Doomed duck boat's designer had no engineering training, court documents reveal

[endicom]

Fox News
Barnini Chakraborty
July 24, 2018


BRANSON, Mo. –  The duck boat that sank in a Missouri lake last week, killing 17 people and injuring several others, was built by a self-taught entrepreneur who had little to no engineering training, according to new court documents.

Designer Robert McDowell, the former owner of Ride The Ducks, is a self-taught entrepreneur who grew up in the tourist town of Branson.

He made money by altering and manufacturing dozens of amphibious vehicles, though he lacked the proper engineering skills to do so, according to his own testimony.

In a deposition last year on a separate matter, McDowell said he taught himself how to rebuild and maintain a fleet of duck boats despite lacking any training or certification in mechanics.

More... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/24/doomed-duck-boats-designer-had-no-engineering-training-court-documents-reveal.html

[jmyrlefuller]

McDowell managed to turn his Ride The Ducks boat business into a lucrative one before selling it in 2004.

Since then, Ride The Ducks, through its various corporate iterations, has been linked to several high-profile accidents, including last week’s horrific one that devastated an entire community.

There's something wrong with this.

Last night the local PBS station was showing a special on some of the great American engineering marvels, such as the Erie Canal, some of the great bridges and tunnels, and such. It was remarkable how many of them were designed by passionate amateurs.

Now I look at this story. This guy hasn't been involved with the company in question in 14 years. The story notes that the record of incidents started filing in AFTER he sold it. So it looks to me like they didn't know how to operate his boats more than any failure of engineering.

But hey, it's not like we have a credential inflation problem in this country already making it harder to find work. /sarc

[thackney]

There's something wrong with this.

Last night the local PBS station was showing a special on some of the great American engineering marvels, such as the Erie Canal, some of the great bridges and tunnels, and such. It was remarkable how many of them were designed by passionate amateurs.

Now I look at this story. This guy hasn't been involved with the company in question in 14 years. The story notes that the record of incidents started filing in AFTER he sold it. So it looks to me like they didn't know how to operate his boats more than any failure of engineering.

But hey, it's not like we have a credential inflation problem in this country already making it harder to find work. /sarc

I had a statics and strength of materials professor tell another student he should drop out of engineering and start pre-med, since he was failing so badly.

His reasoning, at least there you would only kill people one at a time.

[Sanguine]

Wasn't the proximate problem that they went out in 60 mile per hour windstorms?

[Cyber Liberty]

Wasn't the proximate problem that they went out in 60 mile per hour windstorms?

It was, but the fatal error was the design of the canopy that sealed the passengers in, and prevented their escape from a capsized boat.  Sort of like Ted Kennedy's car.

[Suppressed]

It was, but the fatal error was the design of the canopy that sealed the passengers in, and prevented their escape from a capsized boat.  Sort of like Ted Kennedy's car.

The NTSB has warned about those canopies for nearly 20 years.

[Suppressed]

Now I look at this story. This guy hasn't been involved with the company in question in 14 years. The story notes that the record of incidents started filing in AFTER he sold it. So it looks to me like they didn't know how to operate his boats more than any failure of engineering.

A properly trained engineer might have identified problems with the design that would cause maintenance problems.  Good engineer training covers that.  Or it might not be the problem.  We just can't say.

Don't get me wrong...I'm no engineer worshiper -- I deal with engineer errors on about a weekly basis, but I have also seen well trained engineers catch some real problems before they arose.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I get the impression this is like why fly a plane at all that is heavier than air.  It will fall and crash and kill people, right?  Do we go after plane designers?

The Ducks have ferried thousands and thousands of people over many years safely. 
So do planes.

Both can fail under certain conditions and kill people.

Treating a guy without engineering credentials is ludicrous.  History is replete with examples of people capable of design without degrees.

[thackney]

I get the impression this is like why fly a plane at all that is heavier than air.  It will fall and crash and kill people, right?  Do we go after plane designers?

The Ducks have ferried thousands and thousands of people over many years safely. 
So do planes.

Both can fail under certain conditions and kill people.

Treating a guy without engineering credentials is ludicrous.  History is replete with examples of people capable of design without degrees.

The original DUKW was properly engineered with operational limitations appropriate to it's use.



The modification on this duck was a recognized safety hazard and neither original or modified version had any business being on that rough water.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_Determines_Cause_of_1999_Duck_Boat_Sinking.aspx

...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.

The Board made an additional recommendation that on vehicles without adequate reserve buoyancy, where canopies have been removed, the Coast Guard require passengers to wear life jackets. The Board does not recommend that passengers wear life jackets if the canopy has not been removed....

[Suppressed]

The original ducks was properly engineered with operational limitations appropriate to it's use.

The modification on this duck was a recognized safety hazard and neither original or modified version had any business being on that rough water.

 

[Bigun]

I get the impression this is like why fly a plane at all that is heavier than air.  It will fall and crash and kill people, right?  Do we go after plane designers?

The Ducks have ferried thousands and thousands of people over many years safely. 
So do planes.

Both can fail under certain conditions and kill people.

Treating a guy without engineering credentials is ludicrous.  History is replete with examples of people capable of design without degrees.

And try as we might, we are NEVER going to live in a fail-safe world.  Meanwhile the lawyers are out to hang a poor guy who is 14 years removed from the equipment in question and managed to operate said equipment very safely while he WAS in charge.

And BTW: The PROBLEM here is someone chose to operate this boat knowing that the weather conditions could become unsafe at any time!

[Bigun]

It was, but the fatal error was the design of the canopy that sealed the passengers in, and prevented their escape from a capsized boat.  Sort of like Ted Kennedy's car.

@Cyber Liberty

I beg to differ! To me, the fatal error was in choosing to operate the vessel KNOWING that the weather conditions could become unsafe at any moment!

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

I beg to differ! To me, the fatal error was in choosing to operate the vessel KNOWING that the weather conditions could become unsafe at any moment!

As @Sanguine pointed out, it was the proximate cause.  It took both errors to cause all the deaths.

[Cyber Liberty]

And try as we might, we are NEVER going to live in a fail-safe world.  Meanwhile the lawyers are out to hang a poor guy who is 14 years removed from the equipment in question and managed to operate said equipment very safely while he WAS in charge.

And BTW: The PROBLEM here is someone chose to operate this boat knowing that the weather conditions could become unsafe at any time!

There's contributory negligence.  He'll probably get tagged for 25-35%.  The company that decided to put out with 60 MPH winds will get the lions share.

[Bigun]

There's contributory negligence.  He'll probably get tagged for 25-35%.  The company that decided to put out with 60 MPH winds will get the lions share.

That SUCKS!  If I was on the jury he would get tagged for 0.0% or the jury would forever be hung.

[Cyber Liberty]

That SUCKS!  If I was on the jury he would get tagged for 0.0% or the jury would forever be hung.

He likely has comparatively shallow pockets, so they probably won't go after him personally, especially if he wasn't a licensed Engineer.

[thackney]

That SUCKS!  If I was on the jury he would get tagged for 0.0% or the jury would forever be hung.

As someone who designs stuff for a living, my opinion is far different.  It isn't safe for egress.

But it has known to be unsafe for about two decades.  Continuing to use it is also at fault, as well as going out in that weather regardless of roof design.  But if the original DUKW was in use, people would have gotten out easier and likely more would have lived.  Also the false security of the enclosure gave the operator more confidence to head out in that weather in the first place.

[Sanguine]

Apparently the life jackets were present but not worn, and:

Paul said he sent the company a "two- to- three-page fleet inspection report" as well as 24 checklist reports and "as many as 20 photos for each duck" he inspected in August 2017. In the report, he cautioned that the boats' engines -- and pumps that remove water from their hulls -- might fail in bad weather. In rough conditions, water could get into the exhaust system, and then into the motor, cutting it off. With the motor off, its pump for removing water from the hull would not operate.

[Frank Cannon]

Morons went out in a boat without life jackets into a major storm and the issue is the educational level of the boat builder? Give me an effing break.

[jpsb]

@Cyber Liberty

I beg to differ! To me, the fatal error was in choosing to operate the vessel KNOWING that the weather conditions could become unsafe at any moment!

As a sailor myself; you are 100% correct. You operate your vessel in the conditions it was designed to operate in. Sometimes you get caught off guard, which means you make for the nearest place that you can safely get the passengers off. In this case that would have been the
nearest shore line. This accident was 100% operator error.   

[Suppressed]

Morons went out in a boat without life jackets into a major storm and the issue is the educational level of the boat builder? Give me an effing break.

As @thackney pointed out, the NTSB highlights that lifejackets are part of what causes deaths with canopies.  The NTSB doesn't recommend wearing a lifejacket with deployed canopies.  It might very well be part of why passengers died in the 1999 (though tight stowage of the lifejackets was another contributing factor).

[jpsb]

As @thackney pointed out, the NTSB highlights that lifejackets are part of what causes deaths with canopies.  The NTSB doesn't recommend wearing a lifejacket with deployed canopies.  It might very well be part of why passengers died in the 1999 (though tight stowage of the lifejackets was another contributing factor).

The Coast Guard (at least here in Texas) requires that the vessel have a life jacket for everyone
aboard. (This was an inland lake so maybe Coast Guard regs don't apply).

[Suppressed]

Apparently the life jackets were present but not worn, and:

The NTSB cautioned strongly about wearing lifejackets in canopied boats where the canopy hasn't been properly designed (and Coast Guard-approved)  to allow vertical and horizontal egress.  From the 1999 accident report, where lifejackets were present and deployed (albeit delayed by them being packed too tightly into the canopy compartments, so they were difficult to remove):

As the vehicle sank to the bottom of the lake, the natural buoyancy of the passengers' bodies forced them into the overhead canopy, which acted like a net to entrap them and to prevent their vertical escape. Of the seven fatalities found inside the vehicle, four were found trapped in the canopy. At least two survivors testified that they had to swim downward in order to escape from the canopy. Most of the survivors could not explain how they were able to get out of the vehicle.
--https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR0201.pdf

Regardless of the lifejacket question, the NTSB hates improper canopies:

Six victims were recovered from the lake bottom at various distances from the vehicle. These six people might have been able to escape the vehicle but drowned before they could reach the lake's surface. If the vehicle had not had a canopy, the passengers would not have had a barrier to vertical escape. They would not have been trapped inside the vehicle, and fewer passengers might have been killed. The Safety Board therefore concludes that the canopy on the Miss Majestic was a major impediment to the survival of the passengers.

[Suppressed]

The Coast Guard (at least here in Texas) requires that the vessel have a life jacket for everyone
aboard. (This was an inland lake so maybe Coast Guard regs don't apply).

The Coast Guard requires the lifejackets to be present, but not worn.

[thackney]

The Coast Guard (at least here in Texas) requires that the vessel have a life jacket for everyone
aboard. (This was an inland lake so maybe Coast Guard regs don't apply).

The life jackets were on the duck boat.  That wasn't the problem.

They were not wearing them.  If they had been wearing them, the canopy design tends to trap people inside.

...Regulations mandate there must be enough life jackets for everyone on board, Stoermer said, but the captain decides whether passengers need to wear them.

Coleman said the captain mentioned the life jackets before they went on the lake.

"The captain did say something about life jackets. He said, 'Above you are the life jackets, there are three sizes, but you won't need them,'" Coleman said Saturday night....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/missouri-duck-boat-investigation/index.html