At 12:15 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

Bob,
I read the report from one end to the other. It indicates that an EPIRB
would not have been effective as it would not have self activated. I
suggest you read the report again.

A few observations. The entire focus of the investigation is centered
around what happened after the boat went over. There is almost nothing
concerning the circumstances that led to the accident itself. But the
aftermath has been nitpicked to death.

This type of investigation is typical of such bureucratic efforts.What is
glaringly obvious to me is the lack of interest in the details of how this
swamping occurred, as if the root cause was not important.

For instance, the language describes the swamping as instananeous,
immediate, without warning.  What nonsense. Here is a boat with 260
horsepower, capable of at least 30 knots being overtaken by a wave that
most likely did not have a forward speed of 30 knots.
The boat was lightly loaded, it may have been able to reach 35 or more.

I will entertain counter arguments from those of you who have some
experience with negotiating breaking waves. Anyone else may as well stand
clear and consider the debate which is likely to follow.

It is a major fallacy to think that waves of this type come out of the
blue. The only people who get hit are those who have been unwary and not
keeping a close lookout. It is true that in shallow water and near
underwater obstructions such as reefs that a wave can hump up over  the
obstruction without MUCH warning. But there still has to be wave to produce
a breaker and the wave is not going to come out of nowhere. Such waves can
be seen approaching in all conditions, except those of low visibility.

In those cases where the wave humps up over an obstruction, the breaking
action or even the increased steepness will fade away almost immediately
after passing over the obstruction. In other words, moving the boat even a
50 feet to one side will lower the danger level immensely.

To be blunt about it, I can not imagine a light boat with this much
horsepower and lightly loaded being overtaken by a wave and dumped like
this, unless the operator was inexperienced or day dreaming. None of which
is an adequate excuse.

Other aspects of the report that aggravate me include the fact that the
report focuses on various types of operator training which would have been
of zero use in preventing the actual dump. Why in the blazes can the
governmental agencies not manage to focus on the root causes? Is it because
it is simpler to focus on ways of increasing their authority and oversight?

The investigation is well done in many respects, but is as glaringly
deficient in focusing on the root cause as the accident itself shows
glaring deficiencies in alertness.
Why would people rather focus on preventing people from dying in the water
than on keeping them out of it in the first place?

There would appear to be only one rational answer. The authorities would
rather allow incompetents to operate in conditions beyond their abilities
and force them to carry safety gear that can be used to extract most of the
victims alive than try focus on the really hard aspect of operator savvy.
If this be so, then accidents like this are inevitable.

Regards,
Mike

For the facts on this incident check Transport Canada Reports Marine
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/reports/marine/1998/m98w0045/em98w0045.htm

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 05:29 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

Lightly loaded would be preferable. The report is misleading in this respect.
More heavily loaded would not be an advantage.

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 05:29 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

No they are not Jim. They are focusing on what to do WHEN it happens again.
And it will. And credential don't amount to a teacup in a tempest.

Your arguments are just a repetition of theirs.
To put it bluntly, credentials are the fig leafs for covering up mistakes.

By the way, if I understood correctly, they don't require suits for
children. If this is true, I would consider that, negligence. So much for regs.

Regards,
Mike

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 07:14 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

Zeke,
I agree with most of your letter, with a couple of provisions.
First, there is no indication that they were wearing Mustang suits. Or that
the suits had pillows. I looked the report over very carefully. ANd could
not find any words to support such a conclusion.
But If they were not, I don't know what it would have been. If a pillow was
used then the report fails specifically to mention that fact.
The panicked passenger died, as I would expect. It has happened before.
The operator should not have died if his suit was closed up and if they had
pillows and had they been used. I submit they did not have pillows.
The operators failure to close his suit, assuming that is what killed him
and his removing his boots are evidence of negligence.
Regards,
Mike

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

You did not read it very well Mike.  The point on the EPIRB was very
carefully equivocated in the report. It said "might not" not would not or
could not.  Apparently because the reporter would have preferred a
waterproof VHF.

I also think you are getting carried away with the horsepower and
responsiveness issue.  If you read between the lines the operator was
concerned about operating this boat lightly loaded in such conditions and
occasionally cancelled rather than do so.  So it was obvious that the
operator had knowledge that you could, in fact, easily get in trouble
particularly if the boat was lightly loaded.  You would need the topology of
both the surface and the bottom to really understand what happened but I
have seen reasonably experienced sailors turn turtle on simple bars in Bahia
Maria.  This guy apparently new what he was doing but got blindsided some
how.

As to the operator he was a suitably credentialed Captain even though that
was not required.  Why not suggest Mike that, like even very experienced
Captains do occasionally , he pushed the envelope just a tad too much?

The gov of course is trying to figure out how to avoid a repetition.. But
the boat captain had far more than the required credentials, the passengers
were equipped far better than required by safety regs.  So they are down to
distress radios and dead man switches.

Jim

There

the

search

demise

I didn't read it that way. The male passenger couldn't swim and panicked and
was lost almost immediately. He was 6'1" AND WEIGHED 324 LBS. At that weight
he had the best odds of anyone of surviving. I doubt he had time to develop
hypothermia before drowning. The operator was not using his suit in the
proper way and took his boots off as well. He definitely was lost due to
hypothermia which resulted in drowning when he could not hold his head up.
The two survivors were using their suits in the prescribed manner and
survived. The table gave them 5 hrs in 50 degree water. This was 53 dg. for
a little extra margin. These suits have inflatable "pillows" behind the neck
which if used properly will keep the wearer's head above the water.
Obviously the woman who drifted away had inflated hers as she was found
floating unconscious and did not drown.
I owned a Mustang suit similar to what is described and its cost was $240
US. In quantity probably cheaper. Mustang  provided the survival table so
I'd guess they were Mustang suits. Equipped with these and used properly, an
EPIRB (emergency position indicating radio beacon) would not be high on my
list of required gear. These boats operated close to their home base
probably 30 minutes away and the trips lasted about two hours. The suits,
which are not required by law, (nor are EPIRBs) would give a good margin for
rescue when a boat did not return. My 2 cents.

Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX
formerly of Sequim, WA

.

Why don't you read the report again Mike.  It is quite clear that exposure
suits were not required for anybody. Not for anybody - adult or child.  The
careful operator required them.  The only question on that subject raised in
the report was the procedure of providing rain gear over the exposure suits
which the reporter felt may have caused problems in the water.

So we got a properly credentialed Captain on the job for a year.  And you
apparently presume he was less than competent.  Why?  Anybody who loses a
boat is automatically incompetent?  What are you using as a criteria?

And the behavior of a boat can certainly be damaged by a lack of "ballast".

And I have yet to make an argument about this case (other than he pushed the
envelope which would seem self evident).  I just refute your
misinterpretation of the report.

Jim

At 07:30 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

You just don't get it do you Jim. Regs are regs and negligence is
negligence. An operator can try hiding behind regs, if they want, but it
don't change anything.

Taking people to sea is not a trivial pursuit. Adherance to the regs does
not  shield one from negligence. Period.

Regards,
Mike

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

Mike -

You are rapidly approaching and passing utter nonsense.. There were no
children on board.. There is no evidence in the report that they had or
would haul anybody without a PDF suit. Are you so confused by this incident
that you are making up facts?

Are you trying to tell us that on your voyages all persons on board wear dry
suits at all times in the unlikely event you are suddenly holed by a
container below the surface?

What is it you would have had them do differently?

Jim - who does get it but doubts very much that Mike does

At 10:45 AM 10/28/2001 -0500, Michael Maurice wrote:

REPLY
Mike I think you are  unduly harsh on the  investigators and the report.

TSB  has been tasked with reporting  the facts  and are forced to  use a
standard form in doing so.
I have read literally dozens of these reports since I was on the
subscription list for several years before I moved out here.

REPLY
That is an unfair  accusation.
The three paseengers  cannot be considered  trained  and qualified observers.
The only person ( the operator )  capable of  giving a detailed report is
dead.

REPLY
The terms "instananeous, immediate, without warning"  must  obviously  have
come from the survivor.
Considering that they were focussed on  looking for whales and other marine
wildlife,  who would  expect them to pay attention to the waves; that is
the job of the  boat driver.

I had not  paid attention to the  date of the incident until I finally got
hold of the report.
Only then did I realize it happened the same year that I was  out  in the
same place and type of vessel.

I visited Tofino in Early November  ( 2nd or 3rd )  and  took a whale
watching tour.
A friend from  Sidney had recommended  Jamie's  as a  tour guide as well as
offering a bed and breakfast  place to stay at.
When I arrived  the place was closed and  no one would talk about it.
I learned from another tour guide about "an incident"  earlier that year
in connection with Jamie's..
Now it all comes together.
No doubt  there is some  element of operator  carelessness involved - or
else  economic pressure  from "the boss" to keep running atr all cost.
That same  company evidently had another  incident that same year.  In Port
Alberni  which is on the other side of the island I found a  wrecked  tour
boat. The boat had suffered a head on collision with a  rock wall.

the tour boat hit the wall at speed.

The front three or four feet of the  35 foot aluminum hull were crushed
totally.    I actually  have some pictures as proof.
The name of the company was painted out with black paint but being raised
lettering, the shape was discernible  up close.

When I was out at Plover reef  the swell was also running  12 - 15 feet.
A huge storn front had just blown through the area  the  previous day.
Our  original  trip had been cancelled as a result.  We chose to  get a
rain check instead of a refund.

The conditions  were pretty much  similar what  I was used to in  Georgian
Bay  during a storm.  Pinnacle rocks  with deep passages in between.  Not
an area I would choose to  go into  without local knowledge.
Our driver - a native from the local reserve - was  competent and  from
what I could see skilled in handling  the  25 foot RIB  even when we surfed
down  some swells.

I thoroughly enjoyed  the trip  aalthough some of the passengers  who
lacked  any boating experience expressed  fear.
One 12 year old was crying and one  adult woman was getting seasick.

I can see how  a cross wave would  catch the boat  suddenly, despite the
best efforts of the driver.

As far as I'm concerned - shit happens -  once in a while.  I chose to go
on  the trip, despite the  risk.
That was spelled out to  us befoer the trip, and we also had the option of
cancelling.

All the official hand wringing and  after the fact  fault finding  is
just so much window dressing demanded by our society who have become so
accustomed to being  protected from their own folly.

Maybe you  could have done better; then again maybe not.  Who knows.
There are risks to everything.  Some people bungy jump.  I would never
dream of doing that!

But that is also a personal choice.

REPLY
When you are  less than fifty feet from the rocks,  and there are big
swells  all around, you don't get much warning af any kind.
All it takes is for one wave to reflect off one rock wall and  coincide
with another wave to produce a bigger than normal  crest.

Sure we got wet  on our trip, but  we were warned to expect that.

you said:

    <<snip>>

REPLY
Here you seem to be contradicting your own argument.
On the one hand you  are aggrevated about them pushing training  yet decry
the fact they  don't focus  on the  "hard aspect  of  operator savvy".

How can the operators  be expected to be knowledgeable ( savvy)  without
training?

Cheers

Arild

Capt. Mike's rant concludes with:

Clearly, the Capt. needs a calming shore stay and some glasses. In fact the
first 6 of 19 citations in the causation summary are:

1. The "OCEAN THUNDER", in a lightly loaded condition, was being operated in
   breaking and confused seas near Plover Reefs.

2. In the past, the owner had considered cancelling trips when four or fewer
   passengers were booked and the weather conditions were adverse; he did not
   do so on this occasion.

3. An operator's decision to cancel a trip can be influenced, in part, by
   the economic pressures of the business.

4. The operator's decision to revisit the Plover Reefs may be attributable,
   in part, to the abating of the weather, the desire to obtain customer
   satisfaction, and confidence that the vessel could be operated safely in
   such waters.

5. The operator may not have fully appreciated the persistence of the swell,
   or the conditions the vessel would meet in the vicinity of the reefs.

6. The "OCEAN THUNDER" was swamped, rolled to a large angle and ejected its
   occupants, all of whom were wearing coverall personal flotation device (PFD)
   suits, overboard into the sea.

These look like root causes to me. Having watched these kids operate in this
area, I bet the operator was focused on chatting up the customers rather
than watching the sea. The report says the first sea which took them
broadside and moved them into the reef came from behind. With a pile of
white water in front and known reefs, the lad isn't going to be looking over
his shoulder too much. Clearly he was among the reefs not just near the
reef. As it says, "the operator may not have fully etc. etc.

So where's the beef, Cap? The beaurocracy did what it is supposed to do the
way it is supposed to do it, and concluded with the right answers, and a
whole lot of pretty useful stuff for the future of the whale watching
industry should they chose to heed.
Richard

At 11:02 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

Correct, no children on board. But if carried no suits.

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 11:35 PM 10/28/01, you wrote:

Arild,
As for your story. This accident happened in March of 1998.
NOt November. NOt that I think it makes your story irrelevant.

As for harsh. I have been talking to an investigator for the Coast Guard
here in the US and he is in agreement with some of my complaints.

I have some real bad news for those of you who think official reports are
the last word in ferreting out the truth. They ain't. Since accident
investigators are entitled to ferret out all the relevant facts, some of
the rest of us are entitled to weigh in, even where it is not welcome.
After all, if all of us bystanders are entitled to a complete analysis,
completeness demands a full accounting. My questioning of the completeness
is as relevant as that of the original investigators.

In spite of some of the blasting I have been getting from a minority, there
are legitimate issues to be debated regarding this particular accident. For
the simple reason, that there is a lot to be learned from it. For those of
you who have not weighed in but are as usual standing  politely by, a good
clear airing of this accident is in everybody's interests.

I have some observations about getting entangled in breaking waves that I
will post when I have a free moment.

A pleasant day to you all.

Regards,
Mike

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 02:40 AM 10/29/01, you wrote:

You have proved my point. Negligence. Pure and simple.
There is no excuse for what you describe. And no amount of words will ever
justify it.
So why should I agree with you.

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 01:33 PM 10/29/01, you wrote:

There was a comment that suits were not available. In point of fact, the
coveralls may not be available at all for children. Survival suits are.

Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.

At 09:24 AM 10/29/2001 -0500, Michael Maurice wrote:

REBUTTAL

When  I was there  the touring company  had some children's  suits in the
office, along with the rest of the suits issued to the  passengers.  The
suits are not stored on board.  We suited up before going  down  to the
dock to board the RIB.

Arild

At 09:41 AM 10/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:

REPLY
I realize that ' but the point being  I was out in the exact same waters
in  nearly the exact same  vessel and  conditions  sounded  very similar.
Our  trip was posponed due to a storm  which according to the same weather
buoy mentiond in the TSB report  had winds in excess of 60 knots.  Waves
were running  5 - 7 meters the day  before.  I estimated the swells as
being  12 footers on the day we were out near Plovers Reef.

REPLY
I didn't say they were perfect.  On the contrary I mentioned that they were
constrained by having to  follow a specified format.
Someone else pointed out the Air Force  has similar procedures.

REPLY
I agree.  And as I mentioned  that same company  had another  incident
possibly with fatalities.
When I found the  crushed  35 foot alumimum  tour boat with Jamies Whaling
Station painted out  I figured this was the boat involved in the fatal
accident  that  peopel in Tofino were talking about.
The company obviously had a serious  problem  with  safety related
operating practices.

It is only now  after reading about the  RIB  over turning  with two
fatalities  that I realized  there must have been  two incidents.
BTW  The  crushed boat  must have hit  square on and at full speed in
order to  crush  the whole hull back for a distance of 4 feet right to the
cabin bulkhead.  Although  buckled, the  aluminum had not ruptured greatly
due to its thickness.  That thickness also has  a fair bit of strenght so a
five knot impact  would not do that kind of damage.  Assuming  most  of the
tour boats  follow  pretty well the same route  out and back  ther are few
places where a sheer vertical rock wall can be hit  like that without
first ripping open the bottom.

^From what I have heard  the company closed down their whale watching tours
that year.  The  only  sign  of business was the gift shop which I did
visit and there learned they  were not running tours.    This summer I did
not see  their names on any of the  tour boats.

will post when I have a free moment.

REPLY

Mike I recall you making the point  a few months ago about not running down
the coast  and being too close to shore.
FRom your perspective and for your kind of business that makes perfect sense.

However,  the tour/whale watch excursions are another sort altogether.
They  do need to get right in close  to shore, preferably right in among
the rocks.  If they applied your criteria, I doubt they would be considered
interesting and fun.

Having acquired my boating experience in Georgian Bay  I do not  find it
unusual  to  travel in channels  little more than a boat lenght  in width
with only a foot or two  of water under the keel.  To me  having fifteen
feet of depth is deep water.  :-))
No doubt  by your standards and criteria  the  excursion would be
considered a  foolish and risky venture.
To me it was a normal  boating outing, just like I'm used to from Georgian
Bay.

Oh by the way,  I have been wearing Mustang  floaters and survival suits
since they first  came out.
The Great Lakes in March  are either still frozen or  just at  about 32
degrees  F.
The water doesn't warm up past  45 - 50  degrees until June or July.  So
I'm well aware of hypothermia.

Cheers

Arild