On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

One possibility is that the guys in the fishing boat were used to
seeing barges and tugs go by and didn't think anything of it.
Supposedly they were all experienced and fished in the same area
frequently. If the barges were outside of their normal track for some
reason they could have been caught by surprise.

On Jun 23, 9:08*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc

wrote:
It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. *I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

One possibility is that the guys in the fishing boat were used to
seeing barges and tugs go by and didn't think anything of it.
Supposedly they were all experienced and fished in the same area
frequently. *If the barges were outside of their normal track for some
reason they could have been caught by surprise.

But still that ain't something small. You'd think it would have
gotten their attention once it was a few hundred feet away. At least
enough to decide to keep an eye on it. Just speculation though.
Amybe we'll get some more detals.

On 23/06/2010 6:26 AM, Harry wrote:
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges. What size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small boat, it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even
changed the direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to post a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Don't they have spotters and horns?

Can't say I have navigated those waters but if they are that long I
would expect spotters at least.
--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

On 6/23/10 9:22 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/06/2010 6:26 AM, Harry wrote:
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges. What size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small boat, it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even
changed the direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to post a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Don't they have spotters and horns?

Can't say I have navigated those waters but if they are that long I
would expect spotters at least.


Well, on a nine barge train, the spotter would have to be on the bow of
the most forward barge to do any good. I don't know the answer to your
question.

I do know, though, that it can be very dangerous to fish in the "ship
channel" in the middle of Chesapeake Bay, because huge freighters can
"sneak right up" on you if you are not paying close attention. Another
dangerous place is near the mouth of the St. Johns River in NE Florida.
That river has significant shipping and military traffic.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

The kind of barges we see in Iowa are one hundred feet by four
hundred. A standard tow is four wide and three long. At ten feet per
second it would take two minutes for the tow to complete the job of
running you down. You would be anxious for air long before the end of
it. Then you go through a screw on the pushboat.

Casady

In article 991b7911-95f9-412a-a5b7-
,
says...

On Jun 22, 9:29*pm, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

I have been there and almost got run over.. How you can miss it? I don't
know it's huge but the one that crept up on my was like a big silent
planed slipping in in the night... No lights on the front of the barges,
it was crazy.

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

reply: It takes a very long distance to turn or stop these aquatic freight
trains. Unless the barges ran right over the person, pressing them
underwater for a long time, they would have had a much better chance of
floating around it like a bobbing cork with a life jacket on. Boating
without a life jacket while under way is a personal call for each person. I
got knocked off a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. I had one on. I
have no doubt it saved my life. To each his own. It's not an assumption
that wearing a life jacket will save your life automatically. Just like it
is not an assumption that a seat belt will save your life in a car crash.
It's a statistic that is proven by millions of episodes. You have a better
chance if you have some safety equipment on.

Just the facts, maam.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Harold" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 6/23/10 8:21 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.


According to the news story, the tug was pushing nine barges. What size
barges, I don't know, but that far back, it is unlikely the barge
operator could see anything in front of him, and, if he could see the
small boat, it isn't likely he could have stopped in time or even changed
the direction of that train of barges significantly.

Perhaps operators of pusher barge trains should be required to post a
forward lookout on the bow of the most forward barge.

Or at least a camera.

They do have lookouts, but are used mainly during docking and mating of
barges. A lookout could do very little but alert the captain, and the
captain could do very little, as these things don't stop and turn on a dime.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

On 6/23/10 10:32 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In article991b7911-95f9-412a-a5b7-
,
says...

On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

I have been there and almost got run over..

Rewind and try it again.

On Jun 23, 11:01*am, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:32:52 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:





On Jun 22, 10:34 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:29:00 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It is sad, and it's really not clear exactly how it could have been
avoided other than greater vigilance/keeping out of the way. I have
to admit that I'm not much into wearing life jackets either except
under the most extreme circumstances, and it's not really clear that
wearing a life jacket will save you from being run over by 8 barges
and a tug. Probably not is my guess but you never know.

They probably became distracted by their fishing and didn't notice the
barges until too late, or perhaps their engine failed to start at the
critical juncture, or maybe they had an anchor down and couldn't get
it up, etc. There are lots of possibilities I suppose but it does
drive home the danger associated with small recreational boats mixing
in with large commercial traffic.

One has to wonder if the tug operator suffers from the same malady
that many of the 18 wheeler drivers do. *The "I'm a 'professional'
driver, and these mere regular people in their cars and trucks need to
get out of my way" attitude. *Rules of navigation notwithstanding,
it's on his conscience now.

I don't know how big the tow was, but a typical tow is four to five
barges moved by a pusher - a lot of times even bigger than that. *You
need a long sight line because these tows are a couple of hundred
long. *If the accident was on a bend, you have zero sight line and
have to rely on radio communication to make the turn. *If these guys
didn't have a radio, for instance, they might never have known the tow
operator was even there.

Not attitude as much as it is, what the hell can I do with a few
thousand tons of floating steel in a confined space? *:)

Good point. The story called it a "lake", but after googling it I see
it's more of a river. Seems to be 1/2 to 1 mile wide and almost 60
miles long. I had pictured a more open situation with room to see and
manuever.