Northern Marine Incident

[jwnall]

Darn, I will call off Lawyer Daggett.

He still practicing over there in Yell County, Arkansas? Must be getting kind of long in the tooth by now.

 

[Tad Roberts]

Tad, this brings me back to my original question. If your assumptions are correct, from your graph the Nordhavn and Duck show ultimate stability of 87 to 90 degrees. I presume these are light ship calculations. The Baden, assuming she finished out with the additional ballast specified by Roddan would have ultimate stability of 65 degrees. Are there many vessels in this length and beam with that level of stability that are considered blue water cruisers? Is the reason why you don't see any capsized trawlers in this length because they are predominately designed with greater stability? Not picking on the designers of the Baden - just trying to understand what the parameters are for stability that are considered appropriate for crossing oceans.

I'll say, "You're welcome" to everyone who posted and Pm'ed thanks. I just hope I haven't confused the issue too much.

Delfin....

The model for the N55 was created from published drawings and the curve was done at a displacement of 100,000 pounds. That's light of Nordhavn' s currently published 115,000 LB displacement figure(no word on if it's light or full load). I sank the DD from 67,000 to 75,000 LBs to better represent what I thought was reality. The actual boats may be quite a bit heavier than that. The VCG's were pure guess as was the trim.

In my experience the typical powerboat runs out of stability at something around 70 degrees heel, and that would be a worst case (usually with tanks almost empty). That's typical coastwise cruisers of fairly wide beam. As we don't see a rash of these boats capsizing in normal use, experience tells us this is fine.

Ocean cruisers, those intended for crossing oceans, should be (IMO) held to a higher standard. It's quite typical for small sailing cruisers to have positive stability over 100 degrees of heel. Now, powerboats don't carry a lot of sail, and are not usually subject to knockdown, but it can happen. I've been aboard a lightly loaded fishpacker knocked down to 60-70 degrees by a fierce williwaw in Burke Channel. That's not a good feeling.

Thus in my own work on ocean going boats I try to maintain positive stability around 100 degrees or more. This is done with moderate beam, low profile, in some cases raised decks, progressively lighter construction above waterline, and some ballast as low as possible.

 

[dannc]

He still practicing over there in Yell County, Arkansas? Must be getting kind of long in the tooth by now.

The original Lawyer Daggett had many sons who have carried on the family business of helping out those in need of legal representation....



Later,
Dan

 

[Tad Roberts]

As an aside to all the above discussion on vanishing stability angles. It turns out that the more important issue is "Downflooding Angle". That's the heel angle at which the boat starts to fill with water and the stability starts to change. For those with low freeboard, low engineroom vents, opening ports in the hull, etc, this angle can be between 30 and 40 degrees heel.

 

[Delfin]

I'll say, "You're welcome" to everyone who posted and Pm'ed thanks. I just hope I haven't confused the issue too much.

Delfin....

The model for the N55 was created from published drawings and the curve was done at a displacement of 100,000 pounds. That's light of Nordhavn' s currently published 115,000 LB displacement figure(no word on if it's light or full load). I sank the DD from 67,000 to 75,000 LBs to better represent what I thought was reality. The actual boats may be quite a bit heavier than that. The VCG's were pure guess as was the trim.

In my experience the typical powerboat runs out of stability at something around 70 degrees heel, and that would be a worst case (usually with tanks almost empty). That's typical coastwise cruisers of fairly wide beam. As we don't see a rash of these boats capsizing in normal use, experience tells us this is fine.

Ocean cruisers, those intended for crossing oceans, should be (IMO) held to a higher standard. It's quite typical for small sailing cruisers to have positive stability over 100 degrees of heel. Now, powerboats don't carry a lot of sail, and are not usually subject to knockdown, but it can happen. I've been aboard a lightly loaded fishpacker knocked down to 60-70 degrees by a fierce williwaw in Burke Channel. That's not a good feeling.

Thus in my own work on ocean going boats I try to maintain positive stability around 100 degrees or more. This is done with moderate beam, low profile, in some cases raised decks, progressively lighter construction above waterline, and some ballast as low as possible.

Yes, a williwaw would be one of the conditions that are a bit hard to predict and that can knock a boat, especially one with as much windage as Baden, over the angle where real trouble starts. I realize there isn't any set standard, and that few ships are in lightship weight when bad things happen, but that isn't something I would necessarily want to rely on. So I heartily support your conservative target of something in excess of 100 degrees if you plan on venturing far.

Thanks again....

 

[Edelweiss]

As an aside to all the above discussion on vanishing stability angles. It turns out that the more important issue is "Downflooding Angle". That's the heel angle at which the boat starts to fill with water and the stability starts to change. For those with low freeboard, low engineroom vents, opening ports in the hull, etc, this angle can be between 30 and 40 degrees heel.

Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?

 

[psneeld]

Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?

I know I'm not Tad but have been have been a ships qualified officer in the USCG and certainly have enough time at sea to post something useful.

You really don't want to include fuel in stability issues unless you are willing to ballast those same tanks with sea water, fresh water or some other moveable weight onboard....and most rec boats aren't willing to flood their fuel tanks with other substances unless absolutely necessary.

You could be well down in fuel load when you most need that weight for stability and it may not be there....unless willing to ballast those tanks.

So whether the designers included it or not...reading the engineering report again may reveal it to me...but if fuel was such a big issue with stability (plus water or food stores) then the designers really did screw up if that's what they were counting to hold the boat upright.

 

[Edelweiss]

You really don't want to include fuel in stability issues unless you are willing to ballast those same tanks with sea water, fresh water or some other moveable weight onboard.

That's understood. . . But that wasn't the question I asked Tad.

Thanks

 

[Tad Roberts]

Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?

According to the Roddan weight study Baden was to carry 32,450 pounds of fuel in four tanks. Her full load displacement was supposed to be 130 long tons, about 291,200 pounds. So fuel is about 10% of total weight.

Tanks full or empty would change vanishing stability angle by a few degrees one way or the other.

Thanks for asking that question as it sent me back to looking at the Roddan report which turned up a number of rather glaring mistakes. I almost don't believe these were let stand......

In both weight summery pages some of the empty tanks and their contents are assigned obviously incorrect vertical centers. The main fuel tank (1800 pounds) and it's contents (18000 pounds) are listed a few inches above baseline, lower than the keel shoe! The dinghy, crane, and "misc" hardware are given no vertical arm at all. The grey water tank is listed as 53.5' above the keel! Look...Up in the sky....a grey water tank.....

Mistakes create uncertainty.....perhaps the whole thing is a red herring.

 

[BandB]

According to the Roddan weight study Baden was to carry 32,450 pounds of fuel in four tanks. Her full load displacement was supposed to be 130 long tons, about 291,200 pounds. So fuel is about 10% of total weight.

Tanks full or empty would change vanishing stability angle by a few degrees one way or the other.

Thanks for asking that question as it sent me back to looking at the Roddan report which turned up a number of rather glaring mistakes. I almost don't believe these were let stand......

In both weight summery pages some of the empty tanks and their contents are assigned obviously incorrect vertical centers. The main fuel tank (1800 pounds) and it's contents (18000 pounds) are listed a few inches above baseline, lower than the keel shoe! The dinghy, crane, and "misc" hardware are given no vertical arm at all. The grey water tank is listed as 53.5' above the keel! Look...Up in the sky....a grey water tank.....

Mistakes create uncertainty.....perhaps the whole thing is a red herring.

Two things come to mind and I'm not accusing but sometimes the appearance is as bad as if they are issues.

1. Roddan did a lot of work directly for Northern. Much like the videographer. How independent were they? As a buyer I would not have used them but would have used someone who didn't contract directly with New World. I'm not saying they didn't act independently, but the appearance is that their independence could have been compromised. It's like using a surveyor that the selling broker selects.

2. Roddan's appeal within the report was for them being engaged for a follow up study. Perhaps they intended to do another prior to launching or hoped to do one. They may have then just considered this first study very preliminary in nature. Certainly they stated that they should be engaged for another study. In reading, I got a sense of very limited approval and that wasn't to imply the boat was good to go but just that depending on what happened from that point forward it might one day be. I've run across such before in different fields where the question might be "Will this work" and the answer is "It can be made to work if you spend this much money with us to insure it does."

Now neither of these excuses the sloppiness you point out. There are plenty of fingers to be pointed justifiably in this whole debacle. They buyer, his captain, certain Fraser, Roddan, New World, New World's engineer/architect. The buyer knew long ago this project was in trouble, but once you're in so deep, you really have no way out. Think of this simple example. You've already paid advance payments beyond the work that has been completed to date. However, you get a call that says "We need $25,000 for materials to keep working on your boat. Without it we can't do anymore work at this time. We'll apply that to your next progress payment". What do you do then?

 

[Delfin]

According to the Roddan weight study Baden was to carry 32,450 pounds of fuel in four tanks. Her full load displacement was supposed to be 130 long tons, about 291,200 pounds. So fuel is about 10% of total weight.

Tanks full or empty would change vanishing stability angle by a few degrees one way or the other.

Thanks for asking that question as it sent me back to looking at the Roddan report which turned up a number of rather glaring mistakes. I almost don't believe these were let stand......

In both weight summery pages some of the empty tanks and their contents are assigned obviously incorrect vertical centers. The main fuel tank (1800 pounds) and it's contents (18000 pounds) are listed a few inches above baseline, lower than the keel shoe! The dinghy, crane, and "misc" hardware are given no vertical arm at all. The grey water tank is listed as 53.5' above the keel! Look...Up in the sky....a grey water tank.....

Mistakes create uncertainty.....perhaps the whole thing is a red herring.

Weirder and weirder. I guess between the flying grey water tank, the massless crane and tender and the fuel tank apparently being bolted onto the keel we have no clue whether this vessel will float upright. I still don't understand how a project of this size with that many people involved gets this screwed up...

 

[BandB]

I still don't understand how a project of this size with that many people involved gets this screwed up...

Putting trust in the wrong people. Lack of oversight. Failure as buyer to follow all the business principles you've used for years to gain your success. Emotions over mind.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

I still don't understand how a project of this size with that many people involved gets this screwed up...

Sadly it's an old story in this business. And one that seems to get repeated again and again. There have been books written about the build sagas of some larger yachts.

Not to mention the law suits over boats that did not meet their design criteria at launch.

And more then one owner has had to buy the build yard just to get his boat finished.

 

[TDunn]

It is worth noting that the NTSB report on the accident came out in July 2015. It is interesting reading. Skip to page 15 for the probable cause of the accident.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAB1514.pdf

 

[Moonstruck]

Thanks for posting. Page 15 tells the story. Sounds like a colossal screw up from the beginning to end. Our company has been asked many times to come in and straighten out screwed up construction projects. We have refused because we would have to warrant someone's work. There is no way you can uncover all they did.

 

[Edelweiss]

Wow!!

What is they say, there is never just one cause for a catastrophic failure, it's always a chain of events.

At least this one appears to have landed right at the feet of New Worlds project management/owner from improper ballasting before launch to errors in the launch itself. Amazing!!

Good read. . . . thanks for posting the report.

 

[Pierce]

The day I drove by that boat outside of the production building I thought to myself "Man that sure looks like a top heavy boat"! There simply was not enough boat under water for so much above the water line.

 

[BandB]

The entirety of the document reflects the unstable situation at New World during that time. No Engineer on staff. Temporary manager. Careless recording of weights. Changes in project management. Note that the project manager for the owner was terminated, by his account when he raised issues, and management of the project taken over by the brokerage.

I also found it interesting that the USCG wasn't able to weigh the vessel afterwards due to New World being in receivership.

 

[siestakey]

Thanks for posting the report that was a very interesting read

 

[THD]

Yep-that boat was a cock-up from the time they decided to extend the mold until it tipped over. An amazing series of mistakes, errors, bad judgements, lousy management, bad ownership (both boat and NM!). Knowing all that, it would have been truly amazing if the damned thing did not sink!

 

[BruceK]

Better it happened at launch than after delivery.

 

[dannc]

...
I also found it interesting that the USCG wasn't able to weigh the vessel afterwards due to New World being in receivership.

I found that interesting and not understandable. What does the receivership have to do with an accident investigation? Do they mean that because New World was out of business there was nobody to perform the weigh in? Surely the insurance companies or the Feds could pay for the test. Seems like if the NTSB is going to do a report they could weigh the danged boat...

Later,
Dan

 

[No Mast]

I'd guess if it was critical to the investigation they would have, but it seems they got to the bottom of what happened without needing it.

 

[BandB]

I found that interesting and not understandable. What does the receivership have to do with an accident investigation? Do they mean that because New World was out of business there was nobody to perform the weigh in? Surely the insurance companies or the Feds could pay for the test. Seems like if the NTSB is going to do a report they could weigh the danged boat...

Later,
Dan

The Boat was inaccessible and under the control of the court and ultimately the receivership. They had no way then to get it weighed. No equipment. It was sitting locked up back in New World's yard. Very complicated situation and I don't know where things ended up. But New World didn't own the land or building or the Northern name. They didn't own some of the equipment and most of the rest was financed. The day I saw they were moving it back to their facility, I figured access could become a problem.

NTSB didn't have the authority to break in to the property and move the boat to scales.

 

[psneeld]

Would think it could have been weighed where it sat or a court order would have been easy enough if the NTSB pressed for it.

Must not have been important enough to jump through the hoops.

 

[Edelweiss]

You're probably correct, the boat was moved into New Worlds Building and was under lock and key.

Since there was no loss of life, the NTSB likely concluded the chain of events were relatively clear, it was not worth more of their time and expense. Obtaining a court order and bring in load cells to determine the post accident overall weight most likely wouldn't have changed the facts or findings.

 

[Ski in NC]

Ballast has shifted and boat interior is full of all sorts of sogginess. Fuel tanks partially full of water, too. I don't think merely weighing for the investigation would be worth the expense necessary.

The investigators could tell what the stability situation was by the behavior at launch.

And enough errors were found to explain it.

 

[refugio]

Ballast has shifted and boat interior is full of all sorts of sogginess. Fuel tanks partially full of water, too. I don't think merely weighing for the investigation would be worth the expense necessary.

Well they seemed to have a very precise set of measurements in March before the May launch - adjusting for any added ballast prior to launch should get them pretty close to launch conditions, don't you think?