It's the year 06', why are boats still sinking???

[HEDJUG]

With all of the technology avail. to boat builders, why can't they install some form of positive flotation/emegency foam disperstion/air bag technology to todays products?

In the past two months, two 50' million dollar++, high end battle wagons sunk in the same area within a few minutes+/- of hitting a submerged object. Why can't the builders figure a way to keep these boats floating, at least keep the gunwales above the waterline for some time. Then all you need is a spare battery in the bridge & ye ole radio will stay active.

I would rather be floating around in a wounded boat than a 5x5 life raft.

[CAPTJohnny]

I'm no engineer but a few reasons come to mind. First, I'm thinking space would be a factor. In the world of interior design of boats, every last inch is used for some type of storage, functionality, and the like. The engine compartments border on unworkable, and a new way to cram something more is always then sought after by the owner. Then comes concerns of weight, I have no idea how you would attempt to float the weight of water that could possibly fill a battlewagon. Only a second skin would really be usefull which would totally out of the question on anything less than a major tanker. The cost in this is even frowned upon by that industry albiet law. All we can do for the moment is thank the minds who invented epirbs sat phones and rafts and know that with these technologies we shouldn't be far away from the USCG and those heroes.

[CJS]

If you design something to be idiot proof, you just
encourage the evolution of a better idiot.

Why do people die in house fires? Batteries in smoke
detectors go dead and the occupants don't bother to replace
them.

CO2 poisoning? Being ejected from automobiles during wrecks
because of non use of seat belts?

Build a boat with the type of system described, and some dope will
find a way to either bypass the system because it's a "hassle", or
ignore it's maintenence long enough until it becomes useless.

It might save a few lives, but will it sell? People already scrimp on the
basic safety equipment. How many would be willing to shell out the
kind of money that such a system would cause?

[pirate36]

CJS - 9/26/2006 10:00 AM

If you design something to be idiot proof, you just
encourage the evolution of a better idiot.

Why do people die in house fires? Batteries in smoke
detectors go dead and the occupants don't bother to replace
them.

CO2 poisoning? Being ejected from automobiles during wrecks
because of non use of seat belts?

Build a boat with the type of system described, and some dope will
find a way to either bypass the system because it's a "hassle", or
ignore it's maintenence long enough until it becomes useless.

It might save a few lives, but will it sell? People already scrimp on the
basic safety equipment. How many would be willing to shell out the
kind of money that such a system would cause?

Very well put.

[YankeeBoater]

Well, I think that's a valid question, but as CaptJohnny says, you would need to look at what it would take to do it.

Airbags seem feasible from a technical perspective at first blush anyway, but I wonder how much space they would take in the boat (they are basically a folded bag with a small explosive charge to inflate it). You don't need to displace the volume of the boat in water, just enough to raise the density of the filled boat above that of water (like the foam does in a smaller boat).

Also a question of what it would cost (to see if folks would be willing to pay). Hmm, also conventional air bags have some kind of pressure release gate, so they also deflate slowly on their own. I suppose you could always use a smaller charge so it would not pop if it was sealed - not like it has to inflate in a millisecond like during a car crash... but I dunno, that might have some issues.

I dunno.... interesting question! Not sure if the boatbuilders have seriously looked at it. Sinking is bad, that's for sure.

[kloweree]

I agree pretty much with CJS...sometimes we are the problem.....with airbags I could see lawsuits ...insurance scams....."inflated prices" etc.....first bozo thats sets off the airbag "accidentaly " and is "injured"....next thing you know lawsuits are flying and boat prices goes up. Lets face it no activity is risk proof....even
golfers bop each other in the head with an errant drive now and then. Speed
is another factor...if you want to go 30 knots and up you take the risk of putting a nice size hole in your hull...if you putt along at 8 knots chances are you would not have a hole in the bottom......risk with everything ..and we can't really completely
idiot proof everything either.

[HEDJUG]

Forget about the space, cost factor/idiot factor, something functional could be engineered. What good is a pretty teak/mahogany interior when the boats on the bottom? The dollars could be spent differently.

Anyhow, what ever happened to bulkheads? I would expect a multi-million dollar battle wagon to have some sort of water tight compartments with mechanical pumps that are driven by the main engines. Even your small 3 piece walk-around or CC could have water tight sections added to the mold. It’s not rocket science & not really cost prohibitive.

The old 70’ fishing boat I used to work on had 5 sealed compartments that were pumped out by the main engine, along with of multiple bilge pumps. We blew a 1 foot diameter hole in the boat when a old, really old, sonar transducer fell out (it was one of those forward facing, directional jobbers that sat in a underwater turret). The entire 15’ section filled up with water, but we were able to get all 70 passengers to the dock from 15 miles out. That boat was designed to operate/stay afloat with 2 of the three sections flooded.

It’s funny, we are a group of people that complain about loose wiring on cheaper boats, but are O.K. when a 50’er sinks like a brick from a relatively small hole.

[DD]

They could build boats out of "nerf"

[YankeeBoater]

CJS - 9/26/2006 11:00 AM

If you design something to be idiot proof, you just
encourage the evolution of a better idiot.

Why do people die in house fires? Batteries in smoke
detectors go dead and the occupants don't bother to replace
them.

CO2 poisoning? Being ejected from automobiles during wrecks
because of non use of seat belts?

Build a boat with the type of system described, and some dope will
find a way to either bypass the system because it's a "hassle", or
ignore it's maintenence long enough until it becomes useless.

It might save a few lives, but will it sell? People already scrimp on the
basic safety equipment. How many would be willing to shell out the
kind of money that such a system would cause?

Well, we disagree that safety equipment/features are just automatically all a waste of time and money and that *safety equipment makes people behave unsafely* Why even wear PFDs? You could still drown/die of exposure/eaten by sharks/be killed in impact/etc/etc/etc.... Why have a bilge pump? Boat can sink anyway, so it's just a waste of money. Why have flares? People may not see them anyway, or you may not have a chance to get to them, just takes up space and is a waste of money... I could go on...

I am not advocating for the airbags/floatation, just not agreeing that any safety feature/device is a big mistake.

[YankeeBoater]

HEDJUG - 9/26/2006 11:36 AM
Anyhow, what ever happened to bulkheads?

It’s funny, we are a group of people that complain about loose wiring on cheaper boats, but are O.K. when a 50’er sinks like a brick from a relatively small hole.

I don't have any experience with boats that size, but I have noticed that the design guys whose books I have certainly advocate watertight bulkheads on larger boats like that, just like you are describing. I would guess that most customers don't know about that, and maybe some don't even care. Just because you can pay for a 50-footer doesn't mean you are an expert on boats or have a lot of common sense.

[chrisjb]

I read some where about a year ago that some manufactures are in fact working towards implementing an "anti-sinking" device that would be incorporated into 35-80ish fts to prevent sinking. It was airbag based-inflate when the hull is compromised. Haven't seen anything on the matter since.

[Bitefish]

There was a place making an airbag system some time ago.

They actually had one deployed "in earnest" once, and if I recall correctly, it ripped the cap off the hull from the upward force (they're not designed to take stress UPWARD, you see!) with the expected bad results.

So.... its not as easy as it looks!

I do agree tho on the collision bulkhead issue. Bulkheads will stop most boats from foundering, but very, very few recreational vessels have them. They create "issues" with the interior and Mama don't like that....... and you know, Mama is the one who really makes sure the check gets written, right?

[bellsisland]

ITs a easy answer, it is the 72 hour rule to success. Someone comes up with an idea and if they don't act on it in 72 hours likely they never will.
Also people look at it in the boating industry as not a value add ie: by having a boat saving air bag on board is not going to make more people buy the boat, also by bringing it up in the first place they are putting some what of a negative connatation that something bad could happen to their boat.

But look at airplanes, there is a company out there that now offers a parachute for the plane, I am sure when they first came up with the idea there were plenty of nay sayers saying that is a wast of time. But earlier this year one of the plane went down and the parachute saved some peoples live.

So get out there and come up with a good idea, contact some boat builders, and get it going, because I am sure it can be done. But you have to get it started if you want to get it done!

Dean

[kloweree]

I don't know for sure but I think its probably a lot safer to have a life raft..
even a small one for smaller boats than to be clinging to the side or hull of a
sinking boat....even if bags held it up from sinking it would be a hairy situation
....give me a liferaft..those inflatable are like corks in the sea and your legs wouldn't be dangling off the side for the sharkies to nibble at.

[CAP1]

If I remember correctly, and I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, manufacturing requirements only require boats up to 26' in length to have positive flotation. It is the water tightness of the hull that keep very large vessels afloat, not huge amounts of floatation.
Anyone know for sure what the manufacturing requirements are for smaller vessels?

CAP

[wkearney99]

Airplanes have yearly inspections, boats do not. A parachute on an airplane is going to get a lot more scrutiny. Liferafts on boats are supposed to be repacked every few years but I'm guessing a GREAT many do not, or have the job done quite poorly. That and the amount of forces the open SEA puts on a boat are incredible, far more than anything a plane would ever encounter (not that it's a valid comparison anyway). That and a boat out in open water, far from shore and unlikely to be salvaged quickly would make itself a hazard to navigation. Better to have it sink completely. The better solution would, of course, be bulkhead and better dewatering systems. Accidents happen but are there enough of them to justify the expense?

[YankeeBoater]

Well, like any safety device, in my opinion it's a judgement call (bulkheads) more than an absolute. Not being an expert myself, I will just pass along what Sorenson says on the matter for those interested.

Eric Sorenson
Any boat over 30 feet should have, at minimum, a collision bulkhead forward, watertight bulkheads fore and aft of the engine room, a watertight lazerette bulkhead, and in a perfect world, watertight dogged hatches in the cabin sole, with this deck serving as a double bottom to contain flooding. This modified compartmentation arrangment will make a boat more apt to survive an underwater collision or any other hull breach. In the case of the engine room, the most likely location of failed through-hull fittings and hoses, watertight bulkheads will contain the flooding.

You can ask your boatbuilder if buoyancy and stability calculations, or real world testing, have been done to determine if the boat would stay afloat with any one compartment completely flooded. I wouldn't head too far offshore without a definitive, positive answer, either in writing from the builder, through a design analysis, or through a commonsense inspection of the boat's bulkhead arrangements [if you are qualified to do that]. Otherwise, proceed with the understanding that any hull breach will likely result in your boat sinking, either slowly or quickly, depending on the flooding rate.

He also notes that both commercial and military standards require this kind of construction, and that people pay extra for safety in Boston Whalers... anyway, he likes the idea, and I am sure he knows a heck of a lot more than I ever will about this stuff.

CJS - 9/26/2006 10:00 AM

If you design something to be idiot proof, you just
encourage the evolution of a better idiot.

HEDJUG - 9/26/2006 8:59 AM

With all of the technology avail. to boat builders, why can't they install some form of positive flotation/emegency foam disperstion/air bag technology to todays products?

In the past two months, two 50' million dollar++, high end battle wagons sunk in the same area within a few minutes+/- of hitting a submerged object. Why can't the builders figure a way to keep these boats floating, at least keep the gunwales above the waterline for some time. Then all you need is a spare battery in the bridge & ye ole radio will stay active.

I would rather be floating around in a wounded boat than a 5x5 life raft.

Actually, one boat, "The Chief" was a 49' Andy Mortenson built in 1971. It was neither a million-dollar or "high-end" battlewagon. It was a wooden antique

[Frank007]

In smaller boats, they do - the Boston Whaler. Some people go for it, others don't.

I also wonder is they could install some type of forward-looking sonar on pleasure boats that would help avoid collisions.