IN THE MATTER OF:   X DOCKET NO. DCA-99-MM-021
X
INVOLVING THE AMPHIBIOUS  X
PASSENGER VESSEL SAFETY FORUM X VOLUME I OF II
 
 
 

PLACE: Memphis Marriott
  2625 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Memphis, Tennessee
 

DATE: December 8, 1999
 
 
 

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant
to notice, at 8:10 a.m.
 
 
 

APPEARANCES:

MR. JOHN HAMMERSCHMIDT
National Transportation Safety Board

MS. MARJORIE MURTAGH
Director, Office of Marine Safety
National Transportation Safety Board

MS. ELAINE WEINSTEIN
Deputy Director of Operations, OSRA
National Transportation Safety Board

MR. DONALD TYRRELL
Chief, Major Investigations Division
Office of Marine Safety
National Transportation Safety Board

NTSB PANEL:

MR. ROBERT HENRY
Chief, Technical Services Division
Office of Marine Safety

DR. PAULA SIND-PRUNIER
Senior Human Performance and Survival Factors
Specialist
Office of Marine Safety

MR. ASH CHATTERJEE
Senior Naval Architect
Office of Marine Safety

MR. TONY MURRAY
Marine Accident Investigator
Office of Marine Safety
 

SPEAKERS:

MR. BOB MCDOWELL
President
Branson's Ride the Ducks

MR. JOHN GILJAM
President
Cool Amphibious Manufacturing International

MR. FRANK SERAFINE
President
Land and Sea Tours

MR. ANDY WILSON
President
Boston Ducks

MR. JACK RINGELBERG
Naval Architect, JMS
 

LIST OF ATTENDEES:

CAPT. JOHN GRENIER
Chief Office of Investigation and Analysis, G-MOA

CAPT. BRIAN BASEL
Chief Office of Compliance, G-MOC

MR. ROBERT MARKLE
Chief Lifesaving and Fire Safety Standards Division
G-MSE-4

CAPT. JEFFERY LANTZ
Commanding Officer
Marine Safety Center
 

CAPT. GLEN ANDERSON
Commanding Officer
MSO [Marine Safety Office] Port Arthur

LCDR JAMES WHITEHEAD
Chief of Inspections
MSO [Marine Safety Office] Boston

LCDR DAVID DOLLOFF
Assistant Chief of Licensing
National Maritime Center

LCDR ERIC CHRISTENSEN
MSO [Marine Safety Office] Chicago

LCDR GENELLE VACHON
Office of Maritime and International Law
G-LMI

CWO ROBERT SORRELL
MSO [Marine Safety Office] Milwaukee
LT. DEAN FIRING
Vessel Compliance Division
G-MOC-2

 BMC (SW) (DV) DEVIN HUNNICUTT
 Naval Operational Medicine Institute
 WATER SURVIVAL INSTRUCTOR
 Pensacola, Florida

 I N D E X
Speaker        Page
Introduction, by Mr. Hammerschmidt      5
Introduction of NTSB Executive Panel,
by Ms. Murtagh        10
Introduction of NTSB Technical Panel/Topics
by Mr. Tyrrell        13
Forum Overview, by Mr. Murray
Amphibian Conversion to Passenger Vessel:
DUKW Conversion to Passenger Vessels,
by Mr. McDowell      16
British Alvis Stalwart Conversion
by Mr. Serafine      21
LARC Conversion to Passenger Vessels,
by Mr. Giljam       33
DUKW Tour Excursion Company
by Mr. Wilson       41
Passenger Egress, Survival/Lifesaving Equipment
Questions to: Capt. Anderson, Mr. Markle,
CWO Sorrell, and BMC Hunnicutt  126
Vessel Design and Stability, by Mr. Ringelberg 208
Initial Certification and Plan Review
Stability Standards Accident History  237
Questions to:  Capt. Lantz,
Capt. Anderson and LCDR Christensen

 P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Good morning, everyone, ladies
and gentlemen.  Welcome to the Amphibious Passenger Vessel
Safety Forum, sponsored by the National Transportation Safety
Board.
I am John Hammerschmidt, a member of the National
Transportation Safety Board.
Before we get into the details of how this forum
will proceed, allow me first to tell you a little about the
Safety Board and how it works.
The Safety Board was established by statute in 1966
by Public Law 89-670, as an agency within the Department of
Transportation.  Later, in 1974, the Safety Board was removed
from the Department of Transportation, to become a completely
independent Agency.
The Board's mission is to determine the probable
cause or causes of selected transportation accidents and, "to
promote transportation safety by conducting independent
accident investigations and by formulating safety improvement
recommendations."  In plain language, the Board exists for
the sole purpose to make transportation safer.
The Safety Board fulfills its mission in all
transportation modes:  aviation, railroad, highway, pipeline,
marine and commercial space launch.
In the Marine Mode, the Safety Board generally
investigates accidents that result in one of the following
criteria:  Loss of six or more lives; total loss of a self-
propelled vessel of over 100 gross tons; property damage in
excess of $500,000; and, serious threat to life, property, or
the environment by hazardous materials.
Since its inception, the Safety Board has
investigated more than 200 major marine accidents, and has
issued nearly 2,000 marine safety recommendations.  These
recommendations have been addressed to various maritime
organizations including:  vessel operating companies, marine
associations, classification societies, the International
Maritime Organization, the U. S. Coast Guard, and other
governmental agencies.
With an overall acceptance rate of 73 percent, our
marine safety recommendations have resulted in numerous
safety accomplishments through the years.  Including,
improved fire safety standards for passenger ships, improved
training requirements for seafarers, and improved lifesaving
equipment requirements for all vessels.
Among our duties, in addition to accident
investigation, the Safety Board also has the authority to
conduct special studies of important transportation safety
issues.  This forum, is an effort on the part of the Safety
Board, to provide an opportunity to bring together owners,
operators, passengers, and regulators of amphibious vessels
to share our knowledge of the safety issues appropriate to
these unique land and water craft.
The Board first became concerned about the
potential for safety problems related to amphibious passenger
vessels during our investigation of the sinking of the Miss
Majestic on May 1, 1999 in Lake Hamilton, near Hot Springs,
Arkansas.
The Miss Majestic, which was a converted World War
II amphibious DUKW, D-U-K-W, had 20 passengers and one
operator aboard at the time of its sinking.  Tragically, 13
of those passengers did not survive.
Although the underlying cause of this accident is
still under investigation by the Board, the Board determined
a need to discuss and probe safety issues related to
maintaining, operating, inspecting and regulating these
vessels, and to the escape and survival design features.
And speaking of design features, the Safety Board
is also interested in generating discussion on safety design
features found to be acceptable in one areas of the United
States, but when that vessel is later relocated to another
part of the country, are discovered to be lacking essential
safety design features in the new region.
Since the sinking of the Miss Majestic, we have
often heard it said that when people really get to know these
amphibians, they acquire a sense of "duck science."
Ladies and gentlemen, let us share the knowledge of
this science with all those here today through the means of
this forum.  All of us present, the U. S. Coast Guard, the
state safe boating law administrators, the passenger vessel
organizations, the vessel owners, the operators and the
public wish to prevent similar accidents from occurring.
To allow the forum to proceed in an orderly and
non-prejudicial manner, there are some basic rules that must
be followed by participants.
This forum is not being held to determine the
rights or liabilities of private parties.  And efforts
directed at determining such rights or liabilities will not
be permitted.  I will not tolerate any participant turning
this fact-finding effort into an attempt to plead a case, nor
will I allow the introduction of any extraneous or
prejudicial information that is not directly related to the
issues at hand.
Let me re-emphasize that a Safety Board public
forum is a fact-gathering exercise.  There will be no attempt
to analyze the facts or announce a conclusion at the close of
this forum.
I will be responsible for the conduct of the forum.
 I will make all needed determinations on the appropriateness
of questions or presentations, and all such rulings will be
final.
The record of this forum, including a transcript of
the forum and all exhibits subsequently entered into the
record, will become part of the public docket in the Safety
Board's Washington, D.C. office.  Anyone desiring to purchase
a transcript, should contact the court reporter because the
Safety Board does not provide copies of the transcript.
We are very pleased at the fine participation in
this forum and welcome the representatives of the amphibious
passenger vessel industry, the maritime industry, state
officials and the U. S. Coast Guard personnel.
We certainly look forward to an enlightening
discussion of your various concerns in relation to safe
operations of amphibious passenger vessels.  We likewise
welcome the public.
I can assure you all, that your input on the safety
needs of the design, inspection and operation of amphibians
will be gratefully received.  We encourage your candid
discussion during the next two days.  The ultimate success of
the forum will be up to you.
And now that I've finished reading the prepared
remarks.  Let me just re-emphasize in another way, that we're
all here to basically learn as much as we can about these
amphibious passenger vessels.  It should be a mutually
reinforcing type process for the next day and a half, and
that's our whole goal, is to learn as much as we can, so that
we can make improvements where needed.
We will now proceed with the forum.  At this time,
I would like to turn the microphone over to Ms. Marjorie
Murtagh, who is the Director of the Safety Board's Office of
Marine Safety, who also has some opening remarks.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you, Member Hammerschmidt.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I, as the Director of the Office of Marine Safety,
I too would like to offer you a warm welcome.
The Office of Marine Safety is pleased to have this
opportunity to learn more about amphibious passenger vessel
safety.  We use this type of event periodically to allow all
appropriate persons, private, government organizations, to
share safety information on the importance to marine
transportation safety.  In addition, the public is invited to
observe our proceedings.
Today and tomorrow, our discussions will concern
the safety of amphibious passenger vessels.  Most of you are
aware of the tragic sinking of the Miss Majestic that
occurred earlier this year.  However, I'd like to emphasize,
that while this accident may come up during this forum, our
focus is much more general.  We'll cover many topics
regarding the safety of amphibious passenger vessels.
We look forward to a very positive result from this
forum, which would not be possible without the full
cooperation of the industry, the regulators, and the private
individuals who are here today.
We all have a responsibility to ensure the safety
of over a million people who ride and enjoy amphibious
passenger vessels every year.  And this forum, promises to be
a very positive step toward that goal.
Now, I'd like to introduce the NTSB personnel,
who'll be participating in this forum.
Seated here at the Executive Panel, to the left of
Member Hammerschmidt, is Mr. Donald Tyrrell, he's the Chief
of the Major Investigations Division, of our Office of Marine
Safety.  To my right, is Ms. Elaine Weinstein.  She's the
Deputy Director of Operations for the Office of Safety
Recommendations and Accomplishments.
Seated at the NTSB technical panel, in the center
is Mr. Robert Henry, Chief of the Technical Service Division.
 To his right, is Mr. Ash Chatterjee.  He's a Senior Naval
Architect, with the Office of Marine Safety.  And to his
left, is Mr. Tony Murray.  He's the Marine Accident
Investigator, who's in charge of this investigation.
At this time, I'd like to turn the microphone over
to Mr. Tyrrell, who will go over the procedures we'll follow
in conducting the forum.
MR. TYRRELL:  Good morning.  I would like to take a
few minutes to explain the procedures that we will follow in
conducting the forum.
First, Mr. Anthony Murray from our Office of Marine
Safety will provide a short presentation, concerning the
various different types of amphibious vessels currently in
use and an overview of the forum topics and mission.
After Mr. Murray presents his presentation, we'll
ask members of the witness panel to come forward and take a
seat.  I see that the first panel is already seated.
The witness panel members will be asked questions
by the NTSB technical panel to my right.
After questioning by the technical panel is
completed, questioning will pass here to the head table.
After which, we will answer any questions that may come from
the audience.  There are index cards in the back of the room.
 We would ask that if you have a question that you would like
posed to the panel, that you write the question down, and we
will collect the index cards, and hand them to Mr. Henry on
the technical panel, who will ask the questions as time
permits.  We may not be able to answer all of the questions.
 We are on a very tight schedule.  We've got a lot of area to
cover, and we hope to move it along, so that we cover all of
those areas.
The questions are intended to stimulate discussion
to assist the Safety Board in obtaining more complete
understanding of the safe operation of amphibious passenger
vessels.
In the course of the forum, we will periodically
take breaks, and give people a chance to get up and stretch
their legs.  So at this time, without further adieu, I will
ask Mr. Murray from the Office of Marine Safety to come
forward and to make his presentation.
MR. MURRAY:  Ladies and gentlemen, members and also
all the vessel -- amphibious vessel operators.
The contents of this white binder is for -- we have
ten items for reference material.  First of all, is the color
photographs, copy of the color photographs of the display
exhibits.
We also have a directory of the Amphibious
Passenger Vessel Owners and Operators.  We have a copy of the
DUKW Safety Alert, you can find on the Coast Guard's web
page.  46 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 185, Subchapter
T, some of the emergency proceedings -- procedures; U. S.
Coast Guard T-boat Inspection Book; the New York State
Navigation Law and Inspection Report; the State of Utah had
also produced some laws for the Amphibious Passenger Vessel
Safety industry; we have the Passenger Vessel Association
Risk Management Manual; the National Association of State
Boating Law, Administrator's Model Act; and also, a copy -- a
paper copy of this presentation.
Mainly, we're going to focus this forum on the
DUKW.  First of all, we're going to have the five topics of
the forum, will be amphibious -- the amphibious conversions
to passenger vessels.  The second topic will be passenger
egress and survival.  Followed by the maintenance -- the
vessel design and stability.  Followed by the maintenance and
inspections, and finally, the last topic will be on
operational safety.
The forum will mainly concentrate on the amphibious
DUKW, but the Safety Board is also interested in learning
more about the LARC's and the British Alvis Stalwarts.
The operating companies, there's about 20 of the
DUKW operating companies throughout the country.  And also
four each of the British Alvis Stalwarts and the LARC
companies.
The next slide shows the map of the United States,
and the states and cities where you can find the amphibious
passenger operators.
The passenger vessels themselves, we figure there's
about 225 of the DUKW's that are operating.  And as far as
the LARC's, there's probably about 20, and the British Alvis
Stalwart's, there's about 4 in operation.
This is a picture of the DUKW during World War II.
 They were basically used to transport the supplies and
military personnel from the ships anchored offshore to the
beach and further inland.
And today, this is the -- a typical DUKW converted
in the passenger vessel configuration.  Although, the canopy,
this is only one of many different designs that are used by
the industry.
And this is a diagram of a DUKW utilizing only
four-wheel drive of the original six-wheel drive available in
the DUKW capability.
This is the LARC.  It's the lighter amphibious
resupply cargo.  And this is the LARC-15, that the Army had
used in 1992.  This was a JLOTS exercise.  It stands for
Joint Logistics Over The Shore, and this is a much larger
LARC.  You can see -- here we have a picture of a Hum-V right
at the bow of the LARC.  These LARC's actually carry six
times the cargo capacity of DUKW.
And this is the LARC-5.  This is a much smaller
capacity, five-ton capacity LARC.  And these were used
extensively throughout Vietnam.
This is the British Military version of the
amphibian vessel, the Alvis Stalwart.  And this is the
converted Alvis Stalwart.  A lot of these amphibious
passenger vessels now today, are being replaced by the use of
a helicopter, and the air cushioned landing craft.
The forum mission is to share the knowledge and the
safe -- the knowledge and safety with the owners, the
operators, the maintainers, the inspectors, and the
regulators of these amphibious passenger vessels.  And also
finally to prevent another accident such as the Miss Majestic
from happening.
This concludes my presentation.  Thank you.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you, Mr. Murray.  At this time,
I would like to introduce our first witness panel.
Seated to my left and the gentleman closest to me,
is Mr. Bob McDowell, President of Branson's Ride the Ducks.
To his left, is Mr. Frank Serafine, President of Land and Sea
Tours.  To his left, is Mr. John Giljam, President of Cool
Amphibious Manufacturing International.  And to his left, is
Mr. Andy Wilson, President of Boston Ducks.
This panel will discuss the conversion of military
craft to commercial passenger vessel service.  I believe that
Mr. McDowell has a brief presentation.
MR. MCDOWELL:  As Don pointed out, my name's Bob
McDowell.  I'm with Branson's Ride the Ducks in Branson,
Missouri.  We were incorporated in 1971, and my affiliation
with the company began in 1977.
Since that time, we have transported approximately
three million, and it's quite a bit in excess of that at this
point, and have successfully done so over the course of the
years that we've been there.
Anthony Murray with the National Transportation
Safety Board has asked me to do a brief history of the DUKW,
just to kind of bring everybody up to the same level
regarding its history with the war effort, and some of the
development and concepts, such as that.
Let's define, for sake of discussion, amphibious
vehicles which were built by General Motors Corporation for
the United States Army.  The primary purpose was to deliver
priority cargo directly to troops fighting inland off the
invasion beaches.  And they also delivered troops from ship
to shore.
The years they were manufactured was 1942 to 1945.
 They built in excess of 21 -- 20,000.  The overall length is
31 foot.  The width is approximately 8 foot, two inches, and
the total weight is a little over 14,800 pounds, at a cost of
just over $10,000 per unit, back in the early '40s.
The DUKW acronym stands for -- D is the year that
the DUKW was designed, so 1942 relates to D, so C would be
1941, and so on and so forth.  The U stands for utility cab,
which in this case, also stands for amphibian.  The K for
front-wheel drive, and the W for rear-wheel drive, two axles.
The engine, drive-train and chassis were derived
from an already proven GMC two and a half ton six-wheel drive
Model CCKW truck.  The stripped truck body was wrapped with a
steel built hull, designed by the renown naval architects,
Sparkmans and Stevens.  And as a matter of fact, Sparkmans
and Stevens, Ron Stevens received the medal of honor, which
is the highest honor bestowed upon a civilian during war time
for his efforts in developing the DUKW hull.
A gear box was added to the truck drive train, and
propeller, which provided propulsion on the water.
The payload capacity on land was just over 5,000
pounds.  On water, it's known to carry in excess of 40
equipped soldiers, and the speed was governed to 50 mile an
hour on land, and just over 6 mile an hour on water.
World War II was the primary role and
responsibility of the DUKW was utilized in landing in Sicily,
Normandy, and throughout the Pacific.
Between June 6th, 1944 and May 8th, 1945, over
three million tons of supplies and equipment were carried by
Dutch, the French and Belgian ports, so they're quite a
critical component during the victory of World War II.
Since World War II, DUKW's used in Europe were
given to NATO, which utilized them on into the '70s, and they
were again used in the Korean conflict.  They continue to be
used in civilian rescue, private collections, and public tour
operations.
It is estimated that fewer than a thousand exist
today in North America.
I'd like to use the remainder of my time to give a
little bit of a brief video presentation that will help
everybody understand what we do in Branson, and both in the
manufacturing process and a brief overview of our sightseeing
tour.
This is a visual on how the DUKW's were utilized.
They carried -- a lot of their use was not quite as glamorous
in supplying some of the supplies, such as ordinance, fuel,
water, on into the shores after the initial landings were
made.  There's a critical component as some of the
beachheads, of course, had quite a bit of activity on them.
They were able to not offload on the beach, and take those
commodities on into shore, which saved a tremendous amount of
time and money.
Today, we like many of the re-builders, have a
cache of DUKWs that we start off with.  Being built back in
1945, there's quite a bit of repair, modification,
development needs to be done to get them up into the
condition that they need to be.
We start by completely stripping the hull,
completely the suspension and everything, and expose all of
the metallurgy from front to back, top to bottom, we pull the
top off, we put it up on a rack, rotate the hull for optimal
weld angles.  We have a specialized painting system for the
internal rib painting, and we also utilize the rotation of
the rack to get those areas where you can't see with the rib
enclosures.
We take this business seriously.  We don't cut any
corners.  The hull is a hundred percent imposed to the
inspection process, and the Coast Guard frequently comes
through during various phases of the equipment.
And our second station there, after we get off of
the primary hull rack is where we do the floor grid, canopy
development and so forth.
We have developed our own braking systems.  All-
wheel drive disc brake systems, automatic transmissions,
power steering, and so forth, to ensure the continuity and
longevity of the components, the availability of them.  Part
of our criteria has been able to utilize componentry is
readily accessible and easy to maintain.
There's very few of the original components
incorporated in the DUKWs as we build them today.  None of
the existing drive train, suspension, tires, wheels, axle
housings, any of that is of the original DUKW configuration.
 One hundred percent rewire front to back, with many safety
innovations that we'll be sharing with you over the course of
the discussion of this hearing, hopefully help make this
industry a little bit safer.
That's our manufacturing site, and this
presentation was done a year or so ago, so it's a little bit
outdated, but it'll give you a little bit of an overview of
our sightseeing presentation as well.
If you can turn it up just a little bit now,
please.
Thank you.  That concludes our presentation, and
we'll do our part to help make the industry as safe as we
can.  If there are any questions, we'll be glad to fill them
at a later time.  Thank you.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much, Mr. McDowell.
We'll now have a short presentation by Mr. Frank Serafine,
President of British -- excuse me, President of Land and Sea
Tours, who will talk about the British Alvis Stalwart
conversion.
MR. SERAFINE:  Thank you.  Good morning.  My name
is Frank Serafine, Land and Sea Tours of Dreammaker's
Specialties in Orlando, Florida.
I'll give you a little idea about my company and
our experience to give you some idea of why we're here today
talking about the Stalwarts and conversions to amphibious
tour machines.
Our company specializes in restoring, repairing,
modifying and converting the Alvis Stalwarts.
We started tinkering with these Stalwarts as a
sideline business to another business I had about four years
ago.  As time passed, and I learned more about the tour
industry, I recognized a definite need for a shop that
specialized in doing only amphibious machines.  More to the
point, Alvis Stalwart amphibious machines.
It became obvious to us, that these were optimum
machines, but they are very unique, and required one's full
devoted attention to be done properly.
I was convinced the Alvis Stalwart could be built
to be a vehicle of choice, so 18 years -- 18 months ago, I
decided to separate that business from my other business.
And we set up a second facility to focus exclusively on the
Alvis Stalwart.
We now have a 14,000 square foot facility devoted
to only Alvis Stalwart vehicle conversion.  Twelve employees
work on as many as seven Stalwarts at any given time.  At
this time, we're subletting less than five percent of the
work on our vehicles, 95 percent of the conversion work is
done and is supervised in our shop by our employee for
quality control reasons.
We've built and completed 13 Alvis Stalwart
conversions, of which 10 were required and were issued Coast
Guard certificate of inspections.
Right now, in our shop, we have seven vehicles in
production in different stages of completion.
I'm going to discuss three different subjects.  The
first will be about the original Alvis Stalwart, a little
history about it, and how they're built.  We'll talk about
our conversions after that, and then about stability.
Lastly, I was asked to talk a little bit about some of the
trials and tribulations that are associated with converting
these machines.  We'll talk a little bit about that.
The Alvis Stalwart was built in England during the
1960s.  The Stalwart was built for NATO as an ammo and supply
hauler.  The Stalwart was built very durable and strong, as
it was intended to be a permanent part of the armed forces.
The Stalwart comes in two versions.  The early
units were Mark 1's, the latter units were Mark 2's.  Both
versions show the same hull, and most of their parts.  The
differences are very minor.
The stock Stalwart is 20 feet in length, and 8 and
a half feet in width.  Some of the Stalwarts also came with
6,000 pound cranes.  The Stalwart has fully independent six-
wheel drive suspension, and four-wheel steering in a stock
configuration.  It is also six-wheel drive.
Oh, this is the crane unit.  The Stalwart hull is
built super heavy duty, using quarter inch plate and eighth
inch steel.  Here's a cut cross-section that you can see.
That photo's in there sideways, but that'll give you an idea
of how it's built.
Nearly everything below the waterline is quarter
inch plate, and all the cab and the freeboard are eighth-inch
steel.
The Stalwart also has windshields and side glass,
and that glass is half-inch tempered, and is relatively
indestructible.
The Stalwart was originally built with lightweight,
but very strong aluminum side folding gates, so very easy
loading and unloading.  A double seal keeps the vehicle
watertight.
The original Stalwart has an eight by fourteen
cargo area, capable of carrying 10,000 pounds.  The drive
system is all contained under the cargo belly of the machine.
 The original Stalwart -- that's wrong.  The original
Stalwart is powered by 396 cubic inch Rolls Royce straight A
gasoline engine, rated at 194 horsepower.  It uses a five-
speed transmission, and is shifted in forward and reverse
through a transfer case.
Dual twelve-inch double water jets power the
Stalwart in the water.  The Stalwart is capable of six knots
with the stocked-out units.  We also have options that can
increase the speed.
The jet inlet is protected by a steel grating.
This one inch steel grating protects the jet, so that no
large debris can circulate through the jet.  This eliminates
potential propeller or housing damage.
Clam shells that block the opposing jets accomplish
the in-water steering.  The clam shells are controlled with
dual steering arms with tele-flex cables.  The driver sits in
the center of the Stalwart to drive, and the controls are off
to his left.
Reversing is accomplished by fully closing each
clam shell reversing the thrust.
Shafts driven through angle drives off the
transmission, using the PTO drive the stocked Stalwart double
jets.  We also use hydraulic motors to drive these dual jets
to replace the stock PTO setup.  Either setup allows the jets
and the wheels to be run independently or together.
During in-water operations, the wheels are
disengaged, as there is no advantage to run the wheels in the
water.  We have found it to be a myth that the wheels will
actually increase in water speed of the vessel, at least with
the Stalwarts.  The wheels are only engaged at entry and
exiting the water.
The on-road drive system is quite unique.  It's a
very simple and safe method of getting the power through the
hull without any large voids or seals to rely on, but it
keeps the vessel -- and keeps the water vessel watertight,
but it is complicated, because it uses multiple gearboxes and
angle drives to get the power to the ground.
The power goes through a five-speed transmission.
This transmission houses only gears for forward and reverse,
and forward and reverse is accomplished through the transfer
case.  Excuse me.
The power goes through the transfer case and exits
out both sides of the transfer case.  The transfer case
directly drives center bevel boxes on each side of the
vehicle.  Shafts inside the hull go from the center boxes to
the front and rear boxes.
The bevel box is basically an angle drive that
bolts directly to the hull.  These boxes are sealed to the
hull.  They are a snug fit to the hull, with just a couple of
a thousandths clearance.  These beveled boxes send the power
outboard to planetary wheel drives by turning forks and
knuckles that are inside of a challis and bell assembly.
Hull penetrations and driveshaft boots are a
serious concern here.  So I've taken a couple of shots to try
to show you how we get the power out on the Stalwarts.  The
Stalwart has a nice system for this.
Heavy duty driveshafts are enclosed in what is
called the challis.  The challis is very hardy and provides
the water protection to the hull.  The challis goes into the
bevel box, and is a slip fit with one-thousandths clearance.
 The challis is sealed with a cork seal.  The boot you see in
this picture is really nothing more than a dust boot.
The final drive is a planetary drive that is
mounted on suspension arms on each wheel.
I'll talk a little bit about our restorations and
what we do to the vehicles to convert them into tour
machines.
We restore the Stalwarts in a few different sizes,
different seating capacities and drive-train choices.
Vessels can be built from 28 to 49 passengers.
Hulls can be stretched almost any length, because of the hull
design that remains stable at almost any length.
The most popular size is our 28 foot unit.  This
unit will seat and certify with ease for 47 passengers, but
with the wheel-base of just 15 feet, it is still maneuverable
on typically tight historic streets and the downtown areas.
Presently, we have contracts to build Stalwarts
with original drive systems, replacing the stock Rolls Royce
engines with big block Chevy's.  We've also contracts to
build Stalwarts with diesel engines and hydrostatic drive
motors.  The diesel and hydraulic setup is a little more
money up front, but long-term, you see the money back in
relief maintenance, headaches and nightmares.  This is
definitely the system we are advising, but there's still a
lot of budget-conscious people that want to limit their up-
front investment.
Regardless of which drive-train choice, they all
start the same.  We've come to the conclusion that anything
short of stripping the hull to the bone and starting from
scratch is a recipe for future maintenance and reliability of
nightmares.  The entire engine, drive-train and all drive-
train components are removed.
The original wiring and gauges are a mess and
rarely work, and even if they work today, they will probably
fail tomorrow.  Every wire was white also, so it kind of made
it a troubleshooting nightmare.
We throw the original harness and gauges away and
totally rewire the machine, with a certified Coast Guard
reviewed and approved 12-volt harness, using all certified
boat cable.  A new dash is fabricated and all new gauges with
audible and trouble lights are installed.
Audible and trouble warning lights are also
connected to all bilge pumps, for bilge alarm and also a high
water sensor, to show that the bilge pumps may not be keeping
up.
All circuits are fuse protected.  All switches and
fuses are UL listed and intrinsically safe.  All the gauges
and switches are waterproofed marine pieces.
After stripping, all hulls are sandblasted, cleaned
inside and out.  The original side gates are removed, along
with any bad, weak or questionable steel.  Ninety percent of
our machines are stretched for added capacity.  This hull
stretch is professionally engineered and has been Coast Guard
reviewed and approved.
Our machines are inspected at least three times
during construction.  An initial hull exam is done after
stripping.  Another hull exam is done when the hull is
finished, mostly to inspect welds and to verify that all weak
or questionable metal was removed.   All our welders are
certified AWS procedures, with Coast Guard supervision.
Although welder's supervision or certification is not
required under the regs for T-type vessels, we chose to
certify our welders in tests that exceed any type or position
they may encounter.
The third inspection is done at time of completion.
 This is the final build inspection.  All vehicles leave our
shop with temporary certificate of inspections, requiring
only new to zone inspections whenever they arrive at their
new port of call.
The hull is painted and primed with military spec
primer and urethane topcoats for durability and resistance.
We have had multiple Stalwarts running in salt water and have
found that if properly prepped, painted and maintained, we've
had no major corrosion problems even in the salt water.
Another photo of another painted one.
If the stock drive-train is used, then it's totally
rebuilt, including the engine and all drives.  All bolt
tongues are new or rebuilt marine units were necessary.  Most
are Delco Marine and are intrinsically safe.  If the diesel
and hydrostatic drive is chosen, a brand new Cummins engine
with 100,000 mile warranty, and a brand new hydrostatic pump
and drive system with a one-year warranty are used.
As an added bonus with the hydrostatic system, the
only hull penetration you have for drive to the wheels, is
simply hydraulic feed lines out to the wheel motors.  This
limits our entire hull penetrations even more.
You may notice that we've excluded any photos of
our diesel or hydraulic unit.  We're presently preparing and
filing patent papers on that system, so we're not quite ready
to show it in a public forum yet.
Three UL listed 1,200 gallon per hour bilge pumps
are installed.  All three bilge pumps have automatic and
manual capabilities, and are switched independently.  All
three are connected to bilge on alarms, with both audible and
light warnings.
The three bilge pumps are wired to two different
batteries.  Two pumps on one, and one pump on the other.
Besides the bilge on alarm, there's also a high water alarm
to alert us in the event that the bilge pumps are not keeping
up with any potential incoming water.
Automatic fire suppression is handled by a Fire boy
FE241 system, mounted in the engine compartment.  Damper
doors that close the air-in lids in case of discharge,
contain a fire agent to contain potential flare-ups.
We'll talk a little bit about stability and the
stability of the Stalwart.
The Stalwart has excellent stability in the water
even fully loaded.  The main reason the stability is so good,
is because all the drive-train is in the belly of the boat,
acting as ballast.
This photo shows one of our extended 49 passenger
Stalwarts loaded with barrels full of water for the Coast
Guard stability test.  We are carrying 8,000 pounds of weight
in the stability test, the equivalent for 50 people.  There's
also additional weight to compensate for missing seats and
other items that had to be removed for the test.
You can barely see, there's a black line on the
side of the hull, that is our maximum list mark.
To determine the maximum list location, you must
measure three-quarters along the freeboard, the length of the
vessel.  In our case on this vessel, that would be seven foot
forward of the stern.
Fully loaded, the Stalwart has 30 inches of
freeboard at this location.  Total allowable list is 25
percent of the available freeboard from the waterline at this
location.  In this case, it's about seven to seven and a half
inches from the waterline.  The top of the black tape is our
maximum list mark.
Calculations are done to determine how many barrels
must be moved to one side to cause the required amount of
heeling moment for the test.  I'm not going to bore you with
the calculations, but in this photo, you can see the barrels
are moved.
In this photo, the vessel is at full list with the
equivalent weight of more than 50 people on the starboard
side.  You can see the waterline is just to the bottom of the
tape, leaving us with about three-quarters of an inch to
spare.
The test shown here was carried out in fresh water.
 If the test were performed in salt water, the additional
buoyancy of the salt water where the fresh water allowance
would increase the amount of freeboard even more.  The Super
Stollie would most likely certify for an additional five
persons on board if we wanted to push it, or if we could cram
them in.
Here's another angle of the vessel at full list.
This is one of six different stability tests that we've done
on six different vessel variations.  These vessels were
different sizes using different seating arrangements.  We've
passed stability tests with our Stalwarts ranging from 28 to
49 passengers, whether the vehicle's stock length carrying 28
passengers are extended to carry 49, the stability test
results are almost exactly the same.
In a closing statement, I was asked for some of the
-- about what were some of the more difficult things about
amphibious conversion and getting them into operation.
I would say the simple hardest task is finding a
build spec that pleases both the Coast Guard and the DOT.
Our units are classified by the Coast Guard as T-boats and
built to those specs, but unfortunately, there are just a few
things with T-boat regs that do not normally accept some of
the things on amphibians.  The dry exhaust system on an
amphibian, for example, would be the biggest hurdle.
The other thing, in trying to build a vessel, is to
please each zone.  It seems that different zones have
different operating procedures, policies and requirements.
One zone may approve operation with plastic side curtains,
another refused.  One zone may allow a passenger to come up
and steer the vessel during operation, another refuse.  One
zone will approve the vessel plans for operation, and another
one refuses.  That's a big one.
I think a set of amphibious regulations and
guidelines would go a long ways towards helping the
manufacturers, the operators and the Coast Guard for future
amphibious operations.
I thank you for your time.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much, Mr. Serafine.
We'll now hear a brief presentation by Mr. Giljam, President
of Cool Amphibious Manufacturing International.
MR. GILJAM:  My name is John Giljam.  My wife,
Julie and I own Cool Stuff Tours, which is located in Hilton
Head, South Carolina.  We make a lot of noise this morning.
We own and operate in that location, a 49-passenger
converted LARC which we did three years ago.  The picture
behind me, you can see that is a 45-foot LARC, and it started
out stock as a 35-foot military version.  We cut that vehicle
in half, stretched it ten feet, changed all of the drive-
train to hydrostatic drive, and that is what is operated
there.
We also, as I said, own CAMI, now that is the
company we use for the building and manufacturing of
amphibious vessels, and I'll tell you a little bit more about
that in a minute.
I've been involved in the specialty vehicle
manufacturing business for my entire life.  My father started
and founded a welding and fabrication shop in 1968 in
Rochester, New York.  I literally grew up in the business of
design and engineering, and that is what I have drawn on for
all that we do today.
There's been a wide variety of things we've built
in that shop.  We've designed and built automated material
handling systems, highway trucks, oil field rigging and
equipment trucks, and specially fire apparatus, along with
the amphibious vessels that we do today.
It was this experience we used in 1997, when we
designed and built the "Cool Diversion" which is pictured
behind me.
This is the first 49-passenger with a crew for
certified amphibian that we're aware of ever built.  This is
completely hydrostatic drive, for which we had applied for a
patent and have a patent pending on our hydraulic drive
system.
We're the first company to do such a conversion,
and by replacing the entire drive train, that is where we get
our reliability that we have today.
Another thing that we do, is in the conversions for
other customers, we've also been selected by the United
States Army in converting some of their units to hydrostatic
drive, and we have been sole source provider for the United
States Army for this hydraulic drive system.
As far as the LARC's go, there were 968 units
originally built.  As best records can indicate, over 600 of
them were sank, just as merely a means of disposal [when the
U.S. departed Vietnam in the '70s].  Stock LARC is 35 feet in
its length, 9 foot 7" in its width.
A stock 35 foot has a passenger capacity of 32
persons.  And the stretched version, as I've shown you here,
is 49.
The original drive-train was comprised of many,
many moving parts.  On the engine, there were three
transmissions directly bolted to it.  Then there was a
driveshaft from that to another ascetic gearboxes with a high
load range and road marine selection.
Marine reduction drive.  In the road, the power
came from this gearbox to a complex differential set, which
in turn split to two sides of the vessel.  Then another set
of gear differentials for the front and back wheels.  The
driveshaft went to each wheel to four individual four corner
gearboxes, which in turn drove four planetaries, one on each
wheel.
That's a lot of gears and moving parts to maintain.
 When we built it, we took a look at this system, and decided
that it would prove very unreliable without an extreme amount
of maintenance, and that was the driving force between the
development of the hydrostatic drive system that we designed
in '97.
That system eliminates 100 percent of all original
parts.  The only thing that was used in the conversion was
the aluminum hull itself.  All of the wiring completely was
replaced, the engine, the drive-train of every part and piece
was replaced in this vessel, and has no drive-train
whatsoever from the original military form.
We also instead of the large balloon cushioned
tires that were used on it, we now use radial tires on the
vessel, which meet the DOT requirements for being on the
highway.
These improvements added dramatically to the
performance of the vessels.  Road speeds, we do up to 47
miles an hour, with that conversion.  That is up from the
mid-20's with a stock.  Our marine performance was also
improved about 50 percent from the original 8 knots to 13
knots.
The size of the vehicle, does require oversized
permits for DOT transportation.  For most locations, that is
not a problem.  For us, it was only a matter of a piece of
paper and a $50 annual permit, and that is what we run on in
South Carolina, is a $50 over wide permit that is merely an
annual permit with no restrictions.
The maneuverability of the original LARC, the
turning radius was quite great.  If I remember right, it was
in the neighborhood of 65 feet turning radius, something of
that nature.  With the hydraulic conversion, we've taken that
turning radius down to 17 foot.
Now, that turning radius is shorter than both the
Stalwart and we tested this, it's shorter than my pickup
truck, as far as maneuverability.
Our design has been proven to be extremely
reliable.  We have two seasons on our unit that you see here.
 We've got over 1,400 hours, and we have not lost a single
day due to a mechanical failure.
I've got a new piece of equipment that I want to
introduce you to.  It's a little bit difficult, I see, to
show you, but we'll work on it anyway.
This is a completely brand new design amphibian
from the ground up.  There is nothing old about this
whatsoever.  This is 100 percent manufactured from the
scratch.
We took a look at all the amphibians in the market,
reviewed all the strengths and weaknesses, and used that data
in the development of the Hyrda-Terra?.  We also included
all the lessons learned from all of the previous experience
of all of the operators.
Our desire was to build the safest vehicle
possible.  And the safety features included for the highway
use alone are as we have a fully padded dash, power steering,
radial tires, driver side air bag for the captain, laminated
safety plate windshield, four-wheel disc brakes with anti-
lock, and raised operator cockpit for increased visibility.
In marine road, this is where the vehicle really
stands out.  Our following safety systems are standard.  This
vessel has a dual drive system.  The wheels and the propeller
system can consume 100 percent of the power applied to it.
This is essential for beaching operations, and also provides
emergency propulsion system, if anything were to happen,
debris to be entangled into the propeller drive or anything
of that.
This unit here is shown with a propeller drive, a
water jet drive is also available, it makes no difference.
The steering system is provided, which backs up the
marine steering, because we can turn the front steering
wheel.  So as long as there's any motion of the vehicle, if
we were to lose the rear steering on the out-drive unit, we
do have steering control of the vessel.
The seating design that you see, is wide open.  It
meets all of the Coast Guard requirements.  It includes the
addition of an escape door for emergency egress in the center
of the vehicle.
I wish it was a little bit brighter.  Well, anyway.
 It's only a little bit brighter.  I'm sorry.
As you can see up in the top, that is a seating
configuration.  Seats are two-by-two, side-by-side.  This
seats 49 people with the open center in the one-side that
allows for an escape egress door, out of the one side of the
vessel.  Normal boarding takes place on the right side of the
vessel.
All of the life preservers are installed directly
below each individual seat.  This gives very fast and rapid
access to the life preservers.  Thank you.  That is also the
same design as we have on the "Cool Diversion."  Each
person's individual life jacket is underneath their
respective seat, and each one of those that we set up on the
"Cool Diversion" is an adult life jacket.  What we do is, we
put all adult life jackets underneath all of the seats.
Before we enter the water, we specifically will hand out
child's preservers, that way we know each child is properly
taken care of.
The vessel has a built-in pre-engineered fire
extinguisher system.  Has the largest freeboard of any
amphibian.  It has a 46-inch freeboard.
Dual bilge pumps operated in the dash, with dual
bilge warning alarm and system.  The biggest safety feature
of this vessel, is that it is unsinkable.  If you pull the
plugs out of this vessel, it still will not sink.
Below the decks in individual compartments, we have
a foam flotation system, which is mill spec foam underneath a
large portion of the vessel.  This was engineered in such
that even with the vessel fully flooded, the vessel will
still float level, and above the water.
If in the event of a collision with a submerged
object or a foreign object in the water, if you were to
pierce one of the individual compartments, that is still not
a problem, as all of the individual foam cells are still
there.  They are still in a fully enclosed aluminum
compartment.
The hull structure itself is 100 percent aluminum.
 The power is diesel engine, and that's what I can tell you
about the Hyrda-Terra?.  It's a brand new design.  It's very
fast, very agile, and we think it's the best thing that we
can build.  We already have units on order, and they're
currently stepping up production to meet more demand for this
product.  Thank you.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you, Mr. Giljam.  We'll now
hear a presentation from Mr. Andy Wilson, President of Boston
Ducks.
MR. WILSON:  Good morning.  My name is Andy Wilson.
 I am the founder of Boston Duck Tours.  I came up with the -
- and I was asked to give an overview of an operating
company, and not particularly go over conversion of the
vessels.
I came up with the idea in 1992 for Boston Duck
Tours, and it became very apparent quickly that I had to
obtain 29 separate federal, state and local permits.
When I -- as I approached these government
regulators, they were not familiar with this idea, and quite
honesty, they thought I was crazy.  And they immediately
zoned in on my weak point, which was the fact that I didn't
have any previous experience in this industry.  Even though I
had -- was an accomplished businessman and an experienced
boater.
So what I decided to do was tour the three primary
areas that existed at the time, that had operations which was
Scotts and Dales, that have been in business for about 50
years, and done that very safely for a long time.  Branson,
Missouri and Hot Springs, Arkansas, it became very clear to
me, after touring that, that Ride the Ducks in Branson,
Missouri had done the best job in restoring this equipment
and executing their tour program.
After some discussions with Bob McDowell, we
entered into a licensing agreement, and primarily to take
advantage of his 20 years plus experience.  And it wasn't
until that point and time that these various government
regulators took me seriously.
And ultimately, we opened in 1994, with $1.6
million worth of capitalization and debt.  We've been in
business for five years.  In 1999, we carried 450,000 people
safely through the streets of Boston, and employ 85 people,
and have really become a main stay of the Boston tourism
community.
I'm very pleased that there's this forum.  Since
we've taken off and been so successful, it went from
basically a handful of operators as Tony pointed out earlier
to over 30 with probably another 60 or more people looking to
get into this industry.  And part of my concern and why I'm
glad there is this forum, is that basically I was held to a
very high standard by the community, by the regulatory
community that had jurisdiction over me.  And I was pleased
that I affiliated myself with 20 years experience, because
this is a very difficult -- it's an unusual industry, and
unusual -- it's not a bus business, it's not a boat business,
and it has its own unique criteria to operate this safely.
And so as a result, I think of the scrutiny that we
went under, and also the experience that was brought to the
table, is one of the reasons that we've had so much success.
But it has expanded the interest so greatly, that I
don't think other people are being held to the same standard
as well as regulations, because it is an emerging industry.
Have lagged behind, which is always the case in an emerging
industry, so I'm very pleased that we're having this forum,
and hopefully we'll have a safer industry as a result of it.
 Thank you.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much, sir.  At this
time, I'm going to turn over the microphone to the NTSB
Technical Panel, who will ask questions of our witness panel.
 Mr. Ash Chatterjee, will lead off questioning.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Good morning.  I'm going to ask
questions starting from my left, with Mr. Bob McDowell, and
then move on from that position.
We enjoyed all of your presentations very much, and
in the process of your presentations, you've answered many of
my stock questions.  So I'm going to start with -- I'll
follow-up to some of the things you mentioned in your
presentation.
Mr. McDowell, you'd mentioned that most of the DUKW
is completely rebuilt.  I was wondering about the pumps.  Do
you replace the pumps, or do you retain the original pumps?
MR. MCDOWELL:  I believe the pump you're referring
to is the Higgins pump?
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Yes, sir.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  We have been fortunate to
aquire a large number of those, and we still utilize those
today.  It's not an item that's readily available out in the
market place.  There are replacements.  We feel that the
Higgins mechanical pump at this time is probably the best
solution to the de-watering that is available.  It pumps
approximately 265 gallons per minute, and I brought one with
me for anybody to review if they would like to at any
particular time.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  What was the capacity of the
Higgins pump?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Approximately 265 gallons a minute.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
MR. MCDOWELL:  That's what I find in some of the
documentation.  I brought some reference materials with me as
well to support that.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you foresee any reliability
problems, such as you see with the other parts, the reason
for which you had to change those parts?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Reliability problems as it relates
to the Higgins' pump?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes, sir.
MR. MCDOWELL:  In our experience, we have not had
problems with this pump.  It is very reliable.  We do test
them along in our periodic maintenance program, as well as
the start of the year.  We have updated and improved the
system, the piping system, that is connected to the bilge
pump that exits to the outer portion of the DUKW, so it's one
continuous piece, and there's no opportunity for any failure
due to a hose clamp or hose material.  And we've designed it
as such, there's only one way to do the installation, so
there's no way a maintenance person could misinstall the
pump.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Are there any parts of the pump
that you have to change or renew periodically, because it's
an old pump, the original?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No, we do remanufacture or actually
new construction on -- some of our machinists makes the
primary shaft.  You do need to replace the bearings and
grease it periodically, but it's designed to run dry.  And we
don't -- it's there as a safety measure, and we don't
actually utilize it during the course of our operations.  It
runs continuously when the prop's engaged, but we just -- we
don't have the occasion to use it.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  You mentioned that you
do most of your work in-house, and you have your own
fabrication shop.  Do you find it necessary, and if so, in
what areas, to hire naval architects or engineers or
professional engineers in-house or outside to do particular
aspects of your work?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  We have incorporated the
oversight of a gentleman named Matt Kawaski, he's a naval
architect out of New Orleans, to help us with some of our
studies and review.
Prior to the incident, of course, we've been well
on our way of development of some of the concepts to
continually improve the equipment, and we're doing a study to
test the ability to put, as this other gentleman has shared,
a closed-self foam system, and the new development of our
deck to keep -- so there won't be any opportunity for it to
ever sink.  And you can do that with foam or without foam.
We also use consultants that come in, and help us regarding
brakes, electrical systems, the Coast Guard's been very good
in providing oversight and helping in the interpretation of
the federal regs and so forth.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  When you completely
renew the hull plating and most of the systems on the
existing DUKW, what parts, original parts, other than the
Higgins pump do you retain?  What parts do you find are worth
retaining?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We use the prop shaft.  We use the
V-strut.  The chassis.  We use the primary frame, it's a
tapered frame rail as you can see on that illustration.  We
use a similar form of the boot in tube system.  I believe
that's it, to the best of my recollection.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So it's a very small part of the
original DUKW parts retained?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you normally find it necessary
to re-plate the entire hull plating and the stiffners?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Due to the modifications we make on
the equipment, it's probably more cost-effective for us to go
to new construction in the very short future.
The history of the DUKW business, as it's evolved,
of course, being that the DUKWs were built in 1945 were that
the DUKWs were released out of military surface and surplus -
- as a surplus commodity, and were complete and intact and in
good shape.  Today the vessels that you acquire often times
have been stripped of their parts and have set outdoors and
the hull condition has degregated to the degree that there's
extensive repair work that needs to be done, just to bring it
back up to the original configuration.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  What's the thickness of the hull
plating when you renew a plate?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We replace the hull material to the
same specifications as was originally developed, except for
the ribbing.  We have upgraded the sides of the outboard
ribbing to the next gauge, it's 12 gauge.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Just as general background,
where are your sources of where you purchase surplus DUKWs,
generally speaking.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, it's become a commodity like a
Model T would be.  There's collectors out there that have
acquired them over the years for one reason or another.
Several of them are leased to civil defense organizations,
and since have been sold off through auctions or private
ownerships, or whatever the case may be.  But to my
knowledge, there's no more being released out of surplus
sales and things of that nature.  It happens but quite rarely
at this point.
I think most of the DUKWs that are out there have
been acquired and have been restored by collectors or other
people looking to get in a similar type business.  The cost
is getting prohibitive for people to pick them up for just a
fun vehicle to play around with.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  You'd mentioned that there was
about a thousand DUKWs in existence in North America and
about 200 and some are used as passenger DUKWs.  So would you
say there's some potential to acquiring DUKWs originals?
MR. MCDOWELL:  That's just an estimation.  I've
heard that number thrown around several times by several
different people.  I really don't have anything to validate
that.  But I do know that there are several DUKWs held out
there by collectors that hope to refurbish them at some
point.  There's military collector's clubs and organizations,
that not only use DUKWs but other military vehicles that go
out and simulate re-enactments and so forth, and quite a few
of those are within those kind of organization groups.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  When you go to the Coast Guard to
obtain approval for converting a surplus armed military
amphibious DUKW to a passenger carrying vessel, would you
describe the sequence of steps that you have to go through.
MR. MCDOWELL:  We've a longstanding history with
the Coast Guard out of the St. Louis office.  They frequently
come to our property.  We review all design concepts and
developments with them.
We have, as you saw in my video presentation, the
facility that allows them to come through at any time to
review.  The equipment is fully exposed.  There's no hidden
areas on the DUKW as we rebuild them, so it's pretty easy for
them to see the quality of workmanship and our company's
culture and commitment to the quality and standards that we
need and that makes them comfortable.
When we have new concepts or ideas or developments
that we would like to bring up to them for review, we submit
them.  Sometimes we work through our naval architect.
Sometimes we submit them and do a review of the federal regs
with them, and work through the interpretation.  Since the
incident in Hot Springs, we have also asked for some of the
participation to be taken place out of Washington, D.C.
Dwayne Ray with their office has come to our
facility, and reviewed the manufacturing process of our
facility and our commitment to quality and safety, and has
given us a good review.
We ran a stability test while he was there, and he
made some observations and submitted, I guess, a briefing to
his office, regarding his visit.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Was it a simplified stability
test?  Can you tell us a little more about it?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Our class vessel, yes, that's what
is run.  The simplified stability test.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Was the test run because it hadn't
been run before?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No, we were just commissioning a new
vessel, and he happened to be there at that time, and while
he was there, we went ahead and ran the test with him, just
to support or substantiate the findings that we'd already
identified.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Well, what is your understanding
of the plans and drawings that you have to submit for Coast
Guard approval?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, it's my understanding that
it's up to the discretion of the local MSO [Marine Safety
Office] for our class vessel, to require or not to require
the submittal of plans for review.
During Lieutenant Dwayne Ray's visit, he had
determined that generally speaking, we were in the arena of
new construction instead of modifications and repair.  So
since that time, our office has asked for a plan review, and
we're going through this process at this time with our naval
architect.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Are there federal or state
agencies, such as higher authorities that you have to go to
for approval for a DUKW?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  In the State of Missouri, the
Department of Transportation out of Springfield comes down
and does an overview of our equipment.  We are going through
some testing procedures, even overseas for ease standards
right now with our equipment.  Because of the unique nature
of our DUKWs, there are several regulatory authorities that
provide oversight for our operation, as Andy Wilson with
Boston Duck Tour shared with you, he had to acquire, I
believe, 29 permits before he was allowed to operate.  So
there is quite a bit of oversight that goes on in our
business.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you, Mr. McDowell.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Thank you.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  I'll continue with Mr.
Frank Serafine, and I'll follow in similar vein, follow on
some of the questions that you'd mentioned in your fine
presentation.
You'd mentioned that you installed three 1,200
gallons per hour pumps, bilge pumps, and I was wondering how
was the basis for that developed, what's the philosophy, how
was it negotiated with the Coast Guard.
MR. SERAFINE:  We're only required to carry
actually two of those pumps.  We put a third pump in just to
be -- to go over and beyond the call of duty.
One of the things that we've been lobbying for, and
some zones will allow and some zones won't, is being able to
use larger pumps that are engine-driven, but electric pumps.
 The only UL listed pumps that are Coast Guard certified
right now are the Lovett 1200's, which are kind of whimpy.
Given our choice, we would like to put in three 4,000 gallon
per hour pumps, which would give us a couple of hundred
gallons per hour.
In the event that a driver would make a huge
mistake and leave the plug out in our boat, that is our
largest potential hull presentation, three 4,000 gallon per
hour pumps can outrun it.  Can actually outrun even the plug
being out.
With a diesel, there should be no reason to not be
able to do that.  An engine driven pump is not any good once
the distributor gets wet or once the components get wet, or
if it's a gas engine distributor, once the components get
wet, it stalls, the pumps quit.  So we're just putting in as
many pumps as we can and putting them on dual batteries,
relying on a pair of batteries that will always be strong,
and give you plenty of time to get out, if you need to.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And once again, the reason you
can't put in larger electric pumps at this point in time, is
because they're not approved?
MR. SERAFINE:  T-boat regs require that they're UL
listed, and the only UL listed pumps and electric pumps are
the Levitt's.  Rural makes some great pumps that are very
strong, like I say, 400 gallons per hour.  Quite honestly,
bilge pumps are cheap.  They're $150 a piece on $150,000
boat.  It's not an issue.  But they're not UL listed, and
they will not allow them in some zones.  I just sent a boat
into Baltimore, and they made us put in the 1,200's.  I've
sent them into Miami, Providence, no problem, Guam, which is
under U. S. control, no problem with the Rural pumps, for
example.
So that's kind of an issue that we would like to
find a way around let's say.  We do not like to rely on an
engine-driven pump.  I just think that's completely
unreliable.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  You had mentioned that, and
I've seen on your pictures, that the design trim of the
vessel when fully loaded with passengers, is fairly small,
it's fairly on even keel.  Do you have any idea in inches of
the stern free board when it's fully loaded with passengers?
MR. SERAFINE:  Our average freeboard is 30, 31
inches.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  At the stern?
MR. SERAFINE:  Oh, at the stern?  It's 29 inches.
So actually that boat in that picture, we've change the
ballast around.  One of the advantages we get when we stretch
it, is we get so much flotation, we can play with the
ballast, and that just happened to be a test that I had a lot
of good pictures that would show up, and that we could
actually format in.  But we've actually piled the ballast in,
the boats are running true and level loaded now, so we're
actually averaging just over 30 inches, close enough to 31 to
call it that.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Where's the ballast placed?
MR. SERAFINE:  On the very bottom of the hull.  The
Stalwart has a flat bottom.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  More, forward, up forward?
MR. SERAFINE:  Almost -- yeah, about two-thirds of
the way forward it has to be placed.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  In order to -- why was the ballast
placed there?
MR. SERAFINE:  I'm sorry?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Why did you shift ballast?
MR. SERAFINE:  Well, we added an eight-foot
extension to the boat.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Uh-huh.
MR. SERAFINE:  And the extension only weighed 1,300
pounds, and we generated about 8,000 pounds of lift, so we
had to compensate for that.  It worked out to be tremendous,
because the bottom of the hull is now one and a quarter inch
thick.  We put a one-inch plate for all practical purposes,
almost the entire length of the hull, and that's welded solid
to it, so it makes the quarter inch hull even stronger.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
MR. SERAFINE:  And it's nice ballasted.  It happens
to be very, very low, so it acts as a real good keel for us,
and that's where we get our outstanding stability.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  The welding fabricators, their
certification, you mentioned they were AWS.  Are they the
ship barge hull-type expertise that you use?
MR. SERAFINE:  No, they're welders.  Some of them
come from different background, and we have them certified.
Our Coast Guard is in about every week at our place right
now, with us moving boats out of the shop every few weeks.
On any given week, we've got a boat that's ready for either a
pre-examination or a hull and welding examination, or a COI
[Certificate of Inspection].  He comes in; we fit up the
panels.  We've actually tested them in six-g overhead,
quarter inch, full penetration.  We do not have a full
penetration weld on the boat, let alone a six-g, which is
overhead.  We only have two overhead welds, and they're
welded on both sides.  And that's with eleven gauge.
But the way my company operates and the way our pay
scale works is, when you get certified, you get to the top of
the money, and all the welders make the same money.  And
that's it.  You pass this test and you're done.  And we just
do that so that I know I don't have to worry about it.
We have one welder -- and it's actually written in our
plans.  We had a naval architect to do our plans.  It's
written in the plans.  We have one welder that goes through
and inspects all the other welders' work.  And there's only
three guys in the shop that are allowed to do any hull
welding, any type water welding.  And those guys have all
been with me for about a year.
MR. CHATTERJEE: Okay.  Thank you.  Do you employ
the services of naval architects or professional engineers
for any aspects of your work?
MR. SERAFINE:  Yeah, we have a slew of engineers,
because I'm not one.  I'm a guy who knows how to build things
and run businesses.  I've employed a naval architect who's
done our hull stretch.
Our hull plans have been submitted to MSC.  We
actually expected our approval -- they've been approved in a
few local zones already.  We ran into a couple of problems
and in some areas we wanted to go into.  We wanted to go into
New York City.  We wanted to go into San Francisco, and the
local offices there, got a little nervous about the whole
thing.  These things have a tendency of scaring people when
they come in, because they don't fall into the regs, and
they're kind of like, we'd like somebody above to sign off,
so we've now submitted the plans to MSC [USCG Marine Safety
Center] and are expecting a global approval out of that.
I think they're kind of holding off on that till
this over, quite honestly.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Is the plan submittal to the MSC
rather than the MSO [Marine Safety Office], by recent change?
MR. SERAFINE:  Well we just decided to that about
six weeks ago.  I got aggravated with the thing going in for
plan review in every zone it went into, and try to put it
tactfully, just a way to throw a monkey wrench into the whole
thing, I guess, and we're totally confident of what we've
got, and we just know what the MSC approval, even though the
local zone will have a right to a ten percent review, as I
understand it, that pretty much is a give me, when it comes
in that okay, we don't have to worry about the hull, and
that's primarily what we're working on.
We have engineers that are hydraulic engineers,
super qualified guys who work for NASA.  They built the space
shuttle, landing or launch pad.  They can build our drive
system.  We have plenty enough of people that did our
electrical for us, and submitted it through the Coast Guard,
and got it approved, et cetera, so we have different
engineers for different things.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
MR. SERAFINE:  As it stands now, our engineering is
basically done.  We're building.  We know what we want, and
we know what we're doing, so --
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  You've kind of --
MR. TYRRELL:  Excuse me.  Excuse me.  During the
questioning, you've used a couple of terms I think you ought
to clarify for the audience.  What an MSO [Marine Safety
Office] is, and what a MSC [Marine Safety Center] is.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  By MSC, I meant the Marine Safety
Center of the Coast Guard, which is at a highest level than
the MSO, which is the Marine Safety Office, which is a local
office that often does plan review locally, and the MSC is a
higher level at the headquarters [USCG]-- comparable to
headquarters within Washington, D.C. who formulate policies
and look at unusual types of vessels.
You've kind of covered this, but if you could just
summarize the sequence of steps you go through with the Coast
Guard, when converting vessels now that you start with the
MSC [Marine Safety Center] or with the MSO [Marine Safety
Office] if you could just tell us how you go about it.
MR. SERAFINE:  Well, basically we're responsible
for inviting the Coast Guard out anyhow.  You know, they're
not just going to show up, although they're welcomed to, but
we have to invite them out and give them an agenda, what they
have to do.  And when they visit my shop right now, with
seven boats going on, they're typically coming out to do an
initial hull inspection, and that is, once we've stripped the
boat down, where they can get an opportunity to see it naked
for lack of a better word, look it over, see if there's any
rusted or pitted metal.  We don't have the problems that the
DUKWs have, because we're so thick, we don't have the rust
through, I guess, but we have to cut a lot out, nevertheless.
 And they just kind of look and make sure we cut out any
questionable metal.  And make sure that it's ready to be put
together and done.
Once we get the hull welded and put together,
they'll come out and inspect the welds.  Come out, make sure
we're building it to the plans, and quite honestly at this
point, now that we're into our -- I think we've had our 22nd
hull inspected at this point, now there's 22, 12 or 13 of
them are identical, our CWO [Chief Warrant Officer] doesn't
really need to look at his plan review anymore.  He knows
what he's looking at, and the same with my guys, we know what
we're building now.
So we're on production with it.  And that's a real
important thing in this business, is somebody doing it and
doing it right.  And I think the three guys up here, we're
all competitors and we all battle for the same customers, but
all three of us are doing it right, I think.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  My final question, Mr.
Serafine.  What would you say you found to be the most
complex or challenging areas when making these conversions,
if you would summarize it?
MR. SERAFINE:  It's getting it into the zone and
getting it -- and getting it certified there.  We can get a
COI at home, and when it gets there, just different local
zones will have different policies, whether it's as simple as
requiring -- most of it can be handled with money, so it's
not a big, big issue, but it's a pain in the butt
nevertheless, especially if you've reasonably inexperienced
operator who's going for his first time, they have a tendency
to pull their hair out.  But you know, some of them require
boat hooks or swimming pool hooks for rescue, an additional
life ring, the curtains have become an issue now.
For example, in Baltimore, they won't allow us to
run the curtains, in fact, they won't even allow us to have
them on the boat.  Whereas in Miami and Providence and
Washington, it was no problem whatsoever.  I know that was
all previous to the sinking, and that's a big issue for us,
because it really cripples us in our times of operation, if
it starts to rain, it kind of puts us out of business, or if
it's a little cool and breezy, especially an area like
Baltimore, being able to have side curtains on, can extend
your season a couple of months on both ends.
Even -- we even made a proposal for the side
curtains for Baltimore, where they just simply hung, and just
could be pushed out, and showed that somebody could jump
through them, and they say, no, it's not acceptable.  Stuff
like that, I guess.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  All right.
MR. SERAFINE:  We have a dry exhaust system.  The
DUKWs have a dry exhaust system.  T-boat regulations say that
gasoline boats shouldn't have dry exhaust systems.  In Guam,
suddenly the dry exhaust is a huge issue.  It's never been an
issue anywhere else, because it's a no brainer.  We have to
have it.
That's the kind of stuff that I guess is the
hardest part, to simply finding a set of regs that deals with
amphibians, so that when it gets to different zones, out of
fear, the local CWO doesn't pull back and go, you know, I
don't think I can let it run, but it can run in 14 or 15
other states and locations.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Serafine.
Thank you very much.
MR. SERAFINE:  Thank you.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Moving on to Mr. John Giljam.  I'm
going to start with a follow-up to your presentation.
You -- did I hear you say that the hull was made of
aluminum, and that the hull was retained, largely retained
and not renewed?
MR. GILJAM:  On the LARC's is what you're referring
to?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.
MR. GILJAM:  Yes.  The hull is what is completely
retained.  The hull on a military LARC is all three-
sixteenths plate, 5083 aluminum.  Well known for having
little or no corrosion problems on it whatsoever.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Is there any particular criteria
that you use to ensure that the integrity of the hull and
reliability from a future maintenance standpoint is going to
be acceptable?
MR. GILJAM:  Oh, yes, sir.  Once the hulls are
stripped out on the LARCs, there is a complete inspection
done on them.  Any areas that would have any pitting or
anything like that, or anything that it's had.  Truly most of
the damage that's been done to a LARC is because they were in
the military, some of them were beat up.  Okay.
In those instances, we work with the local Coast
Guard inspector, we inspect it at the same time.  In our
case, with our facilities up in New York State, the Buffalo
District office will come out and inspect the hulls, and
verify our findings.  We make an agreement on if there is a
cut or a penetration like that, in its stock form, there is a
set of regulations and guidelines for how much of the hull
needs to be sectioned out, the exact perimeters and the
welding and testing procedures that have to be done with
that.  The dye testing of the welds and so forth when it's
all done.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And the Coast Guard works
jointly with you on that assessment?
MR. GILJAM:  Yes.  We've had a wonderful rapport
with the Coast Guard.  Anything that we've needed and we work
within two districts, just ourselves, and then the staff has
always been very, very helpful for us.  We do run into
problems with regulations in different places when we're
building a machine for a different location.
The local Coast Guard office has called the next
Coast Guard office.  It's not one set of books.  And we do
have that problem.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.  You'd mentioned
that with the plug pulled out, there's enough flotation to
enable the vessel to stay afloat.  Now, you also mentioned
compartments.  Are there water-tight compartmentations, or
are these non-water-tight bulkheads?
MR. GILJAM:  What we've done is, we've designed the
system with an array of baffle plates and compartmentization
underneath the vessel.  You truly wouldn't have to put the
foam in them to have the same thing; however, if you wanted
to puncture -- say, you were to puncture one of the cells in
the bottom.  If it has foam in it, you can still not get any
water build up in it, and so therefore, the integrity of the
entire vessel is completely the same, as opposed to relying
on just a dry space.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And by compartments, what did you
mean?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, there's quite an array of
compartments.  The entire lower section of the Hyrda-Terra?
is in cells.  They're roughly two foot by 28 inches, up to
the bottom of the floor, which is about 28 inches at its
deepest point.  So each one of those individual cells on the
outside perimeter of the Hyrda-Terra? is where we fill them
with foam, flotation material.
There is much more flotation available than
actually the craft would require.  Our craft is quite light.
 It only weighs 10,000 pounds empty, and fully loaded with
Coast Guard certified number of passengers, we're still under
17,000 pounds.  Whereas, that is opposed to a LARC that
weighs 19,000 pounds, in its stock form plus passengers, so
it takes up to about 26,000 pounds.
So the amount of flotation is relative to the
weight of the vehicle, and per the regulations of the Coast
Guard.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.  When it floats
with a plug out, does it support the full capacity of
passengers, or is that reduced?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, it will obviously set lower into
the water, because you have to change the displacement.  I
don't have a graphic with me that shows that, but it does
show that the passengers and so forth, are still above water.
 It does not go down to floor height, and the Hyrda-Terra?
has a 46 inch free board, if I remember the calculations,
somewhere -- that's at fully loaded condition, and in a
flooded condition, we lose approximately 12 inches of that,
if I remember.  I don't remember that exactly, but we did it
in a flooded condition state.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  Could you describe for
us the sequence of steps you go through with the Coast Guard
in getting plan approval.  Do you start with the MSO [USCG
Marine Safety Office] or the MSC [USCG Marine Safety Center]?
MR. GILJAM:  What we did is, we started right with
the -- because we live right near Savannah District.  Our
first contact for the Hyrda-Terra? was right through the
Savannah office, working locally with them.  Again, we've got
a longstanding rapport with the Buffalo office, because
that's where we also built the "Cool Diversion" was in New
York.
When we started the plan review for that one, that
was in Buffalo district.  The review process for us is,
before we started any construction whatsoever, we went in, in
each instance, and met with the Coast Guard directly first,
before anything was done.  Got a full handle on all of the
different things that the local office wanted.  They shared
all of their concerns that were going to go to the Washington
center, and all of those things that were going to be a plan
review item, that they wanted to take upstairs, shall we say,
to Washington.
Most all of the Hyrda-Terra? is through
Washington, because it is a novel and new design.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  But you submitted your plans and
drawings to the MSO, and they forwarded it to MSC if --
MR. GILJAM:  That is correct.  As I understand,
their plan review process is, the local MSO on a lot of shall
we call the minor issues, they can handle, so that the center
in Washington is not inundated with small details.  Things
that they obviously know will fit within the regulations.
You know, for example, the fire systems, and the
bilge systems and so forth like that, all we're able to be
taken care of through the local Savannah office on the Hyrda-
Terra?.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
MR. GILJAM:  The other -- the major part of that
is, the Hyrda-Terra? is built to ABS [American Bureau of
Shipping] standards as well, and so that has -- that aids the
Coast Guard in their plan review process as well.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  What guidance does ABS give you
and what interaction do you have with ABS?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, ABS is not much of an
interaction.  But ABS has a set of rules that is an accepted
standard.  It's American Bureau of Shipping.  And that
governs hull construction, stresses, they call it the section
modulus, if you will, the actual internal strength of the
hull, and its ability to support weight and that is
responsible for helping in determining framing structures.
Everything from that, including -- within those sets of
regulations are the ability to say, what number of pounds of
square foot of square area can the aluminum hull withstand,
and those standards are what govern it.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Let me refocus my question.  Is
this ABS Marine Services, who you pay to do some design work
for you, or is it a classification by ABS?
MR. GILJAM:  No, it is a classification by ABS.  It
is not an architectural firm, no.  American Bureau of
Shipping has a set of standards that the Coast Guard
recognizes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.  And there is a guidance book
for -- what is that booklet called, and normally, American
Bureau of Shipping rules are published in a guide book or --
MR. GILJAM:  That's exactly what it is.  It's a
guidebook, yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you remember the title?
MR. GILJAM:  I do not.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And do you use that in
designing your vessels?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, originally the design was a
hundred percent in-house, and what we did is, a plan review
to double-check all of my work and so forth before we
submitted it.
I hired an outside naval architect, who I didn't
know, because it was important to us to prove our design to
ourselves.  So as a safety step and just good prudent
business, we retained an outside naval architect firm, to
take and review all of our plans, to see that they met all
the codes, that the weights, the stabilities, all of the
systems met and exceeded all of the regulations.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr.
Giljam.
MR. GILJAM:  Thank you.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Going to move on to Mr. Andy
Wilson with Boston Ducks.  And if you could, just describe to
us, some of these are the same questions that I'm going to be
asking, the steps that we go through with the Coast Guard.
Where do you start and how do you proceed to get the
certification?
MR. WILSON:  Generally, when we started, they would
be certified out of the St. Louis office, because they
remanufactured in Branson, Missouri by Ride the Ducks.  And
then that certificate would be transferred up to Boston and
re-reviewed in Boston.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So the MSO at Boston reviews what
has already been approved at Missouri by MSO Missouri; is
that what you said?
MR. WILSON:  MSO St. Louis, correct.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  St. Louis.  Okay.  So do you need
to submit any plans or drawings?  Or what -- do you have to
do any additional work, or is it mainly paper-stamped?
MR. WILSON:  Initially we had to submit to MSO
Boston plans, stability tests, what have you, and they were
originally reviewed when we opened or as we were opening.
And now, as new vessels come on line, that same documentation
holds true for all our new DUKWs that go on line under the
Sister Vessel Act.  So there's initial documentation back in
1993 that was submitted to MSO Boston.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And are the follow-on
vessels considered a similar sister vessels?
MR. WILSON:  Yeah.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you need to do stability tests
on any of the newer vessels?
MR. WILSON:  No.  It was originally done again
before we opened initially, and again, under the sister
vessel's act, because they are identical from vessel to
vessel.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And the original approval
was done at MSO St. Louis you said.
MR. WILSON:  Correct.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you then find it necessary to
hire any specialists, professional engineers and naval
architects?  Do you do any design work yourself?
MR. WILSON:  We do, do minor qualifications, that
we run by the MSO in Boston, to get their approval.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Any examples of which would be?
MR. WILSON:  Replacement of boot system, which
we're going to be talking about tomorrow would be an example.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  From a safety standpoint,
what do you consider to be complex or challenging issues in
the conversion?  Do you have any thoughts on that?
MR. WILSON:  Not particularly from a conversion
standpoint.  From a maintenance standpoint, it just is like
any other mechanical thing.  There has to be a process
involved with qualified people, and that's the challenge, is
to making sure that they're properly maintained.  Once
they're properly converted, they need to be properly
maintained.  That's just an on-going business challenge.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  All right.  As far as the hulls
are concerned, do you scrap most of the original metal and
renew the plating or --
MR. WILSON:  Again, we -- all that is done in
Branson.  We purchase all our vehicles from Ride the Ducks in
Branson, so that's all done by Mr. McDowell, in the initial
conversion.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And what is the de-watering and
bilge pump capacity on your DUKWs?
MR. WILSON:  Currently we operate with a Higgins
pump, and have two 1,000 gallon electric pumps.  In our
winter overhauls this year, in addition to the Higgins'
pumps, we are adding six electric bilge pumps of -- I believe
they're 3,700 gallon per minute electric bilge pumps, which
are Coast Guard approved.  So it'll give us a total de-
watering capacity between engine driven Higgins and the
electric bilge pumps of somewhere in the neighborhood of
about 36,000 gallons an hour.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  What was the basis of -- for
adding these pumps in addition to the Higgins' pump?  Did the
Coast Guard tell you to do that, or was there discussions?
MR. WILSON:  No.  This may sound a little bit
corny.  I grew up in the space program and redundancy to me
is obvious, you know, for safety.  As one of the panel
members discussed, the mechanical pump is powered by the
engine, and if the engine should fail, obviously you don't
have -- you've lost that de-watering capability from the
mechanically driven pump.
With electric pumps, with redundant batteries, I
believe it gives us redundancy to handle any potential
situation to improve safety.  And so it was not a
requirement.  It was something that we have been in a
constant state of improvement since we've opened.  It's not
been always -- as I mentioned earlier, the regulation of this
industry, because it is an emerging industry, it has lagged,
so we have not always waited for the regulators tell us what
to do, we've always attempted to do what we think is the
right thing, and so this is not a requirement.  This is a
thing that we feel is the appropriate thing to do.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Were these pumps added after
summer, or do they plan to be added after this year's summer?
MR. WILSON:  They're going to be added over our
winter overhauls.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
And that ends my questioning.  I'm going to pass it over to
Mr. Tony Murray.
MR. TYRRELL:  Excuse me.  We're going to take this
opportunity to take a 15 minute break, and when we come back,
we'll resume with questioning with the technical panel.
Thank you very much.  Please be back on time, so we can try
and keep to our schedule as closely as possible.
(A 15 minute break was held at this time.)
MR. TYRRELL:  Could we ask you all to please take
your seats.  We're going to resume the forum.  We seem to
have lost a couple of panel members.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  For those in the audience that
may not have the detailed schedule that we have, we had
planned to conclude with this panel by 10:00 o'clock this
morning.  But as you can see, we're going longer, because we
have a lot more coverage we want to devote to this panel.
And I might add, these presentations have been very
impressive this morning, and we appreciate them.
And so it's for that reason that we're a little bit
behind schedule.  But we've taken this opportunity to come
all the way down here to Memphis, to learn more about safety
approaches to these amphibious vessels, and so we want to
make sure we ask all the questions we need to ask, rather
than confining ourselves to the parameters of this preprinted
schedule.
MR. TYRRELL:  Okay.  At this time, we'll resume
questioning of panel number one with Anthony Murray.
MR. MURRAY:  Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell.  This question
is for Mr. Bob McDowell.  Have you found any hulls to be
beyond repair or beyond the point of being able to be
converted into a passenger vessel?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, that's a good question.  I
believe that a lot of the hulls that you find today would
typically be unrepairable by even an above average
restoration shop.
Some of the areas where you can have some
difficulty in the repair, will be in the area of lamination
of the primary hull to the frame in the rear suspension area,
where the trunion bar is located, and where it wraps as it
goes back into the propulsion area.
If you were to completely disassemble the hull from
the framework in that rear area, you would discover that
there's probably a good opportunity for a minor degree of
pitting, depending on how well the equipment has been taken
care of.
What we do, as you saw our rack there, and we turn
it upside down, we don't leave that to chance.  We hundred
percent go back in and rebuild that area.  We do upgrade the
gauge-in material through that rear suspension and trunion
area, to a ten gauge material and laminate -- through the
lamination process, use a 3M adhesive that keeps the water
out of there for the future.
So when we place a unit, we're not going to have to
worry about that particular exposure.
Some of the equipment that I have seen that has
been run in salt water and not kept up with, there will be an
excessive pitting in the primary framework, which probably
would render that or disable the equipment.  But I guess it's
feasible to go in and replace every particular component from
a physical standpoint, but from a practical standpoint, they
may not be the case.
There's a lot of expensive jigging and things that
you need to have to maintain the relative proximity and
clearance values and geometry of the suspension system, to
keep the vehicles or vessel, in this case, safe.
MR. MURRAY:  Thank you, Mr. McDowell.  My next
question is for Mr. Frank Serafine.  Prior to -- well, when
you got into the business of conversions, and making your
design applications to the Coast Guard, was there any
requirement for a background knowledge of the marine industry
or any experience you had in the maritime field that had to
be proven?
MR. SERAFINE:  No.  Pretty much, anybody can build
one of these things.  I think a tremendous amount of the
units out there have been built in body shops and sent over
to a mechanic, you know, can throw a motor in it, and send it
over to the upholstery guy and so on and so forth.  And I
think a lot of the first ones were done that way, and they'll
wear you out from a maintenance standpoint that way.
We had a full auto business.  We did everything in-
house, but I had no marine background whatsoever.  I got the
regs.  I was lucky enough to build for someone who'd already
built some, so he knew, and I got involved with the Coast
Guard, and we learned kind of the hard way.  And I'll be the
first one to tell you, the first one ain't nearly as good as
the last one.
MR. MURRAY:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Serafine.  The
next question is for Mr. John Giljam.  And this relates to --
can you relate to us some of your experience during these
conversions of building at your site location for a
particular customer in another state or another Coast Guard
jurisdiction, where you've come across your dealings with the
Fire Vessel Codes, some of the modifications that you've had
to do from your original construction site to the destination
site.
MR. GILJAM:  Yes, I can.  One example of that, in
one of the conversions that we did for a customer that bought
multiple units, the engine room of this particular design
that we built is an open engine room.
The fan and the air exchange system takes in a
hundred percent of the air for the radiator right through the
engine room itself.  And so you have a tremendous volume of
air that is coming through and into the engine room and then
is exited out of the radiator in the back of the unit.
Having spent 15 years in the fire department, along
with the engineering and so forth, when you have that
tremendous amount of volume of air flowing in an area, a
fixed fire extinguisher system is of no use whatsoever.
You know, you could discharge the standard CO2 fire
extinguisher system, if that engine were running at proper
operating speed, there's so much air going through there,
that it is ineffective.  And the Buffalo office agreed with
that, and there is a provision in the regulations that state
that it would be such, it would not be feasible.  Now, you
obviously would have the fire extinguisher systems on board
as needed, if there were a fire.
One of our customers took it to another city and we
ran into very simply the officer in that city flat out
stated, we don't consider any engine room to be open.  So
therefore, it defeated the entire book of the regulations,
because right in that, the one statement is left up to the
officer in charge, at his discretion.  At his discretion, he
claimed that an engine was closed, and so therefore, a
different system had to be devised.
That is just one example of the problems that we
have when you go to cities.  The book of regulations is not
the book of regulations if any one individual can circumvent
or completely change the way that that goes.  And that is a
very big problem.
MR. MURRAY:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Giljam.  I'll
now turn over the questioning to Mr. Rob Henry.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. McDowell, have you in your
conversion process converted any DUKWs for state
certification, as opposed to Coast Guard certification?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No, but we've discussed that as a
company, through our management meetings, and basically, our
company culture, our processes and procedures would simply
not change.  We feel like these regulations have been written
for a reason.  We study not only the regulations, and try to
meet it as best we can.
MR. HENRY:  Did you have an option when you were
converting your DUKWs to going either state or federal?
MR. MCDOWELL:  In some of the locations we've been
approached on, we would not be under the arm of the Coast
Guard, and that's why we've had the discussions regarding
that, if we were to go into that market, that would be part
of our participation criteria.
MR. HENRY:  Have you looked at the state
certification process, and can you comment on in contrast
that to federal regulations?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No, I haven't, but Andy Wilson and I
have gone to Washington, D.C. and talked to the Coast Guard
regarding this with Captain Basil and the few members of his
staff, and would recommend, because of the unique nature of
these vehicles, and I think the regulatory authorities, of
course want to do what they can to ensure the safety, to be a
part of the developing syllabus to help some of the
inspecting officers understand some of the unique
characteristics of the vehicles or vessels, that it may be,
that it might not be necessarily self-evident.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Each of you have commented on
the difficulties in applying Subchapter T to amphibious
passenger vessels, and conflicts and difficulties throughout
the zones, Coast Guard zones.  Mr. McDowell, how would you
improve this process?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, I think it's important to
recognize that the federal regs as they've been written.  The
intent, of course, is to make the vehicles or vessels or
whatever the case may be safer.  And that's certainly our
intent.
I think the interpretation of the regs often times
needs to be debated from an educational process, both for the
individual operators and the inspecting officers to get it to
the safest or the most practical application.
I do believe -- it's my personal belief that the
local MSO does need to be involved in the process, due to the
unique operating situations that you get into in a zone.  I'm
not sure -- it's certainly our intent to build a vessel that
we could take anywhere to use, you know, for sightseeing
tours, given reasonable constraints.
But I do understand because of local history and
knowledge and past history and incidents, that there are
certain things that are -- certain local citizens are
sensitive to, that need to be addressed and I understand that
influence.
So I guess in conclusion, although I am a little
frustrated from time to time.  Most of the requirements that
were requested of us by reviewing the equipment in other
operating zones have been, I think been reasonable requests
that we have met.  The ones that haven't been from our
perspective, we've debated with and worked out reasonable
solutions to the problems.
But I would like to commend the Coast Guard.  For
instance, when we went to Boston and Joe McKegnie took the
time to take two days out of his busy schedule to come to
Branson, and spend two days reviewing the equipment, but
importantly the culture of our company that supports the
equipment, to ensure the long-term continuity of safety,
maintenance and so forth.
MR. HENRY:  In the area of certification of these
vehicles for highway application and marine application, are
there any areas that provide unusual conflicts in meeting
their demands of highway requirements and marine
requirements?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  I call them design
constraints.  Basically, you have a boat that's being driven
on the road, and a truck that's being operated in the water.
 And with that, there are some design constraints that are a
little difficult to address.
One of them being the rear bumper area.  In order
for the DUKW to enter the water correctly, the nose has to
come up as the ramp is going down into the water, and it
would be like in to put a rear bumper on an airplane and drag
when it starts its lift-off cycle.
Most all of the other areas, I believe we've
addressed.  Not too many come to mind.  I know the headlight
height on the original DUKW, for instance, is up on the upper
deck area.  We've incorporated that into our hull.
I think that you can go down through the hulls and
come up with good solutions to address the intent of the
regulatory requirement in most cases.
MR. HENRY:  In your conversions, have you looked at
methods to reduce the susceptibility and consequences of
internal flooding?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We've looked at everything, front to
back, and as a participant in this, we felt like it was
important for us to bring some potential solutions to the
group to review.  I do have an item that I can show in
regards to that if it's appropriate at this time.
MR. HENRY:  I wouldn't have a problem, if the head
panel.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Okay.
MR. HENRY:  Please.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Part of our criteria in reviewing
the exposure as a result of this incident had us without the
facts, so we made some assumptions, valid or not, and as our
group, we have a full time safety officer, Ron Hobbs, who's
with me here today, and we do have participation on a monthly
basis from all the disciplines of our company that
participates in review and oversight of the safety, as well
as input from the drivers.
Some of the potential areas of risk, I guess, to
breach the hull, may come in the rear area, where the prop
shaft is located.  If there was to be a failure with the V-
strut, due to the cap coming off, a bolt coming out or
whatever, the prop shaft would lose its relative location,
and could get the prop into the side of the hull.
We've developed a very inexpensive retention collar
that we've implemented on all of our equipment, and shared
this knowledge with Boston, and I do have some pictures of
it.  If there's any of the operators that would take a quick
look at it, it just takes a little bit of time and energy to
put on, and eliminates that exposure.
The other exposure that we hear about, as it
relates to the boots, I believe primarily comes from the
geometry of the suspension, and making sure that you fully
understand where the exposures can potentially be.
There's been a lot of blame on the boot itself, but
it's -- I liken it to a glass window in your house.  If
somebody throws a ball through it, you don't blame the window
for breaking.  If it's put under undue duress, due to other
components not being in place, you can have a failure in that
regard.
But as it pertains to the boot, it's bolted up to
the hull, similar to this here, and what we've done, is we've
incorporated a piece of rigid rubber material that has the
ability to give, and it's impregnated with a fiber in here.
It's actually rock belt, rock quarry belt material that's oil
resistant, and it's been incorporated into this area here.
Ordinarily, this area here would be open and the
driveshaft would rotate in this area.  We initially looked at
a rigid system here, such as a metal plate or what not, but
it was very difficult to get the tolerances close enough to
do a significant amount of good.
So when we developed this, and you can run the
driveshaft through here, it will seat itself into the rubber
and ride in very close proximity.  And after it seats in, it
makes a little bit of an oval shape, so the primary riding
position of the driveshaft is what's denoted as a circle
here, and this area up here, then becomes your maximum
exposure point, if there was a breach of the boot.
So I think this is a very inexpensive reasonable
solution to incorporate into the DUKW.  And I know Andy has a
solution as well, that he's been working on from his
perspective and he'll be presenting that as well.
MR. HENRY:  Have you looked at what percentage of
reduction in flooding that addition would contribute?
MR. MCDOWELL:  I guess, you know, when Dwayne Ray
from the -- Mr. Lantz's office in Washington came out, we did
some review without that member being in place, and he did
some reports on the volume, and it -- I guess it's -- will
boil down to what is the debated overall exposure area.  And
I think -- I don't have one that's burned in, but I believe
that to be accurate based on what my staff has been able to
provide me, and I think you could take that residual value
there that's in that electrical shape and determine what that
is.  And it looks to be probably close to the same combined
diameter maybe of an inch pipe or something.  So whatever
volume a one-inch pipe would provide as opposed to the
overall exposure that you have there.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Several other of the panel
members have talked about the floatation, compartmentation
foaming.  Have you looked at all for your conversions?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes, we have.  There's several
things you have to take into consideration, when you look at
any aspect of this vessel, this is a relatively small vessel,
and anything that you do will definitely have an influence on
the rest of the componentry of the vessel.
We did an initial study on some of the closed
areas, and I hear what the gentlemen saying about closed cell
foam, and the benefits of it.  The down side is that it can
potentially become water saturated over a long period of
time, and I know that's debatable, and I'm not trying to
diminish that value.
I do believe that if there's an opportunity in new
construction, that I think that's something that would be
prudent to look at.
As we looked at this issue as a result of the
incident, we tried to determine what could be done,
relatively inexpensively to help minimize what the perceived
exposure would be.  And I would caution us to remember the
number of people that have been hauled successfully over the
course of the many years that these DUKWs have been in
operation, and the longstanding good history that we've had.
I've also brought a working model of the drive tube
assembly, and its relationship with the retention ring, and
some of the things that -- just from an educational
standpoint, some of the operators may or may not be aware of,
but it'll certainly help get everybody up to speed, in terms
of the geometry of the suspension, and where some of the
potential exposure could be to help in the education process.
And if it's appropriate to share that with you
today at this time or later, that will be fine as well.
MR. HENRY:  Please.  That's why we're here.
MR. MCDOWELL:  I don't have a table to work from,
so I help everybody can see this okay.  Basically, this is
the area that we're talking about before, where that seal
could be incorporated into this, and you can see your overall
exposure area here, that -- do we have a table that we could
set this up on?  Probably not, I guess.
Can I sit it up there?  You have a -- this drive
tube has been shortened up for demonstration purposes.  I'll
try to do my best to explain what happens when the DUKW
enters the water.
As we were discussing, when this DUKW goes in the
water this way, the range of motion issues that you get into
with the rear suspension, the rear axle housing comes up, in
the intermediate axle housing comes down.
The DUKW has been designed to accommodate for this.
 There's a tension ring here that's fastened to the
differential, and so as this duck goes in the water, and that
goes through this range of motion, the driveshaft is
stretched a little bit, which is allowable by the yoke system
in the driveshaft.
So when this comes out, the retention collar's
there to hold this in place, the right relative proximity,
and the drive tube is held by the hanger assembly.
Now, in the restoration process, if this component
is not in good shape and somebody rebuilds it, and it is
shorter than the original component, there is a likelihood
that this can fall into this position when it goes into the
water, and then when the DUKW tries to recover on its natural
position on the road, it has no way to get back to where it
needs to be.  And so there's some exposure there.
If the driveshaft is remanufactured and it's too
short, then even though this can be in the right proximity,
you can pull the driveshaft out of its yoke, and then not
have a way for it to recover back in its original position.
We have brought a yoke with us that has some
additional clearance value, that helps minimize that
exposure, but that length of that driveshaft is important as
well.
Also, it can run the risk if the rear axle stops
aren't maintained properly, that allows increased range in
motion, or if during the restoration process somebody relaxes
the springs a little bit too much, and that will actually
cause the increase range of motion as well.
But I thought through this aid, it'd be a lot
easier for people to understand and visualize how all this
system works, and it's quite a reliable and well-suited for
its intended purpose.
It's just a boot that fastens up to the hull, and
it's secured by a band clamp and we just -- we haven't had
much trouble out of it as long as you maintain them properly.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. McDowell, it appears that, you
know, your discussion of range of motion relates to the
original design of these vehicles for wartime application,
and we saw the World War II video, you know, going over sand
dunes, sort of off-road capability.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.
MR. HENRY:  And typically that's not how they're
operated now.  Have you looked at all -- at ways to constrain
or reduce this range of motion, and limit problems you've
discussed?
MR. MCDOWELL:  I guess that's one way of fixing it,
but it's better to keep the good thinking and the engineering
that was actually developed, incorporated into it.  So I
would think that it would be better to generate a syllabus to
help the inspecting officers be able to identify if there's
something that has -- one of the components that has
shortcomings that would allow some exposure there.
I think the original DUKWs were designed to climb
up 60-degree slopes and all kinds of those things, and we
don't really get into those kind of situations now, but where
our exposure is, I believe, is as its entering the water, is
where we have the maximum range of motion issues with the
rear suspension.
There's nothing wrong with it, it's just something
that it needs to be maintained, and it's important that
everybody understands the geometry of it, and what could
potentially happen if some of those components weren't
recreated as they were initially designed.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Thank you.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Serafine, when you talked about
getting into the business of running amphibious passenger
vehicles, you said you had looked over the choices of DUKWs,
different types, and you said the vehicle of your choice was
the Alvis Stalwart.  What criteria did you make that
selection on?
MR. SERAFINE:  I truly don't want to get into a
situation where this turns into a marketing campaign for the
Stalwart and I hurt the DUKWs in any way.  I just feel that
it's a stronger, more durable vehicle.  It has tremendously
more freeboard.  It has less hull penetrations.  The
likelihood of sinking one, we're talking about adding foam
and everything else, but it's pretty hard to puncture a
quarter inch hull at six knots.
If you don't have hull penetrations with rubber
boots or such, that you have to worry about being faulty or
breaking or being left off or whatever, and if your risk of
puncture is almost none, the foam issue becomes a mute point.
We have tremendous freeboard.  We have tremendous
stability with the new drive-train, we have dependence,
maintenance and reliability.  With the hydrostatics, there
are through-hole fittings that are approximately an inch, for
the sake of conversation, that are welded in the hull, and a
hydraulic hose bolts on one side, and a hydraulic hose bolts
on the other side.
In the event that hose should blow to the wheels,
which it shouldn't by the way, because the wheels aren't
driven in the water anyways, but if did blow, there's a valve
that will shut that hose off instantly.  We'd lose about
three gallons of fluid.
The water would only go back into the hydraulic
system.  It still wouldn't get in the hull.  We have a one
inch drain hole so we can wash and service the hull.  If you
have a daily hull inspection, you're checking your welds and
your hull integrity, and you don't have hull penetration, you
shouldn't have to worry about taking water and what if you
do, and how are you going to get it out, and having foam to
keep it up, et cetera.
The other reason, is it can carry more capacity
than the other vehicles, and still be at a reasonable size.
It's actually smaller than the other vehicles in physical
dimension, yet it can fit everybody in.
So that was my reason for choosing the Stalwart or
thinking that it would be the vehicle of choice.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  The side loading gates,
they are sealed up in the --
MR. SERAFINE:  They're cut off.  Yeah, they're cut
off.  There was a photo where we completely cut those off,
and break bend new 11 gauge steel and completely replace
that.  All of the freeboard is totally brand new and it's all
11 gauge steel.  The thickness again is a big issue.  Pretty
much everything above the waterline is 11 gauge.  There's
only a couple of inches of 11 gauge, and it's very high duty
stuff.
MR. HENRY:  You had mentioned that you welders are
AWS certified.  Are your mechanics certified?
MR. SERAFINE:  Mechanics right now don't need much
more certification than to be able to put a brand new
complete Cummins motor in from Cummins, quite honestly.
There's not a lot -- it's an assembly process now.  They've
all been trained in our shop.  There is no certification
necessary than a standard ASE, but it's an assembly deal
right now, quite bluntly.  We're not rebuilding a bunch of
stuff.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Have you done any conversions
for non-Coast Guard certification?
MR. SERAFINE:  yes.
MR. HENRY:  Could you give us a comparison of the
state or local certification process and contrast that to the
Coast Guard certification process?
MR. SERAFINE:  We built it to Coast Guard regs.  In
fact, I even had the Coast Guard informally inspect it for me
when he was there.  And that particular case, having it
inspected informally was quite honestly when the final draw
came on that vehicle, for lack of a better -- just the guy
knew it was, but he's in non-navigable waters in it.  We also
sent one to Australia, and we just built it to Coast Guard
specs, and they dealt with it when it got over there.
So three of the boats that we've built have not
been certified, but they were built to specs regardless.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  In your conversions, what areas
of design provide challenges in meeting the requirements for
highway, as opposed to marine?
MR. SERAFINE:  Pretty much we've got past all of
that now.  Our units usually are DOT certified.  We can put
the rear bumper on our particular vehicle.  The fact again
that it's a quarter inch hull, that we can weld tabs and weld
a retractable bumper on the vehicle, that can retract upon
entry into the water, yet will still keep a Hyaundi from
going underneath it.  So we've got around that now.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  You made a comment in describing
bilge specifications, having to meet both Coast Guard and
DOT.  Maybe I missed something.
MR. SERAFINE:  Well, when I say that, the Coast
Guard, I think Bob put it perfectly, it's a truck on the
water.  They're not used to dealing with something with
multiple outlets with wheels and drives and tires and
everything else.  The amphibians have dry exhaust, that's an
issue.  And most of them are gasoline powered.
The issue of the dry exhaust isn't a big issue with
the diesel, it's allowed.  So there are provisions for that.
 But there are just a few things that make it difficult.  But
the biggest thing is quite honestly is when it shows up at a
zone, and it gets there, it's totally new.  They just have a
tendency to pulling back and being extremely cautious and
nervous.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  So we've heard comments on the
difficulty in applying subchapter T to these vessels, and in
a lack of reciprocity among Coast Guard zones, as far as
certain design features and operations.  How would you
improve this process?
MR. SERAFINE:  By writing a specific set of
amphibious regulations, that we can build and operate by for
amphibians.  If I'm not mistaken, there's about 75 inspected
vessels running.  I think that's enough.  And you know, some
people have said, be careful what you ask for Frank, you may
get it, but we don't fear that.  I don't think anybody up
here does quite honestly.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you, sir.
MR. SERAFINE:  One more question or one more
statement, if I can.
Some of the hull penetrations on the DUKWs could be
eliminated with the hydrostatic as also a possibility.  We
have engineered a system for that also, although we haven't
put it on and done it, and we can eliminate driveshafts and
boots with those also, although I'm not getting into DUKW
business.  We have looked at the possibility of doing that,
when looking at all the different vehicles.  So it's just
kind of something to throw out there.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Mr. Giljam, have you converted
any of your amphibious vehicles for non-Coast Guard state
application?
MR. GILJAM:  Currently all of the vessels that we
have built, all did meet regulations; however, it is our
policy, as a manufacturer, we have a liability exposure
there, any time you manufacture something.  So even if it was
not to go into a Coast Guard regulated zone, if it was a non-
navigable application, it still would've been built to Coast
Guard regulations.  It's just one more layer of protection as
a manufacturer.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  In your LARC design, you pointed
out the side loading entryway.  Can you tell us how you got
to the point of making that a feature in your arrangement?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, in the LARC that we run, we've
got two different arrangements.  Now, the side door I think
that you're referring to was for the Hyrda-Terra?, which is
the brand new design.  Okay?
Current regulations that govern that, again, we're
interested in building the safest possible vessel to do this
business.  The regulations for seating requirements and so
forth, in the Coast Guard rules, the seating aisle width is
very, very specific and laid out as it pertains to T-boats.
Any time that you have a 15-foot or longer
aisleway, the aisleway must be a different width in itself.
Or they must have a readily accessible means of egress for
that.  Particularly, there's a 15-foot rule.  Anything over
15 feet, has to have a 30-inch wide aisleway in the middle.
But putting the door in the center way, we're able to keep
all of our seats the same, all of our arrangement is the
same, and also incorporate the safety feature of an extra
door for the people to egress out in the event of an
emergency.
In the Cool Diversion, which is a wide open design,
we have two doors.  One on each side on that craft as well.
MR. HENRY:  So in your designs that have two exits,
emergency exits, are you still using one operator?
MR. GILJAM:  Oh, no, we're required to have a
captain and a first mate on all of our vessels.  We think not
only is it a requirement especially when you're talking about
a 49 passenger vessel, and that's basically all that we're
building.
Some of the shorter conversion units, that are 35
foot in length, are certified for 32 passengers, but also the
weight and stabilities are done for captain and a crew
member.  We feel that that is the single most safest thing
that you can have, is let the captain drive the boat and do
what he's supposed to do.  Let someone else give the tour and
be the first mate, and they are responsible for watching the
passengers, and seeing that things are safe, being aware of
what is around them, let the captain do his job.
MR. HENRY:  In looking at the arrangement for the
emergency exits, how have you instructed your operators to
run an emergency evacuation with the two exits?
MR. GILJAM:  Well, for example, when we're
operating, we've got kind of a unique standpoint, because we
own and operate a tour company, as well as manufacture.  For
example, our standard procedure before we go into the water,
every single time prior to entry into the water, we stop the
vehicle.
At that time, we do a full demonstration of the
life jacket donning.  We make sure that all of the children
have the appropriate-sized life jacket specifically with each
and every child, as we have all of the adult life preservers
underneath each one of the individual seats.  So we hand
those out prior to that.
In addition to that, we go through a systems check.
 We literally before entering the water, we'll do a rudder
operation check, and a propeller drive check, prior to
entering the water.  Along with all of those, the first mate
will instruct the passengers on the two means of exit as
well.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  One question that I've
asked everybody so far, and that is with the discussions that
we've had on the difficulties of interpreting subchapter T
and the application for amphibious passenger vessels, and the
conflicts that have come up in crossing zones, with different
OCMI's [Officer in Charge of Marine Inspections] applying,
different policy, how would you improve the process?
MR. GILJAM:  I think there's several ways that it
could be addressed.
A revision and a clearer understanding of the
regulations certainly would be one and eliminate such a large
gray area in many of the cases.  That one little line on the
bottom that allows that particular officer in his particular
marine district to accept or negate any one of those
regulations is I think probably one of the bigger problems
that we have.
Secondly, you also get into situations of this.
The Coast Guard's internal turnover of their personnel.  I'll
give an example.
Coast Guard inspector where we built the Cool
Diversion out of the Buffalo office, the gentleman who was in
charge of inspecting the vessel and so forth had -- if I
remember right, he had better than 18 years in vessel safety
and inspections and so forth.  The gentleman that is
replacing him, has merely been an investigator and doesn't
have any building and manufacturing experience to back him
up.  However, he is the new replacement and he is in charge.
Therefore, he has to take the book piece by piece
by piece, and try to figure out for himself without having
the experience and the knowledge behind him of all those
years, of what that regulation means.  It's up to him to have
to interpret that, instead of just being able to -- it would
be much simpler if there was a checklist, here, okay, there
are two fire extinguishers on board, it meets it, check,
simplified.
I want to touch on one other thing.  As far as the
foam flotation and so forth that we're talking about, when it
comes to safety, before I lost it, I don't mean to interject
this right now, but one of the questions that somebody
brought up was the water saturation of foam flotation
systems.  That is a concern, and it all depends on how the
system is employed, and what it does.
For example, in the Hyrda-Terra?, all of the foam
flotation material is up and not in the bilge area to where
it can even access water, and that needs to be an important
thing to think about for anybody that does do a foam system,
that it does not take on water and lose its flotation
ability.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you, sir.  Mr. Wilson, have you
converted any DUKWs for passenger vessel operation that don't
require Coast Guard certification?
MR. WILSON:  No.  We are not in the conversion
business.  Again, we buy all of our equipment from Mr.
McDowell.
MR. HENRY:  And they're all Coast Guard inspected?
MR. WILSON:  That's correct.
MR. HENRY:  Have you looked at any methods that
would improve or reduce the susceptibility and the
consequences of internal flooding of DUKWs?
MR. WILSON:  Yes, we have.  I mentioned the
addition of redundant bilge pumps earlier.  In 1998, we
designed a system that replaces the boot system, which again,
it's my understanding that we will be presenting that
tomorrow.
In addition to that, we have decided from the
system we've designed, to put the boot system back on, is
again, is a redundant factor and those are really the two
main areas that we've identified as having a redundancy of
this hull penetration, so the chances of failure are minimal,
and when there is a failure there is minimal leakage from it.
And then if there is leakage, is to make sure that
you have adequate de-watering capabilities from two separate
bilge systems, from two separate energy sources.
MR. HENRY:  Have you looked at compartmentation,
foaming flotation?
MR. WILSON:  We've looked at flotation, and we
don't believe -- at least I don't believe that there's enough
room to have positive flotation in the original design in the
DUKW.  There is some nature compartmentation already in the
original design of the DUKW between the rear compartments and
the front compartment.
MR. HENRY:  I'll ask you the same question that I
asked Mr. McDowell.  Part of the engineering challenges in
maintaining these DUKWs is the range of motion especially of
the rear drive.  Have you looked at all at restraining or
limiting this range of motion, which would allow you to look
at alternatives to hull penetrations?
MR. WILSON:  We've restricted the range of motion
somewhat.  Our new design of our ceiling system, that
replaces the boots, the range of motion really no longer is
an issue.
The need for the range of motion is because of the
suspension, or the need for the roadside, and so the system
that we redesigned, took that range of motion from internal
to the hull of the DUKW to external of the hull of the DUKW,
no longer requiring the boot system.
As I said, we're planning on describing that
tomorrow.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  In meeting both state highway
regulations and the marine regulations, what areas have you
found that have provided challenges and provide conflicts?
MR. WILSON:  I'm not aware of any.  We're very
heavily regulated by the Department of Public Utilities, the
Transportation Division, and basically, we have not
encountered any in our environment.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.
MR. WILSON:  That I'm aware of.
MR. HENRY:  And once again, I'll ask you the
question that I've asked everybody else.  The difficulties
experienced in converting DUKWs based on the application of
subchapter T and then meeting the requirements of different
zones, changes in command, different inspectors.  How would
you improve this process?
MR. WILSON:  Well, first of all, I think a lot of
ideas that have been shared here.  I think Bob McDowell
mentioned a syllabus.  Basically, the way I view the
subchapter T is it was a catch-all for small passenger
vessels.  And all different shapes and sizes which DUKWs fall
into and -- or amphibious vehicles fall into.  And I believe
that a DUKW or a LARC or a Stalwart can be viewed as an
individual class of vessel with specific requirements, and
can be developed for it.
Certainly, I think there's enough knowledge about
the DUKWs across the various MSO's and different requirements
if they were all looked at and consolidated, and industry
members sat down, we could come up with a good set of what a
DUKW -- how it should be converted and what safety equipment
could be incorporated into that.  And making a unified
national safety standards, at least as it relates to DUKWs,
and I would also the same thing could be done for LARCs and
any other types of amphibious vehicles that are coming onto
the market.
I'll also just stress Bob McDowell's point that
again, the DUKWs do have a long history and there's a great
deal of knowledge out there as to how to make them safe.
I've actually found the rotation of Coast Guard
personnel in and out of MSO's beneficial.  Today, we run a
much safer business because of that rotation, because people
come in with fresh ideas when they come in, and when they
come in and inspect the DUKW for the first time.  So I've
actually found that to be a positive experience, rather than
a negative experience.
I know when the DUKWs went to Seattle, they acme up
with several new recommendations that we since have
incorporated in that process.  The biggest problem that I've
seen is that new ideas of increased safety have come out of
different corners of the country, the communication amongst
the Coast Guard as to those various enhancements or safety
features, were not always timely communicated, and I
generally found out through some of these things in the
industry, when the Coast Guard -- the communication with the
Coast Guard, as these new requirements came out, seemed to
lag behind.
So I think just increasing -- you know, and that
would be eliminated if you had a standard kind of review of
DUKWs and what have you.  So the main thing is to come up
with a standard.  Look at this as a class of vessels and
coming up with standards for this class, because it is very
specific, and the T-boat regs, I don't believe were really
ever intended to specifically focus in on amphibious vessels.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you, sir.  At this point, I'll
turn the hat over to the executive panel.
MR. TYRRELL:  I'd like to remind the audience that
if you have any questions for this panel, please write them
on the index cards, and pass them to the center where
there'll be collected.  Mr. Hammerschmidt.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Let's see.  Ms. Weinstein, do
you have any questions?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Yeah, I have one question.  Mr.
Giljam mentioned some passenger safety features, such as two
means of exit, location of personal flotation devices, and
then in terms of the operator, the demonstration of the PFD's
and the two crew members, and I'd like to have Mr. McDowell,
Mr. Serafine and Mr. Wilson have an opportunity to comment on
what safety features are provided either in the conversions
or in the operations for passengers specifically.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Would you like for me to address
that first?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  If you'd like to.
MR. MCDOWELL:  We do drills and exercises.  We look
at accessibility issues both to exits, life jackets.  We try
to design the equipment where it's self-evident for the
customer to know where and how and what to do, in case of
emergencies.  We have signage throughout the vehicle.  We
recognize the location and go through a drill to instruct
them how to don it in case of an emergency, prior to entering
the water.
There's a long list of modifications that are done
in the interest of safety, from flame arrestors, hand bilge
pump, fire bucket, fire extinguishers, affixed CO2 system.
We have an air deprivation system, to close down all of the
engine compartment areas to allow a CO2 system to operate
effectively.
All the drivers are trained in CPR, first aide, and
instructed in how to handle a potential accident.  We have
accident forms on the DUKWs.  We talk about the egress.  You
know, we've designed the rear stairs for quick evacuation on
land or on water.  I mean, the list can go on and on.
I would like to address the question you had about
our rear suspension, too, before I move off the mic if I
would.
I've been addressing a lot of these issues as it
relates to the original DUKWs to allow opportunities for
improvement.  Some of the things that I've been remiss in
identifying in our own development on the equipment we build
now, when you asked about improvements in the range of
motion, we have incorporated a fixed leave spring system that
does just that, and has improved it substantially.
So there are things that we are doing well beyond
the original DUKW, but I've come here to this forum to try to
identify and help in first, the resolution of the existing
equipment that's out there, and what's a practical and
pragmatic approach to dealing with it, as well as helping
collectively with other people after this forum as well as
within it, to generate new ideas and direction for future
safety improvements.  Thank you.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Mr. Serafine.
MR. SERAFINE:  We don't do any operational stuff.
What you're talking about would be primarily concerned about
that.  We sell to operators, and they handle that themselves,
as far as their demonstrations, going into the water, life
jackets, et cetera.  We store the life jackets overhead
through a netting.  They're very quick to get to, very easy
to pull through.  Child's life jackets are stored separately.
 The Coast Guard's got some pretty specific regulations on
the signage and the locations of the vest, and how they need
to be separated, et cetera.  But it's up to the operators
that purchase our vessels to fulfill that.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON:  I believe safety comes across in a
variety of different areas.  One is obviously in equipment.
One is in your personnel in your training, and the other
thing is in your operating zone, and evaluating that
operating zone as to safety as it comes to equipment, fire
fighting systems, redundancy, high water bilge alarms, the
position of the life preservers are above the people's head,
easily accessible.
Egress, we do have side curtains on the side, and
at the suggestion of the Coast Guard, we have emergency drop.
 It's a chord you pull, and the side curtains just drop off.
 The Coast Guard also in Boston about a year after we opened,
requires all of our drivers -- well, first of all, they go
through six weeks of training.
The bulk of them hold 50 ton or greater masters'
licenses.  And so they are maritime personnel.  And then on
every two months, they're required to go through safety
emergency drills, which include man overboard drills,
grounding, evacuation.  We are required to stay within a
thousand feet of shore.  Although we operate on the Charles
River, it's more like a lake, because it's dammed up at the
end, and so our operating zones vary readily, very calm.
And so between all those things, equipment,
training and personnel and operating zones, those things are
the things that make up safety.  I mean, I can sit here and
talk for hours about each one of those.
Clearly, expecting a lot of people that work for
you, they're the last link of safety.  We do do a -- similar
to what John was talking about, before we go in the water, we
stop and we go through, you know, similar to what the
airlines do, as to emergency drills, and that is required of
us, of course, by the Coast Guard.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  I have no more
questions.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Ms. Murtagh?
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  I actually do have a
couple of questions for you.
The first one is given the extensive renovations
that you make to these existing hulls, if each of you could
give me an idea of what the final dollar cost or value of one
of these DUKWs or Stalwarts or LARCs would be when you've
completed your conversion.  I'd appreciate that first.  Mr.
McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, some of it depends on the
configuration of the equipment, but is that a really
necessary question?  It's somewhat confidential.
MS. MURTAGH:  Could you just give me sort of a
range, so I have an understanding?  Is it $10,000 or --
MR. MCDOWELL:  Oh, no.
MS. MURTAGH:  -- $100,000 or a million dollars.
MR. MCDOWELL:  It's in excess of $100,000, I'll say
that, the renovation of our particular equipment.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  That's just the level of
information that I need, if each of you would give me that,
I'd appreciate it.
MR. SERAFINE:  That's pretty much market, yeah.
MS. MURTAGH:  Pretty much the same?
MR. SERAFINE:  Yeah.
MR. GILJAM:  Yeah, same thing.  I think the range
is between 100 and $200,000, just covers any amphibian that
we're aware of?
MS. MURTAGH:  Same for you, Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  Yeah, and I would like to interject.
When I first got into this business until I met Mr. McDowell,
I bought a DUKW for $2,500 and I drove it home.  And so it is
very easy to get into this business without going through the
extensive renovation and everybody up on this panel has
talked about.  And I know what Bob goes through and after the
presentation on the LARCs and the Stalwarts and that has been
a concern for me all along, so I express kind of the nature
of your question is to -- safety also has to do with how much
effort you put into these things in restoring them to be
safe.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  The next question I have
for you is Mr. Serafine had indicated that for example he
does the conversion, he does the construction, et cetera, and
then the responsibility for the operational aspect of it
really goes to the operator.  Is there a forum -- is there a
line of communication, a feedback mechanism within your
industry, where concerns, safety aspects, those kinds of
things can come from the operational side back to the
construction side?
MR. SERAFINE:  Absolutely.  We won't sell it to
just anybody who wants to buy it.  Obviously if they're not
capable of operating it, we don't need to put them in
business and we don't want any disasters either.
We have a large contract with a big company.  That
is the bulk of our business right now, and he's very capable
of operating it.  And handling that end, so that's not a real
concern for us.  When we give them their vessels, we give it
to them, and they can pretty much can handle it from there.
Parts support, technical support, obviously, yeah,
we help them tremendously, but we just don't choose to get
into the operational side of it.  I don't feel that I'm
capable of focusing on both and monitoring the manufacturing
as it needs to be and monitoring an operation.
MS. MURTAGH:  I understand that.  Just let me
explain what my question was, because I appreciate your
answer.  But I'm thinking more in terms of, for example, the
operational side may have some concerns about the aisle width
or the location of exists or the size of openings or the
canopy configuration, all that kind of thing --
MR. SERAFINE:  Oh, yeah, they can --
MS. MURTAGH:  -- is that information then
transferred back to those who are manufacturing them, and how
is that accomplished?
MR. SERAFINE:  All our units are custom built.
They're all custom ordered so they can billed out the
customer specs, as long as those specs fall within the Coast
Guard guidelines.  Some people choose to run with no canopy
top at all, for example, if they want different seat spacing,
or if they want wheelchair accessibility or whatever, that
certainly can all be done, and they're all built to their
specs.  Although, 90 percent of the people we see, see what
we're building, and we've pretty much figured out what the
market needs in a vehicle.  So, yeah, there's a lot of
communication there.
MS. MURTAGH:  Would any of the other panel members
like to comment on that?
MR. MCDOWELL:  I'd like to address that.  There's
several different ways of getting feedback on the quality of
your product and we have several of those opportunities.
We have about a five percent penetration within our
customer base on quite an extensive survey, and we have those
analyzed and assimilated for us monthly, and we have a
summary at the end of the year that helps drive direction in
terms of -- you know, we specifically ask, how -- do the
people feel like this is safe, and open -- have an open-ended
question in terms of how can we improve the equipment.
We also have relationships with regulatory
authorities in the different areas that we are working in
today and receive a tremendous amount of feedback which is
positive, and we try our best to work with all those agencies
from a business/partner-type relationship, instead of an
adversarial relationship.
I'm hoping out of this session, that we have the
opportunity as business people to come together, and look at
this subjectively, from the standpoint of what knowledge
would be appropriate to share.  Because historically, this
business has been very proprietary in terms of its
developments.  We've spent a tremendous amount of money in
the development of our equipment, but there are a lot of
ideas that can be brought to the table, to help other
operators, protect this industry and make it safer.
So I'd challenge us all to step up and do that.
It's very difficult to gain knowledge in this business, if
some of the operators don't step up and provide it.  It's
very limited and it's unique to the different operating
zones, and I think an opportunity to have a debate or forum
amongst ourselves would generate some good productive ideas,
that hopefully we can bring forward to create some change in
the industry.
MR. WILSON: I'd like to say the most important
thing I did, and the thing that allowed me to be successful
was to go under -- affiliate myself with Mr. McDowell.
Experience in this business, something you mentioned earlier,
there is "DUKW Science" and so the communication and
accumulation of that 20 years worth of knowledge that I got
from working with Mr. McDowell as well since we've had the
equipment in terms of training or whatever has been very
important.
So him as my manufacturer, the equipment, the
communication and the improvements that he's made, as well as
we've continued to make, has been critical, I think both to
our short-term and our long-term success.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Giljam.
MR. GILJAM:  Yes.  One of the things that we have
is we're kind of unique in what we do, being that we are
operating an amphibious tour company.  The engineering
background and we're manufacturing.
We've been very open to all of the feedback that we
can get.  When we -- we have a very open relationship with
the Coast Guard.  We know the gentlemen all by first name
basis, and are very, very open to discussions.
Oddly enough, the -- all of the vessels have to
undergo an annual inspection.  Our annual inspection was the
very day after the unfortunate incident in Hot Springs.  And
so our inspector was there, and the Coast Guard, it was a
two-way street, they wanted to know at that point, we didn't
know what happened to that particular vessel, but the Coast
Guard was asking questions.  Do you have any ideas?  We need
to make sure, you know, to ensure everyone's safety.  What
can we do?  That pipeline was wide open for discussion, and
henceforth, all of the information that they gleaned, they
instantly forwarded to me as well.  So there was a very large
communication pipeline between that.
When we started our operations, we invited the
Department of Transportation down, South Carolina Department
of Transportation.  They came down.  We know those gentlemen.
 They came and inspected the vessel.  It was unique, they
wanted to learn about it and so forth, and all of those
things will be culminated into the products that we do.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Ms. Murtagh.  Mr.
Tyrrell?
MR. TYRRELL:  Do we have questions from the
audience?
MR. HENRY:  We have one question.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.
MR. HENRY:  And this I will address to Mr. McDowell
and Mr. Wilson, because it applies to DUKW operation.  And
the question is, why are the engine compartment hoods allowed
to remain opened in the open position on DUKWs and I believe
this is one of the issues where there isn't a universal
policy by the Coast Guard, some OCMI's allow it and some
don't, but if you could address the issue of why the
compartment hoods have to remain open.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, it's not below the average
freeboard line when it's riding in the water, but we have
that raised for ventilation purposes for our motors in our
larger-classed vessel.
The way we've remedied the problem with the
exposure to oxygen in case of a fire in the engine
compartment, is we have a handle immediately available to the
pilot, a one handle to close all of the areas, such as that,
and the front hatch and the side hatches that would close off
all of those compartments, so the CO2 system would function
properly.  So there's no really additional exposure because
of that compartment being raised.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  I'll interject.  This is one area that
our equipment deviates a little bit from Mr. McDowell's.  We
do operate with our hoods shut, and for no other particular
reason than when the requirement came out of Seattle for the
oxygen deprivation system, we re-engineered our system
differently than his drop system.  And both, I think, are
very adequate.  But we do operate with the hood shut.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Henry.  Any
questions, Mr. Tyrrell?
MR. TYRRELL:  No, sir.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Most of my questions actually
have been asked primarily by Mr. Rob Henry.  But let me ask a
few miscellaneous clean-up type questions, if I might.
Following up on a question that was just asked
about evacuation issues, beginning with Mr. McDowell, because
you've been with your company since, I believe you said 1977.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes, sir.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Is that correct?  Over that
length of time, how many evacuations can you recollect have
been experienced by your company?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We have not had a single evacuation
necessary on water.  We have had breakdowns where we had to
transfer people from one unit to another, but not in a
distressed situation.  We've always looked at our evacuation
being over the side, and as some of the documentation with
the Coast Guard will show, that allows for that.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.  I might ask each of
the other panelists what their experience has been with any
evacuations.  I know we're easing into our next topic area,
but while we have you up here, I'd like to just get a handle
on that issue.
MR. SERAFINE:  We've had nobody to evacuate either.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Mr. Serafine says no one
evacuated.
MR. GILJAM:  As far as Cool Stuff [Tours], we have
not had to have an evacuation, no.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  And Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  We've had no evacuations either.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.  Thank you.
Miscellaneous question for Mr. McDowell.  Earlier you were
questioned on the Higgins pump.  In the over 20 years that
you've been with your company, have you ever experienced or
have any of the DUKWs that you've been operating ever
experienced any breakdowns of the Higgins pump?
MR. MCDOWELL:  The only problems that we've
identified with the pump, sometimes when we get a new DUKW
in, the end screw or bolt is opposite thread than what
traditionally is done, and we've seen some of those twist
off.
If you don't keep the strainer in place, you might
pick up something, and cause it to -- the shaft to fail.  But
if you operate them properly, and keep the screen in place
and lubricate them and do your periodic maintenance properly,
you should not have a problem with it.
Like I said, I brought one down with me to be able
to show people this and explain any questions that they may
have regarding this.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Well, thank you.  But as far as
you can recollect, there's been no breakdowns, significant
breakdowns of the Higgins pump while the DUKW was in
operation?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Thank you.  And
concerning this 20 years -- over 20 years of experience with
your company, and -- do you have a number on how many DUKWs
have been restored over that length of time by your company?
MR. MCDOWELL:  With our company?  We run
approximately 20 units now.  We've prepared 17 units for
Boston.  During the course of that time, we have renovated
our equipment several times.  The original equipment that we
started with when I came to the company in 1977, is still in
service.  But we've continued to update and modify systems to
current technology systems for liability, part availability,
and ease of maintenance issues, safety.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.  Have those
restorations primarily been done with the care and
comprehensiveness that was described in the film that you
showed this morning?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, as in any company, we've gone
to a genesis of self-improvement.  We are a critical company
that looks at every detail front to back, and our knowledge
pool has expanded quite a bit extensively over the course of
especially the last ten years, as we've looked towards the
new model DUKW with the new componentry and what not.
But I've always been involved in that process from
day one, right from the maintenance and mechanizing to the
innovations and renovations and development of the equipment.
 I'm a hands-on individual, and we have a lot of breath and
depth in our staff.  We don't have a lot of turnover.  We
have a good culture, and I think their attention to detail is
in alignment with what management's trying to get
accomplished.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.  Thank you.  Mr.
Serafine, a couple of quick questions.  Concerning the Alvis
Stalwarts, you mentioned, I believe in an answer to some
questions some reference to 22 hulls inspected.  I guess what
I'm driving at is, we depicted in our opening presentation
that there were Alvis Stalwarts in operation.  Is that an
accurate figure?
MR. SERAFINE:  Yeah, that's true.  Something I
wanted to elude to also.  You had asked about updating them.
 We have updated every boat we've done.  In fact, we're in
the process of updating them all now, that's why they're not
in service.  Every boat that we've built except for the
three, the one that's gone to Australia and the two to Guam,
has been returned back to us, and is getting extensive
updates at a huge cost, no doubt, in light of everything.
That's first and foremost.
There were some boats put into operation in zones
that failed.  There were six in Miami.  Miami didn't work for
whatever reason, wasn't equipment.  It was managerial, let's
say.  There's eight units to go to Baltimore that are being
refitted now, and there's seven units under construction in
our place now.  So it's right at about 22 hulls so far that
we've done.
But for all practical purposes, we've pulled almost
everything back in, and redone it, and re-sending it back out
to make sure it's up to current standards.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you.  And, Mr. Giljam.
Regarding the Hyrda-Terra? design, was that design that you
showed us in your presentation, was it based on a particular
type of amphibious -- an existing amphibious vessel?
MR. GILJAM:  No, we started right from scratch.
That wasn't based on any particular amphibian.  It wasn't
modeled after any other design anywhere.  It was -- truly we
started that from looking at the -- all of the amphibians as
a whole, took, you know, certain things that were strengths,
took the weaknesses, made sure that we could eliminate all of
those that we could possibly find, and so that's 100 percent
from the ground up, a new generation piece of equipment.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.  And I
guess one last question for Mr. McDowell and Mr. Serafine.
This morning it's been mentioned that these -- or at least
the DUKWs are 1940 vintage vessels.  As would be, of course,
the Alvis Stalwarts were manufactured later, but there's an
impression in the public, I believe, that these are old
equipment.  Is there any percentage that you could come up
with in terms of what you would consider to be your
conversions, in terms of the amount of new equipment that
they represent, in terms of how much virtually new equipment
would be involved in what you're now putting out there for
the public's use?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, that's a good question.  I
really think that it's appropriate first to identify and
acknowledge the fact that the systems in the DUKW, as it
originally was configured are still fundamentally utilized in
new technology trucks today.
There's the differential, the axle systems, the
original DUKW had drum brakes and so forth, had a hydro-pack
new system, so part of our decision to update the equipment
wasn't because necessarily the shortcomings of that
technology back then, as far as availability.  It is a little
bit higher maintenance, of course, and we chose to develop an
all-wheel disc brake system, so we've got a hundred percent
brakes immediately after we get out of the water for the
urban markets and so forth.
You know, I kind of liken it to a car over the
course of time, technology and new materials, componentry,
better thinking systems, will influence decisions from a
conscious operator to take advantage of certain innovations
and incorporate it into the vehicle.
But I think the shortcoming of the original DUKW is
probably the longevity of parts availability.  We knew that
if we were going to grow the business, that we had to look at
other opportunities or systems to upgrade and maintain.  But
the nice thing about the original DUKW is that it's
relatively simple in nature, and I think that really speaks
highly to the long successful history that its had.
Part of our development criteria is to maintain
systems that average people with average skill sets have a
high likelihood of successfully maintaining.  We also look at
the componentry from a practical standpoint.  Is more than
one way to assemble this particular component, and have an
exposure?  Is there a way to build redundancy into it as Andy
has alluded to?  Is there a way for a maintenance supervisor
to make a visual inspection to identify and know for sure
whether or not that component has been assembled properly and
is being maintained properly?
I think those are the kinds of opportunities that
we look at as we redesign the equipment for future use.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Mr. Serafine, do you
have a comment on that?
MR. SERAFINE:  Well, we build them two ways.  We
restore them back with the original drive trains, although we
do put in a brand new Chevy engine.  We do put in a brand new
wiring harness.
As you saw in the slide presentation, we only keep
about 50 percent of the original hull, we cut so much off.
In our diesel and hydrostatic driven units, it's 95
percent new.  Brand new engine, brand new pumps, brand new
wheel motors, et cetera.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Well, excuse me, that was the
impression I was getting from your presentation, and from
what I've read in stories about these vessels, I don't think
that that is well known by much of the public.
MR. SERAFINE:  Yeah, it's without a doubt the way
to go, and actually from -- we talked about simplicity.  It's
even simpler.  You have to have a little bit of
troubleshooting skills in order to read the schematics, but
it's so easy, it's unbelievable.  And they're registered as
2000 boats when they're finished.  They're not 1967 boats,
they're 2000.  We legally with U. S. Customs and U. S.
Government, technically build new boats.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Before we
release the panelists, are there any comments that we've not
addressed that you would like to make before you stand down?
MR. MCDOWELL:  I, like Andy really appreciate the
opportunity to be able to come forward and share with the
group and the folks that have taken time out of their
schedules to come and further understand this business.  I do
believe that because of some of the reporting, that there's a
conceptually misunderstanding in terms of the exposure risks
as it relates to this equipment.  And hopefully, we can
address those questions or answers to show that there are a
lot of people that are working hard out there to try to do
what's in the best interests of the public, and would like to
continue to have that opportunity to do so.
MR. SERAFINE:  I would like to add something.
Although I feel I've got a superior machine, with all that
said, the DUKWs have given us 40 years of safe service.
There's a lot of them around.  I agree with what Bob said.  I
think there's a little perception.  It's kind of terrible,
you have one accident, and 13 people die, and it's tragic,
yes.  It's hauled millions of people, and it really isn't as
much of a manufacturing thing, as it is a maintenance thing
in my opinion.
I know we haven't had the findings of this
accident, but I think it's really a maintenance thing quite
honestly, because it's a system that does work if you take
care of it.
What we're doing here is terrific.  We need to do
it.  I am fielding at least ten leads a week from people who
are at least interested.  I have five customers in the
audience, who are placing orders, that are going into
operations into as many as eight to nine zones.  We have
orders for over 20 units right now.  I'm potentially signing
a contract for another 14 units when I get back.  So a lot of
these are going into service, so what you're doing needs to
be done.  It's going to get bigger fast.  It's a money-making
industry, if funded properly, and you're doing the right
thing here.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Any other comments?
MR. WILSON:  I would just like to add sort of what
my opening remarks where when Frank goes over the level of
interest.  Again, this was basically a three or four business
industry when I got into this industry, and our success is
kind of -- in Boston, has ignited this wildfire.  And again,
my community being federal, state and local government out of
Boston, really held my feet to the fire to make sure I knew
what I was doing as an operator.  And I've kind of paved the
way, and people keep on pointing to my company as the model
now, and it concerns me greatly because the equipment can be
restored, converted properly, but it ultimately comes down to
the operator's fitness.
When I went through the transportation end of this,
at the Department of Public Utilities, I had to meet a
standard called fit, willing and able, and that was why I
affiliated myself with Mr. McDowell because I brought 20
years of experience to the table, or he brought over 20
years.
So equipment is one aspect, but I'm still going to
also express my concern as this business continues to keep on
growing, whether or not there is any developing standards
beyond the equipment, is what is the standard for
capitalization for this type of company, for maintenance on
the type of vehicles, as well as the qualifications of the
operators themselves.  Because that will ultimately, I
believe, will lead to a safer industry.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Giljam,
do you have anything to add?
MR. GILJAM:  Yes, please.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.
MR. GILJAM:  We would like to thank the panel for
bringing us all together, and I think that this is the best
way that we can all work on getting the regulations fitted to
better suit all of our needs all the way around, in both the
safety and in the manufacturing end of it.
There's a lot of good things to come out of this.
One of the things that our company has looked at was this is
a whole new evolving industry.  There is only X number of
DUKW's available.  There's an extremely limited number of
British Stalwarts available.  There's even less LARCs.  We
own eight, but there's only, to my knowledge, I believe
there's only 80 outside of the military or destroyed, and so
the industry is looking to renew and regenerate, and that is
one of the reasons that we developed a new vessel, because
this industry is going to grow, and we'll need the care and
time taken to it, to ensure it is safe in the future.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, sir.  And I want to
thank everyone on the panel for your presentations and your
cooperation and your articulation of your concerns and views
this morning.  You've been an excellent panel, and I know
we've gone beyond what we had planned, but thank you very
much for the effort that you put into your presentations.
MR. WILSON:  Thank you.
MR. GILJAM:  Thank you.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Thank you.
MR. SERAFINE:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  And at this point, we will be
shifting -- we're going to shift to our next panel, which is
the passenger egress and survival panel.  And the schedule
plan at this point, because we are well behind schedule, is
to get started with this next panel and continue on until
12:30, at which time we will take a lunch break of an
approximately an hour and 15 minutes.  And it looks as though
we maintain this rate, we will be going into the early
evening.  But you never know.  It depends on how long the
questions and the answers are, but we do want to ask as many
questions as we feel are necessary, while we are all gathered
here.  If anyone -- I might mention, if anyone has a
scheduling concern, in that regard, please come up and see me
about it.
MR. TYRRELL:  Good morning, gentlemen.  If you
would be so kind, starting at the end of the table, closest
to me, could you please introduce yourselves and give us a
brief description of your duties and responsibilities, as
well as your role in amphibious passenger vessel safety.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I'm Captain Glen Anderson.  I'm
currently the Commanding Officer of the Marine Safety Office
in Port Arthur, Texas.
My background is what makes it pertinent to this
case, I believe.  I'm a naval architect by trade.  I was
assigned to Coast Guard headquarters in the stability and
subdivision.  I've dealt with small passenger vessels in plan
review and the writing of regulations for their requirements,
and inspecting of them at a number of MSOs {Marine Safety
Offices] in the field.
I was selected as an investigator to the Miss
Majestic casualty, I believe on the basis of that background.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Markle.
MR. MARKLE:  I'm Bob Markle, Chief of the Coast
Guard's Lifesaving and Fire Safety Standards Division.  I'm
responsible or my office is responsible for the standards of
lifesaving equipment, fire safety equipment, the regulations
for using that equipment on board commercial ships and
recreational boats, and I've been involved with the
preparation of many regulations relating to lifesaving and
egress, things like that.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.
MR. SORRELL:  Robert Sorrell.  I'm from the Marine
Safety Office is Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  I've had 27 years of
active duty service, 12 has been spent as a marine inspector.
Last winter of '98, I was tasked to visit the two
or a supplier of DUKWs.  I overseed the construction and the
regulatory compliance.  The DUKWs were shipped on to
Chattanooga, Tennessee for service.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you, sir.
MR. HUNNICUTT:  I'm Chief Petty Officer Hunnicutt.
 I'm currently stationed at the Naval Operational Medical
Institute in Pensacola, Florida, where I am a water survival
instructor.  We mainly deal with aviation water survival, but
it's all pretty much the same when it comes to egress.
My previous background from 1978 to 1981, I was
stationed at Beach Master Unit 2 in Norfolk, Virginia, where
I was a LARC pilot.
MR. TYRRELL:  All right.  Thank you very much.  Our
-- joining our technical panel is Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier, who
is a senior human performance specialist with the Safety
Board, and Dr. Prunier will lead off questioning.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Thank you.  As I get started
here, I just wanted to clarify one thing.  We've been
throwing around some terminology this morning that I'm not
sure everybody in the audience is entirely familiar with,
most of are, but just for the benefit of anybody who isn't.
We've been referring to subchapter T, and what
we're referring to there is Title 46 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, the regulations that are pertinent, with regard
to small passenger vessels, of which the amphibious passenger
vessels are included.  So if anybody was wondering what
subchapter T, I'm going to be using that quite a bit in my
questioning, so I wanted to make sure everyone knew what I
was talking about.
I'd like to begin by directing this question to Mr.
Markle, I believe, and of course, if any of the -- these are
-- the first set of questions I have are directed to the
Coast Guard, so if the others of you feel you need to jump
in, please do.
Has the Coast Guard developed performance based
emergency egress standards for subchapter T or any other
class vessels?
MR. MARKLE:  Maybe if it would be your permission,
to sort of summarize what the passenger egress and lifesaving
rules are, so we can kind of set the groundwork.  Would that
be --
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Good.  That would actually be
very helpful.  I was going to get to that, but please do
because I think that will probably save us an awful lot of
time.
MR. MARKLE:  Yeah, it might set the stage.  We
apply the same strict standards for passenger egress,
lifesaving equipment and operational safety to amphibious
vessels, the same as we do to any other small passenger
vessels.
Our regulations require a life jacket of an
appropriate size for everyone on board, including children.
And they have to be stowed in readily accessible locations.
The operators are required to give their passengers
a safety briefing covering the lifesaving arrangements, the
emergency exits.  This is not unlike the safety briefing that
you would get on a commercial airliner before takeoff.
Escape routes are required to be provided, and in
the case of DUKWs and the other amphibious vessels, this
escape route is invariably over the side.
With the life jackets stowed overhead, it should be
possible to abandon ship quickly.
In the unusual circumstance that it's necessary, an
evacuation should be done under the direction of the master.
 And for this reason, the master should be provided with
enough information and time to organize and carry out an
evacuation before the vessel sinks.
Our regulations do not anticipate an under water
escape, which can be very difficult even with specially
trained personnel.
Bilge alarms and pumps are required, in order to
provide the time necessary for the master.  To organize
abandonment in the case of an uncontrolled flooding.
And then once the order to abandon ship is given,
the escape route is required to provide unobstructed
passageways, large enough to allow an organized abandonment.
So in going to your question, whether there are
performance based regulations, that's it.  They're generally
worded in that way.  We could get into specifics, but because
of the wide variety of vessel designs, those are kinds of
requirements we have.  We do have specific requirements on --
with the passageways, if that's an escape route.  We can get
into those if you wish.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  I believe in the
materials that were provided in this book, there is a copy of
the most recent requirements under subchapter T.  I think
those are available and except for perhaps some specific
questions I might have about them, I won't ask you to
reiterate them.  They are available for people to review.
What -- taking now those subchapter T requirements,
which are design standards, in terms of the way that they are
represented in subchapter T.  What is the basis for those
requirements, what were they based on to the extent that you
know?
MR. MARKLE:  As far as the egress requirements are
concerned?
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Particularly with regard to the
egress requirements.
MR. MARKLE:  I'm not sure what the basis of that
was, but I know we pay attention to things like the National
Fire Protection Association standards for egress routes, and
sometimes that is referred to, plus our historical experience
with the vessels.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  In terms of things like
the aisle width and the dimensions of exits, is there any
science underlying those dimensions?  Do you know, has there
been any testing to determine the adequacy of those?  Are
those based on, if you know, the basis of those dimensions?
MR. MARKLE:  I'm not familiar with the specific
development of those dimensions.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Has the Coast Guard taken
the number of passengers into consideration, the development
of the subchapter T egress requirements, and if so, how?
MR. MARKLE:  The number of passengers?  No, the
egress requirements are based depending on the size of the
passenger space.  That determines the width of aisleways.
There is an escape -- a dimension requirement for escape
doors, generally that's -- because you have -- you have to
have two means of larger areas, that should provide for more
access for passengers to the escape routes.
CAPTAIN ANDERSON:  I'd like to offer something.
Over time, the size of small passenger vessels has grown
immensely in some portions of the market.  And the Coast
Guard developed with subchapter T a new subchapter K, to
address vessels that have high density passengers.  And, you
know, I personally wasn't involved, but I watched it from my
peers in the development of those rules, and they used more
scientific-based studies, more motel type of escape standards
as a reference in deriving those, and I believe that part of
that involved performance-based escapes.
In other words, they'd test it at some point.
Whether the Coast Guard the developer of those standards,
they'd test how many people can flow through a door 32 inches
wide in one minute and that sort of thing.
So I think over time we've applied that, but more
so towards the high density subchapter K than the typically
smaller vessels with 20 or 30 people on it.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, going
back to the amphibious passenger vessels, what subchapter T
egress requirements, if any, have been waived or accepted or
altered?  In other words, that the requirements for
amphibious passenger vessels are maybe different than the
straight forward interpretation of subchapter T?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  On the whole, there is only one
requirement in the Coast Guard nationwide that dealt with
radiator cooling.  But the Commandant of the Coast Guard set
a nationwide expectation, to apply to specifically, in that
case, DUKWs, so there is no Coast Guard nationwide standard.
 I'm not aware of any district standard, you know, meaning a
region of the nation, that has an expectation -- a specific
expectation for DUKWs or amphibians.
So what that means is the MSO, the OCMI through his
typically CWOI, Chief Warren Officer Inspector, they applied
the requirements that applied all small passenger vessels
through subchapter T and have to make interpretations on the
specific requirements, and that's where you get the
difference that we heard about later.  And it's just
different experience background and education evaluating a
general requirement for small passenger vessels.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And where you have a
specific design standard that may be waived or altered,
modified by the OCMI, that's -- is that correct?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  There's actually two provisions in
subchapter T, that fit what do we do when faced with having
to think about it, applying a standard in subchapter T to an
amphibian, because it's not the conventional application.
One of them is called equivalence, and one's called
special consideration.  In equivalence, it reads that it's
the Commandant who decides an equivalence.  And that
traditionally has been applied in the sense that we're headed
with this, where you take a group or a general design and you
say, this general design has features that need
interpretation.  You know, to ensure the intent is met, as
well as provide consistency.  And that optimally, you know,
is through a national level like the Commandant.  And if you
get a new vessel, more so like say, swath hulls, you know,
that was where at the Commandant level was necessary to
amplify or define and meet the intent.
Whereas, in the DUKWs they're much closer to
conventional vessels.  There are some minor differences, but
they're not dramatically different, and you can't apply the
regs on a whole.  But when faced with those minor application
judgments that need to be made, that's where that other
provision comes in, which is special consideration, which is
the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection [OCMI].  And you
know, that regulation is intended to provide flexibility, you
know, good, bad, and everything alike.  You lose consistency
maybe, you gain flexibility, you know, what's better changes,
based on where you're at any point in time.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Thank you.  An issue that is
being discussed within the industry on a number of different
fronts is requirements that vessels provide for access to
persons with disabilities.
I'm interested in knowing how the Coast Guard, and
to the extent that you know any other industry, entities, are
addressing emergency egress with regard to the fact, assuring
that these individuals have access to the vessels, and then
the next step, which is also then ensuring their safety and
their unique needs for safety once they're aboard.
MR. MARKLE:  In the Americans for Disabilities Act
applies for vessels, and there aren't any specific structural
or egress requirements in that.  The Department of Justice
has the lead on implementing the ADA, that act across all the
transportation modes.  And they have established the
architectural and transportation barriers compliance for --
and their passenger vessel access advisory committee, and we
are actively participating on that committee, with people
from the industry, and everyone else who's interested in the
issue, and that's how those standards are being developed.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And that specifically
addresses access.  Is there something similar that is
ensuring that not only are you ensuring that these people
have access to the vehicles, but their unique needs in terms
of potentially for emergency egress are met?
MR. MARKLE:  I'm not participating on that
committee, so I can't give you any first hand experience with
it.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  One item I'd like to add there
from a perspective was, it came up in the past an application
at a MSO level, was in Los Angeles, where we had diving
vessels, T-boats, most of them less than 65 foot carrying in
recreational divers.  And I do remember issues there with --
where an owner had to face and the Coast Guard was pretty
much, give me your proposal and we'll see if it makes sense
to us.  What we do with divers that get embolisms and such
and need evacuated because of diving?  You know, so there's
something -- you know, it's a disability.  You know, it's an
acute disability as opposed to a chronic disability, but the
Coast Guard's traditional approach to something new or
different like that, an owner is typically, give me a
proposal that I can evaluate and feel good about.  And if the
OCMI feels comfortable in making that decision locally, he
does it under that authority of special consideration.  If
not, he typically refers it with recommendation toward the
Commandant looking for equivalence.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Thank you.  Switching gears just
a little bit.  I'd like to talk a little bit about operators
and by the same, I mean, the captains, the person on board
and responsible for the vessel and their training for
emergency procedures.
What are the Coast Guard requirements, both in
terms of perhaps initial training, proficiency training,
periodic testing, drills, et cetera, how is that addressed by
the Coast Guard?
MR. MARKLE:  In addition to any training the
operator may have had or the master may have had in
connection with getting their license, the owner or charter
or whoever is running the boat is required to instruct each
crew member when they're first employed, and prior to getting
underway for the first time on a particular vessel, the
specific duties that they're required to perform with respect
to that vessel.
And then at least once every three months, this is
supposed to be repeated with the crew member.  So those
duties include their responsibility for giving the emergency
briefing, what they should do in order to organize passengers
for abandonment, that sort of thing.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  That requires then that
they be periodically refresher training, if you will.  Are
there any requirements for hands-on training, actual drills,
simulated emergencies to address masters familiarity with the
lifesavings devices and systems that are available to them?
MR. MARKLE:  There are requirements that sufficient
drills be held on the vessel, and there are periodic training
requirements as well.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  And then how is that monitored
or assessed by the Coast Guard?
MR. MARKLE:  It should be logged, yes.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  So they are required to keep
logs of those drills?
CWO SORRELL:  Maybe I can address this.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CWO SORRELL:  During my annual inspection on the
vessels, I'll run the crew through a man overboard drill, a
fire drill, and also a flooding drill.
For the man overboard drill, after the person's
recovered, I'll have the crew members demonstrate proper
first aid, which includes trauma and also hypothermia.  Upon
the conclusion of the drill, I'll get everybody together and
I'll critique.
If the drill has fallen satisfactory, the drill
will be repeated.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And is that -- that is
something that you do as part of your inspection, is that
documented in an SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] at the
MSO level?  Is that a document --
CWO SORRELL:  Yes, ma'am.  It's documented in a
narrative summary.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  But is that a requirement
at the MSO level or at the Coast Guard level?
CWO SORRELL:  It's required at the Coast Guard
level.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Doctor, I'd like to offer as with
anything as in small passenger vessels, it's different in
different MSO's.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  That's -- okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  There are some that may have it
required with a local instruction with great detail of what
is expected to be done, what is a pass/fail, what to do if
it's a fail.  There are other zones that may not give any
real local guidance to amplify what's in the regulation, and
just leave it up to the qualified marine inspector to apply
his good judgment and experience in conducting drills.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Is there any safety information
that is required to be posted on small passenger vessels, and
is there any additional information that's required to be
offered, either upon demand or upon request, or as
circumstances dictate?
CWO SORRELL:  As required in 46 CFR, there is a
check-off sheet that is required to be posted for the
passengers to review, and also a copy at the operator's
station.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
MR. MARKLE:  The operator's briefing is supposed to
include the location of the emergency exits for vessels that
have survival craft, where you would get all the survival
craft, the embarkation areas, the location of the ring life
buoys, where life jackets are stowed, the proper method of
donning or adjusting life jackets, the type carried on the
vessel, and if the passenger requests, they can ask for a
demonstration of that.
There are required to be instruction placards
posted for the life jackets and other lifesaving devices and
the operator should point those out, and the briefing is also
supposed to indicate that all passengers would be required to
don life jackets if the operator determines that a hazardous
situation exists.
That briefing may be abbreviated, if the passengers
are handed some type of a pamphlet with the same sort of
information on it.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Over the last four years,
there's been some changes made to subchapter T with regard to
some of the lifesaving requirements, provisions in there.
What is the basis that an operator of a passenger vessel can
use to determine which requirements apply to them?  Is it
always the most recent, or are there exceptions where the
most recent requirements may not necessarily -- they may not
be required to apply with the most recent ones, but another
one is actually --
MR. MARKLE:  It's specific to the issue in the type
of vessel, depending upon the importance of a new regulation,
and what is behind the regulation.  It may be retroactively
applied to all vessels, or it may be the kind of a
requirement that is perhaps more marginal improvement, and
would just be required on new vessels built after a
particular date.
So when the Coast Guard or any federal agency does
regulations, we're required to do a cost analysis, and we
have to justify that each of those additional requirements
that's being placed on an operator is justified by the cost
that's being imposed.
So each new requirement that requires the operator
to do something or the builder to do something they were not
required to do before, has to be justified in that way.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  You mentioned the date
that a vessel was built.  Particularly in the case of the
DUKWs, the LARCs, as well as the Stalwarts, because of the
major modifications they go through.  An example.  A DUKW
that was originally constructed in 1944, might've been placed
into service in 1970, 1980, 1990, what date do you use as the
basis where those regulations are -- do you go back to the
manufacture, the 1940's date?
MR. MARKLE:  Because this panel is concerned with
lifesaving egress, I would say that generally, the built date
is not really relevant in most cases.  I can't think of
anything that would be -- we've grandfathered in that way.
Now, I think you have a panel later that's going to
talk about structure and design.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Uh-huh.
MR. MARKLE:  Now there might be a different answer
there.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  All right.  Has the Coast
Guard developed performance-based standards for the
accessibility of PFD's [Personal Floatation Device] or the
donning of PFD's?  There are a number of -- I bring this up,
because there were a number of statements made this morning
about the PFD's are easy to get to.  And what I'm interested
in here in part, this is a usability issue, and I'm curious
as to whether the Coast Guard requires, the Coast Guard has
sponsored or conducted, or if the Coast Guard's aware of any
actual testing that has looked at various strategies for
location PFD's.  I heard this morning some differences by
different operators where they locate them, anything you can
comment on along those lines.
MR. MARKLE:  Well, I heard two parts to your
question.  One had to do with the donning of the life
jackets.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Uh-huh.
MR. MARKLE:  When we approved the type 1 life
jackets or PFD's if you will, they must undergo testing of 18
-- at least 18 different people, putting on the life jacket,
and they must accomplish that successfully within one minute,
and that's done typically by Underwriter's Laboratories, an
independent laboratory that tests all the approved and
license.  So there is that kind of a performance requirement.
 
As far as the performance requirement on stowage,
it's just that the devices be readily accessible.  It's very
hard to -- with all the different kinds of designs of vessels
you have to make a hard and fast requirement other than that,
although perhaps some of the people --
CAPT. ANDERSON:  That's a good example of where the
OCMI applies judgment, not only to an amphibian, but to any
T-boat, is an owner proposes or puts life jackets where they
feel they're in compliance and best suits the purpose of the
vessel.  The Coast Guard inspector comes along, either
through discussion, plan review, or finding it on scene
during inspection, and asked to answer that in his mind, his
or her mind, does this meet the regulation as readily
acceptable.  And if it doesn't, or if they don't believe it
does, the typical approach is to ask the owner for -- you
know, challenge the owner, and say, I don't think this meets
the regulation.  And usually you give the owner the
opportunity to do a demonstration, especially with something
like small passenger vessels.
I've done this in a number of T-boats in my zone
with issues -- even issues of escape, tell the inspector,
make them prove it.  Don't load the boat of all the people
maybe, but fill a couple of rows, you know, if we're talking
an escape issue, and do it just like a drill, and see if it
works.  There's nothing better than a proof test on something
as simple as that.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  But that's on an as-needed basis
in the mind of the inspector.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Does the Coast Guard,
under any circumstances, require that PFD's actually be worn,
as opposed to carried, simply carried on the vessel?
MR. MARKLE:  We do require that the operator
instruct the passengers to put on their life jackets when a
hazardous -- a particular hazardous situation exists.
For instance, if you're crossing a bar or if you're
out at sea, and the wind kicks up and you have hazardous
weather conditions.  If the vessel's under tow by another
vessel, those are the kinds of situations where passengers
should be instructed to wear their life jackets.
With respect to the kinds of operations we've been
talking about here today with amphibians primarily on lakes,
you have that kind of a hazardous condition, it would be
highly doubtful that you'd enter the water in the first
place.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  One good example where a lake, you
know, we like to think, you know, there's no hazard to a
lake.  Not quite.  I did stability in port of a vessel called
Titanic, of all things, where 11 people died.  It was an
uninspected vessel, and they were on a land-locked lake
between Alabama and Tennessee, I guess, and it was what's
called a microburst, and you know, it's a very quick
thunderstorm basically with very high winds, and it rolled
this vessel over.
That's a case where even on -- what's believed to
be a benign condition as one minute, very quickly could turn
to the point that we would expect the master, and hope the
master would exercise his responsibility and say, okay, this
is going to hell in a heartbeat, folks.  Let's get them on
and prepare in case we have to jump.  So it's not unrealistic
to think that just because there's no hazards in lakes.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And I'd like to direct
some -- a few questions now to our representative from the
Navy.  If you could tell us a little bit about the training
that you are engaged in down in Pensacola, who the typical
students are, and what's some of the types of things the Navy
finds that it needs to train its students in, to improve
their survival, particularly with regard to the parallel
risks or issues that you see from what you've heard about
amphibious operations this morning.
Now recognizing the fact that training, per se,
along the lines of what you're involved in, wouldn't be
practical with, you know, tourists.  But what I'm interested
in here, is what are some of the things that perhaps they're
not natural behaviors, and that's what the training is
intended to address.
BMC HUNNICUTT:  At my particular command, we train
in the neighborhood of 1,500 students every quarter, in
excess of 5,000 a year.  We train everybody that is in any
way going to be involved with flying on any type of military
aircraft, we do Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Marines.  I've seen
just about everybody you can think of, astronauts, anybody
that could possibly have to be worried about an egress-type
situation, they have to come through there.
Now, there's different criteria depending on what
type of vessel or whatever, you know.  It varies.  But the --
what we refer to as, our toys are all the same.  I mean, the
basics are always the same.  There's always classroom prior
to actually getting into the water.  We put people into the
water, they execute scenarios, everything is scenario-based
there.  We get our scenarios directly from mishap reports.
We try to make our training as close to the real thing that
we possibly can.  Although we can't put wave back then and
currents and things like this into our pool environment.
We do do things like have them blindfolded, as far
as you know, using the hand over hand-type things, because it
becomes very evident, like donning, we use LPUs, it's just a
type of life preserver that we do use.
Invariably, I teach these classes.  I will take one
out and don it, and ask at least five times, is there any
questions about how to properly don this, and maybe there is,
maybe there isn't, and everybody says, oh, we've had this all
before, and invariably, when we get out on the deck, and
they're dressing out, we still have to go through the
students and do up that strap, do up this strap, whatever the
case may be.
I don't know what it is.  Our people that we train,
they know that they're going to have to egress.  The element
of surprise is not there.  I mean, they know exactly why
they're there.  Things that are normally encountered that we
try to train them on in the classroom prior to getting them
out on into the water environment are things like fear and
panic, humans in the water, it's not a natural environment,
and we strap them in seats, and they can be, depending on the
training they're there for, they can be put into an inverted
situation.  We have different pieces of gear that we can put
them in, and we try to make it as strenuous as possible,
confusion, disorientation.  You don't know what the next guy
is going to do.  He could be fouling you up.  Trouble
releasing things, if you had to release, open a door, window,
whatever the case may be.
You know, the criteria can change from vessel to
vessel.  Darkness, water temperature, physical condition of
these people.  All these factors, you know, there's no way
you can -- that I can think of, that you could actually say,
well, if this happens, this is what you're going to do.  It's
all like generically based, you know.  A lot of the things
are common, you know, the hand over hand, don't kick, let
your hands be your eyes, don't rely on seeing that light,
because it might not be on, you know, paying attention to
your environment, know what you're going to do, always have
at least two escape plans, things like this.  These are
pretty much pounded into their heads.  I realize you couldn't
do this to passengers in this type of situation.
But I know our people, we have -- we run SEALS
through there, and these guys are definitely comfortable in
the water environment, and I have seen them panic.  And if it
would've been a real life situation, they would've probably
expired, you know.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Certainly the risks that your
students will eventually be exposed to, justify that level of
training, and I would think the risks in this industry
certainly would not justify --
BMC HUNNICUTT:  Right.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  -- the need to put passengers
through anything like that.  But is there anything in terms
of -- I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the
similarities, where you do training generically, regardless
of the type of aircraft or whatever they might be in.  There
are some things that are generic across, and that's what I'd
like to focus on a little bit know.  Regardless of the
differences in the type of amphibious passenger vessel or
what have you, are there specific issues with regard to the
use of PFDs, based on your experience and the utilization,
recognizing certainly some differences there, but anything
from what you've heard this morning that you believe may be a
particular issue there?
BMC HUNNICUTT:  Well, the main thing, I was looking
at these drawings that they have over here, concerning these
awnings and what not, I don't know if they're detachable.  I
don't know if they're made out of like a canvass-stretch
material or if they're hard or whatever.  I know personally,
I have donned flotation devices and gone down in our dunker,
and inflated them, and tried to make an egress, and I was on
scuba, and if I hadn't been on scuba, I wouldn't have made it
out.
I don't know if they have the K-pok-type life
preserver that's already inherently buoyant, if that would be
the type they would use, or if they are the inflatable type.
 I just don't know.  But I do know that if you had one that
was already inherently buoyant, the chances of you getting
trapped possibly, entangled or what not, it is there.  To me,
that would be more of a hindrance than a help.
Personally, I would want a -- the type that have
the CO2 cartridge in them.  Once again, you would have to
brief people on the proper use of those.  I realize it's more
maintenance.  They're more expensive.  There are other, you
know, things that you'd have to take into consideration.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  In terms of -- you
mentioned the dunker, what are some of the structural
impediments, and I believe we've got a picture of that to be
shown to help illustrate this, just so we can contrast it.
Because again, we are talking two totally different
situations, but again, I want to be able to key on some of
the similarities.
BMC HUNNICUTT:  Can you bring up that one -- the
pictures?  Just look at them and see what you've got.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  If I could get to you another
question.  If I understand correctly, the individuals that
you train predominantly or exclusively military personnel, so
I would assume that means they are generally in good physical
shape, physically fit, agile?
BMC HUNNICUTT:  You would think that.  We -- I
mean, we do refreshers, too.  I've seen senior officers come
in there that are pilots, 55, early 60s, we do civilians
also.  We've done police departments, national guard, these
type of people, and they're not all physically fit, ready to
go out, you know, run three miles or whatever.  That's
definitely not the case all the time.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  All right.  We don't have that.
BMC HUNNICUTT:  I noticed earlier when they were
talking about the width of the aisles and the windows and you
know, whatever, the egress points and what not.  In the DUKW,
if he ever gets the picture up there, the one that we use,
the 95, there are one, two, three, four, five windows, and
what we refer to as the main cabin door, where you actually
walk into the unit.  The main cabin door is roughly four feet
wide, and five feet tall.  It's tall enough for you to walk
right into it, and you know, you're not going to bump the
sides or anything.  Those windows in that thing, are about 32
inches wide, and about 32 inches tall, like a square window
and they're pretty good-sized.  They're right next to you.
Regardless of whether we roll it or not, I mean,
pretty much, we've seen it all, if it's possible to happen
down there, we've seen it.  Ideally, if you could get off of
a vessel prior to it sinking, you know, that would be a good
thing.  But then again, now you've got time, you know, how
much time do you have.
You may have to egress from under water.  You've
got possibly water temperature, you have in the type of
environment that we're talking about here, you know, you've
got the mother with the two kids and this, that and the
other, okay, where's her primary concern going to be, you
know, trying to get her children off, or whatever, and get
them into life preservers, is that going to put her at risk,
you know.  There's so many different factors that are there,
it would be hard to determine exactly what -- you know, how
to go about doing this.
But I have seen our people that -- I mean, the door
is right next to them, and as soon as you put them under
water or they hit water, all training goes totally out the
window, not to say it happens every time, but in a class of
30 students, you can guarantee you're going to have a
emergency retract at least once.  Where somebody -- there's
really nothing inside there they can get fouled up on, with
the exception of each other.  And possibly the seatbelts,
because we do require them to wear seatbelts.  And we -- like
I said, invariably, we get in emergency backtrack, the panic
thing sets in.  It's a very eye-opening thing.
I was discussing last night, that you know, when
you walk on board on the aircraft and they're given a little,
you know, you know, doing all the signals and all this, I
asked my students, how many people really pay attention while
they do that, and invariably, nobody.  You know, they don't
really pay attention there, and after they've been through my
little school, every time I guarantee you, when they go on
board aircraft, they're paying attention.  I mean, it's a
serious business.  There is no time out, wait a minute, I
need to regroup, you know, it's a one shot thing.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Dr. Sind-Prunier, I believe
we've reached a good point to break for lunch.  Let's do
this.  It's currently 12:28.  Let's egress for lunch, and
return and ingress back into the room for a restart of this
public forum at 1:30.  So we stand in recess until 1:30.
(Forum in recess at 12:28 p.m., and reconvened at 1:36
p.m., this date.)
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  We'll continue with this panel
on passenger egress and survival.  Do we need Captain
Anderson in place to proceed?
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  I can start with some questions
that don't involve him.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Dr. Sind-Prunier, do we
need to have him at this moment, or can we hold some of your
questions until he returns?
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Oh, I'll hold the questions that
I think need to be directed to him, and we can start with
some other ones.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Very good.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  If I could pick up with
some of the -- some follow-up questions on some of the things
we talked about before we broke for lunch, and this question
is directed to Mr. Markle.
Under Subchapter -- actually, we talked this
morning a little bit about the pre-departure safety briefing
for passengers, and you spoke about what is required there in
terms of content.
Is there a requirement that the passenger briefing,
that an operator gives be in written form or checklist or
anything documenting the content?
MR. MARKLE:  There is a requirement that there be
instruction placards for life jackets and other lifesaving
devices, and if some of the briefing is replaced by a card or
pamphlet, an abbreviated announcement can be given.  That is
provided for, is that's what you're looking for.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Are there any provisions
or requirements that are made for passengers, who are not
English speaking or those with hearing impairments?
MR. MARKLE:  No specific requirements like that at
the moment.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  To your knowledge, have
these requirements for the passenger safety briefing been
waived, accepted, altered, or otherwise negated by the OCMI
with regard to amphibious vessels?
MR. MARKLE:  I would have to ask perhaps Mr.
Sorrell.
CWO SORRELL:  I'm not familiar with any exemption.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Now, when a waiver of a
subchapter T requirement, waiver exemption, when a vessel is
not required to conform to a provision as directed by the
OCMI, is there any reporting structure for documenting or
providing for review of those decisions?  Is there any -- I
guess let me rephrase the question.
Does the Coast Guard, as a -- as the Coast Guard at
a national level know what waivers and exemptions may have
been granted at the MSO level?
CWO SORRELL:  A lot of times the exemptions will be
published in a circular.  It can also be located in the
Federal Register.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
MR. MARKLE:  I think your question had to do with
whether or not if a local office granted an extension,
whether that needed to be reported to Washington.  The answer
to that is no.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
MR. MARKLE:  The local office has discretion in
that area, unless it's something that specifically requires
approval by the Commandant.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And what types of things
would require specific approval by the Commandant?
MR. MARKLE:  It's the kinds of things where we
spoke about equivalence this morning.  If an operator does
something instead of what's required in the regulations, they
propose a different arrangement that is intended to meet the
intent of the regulations, then some of those kinds of things
are brought to the attention, or are actually approved by the
Commandant.
Also if a decision by the local office is appealed,
whatever it is, for instance, a decision to deny a request by
an operator, the operator can appeal that to the district and
then to Washington, and in that way, it could get to
Washington.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Under the requirements of
subchapter T, are there any specific requirements that
address seat spacing and the dimensions of seating for
passengers?
MR. MARKLE:  Yes.  There are -- let's see.  I
believe I don't have actually the copy of that particular
regulation in front of me, but I believe it's supposed to be
normally an 18 inch width of seat, and when you say seat
spacing, are you talking about aisle width or --
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  What I'm talking perhaps would
be like from the seat back in front of a passenger, to the
seat back behind them.  So in other words, providing for leg
room.
MR. MARKLE:  I don't recall.  Do we -- he's looking
it up.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
MR. MARKLE:  I had that all on my computer here,
and the battery is failed, so --
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  You mentioned aisle width, and
that was my next question.  Is there a requirement in terms
of aisle width under subchapter T?
MR. MARKLE:  Yeah.  If the aisle is at least 15
feet long, the width of the aisle must be at least 30 inches,
and a shorter aisle, in other words, shorter than 15 feet
long, would only be required to be 24 inches.
Now, that's provided those aisles are the means of
egress.  If they're not the means of egress, then that
requirement wouldn't necessarily apply.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And how is the means of
egress defined for a vessel?
MR. MARKLE:  I don't know that it's defined
necessarily.  But for these particular vessels, all being --
the ones we've looked at today, with the possible exception
of the new one, the Hyrda-Terra? design, these are all
considered open vessels, and the means of egress is over the
side, not through a door, not through down the aisle.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  How does the Coast Guard
define an open vessel?
MR. MARKLE:  I don't know that we do define an open
vessel.  Do we define an open vessel?
CWO SORRELL:  No, we don't define an open vessel.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CWO SORRELL:  We talk in terms of means of egress.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So in terms of means of
egress, the amphibious, at least the three that we've focused
on primarily today, they're considered open vessels, in other
words, over the side egress.
Is this consistent with subchapter T?  Is this a
deviation from subchapter T?
MR. MARKLE:  Well, the operator or designer would
have to identify what the egress route is, and if it's over
the side, then those points of egress would have to meet, for
instance, or should at least meet the width requirements for
say an egress door, which would typically be at least 32
inches.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Are there any height
requirements for an exit?
MR. MARKLE:  There is a requirement for the
overhead again.  Let's see.  There's a requirement that the -
- the dimensions of the escape route have to allow easy
access -- I'm sorry, easy movement of persons wearing life
jackets, so there can be no protrusions along the escape
route that might injure or snag persons using the escape
route, including their clothing or life jackets.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  As far as the canopies on
these vessels are concerned, are there any specific
requirements they need to meet?  Or where would some of these
other dimensional requirements come into play with regard to
the design of the canopy?
MR. MARKLE:  As far as the canopy, there's also a
general requirement that the clearance under the ceiling be
at least 74 inches, and then there's some allowances made
DUKWs and pipes and wiring, and so those are the kinds of
things that would apply.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  I have a follow on line
of questioning, but I think that that is going to necessarily
be directed to Captain Anderson, so I will defer those until
he returns.
CWO SORRELL:  I can give you that information on
the seating, if you'd like.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Yes, please.
CWO SORRELL:  It's 46 CFR 177.820(d)(3), it states,
where seats are in a row of a distance from the seat front --
excuse me.  When seats are in a row of a distance from the
seat front to seat front, must not be less than 30 inches,
and the seats must be secured to the deck or bulkhead.  So
it's 30 inches.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So 30 inches.
CWO SORRELL:  Right.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Thank you.  Returning to
the topic of PFDs, there was some discussion this morning
about that, and I wanted to clarify some things here.
What types of PFDs are required on board subchapter
T vessels?
CWO SORRELL:  They are what you would call a type 1
PFD life jacket.  Those are required for everyone on board.
The operator may permissibly carry type 2's or type 3's as
extra equipment, if they so desire.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  For the benefit of the
audience who may not be familiar with what a Coast Guard type
1, type 2, type 3 are, is there something that you can give
to sort of describe those for them?
CWO SORRELL:  A type 1 life jacket is generally
used -- of the type generally used on commercial vessels.  It
requires that it automatically turn a person from the face
down to the face up position in the water.  A type 2 life
jacket or PFD is -- has less buoyancy than the type 1
generally.  It will turn many people face up, but not all.
And a type 3, is intended as a buoyancy aide really to give
the wearer enough buoyancy to bring them to the surface, but
they have to consciously place themselves in the face-up
position.  It won't automatically turn a wearer face-up.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Now, in all cases, are
those types of PFDs inherently buoyant?
CWO SORRELL:  Not in all cases.  We are now
approving inflatable life jackets or PFD's, and we do have
some type 3 inflatables currently improved.  Manufacturers
are working on type 2's and type 1's.  There are also some
other types of devices that we call type 5's.  They have
specific restrictions, but they have essentially the type 3
performance.
So what's available now, in terms of a Coast Guard
approved inflatable is a type 3, with a manual type of
operation.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Now, you mentioned that a
type 1 PFD is required.  What factors were taken into
consideration in the determination that a type 1 PFD should
be required aborad subchapter T vessels?
CWO SORRELL:  That's always been the requirement
for commercial vehicles, always ever since the '40s or '50s,
whenever that started.  The type 2's and type 3's were
developed specifically for recreational boats, to provide a
more wearable type of device, that wouldn't have life jacket
performance, but would be comfortable so that people in
recreational boats would be more inclined to wear them while
they were boating.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  I do have a couple of
more questions, but they necessarily require -- aha.  Perfect
timing.  Captain, I have a few more questions, and I sort of
suspect based on how questions were being allocated this
morning, that you may well be the one most appropriate to
answer them.
We just finished a little bit of a discussion on --
a moment ago while you were out, on some of the subchapter T
requirements for the design for egress.  Including such
things as aisle width, seat spacing, the dimensions of exit
ways, things along that.
Now, one additional question along those lines is,
how many exits is the -- would an amphibious vessel,
subchapter T, either way you want to address it, how many
exits are required, and I am particularly interested in the
amphibians.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I think this is an excellent
question.  You have to keep in my mind, address when was the
vessel first certificated, and consider grandfathering
provisions.
What you read in the current version of subchapter
T is a little different about single escape requirements,
from passenger spaces than existed until 1996 or 7.  So I
grew up with the older version, which was a 12 foot rule,
which was if the space is longer than 12 foot, you need two
means of escape, only one of which could go through
watertight bulkhead and below the main deck, and that kind of
thing.
So most inspectors are looking at an older boat,
are now currently certificating the boat with that design
requirement.  From the old rules, I would still go on board
look at the 12 foot rule, and say, you need two means of
escape if you're over 12 foot long.  Unless, of course, the
OCMI exercised the special consideration provision, and
figured that a second means of escape did not materially
improve the safety, you know, in order to stand fast on that
normal expectation.
The current rule, is based on a deck area, and it
boils down to no secondary exit is required on a vessel with
less than 322 square feet of deck area.  I personally haven't
applied that.  I've been a little more senior than hands-on
application of that rule for the last few years.  So I can't
give you any real good perspective.  I can just say that, you
know, the standard changed a little bit in the last couple of
years, and the approach for when a single means of escape is
adequate.  I don't know if that answers your question.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  So what I'm reading -- what I'm
understanding from your answer, that perhaps there is no --
that's one of those areas where there's not a consistent
definition or implementation?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Well, no, I'm saying over time.
It's functional as to how the vessel was built.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Over time.  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  That's a design requirement, and
design requirements are usually not ret-tro-act -- you know,
made retroactive.  But the current requirement is the deck
area requirement.  So if someone was converting a vessel now,
or first bringing it into inspection now, you would normally
look to apply this square foot, and if it exceeds the square
foot, then you jump into, you know, the second means of
escape.
However, on these vessels as small as these are,
the special consideration and the judgment play a big role.
If I was the owner and I went out and said, hey, you know,
I've got 350 square feet, but look at this arrangement, Coast
Guard, I'm not going to gain anything.  You know, there's no
way we're going to improve the safety material here.  If the
Coast Guard agrees with him, he'd say it's special
consideration, good enough.  And ideally, he records that in
the records, so that anybody that walks on a boat in the
future with questions, they can see it was given -- I won't
say given away, but given special consideration and why.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Now, the length of the
vessel is taken into account as part of the -- and the deck
area, as you mentioned, is part of that determination.
Normally, would the number of passengers also be
considered, or is that not addressed as part of the design
requirements?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  We can look up the regulation and
understand it better.  I don't know off hand.  To my
knowledge, it's a section of the regulation that says, a
single means of escape fits, you know, in these
circumstances, and the delineating factor is the square foot.
 I'd have to go back and read the reg close, to give you
anymore.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Stepping back now a
moment to something you just said in terms of design
requirements.  What would apply, would depend upon the date
of build or manufacture of the vessel?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Well, it's a very interesting
issue.  When you deal with older vessels, that have not been
certificated.  Because, you know, our rules are written, at
least I think they were written envisioning that people build
vessels, and we first start inspecting them when they're
built.  You know, in which case, it's pretty clear.  You
deliver a vessel in a certain year, that's what the plans
were reviewed for, that's which regulations you apply, you
meet it, it's documented.  It's easy.
You know, if you have the old reg, if you have a
question, you can go back and find out what applied at the
time that it was built, it maintains that unless something
becomes retroactive.  And it gets grandfathered out of, you
know, new design changes.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  In the case of these older
vessels, you know, if you get a dilemma now where they pull
one out of one of the junkyards and they say, we're going to
paint it up, spray it, and we're not going to call it a new
vessel, because we made 95 percent of it new, and by rule,
we're going to call it a new vessel, and we're going to put
1999 on the certificate, and you're going to meet the current
requirements, because it's not having a problem of having
built something and having to change it anymore.
Then you get to the point where you're kind of back
to consideration again.  I mean, the normal application would
be, if you're first bringing into service, I mean, sure, we'd
expect or like you to meet the current design requirements.
When you get into something like a DUKW, you look over your
shoulder and say, well, geez, is it right to have to redesign
the hull or whatever, make the plating potentially.
You say well, man, we've got hundreds of them over
here with certificates over time that have been built this
way, there's a lot of satisfactory service here, and I think
most OCMI's would not hold the line on that and say, you've
got to build to the current design requirements, we don't
care if there's been satisfactory service.
You know, I think they'd look back and say, is
there an issue here that we need to worry about with that
design requirement, and likely they would probably not find
it, you know, a concern.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So when you have a vessel
like a DUKW that was originally built in the 1940's, but may
have undergone significant modifications and maybe as much as
95 percent of it is substantially new.  Does the Coast Guard
have a policy on what date would apply, the date of the
refurbishment, the date of the original construction?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Well, when we get into the
regulations, you can find the term major conversion, major
alteration, and physically, if an OCMI is questioning that
kind of thing, especially for something like structures or
stability where they don't write the standards, and may not
really understand them, that's where the Marine Safety Center
comes into play.
A couple of years ago, we changed it from
Commandant to the Marine Safety Center to make the ruling on
if a specific project should be called a major conversion or
a significant alteration.  And if it fits those terms, then
what that means practically, is you've got to use the current
design rules.
And if I was sitting in the Marine Safety Center,
like I did one time, and I had my hand in one that came in
with just some of the refurbishments that we've here, where
you basically got little, if anything, of the original
design.  I'd say this is a major conversion.  I mean, there's
no good reason in my mind, you know, that you have to accept
some weakness, you know, and promulgate it through time if
you're constructing a vessel from bottom up.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Uh-huh.  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  But that is -- you know, right now
that is a Marine Safety Center call for that kind of
question, of who decides, you know, if it fits that category.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So we talked a little bit
about what these design dimensions would be, and if a vessel
-- whether a DUKW or a LARC or a Stalwart would have to
comply, would be based on a determination by the Coast Guard
as to which regulations apply, whether the most recent ones
may apply, or the ones if they deem it's not a major
conversion, it could potentially be the 1940's date?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Sure.  I would think if you took a
DUKW where they're really not doing much, in other words, if
you take the Branson Ducks, they're not really altering the
big items of the design.  Right.  They're basically cleaning
it up, repairing as built, I mean, that's maintenance from
our point of view.  That's not changing the design.  And, you
know, the Marine Safety Center, they get them involved now,
and I can't believe the Marine Safety Center would say, oh,
that's a major conversion, you know, you've got to make
sweeping design changes that are, you know, have a big impact
on you.  They're probably looking at that as maintenance.
Now, you take the other ones where they're, you
know, where they're going to the bilge keel, and the only
thing they're keeping is the keel, they're dealing with the
Safety Center, too.  And in my mind, the Safety Center's
probably telling them, in the application of design rules,
we're going to use the current rules.  And that sounds right,
because they're putting 1999 on the certificate.  It's a
rebuild.  Not a maintenance, but a rebuild.
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Yeah.  I'm going to defer
further questioning to Tony.
MR. MURRAY:  Thank you.  Thank you, Doctor.  I have
two questions.  The first one is directed to the Coast Guard,
and this may be answered by Captain Anderson, Mr. Markle, or
Chief Warrant Officer Sorrell.
We know there is regulation that exists for a
relationship to the adult to children number of life jackets
carried on board passenger vessels.  I believe it's ten
percent of children's life jackets to every adult carried on
board the vessel.
I have a hypothetical situation I'd like to put out
to you is, a grade school outing charters an amphibious
vessel, and say that's a 30-passenger amphibious vessel.
Does the Coast Guard have any regulation as to how many
adults would have to accompany or the relationship between
adult children to be allowed to be carried on board that
vessel?  Is there any Coast Guard regulation in existence to
address that situation?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I believe your question is, do we
have to require adult supervisors for children?  Is that
where --
MR. MURRAY:  That's correct, yes.  Say, you have 30
children on a 30-passenger vessel, is that allowed, or would
you have to have so many adults to replace so many of those
30 children?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  There's no Coast Guard
requirement, you know, to take care of that concern of
supervision of children.  No -- I can't open the Code of
Federal Regulations and find anything like that.  I'm not
familiar -- I've never heard of even any local policy that's
done that.
My -- from my experience, the only time we would
probably address that, if the concern came up.  In other
words, say there's an accident, that was a scenario, that
would be one area we'd pay attention to, to just contribute
to, you know, the outcome or whatever.
Another might be that a conscious operator like
those that we saw here earlier this morning might come to us
and ask.  In other words, the Branson Ducks, Mr. McDowell may
go to his OCMI and say, I'm going to be doing school tours
where there's a bunch of kids, and they only send one
teacher, do you guys care about that in the Coast Guard?
Well, you know, we'd stop and think and discuss it with him a
bit, and he could control it ultimately, and my guess is
that's what happens in practice.  He either controls it or
hopefully the responsible school, you know, provides a
reasonable number.
But there's no existing expectation that I'm aware
of, you know, or that I've ever heard of, you know, from the
Coast Guard's point of view, you know, about adult to child
ratio to provide supervision.
MR. MURRAY:  Okay.  So -- and that's kind of a
situation that would be left up to the discretion of the --
either the licensed captain or the operating company?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Ultimately, I consider that
responsibility.  I think most of us in the Coast Guard would
hope that owners recognize it's their responsibility to
ensure that, you know, the safety of whoever they're carrying
is adequate, and if that means, they should come with adults,
they'd probably come with adults.
You know, I'm hard-pressed to believe that a school
would send a bunch of young children by themselves without a
couple of chaperons.
MR. MURRAY:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you for
answering that question, Captain.  My next question would be
to Mr. Hunnicutt.  The -- your experience?
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Let me interrupt you for a
minute.
MR. MURRAY:  Sure.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  I thought you were going in a
different area with your line of questioning.  First of all,
when you were operating DUKWs in Washington, D.C., did you
ever have any school groups like those you just described?
MR. MURRAY:  Yes, we have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Isn't another issue, how
do you account for the number of PFD's for small children?
MR. MURRAY:  Right.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Or are you going to be going
there or --
MR. MURRAY:  Provided sufficient -- we did provide
sufficient number of PFDs for the children, which is required
that everyone has one that fits certain children.  But I just
do not recall seeing any regulation as to how many
supervisors per child were required to be on board for that
school outing, and that was the direction of my questioning.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  But operationally, when
you had those groups, you did account for enough life
preservers or PFDs for the children?
MR. MURRAY:  Yes, sir, we did.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  That would fit them properly.
MR. MURRAY:  Yes.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  That was a lingering question
in the minds of at least a couple of us on the panel -- on
this panel up here, so thank you for clarifying that.
MR. MURRAY:  You're welcome.  My next question is
to Mr. Hunnicutt.  Your experience you had shared with us,
that you were with the Beach-Master Unit with the Navy,
operating LARC's.
BMC HUNNICUTT:  Yes, sir.
MR. MURRAY:  Is there anything that you could
provide with your experience operating LARC's that you could
provide to this forum, that you would have a -- that may be
beneficial to the LARC operating industry in the way -- in
the ways of passenger -- amphibious passenger vessels?
BMC HUNNICUTT:  Our deck configuration doesn't look
anything like that.  It was more a military standpoint.  We
only had maximum three people on board of the LARC at any
given time, and that would've been like the pilot, usually
had like a radio operator who could second officer as a
deckhand type thing, and then you had an engineer that was on
board, and we were in the original configuration with the old
-- I mean, I heard some of the comments this morning about
the speeds of these things.  Ours wouldn't go anywhere near
that fast.
But, no, I can't think of anything that would -- I
mean, I'm just familiar with them.  I know how they operate
in the original mode, but as far as the transmissions, you
know, and when they're talking about the boots and all this
kind of things, oh, yeah, I've seen a lot of the things that
they're talking about, but I can't think of anything that
would bring anything else to light as far as passenger
service.
MR. MURRAY:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Hunnicutt.  And
just for the record, I am no longer employed by DC Ducks.  I
discontinued that part-time employment when I joined the
Safety Board in January.  I have no further questions.  I'll
pass my questioning onto Mr. Rob Henry.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  Mr. Sorrell, could you give
us a little information on your background inspection, and do
you have DUKW operations where you're assigned right now?
CWO SORRELL:  Our operations in Milwaukee, sir, are
inspection of Great Lakes freight and freight ships and
barges, and small passenger excursion vessels.
I presently am not inspecting any DUKWs in our area
of operation.
MR. HENRY:  In your past career, have you been
assigned to an inspection office, where you have had DUKW
operations that you've participated in the inspection?
CWO SORRELL:  No, sir, I haven't.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Markle, could you please tell us
what the requirements are for small passenger vessel in the
way of carriage of children's PFD's?
MR. MARKLE:  There are required to be a sufficient
number of child-sized life jackets for all the children on
board any voyage, but in any case, no less than ten percent
of the number of adult life jackets.
MR. HENRY:  Are there any stowage requirements for
children's PFD's?
MR. MARKLE:  They're required to be stowed in such
a way that they can't be mistaken for the adult life jackets.
MR. HENRY:  And typically, from my experience,
that's what I have seen, is separate stowage, I believe for
accountability purposes during inspections, and segregation
of children's life jackets from adult life jackets.  The
requirements for adult life jackets, the stowage of, could
you tell us what those are?
MR. MARKLE:  Just that they be readily accessible,
and that could mean stowage under the seats.  That could mean
stowage on racks overhead, those are probably the two typical
ways of doing it on a small passenger vessel.
MR. HENRY:  Is there a requirement that children's
life jackets be readily accessible?
MR. MARKLE:  The life jackets generally need to be
readily accessible.  I don't know that children's life
jackets are singled out in any particular way, except that
they have to be stowed in a way that they won't be mistaken
for the adult life jackets.
MR. HENRY:  So I take it --
MR. MARKLE:  So the same ready accessibility
applies to them.
MR. HENRY:  So you're saying that children's life
jackets shall be readily accessible, but stowed separately?
MR. MARKLE:  Not necessarily separately.  Stowed in
a way that they can't be mistaken or won't be mistaken for
the adult life jackets.
In some cases, that could mean stowage of the child
life jackets along side the adult life jackets, and they
might just be marked child or it may be evident from the
different size of the device that they're child life jackets.
 So it's a very generally worded performance-type criteria.
We don't carefully or closely specify how the operator
achieves that.
MR. HENRY:  Captain Anderson, from your experience
in looking at amphibious passenger vessels, if you were to
see children's life jackets stowed up forward by the
operator, would you consider that to be a reasonable stowage
arrangement for accessibility for children?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I would.  The question is, who is
it readily accessible to, and I think you're coming from the
view of does it mean they have to be readily accessible to
the children.  And, you know, when we think children, we
think some assistance or supervision.  And we don't typically
think of very fast accidents.  I mean, most in our minds, we
think of developing accidents, not real slow, but developing
accidents, where people are in control.
I don't think that's any worse than what is common
on larger vessels, where we stick all the life jackets in a
box potentially at one end of a passenger space that holds
150 passengers.  It certainly on a small amphibian, it would
be just as easy to get those three or few child preservers to
the few children, as it would to be lining up and getting
them thrown out of a box and passed around.
So, in my mind, I would think that it is.  I mean,
you know, again that's an item though that each inspector in
OCMI has the responsibility to make a judgment of his readily
accessible.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And we'll move onto that issue.
 Is there a requirement of the Coast Guard to inspect these
vessels underway with an operator during an annual
inspection?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  It's not -- there's no CFR
requirement that would fit these vessels.  The closest thing
that we've done with small passenger vessels and underway
expectations, resulted from other casualties, and reflected
in the recent changes to the regs in the last couple of
years, focused on wood vessels, and that's largely to
evaluate hulls underway.
That tends to be Coast Guard expectations through
policy, as opposed to Code of Federal Regulations.  On the
whole, the Code doesn't go in great detail about what an
inspector is to do and how to do it.  It gives the broad
things, check, you know, the things that can be done ashore.
But most of our inspections aren't done underway.
Either the whole inspection or the bulk of it is done
typically at the dock.  And, you know, an amphibian, you
know, a number of OCMI's are satisfied with inspecting them
out of the water.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And insofar as egress and
survivability issues, if an OCMI doesn't see a full loaded
amphibious passenger vessel with an operator trying to deal
with and running his tour, driving it, and attending to the
safety of the passengers, how would he -- how would the OCMI
know what the safety issues in egress and survivability are
for that operation, unless it was in the water?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Well, certainly the optimum
scenario would be to witness and partake in a typical voyage
as you could, as part of your inspection, with a full load of
passengers, and ultimately, you might even ask to participate
in a drill, like we do on say cruise ships, where the
passengers are there, and they have to perform drills, and
the Coast Guard watches that.
It's traditionally not done on smaller vessels.
Sometimes there are inspectors that will ride vessels for
different reasons, such as surveillance for violations, maybe
they're just interested in the vessel personally.  But on the
whole, Coast Guard inspections never see a full load of
passengers, and certainly not having them exercise during a
drill, such as an abandon ship.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  So you say there's no
requirement in the regulations for an in-water full load
test.  Can you tell me what the policy is in the Coast Guard
for in-water full load tests underway during annual
inspections?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  This is for egress?
MR. HENRY:  Let's just say --
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Any?
MR. HENRY:  -- egress survivability, operator
skills, operator conflicts.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I'm quite confident there's no
national expectation for that.  If -- it may exist at some
individual OCMI level.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Mr. Markle, you have stated that
it's your understanding that the primary means of escape for
amphibious passenger vessels is over the side?
MR. MARKLE:  On the ones we've seen today, this was
the special consideration that Captain Anderson talked about,
when the OCMI would determine the means of escape is over the
side, rather than down the aisle and through a door.
MR. HENRY:  Well, we're dealing with a
consideration that the accident is happening in a rapid
manner.  If a passenger has to go over the side and does not
have time to grab a personal flotation device, once they're
free of the vessel, what flotation is available to aide that
person especially if maybe they're not good swimmers?
MR. MARKLE:  It depends on the service of the
vessel.  If we're going to talk about the kinds of vessels
we've been talking about here, they're typically limited in
their distance off shore, so they probably would not have
life floats or that sort of thing.
The primary lifesaving equipment for them would be
the life jackets.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  So basically swim ashore or wait
for assistance?
MR. MARKLE:  Yeah.  Now, as I said earlier, one of
the things we're counting on, is that the abandonment take
place under the control of the master.  The master is
supposed to be able to recognize that there is a problem,
tell people to get the life jackets, put them on, and get
ready to go over the side.  That's what should happen, and
that's why, for instance, we added the requirement for bilge
alarms, so that the master would be alerted to high water in
the bilge.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  If you have time to grab your
life jacket, but you don't have time to put it on and you go
over the side, how easy is it to put on a PFD in the water?
MR. MARKLE:  It's one of the things we test in the
approval of PFD's that you do have to be able to put it on in
the water, but subjects -- test subjects can put it on in the
water satisfactorily.  You know, it may also depend upon how
good you are with that sort of thing, but it is supposed to
be possible, and it is tested.
MR. HENRY:  Your expectations on a controlled --
let's say where you're not going to exit the stern, but
you're going to go out the window, is it that people are
going to don their PFD's before they go through the window?
MR. MARKLE:  Well, you're asking me to speculate on
how this might occur, but you would -- the ideas that the
master directs the abandonment, tells passengers that the
vessel's in difficulty, and they should instruct the
passengers to get on their life jackets and prepare to
abandon ship, and the idea is that you abandon ship before
the vessel sinks, not after or during and so forth.
MR. HENRY:  Has there been any consideration by the
Coast Guard and not just for amphibious vehicles, but
providing some sort of float free arrangement for PFDs if the
vessel sinks rapidly, and the passengers aren't able to get
their hands on them before they abandon ship?
MR. MARKLE: I believe there's been some suggestion
 to that effect.
CAPT. ANDERSON: Well, it was kind of brought to my
attention in the last few months that, yes, the CFR actually,
you can go in there and find a quote part of it, that says
they're supposed to float free, but it's stuck with one of
those judgment providers or qualifiers, along the lines of
when reasonable and practical.  You know, that part may not
be the quote, but that's -- the gist of it is -- there's been
a clear desire or expectation -- general expectation
expressed in the regs about float free.  And then the
qualifier invites the judgment to accept deviations from
that.  Now, is that good or bad, I'm not passing judgment on
the reg, but to answer your question, if we go in and look
under PFD's, it talks about float free when reasonable.
MR. HENRY:  One of the observations that I would
expect an inspector to make if you were able to witness an
in-water test of a full load of passengers, and an operator,
would be -- what constraints there are for the operator in an
emergency, in operating his vessel, and if you use the
example of a DUKW, if it's a flooding situation, it's pretty
much the requirement that he has to remain his seat to
operate the bilge pump.
Now, I notice in the regulations on life jackets,
there's a provision that the master shall assist each
passenger in obtaining a life jacket and donning it as
necessary.  And I guess my question is, how would this be
possible if he has other commitments, in the way of operating
the vessel and possibly, this would be an opportunity for an
inspector and a local OCMI to make a review of the manning
requirements or just what operating limitations are placed on
the operator.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  The OCMI has a responsibility to
determine the adequate and safe level of manning.  And
certainly this is an area where you think, well, you can
really see the difference between scenarios and different
OCMI zone.  In one zone, just to use for an example, if you
were trying to run a DUKW in a swift river, such as say, off
in New Orleans in Algiers Point, you know, I think most of us
would say, yeah, that operator really has to stay at the
wheel and maneuver that vessel.  Somebody else is going to
have to perform that crew expectation of helping the
passengers, you know, with evacuation procedures or
whatever's necessary.
And you know, for that scenario, I would expect the
inspector in the OCMI would take those into account, and
likely require more than one person.  If you put one of these
DUKW's in Lake Charles, Louisiana in my zone, it's a calm
lake with no river flow through, the lake's six feet deep in
a lot of it, you know, the hazards are different, and I think
we might in a scenario like that, honestly believe that the
operator really does -- and I mean, there's no traffic in the
lake either, so big deal, you know, the DUKW stops, maybe you
don't need anybody at the wheel, and it's good enough to let
the master change focus.
So really the OCMI has to try to put the geography
together, maybe the training that the company does for its
operators, put all of the factors its aware of together, and
decide on safe manning.  So to make an absolutely conclusion,
you know, that a single person can't perform those two
functions adequately, to make a safe vessel, I'm not sure we
can go that far.
MR. HENRY:  We've been struggling with the subject
of amphibious passenger vessel safety now for over half a
year, and I'll address this question to each one of you.
Captain Anderson, are there any recommendations that you can
make in the way of design and operation that would improve
the safety and survivability for passengers riding amphibious
passenger vessels?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  That's easy for me to answer.  I'd
suggest you look at the Marine Board's report, and I pretty
much offered in there what I thought was pertinent.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  Mr. Markle.
MR. MARKLE:  My concern would be the time available
to organize the abandonment and you'd need to look at those
kinds of considerations, what will give you enough
survivability to have an organized abandonment.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Sorrell?
CWO SORRELL:  I concur with the Captain's comments
as far as any recommendations.  The only thing I could add is
possibly incorporating it in the PFD underneath the seat
where they'd be more readily available.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  Chief Hunnicutt, we're
putting you on the spot.  This is a new topic to you, but
probably a safety issue that you deal with all the time.
Could you answer the question?
CHIEF HUNNICUTT:  The only thing that I -- by
looking at the configuration of these pictures, the only
thing that really concerns me that sticks out in my mind is
the awning, and I would think possibly detachable, something
that would float free, because I would want free access, in
the event that something did happen, and something happened
very rapidly, and you needed to get out.  I would want to
have free access to the surface, so that awning would detach
in some way, either by the coxswain releasing it, or you
know, some type of a quick release mechanism, where it could
just detach away and maybe even be used as a partial
flotation device, using Styrofoam or whatever inside this
awning.
Like I said, I don't know if they're made out
canvass material or if they're solid or what.  If they were
solid, they could be reinforced, so that when they did float
off, it would also provide an alternate source for buoyancy,
in the event that you did not have the time to get any type
of flotation device on.
MR. HENRY:  Very good.  Thank you.  I turn this
over to the executive panel.
MR. TYRRELL:  I'd like to remind the audience that
if you have any questions for this panel, to write them on
the index cards and we'll collect them and pass them onto the
center.  Mr. Hammerschmidt?  Ms. Weinstein?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Yes, I have a couple of questions.
 Mr. Markle, how young a child should be able to don their
own PFD?
MR. MARKLE:  Well, I guess -- I don't think we have
anything -- we've addressed anything like that.  When you do
a test of a child life jacket, it is possible to have adult
assistance.  Obviously, it's how old should a child be until
they can dress themselves.  Obviously with younger children,
you are looking for adult assistance.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Okay.  What brought that question
to mind, is you mentioned a couple of times, that you've had
test subjects, and I'm wondering whether or not any of the
test subjects were children.
MR. MARKLE:  We do test the child life jackets, as
well as the adults, and as I said, adult assistance is
allowed, in the case of donning a child life jacket.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  And seniors, I assume you're also -
- are your test subjects elderly in any case?
MR. MARKLE:  We don't have any specific requirement
to include elderly people.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  So you just require 18 subjects?
MR. MARKLE:  For an adult life jacket, yes, 18
adult subjects, generally of different body types.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Okay.  And one other question for
Mr. Markle.  You mentioned that there are off-shore
limitations for these particular vessels.  Are those
limitations established by the Coast Guard or by the states?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  We're talking about distance from
shore?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Yes.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  On the whole, the limitations come
from different requirements.  Number of requirements, even by
different agencies, are a function of how far off shore.  You
know, it can be the FCC [Federal Communications Commission]
saying you need a radio more than a mile.  It can be the
Coast Guard you can't -- you've got to stay within some
distance, this is not accurate, but just for an example,
you've got to have flares if you go more than a mile from
land.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  But for these particular vessels,
what requirements do they have to meet, in terms of
determining how far offshore they can go?
MR. MARKLE:  For instance, if they wish to have or
not carry life floats, for instance, they would have to
operate within a mile of shore, is that the sort of thing
you're looking for?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Here's an example.  Operation not
more than 250 yards is tied to FCC, and that's a radio kind
of thing.
So, you know, an operator doesn't want to be
required to carry -- if he doesn't, then he may say, I don't
need to go more than that, limit me to that.  And the Coast
Guard comes out, and says, you don't have this, we can't give
you more than that on your route.
You know, with these DUKWs as well as the distance
is the time and the time practically limits you to distance
to some degree, and that's the 30 minutes, which is tied to
things like toilet provisions, you know, flares, length of
voyage and that sort of thing.
The -- at some point, and I think this is probably
where you're at, is it safe from the boat's point of view to
go that far out, as opposed to some pseudo-related thing like
the FCC radio, which everybody carries radios anyhow now or
cell-phones or equivalent for the purposes of safety.
Somebody made a decision back when, I don't know
who it was, that in the early certification of DUKW's in my
mind gets extrapolated through time.  When new ones come in
for certification, typically OCMI's look around and say, are
there any of these things already certificated, and they use
them as a reference if nothing else.  And once somebody puts,
you know, a thousand foot down and OCMI facing a new one,
says hey, how far do you let these things go, and you know,
maybe he has his inspector talking to inspectors in the other
zones, and he says, well, we hold them to 250 yards, well,
why?  Oh, I don't remember, it's just been that way for
years, you know.  And the easy out usually is just a copy off
of what somebody else did.  You don't know why.
You know, a good example, a case in point, you
know, one company I dealt with lately in the investigation,
the logic there was, was not obvious to anybody.  You know,
the owner wasn't even sure where it came from.  It'd been
that way for years, and I have no doubt in my mind that some
of the zones that have fewer DUKWs over time referred that
zone, heard that distance, and said, well, that sounds good,
as long as the owners can do his business within that
distance, then the owner doesn't care.
So I don't think there's any very scientific
analysis or recording or whatever of saying, oh, maybe, a
thousand foot or 250 yards is magic, you know, the boat's
going to sink at that point.  I think we just promulgate what
has been working from somewhere else all of the time.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Mr. Tyrrell, any questions?
Are there any questions from the audience?  Mr. Henry has one
he's going to read.
MR. HENRY:  Yes, sir.  This is a question I'd like
to address to Mr. Markle.
Are there any regulations for small children, and
this is with respect to PFDs and small children, meaning
infants, three years and younger?
MR. MARKLE:  No, there's nothing specifically
addressing them, except that they're considered in the
general definition of a child for which a child life jacket
would need to be provided.
MR. HENRY:  If there are no type 1 PFD's made for
infants, are there any type PFD's made that would be
acceptable for small infants?
MR. MARKLE:  There are type 2 PFD's made for
infants that work very well, and I've been trying to
encourage at least one manufacturer to go ahead and get his
type 2 tested, to get type 1 certification, because there has
been interest by cruise ships, for instance, and others, to
have the type 1 rated infant devices.  But to this point, no
one -- none of the manufacturers has actually made one, and
I'm unfortunately not in the position to require them to make
one.
Nevertheless, for those operators that want to
provide a device that such a child could wear, there are the
type 2's and they're very good.
MR. HENRY:  And this would be acceptable on an
amphibious vehicle for the Coast Guard?
MR. MARKLE:  It could be carried as additional
equipment if it's approved as a type 2.
MR. HENRY:  I have another question to be addressed
to Captain Anderson.  Could you please describe the safety
improvements that are in your investigative report?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Safety improvements?  Do you mean
that I identified were safety improvements that I discovered
as part of the investigation?
MR. HENRY:  And recommended in your investigative
report.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Oh, recommendations, as opposed to
discoveries.  Your interest was general safety improvements?
 I mean, they're all 17 of them.
MR. HENRY:  The question wasn't specifically
addressed to egress and survival, so general.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Safety in general.  One thing I
should stipulate is any time you look at this report, you
really should be looking at the Commandant's action on the
report.  There are a few items where the Commandant did not
agree to everything to the extent that was suggested by the
Board.  But we recommended --
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  You know, Captain Anderson,
excuse me, sir, before you get into your answer, that may be
of such an extent, in terms of what's been asked, it's a very
broad question, that you may wish to have this submitted for
the record, as opposed to going into it now.  Just whatever
your call is on it, if you wish to summarize it rather than
going through a whole series of recommendations. [see USCG
report: Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the
Sinking of the M/V MISS MAJESTIC on Lake Hamilton, Hot
Springs, Arkansas on May 1, 1999 with Multiple Loss of Life
(www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/casualty.htm)]
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Very fine, sir.  The -- I don't
see any real need to read 17, if everybody's going to read
them.  If we're going to discuss one or two of them, you
know, for content or for more explanation, that might make
sense in my mind.
But I'm just saying in the changes to the DUKW,
because there were recommendations dealing with training of
Coast Guard people, you know, training of industry folks, and
that sort of thing.  Now, there was not hardware, but you
know, software.
In the hardware sense, I did not -- we did not
recommend very pointed specific changes.  In other words, we
didn't come out and say, this is the solution to DUKW's, make
them all do this physically.
We lumped pretty much the physical changes, and
aimed them at, put the experts together, so you can learn
from best practices, and combine that with, you know, a risk
analysis.  In other words, you know where we come from with a
case is, is we need to do a more global risk analysis of
DUKWs or amphibians, and decide what combinations of
different physical things will raise operating DUKWs to an
acceptable stability level.
You know, we certainly weren't going to come in
here, and say, the answer is to fix one of the links in the
chain and walk away from it.  And different operators
potentially could use different links in a potential fix, and
achieve that acceptable level of safety.
So we left it very broad-brushed.  We didn't make
any specific -- this is the piece of hardware that needs to
be changed.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  There were two additional
questions on I'm going to defer to the panel on maintenance
and structure, and a question on operations, which we'll
defer to the operating panel.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Good call, Mr. Henry.
Concerning this report that's been referenced, the report of
the Marine Board that was convened by the Coast Guard, when
was this report made public?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Let's see.  It was -- today's the
8th.  It's -- the Commandant's action is dated the 7th, so it
becomes final and is releasable on the 7th.  Now, I don't
control that.  I'm an investigator.  That's controlled by
Commandant.  It was -- I think they sent out a press release
last evening to announce that it was now accessible to the
public.  It's accessible through FOIA requests, and it's also
accepted in today's mode on the web.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you.  For those in the
audience that may not be keeping track of that, I thought I
would just clarify that for the record, that it was
officially made public only yesterday.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  And late yesterday, I mean,
relatively late, at least in the press release sense.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Ms. Murtagh,
any questions?
MS. MURTAGH:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.  I have a
couple of things to make sure that I understand as well as
everybody.
The regulation for the distance, for example,
between seats is 30 inches, and if I understand the Coast
Guard's response, that is what's listed in the regulations,
but that is not necessarily what would be applied to these
DUKWs based on a number of factors.  For example, the date
that they were put into service, and the OCMI's assessment;
is that correct?
CWO SORRELL:  That's correct.
MS. MURTAGH:  Chief Sorrell, you said that's
correct?
CWO SORRELL:  That's correct.
MS. MURTAGH:  In your experience, how many of the
DUKWs that you have inspected, have similar distances as to
what's required in the regulations or if you could give us
some idea of what the difference would be, if it's not 30
inches, what might that distance be.
CWO SORRELL:  The two that I certificated last
year, they were 24 inches.
MS. MURTAGH:  24 inches?
CWO SORRELL:  I believe they're 24 inches.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  Mr. Markle, you had indicated
that when you test PFDs for their ability to be donned, the
requirement is that they be capable of being donned within a
minute.  Is -- what kind of circumstances are they tested
under for that one minute donning criteria?
MR. MARKLE:  It's a pool-side test.  The -- I'm
doing this all from memory now.  My recollection and we can
clarify this later, if you want to, but my recollection now
is the people who have not seen the device before, who are
unfamiliar with the device are handed it, and told to put it
on, and they're timed.
MS. MURTAGH:  Is it handed to them in a seating
arrangement, similar to what you find in the DUKW?
MR. MARKLE:  No, they're typically standing beside
the pool, because as soon as they get it on, we're going to
make them jump in, or UL's going to make them jump in,
Underwriter's Laboratories does the test.
MS. MURTAGH:  So there's no restriction on the area
around them for getting the life jacket and putting it on?
MR. MARKLE:  That's correct.
MS. MURTAGH:  To any of your -- in any of your
experiences, any of the Coast Guard representatives, has
there ever been any test or demonstration of donning a life
jacket, putting it on, and exiting a DUKW?
CWO SORRELL:  I never witnessed it.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I can't remember that I have, and
I've been at 4M's, four or five MSO's now, but most of the
time, I was the supervisor in the office, instead of the guy
out in the field.
MS. MURTAGH:  Uh-huh.  So ordinarily, they would
not be a requirement for something like that then; is that
correct?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Not normally.  I don't expect that
that's done.  I mean, as a supervisor of marine inspectors, I
really don't expect them to be proof testing the donning of
preservers with an egress.  I would hope they would consider
that if they got into a circumstance where it looked like it
might be a problem.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  I'd like to shift gears a
little bit, in that the owners and operators that were on the
previous panel indicated that if they are building and
operating a DUKW in one area, that that necessarily would not
meet the requirements in another, and there's been a number
of comments about that fact, that a particular OCMI or MSO
would review each of these DUKWs independently.
And in your responses to a number of the questions,
you have indicated that the MSO and the OCMI do have a
special consideration that they can apply to these DUKWs.  So
my -- and again, the comment that was made this morning, was
that in case, for example, there is a very senior inspector
who has I don't know, 10 or 12 years or something of that
caliber experience with DUKWs, was being replaced with
someone who had no experience.  Is there any training that's
provided to a Coast Guard inspector prior to their first
inspection of the DUKW for a particular area that they're
working in?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Typically, yes.  The -- I think
the most common case would be an inspector who doesn't have
DUKW inspector specific experience, would show up to a new
office, and upon being, you know, recognizing if there's
DUKWs in the fleet to be inspected, most MSO's would consider
that a fairly rare or, you know, opportunity that doesn't
exist in some zones, and would consider that person should go
with someone else from that zone for some number of DUKW
inspections.
You know, it might be if you've got a qualified
inspector that's been around a while, but just never seen a
DUKW.  They might go with one, you know, what's specific
about a DUKW.  Man, I know T-boats, and I know structures and
all this stuff, but what specific should I know about a DUKW.
You take someone who's on their first tour at a
small unit, they're one of two inspectors, you know, I'd drag
them on a few DUKWs because they're not only picking up
specific DUKW things, but they're learning a broader sense
that they don't have otherwise.
But I'm fairly confident in my mind that MSO's
aren't sending people that have never sending a DUKW, you're
it, sign it off, go out on your own, no help.  I don't think
so.  I mean, I can't say it hasn't happened, but I don't
think so.
MS. MURTAGH:  Can I take from that, that you don't
think that that's a valid concern then?  That --
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Oh, no, it's a valid concern.  I
think that the Coast Guard recognizes that there are some
features of DUKWs that need to be explained to people that
haven't seen them before, and they do that on the job, hands-
on.
MS. MURTAGH:  I guess what I was saying, you don't
consider it a valid concern, in that the operators are
saying, we have people who don't have that experience, and
you're saying well, we don't send them out unless they have
someone with them, so if you could breach that gap somehow,
and kind of give us some insight into how the Coast Guard is
going to deal with the operator's concern that they have to
try and satisfy a number of different people at different
times.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  First let me apologize.  When you
said concern, I took it as concern of the Coast Guard as far
as training.  It's one of the features of when there's so
much discretion allowed on a local level, has long been, ever
since I started, and probably long before then,
inconsistency, when you put that amount of judgment thrown in
there, new inspectors, rotations, old issue, always been
there, keeps going, and some folks in industry simply
understand it, appreciate it and go with it.
Others it bothers them to the point to where
they'll actually say something about it.  And some of them
bring it up in forums as they should, in forums such as this,
or public hearings with rule makings, you know, it's a valid
concern of industry, but it's not a new thing.  It applies in
general, as well as DUKWs.  DUKWs is just a smaller pie to
focus on, which tends to be -- it aggravates it maybe a
little more, and I mean, it's a much more rarer event than
just a T-boat.  But you experience the same thing with T-
boats.
You change an inspector in a zone where he's the
only inspector, he's coming in, and he hasn't seen those sail
boats, the Catamarans yet or whatever, those folks in
industry struggle with that same basic problem.  You know, oh
jeez, there's a lot of discretion, or this guy doesn't know
what he's doing, he didn't have any experience, you know,
we've got to teach him.  It's not new, and it's very true,
that some people in the industry take great pride, you know,
we teach the Coast Guard.
I mean, I'm not bragging about it.  I mean, it's
from my point of view, a fact.  But it's a valid concern from
industry's point of view, sure.
MS. MURTAGH:  Has there been any talk within the
Coast Guard of having a special group, special entity,
special set of regulations for DUKWs?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I can only say that, you know, the
recommendations suggest that of the Coast Guard, and I
understand from the headquarters personnel that are here,
that they intend to take that direction.
MS. MURTAGH:  That they do intend to take that?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Yeah.  I think, you know, the
current way I hear it now is what's currently envisioned, not
mapped out with the detailed engineering plans yet, but they
envision potentially something like a navigation and vessel
inspection circular, which is a pretty traditional mode of
addressing a limited scope of a bigger market.
We deal with, you know, integrated tug barges and
off shore supply vessels before their regs, and to some
degree, this is another category that could use some focus
like that, and it appears to me that that's the direct --
that we'll see something like that, you know, once the
recommendations are followed through with the action.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  I had a question that
was passed to me, so I'm going to ask, are there any DUKW's
in the streamline inspection program?
CWO SORRELL:  I have no idea.  I have no
recollection of it.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Ms. Weinstein.  I
have two questions.  The first question is for the three U.
S. Coast Guard panelists.  Are you aware of any actual
evacuation of a DUKW other than the situation we had with the
Miss Majestic?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  I saw an article after the
casualty that was made available to me one in something like
1948 off of Jacksonville, but other than that, there's none
other coming to mind.
CWO SORRELL:  I recollect the same reference.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Yeah, I might mention that was
before the Coast Guard was inspecting small passenger
vessels, and the circumstances that I saw in the article I
saw, went, hey, this ain't the same stuff.  I mean, that was
my opinion.  I think they were in a wave environment, and
some other factors.  You know, I don't correlate that and the
recent casualty as being two of the same.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Right.  For reference, that was
the one in the Atlantic.  The only question that's been
lingering in my mind since being down at the accident in Lake
Hamilton, Arkansas is that since then, I've been noticing
DUKWs mainly out on the open road in Washington, D.C., and in
Branson, Missouri in particular, and I see such a variety of
canopies, and I've seen some without pinpointing them, and I
don't mean to reference the ones necessarily in Washington or
Branson.
But I've seen a variety of canopies, and some up
close, and some would appear to be very difficult to
extricate from in a relatively fast sinking situation, even
for a -- what I would say, an athletic person, given where a
person's seated, versus where the support brackets are, the
support equipment that hold the canopy up.
Does the -- do any of the panelists have any
concerns in that area, concerning how one canopy at least, to
my view, would be difficult to escape from out in the water
versus other canopies, which the best I can tell, would be
very easy to get out from under?  Is there any concern in
that area amongst the panelists?
CWO SORRELL:  That's a valid point.  As you say,
the configuration differs from vessel-to-vessel, and I'd
really have to look at it, and what I would do, is I would
evaluate it.  I would have a crew member demonstrate
egressing from it to see how efficient it would work.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  One of my recommendations was that
the Commandant develop a policy on the use of canopies and
similar structures on small passenger vessels with specific
consideration of escape provisions.  So I would say, yeah, I
have -- yes, I have a concern.  I've addressed to the
Commandant, suggesting that they consider that.  The
Commandant has agreed that that's worth consideration, and I
believe that that will be one of the items, you know, that
the experts will develop best practices for, and potentially
will -- some of that may fall out as actual Coast Guard
expectations.  You know, much more than we have now, which is
purely in a large sense, an OCMI, does this look okay, very
possibly, no conscious thought.
In other words, you know, if you're inspecting a
DUKW that was inspected before, like often times, there's an
assumption made, it may not be a safe assumption, but the
assumption is, it's been that way before, somebody accepted
it that way, I'm hard-pressed to argue it now, unless it's
real bad.
And in combination with the general philosophy that
vessels -- most of us don't think that vessels are going to
sink so fast that the master can't organize, you know, a pre-
sinking evacuation.  It's like Mr. Markle was talking about.
So recent events have got us to the point where we
have to step back with, you know, all the folks that are
involved, you know, whoa, things -- you know, the risk is
probably a little more than what we really thought it was.
You know, we need to decide what's acceptable with the risk,
and the different ways or combination of ways to get that
risk back to an acceptable level.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Right.  Thank you very much.
Any other comments from these panelists?
CWO SORRELL:  I'd just like to add we talked a lot
about PFD's and I wanted to clarify that when we're talking
about a child's PFD's, we're not talking about a child's age,
we're talking about his weight, his or her weight, so 90
pounds is the cut-off, it's considered a child's PFD.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  That's a good point.
MR. HENRY:  On a question that I asked Mr. Markle
dealing with children's life preservers.
MR. MARKLE:  Yes, Mr. Henry.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Markle, you said one of the tests
for adult PFD's is to be able to don it in the water.
MR. MARKLE:  Yes.
MR. HENRY:  Is there a similar test for child's
PFDs?
MR. MARKLE:  I don't recall if there is.  I don't
recall us doing that.  Again, we -- when it comes to
children, we expect that there is going to be some adult
supervision, adult assistance.  That's an assumption with a
child's life jacket.
MR. HENRY:  Does the Coast Guard have a requirement
for mandatory wearing of PFD's for children in any
situations?
MR. MARKLE:  The Coast Guard does not.
MR. HENRY:  Federal regulation.
MR. MARKLE:  That's correct, unless it's one of
those conditions where a hazardous situation exists, and the
master instructs everyone on board to put their life jackets
on, because it's a hazardous condition.
MR. HENRY:  Now, --
MR. MARKLE:  There is -- under consideration,
there's been a notice put out in the Federal Register, as to
the Coast Guard requiring children of a certain age to wear
life jackets on recreational boats, smaller than a certain
size, when on open decks underway, that sort of thing.  So
there is something under consideration for recreational
boats, certain recreational boats.
MR. HENRY:  Are you aware of any amphibious
passenger vessels not certificated by the Coast Guard or the
state that have requirements that children wear PFDs?
MR. MARKLE:  I'm aware that there are state
requirements that apply to recreational boats for children of
certain ages to wear PFDs.  They vary from state to state.
To what degree what they might apply to commercial operations
on sole-state waters, I simply have not tried to keep up with
that.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Henry.  Any
other lingering questions from anyone?
MS. SIND-PRUNIER:  I do have just one.  Sort of as
a follow-up to that.  And this is directed to any of the
Coast Guard personnel.
Does the Coast Guard have any data or sources of
information on passenger behavior, with regard to egress?
Both for adults and also in particular, with regard to adults
assisting children during emergencies, the Coast Guard, have
they done in research, do they have any access to any
information or data that can be used in formulating emergency
egress provisions in the regulations?
MR. MARKLE:  I'm not aware of any done specifically
for the Coast Guard.  Several years ago, I was made aware of
some studies that had been done by various people concerning
how people react in emergencies in general.  A certain
percentage of people react with panic, a certain percentage
of people react with, you know, calm resolve and all this,
and I'm sure you're all familiar with that research.
But the Coast Guard has not sponsored anything
recently that I'm aware of along that line, or looked into
it.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Very good.  Gentlemen, we want
to certainly thank you for your participation in this panel,
and for your cooperation in this public forum.  You've been
very informative, and are to be congratulated.
Let us -- in fact, I think Captain Anderson is
going to be on our next panel, which will be -- we've -- hang
on.  No, don't think so?  Oh, excuse me.  Getting ahead of
the game here on that last comment.  We will be seeing
Captain Anderson a bit later.
Let's take a 15 minute break and we will return for
Mr. Jack Ringelberg's presentation.
(A break was held at 3:00 p.m., and reconvened at 3:17
p.m., this date.)
MR. TYRRELL:  Our next presentation will be from
Mr. Jack Ringelberg, a naval architect, with Jamestown Marine
Services, with whom the Safety Board has contracted to
perform stability calculations for a typical DUKW.
His calculations address arbitrarily chosen
scenarios, that do not represent any specific accident.  Mr.
Ringelberg will present some of the results of his
calculations.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Good afternoon.  I'm going to --
JMS [Jamestown Marine Services] Naval Architects obviously is
a classic naval architect firm, but we specialize in salvage
engineering.  And secondly, we do a lot of shipboard
inspections, so we're sea going naval architects, most of our
people have Coast Guard licenses, some have served in the
Navy, so some of your naval architect firms are just strictly
design.  We're a little bit different.  In fact, the bulk of
the work done in this analysis, was done by Blake Powell,
who's inspecting a ship in Antarctica as we speak, so that's
a research vessel.
That's as much public relations as I'm going to do.
What I'm going to try to do today, is to run
through this outline, and hope I hit on all the bullets.  And
then at the end, I guess we'll have a panel.  I have
discussions and questions, but that will be up to the
technical board there.
We did submit a report, the ink is still wet to
NTSB.  They haven't had time to totally digest it.  I have a
copy here, one copy, which I will relinquish to the Chairman
or someone in authority, since I'm not even authorized to
have it.
But what you're going to hear today is kind of an
abstract from that report, which will kind of deal with the
various configurations of the DUKW, and we only dealt with
the DUKW.  And to start off, I have a few graphics, also
we'll be showing a video of DUKW sinking, and this is the
DUKW you'll see.  I hope I didn't offend anybody or steal
their colors or -- because I know you guys are quite colorful
in the entertainment business.
Basic DUKW.  Another view of the stern.  The little
color things are vents, and they vary from vessel-to-vessel,
but a significance here is you'll hear downstream in the
presentation about the way the DUKW sinks, and generally it
sinks by the stern, and for our criteria we assume the vessel
sinks when the deck edge at the stern goes under, because
it's downflooding that occurs at that time.
So once the stern is under, the combing around the
outside has openings in it, so that doesn't help anymore, as
far as maintaining the water tight integrity.
A little shot of the under carriage, and the reason
I put this in here, obviously to see the propeller, but of
more significance is the fact that there's a big tunnel
through the center of this vessel.  That's good from the
inside, but from the outside, and especially in the stern,
you can see where there's not as much buoyancy as you would
like in the stern.
Secondly, we're showing by the stern, it just gets
worse before it gets better, because any buoyancy you pick up
would sink as you're losing rapidly because the wrong spot
sink.  Some of them have talked about doing stretches and
you've picked all of this buoyancy and you didn't know what
to do with it, and you got the opportunity to put in a half
inch plate on the bottom, just to give you a nice solid
ballast situation, and that's the thing.
I mean, the buoyancy gap is -- I wouldn't say it's
a problem, but it would be nice to have more there, and you
should draw on that conclusion when you get through -- when
we get through this presentation.
This is a more of a cartoon of where things are,
that have come up.  All the greenies are pumps, and I didn't
mean to -- the Higgins pump is much larger than these other
20 gallon a minute submersible pumps or bilge pumps.  But
that's their locations.  Here's the Higgins pump suction.
There's a number of drain plugs.  This one is of interest,
it's in the center well.  I just put those in there.  And
these are the overboard vents.  Here's the fuel tank, and
this is the overboard discharge for the Higgins pump, which
is right behind the driver.
Another view, different aspect ratio.  This shows
the hull penetration where the shaft tool comes through.
Well, maybe that's the one that's blanked off.  Once again,
that overboard discharge is not drawn to scale, but that's
the location, and here's the driver's position right up here,
and apparently, that's the methodology of knowing when you've
got flooding to here when the pump's pumping, the driver sees
the water, and he knows he's got a problem.
Our task with NTSB was not to know anything to
start, and do, for lack of a better word, a zero based
analysis, and in doing that, we had two people and met with
the NTSB people and measured the vessel ourselves.  Didn't
have a lot in way of drawings.  Had a couple of Army manual
sketches from 1945.
So we basically had to create the hull.  And being
computer means, as everyone is today, we have a computer
program that does salvage and a lot of stability analysis,
and this is what the DUKW looks like on a computer.  I
wouldn't use this in your marketing approach, because it
looks almost -- have I been out of focus all along, or is
just this one?
Well, it's about as boring anyway.  But that's what
it took to model this vessel.  And those of you who have done
computer modeling, know if it's a nice hydrodynamic shape
it's not too bad, but when you have a lot of nicks and
crannies and wheels and wheel-wells and shaft tools and et
cetera, it gets a little bit -- it's a challenge.  We're used
to do 600 foot vessels, although we've done some small
vessels.
Inclining experiment is it basically -- it
determines the transverse center of gravity of the vessel.
You've heard some discussion earlier about the plate on the
bottom and lowering the center of gravity.  If you don't
bring anywhere from here, lowering center of gravity is a
good thing, and you know that inherently.
The way you find the center of gravity is just the
simple matter of moving a known weight off center, measuring
the list, and then back calculating.  If you know the weight
of the vessel, if you know the distance, you move the weight
off center, and you can calculate the location of the center
of gravity.
That we felt was important, because over time,
ships change, people add things, people leave things off, and
even on vessels in service now, sometimes the center of
gravity is suspect, where it really is over time, and it's
only when vessels undergo certain amount of shipyard
modification that they're required to re-incline and find the
new center of gravity.
I'm going to give you a quickie on stability.
Remember when I said high center of gravity -- low center of
gravity is good, and high center of gravity is okay, but it's
-- lower is better.
The two vectors you see here, one is the weight of
displacement acting down the weight of the vessel, and b is
the buoyancy or the force -- the point force of the water
pushing up.  And in both cases, the only difference being,
this one is lower than that one.
Now, when the vessel heels over, those weights --
the size of those vectors or forces are the same.  We haven't
added any weight or anything.  But the point I'm trying to
make here is, if the weight is lower, the righting arm, and
we used GZ, and I know I'm confusing you with that, but just
think righting arm, but we do use the term GZ, which is the
distance between the buoyancy vector and the weight vector,
is the amount of energy in that hull, the buoyant energy
that's trying to right that vessel.
So it heels over through some external force or
people running to the side, which buoyancy will try to
correct that.  And these conditions happen in seaways when
there's wave action or moving weights aboard or people
moving, transfers.
On the computer basis, what GZ looks like when you
run through all these calculations is a curve like this,
which basically starts off with zero degree of heel, well,
there is no righting arm, because those two vectors are on
top of each other, and as the vessel heels over, the righting
energy, you can see where GZ gets larger.  In other words,
the more you heel over, the more force there is to right you,
so it's a good thing to have, righting arm, in fact, you get
stronger as you heel more, and that's why ships work.  I
didn't invent that, but someone must have.
You could say he went to Michigan, but I'm not
going to say that, because --
Now, another thing you may hear about is, and
you'll see more of these later, so get familiar with that
righting arm.  Remember, after a low center of gravity, just
remember righting arm or righting energy.
You probably heard the expression free surface, and
that happens in tanks.  It happens in bilges or it happens
when you have a flooding situation.
The analogy I like to make, if you're carrying a
pot of water that's narrow and deep, it doesn't slosh around
too much, but if you take that same amount of water and put
it in a baking dish, and you ladies know what that is, and
try to carry it across the room, and it starts moving, you
know you're not going to make, that's free surface.  And
that's what happens.  It's a dynamic effect that happens when
a vessel starts to move.
And with that, I've got a quick clip on free
surface taken from another animation we did for the discovery
channel, and that's my second commercial.  Can you run that
now?
What you're going to see here, is this vessel start
to roll, and that goes to external forces, wind, waves, et
cetera.  The double bottom is flooded, it dampens its low
center of gravity, but it's totally flooded, so there's no
free surface.  Here comes the free surface.
Do you see that dynamic?  It's not going the right
way anymore.  And that effect, is what can cause a vessel to
capsize.
Now, when you see this, and you break it up like
this, this free surface here, but it dampens itself out with
these longitudinal bulkheads, so you don't have these big
waves building up, because they're like breakers in there.
Okay.  Stop, that's good.  Now, on the DUKW, we
played around with some free surface.  Remember that GZ curve
I told you about, here it is again.  Now, this is just with
nine passengers, nine people.  And the thing to look at here,
is the energy -- see the maximum GZ, 2.4 feet, that's a
vessel with no free surface, everything is dry with the
exception of the fuel tank, and if you read the report, you
can find that's very negligible.
Now, I'm going to throw in some free surface.  And
you can see that the righting arm, GZ has been reduced to 1.5
feet, still good, but not as good without it.
Now, we're fortunate with the DUKW anyway, because
between the wheel-wells and the shaft tunnels, it breaks up
the bilge to the point where it's dampening naturally in the
vessel.  So even though free surface does reduce the righting
arm, it's not of any major significance in stability
reduction.  But we had to go there, just to take a look at
it.
Now, what we did, computer wise was analyze all
these different cases.  And 33, I think was picked, because I
think that's maximum passenger number, and then we picked
another number in the middle.  And I'll explain later how we
got to 29.
But these represent a number of computer runs and
studies that were made at those various conditions.  And the
output of that, those analyses look like -- now that's what
we call a free floating damaged condition.  In this program,
when you flood a compartment, it turns red.  So I guess you
could change the color on your computer, but it gets our
attention when we see red.
Here again, that's somewhat of a cartoon, the
attitude of the vessel on the left, here's the infamous GZ
curve, and do you see how low that is, that's almost like
it's still stable, it still has a righting component, and
this is just about before sinking.  Do you see the two lines
up on the hull?  Those are the two waterlines, port and
starboard, because this vessel has a list.  And that dotted
line is almost that corner is going under there, and that's
how we arrived at the sinking condition.  We actually had to
kind of keep flooding it and flooding it, until that deck
edge went under, or if it stayed perfectly trim, which it
normally doesn't do, when the stern went under the deck.
And this -- for every one of those cases I showed
you, there are similar outputs of this, and we have also done
cases with two feet of water, half a foot of water, et
cetera, just to run the whole spectrum.
Now, with that, I'm going to run a video of the
sinking situation, with -- I think this one has 19 passengers
on it, which is one of the cases I showed you.  And if you
could run that now.
Just some repeat on the vehicle assembly, just
basically where we got the stills from.
The interesting thing is, the chassis is on the
inside of -- unlike a car, it's not on the outside, it's on
the inside, here you see it coming down.  There's the fuel
tank and the engine, float boards, and then the deck, chairs,
benches, the canopy.  That's not how you build them.  I think
the people in this room can tell me how to build them better
than that, but --
Okay.  Here's the vessel coming into the water.
Now, this is not loaded.  This is the light ship condition.
Just take notice of the draft here.  Look at -- remember,
look at the stern.  Okay.  Now, it's assuming full load, it's
sinking down, and that's with 19 passengers.
So these vessels generally -- initially, they trim
by the stern, and when you load them, they trim by the stern,
because the bulk of the weight ends up being at.
This is a flooding situation.  We did use the boot
seal, but we've also done analysis on a plug failure.  As the
shaft penetration where it comes in, and as you can see, it's
flooding aft a lot faster than it's flooding forward.
I didn't think you'd all want to sit here for a
real time, 5.63 minutes.  This is just another aspect ratio
of the same situation, and you'll see the corner go under.
That's it for the video.  Now, some other results
we got with flooding, 33 people, no less than 5.2 minutes, 33
people, two degrees port list, 4.45, so now you can see the
contribution that that list makes, because remember, the deck
edge goes under, and with a list, it gets there faster than
it would if it was zero degrees.
All passengers at -- in this particular model, we
put passengers in rows 5, 6, 7 and 8, 33 people, which
physically had to sit on each other's lap, but you can see it
floats with that low end, but you can see how rapidly it
sinks with floating through the plug, or floating through --
these numbers were run for the boot, but the plug is the
larger opening, and it -- depending on -- well, we may get
into this in discussion, but the flow into the hull is
somewhat subjective as far as discharge proficient is
concerned.
The important thing to note here, is that when in
doubt, put people forward, or try to get as many people as
possible, not as possible, but it's a better situation if you
can keep the nose down.
We were asked to look at a couple of different
fixes, and we looked at bulkheads, and we said these were
practical locations from somewhat of a microscopic, where the
fire wall was, and the wheel-well was, and it didn't -- we
didn't have a vehicle, you know, right at our disposal to do
this.  Was this done after we took our measurements.  So we
recognized there's wiring down there, and there's other
things going on, so a little bit more design to be done, to
get a real bulkhead design.
The thing the bulkheads do, if there is a flooding
situation, either from the plug in the hull or the shaft
opening, it keeps it in mid-ships, and if you remember what I
said earlier, these things sink by the stern.  So you get
more parallel sinkage with the flooding in the center.
We estimated this would cost about $1,000 and that
was just based on some shipyard numbers we had, and I finish
that out with more design is required.
The other thing we found out is that with nine
passengers, it floats.  With the bulkheads in, center
flooding, it floats with nine passengers.
And that's about where the bulkheads ended up.  And
this is the computer solution.  Don't misconstrue the red
going all the way up to the deck, because once a
compartment's damaged, the whole thing gets red, but we've
got -- this is the waterline here, but this is floating with
nine passengers, and my guess is, we didn't run the numbers,
but it would probably survive with 12 or 13.  I don't have
those numbers, and we used the standard Coast Guard 140
pounds per person, which I think we'd all flunk in this room.
 I don't speak for the girls, but the boys, we'd never make
the 140 pound criteria.  That's why we need more kids on
these vessels to keep the passenger weight down.
But here again, you can see the still of one foot
righting arm, and with, as I said, we studied it.  We pegged
it at nine, but my guess would be it would float with about
12.
The other thing we did, is we looked at a
combination of the bulkheads with flotation, and when I say
flotation, there's another way of doing it, but we
specifically looked at some kind of foam and static foam or
closed cell polyurethane foam.
What this does, you put it between the wheel-wells.
 Here again, the flooding from the boot or the deck plug is
more contained, in other words, the pocket is smaller, and it
floats flooded in this scenario, and recognize, we just did
crude boxes of foam, there's a lot of nooks and crannies with
29 passengers.
We priced the foam out from a marine catalog, it's
going to be about $1,000, there's some labor in there, but I
would probably defer to you people that build these things on
what the real labor numbers are, but that's our ballpark
estimate.  And here again, a more detailed analysis required
to really, if you want to design that into the vessel.
The computer outlook looks like this, and this is
the free floating condition, and I just put this in here.
This isn't exactly the sinking, but -- because the
waterline's not high enough, but I just want to show you how
this displaces that much more water in the center
compartment, the bulkheads are here, and the riding on is
fairly respectable at one foot.
We were asked to look at pump effectiveness, and
didn't have a lot of detail on the pump, but there's some
disparity going -- I read a number of 350 gallons a minute.
I think the Branson Duck people said 200 and something.  We
heard the 12-0 pump story about the UL approved, they're
bigger ones around, but they're not approved, so you're stuck
at 20 gallons a minute, and this I think fairly is a standard
configuration, three of these pumps, two in the stern, one in
mid-ships in then the Higgins pump.
These are the flooding rates we calculated in that
area, and here again, you know, you could write a Ph.D.
dissertation on the convoluted flow that goes through that
tube.  But I think the times are pretty respectable about
within five or six minutes, depending on the loading of when
the vessel would sink.  And clearly, the electric pumps at
this size cannot handle a boot seal failure.
We've got some conclusions here, and this is based
on the 350 gpm capacity of the Higgins pump.  And it's our
feeling with the flooding we calculated, either from the deck
plug of boot seal, that the vessel -- the Higgins pump will
keep pumping and stay ahead of that flooding.
A combination of bulkheads and flotation or foam,
if you will, you can make that vessel survive with a full
load of passengers.  And I don't minimize that there's other
considerations in there, and maybe they'll come out in
discussion.
And as I said earlier, when in doubt, put people
forward.  I think one of the things you have going here,
you're trying to load these vessels on land, and you
disembark on land.  If you were loading them afloat, it'd be
a little dicey.  I think you'd be hey, you sit there, and you
sit there, and those of you that run on these computer --
commuter airplanes know that sometimes they make you move up
forward or something to get the wheels up or down.  It's down
-- it shouldn't be that different on the DUKW.
From an operational standpoint, you can put nine
people if that's all you've got, but if you really want to
hedge your bets, I'd put them in mid-ships or something, but
it'll float either way.  It's just minimizing that trim.
And that's the official part of my presentation.
And I guess we're going into panel session, is that --
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Yes.  Before we get organized
into the panel discussion, let me be sure and thank Mr.
Ringelberg for that excellent presentation.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Thank you, sir.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  It's obviously a great amount
of work and effort went into that.
MR. TYRRELL:  I believe Mr. Ash Chatterjee from our
Office of Marine Safety will lead off questioning.  Mr.
Chatterjee.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you, Don.  The first set of
questions would be directed at Mr. Ringelberg and in
connection with his presentation.  And then that would be the
end of our questions for Mr. Ringelberg and he can step down,
and then we'll go with the Coast Guard panel after that.
So for Mr. Ringelberg, I have just a few questions,
not very many, because you've covered most of the highlights
in your presentation.
You've looked at the DGZ curve, which deals with
the ability of the vessel to right itself in the transference
direction.  Can you tell us about the longitudinal stability
of DUKWs since it -- I feel that's important, since the
vessel is initially trimmed by the stern, and as you
mentioned, there's less water plane because of the tunnel
cut-out, and most importantly, the passengers tend to
disembark from the stern in an emergency.
MR. RINGELBERG:  The vessels are longitudinal
stable, and as Ash knows, that longitudinal stability is only
a problem with submarines or very narrow hull catamarans or
et cetera, but we did analyze it, and in fact, the -- in the
case where we put all the passengers aft, we only had a
change in draft of about six inches down at the stern, and
the longitudinal center of buoyancy of that other vector I --
if you take my stability thing and turn it sideways and
stretch it out, it's the same thing, the weight and the
buoyancy.  And the center of buoyancy shifted about two-
tenths of a foot.
So you have nice long arms [righting arms] there.
In other words, if you put more weight aft, you get more of a
moment.  Now, you don't want too much weight aft, because
then it'll -- then it -- the stern will go under.  But you
saw in that one case where we had 33 people aft, and that was
in the last five rows that we still had adequate free board.
 
So the answer is the longitudinal stability isn't a
problem.  We looked at it because of the lack of extra
buoyancy in the stern, but it's -- one of the things that one
could do, and maybe this is a follow-on question is to get
some more weight forward and let it trim, because we don't
seem to be -- we can carry the weight, it's just it's not in
the right place.  So --
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Just to clarify, you had on your
chart, your summary of times, a time of 1.8 minutes.  Could
you explain what that was with the passengers aft, what it
meant, what it represented, the 1.8 minutes?
MR. RINGELBERG:  The 1.8 minutes is the time for
the stern to go under, the deck edge to go under with all the
passengers aft.  So you can see if you have all that weight
aft on a relative basis, it'll sink three times faster.
That's not good, but in a static situation without flooding,
longitudinal stability is not -- you know, you could use
more, but it's not a problem.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  So the 1.8 minutes
could be a situation on passengers disembarking from the
stern?  It could approximate that in some ways?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Yes.  If you have a flooding
situation and disembarking from the stern, you'll exacerbate
it, in other words, the deck edge goes under faster if
everybody's moving in that direction.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Can you suggest any other ways for
increasing the survivability of a DUKW, other than bulkheads
and flotations, such as by adding ballast forward, so that
you increase the freeboard aft?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Yes.  I've got a -- I've just
learned today that Sparkmans and Stevens designed this, and
they're a class act.  But if you look at the weight of the
fuel tank, it's exactly the weight of an operator almost and
they're on opposite sides, so that's going to theoretically
give you zero list and a light ship condition, as long as the
driver's there.
You could look at moving the fuel tank forward, and
that would move that weight from aft forward, and you'd have
some possible list correction.
You could redesign the stern for more buoyancy.  I
don't know what that slope actually has to be, since we're
not attacking Sicily or something, maybe it could be more
generous, but that's up to you operators to know what you can
live with.  I mean, you could be adding more there, and if in
fact, some of the exercises of making that stern, those
shafts rigid, you know, you could probably pick up some more
buoyancy aft in those areas.
Another thing is -- and I think some people are
operating them, and if you stretch them, it doesn't give you
more buoyancy aft, but it gives you more buoyancy.  So you
stretch it, a little bit of ballast forward, you could almost
get into a -- I don't know, there's an operator here, I
think, running the Seattle people, and he very possible has
got his ballast right.  He's probably operating in a better
trim condition with a load, than say the shorter versions.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. Ringelberg, bulkheads are
sometimes placed on meeting what are called floodable length
standards or damage stability standards.  Could you just give
us an idea of what these two standards mean?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Well, as you know, we're well
below any requirement lengthwise to meet any kind of flood.
This is what we call a zero compartment vessel.  In other
words, if you flood this vessel, it's going to sink.
In vessels where bulkheads are installed, they have
what is known as floodable length, where certain -- and that
determines how the bulkheads are separated, how far apart
they are.  And in a one compartment ship, that means if one
compartment is penetrated, it'll still survive.
Now, the thing with bulkheads is you can't put them
in one at a time, because if you put one bulkhead in here,
you would be taking a bad situation and making it worse,
because your trim situation with flooding on either end is
going to be worse than you have with parallel sinkage.  So
basically you have to put two bulkheads in.
And I'm still -- the jury's still out with me, as
to whether a survival or damage stability situation or a
floodable length criteria is appropriate.  I think it's more
of a reanalysis of the two criteria would probably be -- he
was talking about damage stability, and that's the ability of
the vessel.
You could either say the floodable length test
would be this, and that would determine where you bulkheads
would have to be, or the ship has to survive with one
compartment damaged or two compartments damaged.
I think I would even -- even though it's more
complicated, I think I would probably go towards the damage
stability criteria.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  Just one final
question.  You mentioned that you'd used in your calculations
a coefficient of discharge of .75.  What is the coefficient
of discharge, and what is the range that you would want to
use in a case or similar cases.
MR. RINGELBERG:  The coefficient of discharge is a
factor that's used in flow calculations.  If I had a one inch
pipe, and I cut through that pipe at the center, the
discharge from one end to the other, the coefficient of
discharge in that situation, would be one.  In other words,
the flow on this side is exactly the same as the flow on this
side, but this is just straight pipe.
Now, when you have an opening, the water fans out
and turbulence occurs, and that creates a back pressure,
believe it or not, to eliminate that pattern of flow.  So we
used a range of coefficients of discharge from .75 to .5, but
with a .5 coefficient of discharge, those times get longer,
because not as much water is coming in.
There are numerous tabulations of discharge
coefficients, but unfortunately, they didn't foresee this
one, and we don't one for the shaft.  It's clearly the
coefficient of discharge for a hulk plug is clearly .75,
because that's a round opening.
Now, you can complicate that by saying it's
threaded, you know, and some fluid dynamisis, spend two years
on it, but basically, the hull opening would be .75 and I
would say that the shaft tube flood is probably closer to .5.
So in my analysis, those times could be longer than
they portray, maybe seven minutes or -- did I hit it?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.  That's all I have, thank
you.  Mr. Henry?
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Ringelberg?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Yes, sir.
MR. HENRY:  In each of the conditions that you
examined after the vessel suffered damage, was the failure
criteria always deck edge submerged at the stern?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Yes, sir.
MR. HENRY:  In the case where there two bulkheads,
and you said you could possibly squeak out 12 passengers by
refining the design, it failed due to deck edge submersion
aft.
MR. RINGELBERG:  We did it -- we ran the nine
passenger case, we didn't sink it all the way, but there was
trimming by the stern, it would've failed by the stern.
That's why if you look at that one view graph I had, it's
still a little bit more freeboard in that case, so --
MR. HENRY:  And in the case where you have the
bulkheads and the foam in the center compartment, again, that
failure condition would've been aft at deck edge submersion?
MR. RINGELBERG:  It would've been, but the case we
ran, it didn't fail.  We ran it with 29 people, with foam.
We backed into it, we wanted to keep it afloat and see what
the foam would do, and we were looking for the 29, not for
the failure.  And just before deck edge submersion, we had
enough, we had 29 people in there, and that's with this
square foam and the two bulkheads.
MR. HENRY:  And if you added more passengers, that
would've eventually lead to failure at the aft deck edge?
MR. RINGELBERG:  In that configuration, yes.  But I
would -- I had not -- I think it's very possible with some
more detail engineering to get more foam in there, and make
it survive with 33.
MR. HENRY:  And again, what is it in the way of the
stern configuration that leads to this failure always
occurring at the stern?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Well, basically you saw the -- we
know we've got the propeller.  There's no buoyancy at the
stern.  And two things happen, people move aft, and also
there's no -- as the vessel sinks, you're hoping to pick up
buoyancy, but that's not your best spot, because you've got
that big cutout.
If there are ways -- I mean, I was even thinking of
a bolt-on stern, one foot long, just to -- I don't know about
the over the road stuff, but just to bolt on, one foot of a
foam stern.  I haven't done the analysis, kind of have it
wrap around, and that would give you a nice pickup by aft,
and you could work your ladder into it somehow, but I'm just
getting ahead of myself here.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Are you familiar with the
stability requirements for small passenger vessels, that are
found in subchapter T?
MR. RINGELBERG:  I think the last -- I'm not
current.  The last thing we did was a ferry boat in North
Carolina some two years ago, so I wouldn't say I'm totally
current on -- you mean the Coast Guard regulations?
MR. HENRY:  Yes, sir.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Not -- try me out.  I mean, I'm
not current on the rules in that area.
MR. HENRY:  Basically for amphibious vessels, it
requires a simplified stability test, which -- and I think we
had seen pictures of it this morning, --
MR. RINGELBERG:  Uh-huh.
MR. HENRY:  -- where they're moving barrels on the
side.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Oh, half the freeboard?
MR. HENRY:  To the side and measuring residual
freeboard.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Right.
MR. HENRY:  Do you think based on what you now know
about the survivability of amphibious passenger vessels, that
those are the critical stability tests that should be
conducted on DUKWs?
MR. RINGELBERG: We did not find a transverse
stability problem, so I would -- my concern more is with the
trim of the vessel as a method of failure.  We did the
inclining experiment, and we found that the -- obviously
there's less freeboard aft than there is in mid-ships.  So --
MR. HENRY:  Would you say that we would learn
something about a typical DUKW if we conducted a longitudinal
simplified stability test, such as the regulations call for
on pontoon vessels, and looked at residual freeboard at the
stern with weight movements?
MR. RINGELBERG:  That would probably be helpful.  I
mean, that would probably validate what we've just done here,
because we basically put weight aft on this, and we -- we
found the longitudinal center of gravity by reverse
engineering, because it's got to be here if it's going to
float, and the measured trim is this, and so we backed into
the longitudinal center of gravity.
But clearly since there's not a lot of dynamic
billing for aft, other than maybe people evacuating, I think
the simplistic thing if we could get the vessel -- the trim
more by the bow or eliminate the trim by the stern, one or
the other, the same thing, it would add to its survivability,
but here again, you're only buying more time in its current
configuration with the particular failure that we analyzed.
It's eventually going to -- you know, without either
bulkheads -- well, if the pumps not working, it's going to
sink.  If the pumps working, you're going to make it.
But it would be a valid exercise, I think
academically will be -- well, I won't say academically,
because with the lack of buoyancy there, I think it might be
a valid test, and since it's not a big vessel, you would be
talking about a super tanker with a big cut-out, I would say
no, no one could afford to do that.
But now you've got to recognize, it needs -- you
need a lot of weight now if you're going fore and aft.  It's
not just two or three, nine people moving port and starboard.
 We're talking about 33 people stacking up aft to get the
thing to do anything, to get some data, because we're
measuring in smaller angle than we are transversely.
But as these gentlemen both know, longitudinal
stability is generally not a problem in most ships, and I
think with catamarans and pontoon vessels, it's become more
in vogue, because they're very narrow hulls, and they pitch
more than they roll.
MR. HENRY:  One last question.  You made the
recommendation to move the fuel tank up forward, and we'll
not discuss what other issues that creates in the way of
safety, but say we do that, and you were to look at a
situation where you foamed out the rear pods, and installed a
bulkhead.  And this is a little different condition than you
have looked at with foaming the center tank.  Would there --
do you have a feel for the contribution that would make, to
survivability, in the way of deck edge submersion, as opposed
to foaming out the center tank, the center bulkhead space?
MR. RINGELBERG:  The only thing it would -- well,
it would help.  Now, I don't think it's going to be enough.
Basically what you'd be doing, you wouldn't be getting
anymore buoyance back aft, but you have less space for water
to flow, so the water entering the vessel would not trim it
by the stern as much.
So it would last longer that way.  In the vessels
that we did, if there was anything back there to keep water
from moving aft, it would've helped.  It would've elongated
the time to sink by not so much giving it more buoyancy, but
reducing the added weight with the flood of water going aft.
In fact, optimally, if you could get it in a
damaged situation, if you get the water to start running
forward, which might be a miracle, it would pump the pulley.
 No, I'm only kidding there.  I mean --
MR. HENRY:  That's my questions, and I'll turn it
over to the executive panel.
MR. TYRRELL:  Before we do that, I would like to
remind the audience that if you have any questions for Mr.
Ringelberg, please write them on the index card, so we can
collect them and have them asked.  Member Hammerschmidt?
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  I don't have any questions.
Mr. Tyrrell.
MR. TYRRELL:  Mr. Ringelberg, do you -- do your
calculations take into account any forward movement of the
vessel through the water, or was it assumed that the vessel
was dead in the water?
MR. RINGELBERG:  Static, but I don't know even if
the vessel was moving, whether that would've made much
difference.  At the speed we're talking about, I don't much
of a hydrodynamic component to --
MR. TYRRELL:  Okay.  So it wouldn't have been much
of a factor.
MR. RINGELBERG:  No, if it was moving backwards,
the water could have flown in faster, because it would've
been assisting the movement of the tube in that scenario, and
the hull opening discharged, like I said would've been
neutral.
It probably would've been -- in a flooding
situation, it was moving, it'd probably be less flooding
through the hull opening, because of just the venturi effects
actually of working in the opposite direction.  That's a high
class hydrodynamic problem, which I'd love to solve in my
spare time.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell.  Well,
that was a very interesting discussion, Mr. Ringelberg.  At
this point, Mr. Tyrrell, why don't you proceed with the rest
of the panel discussion.
MR. TYRRELL:  All right.  Mr. Ringelberg, you're
excused.  Thank you very much.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Thank you.  This next panel is
composed of three Coast Guard officers.  We've already met
Captain Anderson, who is the Commanding Officer of the MSO,
in Port Arthur.  Joining him at the table is Captain Jeffery
Lantz.  He's the Commanding Officer of the Marine Safety
Center in Washington, D.C. and Lieutenant Commander Eric P.
Christensen from the U. S. Coast Guard Marine Safety office
in Chicago, Illinois.
Captain Lantz, could I ask you please to, for the
benefit of the audience, give us a --
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Mr. Tyrrell, excuse this
interruption, but Ms. Murtagh has just informed me that she
does have a question for Mr. Ringelberg before he exits, so
why don't we take care of that before we go back on track
with the panel.
MS. MURTAGH:  And I apologize, Mr. Ringelberg, I
thought that you were going to remain with the rest of the
panel.
MR. RINGELBERG:  I don't have my uniform on.
MS. MURTAGH:  If I could, sir, because you had done
some estimations in terms of cost, for example, for
installing foam, and the bulkheads, and it looked as it were
about a total of $2,000 to put in both.
What we heard this morning, that there were
concerns about putting the foam into these vessels, that it
might become waterlogged and might not function.  If you
could give us any information you have with regard to that,
I'd appreciate it.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Fortunately, I have a lot of
experience and I used to be a foam guy.  Just by way of
background, we were using foam under water in salvage in the
'60s, salvaging ships, making foam under water.  But in the
subsequent life in the Navy with Seaward International, we
were manufacturing foam buoys and fenders for the North Sea,
the buoys being rigid foam, the fenders being close-cell
polyurethane flexible foam.
Foam -- the foam technology, where it is today,
with these underwater vehicles is fantastic.  They've got
foams that will last -- that will survive in 10,000 feet of
water.  I mean, there's books on foam now.  So our
application here is minimal.  The water logging of the foam
is ancient history now.
If you're talking about polystyrene foam, you've
got a problem, because that's the Wal-Mart stuff, for
sticking the flowers in.  But the foam is relatively -- it's
very reliable and basically what I just said, that this stuff
is what Ballard is using on his vehicles, at 15,000 feet.  We
don't need that, but --
So a four or five pound per cubic foot foam would
be adequate, and the only thing I would say, if you're going
to foam something, get a good paint job there, but I was very
encouraged with the manufacturers here about their hull
preparation and sandblasting and painting.  Once you get a
good paint job on it, yeah, you probably get some moisture in
there, but you guys are mostly in fresh water, and it's not a
big deal.  So I think foam is adequate.
Now, I recognize you've got access problems, and
they have to be engineered around, or wiring or maintenance
or something, but those things can be worked out.  But I
think the foam technology today is more than adequate to
support what we've proposed, or any other combination.
MS. MURTAGH:  Yes, and if you could elaborate just
a little in terms of how you arrived at the dollar value, and
what experience you may have in that area, sir.
MR. RINGELBERG:  The dollar value, actually we went
into the marine catalog and used those prices, but there are
cheaper ways to do it, if you're in a production basis.  So
that's still -- my estimate is conservative.
Recognize here again in the design, you may have to
put some structure in there, to make sure if the vessel
should sink, and I hope that's not going to happen again, but
the foam just doesn't take off on its own.  It's got to be
held in somehow, so there's -- I'm not totally familiar with
the cross-structure to make sure those buoyant forces can be
retained, but I don't think that's a difficult problem.  I
think that structure might be there already.
We just fitted it between the two wheel-wells,
which gave us a natural barrier for an aft, and I think some
of the foams now, you can probably cast them in place with
forms, even plywood forms, take the plywood off, and put an
elastomer coat on them, and make them pretty durable on the
outside, you know, an eighth of an inch of an elastomer
coating would make it almost bullet proof.
MS. MURTAGH:  And I just have one last question,
sir, and that is, you had indicated that putting in the
bulkheads, in the foam, would essentially make this vessel
unsinkable.  But there were questions about other
alternatives.  Are there other alternatives for making it
unsinkable?
MR. RINGELBERG:  The -- I mentioned a bolt on
stern, which I haven't given more thought to than this
meeting.  But that could be an external fix, and clearly
there are highway considerations, and operator consideration
and angles of repose, as far as the canter on the stern is
concerned.  But that would give them buoyancy aft.  You could
foam the whole thing.
You don't have to put the bulkheads in.  Where I've
got those bulkheads and those two voids, now I may not have
said this, I put bulkheads in there, but you do have to make
them watertight, and when I say watertight, that means the
deck has to be made watertight, and some check valves will
have to be put into some of those overboard discharges, so we
don't defeat what we've just done.  But the aft deck would be
have to be -- I understand there's a hatch there, and it
would have to be kind of screwed in with a gasket, et cetera
to -- and clearly you could foam the bulkhead.  You could
foam the whole thing.  I mean, when in doubt, foam or
something.
But I would defer to the operators as to the
practical places to put foam, rather than me sitting here
from a couple of cartoons.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you very much, sir.
MR. RINGELBERG:  Yes, ma'am.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Are there -- okay.  Thank you
for that last questions, Ms. Murtagh, and those uplifting
answers.  Mr. Tyrrell, we will turn it back to you, if you
can remember where you left off.
MR. TYRRELL:  Okay.  Captain Lantz, could you
please give us a brief description of your duties and
responsibilities in you current position with the Coast
Guard?
CAPT. LANTZ:  Yes.  I'm the Commanding Officer of
the Marine Safety Center.  At the Marine Safety Center, we do
engineering analysis and review of vessel designs, in all
areas including structure and stability, to see that the
vessels meet the current Coast Guard safety standards.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.  And Commander
Christensen, could you please give us a brief description of
your current duties and responsibilities.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  My current duty is the Chief of
the Inspections Department at Marine Safety Office, Chicago,
which means I am in charge of a crew of individuals that goes
out and conducts inspections on commercial vessels, whether
they be DUKWs, casino boats, barges.
MR. TYRRELL:  Are there DUKWs in your --
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.  We have a DUKW re-
manufacturing facility, and we have a DUKW operator also.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.  I'll turn the panel over
to Mr. Chatterjee and our technical panel.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell.  I'm going
to address my first question to Captain Anderson, and then
move to --
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Excuse me.  If I could, could I
make a brief statement just outlining or -- the Coast Guard
requirements regarding stability and structure for amphibian
vessels of this size?
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Sure.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Please proceed.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  First of all, I'd like to thank Mr.
Ringelberg.  That was an excellent presentation, and thought
provoking, and I would like to give you background concerning
the Coast Guard's evaluation of amphibious vessels and design
stability.
When I say design, and I understand from this topic
area, we're referring to the structural design of the hull,
and other design features such as passenger seating capacity,
egress, which was discussed earlier today.
With respect to DUKWs, a review and approval of
design has been done by the cognizant officer in charge and
meet inspection of the OCMI.  This is specifically permitted
in the regulations before construction or conversion of a
vessel intended for small passenger vessels, such as the
DUKW.  The owner or builder must submit plans, manuals,
calculations, et cetera, of the vessel to the cognizant OCMI,
or to the Marine Safety Center.
As a matter of practice, design review of small
passenger vessels of this size, and passenger capacity is
almost always done by the OCMI.
For DUKWs in particular, the review and the
approval done by the OCMI's is based on the criteria
referring to at least five years of suitable service, and
being designed or built to the standard as they were
initially designed.
I think it's important to note that DUKWs have been
in the Coast Guard certificated passenger service since at
least 1960s.  Coast Guard casualty records, which go back to
1980, show that there have been 17 casualties, none of which
are attributable to a design flaw.
The Marine Safety Center, where I am, has conducted
structural review of a LARC and found it satisfactory as
meeting the standards in the regulations.
Structural design of Stalwarts has been done to
this point by the cognizant OCMI, although we do have a
submittal in-house and we've yet to complete.
Regarding stability, like all small passenger
vessels, less than 65 feet in length and carrying less than
49 passengers, these amphibious vessels are required to meet
an intact stability standard.  They're not required to meet a
subdivision or flooding standard, or a damaged stability
standard.
As with the design review, the evaluation of the
vessel's intact stability is done by the cognizant OCMI,
using the simplified stability proof test, which has been
described a number of times today already.
This is a very straight-forward and conservative
test that evaluates the effect on a vessel when it is
subjected to the heeling motion, from wind or from passengers
all crowding to one side, provided the vessel does not heel
or tip beyond a pre-determined limit, which is based on route
and vessel design, the vessel is determined to have adequate
intact stability.
Again, as with the structural design, there are no
casualties which include sinking or capsizing, attributable
to amphibian vessels have a lack of initial stability.
The issue whether or not the Coast Guard should
establish a subdivision or damage stability standard to
protect against flooding of DUKWs and other amphibian vessels
has been raised, specifically in light of the Miss Majestic
casualty.
This was indeed one of the recommendations Captain
Anderson made, and the Coast Guard's report of investigation
of that casualty.  And as you heard earlier, the Coast Guard,
along with a group of industry experts and stakeholders will
be evaluating all aspects and standards of certification for
amphibious vessels.
Certainly flooding, subdivision and damage
stability requirements will be included among the items to be
addressed by this group.
It is well the question was asked earlier today,
the earlier panel, concerning how far off shore vessels are
allowed to go, specifically I think DUKWs.  I would just like
to point out that among the number of items that have to be
considered when we certificate a vessel for a particular
route, stability and passenger capacity and design
considerations, structure are factors, other considerably
certificate the vessel and give its it route.  Thank you.
This concludes my presentation, and we're now prepared to
answer your questions.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you, Captain Lantz.  I'll
start with Captain Anderson, as I -- and then move on to my
right.
I'm not familiar with the recommendations that were
made in your report, which is only recently published.  I
heard you say this morning that you would be -- you had made
a recommendation, if I understood you right, on doing a risk
assessment to identify the most vulnerable aspects of a DUKW
design.  Could you tell me what -- who is expected to do the
risk assessment and how and whether you're providing
guidelines for them.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  No.  I'm not providing or
suggesting any guidelines.  I made 17 recommendations, they
were all aimed at the Commandant at the Coast Guard, so my
recommendations are that the Commandant engage in the
different concerns.  And I suggested a broad and sweeping
group that I envisioned addressing all those concerns to get,
you know, in total, not all together simultaneously, but to
do a risk assessment in the process of talking about best
practices, or weak points in the safety system.
But I did not -- I do not make any specific, you
know, set this standard or use this mode of risk analysis.
It's generally left for the Commandant to use this -- you
know, ideally working best with practices and in that
process, they'll be doing risk analysis of some type.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Would this be a Coast Guard working
group, or is it a Coast Guard industry joint working group?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  That's not controlled by my
recommendation.  I just said experts.  But the intent of the
Commandant is to use anybody that they find, and that wants
to participate, you know, potentially they may have to limit
participants, but to my knowledge, it's open-ended on anybody
that cares and wants to help.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I'd like to add to that.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Yes, sir.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I'd like to add to my opening
statement, when I said there would be a Coast Guard working
group, including industry and stakeholders, the exact make-up
of this group hasn't been determined.  But we are going to do
that.  I think that we should understand that.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.  Captain
Anderson, do you anticipate that stability and the floodable
length, the damage stability would also be looked at,
although these are not currently applied to T-boats damage
stability standards of floodable length, would these be
looked at in -- as part of this analysis?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  One of my specific
recommendations, dealt with vessel survivability, including,
you know, compartmentation or buoyancy items such as foam.
So I made a specific recommendation for the Commandant to
focus on that concern, and I fully expect that that will be
one of the concerns in that working group.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, I was
looking through the T-boat stability regulations, and I
believe that there is a requirement for floodable length for
T-boats that carry more than 49 passengers, based on
floodable length, which deals with the geometry of the
vessel, the freeboard, the depth, and that dictates the
placement of bulkheads.  Am I correct that some T-boats have
to meet a floodable length requirement?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Yes, sir, that's right.  The
breakpoint, magic breakpoints go with number of passengers,
routes and that kind of thing, and certainly there are plenty
of operating boats that have done a simplified -- what's
called a simplified subdivision, but simplified calculations.
 In the same sense that moving the drums over intact is much
cheaper and easier, and gives you generally the same
conclusion than hiring a naval architect and doing computer
calculations for intact stability.  That simplified damage
stability is the same analysis.
And I mean, it's something done very easily and
cheaply compared to, you know, a computer analysis.  Yes, it
exists for higher passenger counts.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Yes, and I guess you were saying
that a floodable length is a calculation that can be done
more easily, as compared to a damage stability calculation,
which requires a computer program and more expertise.  Is
that what you were saying?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Not quite.  The floodable length
is another term for subdivision, and when you draw
distinction between that and damage stability, at least in
the application, Coast Guard regulations, the difference
between floodable length and subdivision, to damage
stability, the difference is calculating the riding arm curve
after flooding.
For floodable lengths, the boat could flip flop and
rolly poly, and all floodable length tells you, is the two
ends don't have a problem.  You know, I mean, that you're not
losing it on trim.
When you do the Coast Guard's damage stability
standard, you take the results of flooding actual
compartments, and you'd run the GZ curve, you know, just like
Mr. Ringelberg did for the intact case, and then there's
criteria for acceptance on that.
So, in my mind, subdivision and damage is a
function of running the riding arm curve.  The difference
between the simplified subdivision is it's just like a
simplified intact stability.  You've got -- at this point,
you've got Coast Guard forms that the owner uses with the
inspector, and they do some very simple counts, you know, a
couple of addition, subtractions kind of thing, and they can
conclude based on what they see in a loaded condition whether
it passes or fails that criteria.
But it -- in the same sense as intact, a simplified
is based on and intends to reflect fairly well what you would
get if you actually did computer calculations.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Yes, and basically the intent is to
make the vessel more survivable.  So would you say that it's
-- if a vessel floods uniformly across, in other words,
there's symmetrical flooding, then a floodable length
standard could be effective in saving a vessel?  When the --
if it's symmetrical flooding across the vessel?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Yes.  It will make it more -- its'
a tool to ensure a greater level of survivability, but you
shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security.  You can
pass a floodable length curve, and still roll the thing over
transversely.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you.  Also in the Coast Guard
regs, there's a requirement for pontoon boats to have a -- to
meet a longitudinal stability test, where they move weights
for an aft, and make sure that the deck is not emersed.  Now
given that a DUKW starts with an initial trim aft is likely
to sink by the stern in the trimmed condition, have you
considered as part of your deliberations into looking at a
longitudinal stability test to determine what a safe starting
freeboard might be?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  For clarifying in my mind your
question, you're referring to the amphibious vessels in a
longitudinal stability sense would GZ curves?
MR. CHATTEJEE:  I'm looking at longitudinal
stability, not the transverse stability.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  No.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Have you looked at --
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Consistent with what Mr.
Ringelberg said, you know, the experience is that
conventional hull forms do not have a longitudinal stability
problem until you get something with shape at the ends or
long and skinny.
Certainly that's the reason there is a longitudinal
for pontoons.  You've got long skinny things, so the moment
of inertia, you know, in that direction is very low, compared
to transverse on a pontoon and Mr. Ringelberg was correct,
was it's passenger movement that that standard exists for
pontoon boats.  Pontoon boats are generally flat open decks
with a small number of people moving in a relatively great
distance, from one end to the other, where they can put a
substantial moment on, and they could actually push the ends
of the pontoon under the water, just by a few of them walking
to one end on the passenger area to the other.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  The DUKW typically has a freeboard
of 8 to 12 inches at the stern in the fully loaded condition.
 How does the Coast Guard determine that that is adequate
freeboard?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  The Coast Guard uses the simplified
stability proof test, which evaluates the freeboard left
after it's been subjected to the maximum heeling moment due
from either passengers or wind.  It doesn't -- the starting
freeboard is used in making that determination, but in the
end, it's not a judgment on the initial freeboard, is what
will it heel, how much freeboard is left when it's subject to
a heeling moment.  It's that the test that we use the initial
intact stability.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you.  What is the Coast Guard
criteria for sister vessels for DUKW stability purposes, when
do you decide that they're sister vessels, and you did not
need to do certain stability tests, if they're such that fit
the criteria?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Right.  That issue has come up.
Sister vessel status is a determination made by the cognizant
OCMI.  If in their mind, the vessel that they've been asked
to evaluate is truly a sister to the one in the evaluation
that's already been done, and they verified this through
inspections, that is in fact, the same.  The option for them
to accept it as a sister vessel is always there.
We do have one office, in MSO, Commander
Christensen is at, they made a local determination which is
their right, to not accept that, and required them all to
undergo a simplified stability proof test.
But the concept of using the sister vessel is
acceptable in general.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Lieutenant Commander Christensen,
what differences have you found in between DUKWs that have
led you to that decision not to accept sistering?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Historically, there have been --
we haven't really come -- we've come up against the issue of
sistering with our remanufacturing facility, and as a comfort
factor and being conservative, in all honesty before my
watch, we -- the OCMI determined that no sistering will be
permitted.  And that's the policy that we've gone by, so
every DUKW that shows up to our zone receives a simplified
stability test for protected waters.
And reasons -- I mean, it -- in some cases, you
know, you have different engines, different tires, different
canopies, which in itself would then mean it's not a sister
vessel.  However, we've just taken the conservative approach
that we'll do stability tests on all of our DUKWs because it
is within the OCMI's purview to do so.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  There's no policy on sistering
established by the Marine Safety Center, by MSC by
headquarters?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No, there is not.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Okay.  We've talked several times
about the simplified stability test.  Just for explanation,
that standard protects the vessel from passengers -- prevents
the vessel from capsizing when passengers move from one side
to another, but does not take into account cases where the
vessel may flood and sink; is that correct?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  That's correct.  It is a test for
initial intact stability.  It is not an evaluation of a
vessel survivability, once it's subjected to flooding.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  And the Coast Guard regulations
don't have -- do not address vessel flooding at this time for
T-boats under 49 passengers?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Unless it's 65 feet, that's
correct.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you.  Either Captain Anderson
or Captain Lantz, either one.  What are the requirements for
bilge pumps and bilge alarms for DUKWs, and what is the
purpose of this equipment and the basis for those
requirements?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  You know, the requirements for
bilge pumps vary on the vessel, when the installation is
made.
Essentially before March 11th, 1996, the
regulations required a fixed hand pump at ten gallons per
minute.  I might add that these requirements not only apply
to DUKWs but any other small passenger vessel besides.  And
one portable hand pump at five gallons per minute.
Installations after March 11th, '96, requires a one
fixed power pump at ten gallons per minute, and one portable
hand pump at ten gallons per minute, or the same as the
previous, one fixed hand pump at ten gallons per minute, and
one portable hand pump at five gallons per minute.
The purpose for a bilge pumping system is not --
the way the Coast Guard looks at it, and this was considered
when the subchapter T requirements were rewritten in 1996,
that bilge systems are not provided to dewater the vessel
when it's subjected to a flooding situation.  Bilge systems
are provided to get rid of water that accumulates to the
normal operation of a vessel, small leakings, around pump
glands, that kind of thing.
The bilge system can be used to dewater if a vessel
is subjected to a flooding casualty, and of course, the
flooding's going to stop.
Undetected flooding was addressed by the
requirement to include bilge -- high bilge level alarms in
the rulemaking in 1996.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Would any of you happen to know the
rationale behind why the DUKW pump is sized so much higher,
the capacity then, what's required by the regs, what did the
DUKW designer envision in terms of flooding?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Well, I don't want to speculate too
much, but I think the original design didn't entail small
passenger service.  I think it was for wartime service,
probably subjected to more rougher operating conditions seas,
probably included getting shot at.  So I would presume that's
why.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you.  How is the allowable --
Captain Anderson, how's the allowable passenger capacity of
amphibious vessels determined?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  The basic passenger capacity
regulations are actually not stability.  They're just size,
if you want to call it that.  You may pick one of three
methods, and sometimes you can mix two or three in different
sections of the vessel, but it's deck row area, seating
capacity, shoot, I don't know what's the other one, but the -
-
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Rail deck criteria.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Deck, seating and rail.  And
typically, that defines what the lay-out of the vessel would
go for, and that's what you're allowed, unless there's some
other constraint that is more restrictive, and that may be,
and in some cases, it turns out that vessels have more
restrictive stability.
In other words, they'll go do the simplified
stability test for the number of desired people based on rail
and deck and those criteria, and conclude it fails.  And then
the owner may, you know, has to do something to get to the
point where it all works, and if it can't modify the
stability, then it runs around with fewer people than the
area, you know, space requirements allow.
And those are the two basic provisions.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Are DUKWs or amphibious vessels
issued a stability letter, and if so, what does it state in
way of guidance, stability guidance?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  A stability may or may not be
issued to a DUKW or an amphibious vessel.  If the stability
information can be included on the certificate of inspection,
then the stability letter is optional, and is left up to the
cognizant officer in charge of marine inspection.
The information that would be included either on
the certificate of inspection or in a stability letter, would
be such things as route, number of passengers that it can
carry, and other good marine practice operating conditions
that should be adhered to.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Are stability letters issued when
the restrictions are more onerous or more than -- or severe?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No, the -- that's not a criteria
for issuing a stability letter.  If that information can be
clearly presented on the certificate of inspection, and the
OCMI is confident that it is, and can be and will be adhered
to, then there's no need to issue a stability letter.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you.  For Captain Lantz.
What is the Coast Guard's policy for initial certification
for novel vessels?  Yes?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  For novel vessels, the initial
certification process is really no different than any other
vessel.  Initial certification, the design needs to be
reviewed, drawings, calculations, standards decided upon, and
if they are met and approved, then the vessel's inspected by
the OCMI, it's found to adhere to the drawings and the
calculations, manuals that are approved, and the vessel would
be certificated.
The only time that's really different is if there's
any departure or equivalency determinations because of the
novel aspect of the vessel, that determination is made by the
Commandant, whereas on other vessels, that determination
could be either made by the Marine Safety Center if we had
the review, or the cognizant OCMI.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Is a DUKW considered to be a novel
vessel for initial certification?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  The DUKW is not considered to be a
novel vessel, and while it may seem odd to some people in the
room, we have had a long history of certificating these
vessels, and once a vessel that is novel after a number of
them are built and certificated, they cease to become novel
because of the numbers and history that we have with them.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  And at this point, are any of the
amphibious vessels considered novel vessels, and do they come
to MSC?  I think you mentioned some earlier.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  At this point, none of them are
really considered novel vessels.  We've done one review, and
that was for a LARC, that was for an operator out in San
Francisco, and we did one on a Stalwart, I believe, but we
have yet to complete that review.
That review, incidentally has been approved by the
OCMI down in Jacksonville.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  And just one final question, what
aspects are examined under initial certification, it was done
-- when it's done at the MSO or the OCMI level, when they do
an initial certification for a DUKW, what aspects do they
look at?  Do they do a planned review at the MSO level?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I think I'll let Commander
Christensen answer that.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yeah.  We would do a review of
all plans, manuals, anything that's required by regulation to
be submitted to the OCMI for review, and then we would match
that new construction throughout its -- and in the case of a
DUKW through its remanufacturing stage, and at the point that
it's ready to be put into certification, we take a look at
the hull, the machinery, the electrical, lifesaving
equipment, do a stability test, and provided that everything
matched either the regulations or what MSO Chicago has as
special consideration, then the vessel would be put into
service.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  Thank you very much.  That's all I
have at this time.  I'll pass the questioning on to Mr.
Henry.
MR. HENRY:  Captain Lantz, can you tell me what the
scope of plan review was in your review of the LARC?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I can't give you specifically what
we did.  I believe it was a structural review.  I don't have
the file with me.
MR. HENRY:  Was it done to any particular standard?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  It was done to the Alvis rules for
less than 200 feet, but since these are aluminum, we also
used the aluminum rules.
MR. HENRY:  Did you look at mechanical systems, --
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No.
MR. HENRY:  -- electrical?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No, I don't believe we've done a
review on those.
MR. HENRY:  And as far as the Stalwart, is that the
same level of review that you anticipate doing?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  My understanding is that this one
that we have includes a structural drawings and a stability
package, that's it.
MR. HENRY:  Captain Anderson, you had mentioned
that in the simplified stability tests, it was actually two
parts.  One was a test for weather, and the other was a test
for passenger heel.  Can you tell me the basis of the test
for passenger heel?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  You would take the regulations and
do it, and it's the only right way to get the coefficients
right.  If you do something like take a third of the beam and
multiply it by the weight of the total people, and that gives
you the passenger heeling moment that's expected for the
test.
MR. HENRY:  Right.  But what's the basis for doing
it in the first place?  Is that passengers moving around?
Passengers all going to one side?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  As with many regulations, we now
face regulations and we've lost touch with whatever was
written about the intent, and the details of the intent.  So
most of us, and most of us who that might be our primary
responsibility at times, rationalize what the intent is.
So I think it's fairly common that all the Coast
Guard folks rationalize that there's an assumption on
vessels, especially T-boats, sightseeing-type that people may
in mass to some degree, move toward a rail for a sight-seeing
reason.
MR. HENRY:  So if you're questioning the original
basis of the intent for doing this type of stability work on
an amphibious vessel in the transverse, how do you know
you're not missing an opportunity to look at stability in the
longitudinal mode?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Maybe we are.  It's not apparent
to us.  I mean, I would refer back to Mr. Ringelberg.  You
know, longitudinally, it's fairly stable, and amphibians are
typically moving people while it's a land vehicle, and even
if you -- try to move a lot of them in an evacuation
underway, you're probably stringing them out to some degree.
 It physically isn't much room to pack.  You know, he's
talking about people sitting on people's laps and all that,
just to put his 19 or whatever it was in the last three rows
of seats.
There's a lot of interference.  If it was a wide
open deck like a pontoon boat, it would hold a little more
rationale for investigation in my mind.
MR. HENRY:  Captain Lantz had said that almost
every situation is for the OCMI to assess the structure and
stability of small passenger vessels within his own
operation, and this typically has been done amphibious
passenger vessels.  Can you tell me what skills, experience,
knowledge and procedures are available at MSO Chicago that
can accomplish this task?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Well, what's available right
now, is the Chief of the department, myself, being a marine
inspector for 12 years, holding a merchant marine engineer's
license, and being the guy that rewrote the T-boat regs in
1996.  So that's who's the chief.  I've got a bull pen of
warrant engineers, warrant carpenters, that have gone to our
marine inspection schools and are qualified marine
inspectors.
In addition to that, we have the good fortune of
having a remanufacturing facility right at our doorstep that
we can go out there and interact with the individuals that
know DUKWs inside and out.  To be able to get a good feel for
what is acceptable and what was originally designed into the
vehicle.
As far as a review of scantlings, we can use the
five-year rule, meaning that five years of satisfactory
service would allow us to accept the scantlings, and
therefore, that's the basis that we accept the scantlings as
built in the '40s.
As far as determining electrical systems and
mechanical systems and that, again, we've got regulations
that need to be followed, and if they're -- and it's pretty
straightforward how we need to interpret that.
Again, unless we're talking about some of the
special consideration which Chicago has a policy for.
MR. HENRY:  The amphibious passenger vessels that
operate in your zone are DUKWs?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.
MR. HENRY:  And do they -- are they still equipped
with Higgins bilge pumps?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.
MR. HENRY:  Now, if I were operating in your zone
with a DUKW and a Higgins bilge pump, --
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  You would have to.
MR. HENRY:  And I can provide electrical pumps that
will give me the minimum Coast Guard requirement of ten
gallons per minute?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  No, 350 gallons per minute in
accordance with our policy.  That's as originally installed
between the Rule pump [electrical] and the Higgins pump
[mechanical] that was original installation on the DUKWs,
that's what we require.
MR. HENRY:  If I come to you and say, I'm tired of
maintaining these Higgins' pumps, they're nothing but
headaches, I can't get spare parts, I don't know when they're
really working, and they're -- there's too many problems with
them, I want an alternative, what would you tell me I have to
do to replace that capacity?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  You would have to replace that
capacity with bilge pumps that currently meet the
regulations, which will either be a UL listed pump, or a pump
that met some other of laboratory or other international
standard for being intrinsically safe, which currently, there
is the one pump that's already been mentioned before by the
one operator, and Jabsco, I believe makes another pump that
has an IMO certification, which I think we need to look at,
and being intrinsically safe.
MR. HENRY:  There are electrical bilge pumps?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.
MR. HENRY:  But I'd have to install enough
electrical bilge pumps to give me an equivalent capacity to a
Higgins?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes.
MR. HENRY:  Has that been done, to your knowledge?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  No.  The Higgins pumps have been
used or the original Higgins, again combined with the Rule
pumps, which is a manifolded pump system that pumps out the
rear compartments in the engine compartment, as originally
designed.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Now, I heard the ten gallon per
minute standard requirement found in subchapter T for T-boats
is reasonable based on a standard hull form and good through
hull penetrations and care for propeller shafting and what
not and normal leakage rates.  But if we're talking about
amphibious passenger vessels, and we've seen enough
indication that leakage through the boots is not atypical
situation, and our naval architect has shown us that given
the failure of a boot, only a Higgins pump will provide that
level of survivability.  I have to question whether a ten
gallon per minute standard is reasonable for vessels -- for
novel vessels of this type.
Now you're saying that if the design originally
came with a Higgins pump, they have to maintain that bilge
capacity?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  That is our policy.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  I just have one question for
Captain Lantz, not really a question.  When we began, you
made a presentation, a factual presentation, if you would
submit a copy of that to us, we'd appreciate it, of the
policies and the work that you do on stability, Coast Guard
stability standards that you've wrote up.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Certainly.
MR. CHATTEJEE:  I'm going to turn this over to the
executive panel at this point.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Mr. Henry, --
MR. HENRY:  I had one --
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Please proceed with the
question from the audience.
MR. HENRY:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.  I have one
question or one series of questions from the audience, and we
can address this to Lieutenant Commander Christensen.
If a vessel is a sister vessel -- let's see, if a
vessel is a sister vessel, and based on your experience with
the sister vessels, the results are unchanged, why repeat the
test, and according to Chicago's statements, if ten vessels
were brought in, all ten vessels would have to be tested, and
how can this expense be justified.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  We have yet to have a situation
like that.  And certainly it is well within the operator to
appeal the decision of OCMI, with respect to that.  But we
have not had anyone -- we've required the stability tests,
and the operators and the remanufacturing facility in our
zone, consider that to be standard ops.  They will go ahead
and do the stability test, just so we will give them a
stability letter and they'll be all set.  That's the most
conservative approach.
And again, the regulations call that the OCMI has
the right to require a stability test.  Only if the OCMI does
not question the stability of the vessel, will these
stability tests be waived.
So as far as expense and that, that's -- the
situation has not come up yet, where somebody has told me
we're going to bring ten identical DUKWs to MSO Chicago.  It
would appear that every time that DUKWs do show up to MSO
Chicago or being built, sometimes there are differences, and
in such case, there's a different canopy, there's a better
canopy design, or they've dropped an eight cylinder engine
into the vehicle.  They're using different tires.  They are
differences, such that, you know, we haven't had the need to
re-evaluate our policy regarding sister vessels up to this
point.
MR. HENRY:  I have one additional question, which I
can refer to both the Coast Guard and the executive panel,
and it -- I'll read it as it's written.  Who answers to who,
Coast Guard to the NTSB or NTSB to the Coast Guard or are
they completely separate, and maybe this is the opportunity
to explain the missions of the two organizations, and why we
are here discussing the same subject.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Well, simply put, structurally,
and structurally speaking, the United States Coast Guard is
an agency within the U. S. Department of Transportation.  And
the National Transportation Safety Board is an independent
federal agency.  Therefore, structurally, neither reports to
the other in that respect.
The National Transportation Safety Board is charged
with the mission to investigate accidents, as I mentioned in
my opening remarks, and to conduct, if appropriate, special
studies into transportation safety areas.
Often times, when we conclude those investigations,
we issue safety recommendations, which are non-regulatory to
-- in the marine mode, more often than not, the U. S. Coast
Guard, therefore, we have a longstanding relationship of
issuing recommendations to the Coast Guard, and they're
required to respond to us on what actions that they have or
have not taken, in response to those safety recommendations.
That's the short answer.  I believe that many in
the country and especially in the U. S. Congress regard the
NTSB as very much of a watchdog agency, as small as we are,
in comparison to the huge U. S. Department of Transportation.
In all votes, and I don't want to recap my opening
remarks, but that includes, of course, aviation, in which
case, we serve as you might say a watchdog over the Federal
Aviation Administration.  And the railroad industry, for
example, we would be considered a watchdog over the Federal
Railroad Administration, and so forth.
I hope that answers the question.
MR. HENRY:  I have one additional question for
Captain Anderson.  Lieutenant Commander Christensen had said
it's the policy of Chicago that if you're operating with a
Higgins pump, then you have to maintain that pumping capacity
for the bilge system.
In your work on the Marine Board and the
preparation of your report, did you find that policy to be
consistent through all the zones that have DUKWs operating?
CAPT. ANDERSON:  My investigation was limited to
one vessel.  I would offer though that I've heard informally
from others that if there's even one zone where the Higgins
had been removed, and the vessel is continuing to get a
certificate, and I think because of this case, that zone has
reconsidered what their expectations are.
But I really can't address in detail or with
accuracy, you know, varying applications among -- I wasn't
circumspect in an industry investigation.  I was -- my
mission was to investigate the best sinking of this DUKW.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Henry.  Let me
ask one quick question, just to get it out of my hand.
It reads, will Mr. Ringelberg's report to the NTSB
made available before the end of this forum, and the quick
answer is we have not actually received his report, his final
report to us.  Therefore, the answer to that would be in the
negative.
Continuing on with the executive panel.  Ms.
Weinstein?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Captain Lantz, in your opening
remarks, you made reference to some data the Coast Guard had
collected, that there were 17 casualties with amphibious
vessels.  Are they all from different incidents?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Yes.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  And did the Coast Guard do a report
on each one of these incidents?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  We did an investigation.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  You did an investigation, and a
report?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Yes.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  And I assume those reports are
available to the Safety Board?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I would think so, yes.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Do you know what the causes were?
I know you said they were not design related.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Yes, I do.  I can -- without giving
you any details of all of them, I can summarize the two cases
of loss of steering, two cases of collision, minor damage,
three cases of hull damage to minor -- or minor hull damage
to equipment failure.  Two cases of minor damage to railings
and fittings.  Three cases of loss of propulsion, two minor
oil spills, one engine room fire, and one grounding, and
tragically, of course, the last one was the sinking of Miss
Majestic.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Oh, excuse me, Ms. Murtagh.
That was going to be my only question.  And I may have been
talking while you were answering, Captain Lantz, but since
what year have those 17 casualties been?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  1980.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  1980?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Yes.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  And just for the record
while we're on that point, although I think it was self-
evident from your description of the casualties, but for the
record, did any, other than the one in Arkansas most recently
involve a loss of life?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Did any involve injuries to
occupants?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I don't think so.  But I'd have to
qualify that more closely, I don't believe so.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Right.  And my third point is,
--
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No injures.  I'm sorry.  No
injuries.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  No injuries, thank you.  And
did any involve an evacuation of the vessel?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I don't have that information, so I
couldn't say definitely yes or no.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  If you could find that
out from the information that you have at your disposal, I
would appreciate a verification on that.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Certainly.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you.  Ms. Murtagh.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you, Member Hammerschmidt.  If
you could just give me a little insight into when you do a
plan review of -- and my understanding is that these are not
considered to be novel vessels, so your LARC and Stalwart,
why is it that they are being reviewed?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  If the OCMI feels that their review
is beyond their ability, the engineering required, whatever,
they would request the Marine Safety Center to do the review.
I believe that's why we did the review of the LARC
in San Francisco.  The Stalwart, as I mentioned earlier, has
been approved by MSO Jacksonville.  The owner has submitted a
package through his naval architect.
What action we're going to take in light of it
already being approved, you know, we have to work that out.
MS. MURTAGH:  So now they would not be considered
novel and MSC would no longer get involved in any planned
review of these vessels?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  We would get involved if the OCMI
requested that we get involved.  The -- certainly a novel
craft, we would do.  But these are not considered novel
craft, so we would get involved with the OCMI, but to date,
except for that one instance in the LARC, we've not been
requested to do a review on an amphibious vessel.
MS. MURTAGH:  You mentioned before that the Coast
Guard philosophy is not that an active system, like a pump,
would be installed to overcome an uncontrolled flooding
condition.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  That's correct.
MS. MURTAGH:  So there's no requirement for
restricting the flooding on these vessels at all; is that
correct?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I don't think philosophically that
we're going to rewrite a requirement to restrict the flooding
on any vessel.  We don't want any flooding on any vessel, so
I think that's -- our standards are that there's going to be
no flooding, if you understand the point I'm trying to make.
We don't allow vessels to be certificated with
active flooding, and then put in a pump to overcome it,
consider that normal operation.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  But the expectation is, if
there is a penetration of the hull, it will have
uncontrollable flooding?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  You're specifically talking about
DUKWs in this case?
MS. MURTAGH:  Correct.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I think it's safe to say if there's
a penetration of the hull, there's going to be uncontrolled
flooding, yes.
MS. MURTAGH:  Has the Coast Guard considered making
DUKWs unsinkable?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  As I mentioned earlier in my
opening statement, we're going to get a group together, and
one of the items its going to consider would be subdivision
and/or damage stability.
I think another item, is pretty pertinent, is
actually the size of the bilge pumps that are going to be
required on these vessels.
That taken with other aspects on the boot design,
these are all features that will have to be considered and
the best practices of the industry, the stakeholder's input,
we would come together with recommendations, and we would be
putting these out probably in the form of a navigation vessel
and inspection circular [NVIC] that would be then used and
standardized throughout the country for all marine offices
when they certificate and inspect these vessels.
MS. MURTAGH:  Have you done any of your own
calculations to determine how long it would take for one of
these vessels to sink, if it did have uncontrollable
flooding?
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  No, I've not done those, I'm sure I
will be, but not at this point, I haven't.  If the NTSB had
given us more warning, we could've gotten it done in time,
but, no, we haven't had a chance yet.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  Thank you.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  But we will be, as part of that
group, we'll be doing that.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Ms. Murtagh.  I see
that Mr. Henry has another question.
MR. HENRY:  Yes, sir.  Lieutenant Commander
Christensen, can you tell us what the criteria are for
reporting marine casualties?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, I can.  But I have to use
my cheat notes, I'm sorry about that.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  That's allowed.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Reportable casualty, grounding,
all accidental and intentional, loss of propulsion or primary
steering, seaworthiness adversely affected, loss of life,
injury beyond first aid, and $25,000 damage or greater, is a
reportable casualty under 46 CFR 4.05(1).
MR. HENRY:  So as I as an operator, if I happen to
take a DUKW on a trip and forget to install the four inch
plug, and I can get it out of the water before any serious
damage, do I have to report that casualty?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Well, the seaworthiness is
adversely affected.  In all likelihood, are we going to hear
about that?  No.  Should we?  Probably.  Are we?  No.
MR. HENRY:  And the same would go for a boot that
happens to --
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Now, if a boot were to let go, I
would hope that the operators in my zone, who are represented
here today, would give us a call.  And, in fact, it is in our
policy that if anything is changed affecting the material
condition of the DUKW, and that would include boot
replacement that we are notified, and that is in our --
again, we have our own policy for inspecting amphibious
vessels.
MR. HENRY:  So the fact that when you ran the
casualty database and know missing plugs or loose boots came
up in the data, is just indicative that they're not being
reported?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  No.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  I don't think you can speculate on
that.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  And we didn't.  And MSO Chicago
did not run any of that data.  So that's not what our policy
is based on.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Henry.  Mr.
Tyrrell?
MR. TYRRELL:  Commander Christensen, you said you
have a policy for inspecting DUKWs in your zone.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.  Yes, sir.
MR. TYRRELL:  Is it in writing?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes, sir.
MR. TYRRELL:  Can we have a copy of it, please?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Yes.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.  That's all.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell.  And
thank you very much to this panel.  You've been very
responsive and informative, and we appreciate your
participation in this public forum.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Thank you, sir.
CAPT. ANDERSON:  Thank you.
CAPTAIN LANTZ:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Mr. Tyrrell has a quick
announcement.
MR. TYRRELL:  We've heard some feedback from some
of the operators in the audience that they are -- would like
us to provide name tags so that you would be able to identify
yourselves to each other.  So tomorrow morning when we
reconvene, we will have a blank -- at the table in the back
of the room, we'll have blank name tags for your use if you
wish to use them.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  All right.  Thank you, Mr.
Tyrrell.  We are almost on schedule.  We are only 20 minutes
behind the printed schedule, at the end of the first day.
Tomorrow, we have two more topic areas.  The first topic
area, which is topic area number four is maintenance and
inspections, and then we proceed and finish up with topic
area number five, which is operational safety.
I want to thank again all of the panelists who
participated today for the excellent presentations, and in
some cases, in terms of some of the equipment and the
displays that were brought in, seem to be above and beyond
the call of duty, but it was a good learning experience.
I want to thank the audience that has been here all
day, the best I can tell.  You have been -- let me first say,
that I have been involved in a good many of these type of get
togethers, in all modes of transportation all around this
country, and I cannot recollect a more model audience than
we've had here today.  So I want to thank you for your
attentiveness, your interest, your deportment, and if you
have any questions about the conduct of this hearing.
If the person that asks about what the role of the
NTSB is, visa vie the Coast Guard, please come up to me, and
I can even elaborate on that further.  And if you have any
questions whatsoever, please see myself or the forum officer,
Mr. Tyrrell and we are now in recess until in the morning at
8:00 a.m., 08:00.
(Hearing recessed at 5:20 p.m., to reconvene at 8:00
a.m., December 9, 1999.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I, STEPHEN ANDERSON, Reporter, hereby certify that the
foregoing transcript is a complete, true and accurate
transcript of the testimony indicated, held on December 9,
1999, in the matter of NTSB AMPHIBIOUS PASSENGER VESSEL
FORUM.
I further certify that this proceeding was recorded by
me, and that the foregoing transcript has been prepared
under my direction.

Date: December 28, 1999
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Anderson Court Reporters (931) 589-3839
 
 PAGE 273
 
 

 Anderson Court Reporters (931) 589-3839
 

 Anderson Court Reporters (931) 589-3839
 

 Anderson Court Reporters (931) 589-3839