Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Duck boat disaster in Missouri 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

bimr

Civil/Environmental
Feb 25, 2003
9,332
More than 40 people have died in incidents involving Ducks since 1999, so one would think that the cost for buying insurance would put these obsolete devices out of business.

amphibious-duck-vehicle

Was up at the Wisconsin Dells earlier this summer and don't understand the interest in that particular tourist attraction.

Another tourist attraction is the Huey. Was up in St. Joseph Michigan a few weeks ago and this Lest We Forget organization was promoting rides over the City. Riding in a 40 year Huey seems to make little sense. The organization obviously can't meet the legal standard to provide paid for rides so they offer a 1-year membership with a free ride on the Huey.

Tourist Attractions

 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

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?
 
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.
 

D Scullion (Mechanical) said:
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?
 

LionelHutz (Electrical) said:
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.
 
LionelHutz (Electrical) said:
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.

a_obio9t.jpg


b_xmxdog.jpg


c_t39zme.jpg


d_n1rbuy.jpg


e_nycnvg.jpg


g_uvkada.jpg
 
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.
 

LionelHutz (Electrical) said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor