Duck Boat....Again (sigh)

In short, though, my personal opinion as a professional boat operator, with a third issue Master of Steam or Motor Vessel credential and a string of endorsements (earned through an REC, not the modern paper mills) and the experience to back it up - this falls squarely on the operator. DUKW’s have well known shortcomings when operated as a boat, the egress obstacles are well known. The WX was forecast. Now, that said, was there a regulatory failure? I wholeheartedly agree with GeeBee there. If there was no operational limitations in the COI, then the CG (or whoever the cognizant reg. Agency was) left the operator between a rock and a hard place if his company expected him to still launch. WX conditionals on the certificate would have not just given him solid backup, it would have PROHIBITED him from getting underway. But I don’t know if this was a waterway solely under state regulatory control, or if it was in fact a T boat, and what was on the COI if it was. All assumptions at this point.
 
I think we need to define terms here. In my world, the operator is the entity that supplies the vessel and holds the air carrier certificate. For instance, in airline parlance, Delta Air Lines is the operator. I am the aircraft commander who operates the vehicle in accordance with limitations on the certificate as well as those placed on me. Every operator is different so the FAA publishes "operations specifications" which cover everything from required fuel and weather to how the vehicle (the airplane) is maintained right down to how often torque wrenches are calibrated that are used to maintain. Apparently in maritime they consider the "operator" to be that person personally controlling the vehicle. Nor is my power absolute. I am "dispatched" by a licensed dispatcher who is equally aware of the objective standards as I am and as my Operations manual (which has the power of law by the way) states, Neither I nor the dispatcher will operate the flight in violations of the operations specifications, Federal Aviation regulations, or company policy and procedures, nor will either of us operate contrary to our own good judgement. IOW we both have to agree the operations can be completed within the laws and limitations and within our own personal comfort levels.

It seems to me, there needs to be a regulatory re-write that defines responsibility of the company, the person who dispatches the voyage and the person who operates the vehicle for the voyage. In short there needs to be some beef up of institutional responsibility and integrity and not place the entire burden on the vehicle master. The master may have the ultimate responsibility, but his responsibility should be backstopped to a set of objective and written standards not a subjective and personal view point. The idea that the "Captain is god" is outdated and needs to be revised. It does not instill or promote institutional or operational integrity.
 
You re comparing apples and oranges... airlines with hundreds of aircrafts vs tour companies with a small fleet of boats. Different scales, different stakes.
 
Mike - from what I've found, the White River is considered US Navigable thru the reaches of Branson. MI friend of mine says that these particular Duck's appear to be T boats (MO doesn't appear to have "Public Vessels".)

Pascal - I'd say Same Stakes, different scale, as even a small corp. needs to move product. You'd have to agree that the No-Go decision is easier when you either have Regulatory backing (as NC and GB allude) or corporate/procedural backing. That's a big $$$ decision for a glorified bus driver who has neither (as I assume he didn't.)

Operator between rock and hard place.
 
I dont think i would call the guys driving duck boats and other tour boats "glorified bus drivers" as they have USCG masters plus the required experience to qualify for a masters license.

The go / no-go decision is the hardest part of the job for any captain. Driving the boat is easy... docking no matter how tight is easy... fixing things is easy... but that go/no-go decision isnt always easy as you have to balance safety and caution vs not just the need to make money but to fullfill the pasengers wishes.

I dont run tour boats or ferries or anything like that but sometimes i ve had to tell a family or a group of 10 who is spending tens of thousands of dollars on their perfect week long vacation that it s too rough to go and you have to blow a day, or two, at a dock...not an easy decision but i dont think having a bureaucratic cover your ass umbrella makes much of a difference.
 
If we're going to make aviation analogies here... isn't a boat captain who tells his passengers in very bad sea conditions to ignore the life jackets because "you won't need them" similar to an airline pilot who tells his passengers during cabin depressurization to ignore their oxygen masks? If it is determined that the airline passengers died because of that edict, I would think that the pilot would bear some sort of responsibility for the outcome?
 
Pascal, the scale of the operation does make a difference in institutional policies, procedures and integrity. However, the operations specifications can be written with those facts in mind. For instance, the FAA recognizes a single plane, single pilot operator. Much like your own marine operation. In fact, if you apply for an air carrier certificate for a single airplane with one pilot operating that airplane you do not even need an operations and policy manual. Add another pilot and you need a manual. Equally so, the operations specifications issued for a single plane/single pilot operation are much more extensive because the FAA recognizes that the pilot will "self dispatch" meaning only he will be making the decision so they are more verbose to limit the go-no-go decision because one, there is no manual and two the pilot is making his own dispatch decisions.

As an operation grows there needs to be a recognition of the complexity of the operation and policy and procedures in place to maintain operational integrity. There are airlines out there with 3 airplanes, there are airlines out there with thousands of airplanes. An airline with three airplanes even of different types may only need one chief pilot, and he can be the Check Airman. An airline of hundreds of airplanes is going to require more layers of management as well a "Standards" section, that is people who audit the training and operation and report directly to the FAA. Simply put the regulatory structure needs to reflect the size of the operation. I don't see that in the maritime industry. A guy can own a dozen small boats and put in place two dozen 6 pack captains. An operation of that size at least needs a fleet captain and a standards captain to audit the others. It needs policy and procedures manual as well as some operations specifications to back stop the captains.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tim R

If we're going to make aviation analogies here... isn't a boat captain who tells his passengers in very bad sea conditions to ignore the life jackets because "you won't need them" similar to an airline pilot who tells his passengers during cabin depressurization to ignore their oxygen masks? If it is determined that the airline passengers died because of that edict, I would think that the pilot would bear some sort of responsibility for the outcome?

Click to expand...


Absolutely and it points to a lack of training. Training is part of institutional integrity. The FAA requires training curriculum to be part of any operations manual. To answer your question directly, the Captain bears the responsibility for the action itself, but the company bears responsibility for dispatching him in such circumstances and failing to train him properly in emergency procedures.

One of the things we teach if, "if you ask yourself, do I need to declare an emergency?" the answer is YES! In this particular case we have the human trait called "minimization". We want to minimize a bad situation because we fear the consequences down the line (recrimination etc). A good training program will teach Captains to avoid minimization and a good management will avoid punishment if emergencies are declared or procedures deployed except in the case of grossest negligence or criminal conduct.

I can tell you a long story about a training scenario (interestingly enough an imminent depressurization) in which I declared an emergency and I took action. The instructor tried to ding me for it. I went into the Fleet Captain's office and said "I want you to tell me that you don't want me to declare an emergency under these circumstances and after such declaration my authority is unlimited as required to meet the emergency ." Cards folded quickly and the instructor was removed.
 
Well if there was a severe thunderstorm warning and a cell or line approaching the winds were likely going to get over 35mph...

I have cancelled or delayed day charters for that reason... who wants to be in a boat in winds over 20 kts anyway. That’s ridiculous
 
The fact there was a warning should have a show stopper. The question is, was that information known to whom? How was wx information disseminated to the people who had a need to know.
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeeBee

The fact there was a warning should have a show stopper. The question is, was that information known to whom? How was wx information disseminated to the people who had a need to know.

Click to expand...


Some of the reports mention the captain was checking the radar before leaving.

I dont is even a question about who knew and how. Nowadays it is impossible not to have access to weather info, warnings and live weather radar. It is the captain's job to ensure conditions are safe to for planned trip and vessel.

The go/no-go decision is the most important, and sometimes difficult, part of the job.
 
Looking at the radar on line is not the whole picture. For two reasons Let me explain. The microburst that brought down Delta 191 at DFW. That cloud went from a simple cumulus cloud with a top of 6000' to a monster with a microburst and tops of 40,000' in.............5 minutes. IOW, 5 minutes prior to that airplane crashing from a microburst that cloud would not paint on any radar. There was no thunderstorm warning. Now consider that 5 minute time line and consider that the NTSB recently said that online NEXRAD radar has a time latency of up to 20 minutes.

What is more important was the severe thunderstorm warning because it takes into account the lifting index and other factors and that is the information that should have been delivered to the Captain. If you choose to operate under a warning and airlines routinely do, you need much more real time weather such as on board radar and access to much more data such as boundary anemometers in and around your area of operations.

I guess what I am saying here is "iPhone weather" is not enough and I want to know what other resources this operation was using.

I would also say that if you operate in FL. Heed this. While thunderstorms are common their virulence in comparison to a thunderstorm in the mid continent is night and day. Consider the number of tornadoes in the mid west vs FL as an indicator.
 
"Missouri’s Attorney General’s office confirmed in July that it had begun an investigation into possible violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, which prohibits deception and fraud in the sale of goods and services."

Interesting strategy, sort of like going after Capone for tax violations.

Possible federal prosecution?...due to interstate commerce?
 
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri-duck-boat-workers-indicted Two more indictments.
 
"The Branson operation was owned by Ripley Entertainment at the time of the incident. Ripley Entertainment spokeswoman Suzanne Smagala-Potts said the company was cooperating with the investigations. "

Believe it or not.
 
A judge just dropped all charges against the 3 defendants incl the captain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top