Washington State Ferry hard landing

[backinblue]

The USCG is actually very strict about allowing anybody on the bridge not directly necessary for navigation of vessel. Getting caught with family, kids or passengers in the wheelhouse can get your license nicked if the wrong guy catches you.

Rick

This is interesting because the "small boat" cruise I was recently on had an "open bridge" policy that allowed passengers to visit at any time. They even advertise that in their literature if I remember. Sometimes extra crew would be in the wheelhouse just for the view, not to assist. They were pretty strict about other regulations, so I would be surprised that they would be so careless about this one.

 

[Porgy]

Ahh! Another classic WSF story .

Great story!

 

[Portage_Bay]

This is interesting because the "small boat" cruise I was recently on had an "open bridge" policy that allowed passengers to visit at any time. They even advertise that in their literature if I remember. Sometimes extra crew would be in the wheelhouse just for the view, not to assist. They were pretty strict about other regulations, so I would be surprised that they would be so careless about this one.

As we all know laws and regulations are not always followed to the letter. I have seen a few small passenger boats where the captain allowed "guests" on the birdge. The CG is not out there on the water checking all navigation bridges. But if something like the ferry / dolphin allision happened with a guest on the bridge I would not want to be that watch officer sitting across the table from CG investigators.

Sent from my SM-T500 using Trawler Forum mobile app

 

[backinblue]

As we all know laws and regulations are not always followed to the letter. I have seen a few small passenger boats where the captain allowed "guests" on the birdge. The CG is not out there on the water checking all navigation bridges. But if something like the ferry / dolphin allision happened with a guest on the bridge I would not want to be that watch officer sitting across the table from CG investigators.

Sent from my SM-T500 using Trawler Forum mobile app

Good point and I don't disagree, but interested to know if this is in fact against martime law because this company encourages it and actually advertises it, but I don't consider them to be reckless.

 

[garbler]

It not really a maritime law but a matter of USCG regulations for inspected vessels, ie, passenger carrying and others. I spent years inspecting these vessels and can tell you unequivocally that with the windjammer fleets passengers are allowed to take the wheel from time to time just to experience the feel and get a photo. It’s part of the experience of sailing aboard these older historic vessels like letting passengers help hoisting sails etc.

Rick

 

[GFC]

It also might make a diff if the ship was operating in US waters vs operating out on the open seas.

International waters with me steering a Norwegian Cruise Lines ship for about 30 minutes, and no we were not sinking, I just can't get the photo to be right side up.

 

[garbler]

Any of these USCG inspected passenger vessels have established routes not to be exceed established distances and coordinates with passengers aboard. These routes generally include coastal, near coastal, lakes bays sounds and protected waters and others depending. Offshore in international waters the only enforcement authority the Coast Guard has is law enforcement which generally means drug interdiction, smuggling and everything from illegal migrants to you name it. Plus SOLAS safety regs. However, and this interesting, the USCG has primary authority even over the USN in these kinds of incidents. I never quite understood this and it’s a gray area but I’ve been told this by a few people I trust

Rick

 

[AlaskaProf]

Cathlamet Report

Washington State Ferries has issued its report on the "hard landing" of the Cathlamet at Fauntleroy last year. Coast Guard and NTSB still working on it.


Seems to leave a lot unanswered, particularly in management.

 

[CharlieO.]

Captain was spacing out, if anyone else was even on the bridge they weren't paying attention.

Captain retired quickly, before he got fired and lost his pension

 

[AlaskaProf]

Captain was spacing out, if anyone else was even on the bridge they weren't paying attention.

There was a (required) helm-qualified AB on the bridge. He had just been relieved by the captain for the landing and was standing at the chart table.


The captain's first words were: "What happened?"

 

[CharlieO.]

So the Captain took command before he was really aware of where he was?

 

[AlaskaProf]

So the Captain took command before he was really aware of where he was?

Well, he ain't talking, although I suspect he won't be so reticent with the Coast Guard. My layman's guess is that some sort of narcolepsy is involved and he took a little nap after relieving the quartermaster.

 

[CharlieO.]

I'm thinking maybe the quartermaster woke the captain from a nap late and went to the chart table.

But what penalty would there be not to participate in a Coast Guard interrogation? Just curious if he already retired.

 

[AlaskaProf]

I'm thinking maybe the quartermaster woke the captain from a nap late and went to the chart table.

That isn't quite how it works. The Captain supervised the departure from the #1 bridge which was at the dock, (these vessels are symmetrical, even got a federal ensign flying at each end) then walked to the #2 end which was now approaching the other dock where he relieved the AB at the helm. Total elapsed time for the evolution dock-to-dock, ten minutes. Captain may have only been at the helm for three minutes. (Incidentally, the First Mate, who had handled several landings that morning, was at breakfast, which seems to be consistent with doctrine.)



Cathlamet left VI at 0803. The onboard security cameras show
Captain walking across the “Texas” Deck from Pilothouse #1 to Pilothouse #2 somewhat after 0803.

The vessel can be seen already underway at this point. Captain passed the control to the #2 pilothouse from the #1 Pilothouse; the quartermaster got the Cathlamet underway headed to FAU.

As the Cathlamet began to get close to FAU, Captain took physical control of the throttles and helm as is typical, in preparation for the landing.Captain asked for bow engagement after relieving the quartermaster. At 08:13:47, the Cathlamet had an allision ...

 

[psneeld]

So the Captain took command before he was really aware of where he was?

Actually pretty common if overconfidence from years of experience overshadow attention to detail.

 

[CharlieO.]

Learn something new everyday, thanks Prof.

PSN - I know that too well, I asked the question from experience. I’ve been handed the watch right after a hard sleep. I routinely checked radar and the ATN. Looked good, sat down at helm and fell asleep for about 5 seconds probably. Had a minor panic attack.

 

[twistedtree]

There was a (required) helm-qualified AB on the bridge. He had just been relieved by the captain for the landing and was standing at the chart table.


The captain's first words were: "What happened?"

Interesting. Where did you get that from?

 

[Porgy]

At the end of the g Captain article is a link to the report.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Interesting. Where did you get that from?

There's a link in the article, but here is the (rather incomplete) "official report".

 

[AlaskaProf]

Learn something new everyday, thanks Prof.

.

Thanks. I do have a background in aviation accident/incident investigation, which helps me to read the things which the report isn't saying. Otherwise, it's just about having watched a couple hundred ferry passsages.

 

[AlaskaProf]

But what penalty would there be not to participate in a Coast Guard interrogation? Just curious if he already retired.

psneeld can speak to Coast Guard policies better than I, but the NTSB, which is also investigating, has a "non-punitive" interview policy which often gets those answers from a reluctant witness. There are several places in the WSF report where they are dancing around issues which they probably find embarassing individually or organizationally. I'm sure the CG and NTSB know what those are.

 

[psneeld]

psneeld can speak to Coast Guard policies better than I, but the NTSB, which is also investigating, has a "non-punitive" interview policy which often gets those answers from a reluctant witness. There are several places in the WSF report where they are dancing around issues which they probably find embarassing individually or organizationally. I'm sure the CG and NTSB know what those are.

Sorry but I am not much help in Marine safety stuff... I was an operator in a different world.

I do think in the USCG that there is a philosophy of accident investigation where "non-punitive" review is crucial in finding the facts of the matter. It used to exist in the internal accident investigation arena.

A later or a parallel investigation might be a "licensing" review to see if the parties were within their expected performance expectations and action required there.

I just don't know if USCG Marine safety acts that way.

 

[twistedtree]

There's a link in the article, but here is the (rather incomplete) "official report".

I found it - thanks. Interesting reading. The Captain had received previous verbal and written warnings, and even a suspension for being "undependable". I suspect that has some specific meaning within WSF & the unions. Perhaps it's as simple as being late to work, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to it. Anyone know what that implies in the context of the WSF system?

 

[DDW]

"loss of situational awareness" as in missing the dock and running aground at 15 knots while standing at the wheel and peering out the window in clear and calm weather seems like an understatement....

 

[AlaskaProf]

"loss of situational awareness" as in missing the dock and running aground at 15 knots while standing at the wheel and peering out the window in clear and calm weather seems like an understatement....

My bet is narcolepsy, i.e. he was instantaneously sound asleep. His response: "What happened?" speaks volumes.

I have encountered this: When I was a watch supervisor in SEA-TAC tower, one of my employees woke up long enough to unwittingly release IFR departures off two conflicting runways simultaneously.

My managerial challenge was to keep his co-worker from killing him on the spot.

 

[AlaskaProf]

The Captain had received previous verbal and written warnings, and even a suspension for being "undependable". ...but I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to it. Anyone know what that implies in the context of the WSF system?

Exactly. Very high levels of organizational ass-cover. Look at the cover page list of responsible individuals. Not only internal, but not even very high in the organization. The guy in charge of the investigation is the manager of the maintenance shop!? Give me a break.

The ferry system is part of WSDOT. What is their supervisory responsibility? Does the legislature have a transportation committee(s)?

 

[AlaskaProf]

My bet is narcolepsy, i.e. he was instantaneously sound asleep. His response: "What happened?" speaks volumes.

Pretty much as suspected.



And the official word.