
Missouri disaster: Duck boat’s designer had no engineering training - ilamont
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-duck-boat-20180724-story.html
======
ghaff
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.

~~~
jessaustin
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.

~~~
RIMR
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.

~~~
pssflops
My wife recently rode one in the lower Wisconsin Dells and the outboard motor
blew while they were breaching the water. The tour guide said this was the
first it's ever happend. :rolleyes:

------
pg_bot
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...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/us/missouri-duck-boat-
investigation/index.html)

~~~
crznp
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...](https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/NTSB_Determines_Cause_of_1999_Duck_Boat_Sinking.aspx)

~~~
larkeith
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.

------
Animats
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...](https://www.uscgboating.org/regulations/assets/builders-
handbook/FLOTATION.pdf)

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

~~~
js2
They seem equally unsafe on land.

------
ryandrake
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...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2018/04/03/he-helped-design-a-record-breaking-waterslide-and-was-
just-arrested-after-it-decapitated-a-boy)

~~~
thawkins
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.

------
stuntkite
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-dub
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_h
> It's well known that Ivy League engineering is pretty shitty

Citation needed.

~~~
a-dub
USNWR engineering rankings, ARWU engineering rankings, reputations in the
professional world?

The Ivy League is known for liberal arts, not engineering.

~~~
eric_h
Not the highest rated != pretty shitty

------
kbos87
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.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Money.

~~~
ghaff
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.

------
neom
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/tCXb) //
[http://john.je/tCU4](http://john.je/tCU4) //
[http://john.je/tBdi](http://john.je/tBdi)

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

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

~~~
ghaff
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.

------
robomartin
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.

------
ajhurliman
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...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ntsb-ruling-expected-
today-on-cause-of-ride-the-ducks-crash/)

------
c3534l
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
edit: never mind, deleted the comparison to the misuse of “engineer” (can’t
delete post anymore).

~~~
starpilot
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.

~~~
ghaff
It may be limited but it's not just public projects. When I worked in the
offshore drilling business, senior engineers had PEs so they could sign off on
drawings submitted to the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) and perhaps
others.

------
mdrzn
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
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
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.

~~~
mdrzn
Exactly, it's not like only Americans read this website. You're cutting out a
lot of nations.

------
interfixus
> _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_

~~~
singularity2001
"We are now longer allowed to spy on you and violate your privacy. F __* EU! "

------
dmead
People also died riding them in philly

[http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/ronnie_polaneczky/du...](http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/ronnie_polaneczky/duck-
boats-drown-branson-table-rock-lake-mongeluzzi-why-are-duck-boat-rides-still-
being-allowed-ronnie-polaneczky-20180724.html)

------
zaroth
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.

------
TangoTrotFox
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
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.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
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...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/MAR0201.aspx)

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

~~~
Pinckney
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."

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

~~~
AmVess
You are correct.

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

~~~
aembleton
[https://outline.com/Xg3LLx](https://outline.com/Xg3LLx)

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

~~~
megaman22
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...

~~~
learc83
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.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Can you provide an image? Every image I've been able to find has enormous and
open windows that seem specifically enabled to allow people to escape outside
them in an emergency. I've attached a few random images below.

[http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/du...](http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/duck_boat-e1462277275969.jpg)

[http://www.completingmybucketlist.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2...](http://www.completingmybucketlist.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/pressphotos-dsc_2231.jpg)

[https://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/17877/image.j...](https://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/17877/image.jpg)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/LondonDu...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/LondonDuckWater.JPG)

[https://www.massvacation.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11...](https://www.massvacation.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Boston-Duck-Boat.jpg)

[https://cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50295385/...](https://cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50295385/5470555241_ce884c0d86_b.0.jpg)

~~~
charleslmunger
I think it's a bit much to ask a group of tourists that includes children, the
elderly, possibly the disabled, all not wearing life jackets, to evacuate out
the windows into open water as the ceiling comes down on them. That's not
something you can reasonably expect to happen in a matter of seconds.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Sure, but that's not the issue right? These things have apparently been
running for decades and are hugely popular in some areas. This article seems
to have tried to drag up every single incident it could that involved them,
even including random normal traffic collisions. But relative to length and
frequency of usage, there weren't many incidents.

Put another way these things seem to be incredibly safe on average, but
certainly when something goes wrong it's going to be make for good headlines
because it's so awful. But beyond that, it seems like even when something does
go wrong you certainly have good chances if you're a decent swimmer. Though
perhaps this incident would be an exception, it looks like they were out in
the water during a serious storm - which is completely idiotic in any sort of
small water boat.

~~~
learc83
Read the NTSB report from 1999. They recommend the canopies be removed because
the boats can sink in as little as 15 seconds. They ride very low in the water
and there are multiple reports of canopies pulling people under.

Most of them have windows or plastic sheeting that can (and was in the
Missouri case) be closed in the case of rain or cold weather.

The coast guard also recommends not wearing life jackets while inside because
in one documented inncident people wearing life jackets floated to the top and
got stuck under the canopy.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
You need to consider rates for things. "Multiple reports" means absolutely
nothing when you're talking about something that's been running for decades
for one can only imagine how many total millions of hours or whatever other
metric you want to use.

For instance you can find that thousands of people have been killed _because_
of seat belts or air bags. But these things don't really matter because the
rate of incidence is extremely low. Perhaps also a bad example on my part as
they also save lives when they work, but you can pick practically anything --
given a large enough sample, you'll find people manage to die to just about
everything. My favorite is Isadora Duncan - a celebrity, no less! So the key
question is what is the incident rate here? Given the most condemning data we
have is "multiple reports" over 2 decades, that sounds like a pretty good
baseline for 'extremely safe.'

\----

Also, can you please provide evidence of even just a single duck boat with
windows? I just tried pretty hard to find even a single one, and failed. But
yeah, velcro or drop sheets are of course part of the system. And again those
are designed to be able to be rapidly removed.

~~~
learc83
>Given the most condemning data we have is "multiple reports" over 2 decades,
that sounds like a pretty good baseline for 'extremely safe.'

The most condemning data we as armchair sleuths have is that the NTSB who did
have all the data on incident rates opened an investigation in 1999. They
concluded that the boats weren't safe. They recommended that they be
retrofitted with reserve buoyancy, that electric bill pumps be installed (so
that bilge pumps keep working when the engine is swamped), and that the
canopies be removed or replaced with coast guard approved canopies that allow
for easy escape.

>Also, can you please provide evidence of even just a single duck boat with
windows? I just tried pretty hard to find even a single one, and failed. But
yeah, velcro or drop sheets are of course part of the system. And again those
are designed to be able to be rapidly removed.

[https://www.gannett-
cdn.com/presto/2018/07/22/PSPR/90431ecf-...](https://www.gannett-
cdn.com/presto/2018/07/22/PSPR/90431ecf-5863-4ec0-be8c-89391bd4fdb9-tDuck_memorial00055.jpg?crop=4388,3269,x251,y0&width=520&height=390&fit=bounds)

Those were on the Missouri boat that sank. They can be electronically raised
and lowered by the captain [1]. They don't look like they are easy to remove
without the captain raising them. From watching video taken inside, they don't
appear to be held on by something easy to remove like velcro.

According to eye witness reports they weren't able to easily escape through
the windows.

"Keller said her daughter made it clear that the canopy was on and the windows
were sealed." "They were all closed," Keller said her daughter told her. "The
windows were closed and the top was on." "It was so hard to get out of the
boat, Mom. It was so hard to get out of the boat."[2]

You also have designs like this:
[https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_29/2504521/18072...](https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_29/2504521/180720-miss-
majestic-accident-al-1153_13391f61ec5f548810895557acd3ddb2.fit-760w.jpg)

Where the window openings are too narrow to allow for quick escape. Especially
considering how low in the water they ride and how quickly they sink.

1\.
[https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article215235950.html](https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article215235950.html)
2\.
[https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article215257...](https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article215257665.html)

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I increasingly feel like I'm playing Where's Waldo when it comes to digging
out facts in between appeals to emotion in media articles. Your articles
confirm that the "windows" are plastic curtains which one individual described
as being difficult for children or elderly to open. The canopy was also
detachable, and was detached, during the incident. And before diverging too
much, the point I was getting at here is that these incidents seem to be
extremely rare relative to the usage of these vehicles.

And (at risk of hijacking my own point, again) in this case the major problem
was not the boat itself, but a captain bringing his passengers out into a very
severe storm - with possible wind speeds in excess of 60 mph in the exact lake
they were going into. And the warning was released before they even entered
the water. That's enough to wreck any small water vehicle. And the captain
also did not tell the passengers to put on their life vests even when telling
them this was the worst storm he'd ever seen. He probably did not want to
start a panic but, at least in hindsight, that was another bad judgement call
on his part. It'll be up to the courts to decide if that judgement entered
into the realm of negligence.

~~~
learc83
>Described as being difficult for children or elderly to open.

That part was a paraphrase of what he said. You ignored the next part which
was a direct quote: the windows would "prevent you from even trying to get
out. You need to swim toward the back of the boat. But there being 30-plus
people in there, I could just ... just all the chaos happening in there I
think it would be difficult to calmly line up and go out the back."

He's not talking about just children and elderly when he mentions people
calmly lining up and going out the back.

Look at the plastic sheeting. They are raised and lowered electronically and
the sheets take up an entire side of the boat. Nothing about them looks well
designed to allow quick escape in an emergency.

>These incidents seem to be extremely rare relative to the usage of these
vehicles.

You don't know that at all. You have no idea how often they are are used or
how many of them are operating. You don't have the information say whether
they are more or less dangerous than other tour boats.

You know who does have this information, the NTSB. Their conclusion is that
they are unsafe and should be heavily modified.

>And the captain also did not tell the passengers to put on their life vests

The coast guard doesn't recommend wearing life vest while under a canopy
because if the boat goes down the vest can pin you under the canopy. In the
1999 sinking they found 4 people with life vests stuck under the canopy.

> The canopy was also detachable, and was detached,

This article and pictures I've seen of the recovered boat indicates that it
wasn't actually detached, "The boat appeared largely intact with holes in its
canvas top.." It looks like it either ripped or a few flaps were opened in it.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/coast-guard-preparing-to-
raise-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/coast-guard-preparing-to-raise-duck-
boat-in-fatal-missouri-accident-1532348915)

A private inspector who inspected the boats for the company that owns them
last year even warned the company about how dangerous they were. He inspected
20 of them and thought they were too dangerous. He said: "The biggest problem
with a duck when it sinks is that canopy, Paul said. “That canopy becomes what
I’ll call a people catcher, and people can’t get out from under that canopy."

~~~
TangoTrotFox
You can estimate the usage of these duckboats (and thus their relative safely)
pretty easily. These boats have been running for decades and they're described
as hugely popular with numerous companies offering duckboat rides throughout
the country in various areas with individual boats giving 6+ hours of tours
each day. Even at the absolute rock bottom, you're easily way into the
millions of hours of operation. And this LATimes piece seemed to try to dig up
every single incident they could given they were even reporting random traffic
collisions, and there just weren't many relative to this bottom end of the
scale.

I understand it can be difficult to find facts between all the emotional
drivel, but your own article (second one) states, _" the captain had a moment
of clarity and was able to release the canopy."_ Of course they could just be
writing whatever they feel like, which is another increasingly common trend in
media, but this is a rather specific fact.

~~~
learc83
>running for _decades_

> _hugely_ popular

> _numerous_ companies

> _various_ areas

> _6+_ hours

There is no way to get useful data from that. 80 boats being used all over the
country for 6+ hours in a few places with an average of 3 hours per day across
all boats for 20 years, fits your descriptions.

Automobile fatility rate is 1.25 per 100 million miles. Assuming a high
average of 50 mph (to convert to deaths per hour), all those assumptions would
put DUKWs at about 40 times more fatalities per hour than cars (over the last
20 years).

Maybe there are 160 boats and they really drive 6 hours per day average,
that's still 10 times deadlier per hour than cars.

Tour boats and tour buses, which we should be comparing them to are much safer
than cars. How is that comparison?

But none of this matters because we don't have accurate estimates, the NTSB
does, and they have experts who evaluated the boats and found them unsafe.

I don't care what a news report says. The NTSB report is all the evidence I
need unless I see other more compelling evidence to the contrary.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I doubt those lowballs were your first picks for the numbers here, but
nonetheless I respect that you put forth some elbow grease so I'll reciprocate
by grabbing some better data. The first Duck Tour business started in 1946 [1]
- they're still in business. You can read the NTSB report on the 1999 incident
here [2]. The PDF (on the right side panel) has far more information. It
includes information such as each year having more than 250 ducks transport
more than a million passengers on tours averaging 90 minutes. It's reasonable
to assume that that number has been increasing over time, but the millions in
the 90s at least gives you a decent ballpark. And so like I expect you were
finding with more reasonable estimates, these vehicles are hardly dangerous.

And the NTSB also did not find the boats themselves unsafe, though that they
could be made to be safer in case of accidents. They stated the cause of the
accident was "inadequate maintenance." The other issues, which the media is
obsessing on today, were listed as contributing to the magnitude of the
incident, not causes of the incident. The cause then, like now, was human
error. The 1999 boat was sent out to sea with with a 4.5" hull access plug
removed. The mechanic, who was new to the job, forgot to put it back in. The
operator did nothing to evacuate the craft, and so on.

[1] - [http://amusementtoday.com/2015/05/original-wisconsin-
ducks-c...](http://amusementtoday.com/2015/05/original-wisconsin-ducks-
celebrates-70-years-of-operation/)

[2] -
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/MA...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/MAR0201.aspx)

~~~
learc83
>having more than 250 ducks transport more than a million passengers

That wasn't the number for DUKWs that was the number for all amphibious
passenger vehicles.

>It's reasonable to assume that that number has been increasing over time

That's really a reasonable assumption considering the vehicles are 70+ years
old.

>but the millions in the 90s at least gives you a decent ballpark

Again that's all amphibious vehicles, nothing about DUKWs, but let's assume
they are.

1 million passengers. The DUKW in Missouri had 30 passengers, so let's assume
the average trip is half full. 1 million passengers / 15 ~= 67k trips * 1.5
hours per trip ~= 100k hours per year.

There have about 40 fatalities caused by DUKWs in the last 20 years. 100k
hours * 20 years = 2 million hours.

20 deaths per million hours operated

For cars we have ~0.625 deaths per million hours operated.

32 times more deadly per hour. Remarkably close to my first estimate.

Your #1 link estimates that there are 300 operational DUKWs in the US today.
That's going to include reserves that are only operating during busy
seasons/weekends etc... But let's assume they are all active for 6 hours per
day on average (which is _way_ too high). You still get a fatality rate per
hour about 5 times higher than cars.

And again, tour boats and tour buses are much safer than cars, so the
comparison will be much worse.

>And the NTSB also did not find the boats themselves unsafe

They did. Here is their recommendation:

“ _Without delay_ , alter your amphibious passenger vessels to provide reserve
buoyancy through passive means, such as watertight compartmentalization,
builtin flotation, or equivalent measures, so that they will remain afloat and
upright in the event of flooding, even when carrying a full complement of
passengers and crew.”

“The Safety Board considers that the major consideration in assessing the
ability of passengers to escape from a sinking DUKW is the overhead canopy.”

>The other issues, which the media is obsessing on today, were listed as
contributing to the magnitude of the incident, not causes of the incident.

Of course they aren't the cause. A canopy isn't going to cause a boat to sink.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
These vehicles have been operating since 1946. That's 72 years, not 20. The
reason I gave you the hours and population is because you then figure out
'person hours' without having to make any assumptions other than average rate
of travel to go from deaths/mile to deaths/hour - which I expect is a stat you
can actually probably also find out.

This was the NTSB's conclusion on the accident.

" _The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause
of the flooding and sinking of the DUKW No.1 was a missing access plug, which,
in turn, was caused by inadequate supervision of company personnel and
inadequate management oversight of amphibious passenger vehicle maintenance.
Contributing to the sinking was a flaw in the design of DUKWs, that is, the
lack of adequate reserve buoyancy that would have allowed the vehicle to
remain afloat in a flooded condition._ "

The accident was not caused because the vehicles were unsafe. It was caused
because of human error. The things you're talking about are factors that
contributed to the sinking. Without the main problem (human error) there would
be no problem. And, lo and behold, human error was also the cause in this most
recent incident as well.

~~~
learc83
>These vehicles have been operating since 1946. That's 72 years, not 20

I only have fatalities for the last 20 years if that wasn't clear. If you want
to go back into non-digitized local newspaper archives across the country to
find out if there were any other deaths as well as try to figure out how many
were operating 70 years ago, be my guest.

That doesn't change that fact that over the last 20 years, DUKWs are much
deadlier per hour than cars, and it's even worse when compared to buses and
tour boats.

>The reason I gave you the hours and population is because you then figure out
'person hours'

Fine. 1.5 million person hours * 20 years = 30 million person hours

40 deaths / 30 million person hours = ~1.3 deaths per million person hours

The best answer I can find for how long the Average America spends in a car
per day times number of drivers times days give me 199,685 million person
hours per year, and 37k vehicle fatalities last year = 37k/199685 = 0.19
deaths per million person hours

About 6 times deadlier.

Tour boats and buses are much safer than cars so adjust accordingly. In the UK
(only place I could find the data in hours) water transportation has 50 deaths
per billion hours. 0.05 deaths per million person hours, Making DUKWs 26 times
deadlier than the average UK passenger boat.

>The accident was not caused because the vehicles were unsafe. It was caused
because of human error. The things you're talking about are factors that
contributed to the sinking. Without the main problem (human error) there would
be no problem.

This is completely meaningless. Human error is the cause of almost all traffic
accidents as well, yet some cars are still unsafe because of the behavior of
the car once human error takes place.

Assume that the NTSB finds that a defect in a new bus called the Explodo will
trap all it's occupants inside and cause it to catch fire in the event the
driver hits an obstacle at greater than 20 miles per hour. Are you going to
argue that the NTSB isn't really saying the bus is unsafe because human error
is necessary to trigger the defect? No you're not.

Look, I get it. You pride yourself on making evidence based judgments.
However, in this case you did some quick math and misjudged the danger, but
now you're digging in and sticking to an indefensible position. You're letting
your emotions influence your position--behaving exactly like the journalists
you were original railing against.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
The LA Times hit piece on this issue went so far as to dig up random traffic
incidents involving these vehicles. If there were significant fatal accidents
before 1999 - especially if the fault lay with the vehicles' design, they
would have dug them up. So it's safe to assume there were none.

Your numbers on person hours for us drivers is far off. Keep in mind that a
total of about 3.2 trillion miles are driven per year. 199.685 trillion person
hours would give an average base rate of travel of 0.016 miles per hour.
Obviously you need to multiply that by the average number of occupants per
vehicle, but even if you say there are 10 occupants you're looking at 0.16
miles per hour on average so it looks like you missed some decimal points.

Your explodo example is not really reasonable. We know here for a fact that
these things have transported tens of millions of people. And they've also
been in operation for millions of hours. There's way more than enough of a
sample for lots of things to have gone wrong. Yet of all the incidents that
have happened in these millions of hours, and the likely 40,000,000+ people
that have used these vehicles, we only had 2 severe accidents - both caused by
extreme human incompetence. So you're left with two choices, neither of which
I expect you'd really like:

\- Accidents practically never happen.

\- Accidents do happen at a normal frequency, but in nearly all cases the
outcome is completely safe.

~~~
learc83
>If there were significant fatal accidents before 1999 - especially if the
fault lay with the vehicles' design, they would have dug them up. So it's safe
to assume there were none.

That's not even remotely safe to assume. You can't seriously think the LA
times has the manpower to comb through 70 years of non-digitized records and
local newspaper stories for 1 article.

Since they included traffic incidents after 1999, and you think they went
through 70 years of data. Why no traffic incidents before 1999? The simplest
explanation is that they only included what they could find using digital
records that were easy to access.

> looks like you missed some decimal points.

I looked it over and the data is just wrong. It was based on self reported
data, and it looks like people just over report the amount of time they spend
in cars.

Since there is no way to accurately calculate person hours for cars. I'll just
refer you back to the estimation based on operating hours.

Or you can compare it to the person hour safety data for passenger boats in
the UK. Either way based on my estimations, DUKWs are _likely_ statistically
much more dangerous.

But who cares. I'm just some guy on the interne with very limited access to
the relevant data. You don't need to take my word for it.

The NTSB found that the boats were unsafe. Their recommendation to New York
and Wisconsin was that they _require_ DUKWs to be modified or cease
operations. Their recommendation was that unmodified DUKWs are too dangerous
to continue carrying passengers.

>Your explodo example is not really reasonable.

So you agree that safety flaws that magnify human error can make a vehicle
unsafe? Because it seemed like you were arguing the opposite for the last
several posts.

>And they've also been in operation for millions of hours. There's way more
than enough of a sample for lots of things to have gone wrong. Yet of all the
incidents that have happened in these millions of hours, and the likely
40,000,000+ people that have used these vehicles, we only had 2 severe
accidents - both caused by extreme human incompetence. So you're left with two
choices, neither of which I expect you'd really like:

This entire paragraph is an appeal to emotion. You've disguised it by throwing
in some very dubious numbers that you have no way of verifying. Your argument
essentially boils down to: We've had lots of people ride our boats and only a
couple really bad accidents--that means they're safe.

The rational way to judge their safety is to compare the fatality rate to
other vehicles, and in the absence of the ability to accurately do this, defer
to a trusted expert. But you just want to focus on what feels right to you.

The NTSB thinks that they are dangerous, back of the envelope math shows they
are probably more dangerous than other vehicles. Just admit that your gut
reaction was wrong in this one case.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
40 million assumes that in the 50 years prior to 1999 average usage was less
than 400k per year. Going from 0 in 1946 to 1 million in 1999 with nothing but
a linear increase would of course be 500k per year on average. My number was
more than 20% below that. It was intentionally an _extremely_ conservative
estimate. I do not believe that _you_ believe that organizations such as the
LA Times and NY Times are incapable of digging up incident reports in the
decades before 1999 - that's cognitive dissonance.

And on that note, I feel as though you're projecting here. The numbers we've
come up for here look okayish even when you are making crazy assumptions like
pretending these things never existed before 1999, or were using some rather
creative math to get that person hours estimate. Reality is rather friendlier,
meaning these numbers are going to go from "okayish" to something
substantially better. The reason we were interested in the rates was not to
prove they are safer than cars, but to show that when you look at the incident
rates that these calls for bans on them are grossly sensationalistic and
emotional. I'm not sure what level of accident rate does make one start
pondering a ban, but we're obviously not even in the remotely right ballpark
for that sort of discussion.

The NTSB investigates literally thousands of incidents, offers probable cause
and solutions where available. The presence of solutions that could lessen the
dangers of catastrophic failure is not the same thing as the boats themselves
being unsafe. For instance, if I were to locate a report from the NTSB
proposing some form of vehicular regulation or another, would you then insist
that all vehicles are unsafe, simply for the fact that they could be made
_more_ safe? I would not have to search long, as you can see from their
reports [1] yourself.

[1] -
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/Ac...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx)

~~~
learc83
> Going from 0 in 1946 to 1 million in 1999 with nothing but a linear increase
> would of course be 500k per year on average. My number was more than 20%
> below that. It was intentionally an extremely conservative estimate.

Here's another example of why these extrapolations are useless without real
data.

1\. There is absolutely nothing that would allow you to say with any
confidence whatsoever what the growth curve looked like. Maybe it was
quadratic and there were only a million from 1946 to 1998. From looking at the
history of the original Wisconsin Ducks, it looks like they operated with only
a handful of DUKWs for decades. Maybe they stayed small until bigger companies
got involved and spread to multiple cities in only a few years before 1999?
You don't know, which is why trying to use numbers before 1999 is useless.

Exponential growth is a very likely explanation for the appearance of an
increase in fatalities over the last 20 years (Vehicle aging and easier access
to modern records are others)

2\. The 1 million number you keep quoting was for all amphibious tourist
vehicles, not only DUKWs. There were other amphibious vehicles in operation in
1999, and there are more now. There is no breakdown for the number of riders
by vehicle type. Given that newer purpose built vehicles are more expensive,
they are more likely to be used in high traffic areas thus they are likely to
carry a higher than expected proportion of the total riders.

3\. These vehicles are now over 70 years old. It is entirely possible that
there are fewer of them in operation than there were in 1999.

>I do not believe that you believe that organizations such as the LA Times and
NY Times are incapable of digging up incident reports in the decades before
1999 - that's cognitive dissonance.

Do you think there were _zero_ safety incidents involving DUKWs before 1999?
You stated they included recent traffic incidents. If they were going back
through 70 years of records, why didn't they include any previous traffic
incidents? The most likely explanation is that they found the low hanging
fruit and didn't bother going back any further.

There were 4 days between the incident and the report you mention. What kind
of world are you living in where a newspaper has the resources to comb through
70 years of local news reports and accident reports from every relevant
municipality for 1 article in 4 under days.

>crazy assumptions like pretending these things never existed before 1999

This is absurd. We clearly lack data to make accurate estimations from before
1999. We can try to look at the fatality rate over the last 20 years, or we
can spend time arguing over why we can't find 70 year old accident reports
from a small hamlet in Wisconsin over the internet.

> Reality is rather friendlier, meaning these numbers are going to go from
> "okayish" to something substantially better...I'm not sure what level of
> accident rate does make one start pondering a ban, but we're obviously not
> even in the remotely right ballpark for that sort of discussion.

I think that 26 times deadlier per hour than UK passenger boats warrants
looking into it, but I'm not the expert. The experts issued a report though.
And it recommended banning unmodified DUKWs.

>grossly sensationalistic and emotional

I think you're the one projecting here. The NTSB called for a ban on
unmodified vehicles. Newspaper reporters parroting the NTSB experts can hardly
be called sensational.

>more safe

Your misreading of the NTSB report is incredibly frustrating. The NTSB issued
a recommendation that operators immediately make heavy modifications. They
then made recommendations to state governments that they ban unmodified
vehicles. If you read the report they sent communications back and forth with
dozens of individual operators begging them to make these modifications.

Here's an excerpt: "THE AMPHIBIOUS VESSELS ARE SUBJECT TO SINKING AND A
TRAGEDY LIKE THE ONE THAT OCCURRED IN ARKANSAS COULD BE REPEATED. ACCORDINGLY,
THE SAFETY BOARD REQUESTS THAT THE WISCONSIN DUCKS RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION
ON THIS MATTER AND CONSIDER TAKING THE REQUESTED ACTION. PENDING FURTHER REPLY
FROM THE WISCONSIN DUCKS, M-00-5 HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED "OPEN--UNACCEPTABLE
RESPONSE." IN THE INTEREST OF ACCURACY, YOUR LETTER REFLECTS PERCEPTIONS OF
THE EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF OUR MARINE STAFF AND SAFETY BOARD - U.S. COAST GUARD
RELATIONS THAT ARE NOT FACTUAL. SHOULD WISCONSIN DUCKS WISH TO DISCUSS THESE
ISSUES, MY MARINE STAFF CAN BE CONTACTED AT (202) 314-6450."

Nothing about the report or subsequent communication is indicative of an
opinion that the boats are safe but that they could be made "more safe." A
reasonable, rational person would read the NTSB be report as a proclamation
that unmodified DUKWs are unsafe.

The mental gymnastics you have to go through to read that report and take from
it that these vehicles are safe for passengers is truly, spectacularly,
amazing.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
Try to step back and objectively consider the logic of what you're saying. You
are literally trying to suggest that we went from minimal usage to more than a
million passengers per year in 1999 and then back to minimal usage. This is
possible ( _well, not really - but I 'll get to that in a minute_), but beyond
improbable and seems to be based on absolutely no logic other than _' this is
what I need to try to maintain my view, so it must be reasonable.'_ By
contrast the assumption of normal growth is based not only.. well normalcy..
but also the fact that the original operator stayed in business. Tour
businesses are costly and fickle mistresses. To keep going for 70 years
strongly indicates at least normal growth.

I don't say that to mock you or your latest suggestion, but because I think
you might genuinely be unaware you're doing this. I'm certain you think your
view is correct and naturally therefore assume that there _must_ be logic, and
thus evidence, behind it. You're not considering the possibility that your
view may be incorrect in this case.

And this is causing you to make more silly mistakes. For instance you are now
proposing that perhaps the number of ducks in operation declined since 1999.
As _you_ mentioned, from the writeup on the original duckboat operator, there
are about 300 ducks are in operation today. That growth ranges from a
substantial 20% if we assume every one of the 250 vehicles the NTSB was
referred to as 'amphibious vehicle' was a duck. If you genuinely believe that
to not be the case (and some of those 250 were something else), then the
growth since 1999 could potentially be vastly larger.

The NTSB did not call for a ban on ducks. They even specifically suggested an
alternative list of (much cheaper and easier) criteria states could require in
lieu of providing the additional reserve buoyancy. In fact, check out page 54
of the report. There was infighting within the agency even about the
relatively minimal 'alternative' suggestions they put forth. Internally it was
felt that the additional buoyancy requirement was unable to be able to be
effectively implemented, and that the canopies were not a danger. In
particular, some of the NTSB staff felt that basic requirements (double clamps
on drive shaft boots, additional bilge alarms, etc) would be sufficient to
prevent this sort of accident in the future. You're conflating media
sensationalism with the quite level headed and reasonable report.

~~~
learc83
>You are literally trying to suggest that we went from minimal usage to more
than a million passengers per year in 1999 and then back to minimal usage

In the calculations I made I maintained a steady 1 million per year. Your
emotions are causing you to misread what I'm writing.

>but beyond improbable and seems to be based on absolutely no logic other than
'this is what I need to try to maintain my view, so it must be reasonable.'

Slow steady growth in existing markets with bursts as they moved into new
markets approximating an exponential curve, followed by low growth once all
potential markets were saturated and the supply of surplus military vehicles
dried up is "beyond improbable"?

I'm not making a strong claim here. I'm saying that such a growth curve is
possible and not improbable.

>By contrast the assumption of normal growth is based not only.. well normalcy

Linear growth isn’t a safe default assumption. Rapid growth followed by a
plateau is “normal”.

>You're not considering the possibility that your view may be incorrect in
this case.

I’m almost certain you’re not actually reading what I’m writing. I’ve said
numerous times that I can’t accurately estimate how many people rode DUKWs
before 1999. I’m not attempting to provide accurate estimates for that time
period. There could have been 50 million passengers before 1999, and there
could have been less than a million. There could have been 0 fatalities before
1999 and there could have been a dozen. For both of those numbers the answer
is almost certainly somewhere between those 2 extremes. Where we do not know
because we don’t have the data.

We do know how many fatalities there have been since 1999, and we can make a
better estimate of how many people have ridden them. We’re still not going to
get very accurate data. But the data we have shows that it is likely that
DUKWs over the last 20 years are substantially less safe than other boats.

>For instance you are now proposing that perhaps the number of ducks in
operation declined since 1999. As you mentioned, from the writeup on the
original duckboat operator, there are about 300 ducks are in operation today.

We’re talking about a blurb on a website from a tour boat operator. We don’t
know what his definition of Duck is. Other amphibious passenger vehicles look
very similar, and some DUKWs have been very heavily modified. I’d say that 300
is fairly safe to use as an upper limit--that’s it. Even then, take it with a
grain of salt.

>The NTSB did not call for a ban on ducks.

Nope they didn't. I never said they did. They called for a ban on unmodified
DUKWs..

“Require that amphibious passenger vehicle operators provide reserve buoyancy
through passive means, such as watertight compartmentalization, built-in
flotation, or equivalent measures, so that the vehicles will remain afloat and
upright in the event of flooding, even when carrying a full complement of
passengers and crew.”

“Until such time that owners provide sufficient reserve buoyancy in their
amphibious passenger vehicles so that they will remain upright and afloat in a
fully flooded condition (by M-02-1), require the following:...”

The second recommendation isn’t an alternative. It is a stopgap solution to be
implemented immediately. Neither recommendation was ever required, and only a
few operators complied with the request.

>Internally it was felt that the additional buoyancy requirement was unable to
be able to be effectively implemented,

The report and the official recommendation were adopted as is though. So you
only think we should take the recommendations of committees when the result is
unanimous?

>and that the canopies were not a danger.

Just stop. It’s only you and me, you don’t need to lie about the report.

3 staff members asked that the report be changed to “canopies represent a
grave risk to passenger safety.”

By the way. This

>199.685 trillion person hours would give an average base rate of travel of
0.016 miles per hour. Obviously you need to multiply that by the average
number of occupants per vehicle, but even if you say there are 10 occupants
you're looking at 0.16 miles per hour on average so it looks like you missed
some decimal points.

Was completely wrong. I was on my phone and didn’t bother double checking the
math. I assumed the study I found with average daily time spent in a car was
wrong because it was self reported.

You’re actually the one who missed 3 decimal places. I said 199,685 million
person hours. That is 200 billion miles not 200 trillion as you said. With the
correct number, it’s an entirely reasonable estimate.

------
aaron695
> "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/](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.” "

------
stevenprentice
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.

