Missouri disaster: Duck boat’s designer had no engineering training

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-duck-boat-20180724-story.html

by ilamont • 8 years ago

149 135 8 years ago

ghaff7• 8 years ago

The headline's provocative but it may be worth observing that even the original duck boats were/are WWII surplus vehicles that I'm pretty sure don't meet modern safety standards and are possibly even worse after some of the modifications like canopies.

And presumably someone in government (in a lot of places) signed off on transporting people in these.

Yes, someone with more experience and even professionally licensed should probably have signed off on the mods. But no one OKing this service required it and it's not clear the modifications were responsible for what happened or it was just something that can happen when duck boats generally are operated in the way that they're operated.

toomuchtodo• 8 years ago

Yes, someone with more experience and even professionally licensed should probably have signed off on the mods. But no one OKing this service required it and it's not clear the modifications were responsible for what happened or it was just something that can happen when duck boats generally are operated in the way that they're operated.

From the article:

"In the water, duck boats are like a “sinking coffin” when they start to flood, said McCaskill, who plans to draft legislation proposing stronger safety standards for duck boats."

Forgive the dead horse beating, but this is why it's frequently said on HN (and in general) that safety laws and regulations are written in blood. People die, gaps are identified, gaps are closed, time passes, people complain about regulation.

dd362• 8 years ago

I feel like every law should include the reason why it came to exist.

People stop dying from it (because the regulation) therefore it’s not needed.

jessaustin12• 8 years ago

If only Claire (or one of her "unaffiliated" super-PACs) could somehow blame this on something Josh did during his 1.5 years as AG...

jessaustin12• 8 years ago

You're right, but I suspect that one couldn't find a modern naval engineer who would approve any design based on a boat with insufficient flotation. If you cut a modern factory-built boat in half, both halves will float. If one of these duck coffins springs a leak, it's going to the bottom. So, the focus on the engineering degree isn't totally off-base, because a qualified engineer would just "nope" the whole thing.

The NTSB really should have put an end to this industry in 1999. It's tough to imagine that they won't fix their mistake this time around.

downandout2• 8 years ago

The NTSB really should have put an end to this industry in 1999.

They did everything they could legally do, which is to say that they issued many strongly worded recommendations. Unfortunately they don’t have the legal authority to actually force anyone to do anything.

yellowapple2• 8 years ago

It's a bit harsh to want to end the whole industry, no?

By all means let's get some proper safety standards for these things, but banning them outright seems excessive.

nradov• 8 years ago

You're probably thinking of boats like Boston Whalers that have flotation foam built into the hull and will float when cut in half. But there are many other types of modern factory-built boats which will sink immediately if they take on enough water.

RIMR• 8 years ago

The one in Seattle suffered an axle break on a bridge, slamming into a charter bus.

These things are insanely heavy, put through daily stress, and are basically maintained by carnies.

Whether they're sinking like brick or eviscerating the sides of buses, it's clear that they don't belong on the road.

Can't they just sunset these stupid things for the sake of the businesses, let wealthy collectors buy the old boats for their own purposes (and at their own risk), and force "Ride the Ducks" (who constantly insists that is not a single entity, despite having the same brand and business model), to purchase modern amphibious tour buses that pass safety regulations.

Surely there would become an immediate demand for a safe, comfortable, maneuverable amphibious vehicle in the wake of a crackdown on these deathtraps.

moonka• 8 years ago

These are not great on the road either. There was a massive accident a couple years ago in Seattle which killed 4 students.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/us/seattle-tour-bus-duck-tour...

duxup5• 8 years ago

Also depends on how you use them. Should they have been that far out in the water? etc.

Yeah the canopies seem like death traps :(

jessaustin12• 8 years ago

Like most lakes in Missouri, it's impossible to get very far from shore on Table Rock Lake. Our lakes are built by flooding the narrow valleys that streams cut into the limestone and dolomite of the Ozark Plateau. This really just compounds the tragedy, as a boat driver with an ounce of common sense would have just driven up on any available shore when the storm got bad, rather than trying to make it back to the home ramp. I thought that public tour boat operators had to be Coast Guard-approved, but this guy failed pretty hard.

mc32• 8 years ago

It has been mentioned (but not corroborated) that the engines are prone to stalling in rough waters... something you do not want to happen, aside from capsizing.

I think after the NTSB is done, it's likely these get taken off waterways --at which point, there is no reason to keep them as land only vehicles since they get such poor mileage and offer a poor bumpy ride.

ghaff7• 8 years ago

Maybe. These are a big tourist attraction in a lot of places. The NTSB made a number of recommendations in the past (which were mostly not followed). And I don't see a lot of appetite for the feds coming in and shutting down a popular tourist attraction in many cities around the country once the current news cycle ends.

I would hope that some (known) relatively simple and inexpensive quick fixes would at least be made though.

larkeith2• 8 years ago

From the article:

'U.S. Coast Guard spokesman Chad Saylor confirmed that the Missouri duck boat was a “stretch duck.” He said the boat was last inspected on Nov. 29, 2017, and was found “fit for route and service.”'

c3534l• 8 years ago

So is there not, like, some kind of government agency that certifies whether a given boat design is safe to put passengers on? I know it says

He said the boat was last inspected on Nov. 29, 2017, and was found “fit for route and service.”

But I assume that's more like when I get my car inspected. This is one of those things I assume exist in society, but I guess I really have no idea.

SilasX• 8 years ago

edit: never mind, deleted the comparison to the misuse of “engineer” (can’t delete post anymore).

jonny_eh• 8 years ago

Is that relevant here?

starpilot• 8 years ago

The "Professional Engineer" designation is super limited and grants some statutory privileges for signing off on public projects, but not much else. The vast majority of engineers behind airplanes and cars are not PEs.

stevenprentice• 8 years ago

In this case, the near hurricane force winds are likely the largest contributing factor to the capsizing of the boat. A perfectly engineered boat, if not engineered for hurricane force winds, would also likely capsize. Weather can be hard to predict, but there were warnings issued and someone obviously 1) wasn't aware of the warning 2) ignored the warning or 3) thought the boat would be back in time before the winds kicked up. Breaking t-cells can make a calm day turn really quickly.

euroclydon• 8 years ago

Would anyone accustomed to boating get in one of those things? They don’t create a first impression of seaworthiness.

jessaustin12• 8 years ago

Since they're typically boarded on land, it's kind of a bait and switch, isn't it? On land, one wouldn't notice the insufficient freeboard. One might be less likely to notice how enclosed the passenger compartment is, because at that point it feels more like a bus than a boat. Once the thing plunges down the ramp, one might start getting some bad feelings, but at that point it's pretty much too late. Demanding a return to shore would make one appear wimpy, and would inconvenience one's fellow passengers. The same impulse might have prevented passengers from demanding, once the storm got bad, an immediate shore landing rather than a long cruise to the home ramp. The thing is on wheels, so that would have saved all lives.

This firm does seem to target tourists, who would be less likely than locals to have boating experience.

megaman22• 8 years ago

I can swim, so I'm not overly concerned. I've floated on some questionable conveyances that needed quite a lot of duck tape to make them hold water chasing trout.

Then again, I usually don't bother fishing when there are near hurricane winds forecast. Although I have gone trawling across a pond with two anchors down on multiple occasions...

learc8310• 8 years ago

Whether you can swim or not isn't really the issue. The issue is that they are retrofitted with enclosures that make it difficult to escape, and once they start taking on water they can sink in seconds.

_Codemonkeyism3• 8 years ago

I wouldn't, first thought when I've learned about them. And then wondered why millions would.

aaron695• 8 years ago

"A U.S. Coast Guard investigation concurred, warning that enclosed duck boats presented a basic safety problem involving life preservers: If passengers put on life preservers while inside a sinking duck boat, they might float upward and drown after getting trapped beneath the canopy; but if passengers escape the duck boat without life preservers, they might drown in open water."

https://www.macleans.ca/sinking-of-leviathan-ii/

"In the days after the accident, Jamie Bray and other operators tried to defend the practice of not requiring passengers to wear lifejackets by explaining they make escape harder in an enclosed boat. That’s nonsense, says Giesbrecht. He’s conducted a study where people wearing flotation coats are plunged into water: “The assumption is this will hinder their ability to escape the sinking car.” It “really doesn’t.” "

seanmcdirmid• 8 years ago

Duck boats are generally considered a bad idea. They actually didn't work all that well during WW2 in the first place.

Pinckney• 8 years ago

DUKWs performed well enough to stay in US inventory into the Korean war, and France didn't retire theirs until the 80's. Gen Eisenhower called them "one of the most valuable pieces of equipment produced by the United States during the war."

dingaling• 8 years ago

And after the DUKW the US Army continued with the LARC series of amphibians, widely used in Vietnam.

Many tour vessels called 'ducks' are actually LARC-5s, like this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55378459@N07/5894827819/

cromulent• 8 years ago

I think Eisenhower made that quote about the Higgins boat (LCVP) rather than the DUKW.

briandear• 8 years ago

They worked well for the very limited purpose for which they were designed: to shuttle troops and supplies to shore. They weren’t designed as a primary transportation mode but as somewhat of a ferry pretty much designed to go one way: from ship to beach. They certainly weren’t designed as tourist attractions to transport children and the infirm — but to transport trained soldiers and marines into battle. They were designed to last long enough to supply beach landing troops in combat.

It’s like using Spitfires to transport school children.

_Codemonkeyism3• 8 years ago

Wow, imagine arriving at school in a Spitfire, king!

Animats• 8 years ago

There are US flotation standards for small boats.[1] That requires big blocks of foam that floats. But amphibious vehicles are excepted. This is a problem.

Amphibious buses [2] are scary. They have flotation, but how stable are they in rough water?

[1] https://www.uscgboating.org/regulations/assets/builders-hand...

[2] https://newatlas.com/stagecoach-amphibious-bus-amfibus/14130...

js2• 8 years ago

They seem equally unsafe on land.

kbos87• 8 years ago

Coming home from work yesterday I observed what is supposedly an identically designed boat on the Charles River in Boston. On flat water, the bow is maybe 2 feet from the water. I know nothing about maritime design but as a recreational boater I can tell these things aren’t safe. At the same time, I’m seeing local officials and news outlets in Boston saying that it’s different here, for some reason.

_Codemonkeyism3• 8 years ago

Money.

ghaff7• 8 years ago

Pretty much. Anyone who thinks these will be banned relatively casually is... misguided. Boston's not exactly the anti-regulation capital of the universe but there would be a huge backlash against any attempt to ban this incredibly popular tourist attraction.

pg_bot• 8 years ago

It is not evident that the [lack of] credentials of the person who designed the vessel contributed to its capsizing. This CNN article goes on to discuss the conditions during the day of the incident[0]

The town was under a severe thunderstorm warning issued about half an hour before the boat capsized.

There were numerous reports of damage throughout the county, including trees down and structural damage, said CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward.

The highest wind gust reported in the area was 63 mph.

"I believe it was caused by weather, yes," said Stone County Sheriff Doug Rader.

Any time you are traveling in a motorized vehicle there is a chance that things turn deadly. Let's allow the investigation to continue before rushing to judgement.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/us/missouri-duck-boat-investi...

crznp• 8 years ago

The NTSB investigation for the 1999 sinking of a duck boat has concluded [0]:

Until reserve buoyancy retrofits are completed the Board recommended immediate actions to mitigate the danger for vessels without adequate reserve buoyancy including the removal of canopies during water operations or installation of a Coast Guard approved canopy that would not restrict the horizontal or vertical escape of passengers; closing unnecessary access plugs; reduction of through-hull penetrations to the minimum size needed for operation; and installation of independently powered electric bilge pumps.

I don't have all the information, but it certainly doesn't look like those recommendations were enacted here.

[0] https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_Determin...

larkeith2• 8 years ago

For clarification, these recommendations were for Duck Boats in general; The entrepreneur in the headline designed a "stretch" duck boat, which was an extended version of a regular one.

evil-olive2• 8 years ago

Let's allow the investigation to continue

This is a strawman - no one is calling for ending the investigation prematurely.

before rushing to judgement.

How soon is too soon to "rush" to judgement that these boats are unsafe?

The NTSB report regarding the 1999 Arkansas sinking [0] noted problems with their lack of reserve buoyancy. Certainly weather played a factor in the Missouri sinking, but so did the design flaw that causes it to sink or capsize much more easily than a modern boat of equivalent size. That design flaw has been known publicly for almost 20 years.

The passengers who drowned in the Missouri sinking weren't wearing life jackets. [1] The 1999 NTSB report recommended removing the canopies of these boats, but if the canopies couldn't be removed, then they recommended not using life jackets.

And the main subject of the article is the crash from 3 years ago in Seattle. That happened on land, caused by a broken axle. [2] It turns out the person who designed the "stretch" duck boats didn't have any formal engineering training, and it's not a huge step to imagine that stretching a vehicle in that way could lead to increased stress on the axle.

This isn't rushing to judgement. This is understanding the context of decades of previous incidents for better insight into the most recent one.

0: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_Determin...

1: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/22/us/missouri-duck-boat-tragedy...

2: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ntsb-ruling-expect...

neom• 8 years ago

The exhaust location is really troubling, they are quite low and on the front of the boat. If you watch video from the storm, I can't imagine the exhaust is venting correctly. I also read If the engine goes, the bilge pump doesn't have a backup, so it wouldn't be functioning, and the front was already under water.... Interestingly the DOT says the exhaust should be at the back or above the passenger compartment but The U.S. Coast Guard regulations do not have this rule, so it's not enforced. Looks like this: http://john.je/tCXb // http://john.je/tCU4 // http://john.je/tBdi

interfixus• 8 years ago

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism. Copyright © 2018, Los Angeles Times

messe• 8 years ago

We're too lazy to read a page of regulations / not track users by default

black_puppydog• 8 years ago

Yeah, that whole GDPR thing really came out of nowhere, eh? :)

singularity2001• 8 years ago

"We are now longer allowed to spy on you and violate your privacy. F* EU!"

jacobwilliamroy• 8 years ago

So I went and looked up "Duck boat" on wikipedia, and that inevitably led to "Duck Tour":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_tour

If they took away the canopy and made customers wear life jackets, I might actually consider riding in one.

What's the procedure for regulating a national industry like this? The eco-tour companies out here in my state are constantly in fear of being regulated, but that's regulation on the state level, by state agencies. Duck-tours, and duck-tour disasters seem to be all over.

ghaff7• 8 years ago

Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, American Bureau of Shipping...

I suspect though that these probably fall into some crack where it's unclear who, if any, has federal regulatory authority.

ajhurliman• 8 years ago

Are there any statistics about the fatality rate adjusted for ridership for Duck boats vs cars? There was a fatal crash in Seattle last year[0] involving a Duck boat, but it seems like their fatalities always garner more news than more standard vehicles'.

[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ntsb-ruling-expect...

dmead• 8 years ago

People also died riding them in philly

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/ronnie_polaneczky/du...

ryandrake• 8 years ago

Reminds me of the recent story [1] about that kid who was killed on an amusement park ride designed by some guy with zero credentials. You'd think at some point, someone would have signed off on the engineering design and then on the actual workmanship of the final product, but where do you draw the line?

Too much regulation and certification, and you have the aviation industry, where you can't so much as run a USB charger out to the front panel of your Cessna without the FAA coming down on you like a ton of bricks. Too little and you have people drowning and kids getting their heads accidentally ripped off. Maybe the line should be drawn at the point where you hang your shingle out there and try to make a business out of your invention?

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/0...

thawkins2• 8 years ago

If your cheap Chinese USB charger shorts out and starts a fire in the dash of your Cessna, that is a major issue, and given the rate that Chinese USB chargers do short out, a reasonably significant risk.

The last thing we need is flaming Cessna's dropping out of the sky into heavily populated areas.

dpark• 8 years ago

Too much regulation and certification, and you have the aviation industry

Where it's amazingly safe considering it's literally aluminum tubes carrying humans through the air at almost 700 mph? I'm a big fan of what the FAA does.

stuntkite2• 8 years ago

I feel like this article is a real railroad of the mechanic that "designed" this version of the boat instead of the entire industry that is using military surplus vehicles that shouldn't be used for this purpose. They point out that he got information from other mechanics... in my experience, those guys are some of the best practical engineers out there.

This article is worded like somehow an ivy league education would have fixed that duck boats are a shitty deal. I think that's pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

a-dub2• 8 years ago

I would not want to ride in a vehicle designed by someone who has an engineering degree from the Ivy League. It's well known that Ivy League engineering is pretty shitty. I'd trust a room full of Germans... or maybe some people from a engineering powerhouse state school like U of M.

eric_h2• 8 years ago

It's well known that Ivy League engineering is pretty shitty

Citation needed.

jibal• 8 years ago

"a-dub believes P" != "P is well known"

robomartin• 8 years ago

I hesitate to blame it on lack of credentials. Much of engineering history has been made on piles if dead bodies resulting from mistakes made by fully credentialed engineers, even with advanced degrees.

Engineering school does not confer at least two things: common sense and experience. These qualities are independent from academic learning.

If the designer/modifier is found to be at fault it is far more likely to be due to a lack of research and common sense than a lack of schooling.

I mean, building a boat like that that can sink if swamped and traps passengers inside is just plain stupid, degree or not.

TangoTrotFox12• 8 years ago

A recurring pattern in media now a days is to give absolutely no context to anecdotal accounts. The article highlights a few anecdotal incidents of accidents. However, it also mentions, implicitly, that these vehicles have been operating for decades and are hugely popular in some areas. So what is the incidence rate? Not mentioned. What is the fatality rate? Not mentioned. How do these rates compare to other vehicles? Of course, not mentioned.

People are rushing to judgement based on a lack of familiarity with an industry and so are extrapolating anecdotal evidence to be more widespread than it likely is given that this article seems to have been searching far and wide to dig up any incidents it could, including even regular roadway crashes in the reporting.

jonathanp88• 8 years ago

There used to be 2 operators of these things in Britain.

After a series of incidents(fires at sea, sinking) due to shoddy maintainence by poorly resourced bus mechanics and questionable modifications made in a desperate attempt to make them, technically, seaworthy according to modern regulations, they have both shut down. I'm kinda surprised the US still has them in such numbers.

TangoTrotFox12• 8 years ago

I did some further research here. We've had these commercial duck trip services since 1946 (that company is still in business!). According to the NTSB [1] more than go on tours with more than a million passengers per year as well. That number is probably up since that report was from 1999.

And the only two major incidents at sea have been caused by extreme human error. The 1999 issue was a mechanic leaving a 4.5" access hole to the hull unplugged. And the most recent involved the captain taking the passengers out into a serious storm with 70+ mph winds and 4-6 foot waves. Like most things in the media today this just seems like absurd sensationalism over an event that people can be emotionally exploited to click on lots of stuff about.

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/MA...

confact• 8 years ago

Any way to read this from EU without getting GDPR wall?

aembleton• 8 years ago

https://outline.com/Xg3LLx

mdrzn2• 8 years ago

Why do we keep supporting the LA Times which is UNREADABLE in the EU, with that stupid GDPR wall?

I guess this news story wasn't reported anywhere else huh..

Endy• 8 years ago

Why should the LA Times keep supporting the EU after GDPR when their financial base is entirely in the US - and the paper's online presence mostly is based on serving ads and retrieving data?

stevesimmons• 8 years ago

The parent comment was not about the LATimes. Rather that HN would better serve its global audience by linking to stories from other sources that all HN readers can access.

zaroth• 8 years ago

This article is perhaps not news to many, but on its own is damning.

These “boats” (they are not) do not meet basic standards for road nor sea, are furthermore hacked together from scrap, maintained shoddily, and yet receive certifications from all government authorities from which they require inspection in order to operate.

Keep straws. Ban this.

Missouri disaster: Duck boat’s designer had no engineering training

Related Stories