Tragic:

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

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
Tragic:

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

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

On 22/06/2010 6:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
Tragic:

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

Terrible loss of life. Not even wearing life jackets... sad.

Darwinian actually.

It is law, if you are in a shipping lane or channel, and you are more
manouvable you ge tthe frac out of the way. Unless you have diver flags
out, then the barge would be at fault.

Would be interesting to see who they blame.

--
The bigger government gets, the more it tends to rule out common sense.

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.

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.

In article 1660a4fc-2c0c-46bd-a669-a72a65d5d112
@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...

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.

Must be a local thing... Most truckdrivers here are pretty good on the
road. They hate to crash, slows them down plenty..

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

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.

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.

"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.

In article ,
says...

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.

And I ought to know, I've captained on many barges in my past.