Amtrak Train Crash in Washington State

3D Computer Animations Of Ethan Allen

Here are some great 3D animations of the Ethan Allen prepared and for sale at a company called TurboSquid (click each photo for larger image).

Detailed model of Ethan Allen Tour Boat that took 20 lives on Lake George, New York on October 2 2005. Detailed with folding windows in up position. Animations and Detailed 3d models of Lake George. Contact [email protected]

Seeing a full profile from the bottom of the keel to the top of the canopy is striking. Notice how little of the vessel's bottom is below the waterline. In layman's terms, this boat appears top-heavy. This means that a knowledgeable boat owner / captain should have been aware that a stability problem might exist.

Update on NTSB Ethan Allen Investigation

I have had some recent inquiries about what was happening with the NTSB investigation.  It is typical for the NTSB to take a long time to investigate matters such as this one.  Thus far, the NTSB has issued three press releases in this matter.  The last one was November 4, 2005.  Here are the links:

• October 3, 2005 - NTSB Investigating Tour Boat Capsizing in New York.
• October 7, 2005 - (SB-05-30) Statement by NTSB Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker on Investigation of Sinking of the Ethan Allen.
• November 4, 2005 - Update on the Investigation of the Capsizing of the Ethan Allen in Lake George, New York.

The NTSB has indicated that it expects to take 12-24 months to issue its final report in this matter. But remember, the NTSB is still a political entity and will certainly not be the last word on who was responsible and how this accident could have been avoided.  The NTSB will be a great resource of information in terms of witness statements, chronology of events, background facts and the like.  Traverse Legal is working hard to obtain as much information as possible, without having to wait as much as a year or longer to see what the NTSB has concluded.

Grand Daughter of Ethan Allen Victim Speaks

One of the survivor's grand daughters has this to say about the Ethan Allen tragedy:

My Grandmother, Joyce Rochowiak, was one of the victims of the Ethan Allen tragedy. Where does the blame lie? I believe it lies with all entities involved: Shoreline Cruises, the New York Department of Parks & Recreation, and the captain,Richard Paris. Not one of these entities questioned the vessel's buoyancy (which Mr. Paris has admitted to being insufficient on previous outings on National News), or the lack of safety precautions (no dockside safety briefing, lack of crewmen, and a NY state law system that doesn't deem it necessary for senior citizens to wear life jackets). Should we overlook these facts because this was an "accident"? I don't believe so. While nothing can be done or said to bring my Grandmother back, she need not have died in vain. Somebody or some entity needs to be held responsible for an enormous tragedy and the resulting heartache that could have been prevented in so many small ways.

Isn't that the point?  If responsibility is not assumed or assigned, then many family members will believe that their loved one did, in fact, die in vein. There is only one way in which responsibility can and will be assigned, and that is through the civil court system.

Many citizens think that lawsuit are about money.  For most litigants, nothing could be further from the truth.  No one would trade a parent, grand parent or loved one for any sum of money.  Lawsuits, however, have the unique ability to force a defendant who refuses to take responsibility to sit in front of a jury of their peers.  That jury has the ability to clear them of blame, or point the finger of justice at them and say in a loud collective voice: "You are responsible; You must make changes."  The fact that jurors award money damages is in our civil justice system is appropriate.  What else would suffice?  Would we rather send these people to jail for negligence? 

Our jury system remains the only meaningful, definitive and emphatic voice which can assign responsibility to those whose actions cause needless deaths.  Since neither Shoreline company, the boat captain, nor anyone else has accepted responsibility for this needless tragedy, the jury system will have the final word.

Ethan Allen Captain Not Drunk

On November 4, 2005, the alcohol results came back from the Toxicology Center, and results were released to the media after The Lake George Boat Company. The results showed that the captain of the Ethan Allen had been drinking several days prior to October 2nd [see change below], but that he had not drunk alcohol on the day of October 2nd.

However, the results did reveal that the Captain had been drinking the night before the accident, as reported here.

Victims Trapped By Ethan Allen Windows

The most shocking piece of information that has come out thus far is reported on this Wiki.  Apparently, WRGB reported on October 20 that the glass windows on the boat had acted like a box. This trapped the passengers inside of the boat and the only way out was smashing through the windows.  It had also been confirmed that the 20 people that died had drowned due to the glass windows trapping them inside.

There is very little other information coming out from news agencies these last two weeks, as we all wait for the NTSB report.

Was The Ethan Allen Tragedy Preventable?

Here are the poll results thus far on the issue of whether the Ethan Allen capsize was preventable.  Feel free to vote (see right margin poll).

Was The Ethan Allen Tragedy Preventable?

89% of the people vote "YES", the tragedy was preventable with little or modest effort.

See results here.

Did Shoreline Know It Needed 2 Crew?

An anonymous commentator on this blog has posted the following message:

She KNEW that there are supposed to be two staff on board, why did she seat them all when she KNEW there was only one? That is the question.

It is unclear who "she" is in this message, although it appears to pertain to a Shoreline Tours employee, the owner/operator of the Ethan Allen.  Of course, if two crew were not available, the cruise would not have gone out. If Two crew were available, that crew member could have prepared passengers for the wave, perhaps tempering the shift of passengers which may have contributed to the capsize.  If two crew were on board, life jackets might have been more available and more people might have been saved. While the lack of one crew member may not have been a direct cause of the capsize, it certainly may have contributed to the number of deaths.

Physics and Common Sense Govern Conduct

Captain Ray Bollinger lends this piece of sanity to the fundamental issue of where the "safety line" for vessels such as the Ethan Allen should be drawn. Mr. Bollinger's comments, as always, are sound.

-------------------------

Dear Mr. Schaefer:

"Minimal standards," "minimum standards," at the AAB we usually add the word "regulatory" as in "minimum regulatory compliance," or minimum regulatory standards." We also maintain that "minimum regulatory compliance is not the standard of seaworthiness or a seaworthy vessel." In the instant case, the M/V ETHAN ALLEN may have been in compliance with all New York regulation, which appears silent on stability. However "industry standards" don't "govern" or "control." Adherence to industry standards is not the standard of care either. We (the AAB) have often demonstrated that "industry standards" are sometimes self serving and profit serving with little contribution to safety. What happened on the M/V ETHAN ALLEN was violation of "laws" even more basic than "industry standards" or "regulations." What was violated were laws of physics and hydrodynamics. The Coast Guard didn't "define" these laws in their regulatory scheme for stability. They simply acknowledged, identified, and incorporated them into regulation. The existence of the Coast Guard regulations demonstrates the fact that these laws are widely known in the maritime sector. But the violation is of natural law. Obviously, the ETHAN ALLEN slipped through a regulatory jurisdictional loophole, avoiding by route the application of the Coast Guard regulations, and by legislative gap, any New York State regulations incorporating these natural laws. There appears to be a danger in any language that appears to ascribe to the Coast Guard authorship of the laws that deal with center of gravity, center of buoyancy, righting moment and the equations that predict the behavior of these values. If the Coast Guard is the source, and the Coast Guard regulations don't apply as a matter of law, then these laws of physics and hydrodynamics may be dismissed.

As I wrote in our COMMENTATOR concerning the "Point Bend" custom on the Western Rivers; "judges who ignore the laws of physics and hydrodynamics commit reversible error".  The "laws" violated in this situation are easily seen in unfortunately inapplicable regulation, but they weren't created there. The laws of physics and hydrodynamics apply with equal force everywhere and at all times and we violate them at our peril. The chief value of the Coast Guard regulations in this case is as an illustration that the laws are well known in the maritime industry. But we caution against the use of any language that blurs the origin of these "laws." It may be all too easy for a judge, deficient in scientific education, to blow off the proper stability practices as "inapplicable." He or she may do this based on the simple legal argument that the Coast Guard regulations don't apply as a matter of black letter law to a vessel regulated entirely by the State of New York. The actual author of these "laws" should prove much harder for a judge to blow off.

  I know many lawyers are reluctant to get into "natural law" arguments. But this isn't natural law of the highly esoteric or arguable type. This is physics, and very hard and fast almost "black letter" area of the "natural law." In stability regulation, the human regulators are simply attempting to force due consideration and planning around the preexisting and self enforcing laws of nature. If you ignore them mother nature causes your vessel to roll over. The human regulators are simply attempting to help vessel owners avoid this natural penalty. If not considered this "natural law" is truly blind. Violate the laws of hydrodynamic stability and your vessel rolls over, every time. There is no consideration by nature or nature's God of who or what is aboard at the unfortunate moment. The consequences are easily avoidable by planning hull forms, passenger seating, and operations in compliance with these laws. If a boat's manager doesn't understand stability anyone who can use a dictionary or phone book can easily use the Code of Federal Regulations where a complete system for compliance with these natural laws is described. Surely the ETHAN ALLEN at some point was designed for some purpose by a naval architect. Why wouldn't it dawn on an owner that a naval architect should be consulted before something as fluidly dynamic as a vessel is modified?

can't walk on water or fly of his own accord. So we have always relied on expert knowledge when we attempt to transit air or water. Why didn't the owners of the ETHAN ALLEN do so in this case? I hope this gives you some ideas for the language that might be used in formulating the language of the plaintiff in the various pleadings and arguments. The language of the defense is also pretty well obvious as centering on the concept of "regulatory compliance." I would predict that properly handled "regulatory compliance" defenses will be swept away by the argument that causation was a planned and deliberate violation of physical law that the owners knew or should have known existed.

Ray Bollinger

Industry Standards Required Re-testing After Modification

I received the following message from another expert with regard to marine safety issues.  Here is what Captain Bollinger has to say about the Ethan Allen capsize.

-----------------------------------

Dear sir:

I enjoyed your web site concerning the capsize of the M/V ETHAN ALLEN ...  By way of introduction I am Capt. Ray Bollinger, a forensic examiner with the American Admiralty Bureau, Ltd. I believe this accident was preventable chiefly by the company that owns and operates the M/V ETHAN ALLEN. The direct cause appears at present to be the combination of two elements of mismanagement. First the stability of the vessel was modified without the proper design work, tests and safeguards. While New York State which had regulatory authority over the vessel has no specific regulations on these issues, there are recognized standards that apply. The Coast Guard regulations and the various classification society rules that would have been applied to this vessel if she had been in an area regulated by the Coast Guard, or had been classed, are not pulled out of thin air but are derived from  authoritative literature such as the Naval Institute's "Introduction to Naval Architecture" (ISBN 0-87021-318-0), particularly chapters 6 through 8. This text and similar standard texts used in the education of naval architects, naval / merchant marine officers and others describe and define the basic underlying laws of physics and hydrodynamics that the regulations and classification society rules are based on. These are laws of nature that cannot be ignored with immunity. The presence of legal regulations and technical codes that incorporate these natural laws only serve to underscore that these are known natural laws. In any contest over liability the known character of the natural laws of stability will be very damaging to the owners of the M/V ETHAN ALLEN. The second cause of this accident appears at present to be mismanagement of "live ballast." In short, the passengers themselves were an important element in establishing the centers of gravity, buoyancy, and the resulting righting moment. Their weights had to be carefully managed to avoid having the center of gravity rise above the center of buoyancy. This meant that the seats had to be carefully designed and then the people had to be pretty much confined to those seats or their movements carefully managed. This was not done. There is an extensive history of cases involving the mismanagement of "live ballast" associated with the Witcker Capsules used on offshore oil rigs off of Texas and Louisiana. In years past quite a few crewmen lost their lives when lifeboatmen in charge of these capsules failed to have them fasten their seat belts during not only actual evacuations but also during drills. As to the role, if any of the excursion boat MOHICAN, she does not appear capable of producing a wake capable of capsizing a vessel of this size if not in exceptionally "tender" condition. Assuming she was cruising at routine speed her wake should not have been problematic. Her "contribution" if any is dependent on some element of unreasonable behavior that is not apparent at this moment. The MOHICAN is a displacement vessel and will create a wake of some sort at even very slow speeds. She is also relatively shallow draft, so there is a finite limit to the wake she can create at even full speed, and this wake would not normally be considered "excessive" unless very close to shore side delicate structures or very small recreational craft. Her wake, even at full speed should not have been problematic for a boat of say 30 feet, assuming all else being normal.                                                                        

                                                                      AAB Codes and Standards Dept.

 

                                                                      Capt. Ray Bollinger

                                                                      Master, Pilot AGT

________________________________

Captain Bollinger:

Thanks for the comment.  Enrico Schaefer

The thought that be complying with minimal New York State standards (even assuming they did this much), the owners of commercial vessels are off the hook is nonsense. It is industry standards that should be the test.   The point to me is that stability testing has been standardized and defined by the coast guard.  Stability testing is cheap, easy and straight forward. Any business taking people on the water ought to ensure that its vessel can pass the industry standard stability testing before it is commissioned and after any modifications.  It appears that the owner/operator of the Ethan Allen was only concerned about how many passengers if could get on-board, not how many passengers it can safely put on-board.

Ethan Allen's Center Of Gravity: Raising the Decks?

There are some great comments from boat builders and architects at the BoatDesign.net BBS. There is a suggestion that the deck of the Ethan Allen was raised as part of its conversion to a tourist vessel, or sometime thereafter.  If so, raising the deck would have again raised the center of gravity and affected the boat's stability.  Here is what one boat designer says:

If she were my boat, this is what I would have done once I decided to raise the deck:

1) Added the estimated ballast, turning my 9.5 ton boat (again, my guess) into an 11 ton boat. That way I could also make up for the imbalance of seating too. The ballast, probably 19 cuft of concrete, would be tabbed to the hull so it could not shift. The tabbing would be strong enough to withstand a 90 deg. roll.

2) Bolted the seats to the deck, so they could not shift. This would also be strong enough to withstand a 90 deg. roll.

3) Added strong 'arms' to the ends of the seats, so the passengers could not slide out of them. Also strong enough to withstand a 90 deg. roll.

4) Put cribbing under the seats to hold in place one life jacket for every seat 'place' , so that they would be in easy reach of the passengers.

Bob also notes that "I think the State of New York needs to be sued as well. After all, they are paid to look after our interests, not just kowtow to their special interest 'campaign contributers'."