Tragic boat sinking on 4th of July
- Thread starter alexco38
- Start date
- Status
I am sure that a competent lawyer will be able to plead it down if there is a clean police record. I would call it at worst involuntary manslaughter or negligent manslaughter. The civil courts will punish the man for many years to come. Unless he has very deep pockets he is going to do his future boating in a very small craft.
It was a bad night here. That inlet gets very choppy with heavy marine traffic. I myself have been tossed about by wakes from other boaters that would have given us some real trouble had I not been ready for them.
The boat traffic over on that side was extra heavy watching a fireworks show. When the show was over everyone started moving at once. I'm glad my little boat wasn't there.
The village fire department raced to respond. The police responded. All the boats there responded and did the best they could.
I'd say that we can all say the boat was overloaded. But we where not aboard and don't know what caused her to roll. We don't know what the skipper was thinking. But I'm sure he never thought he was putting these children's lives at risk.
The question to ask is what did the boating community do to keep this from happening ? Did anyone see 27 people get on this boat? Did anyone say anything ? Did anyone make a radio call? I'm sure the cops and bay constable would rather be writing tickets than making notifications.
Next time you see something that you know is wrong or dangerous remember these 3 kids and make the call.
The boat traffic over on that side was extra heavy watching a fireworks show. When the show was over everyone started moving at once. I'm glad my little boat wasn't there.
The village fire department raced to respond. The police responded. All the boats there responded and did the best they could.
I'd say that we can all say the boat was overloaded. But we where not aboard and don't know what caused her to roll. We don't know what the skipper was thinking. But I'm sure he never thought he was putting these children's lives at risk.
The question to ask is what did the boating community do to keep this from happening ? Did anyone see 27 people get on this boat? Did anyone say anything ? Did anyone make a radio call? I'm sure the cops and bay constable would rather be writing tickets than making notifications.
Next time you see something that you know is wrong or dangerous remember these 3 kids and make the call.
I worked on Paddle steamer waverly, the worlds last ocean going paddle steamer. We could take 900 passangers, when you had that many onboard, and you got to dock, every one of those passangers would move to the one side, side nearest the dock, it would lift the paddle wheel at the other side out of the water, and put the side they were all standing at, right over. She was licensed for 900, but not out at sea, at sea, only 600, because of the amount of people that could move around.
It was just amazing the people on that boat, they didnt seem to care or know the danger, the crew would be crapping themselves, because the boat would be right over, and the passangers didnt seem to bother.
We would be running about trying to make our way through the crowds, to get to the mooring stations, and the passangers wouldnt even move to let you get there. On one ocassion, i pushed a passenger out of my way, and he told me that he didnt like being man handled, and was going to report me to the captain. I said, "very sorry sir, you are mistaken me for someone who gives a ****"
It was just amazing the people on that boat, they didnt seem to care or know the danger, the crew would be crapping themselves, because the boat would be right over, and the passangers didnt seem to bother.
We would be running about trying to make our way through the crowds, to get to the mooring stations, and the passangers wouldnt even move to let you get there. On one ocassion, i pushed a passenger out of my way, and he told me that he didnt like being man handled, and was going to report me to the captain. I said, "very sorry sir, you are mistaken me for someone who gives a ****"
I was out sailing with my son last night the(local prosecutor /ADA) and it will be tough to go beyond a misdemeanor as the law is not near as hard on this stuff as we would like to believe
In the area of the incident there is about as LARGE of a collection of 40' to 90' powerboats as is possible and even inside the Northport bay area they all think nothing of running at speeds that leave black hole size wakes that stuff the bow of the Cal 29 with ease
The accident happened outside in the sound between Oyster bay and Huntington with everybody hightailing it home to beat the incoming storm (NO STORM 10 KNOT WINDS)at the time of capsize and i sure there was every kind of wake going on from every direction at the same time as that is pretty much the norm
In the area of the incident there is about as LARGE of a collection of 40' to 90' powerboats as is possible and even inside the Northport bay area they all think nothing of running at speeds that leave black hole size wakes that stuff the bow of the Cal 29 with ease
The accident happened outside in the sound between Oyster bay and Huntington with everybody hightailing it home to beat the incoming storm (NO STORM 10 KNOT WINDS)at the time of capsize and i sure there was every kind of wake going on from every direction at the same time as that is pretty much the norm
Advocate for the skipper ...
First of all, what is the standard that tells anybody that the boat is overloaded? According to the news accounts, the authorities are looking into the question, but it doesn't seem so easily answered because the answer hasn't been given yet.
I'll go back to the Boating Safety courses taught by US Coast Guard Auxillary. The capacity for this boat would seem to be 31 people if it was new ... 28 people if it was older. The manufacturer has no legal requirement to post the capacity for this boat. Furthermore, in their advertising, the manufacturer explains how the high-freeboard of this style boat is disquised. In other words, the manufacturer tricks the eye to make the boat look less top-heavy. The boat seems to have 3 levels and deck space, so there is ample room to fit the people.
Somebody tell us what fault the skipper actually has from a legal standpoint? I know that there are those who will use the stand-by common-sense argument to proclaim the skipper to be an idiot and a child-murderer. The law will never be able to make this case because there is no case to be made against him. It's not obvious at all that this boat was overloaded.
The manufacturers of these boats do their best to advertise to their customers that these boats are both roomy and safe. Anybody could easily be mislead by the representations of the manufacturers because there are no published standards that the manufacturer is accountable to. The boat manufacturers seem to have no responsibility to establish limits.
A commonly accepted capacity calculation (the only one known to exist) says that the boat wasn't overloaded. By all accounts, there were several young children on the boat so it is highly unlikely that the overall weight could be a factor which would influence the calculation negatively.
I fail to see how the skipper can be found to be at fault. It's a tragedy that he will have to live with, and by learning a tragic lesson, possibly more people will be aware of the limitations of these boats. But where is the condemnation for the authorities and the boat maunfacturers that led these people down this path?
First of all, what is the standard that tells anybody that the boat is overloaded? According to the news accounts, the authorities are looking into the question, but it doesn't seem so easily answered because the answer hasn't been given yet.
I'll go back to the Boating Safety courses taught by US Coast Guard Auxillary. The capacity for this boat would seem to be 31 people if it was new ... 28 people if it was older. The manufacturer has no legal requirement to post the capacity for this boat. Furthermore, in their advertising, the manufacturer explains how the high-freeboard of this style boat is disquised. In other words, the manufacturer tricks the eye to make the boat look less top-heavy. The boat seems to have 3 levels and deck space, so there is ample room to fit the people.
Somebody tell us what fault the skipper actually has from a legal standpoint? I know that there are those who will use the stand-by common-sense argument to proclaim the skipper to be an idiot and a child-murderer. The law will never be able to make this case because there is no case to be made against him. It's not obvious at all that this boat was overloaded.
The manufacturers of these boats do their best to advertise to their customers that these boats are both roomy and safe. Anybody could easily be mislead by the representations of the manufacturers because there are no published standards that the manufacturer is accountable to. The boat manufacturers seem to have no responsibility to establish limits.
A commonly accepted capacity calculation (the only one known to exist) says that the boat wasn't overloaded. By all accounts, there were several young children on the boat so it is highly unlikely that the overall weight could be a factor which would influence the calculation negatively.
I fail to see how the skipper can be found to be at fault. It's a tragedy that he will have to live with, and by learning a tragic lesson, possibly more people will be aware of the limitations of these boats. But where is the condemnation for the authorities and the boat maunfacturers that led these people down this path?
Simple. The skipper of the boat is responsible for all who board regardless of capacity. The standard is called common sense.
If you have 10 guests on your boat and they all want to sit on the leeward rail to drag their feet in the water, do you let them? Even a couple of guests, I bet you feel somewhat responsible for them while aboard.
If you have 10 guests on your boat and they all want to sit on the leeward rail to drag their feet in the water, do you let them? Even a couple of guests, I bet you feel somewhat responsible for them while aboard.
I guess by that logic, if a new jetliner crashes to earth because the wings fall off the plane, the pilot is accountable and the manufacturer of the airplane has no responsibility.
I did not hear any account that the people on board were behaving irrationally. There is no legal standard that says that the boat was overloaded. If there is ... name it. Nobody has, yet. What is common sense based on? Perhaps the calculation taught by US Coast Guard?
I did not hear any account that the people on board were behaving irrationally. There is no legal standard that says that the boat was overloaded. If there is ... name it. Nobody has, yet. What is common sense based on? Perhaps the calculation taught by US Coast Guard?
Scott, a commercial jetliner and private boat are two entirely different things. And we know of no mechanical failure of the boat. Very much unlike the wings falling off the plane.
How about if the captain of a small commercial plane does not distribute the cargo/passengers properly and the plane crashes as a result? Would the pilot be held at least partially at fault?
I have wondered when I first read this story if the boat had 27 PFDs. What if it did not? Is the skipper responsible?
How about if the captain of a small commercial plane does not distribute the cargo/passengers properly and the plane crashes as a result? Would the pilot be held at least partially at fault?
I have wondered when I first read this story if the boat had 27 PFDs. What if it did not? Is the skipper responsible?
If there is no requirement to state load capacity on a boat that size, then I would argue that is where the problem lies. We cannot legislate common sense. What makes sense to you, may not make sense to me, and vice versa. In this case, some governing body, likely the coast guard, should state the boats maximum capacity just as it does for smaller boats. Then there is no question who is at fault. That was a big boat. At 35 feet and 14 feet of beam it invites you to bring aboard a large group. Ive seen 18 footers that give 8 person capacity, which IMHO is greatly overloaded, yet still USCG approved. Using that as a measure, I wouldnt think 27 people on a boat that size is statistically overloaded, so much as common sense would dictate it likely was. But...
I would prefer to wait for some eyewitness reports, someone who was actually there and who can help explain what happened, before armchairing the pilot to the gallows for his alleged incompetence. For all we know the extra weight may have allowed the boat to start taking on water, which could have gone un-noticed below decks, and could have become a precipitating factor.
In any event it is tragic, and made what should have been a wonderful time, a horror for a great number of people.
I would prefer to wait for some eyewitness reports, someone who was actually there and who can help explain what happened, before armchairing the pilot to the gallows for his alleged incompetence. For all we know the extra weight may have allowed the boat to start taking on water, which could have gone un-noticed below decks, and could have become a precipitating factor.
In any event it is tragic, and made what should have been a wonderful time, a horror for a great number of people.
Perhaps there is a design failure of the boat? We don't know what the capacity should be for a top-heavy boat. The manufacturer doesn't have to provide a limitation. The skipper doesn't seem to have done anything wrong in this regard because there is no regulation or standard to define how the boat should be loaded.
I suspect that weight distribution on a plane is a calculation that has been made (by regulation) and the pilot is responsible by regulation for knowing it. In that case, it is a combined responsibility between the plane manufacturer and the pilot.
I saw on a news show that somebody was pointing an accusatory finger at the skipper for possibly not having enough life jackets. It's meaningless ... the drowning victims were in the cabin, where they are not required to wear them. Besides, life jackets would not have been useful and probably would make it even more difficult for them to escape if they did have them on.
I don't think there is a good reason so far to lynch the skipper, even though there seems to be a consensus that he must have done something wrong.
I suspect that weight distribution on a plane is a calculation that has been made (by regulation) and the pilot is responsible by regulation for knowing it. In that case, it is a combined responsibility between the plane manufacturer and the pilot.
I saw on a news show that somebody was pointing an accusatory finger at the skipper for possibly not having enough life jackets. It's meaningless ... the drowning victims were in the cabin, where they are not required to wear them. Besides, life jackets would not have been useful and probably would make it even more difficult for them to escape if they did have them on.
I don't think there is a good reason so far to lynch the skipper, even though there seems to be a consensus that he must have done something wrong.
If the pilot took off knowing the plane was above capacity he would be at fault.
Yes I know you're going to come back and say there is no rule for capacity, but common sense says that is all your passengers stand along one rail and the boat is in danger of flipping, you have too many passengers. As boaters we often must use the rules of common sense as hard clearly definable rules often cannot be written for the highly dynamic world on the water, too many situations exist with different sea, weather, and traffic confitions that prohibit static rules from being written. This is why the coast guard says anytime two vessels underway collide, they are always both at fault. The only question is what percentage of blame do they assign to each vessel.
IMHO, Silverton's always have had poor resale values.
-I'll bet the mfg is sued in the end.... damn lawyers! grrr!
I have to agree w/ Scott. boats over 25' don't have capacity plates, AFAIK.
but I'd bet they didn't have 27 PFD's aboard... (that's a heck of a lot!)
but if the accounts are accurate, he turned too sharp with too many people up high, and it tipped over. Same thing can happen in a SUV...
you can try to outlaw SUV's or you can be responsible and don't cut the wheel sharp at high speeds.
personal responsibilities! I hope pleasure boats are not outlawed because some people can't be responsible. but it could happen.
-I'll bet the mfg is sued in the end.... damn lawyers! grrr!
I have to agree w/ Scott. boats over 25' don't have capacity plates, AFAIK.
but I'd bet they didn't have 27 PFD's aboard... (that's a heck of a lot!)
but if the accounts are accurate, he turned too sharp with too many people up high, and it tipped over. Same thing can happen in a SUV...
you can try to outlaw SUV's or you can be responsible and don't cut the wheel sharp at high speeds.
personal responsibilities! I hope pleasure boats are not outlawed because some people can't be responsible. but it could happen.
Scott, your advocacy for the skipper boggles the mind, and strains credulity. One would have to have rocks in one's head to think 27 people is within the capacity of this boat. The argument that the skipper is not culpable because he may have been fooled by the marketing by the yacht maker is ridiculous.
By the way, one broker lists the passenger capacity of this boat as 15.
By the way, one broker lists the passenger capacity of this boat as 15.
I haven't read anything that would indicate that people were concentrated in one area of the boat that could cause it to capsize. jviss, if you have some knowledge how boat capacity is determined, why don't you share it. It seems like it should be a simple thing to define. It's defined for buildings, planes, busses, rollercoaster rides ... why do boat manufacturers get a pass?
The manufacturer makes the boat on multiple levels for a purpose ... to make it roomy, impressive, comfortable ... for a lot of people. Why shouldn't they define the safe capacity? Shouldn't they have to build in safety?
I'm tired of the "common-sense" argument. Nobody can define what "common-sense" is based on. I gave one reference ... the only one commonly published ... but that seems to be rejected. I didn't see a "broker" reference to capacity ... maybe the broker wants to take on the responsibility, but I doubt it. Is a broker's opinion your starting point? sheesh!
The manufacturer makes the boat on multiple levels for a purpose ... to make it roomy, impressive, comfortable ... for a lot of people. Why shouldn't they define the safe capacity? Shouldn't they have to build in safety?
I'm tired of the "common-sense" argument. Nobody can define what "common-sense" is based on. I gave one reference ... the only one commonly published ... but that seems to be rejected. I didn't see a "broker" reference to capacity ... maybe the broker wants to take on the responsibility, but I doubt it. Is a broker's opinion your starting point? sheesh!
Excellent comment and I will do as you describe, it is much more constructive than mulling over the blame. It's obvious these families and all who witnessed this tragedy will forever be changed. No need to wish more on them in my opinion.UPSGUY said:
Scott, the CG will definitely make this call. They will determine from their own assessment if the boat was overloaded or not. I am not sure what their formula is but I would be willing to bet it will have a somewhat subjective component to it.
I have a friend who does marine accident investigation for the CG here in Portland. I will not see him for a couple of weeks but I will present your points to him to see what his determination is.
As for the lifejackets, that certainly is not enough to indict for manslaughter but I bet it will come up in any civil litigation.
I do see your point about the obvious missing factor that holds the skipper responsible for the 3 deaths(aside from his responsibility as a the skipper). I also feel it is premature to debate these facts as the only info we have is from the media which is notoriously marine ignorant. Once the CG issues their report, we will have many more answers.
I have a friend who does marine accident investigation for the CG here in Portland. I will not see him for a couple of weeks but I will present your points to him to see what his determination is.
As for the lifejackets, that certainly is not enough to indict for manslaughter but I bet it will come up in any civil litigation.
I do see your point about the obvious missing factor that holds the skipper responsible for the 3 deaths(aside from his responsibility as a the skipper). I also feel it is premature to debate these facts as the only info we have is from the media which is notoriously marine ignorant. Once the CG issues their report, we will have many more answers.
I will wait for reports by experts, based on facts and eyewitness testimony, before condemning the man. Crucifying him before we have all the facts simply is not fair to anyone. And making statements about the boats capacity, without real facts, is equally unfair. Its a big boat, not just 35 feet long, its over 14 feet wide. I have seen just as many aboard boats that size on Lake Minnetonka, so its not really that unrealistic.
Scott T- I'm tired of the "common-sense" argument. Nobody can define what "common-sense" is based on. I gave one reference ... the only one commonly published ... but that seems to be rejected. I didn't see a "broker" reference to capacity ... maybe the broker wants to take on the responsibility said:
- Status