Northern Marine Incident

My point is only that stability at launch is not always stability for sea.....

It may have been so unstable even in dead calm, controlled conditions that someone will get the finger pointed at them....

I just learned in all my safety training...if you ain't part of the investigation team...the chances you know enough to form an opinion is a dangerous assumption.

Delfin said:

I haven't seen any activity on the vessel at all, so I assume her interior is unsalveagable, although I heard they had pickled the engines.

Click to expand...

That's what I heard too. I hope they get on it soon!!

psneeld said:

My point is only that stability at launch is not always stability for sea.....

It may have been so unstable even in dead calm, controlled conditions that someone will get the finger pointed at them....

I just learned in all my safety training...if you ain't part of the investigation team...the chances you know enough to form an opinion is a dangerous assumption.

Click to expand...

Or you can read the stability report and learn quite a bit. Or not.

Then again, she didn't exhibit a lack of stability at sea but in the mill pond you referred to, so it may not actually be necessary to be part of an investigation team to conclude that she wasn't stable at launch, what with her rolling over and sinking and all.

Edelweiss said:

That's what I heard too. I hope they get on it soon!!

Click to expand...

With the lawsuits, the problem is that there may be no clear "they" to get on it until the flit stops hitting the shan.

I don't know anything about stability tables but I've played with enough rubber ducks in enough bathtubs to know when it looks like there isn't enough boat under that boat. It looks like a good river boat underneath but only half as wide. It might float upright with about 3, maybe 4 more feet of draught underneath and some ballast and then maybe those windows will be above water most of the time.

Delfin said:

Or you can read the stability report and learn quite a bit. Or not.

Then again, she didn't exhibit a lack of stability at sea but in the mill pond you referred to, so it may not actually be necessary to be part of an investigation team to conclude that she wasn't stable at launch, what with her rolling over and sinking and all.

Click to expand...

I'll concede I haven't read it and probably won't as it's so far down my priority list...well...I may if there's an executive summary.

But I know that if something else affected stability at launch...the absolute stability of the design in it's final stage is meaningless except to the poor bugger responsible for launching.

if it was unstable at rest with no external influencing factors (bubbles be dammed I guess) then some designer has a lot to explain.

If this is what I supposed to read...

The link in post 59 from the engineering company says this "

It is recommended that partial ballasting be done currently, with final ballasting for trim and desired waterline to be performed at launch. "

I must have missed the part where they said more ballast before launch.....

Delfin said:

With the lawsuits, the problem is that there may be no clear "they" to get on it until the flit stops hitting the shan.

Click to expand...

My uncle was in the business of buying insurance salvages. Once the litigation and insurance companies were done, that's generally what you would get. Fuel tanks emptied, engines and transmission, flushed and filled with diesel and the hull full of sand and debris. The rest of the boat was in "as sunk" condition. Sometimes his shop crews would open the hull up to power wash and shovel the debris out of them, before they started rehabbing them.

psneeld said:

If this is what I supposed to read...

The link in post 59 from the engineering company says this "

It is recommended that partial ballasting be done currently, with final ballasting for trim and desired waterline to be performed at launch. "

I must have missed the part where they said more ballast before launch.....

Click to expand...

It looks like the lawyers will have a field day trying to define that comment. They way I read it, it isn't saying to add any additional ballast after launch either. To me it could be, and probably will be argued either way. It also doesn't give any recommendation for how much ballast should be in the boat during launch (or does it, I didn't read the report).

DCBD said:

It looks like the lawyers will have a field day trying to define that comment. They way I read it, it isn't saying to add any additional ballast after launch either. To me it could be, and probably will be argued either way. It also doesn't give any recommendation for how much ballast should be in the boat during launch (or does it, I didn't read the report).

Click to expand...

Not from my background...they would have DEFINITELY said add it before and where to put it (at least approximately) if that was the case.

The whole point of adding it later (even a known exact amount to float on her waterline) is left off to accommodate last minute alterations, additions, subtractions and then placed to accommodate ALL the trim necessary...not just final stability.

Even reading that link I'm no closer to knowing what happened than what I posted before about letting an investigation team do it's job looking at all the angles...not bit and pieces that dribble along.

The report in the link is more of an executive summary (2 pages at most I think) so it's a quick read...unless there's another report I didn't see.

There will be lawyers but ultimately there is nothing to be won except insurance proceeds. New World (operating as Northern) has no assets. They are essentially judgement proof. Now the property insurers may go after any business liability insurance and buyer's insurer after builder's. There may be all sorts of litigation, but the only real asset is insurance proceeds and we don't know how much of that there is. Insurers are very slow to pay when the policy holder is out of business.

psneeld said:

If this is what I supposed to read...

The link in post 59 from the engineering company says this "

It is recommended that partial ballasting be done currently, with final ballasting for trim and desired waterline to be performed at launch. "

I must have missed the part where they said more ballast before launch.....

Click to expand...

You seem to know what the definition of 'partial' is, and whether it was done, based on your comment.

Since you haven't read the report (yet oddly have very strong opinions on the subject), I can help you with a more informed definition. If you look at Appendix 2, you will note that this lists the weight of various components of the ship as WEIGHED during the study, meaning what was in existence at the time Roddan did their study. So, when they summarize in their cover letter their observations with the statement that "partial ballasting be done", they are referring to adding some portion of the needed 38,000# of additional ballast prior to launch. Now I have no clue how much ballast if any was added, or where it was added prior to launch, but what I can say is that whatever definition "partial" meant to the engineer, what was done wasn't enough because THE BOAT ROLLED OVER AND SANK. Nowhere in the report do they indicate what the righting arm measurements of the vessel would be at the time she was weighed. They do not suggest, nor did they opine, on whether the boat would float as ballasted when they did their study. If they had, they would likely have measured that she would capsize at 15% heel angle, which is precisely what she did. They did note that it was ballasted to less than 35% of the total required for final stability.

Or perhaps I am jumping to uninformed conclusions after observing the boat on its side 10 seconds after launch.

psneeld said:

Not from my background...they would have DEFINITELY said add it before and where to put it (at least approximately) if that was the case.

The whole point of adding it later (even a known exact amount to float on her waterline) is left off to accommodate last minute alterations, additions, subtractions and then placed to accommodate ALL the trim necessary...not just final stability.

Even reading that link I'm no closer to knowing what happened than what I posted before about letting an investigation team do it's job looking at all the angles...not bit and pieces that dribble along.

The report in the link is more of an executive summary (2 pages at most I think) so it's a quick read...unless there's another report I didn't see.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. The linked report is 10 pages long. Really, if you don't take the time to acquaint yourself with the facts, and when given a set of those facts can't navigate them, one really has to wonder where your opinions do come from.

I wouldn't put too much in the Roddan report done nearly a year before the rolling and sinking. Even at Northern's snail build pace surely the boat changed during that time.

You know, when I look at the drawings of the Grand Banks 54, I cannot see how it could possibly stay right side up. But somehow it does.

Grand Banks Yachts - 54 Heritage EU Overview

DCBD said:

It looks like the lawyers will have a field day trying to define that comment. They way I read it, it isn't saying to add any additional ballast after launch either. To me it could be, and probably will be argued either way. It also doesn't give any recommendation for how much ballast should be in the boat during launch (or does it, I didn't read the report).

Click to expand...

The summary is based on the calculations done, and detailed in the report. Two sets of stability calculations were done and were based on adding the needed ballast to what she was when weighed compared to what she was without the added ballast. That is clear if you simply read the thing - it's why they add the 17 LT of ballast in appendix 3 and highlight it, then tell you what the stability will be. Roddan noted what was needed to make the boat seaworthy, and recommended that in addition to the 20,000# already there that additional ballasting up to the addition of another 38,000# be done prior to launch. As I said, unless someone from NM opens up, which is unlikely, we won't know how much, if any ballast was added, but it doesn't take Albert Einstein to figure out whatever they did add, it wasn't enough or if added was in the wrong place. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

BandB said:

I wouldn't put too much in the Roddan report done nearly a year before the rolling and sinking. Even at Northern's snail build pace surely the boat changed during that time.

Click to expand...

If you look at the report you will see that they include items not yet on the boat, but with estimated weights included in their calculations, so the report is relevant. Plus, it was mostly joinery to be added, and if you look at the weights, they aren't that significant, if time consuming to build and install.

Delfin said:

If you look at the report you will see that they include items not yet on the boat, but with estimated weights included in their calculations, so the report is relevant. Plus, it was mostly joinery to be added, and if you look at the weights, they aren't that significant, if time consuming to build and install.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the report was in July, so when was the study actually done? And this boat's design seemed to be changing all the time along the way.

The Roddan report was really quite non committal. They were balancing a long term relationship with Northern. It was a rather boilerplate kind of "looks ok so far, recommend you have us check more later." Also who knows how closely the work done followed the drawings. Builders in financial trouble might do a lot of things different than drawn.

I have no idea. All I know 100% is boat rolled, then sank. Then series of comments misleading the public are initiated by the builder. And builder had problems long before this.

BandB said:

Perhaps, but the report was in July, so when was the study actually done? And this boat's design seemed to be changing all the time along the way.

The Roddan report was really quite non committal. They were balancing a long term relationship with Northern. It was a rather boilerplate kind of "looks ok so far, recommend you have us check more later." Also who knows how closely the work done followed the drawings. Builders in financial trouble might do a lot of things different than drawn.

I have no idea. All I know 100% is boat rolled, then sank. Then series of comments misleading the public are initiated by the builder. And builder had problems long before this.

Click to expand...

Again, the report lists what items were in place, and what were not. Those not in place are few and don't weigh much, so the report gives some insight into what went wrong. It would have been nice if they stated "add 5 LT at point 'x' prior to launch", but NM could have done that with the simple expedient of adding fuel in the belly tanks. But didn't, apparently, and the only reason I can think of why not is because they were at the load limit with the launch gear they used. I have no clue what they were thinking, but as you say, what we can conclude is that whatever they thought or did, it didn't prevent this fiasco.

I read this like any other engineering report - a set of calculations based on what is known with a concrete recommendation on what needs to be done to meet the design objective. This even includes the weight of the stonework which I read someplace was added late in the game and that some speculated contributed to the instability. Since it didn't weigh much and is included in the calcs, it's addition is pretty immaterial.

psneeld said:

Not from my background...they would have DEFINITELY said add it before and where to put it (at least approximately) if that was the case.

The whole point of adding it later (even a known exact amount to float on her waterline) is left off to accommodate last minute alterations, additions, subtractions and then placed to accommodate ALL the trim necessary...not just final stability.

Even reading that link I'm no closer to knowing what happened than what I posted before about letting an investigation team do it's job looking at all the angles...not bit and pieces that dribble along.

The report in the link is more of an executive summary (2 pages at most I think) so it's a quick read...unless there's another report I didn't see.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with you that we should let the experts complete the investigation and we can talk the heck out of it then. But I also think that most people on the forum have already got some kind of opinion or idea what happened and there's nothing dangerous about anyone posting it. I also agree as someone posted earlier that it's most likely not one thing but a series of things that went wrong.

In my background.... if a statement is worded without saying something DEFINITELY, like this portion of the report, it's going to be tore apart by lawyers. Regardless of what might or might not be considered common practice. No doubt there are a lot more reports that we would never get to see, and there's no reason we should ever see them.

Someone must have made a calculation that concluded that 30,000 lbs of ballast was going to keep that boat upright and floating, and for all we know it may have been enough but just not properly distributed. I personally cannot believe it was a guess or estimate. Maybe the crews messed up and didn't put in as much as they were told or favored the port side, all this would come up in the final report, which I'm sure is at least a year or more away.

I guess if the biggest piece of "evidence" so far is "immaterial"...then what an "investigation" does...is find out what is "material".......hmmmmm

And yes I know something went wrong...there are actual photos of it...but I still possibly haven't seen all the pieces that went wrong...could be as simple as ballast...maybe there IS more.

I apologize if I mislead anyone about the report...there is a 2 pages of writing and 8 pages of diagrams and tables...not sure what the proper terminology would be for how big the report is....

psneeld said:

I guess if the biggest piece of "evidence" so far is "immaterial"...then what an "investigation" does...is find out what is "material".......

I apologize if I mislead anyone about the report...there is a 2 pages of writing and 8 pages of diagrams and tables...not sure what the proper terminology would be for how big the report is....

Click to expand...

Actually what I wrote was that the commented on weight of stonework was immaterial, not that the report was immaterial. The report for anyone posing the question "I assume you have full knowledge of the design stability issues at hand and know that full ballast (which is a disaster for transport) is required to float upright in a mill pond?" would be material for someone actually wanting to understand the design stability issues at hand.

What you call a report of 10 pages is a 10 page report.

Conrad said:

You know, when I look at the drawings of the Grand Banks 54, I cannot see how it could possibly stay right side up. But somehow it does.

Grand Banks Yachts - 54 Heritage EU Overview

Click to expand...

Exactly. Take a look at any of the older Hattrases or Viking motor yachts out of the water. Very flat hulls with very little boat in the water. But magically they stay afloat. Of course they suck in a followng or beam sea with out stabilizers.

Look at a Forida Bay Coaster (style) or the "Ferry" class houseboats by Jay Benford....

psneeld said:

Look at a Forida Bay Coaster (style) or the "Ferry" class houseboats by Jay Benford....

Click to expand...

There you go. According to my absolutely non professional eye, there is no way that the Florida Bay coasters could possibly stay upright. Yet they do, and very capably I gather. There was a case a few years back of one capsizing, but it was not related to the stability; rather (if memory serves) an unsecured battery let let go and knocked a hose loose, which let in an overabundance of ocean.

As I recall, in the above case there was a lot of forum chatter about how badly the vessel was designed, until the investigation showed something completely different.

psneeld said:

Look at a Forida Bay Coaster (style) or the "Ferry" class houseboats by Jay Benford....

Click to expand...

Yes, but this photo doesn't show you the BEAM on these boats. It's substantial and I would guess adds stability along with the hull design. It was obvious on that Northern that it didn't look right, as mentioned by many- days before it was launched.
One's eye can tell you all you need to know. One doesn't need facts and figures to tell you what you obviously can see...I say it all the time "if it looks good-it is good, and if it looks bad-it is bad". You can spend ton's of money to prove this statement, but why would you?

For a Florida Bay Coaster the name says it all. Not intended for passage making.

Moonstruck said:

For a Florida Bay Coaster the name says it all. Not intended for passage making.

Click to expand...

Especially with the Jeep on deck that many had, yet they've roamed pretty far from home.

pilothouse king said:

Yes, but this photo doesn't show you the BEAM on these boats. It's substantial and I would guess adds stability along with the hull design. It was obvious on that Northern that it didn't look right, as mentioned by many- days before it was launched.
One's eye can tell you all you need to know. One doesn't need facts and figures to tell you what you obviously can see...I say it all the time "if it looks good-it is good, and if it looks bad-it is bad". You can spend ton's of money to prove this statement, but why would you?

Click to expand...

Absolutely beam is key in this design as I think Benford goes to great lengths to elaborate on it in his publications.

The pumpkin seed hull design of Catboats and others use beam for stability.

And yes a good eye does reveal much...but without any doubt in my mind...it does not and can not predict stability ....especially from photographs that only reveal profile and/or really not enough info to see what the beam is...even that matters much less than total weight and weight placement when it comes to stability.

There are plenty of strange sculptures out there that withstand earthquakes and hurricanes that defy standing in perfect stillness.

Engineering is a science that allows man to move beyond common sense or "what meets the eye"...proper accident investigation reveals what is missed by the "obvious".

I was in Anacortes over the last weekend in June. I had to go check out the latest tourist attraction there. It certainly is a beast of a boat. Lots of scratches down the port side of the vessel.
the boat is not even fenced in. Although there was a fence between where we we were standing and where the boat was, it was just sitting in a field and could be approached on foot by anyone who wanted to walk the distance from the road . of course they would need a tall ladder to get on board, but nonetheless its just sitting there.
I agree that it would make a nice land based home for someone.