Duck Boat....Again (sigh)

Speaking of ops specs, does not the CG issue something similar to marine operators? Would this Duck boat operation have "ops specs"?
 
quote:
Originally posted by j-d

Grieves me when we do the predictable then are dismayed when it happens.

Wasn't c46 a Curtiss and c47 a Douglas?7

Click to expand...


You are correct. The C-46 design was also after the C-47.

Whether or not they were a certified airline, in the early years they flew as a scheduled airline with booked passengers.

In addition to this type of operation, they also hired pilots to fly aircraft that had an F-, A- or B- designation.

George
 
I was in Alaska in 2002, they were using C-46's to transport fuel into remote strips. I was told they were much better at getting in and out of short unimproved strips than a C-47.

Ken
 
I hate to say this but the responsibility for this accident is on the USCG shoulders. They are the regulatory agency in charge of inspecting, approving and issuing Certificate of inspections to commercial operators. AFAIK that applies to inland land locked lakes, doesn’t it?

If you try to apply for a COI for a charter yacht you will have to comply with a bunch of sometimes silly requirements like higher railings. Yet they allow tour boats to run unstable and un seaworthy vessels with canopies and enclosures which affect windage, stability and evacuation.
 
Respectfully disagree. It was the sole decision of the owner/operators to ignore or not keep informed of wx alerts and put their passengers in fatal jeopardy in order to make passenger fare money.They were more aware than anyone else these ducks have severe limitations compared to other conventional vessels. The USCG did not make THAT decision.

But I think you are right in that this latest tragedy will likely encourage the CG inspectors to impose much needed greater regulatory limitations on their niche use, since some owner/operators are perhaps unintentionally failing to put passenger safety 1st by a wide enough margin.
 
That Captain should have been ripping out those side curtains and handing out life jackets.
What was he thinking?
 
Seeing as the Captain survived in good condition he was likely busy getting his sorry butt out.

Padraig
 
quote:
Originally posted by PascalG

I hate to say this but the responsibility for this accident is on the USCG shoulders. They are the regulatory agency in charge of inspecting, approving and issuing Certificate of inspections to commercial operators. AFAIK that applies to inland land locked lakes, doesn’t it?

If you try to apply for a COI for a charter yacht you will have to comply with a bunch of sometimes silly requirements like higher railings. Yet they allow tour boats to run unstable and un seaworthy vessels with canopies and enclosures which affect windage, stability and evacuation.

Click to expand...


There seems to be a "hole" in the regulations on these units because they are amphibs and that needs to change. Perhaps a new section. While I agree with Sandy the operator failed in this case you cannot rely upon the operator to always make the correct decision, especially when it comes to a vehicle that is a desperately limited as these units.

The idea that you have to rely upon the main propulsion unit as the sole source to bail the boat is absurd.
 
quote:
Originally posted by gcolton

quote:
Originally posted by j-d

Grieves me when we do the predictable then are dismayed when it happens.

Wasn't c46 a Curtiss and c47 a Douglas?7

Click to expand...


You are correct. The C-46 design was also after the C-47.

Whether or not they were a certified airline, in the early years they flew as a scheduled airline with booked passengers.

In addition to this type of operation, they also hired pilots to fly aircraft that had an F-, A- or B- designation.

George

Click to expand...


That was before the FAA. The FAA finally realized how limited the C-46 was and placed special specs on them.

"I was in Alaska in 2002, they were using C-46's to transport fuel into remote strips. I was told they were much better at getting in and out of short unimproved strips than a C-47"

Yep, right up until they loose an engine then they are a coffin. Also they do not have a rated firewall unless modified. The regulations for cargo of course are much looser. Notice that FedEx flies around boxes in single engine airplanes, single pilot doing CAT 2 approaches. Review FAR 121.157 (c) This is the kind of specific regulation needed for Ducks.
 
I agree that the captain is responsible for this accident as there is no excuse to set out ahead of an incoming storm but the responsibility for allowing these things to carry pay passengers lay with the USCG

It looks like the driver had his hands full trying to make it back to shore, there was a second crew on board who should have been the one handing life jackets and opening the enclosure.
 
The second crew on board was probably there just to read a script to the tourist. Most likely not trained on any emergency procedures.
 
It's all about knowledge and experience. These are basically summer jobs done by college age kids. (At least the ones I have been on in the Wis Dells). They aren't on here all day for the last 10+ years discussing boating, safety, and the various accidents that have happened. Do they know what weather looks like? Do they have any risk analysis as they venture out? How is their "training?" These ducks are a novelty that when used properly work without incident. But they are fair weather vehicles and need thought behind their use -- Not some guy in a gold chain and speedo.
 
Which is why "ops specs" are needed. For instance ask any air carrier how the operation changes when thunderstorms are forecast to the dispatch conditions.
 
I dunno - these vessels carry more than 6 passengers for hire and operate on US Navigable waters; that would usually require it to be an USCG inspected vessel under 46 CFR Sub T, and operated by a Master with an appropriate MMC. That would mean an annual CG inspection, and the issuance of a current Certificate of Inspection (COI), good for a year.

Assuming all that was met, then I agree w/ Sandy, the Master has ultimate responsibility for safe operation of the vessel.
 
Disagree. You alluded to the reasoning. In the world of for hire carriage it is one thing for a single operator operating a small vehicle to dispatch themselves. When you get into more than that, then you have pressures upon the master by the operator (the company) to push against their better judgement. Most masters are "mission oriented" so they will often go along. It is better to provide a backstop for the master to point out to his company. I have been under operational pressure to "complete the mission" numerous times in my career and it is always nice to point to a regulation or an issued operational specification from the regulating authority and say, "No".

Look, years ago we had the situation where the Captain was responsible for determining the need for de-icing an airplane. He made the call. So you would have some guy in an elephant line at LaGuardia finally reach the number one spot only to look out and see a "little snow" on the wings. He could go back and de-ice or he could say, "It is dry snow it will blow off when we roll". Well you know what? Sometimes it does not. So they came up with hard times based upon temp and precipitation types for how long that de-ice job was good for and their was no subjectivity about it. We also came up with "clean wing" requirement which said, "If the surfaces has any frozen precipitation on it, it is a no go". Iced up takeoffs are almost unheard of now, because the "master of the vessel" has some hard limits he can fall back on and no one can bitch at him.

Look, you cannot regulate all situations and all conditions. However, like most accidents, this one had a chain of events starting with a vessel that is notorious for lack of sea worthiness and sub optimal weather situation. The combination of these two scream for some pretty tight operational specifications such as, "no operation when a T-storm is forecast with a greater than 30% probability". Such a spec would make the master review the weather more closely. In addition the failures and limitations of these limited vessels should require robust training more than the usual license. Again pointing to aviation, we have several aircraft types, the Robinson R-22 helicopter, and the Mitsubishi MU-2 that because of their unique designs demand special endorsement to operate. After those regulations went into place the accident rate dropped dramatically.
 
So as long as there is no USCG "Control Tower", and no boating equivalent of a 'ground hold' due to weather, Masters will be at the mercy of their employers - or their conscience. For centuries, Masters (for hire) have been the ultimately responsible for their commands, and are responsible for their decisions. Lest we not forget EL FARO too quickly.
 
Control towers and ground holds have nothing to do with go no-go decisions. Ground holds are the result of traffic saturation, not "go versus no-go decisions. If you ask clearance for take off even if it is heavy freezing rain with moderate to severe wind shear, if there is no intervening traffic the control tower will clear you for take off. Simply put it does not work the way you think

Interesting that you mention the El Faro because the NTSB faulted the companies policies and procedures in addition to faulting the Captain. In short hand, the NTSB said there was inadequate institutional control of the line. Same problem here as well.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Good Grief

I dunno - these vessels carry more than 6 passengers for hire and operate on US Navigable waters; that would usually require it to be an USCG inspected vessel under 46 CFR Sub T, and operated by a Master with an appropriate MMC. That would mean an annual CG inspection, and the issuance of a current Certificate of Inspection (COI), good for a year.

Assuming all that was met, then I agree w/ Sandy, the Master has ultimate responsibility for safe operation of the vessel.

Click to expand...


If they are operating upon Waters subject to CG regulation - then yes, they’d fall squarely into subchapter T and be subject to the terms of their COI. If they are indeed T-boats (as I’m sure many are), I don’t see why hard wx limitations couldn’t be added to the COI. There’s all kinds of other ifs, thens, excepts, shalls, shall nots on a typical Certificate. I don’t know - maybe they already are doing this. When it comes to the certificated pax cal side of things, I’m more knowledgeable as a licensed Master than I am from my day job perspective. It’s just a whole different side of things that I don’t really deal with on the job. I do the SAR stuff and the recreational, uninspected passenger vessel, and commercial fishing vessel enforcement stuff. T and K boats, and pretty much all the certificated vessel and licensing stuff might as well be a different agency it’s such a world apart from the operational side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top