MAIB Report into DUKW Sinking and Fire

[David Mack]

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch Report into the sinking of the DUKW Wacker Quacker 1 in Salthouse Dock, Liverpool and the fire on the Cleopatra on the Thames last year has been published here.

 

The report makes scary reading, with the Liverpool boats seriously unfit for service.

 

Anybody worried about the overplating on their Springer (other makes of ageing boat are available) should take a look at Figure 21 of the report!

[RLWP]

Here's a fascinating thing:

 

 

1 A DUKW (Pronounced “duck”) is an amphibious landing vehicle that was designed to transport military

personnel and supplies for the US army during World War 2. The acronym DUKW indicates that the vehicle

was designed in 1942 (D), it is an amphibian (U) and has both front-wheel and rear-wheel drive capability (K

and W respectively)

 

I never knew that!

 

Richard

[churchward]

The Marine Accident Investigation Branch Report into the sinking of the DUKW Wacker Quacker 1 in Salthouse Dock, Liverpool and the fire on the Cleopatra on the Thames last year has been published here.

 

The report makes scary reading, with the Liverpool boats seriously unfit for service.

 

Anybody worried about the overplating on their Springer (other makes of ageing boat are available) should take a look at Figure 21 of the report!

Oh my goodness I have seen better patch welding than that on MOT failures!

[Tim Lewis]

Somebody thinks that they are safe as they are still running on the Tidal Thames.

 

Tim

[David Mack]

Somebody thinks that they are safe as they are still running on the Tidal Thames.

 

Tim

 

The report demonstrates that the London operation was much better run than the one in Liverpool (which folded after hte sinking). The report also lists the steps that have been taken by the Operator and the regulatory authorities before the London operation was allowed to restart.

[Proper Job]

Looking at the patchwork on the hull, I'm amazed that they managed to stay afloat as long as they did

 

I think the bilge pumps worked harder than the engine!

[mango]

This is a very comprehensive report.

 

Perhaps someone should be in prison for endangering the lives of the public. There must have been staff who were aware of the condition of the vessel and could have acted as a whistleblower.

[system 4-50]

Engrossing reading. I wonder if I should try to make gas-tight seals between the engine space and the cabin? A bit of heat-resistant foam perhaps? And all credit to the narrowboaters involved.

[Robbo]

Engrossing reading. I wonder if I should try to make gas-tight seals between the engine space and the cabin? A bit of heat-resistant foam perhaps? And all credit to the narrowboaters involved.

 

Having a water tight seal between engine space and cabin I think is a good idea especially if you have some underwater skin fittings. A flooded engine area shouldn't be enough to sink the boat.

[Pete & Helen]

Wow, that took a bit of time to plough through. Despite the changes to the London based operation I doubt that I would ever go on one of those machines in the future. As mentioned above I am surprised that someone isnt sitting in jail for the appalling way these businesses were run. It must have been bad for the passengers but a nightmare for the couple that had the 2 year old.

I add my congratulations to the boaters that helped in both of these incidents.

[Proper Job]

The Liverpool DUKWs were an accident waiting to happen.

 

You don't have to be an engineer to see that the structural integrity of those 'hulls' were seriously poor

 

The London DUKW's had been extensively refabricated and strengthened. I wonder if using thicker plate than the original design compromised its bouyancy

[RLWP]

This is a very comprehensive report.

 

Perhaps someone should be in prison for endangering the lives of the public.<snip>

 

One of the fascinating, and valuable things about MAIB reports - or the air and rail equivalents - is this bit:

 

 

“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident under the Merchant Shipping (Accident

Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 shall be the prevention of future accidents

through the ascertainment of its causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an

investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective,

to apportion blame.”

 

They are very clear that they want to know what happened so they can help prevent it happening again.

 

You may well be right, and the MAIB aren't going to point out who - other people might though based on the report

 

These reports are always thorough, and make excellent reading. You can waste hours on their website or equivalents in other places. The Americans have a good one

 

Richard

[mango]

 

One of the fascinating, and valuable things about MAIB reports - or the air and rail equivalents - is this bit:

 

 

They are very clear that they want to know what happened so they can help prevent it happening again.

 

You may well be right, and the MAIB aren't going to point out who - other people might though based on the report

 

These reports are always thorough, and make excellent reading. You can waste hours on their website or equivalents in other places. The Americans have a good one

 

Richard

I had though of including that quotation but decided to keep it simple.

 

My view is that they are right to give this disclaimer.

[RLWP]

I had though of including that quotation but decided to keep it simple.

 

My view is that they are right to give this disclaimer.

 

And me. It's the only way to get cooperation in investigating what happened

 

Richard

[churchward]

 

And me. It's the only way to get cooperation in investigating what happened

 

Richard

Quite so. The documents are important fact based evidence if it contained judgements of blame people would only argue about them and as you say likely effect cooperation. These documents can then go onto support any criminal or civil proceedings if appropriate.

[RLWP]

As an example of the thoroughness of these reports, para 3.5.3 seems to be critical of the MAIB itself

 

Richard

[zenataomm]

I couldn't see that lot securing a BBS let alone passenger carrying/commercial certificates.

 

And as for the overplating, I've seen squashed bean cans bitumened over holes that were more effective.

[Leo No2]

Some of you more technical chaps may enjoy some Christmas reading of the final report into the 'short landing' of B777-236ER G-YMMM on 17-January-2008 when operating the BA38 BJS-LHR service. Something I was quite involved with from a data point-of-view.

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/1-2010%20G-YMMM.pdf

Edited December 17, 2014 by Leo No2

[David Mack]

 

One of the fascinating, and valuable things about MAIB reports - or the air and rail equivalents - is this bit:

 

 

They are very clear that they want to know what happened so they can help prevent it happening again.

 

And the people involved would be less willing to help the investigation.

 

I am aware of some rail investigation reports which have had publication delayed until after legal processes have been completed so as not to prejudice a court case.

You can waste hours on their website

Got that particular tee shirt!

[Starcoaster]

That was surprisingly as interesting to read as it was lengthy.

Those welds are... Wow. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I reckon I could do better, having had a little play with a welder twice now.

 

Much of WQ1’s hull plate thicknesses were as original:

• 2.8mm at the bow and on the bottom at the stern;

• 2.4mm on the bottom in the centre; and

• 2mm on its sides. 22

The propeller and wheel-axle drive shaft tunnels were originally formed from 2.8mm

and 2.4mm steel plate respectively.

 

This (and loads of other things, such as the wiring floating loose...!) have me shaking my head at how these things were permitted to operate or enter the water at all, let alone with a paying public on board.

Also, as a writer, I found myself wondering who/what team composed the report itself, as I am highly impressed by it; I also spent some time speculating on how much it must have cost to complete, factoring only the written content and not the cost of the experts and investigation itself!

[RLWP]

You could pick almost any MAIB, RAIB, AAIB or NTSC report, they are all written to a similar standard. I'm glad we keep groups of people to do this work

 

The RAIB is the inheritor of Her Majesties Railway Inspectorate and nearly ceased to exist with privatisation. Thank goodness they survived

 

Richard

[David Mack]

Also, as a writer, I found myself wondering who/what team composed the report itself, as I am highly impressed by it; I also spent some time speculating on how much it must have cost to complete, factoring only the written content and not the cost of the experts and investigation itself!

From the MAIB About Us page:

 

"Located in offices in Southampton, the MAIB is a branch of the Department for Transport. The Branch has four teams of experienced accident investigators, each comprising a principal inspector and three inspectors drawn from the nautical, engineering, naval architecture or fishing disciplines. The inspectors are supported by an administrative team who also deal with finance, contracts, data analysis and publications."

 

The 2013 Annual Report states that "2013 was a typically busy year for the Branch. 33 new investigations were commenced and 27 investigation reports were published. 2 Safety Digests and 3 Safety Bulletins were also published". The Business Plan gives their total budget as £3.746m for 2014/15. So an average all-up cost per investigation/report of £100k+.

 

[Loafer]

Some of you more technical chaps may enjoy some Christmas reading of the final report into the 'short landing' of B777-236ER G-YMMM on 17-January-2008 when operating the BA38 BJS-LHR service. Something I was quite involved with from a data point-of-view.

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/1-2010%20G-YMMM.pdf

 

Interesting, from an ex-jet pilot (mil). Seems to me they should have always had FSII, like us.

 

What part did you play on the data point of view? No offence taken if you can't reveal.

 

ETA: A bit sorry.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Loafer

[Leo No2]

Interesting, from an ex-jet pilot (mil). Seems to me they should have always had FSII, like us.

 

What part did you play on the data point of view? No offence taken if you can't reveal.

 

ETA: A bit sorry.

I looked after all the data for all BA aircraft for about 35 years so we had all the information that was used in the investigation but we had to hide the data for the 'normal' user (including the aircraft history from the day of delivery from Boeing Field) and the pilot data but also make it available to those that needed access for the investigation. The big issue was that we were moving databases at the time so we had two 'live' databases to deal with. I think, from memory, that FSII (Fuel System Icing Inhibitor) would not have helped in the unique circumstances of the accident.

[Gejay]

The RAIB is the inheritor of Her Majesties Railway Inspectorate and nearly ceased to exist with privatisation. Thank goodness they survived

 

Richard

HMRI still exist but with in the ORR (Office of Rail Regulator),RAIB are independent and report to the Transport Ministry. HMRI can prosecute RAIB can't.

But they do work closely together.