Duck boat
Why do you suppose that nine out of ten news reports describe the Duckboat as capsizing when it didn't?
It plain old sank, never coming close to overturning.
You're fired Jim, we need writers to grab the public by the pussy and keep them hooked. You obviously can't cut it, you want to tell :vomitblu: the truth. tsk tsk
It plain old sank, never coming close to overturning.
Small boats like this have air pockets so that a swamped boat will still remain floating. Why do these boats not have floatation air pockets?
Why do you say it did not capsize when so many reports say otherwise? What is the source or reasoning for that conclusion?
Why do these boats not have floatation air pockets?
You guessed it:
Boat in Deadly Missouri Sinking Was Designed by Entrepreneur With No Engineering Training, Court Records Show
Why do you say it did not capsize
He says it did not capsize because it did not capsize. Video of the event shows it staying upright and sinking. I won't include the video here, but you can easily find it, just as I did, by searching for "duck boat capsizing".
...when so many reports say otherwise?
Hence "The media"
It's offensive that we say "The media" like they operate as one single entity. But they certainly do, eh?
I can't decide between how, as Bruce says, sensational and deadly "capsize" sounds and simple ignorance of the term.
During the gulf oil spill every report for months talked about "syphoning" the oil off the bottom.
At least more careful news sources like the NY Times will get this sort of thing right (pauses)
won't they?
Do we know it didn't capsize? I've only see one video, and it cuts off before it goes completely underwater.
I'm glad I wasn't there.
Not only do they use "capsizes" in the headline, they say "overturned" in the text!
I should have said 99 out of 100 news stories say capsized.
The video I can't get over is one that says "Video shows duckboat capsizing" when it shows it NOT capsizing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz1U27zbWXw
I am not a sailor, but photos of duckboats in and out of the water seem to show an very bottom-heavy craft, one not seemingly prone to overturning.
If anyone can find a video or photo showing the boat upside down, please post it.
My theory: original local reporter doesn't know the difference between capsize and sink. NY Times reporters (and others) essentially re-report local news. NY Times copy editor knows the meaning of the word, and changes an instance of capsize to overturn, to minimize repetition of the word.
and changes an instance of capsize to overturn, to minimize repetition of the word
Restating it differently strengthens the narrative that it occurred...! The story should probably say "it was reported that the boat capsized".
No argument there; too many people taking the last one's statements at face value without doing reporting of their own (or only doing additional reporting around the core story, but re-reporting the core as is). But if someone's doing punctuation, syntax, length, and style (copy editing, rather than editor-editing), they have no reason to think that the narrative that it occurred is suspect.
I am a bit sad at the comments on the YouTube video (not uncommon, I suppose), where people are pissed off that they don't get to see people dying; it's not enough to see it start to sink, and to know that they died. It's like going to a wake and loudly complaining that the buffet is sparse.
All those videos cut off before the boat went down. I see it tilting to port as it was swamped. So it could have swamped and then capsized.
If it only swamped, then passengers could have jumped out of side windows. If it capsized as a swamped boat went down, then passengers could not side exit - may have been trapped.
Every video cuts off only during the swamping.
Plenty of questions await answers.
I am not a sailor, but photos of duckboats in and out of the water seem to show an very bottom-heavy craft, one not seemingly prone to overturning.
A wave could tip it. Once underwater, if it's as bottom-heavy as it looks, it would probably right itself as it went to the bottom.
If anyone can find a video or photo showing the boat upside down, please post it.
Have any of the survivors weighed in on whether it capsized? News report word choice is probably the last thing on their minds, but it might have been mentioned in passing.
Hmmmm
CBS interview with survivor doesn't say. It could well have listed as it swamped, does that count?
My theory is that current journalists, and, yes, I'm using that term very loosely, do not understand words. They think 'capsize' and 'sink' are the same things.
I've noticed that a lot of 'journalists' have trouble of using the proper preposition, also.
Did you all notice a couple days ago how the New York daily News laid off half its editorial staff to focus more on fast breaking content and less on thoughtful pieces?
It could well have listed as it swamped, does that count?
That is what happened to a tour boat on Lake George in NY. Go kayaking to appreciate same. As the boat took on water and swamped, it became unstable and tipped (capsized) as it was going down. Then occupants were trapped; some died.
Worst part are the silly emotions that some promote. To know what happened, we must see the boat as people are dying. But we are too sensitive to see people die. So we must censor facts.
I need to see the video that shows panicked passengers dying as the boat either sinks or capsizes. But we cannot be trusted with the facts. We must not learn from what really happened.
News story has survivor report saying
Keller said her daughter and ex-husband reported the vessel began to sink in the stormy conditions Thursday night, and the occupants were briefly trapped under the duck's canopy.
Eventually, one of the duck boat operators was able to release the canopy and people swam toward the surface, according to the account Keller received.
I need to see the video
You may want to see the video, but it's certainly not something that you need.
The reports of this tragedy jogged my memory about a couple of incidents with Duck Boats in the UK in recent years.
A quick search revealed that there had been three not two as I had first thought.
Incidents involving two Duck amphibious passenger vehicles in which one sank and the other caught fire highlighted extremely poor maintenance and a failure to meet standards, an accident investigation chief has said.
It was “extremely fortunate” that none of the 33 passengers and crew on board the Duck vehicle Wacker Quacker 1, formally known as a DUKW, was drowned or injured when it sank in Salthouse Dock in Liverpool on 15 June 2013, said the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) chief inspector, Steve Clinch.
In the second incident, when the London-based Duck Cleopatra caught fire on the river Thames in London on 29 September 2013, the 28 passengers and two crew had to jump into the water and were rescued by other vessels without serious injury.
In a joint report into both incidents published on Wednesday, the MAIB said that the Wacker Quacker 1, whose passengers either swam ashore or were recovered by other crafts’ crews, was the second Duck vehicle to sink in Salthouse Dock in a three-month period.
The report said that on both occasions the Ducks did not have the quantity of buoyancy foam required to provide the mandated level of residual buoyancy.
Clinch said it became clear that other DUKWs operating in the UK also did not have the quantities of foam required and that focus had shifted to ensuring that these amphibious passenger vehicles would float when flooded.
The Cleopatra’s operators, London Duck Tours, made buoyancy amendments. But Clinch explained that in the case of Cleopatra the “foam was so tightly packed around machinery that it caught fire, resulting in 30 passengers and crew needing to rapidly abandon the vehicle into the Thames”.
The GuardianI rode in one as a child in the early 80s in the Wisconsin Dells. It was really fun and our driver was cracking dumb jokes the whole time. He asked us to look out the back of the duck as we were on one spot of the river and said something like "Now you can tell everyone you looked up the rear end of a duck." It was painted in the same colors as when it was in the military. They seemed to treat it as a functioning museum.
The Wisconsin Dells are the perfect location for something like the Ducks because the waterways are narrow and protected and very scenic.
There use to be a few of them in DC giving tours, but I haven't seen them in a while. Maybe they are still around. People on the Ducks in DC looked a little miserable when I would see them slowly chugging through the water with no shade. The Potomac is wide where they would go in the water, and the Ducks travel slowly. There are not many things to look at from the water in DC near the boat ramp they used.
You may want to see the video, but it's certainly not something that you need.
I do need. Withholding facts is a lie. Lies are a threat to human life.
Most want to see a car crash to entertain their emotions. That is a want; not a need. I need to see it to learn why it happened, how to avoid it, and what we did wrong. All are reasons for need.
Sure, but you're just armchair analyzing here. You don't run a Duck Boat operation and don't need to analyze this. You aren't on the accident investigation team.
'Need' is a hand tool.
There, now you don't even 'want' it.
:p:
They used to have the old surplus ducks at Beech Bend Park. Rode 'em a bunch as a kid.
You don't run a Duck Boat operation and don't need to analyze this. You aren't on the accident investigation team.
Did you learn about Murphy's Laws? Why. You are not doing military rocket work. What was learned (the whys) in White Sands applies to everyone today.
Having discussed this ongoing duck boat controversy, it will be even more interesting to learn from an NTSB investigation (that will take months or a year). To learn why some jumped to a conclusion without some facts.
Long ago, was a discussion about a forced beach landing (a week after Katrina) of a two engine plane. Fuel was cut off from both engines. Everyone should have learned from that - the hows and whys. Since it even explains why car crashes happen or are averted. The whys are always needed to know. Since what happened here does not only apply to duck boats.
'Need' is a hand tool.
Can't find it in Home Depot or Amazon. Where can one be purchased?
https://nypost.com/2018/07/25/builder-of-doomed-duck-boat-had-no-engineer-training/
It seems the duck boat concept itself is not flawed, just one idiot's execution of the concept.
There: 'need' satisfied.
There: 'need' satisfied.
Another (of many) relevant fact that addresses that need.
It might explain, for example, no reserve buoyancy. Or worse, reserve buoyancy that makes a swamped duck boat capsize.
Undertoad's quote from a survivor above is the most telling thing I have read.
Some of the folks that made it out were saved by the release of the canopy after the boat was submerged.
That means it was still upright underwater, not overturned or "capsized."
I think the problem started with a reporter and editor who did not (probably still does not) know what the word "capsize" means, but thought it sounded nicely catastrophic.
Other news outlets went with the error, making it common knowledge, but still not true.
Coming soon in another thread: The Thailand Cave story.
There was an interview with a couple from the other duck boat, the one that made it back safely, in which they said they heard their captain say the doomed duck boat flipped over or sank. Perhaps that's where it got started.
I just saw on the news that the owner of the duck boat company is being sued for 100 million.
What difference does it make if it capsized or not. The story is it sank and people died.
I rode one giving tours of Hyannis Harbor on Cape Cod a couple years ago.
What difference does it make if it capsized or not.
A swamped boat should never capsize; trap and kill it occupants.
In a previous event, an investigation noted serious design deficiencies with that duck boat. For example, it had no reserve buoyancy.
In a Lake George event maybe ten years ago, defective construction made that boat unstable. So it capsized, thereby trapping and killing passengers.
Gee, the second most active thread of all (6) I've started.
My original point got lost, however.
I know nothing of Duckboats, but was interested in the fact that the one in Arkansas seemed to simply go straight down and 99% of the news stories got stuck on the term "capsized," which did not further understanding of the event.
The one in Philly got
run over by a huge barge on the Delaware River.
On July 7, 2010, a barge pushed by a tugboat struck a duck boat stranded in the Delaware River off Penn’s Landing after an engine fire.
Once struck, the amphibious craft capsized and two Hungarian tourists drowned.
The tugboat’s pilot, the Inquirer reported, was on his cellphone handling a family emergency. He served a one-year sentence for “the maritime equivalent of involuntary manslaughter.”
Bruce says above:
"What difference does it make if it capsized or not. The story is it sank and people died."
Of course that is the story.
This thread, however, is about the media use of the term "capsize," when it is not certain it did.
I think someone has already coined a term for that phenomenon - Fake News.
They used the wrong word to describe what happened, 90% on the public doesn't know the difference, and 10% who do realize it doesn't make a difference how it went down.
Makes no difference if you did a cannonball or a back dive with 1 1/2 somersaults, and 3 1/2 twists, if you land on the rocks. :yeldead:
I think someone has already coined a term for that phenomenon - Fake News.
That's a fairly accurate description of the term. Find a minor detail to pick at, and claim that makes the whole story, everything by the author, their news outlet, and the industry in general
Fake News. Of course, even the minor detail is not strictly necessary, but if it's there, trumpet it.
They needed a bigger duck:
[ATTACH]64739[/ATTACH]
One of the two "captains", the one who did the water part, was indicted yesterday on 17 counts of misconduct leading to death.
My original beef was that almost all of the news stories reported that the boat capsized.
All of the reports after yesterday's announcement but one (CNN) now say sank and do not mention capsize.
Rest assured that I will post again when the official finding is that it did NOT capsize, overturn or go upside down.
Rest assured that I will post again when the official finding is that it did NOT capsize, overturn or go upside down.
I had this argument with the blond bimbos from channel 6 and 29 local news. I said the reason why your news is useless: a car crash is shown. But why it happened, what the mistake was, how it could have been avoided. and what should be learned is never reported. They were indignant insisting that is not news.
Among critically important facts are why so many could not get out of a sinking swamped boat. It remains unreported. And is critical for informed news.
I had this argument with the blond bimbos from channel 6 and 29 local news. ...
Maybe you can extend an invitation to the
blond bimbos [sic] (that's bigoted), from channel 6 and 29 local news, to join the Cellar so we can hear all about [strike]you[/strike] it.
I assume a reply here will bring it forward for additional comment on the terms "capsize" and "overturn."
Did this vessel do either as all reports report?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coast-guard-searches-for-four-after-cargo-ship-capsizes-near-georgia-port-11567982240
The incompetence of the whole journalistic chain is deplorable.
I have to say that at least this was kind of funny:
"A car carrying ship developed a serious list off Georgia."
The incompetence of the whole journalistic chain is deplorable.
That.
The ship Hyundai Glovis Golden Ray is said to have developed a serious list of 80 degrees and then overturned and capsized, ending up on the bottom (in water about half its width) with a tilt of 90 degrees.
There is simply no meaning to the words "capsize" and "overturn."
How long can a car or truck remain of use turned on its side? Or, I suppose, on its nose or tail?
They are trying to decide whether to right the ship or cut it up in place.
cap·size /ˈkapˌsīz/
verb: capsize; 3rd person present: capsizes; past tense: capsized; past participle: capsized; gerund or present participle: capsizing
(of a boat) overturn in the water. "the craft capsized in heavy seas"
Similar: overturn, turn over, turn upside down, upset, upend
capsize verb
cap·​size | \ ˈkap-ˌsīz , kap-ˈsīz\
capsized; capsizing
Definition of capsize
transitive verb
: to cause to overturn
capsize a canoe
intransitive verb
: to become upset or overturned : TURN OVER
the canoe capsized
Meaning of capsize in English
capsize verb [ I or T ]
UK /kæpˈsaɪz/ US /kæpˈsaɪz/
to (cause a boat or ship to) turn upside down by accident while on water:
A huge wave capsized the yacht.
When the boat capsized we were trapped underneath it.
capsize | AMERICAN DICTIONARY
capsize
verb [ I/T ]
US /ˈkæpˌsɑɪz/
to turn over or cause a boat or ship to turn over in the water:
[ I ] A passenger ferry capsized in rough seas Sunday morning.
I always picture capsize as completely upside down. The dictionary kind of hints at that but there's still a lot of leeway.
I always picture capsize as completely upside down.
If a ship is capsizing but does not complete the process by landing in shallow water, is that a capsize?
Some reports of the Duck Boat (remember that original topic) said it capsized. But apparently it only swamped.
Still waiting for that final report. Did a final report release happen yet?
[ATTACH]68818[/ATTACH]
from thefreedictionary.com
from thefreedictionary.com
People get what they pay for.
Wikipedia explains that it depends on the size of the watercraft. For smaller ones, on its side would be capsized and upside down would be turtled. For larger ones, keeled over or upside down would be capsized.
It seems that the term can be used for any rolling of 90° or more encompassing partially capsized to fully capsized; but, still just "capsized" in common usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CapsizingIf your capstan is immersed you're capsized?
This is what I've learned today:
Sexobon is paying for Wikipedia.
If your capstan is immersed you're capsized?
All I know is that my head is cap-sized.
And also my cap.
Your head is turned upside down by accident while on water.
And also your cap
This is what I've learned today:
Sexobon is paying for Wikipedia.
So am I.
Every year Wikipedia asks for donations, and I give them $20.00. So yes I pay for Wikipedia. Because I use it everyday.
I've thrown them some cash too.
I've given them a dollar for every edit I've made and taken away a dollar for every edit that was removed.
They owe me
I contribute about $30 a year.
I get thousands back in information.
Remember the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannica?
Huge and hugely expensive with updates yearly. Yearly!
I also use Google a lot, but I think they get more back somehow.
Ah, donations.
I was thinking subscriptions, or ya got sumpin extra if you're a paying member.
They owe me
Every contribution I made to Wikipedia (even a decade ago) remains. Every so often, some extremist will overwrite some paragraphs. I was amazed. Others, in less than 24 hours, undid that misinformation. Many of the original sentences from a decade ago still remain - some had to be restored.
Examples include facts about Sadddam's WMDs. What was written then remains factual today.