original DUK that were outlined in the NTSB report.

"110% buoyancy, vessel remains afloat if fully flooded" and
"retractable mechanical sponsons"

I think would make a substantial difference to survivability.

The current DUKWs they run in Dublin also seem to have inflatable sponsons.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I imagine the Salamander being 110% buoyant and having those side sponsons makes it much more stable than a DUKV. They don't say, but I would suspect the goal is to build it so it won't sink or roll over when full of water while in at least 1.2m waves.

The Titanic was unsinkable too.

Even if the thing will float, you still have problems with:

1. Extremely poor sight angles on the road which has caused traffic accidents and fatalities in the past.

2. Issues between regulating this thing as a road vehicle or a water craft.

3. The canopy issue of entrapping the riders should the thing sink.

4. This is basically an amusement ride and you are not going to have professionally trained staff operating these things. In the 1999 incident, the Miss Majestic’s operator was hired by Land and Lakes in August 1998. Before joining the tour company, she had worked as a substitute school bus driver in Mount Ida, Arkansas, from 1997 though 1998, and as a school bus driver in Rockford, Illinois, from 1996 through 1997.7 She had also worked as a machinist in Rockford from 1988 until August 1995. She stated she had operated a motorboat and had 2 to 3 years experience helping aboard party barges and fishing craft.

5. In the 1999 incident, The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the uncontrolled flooding and sinking of the Miss Majestic was the failure of Land and Lakes Tours, Inc., to adequately repair and maintain the DUKW.

6. The original DUKW were designed and built with a life expectancy of only a few months.

7. Federal regulations contained in 46 CFR 177.30-1 stipulate that the width of aisles more than 15 feet long should be no less than 30 inches and the distance from seat front to seat front should not be less than 30 inches. According to the Coast Guard, the Miss Majestic had been granted a waiver for meeting the aisle width and seat separation requirements. Coast Guard files for the Miss Majestic contained no record indicating how the acceptable dimensions were determined.

Link

Kind of a tangent, and an idiosyncrasy of mine, things like this irritate me . . . upon opening the web page for Salamander, much to my amusement, is a guy pretending to be TIG welding with no gloves. Now I don't know how many of you forum participants have spent much time TIG welding, I've done quite a fair bit of it. Let's hope the company is more forthright with product safety and sound design than they are with their marketing slicks.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

"Flounder was the guy in Animal House:"

...and one of the Little Mermaid's best supporting characters...weird, huh?

Quote (bimr)

The Titanic was unsinkable too.

Are you implying that someone here posted that the Salamander was unsinkable?

Bimr i am a bit familiar with the Salamander vessel, I know the sight lines, aisle widths, seat spacing, seat belts etc all meet the relevant road going bus and coach requirements. All relevant marine regulations were met also. I believe the regulator bodies were heavily involved in this development. It was a first in that a number of road and marine requirements were contradictory and the company went to great lengths to ensure these contradictions were officially ironed out with the relevant bodies.

As for the canopy I guess it is a must have for passenger comfort (especially in Ireland). I believe open top raises a whole lot more issues on the road. The Salamander has the sponsons on the side for stability but they also act as escape platforms for people leaving the canopy

LionelHutz, being from Belfast the last thing I would do is claim anything to be unsinkable. marine terminology isn't in my vocab but here goes: most of the volume under water is non-absorbent foam, the only volume that can actually flood is very small relative to the vessel size, I guess that's why they can claim 110% buoyancy, stays afloat when flooded.

Quote (D Scullion (Mechanical))

Bimr i am a bit familiar with the Salamander vessel, I know the sight lines, aisle widths, seat spacing, seat belts etc all meet the relevant road going bus and coach requirements. All relevant marine regulations were met also. I believe the regulator bodies were heavily involved in this development. It was a first in that a number of road and marine requirements were contradictory and the company went to great lengths to ensure these contradictions were officially ironed out with the relevant bodies.

As for the canopy I guess it is a must have for passenger comfort (especially in Ireland). I believe open top raises a whole lot more issues on the road. The Salamander has the sponsons on the side for stability but they also act as escape platforms for people leaving the canopy

LionelHutz, being from Belfast the last thing I would do is claim anything to be unsinkable. marine terminology isn't in my vocab but here goes: most of the volume under water is non-absorbent foam, the only volume that can actually flood is very small relative to the vessel size, I guess that's why they can claim 110% buoyancy, stays afloat when flooded.

From the NTSB report: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the uncontrolled flooding and sinking of the (1999 Incident) Miss Majestic was the failure of Land and Lakes Tours, Inc., to adequately repair and maintain the DUKW. Contributing to the sinking was a flaw in the design of DUKWs as converted for passenger service, that is, the lack of adequate reserve buoyancy that would have allowed the vehicle to remain afloat in a flooded condition. Contributing to the unsafe condition of the Miss Majestic was the lack of adequate oversight by the Coast Guard. Contributing to the high loss of life was a continuous canopy roof that entrapped passengers within the sinking vehicle."

These DUKWs are still more or less an amusement ride and you are not going to have professionally trained staff operating and maintaining these things. There is no economical way around that.

So? The Salemander wouldn't have sunk if put in the same situation as the Miss Majestic (big opening into the hull letting water in) making both the canopy and the training of the staff irrelevant.

Can the canopy have quick release devices, or frangible seams? I get being a sun and rain shade but that's all downward forces. How hard would it be to design and implement ways for passengers to escape?

Quote (LionelHutz (Electrical) )

So? The Salemander wouldn't have sunk if put in the same situation as the Miss Majestic (big opening into the hull letting water in) making both the canopy and the training of the staff irrelevant.

You still have the maintenance for this unusual vehicle, which will be different than most over the road vehicles. The poor maintenance was the NTSB's probable cause for the 1999 disaster. When those people boarded the DUKW in Lake Hamilton Missouri or in Hot Springs Arkansas in 1999, they did not expect to be dead in 30 minutes.

You seem to be claiming this thing is unsinkable. The Titanic was also launched from Ireland and was also claimed to be unsinkable.

My problem with this is that it is basically a carnival ride with little need or demand for it. All of those mom or pop companies running DUKW boat tours will not be able to exchange their fleets for Salemanders either.

If you want a carnival ride, go to 6 Flags or Universal Studio's. By the way, carnival rides are also haphazardly regulated. See the Verrückt water slide decapitation posts.

"By the way, carnival rides are also haphazardly regulated. See the Verrückt water slide decapitation posts."

In some states, the state regulations are fairly lax, the vast majority of amusement parks have very strict internal safety protocols, usually more than even the stricter state regulations require. The guys responsible for the decapitation were also responsible for numerous serious injuries on that slide going back a couple of years. It's prudent to check out any amusement park and their rides, but inadequate government regulation doesn't necessarily mean that the rides are unsafe. Neither does strict state regulation ensure the rides are safe.

The insurance companies may move faster and more effectively than government in establishing and enforcing standards.
In the wake of the Humbolt tragedy some Canadian insurance companies are demanding more proof of drivers experience when writing new policies or adding drivers to existing policies for heavy trucks.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

bimr - No, but you certainly keep claiming others are saying it's unsinkable. Maintenance wouldn't have mattered either unless they were removing the buoyancy foam or the sponsons.

Quote (LionelHutz (Electrical))

bimr - No, but you certainly keep claiming others are saying it's unsinkable. Maintenance wouldn't have mattered either unless they were removing the buoyancy foam or the sponsons.

It is not necessary to sink to lose your life in a DUKW. Lack of proper maintenance by the organizations that operate the DUKW's caused the incidents/accidents and/or fatalities in the following examples.

It would have been nice to include some additional details, like where and when these incidents occurred.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Don't worry about details, like the fact that the barge picture was found to be the tug captains fault after ignoring radio calls. I don't believe anyone died in that incident either.

Quote (LionelHutz (Electrical))

Don't worry about details, like the fact that the barge picture was found to be the tug captains fault after ignoring radio calls. I don't believe anyone died in that incident either.

You want some details:

"On July 7, 2010, a barge pushed by a tugboat struck a duck boat stranded in the Delaware River off Penn’s Landing after an engine fire.

Once struck, the amphibious craft capsized and two Hungarian tourists drowned.

The tugboat’s pilot, the Inquirer reported, was on his cellphone handling a family emergency. He served a one-year sentence for “the maritime equivalent of involuntary manslaughter.”"

In October 2016, the company announced it would “indefinitely” suspend operations in Philadelphia due, in part, to a 330 percent increase in insurance premiums, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

The boat was adrift and the passengers were all doing fine until the pilot of the tug ran it over with the barge. Just because a boat breaks down doesn't mean it's fair game to be run over.

Agree it is not fair game to be run over, but the Delaware River is the fifth largest port complex in the United States. The river is tidal and the current may be swift. Not a good place to be adrift.

Saying that having engine issues and drifting is the cause of those deaths is about the same as saying that a failed tire would be at fault for deaths if a bus pulls over to the side of a road for a flat and then gets run over by a transport truck. Both of those issues would lead up to the final incident, but the actual fault lies fully with the operator of the other vessel/vehicle.

Quote (LionelHutz)

Saying that having engine issues and drifting is the cause of those deaths is about the same as saying that a failed tire would be at fault for deaths if a bus pulls over to the side of a road for a flat and then gets run over by a transport truck. Both of those issues would lead up to the final incident, but the actual fault lies fully with the operator of the other vessel/vehicle.

A better comparison would if your bus stalled on the tracks and got hit by a train.

Precedent to support your post, stevenal.
In 2005 a bus carrying construction workers home for days off was blocked by an accident on the highway. Under extreme pressure from the workers who wanted to get home, the bus driver tried to turn around and became stuck cross-ways on the highway.
All the lights and flashers were on on the bus.
A semi hit the bus broadside.
Six workers died.
The semi driver was charged with six counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and 21 counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

John Rbaker.

If ypu flick back to my post about three or four in and follow the wiki page, most can be found there.

The first is the fire on the River Thames, caused, ironically, by additional buoyancy sprayed in catching fire on the engine exhaust

The second picture is a broken down duck in Dublin

third no idea
Fourth is the barge ramming
Fifth is the sinking in Albert dock Liverpool ( all got out alive with some helped by a passing narrow boat). The company lost its licence and folded shortly after.
Last one look like Dublin from the road markings

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The third picture was Seattle. Wheel came off the DUKW.

Quote (stevenal (Electrical))

A better comparison would if your bus stalled on the tracks and got hit by a train.

Not so fast.

Commercial ships in shipping lanes have the right-of-way. If you are taking your craft out in the water, you better make sure that it is adequately maintained so that you are not adrift in the shipping lanes.

If you craft is damaged by the commercial ship, the ship's owner is likely to sue for damages as well.

stevenal - Not really, unless the train engineer can steer the train.

bimr - Not so fast yourself. During normal navigation, if the give way vessel doesn't give way, the stand-on vessel must make every attempt possible to avoid a collision. Even with the "right of way" you can't just continue course and run over another boat because it should have given way.

I would imagine that it would be similar to rear-ending another car on the freeway; that used to be automatically faulted to the one in the rear, but they changed that so that fault is apportioned to either party as the situation warrants.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I think folks here are greatly overestimating the ability of a tug/barge operator to steer or slow this mass. It's nothing like a truck on the freeway. Yes, he must make every effort to avoid a collision, and the fact he was was distracted and ignored radio calls went against him because of that. But maintaining a proper lookout is no guarantee a stalled vessel can be avoided. When I see a barge when on the water, I stay well away.

Full NTSB report

There was ample time for the tug to have avoided that collision. It's stupid arguing about it not being possible or not the tugs fault any further.

This is low, even for lawyers . . .

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-an-1851-law-...

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Sounds like there's at least some precedent for that excuse to be ignored, since it's said that companies have tried to use that loophole before.

Those attorneys were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. - Jurassic Park.

One has to realize that our legal system is based in advocacy and as such does not necessarily care about justice. Justice through our system does not always reflect the truth.

It sounds like a standard defense practice that is commonly done in these types of cases. Nothing more or less should be construed from it.

Quote:

This is low, even for lawyers . . .

Which side are you referring to?

Captain charged in federal court.

Link