Hitler couldn't "sink" it, but the MCA will

Old news .Covered on our local TV regional news months ago.Owner of vessel was on TV and expressing his disappointment that his passenger carrying commercial vessel was having to meet current safety regulations regards bulkheads and stuff, main whinge was too expensive.
Still nothing like dredging up an old story and encouraging a bit more outraged indignation.
 
The trouble with all of these things is that disasters *do* happen for a variety of reasons. And when they do there is loss of life. We value life and therefore the government pass legislation to make vessels safer. Off the top of my head I can think of three river boat disasters resulting in loss of life. None were (as far as I am aware) 'classic' vessels, but that doesn't really matter does it?

And anyway I suspect that its only us lot who care about the old vessels really. Most day trippers just want a day out on the water I expect - they probably don't care whether the boat was built in the 19th century or the 21st.
 
oldgit said:
Old news .Covered on our local TV regional news months ago.
Still nothing like dredging up an old story and encouraging a bit more outraged indignation.
Click to expand...

Well Sir, you have the advantage over me as I do not watch the particular TV channel to which you refer.

As I posted (above somewhere) it was on BBC Breakfast this morning and therefore new "News" to me.
But thank you for pointing out that the matter has been previously aired.

Yours,
Indignantly outraged ;)
 
Balbas said:
The trouble with all of these things is that disasters *do* happen for a variety of reasons. And when they do there is loss of life. We value life and therefore the government pass legislation to make vessels safer. Off the top of my head I can think of three river boat disasters resulting in loss of life. None were (as far as I am aware) 'classic' vessels, but that doesn't really matter does it?

And anyway I suspect that its only us lot who care about the old vessels really. Most day trippers just want a day out on the water I expect - they probably don't care whether the boat was built in the 19th century or the 21st.
Click to expand...

The Marchoness,
The Halbony

Both run down by larger vessels in confined waters
I very much doubt that any stability calcs have any bearing when being rammed?
 
Tomahawk said:
The Marchoness,
The Halbony

Both run down by larger vessels in confined waters
I very much doubt that any stability calcs have any bearing when being rammed?
Click to expand...

Dunno. Didn't that one on the Danube a month or so back capsize after being rammed? No idea if that was due to inherent stability problems or not - I didn't really pay much attention and that's certainly not my area of expertise anyway*.

*nothing related to boats is - except incompetence, I'm good at that.
 
Balbas said:
Dunno. Didn't that one on the Danube a month or so back capsize after being rammed? No idea if that was due to inherent stability problems or not - I didn't really pay much attention and that's certainly not my area of expertise anyway*.

*nothing related to boats is - except incompetence, I'm good at that.
Click to expand...

It is slightly in mine, though. It looks very much like an interaction case. The stability may have been perfect but the smaller vessel would still have been drawn into and under the larger overtaking vessel. The interaction effects will have been accentuated by the bridge piers.
 
Minn said:
It is slightly in mine, though. It looks very much like an interaction case. The stability may have been perfect but the smaller vessel would still have been drawn into and under the larger overtaking vessel. The interaction effects will have been accentuated by the bridge piers.
Click to expand...

So - for clarity - you're saying that regardless of stability, the smaller vessel was always at risk of capsize? I must admit I don't remember much about the incident and just remember a search for bodies, so I've added 2+2 and probably got to 657 by assuming a capsize.

In which case surely the more sensible thing to do would be to separate classes of boats - have a TSS in effect I suppose?
 
Yes, in the specific circumstances of an interaction event, when rather large hydrodynamic forces are involved, we are looking at dynamic stability rather than static stability. I have known a conventional harbour tug, a class of vessel built with great reserves of stability, to be rolled under by the merchant ship she was assisting.

I think the enquiry is likely to find that the overtaking vessel was at fault for attempting to overtake whilst passing under a bridge. I’m afraid that I don’t know the Danube collision regulations
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
Yes, in the specific circumstances of an interaction event, when rather large hydrodynamic forces are involved, we are looking at dynamic stability rather than static stability. I have known a conventional harbour tug, a class of vessel built with great reserves of stability, to be rolled under by the merchant ship she was assisting.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying in language of one syllables.:) Every day is a school day.

In which case it would *seem* that collision avoidance / prevention should be a higher priority than 'static' stability.
 
Balbas said:
So - for clarity - you're saying that regardless of stability, the smaller vessel was always at risk of capsize? I must admit I don't remember much about the incident and just remember a search for bodies, so I've added 2+2 and probably got to 657 by assuming a capsize.

In which case surely the more sensible thing to do would be to separate classes of boats - have a TSS in effect I suppose?
Click to expand...

Here is a clip from an incident some years ago between an RNR minesweeper, HMS Fittleton and the frigate HMS Mermaid. Lots of 'lessons learned'.

Fittleton was caught in a low pressure area that exists near to the hull of a ship under way and was drawn close to the frigate HMS Mermaid by hydrodynamic forces. A minor collision ensued and the Fittleton moved forward to try and exit the situation but instead was hit amidships by the bow of the much larger Mermaid and turned over within a minute. Thirty-two survivors were picked from the sea and the upturned hull by the accompanying ships,[1] and German and Dutch vessels joined Royal Navy ships in searching for survivors, with divers entering the floating upturned hull. Attempts to keep Fittleton afloat by passing minesweeping cables underneath her propellor shafts failed when the lines parted.[1] The ship sank several hours later, between 9 and 10 pm, in 160 feet (49 m) of water.[1]
 
capnsensible said:
Here is a clip from an incident some years ago between an RNR minesweeper, HMS Fittleton and the frigate HMS Mermaid. Lots of 'lessons learned'.

Fittleton was caught in a low pressure area that exists near to the hull of a ship under way and was drawn close to the frigate HMS Mermaid by hydrodynamic forces. A minor collision ensued and the Fittleton moved forward to try and exit the situation but instead was hit amidships by the bow of the much larger Mermaid and turned over within a minute. Thirty-two survivors were picked from the sea and the upturned hull by the accompanying ships,[1] and German and Dutch vessels joined Royal Navy ships in searching for survivors, with divers entering the floating upturned hull. Attempts to keep Fittleton afloat by passing minesweeping cables underneath her propellor shafts failed when the lines parted.[1] The ship sank several hours later, between 9 and 10 pm, in 160 feet (49 m) of water.[1]
Click to expand...

Thank you; perfect example.
 
There are numerous videos of the Halbony being run down by the Viking Syble.

It appears the bow wave of the much larger Viking Syble pushed the aft end of the Halbony to the side forcing the smaller vessel across the bows of the larger one. Sadly it was sufficient to cause a capsize because the Halbony had a relatively low freeboard.

Without being rammed the Halbony was a very stable craft.

There is a video somewhere of a similar event in the Mallaca Straights where a VLCC overtakes a comparatively tiny (as in 90,000 tones) freighter. Once the bow wave catches of the VLCC catches the rear of the much smaller ship, the stern of smaller ship is pushed to the side across the bow of the VLCC spinning it about like a toy. There is absolutely nothing the master of either ship could do once it was set up.

 
Last edited:
vyv_cox said:
It is odd that old cars, nowhere near the age of some of these vessels, are viewed in a totally different way. I have a 1972 three-wheeler that is exempt from MOT and tax. It is awaiting restoration and is currently a death trap but I could legally drive it on the road.
Click to expand...

Indeed. My Son's Series Land Rover has just passed its MOT but the brakes, steering, lighting and tyres, even though as good as when it left the factory almost 40 years ago, are so far below current standards that I would also class it as a death trap on wheels. Of course, its not used to transport paying customers but that's the only distinction and it could take any number of members of the public with it if it goes amok :)

Richard
 
Concerto said:
This is not new. The Medway Queen paddle steamer, veteran of Dunkirk, is being restored. The hull has been completely rebuilt, but they changed the main keel as well due to rust. This meant is was not a restored hull, but a new one. So now modern safety regulations apply. Due to its stability calculations, it would not be able to carry hundreds of passengers as planned - but now restricted to only 12 paying passengers! (once engines are fitted) So this vessel will not be able to pay its way like the Waverley. Its destiny will probably be as a ship permanently tied to a drying wharf on the Medway.
Click to expand...

That's not the MCAs fault. It's parliament's, for passing the rules which the MCA enforce. Oh, won't it be great when we are out of the EU and back to traditional light-touch UK regulation?

Also, I believe that Abel's were supposed to re-use the keel but decided not to off their own bat and without realising the consequences.
 
vyv_cox said:
It is odd that old cars, nowhere near the age of some of these vessels, are viewed in a totally different way. I have a 1972 three-wheeler that is exempt from MOT and tax. It is awaiting restoration and is currently a death trap but I could legally drive it on the road.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, you can't. You may not need an MOT, but it still has to be roadworthy and meet construction and use regulations.
 
Quite, any three wheeler with a single wheel at the front is (was) inherently unstable. Those with two at the front, rather less so.
But this thing with the fee paying pleasure craft is nothing new. We had a brief stay at the Tides Inn(Chesapeake) back in '91. One of their big deals was the evening cruises and crab dinners on their 90 odd foot turn of the century mobo. Except, the USCG had just banned them from using it. They deemed that even though you did not pay specifically for the cruise, since you paid to stay at the resort, it was considered comercial. So they had to use a GRP mobo for the trips. We didn't bother..
Bit later, they had it back in use, but only with px on the upper deck, nobody below. This was all about fire riskn with so much classic wood, even theough the hull was rivitted iron.
 
RichardS said:
Indeed. My Son's Series Land Rover has just passed its MOT but the brakes, steering, lighting and tyres, even though as good as when it left the factory almost 40 years ago, are so far below current standards that I would also class it as a death trap on wheels.
Click to expand...

Would you like to quantify that statement.

Brian
 
halcyon said:
Would you like to quantify that statement.

Brian
Click to expand...

Just take a look at a Land Rover (the proper ones not the Chelsea tractors) like all vehicles of their (design's) age they lack such basic safety measures as crumple zones to protect both the occupants and those they might be unfortunate enough to hit, often still have side facing seats and inadequate restraints.. The developments in both technology and and regulation are the main contributor to the massive increase in road safety in the last few decades.

I'd hope that a coach of similar vintage would be prohibited from plying for trade, for much the same reasons as the boat under discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top