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

PLACE: Memphis Marriott
Memphis, Tennessee
 

DATE: December 9, 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
 

TOPIC #4. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF
VESSEL MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS
AVAILABILITY OF PARTS & MANUALS
HOUSING SEALS & HINGE ASSEMBLY
BILGE/DEWATERING PUMPS
ALARMS (HIGH-LEVEL BILGE/VAPOR)
TESTING OF REPAIRS
MECHANICS QUALIFICATIONS and TRAINING
 

Panel #4 Witness Panel Members of Maintenance:

MR. BOB MCDOWELL
President
Branson's Ride the Ducks

MR. ANDY WILSON
President
BOSTON DUCKS

MR. TONY CERULLE
Maintenance Manager
BOSTON DUCKS

MR. DAN GAVINSKI
President
Original Boston Ducks

MR. JOHN WAGNER
Maintenance Manager
Original Boston Ducks
 

VESSEL INSPECTIONS, POLICIES, CERTIFICATION

QUESTIONS: NTSB Panel Members:  Rob Henry
  Ash Chatterjee
  Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier
  Bill Gossard

Panel #5 Witness Panel Members of USCG Compliance

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

CAPT GLEN ANDERSON
USCB Commanding Officer, MSO Port Arthur

LCDR JAMES WHITEHEAD
USCG Chief of Inspections, MSO Boston

LT DEAN FIRING
USCG Vessel Compliance Division, G-MOC-2

MR. ROBERT THOMPSON
Consultant

Panel #6 Witness Panel Members for State Issues & Compliance:

MR. BRIAN KEMPF
Acting Boating Law Administrator of New York
  Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation

COLONEL RICHARD A. MURRAY
  Director, Department of Fishreies, Wildlife &
  Environmental Law Enforcement,
  Commonwealth of Massachusetts

MR. WILLIAM G. ENGFER
  Director, Recreation, Enforcement, and
  Education Department of Natural Resources,
  State of Wisconsin

MR. PAUL DONHEFFNER
  President, National Association of State
  Boating Law Administrators

MR. TED WOOLLEY
  Boating Law Administrator, Division of Parks
 & Recreation, State of Utah
 

TOPIC # 5. OPERATIONAL SAFETY

SAFE OPERATING CONDITIONS

NIGHT, SEA, CURRENT, WEATHER ONDITIONS.
DISTANCE FROM SHORE/DEPTH OF WATER
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE & TRAINING
CAPTAINS' PRE-TRIP INSPECTION
SITUATION AWARENESS

QUESTIONS: NTSB Panel Members: Rob Henry
 Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier
 Tony Murray

Panel #7 Witness Panel Members for USCG Compliance:

CAPTAIN BRIAN BASEL
USCG Chief, Office of Compliance, G-MOC

CAPTAIN GLEN ANDERSON
USCG Commanding Officer, MSO Port Aurthur

LCDR JAMES WHITEHEAD
USCG Chief of Inspections

LCDR ERIC P. CHRISTENSEN
LUSCG MSO Chicago

MR. ROBERT THOMPSON
Consultant

Panel #8 Witness Panel Members for Passenger Vessel Operators

MR. BOB MCDOWELL
President, Boston Ducks

MR. ANDY WILSON
President, Boston Ducks

MR. PHIL YOUNG
Director of Operations, Boston Ducks

MR. ROB PIERSON
Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Duck Tours
 
 

MR. DAN GAVINSKI
President, Original Wisconsin Ducks

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION

LICENSING
OCMI CONSISTENCY OF QUALIFICATIONS
25 TON MASTER/LAUNCH OPERATOR
ROUTE SPECIFIC/VESSEL SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS: NTSB Panel Members: Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier
 Tony Murray
 Rob Henry

Panel #9 Witness Panel Members of USCG Compliance:

LCDR DAVE DOLLOFF
USCG National Maritime Center

CLOSING STATEMENT
Member Hammerschmidt

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 Port Arthur

LCDR JAMES WHITEHEAD
Chief of Inspections
MSO Boston
 

LCDR DAVID DOLLOFF
Assistant Chief of Licensing
National Maritime Center

LCDR ERIC CHRISTENSEN
MSO Chicago

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

CWO ROBERT SORRELL
MSO Milwaukee
LT. DEAN FIRING
Vessel Compliance Division
G-MOC-2
 

 P  R  O  C  E  E  D  I  N  G  S
(8:00 a.m.)
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:   If everyone would please take their
seats, we'll get started.
Let me first welcome everyone back to the National
Transportation Safety Board's Amphibious Passenger Vessel
Safety Forum.
Here in Memphis, outside it's cool and foggy, but inside
it's very comfortable and bright.  And so we'll try to
continue to illuminate some of the safety issues that pertain
to amphibious vessels.
Today we have two topic areas to cover, which are
labeled Maintenance and Inspections, that's topic #4, and
then we will proceed and finish up with topic #5, Operational
Safety.  And may as well continue the process we had going
yesterday and we'll turn it over to Mr. Don Tyrrell.
  MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you, Mr. Hammerschmidt.
This panel consists of Mr. Bob McDowell, President of
Branson Ducks, Mr. Andy Wilson, President of Boston Ducks,
Mr. Tony Cerulle, Maintenance Manager for Boston Ducks, Mr.
Dan Gavinski, President of Original Wisconsin Ducks, and Mr.
John Wagner, Maintenance Manager for Original Wisconsin
Ducks.
Questioning of this panel will be led by Mr. Ash
Chatterjee from the NTSB Technical Panel.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Good morning, gentlemen.
I'm going to start as usual as I did yesterday, starting
with Mr. McDowell, and moving on to my right, your left, and
I'm going to start with a question that follows on to
yesterday's discussion with the naval architect, Mr.
Ringelberg.  He presented installed costs of $1,000 for two
watertight bulkheads on a DUKW, and $1,000 for installing
foam, and about $10,000 -- these are all approximate numbers,
I understand -- $10,000 for up -front engineering costs.  Now
this question is addressed to any of you, in any order.  Who
would like to comment on these installations, that is, their
practicality, their costs, retrofitting versus new
construction, any other aspects that you would like to share
your views on.  Who wants to volunteer first?
  MR. MCDOWELL:  I can start, if that's appropriate. One
of the things that you have to take in consideration, as
you're looking at this, is to go through the fleet that
you're proposing the impact and find out what existing
operating systems are in those voids, and what it would take
to move them as well.
When you talk about putting in different supports and
members, we really need to look at the on-road aspect of it.
 These are life chassis which have a certain amount of give
and flex as you go down the road, and want to make sure we
don't create any hard spots that would create fatigue over
time and possibly create an additional issue.
As far as the costs go, I think we'd have to generate
the plan and look at the specifics of it, and to get with
people that are involved in installing foam, and to get a
hard bid to verify that. But I would assume that he's
probably not too far out of alignment.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you Mr. McDowell.
MR. WILSON:  I would like to respond.
First of all, I have to commend the Safety Board for
doing that.  I didn't think it was possible, and I really
walked away with a great deal of optimism that it is
possible.
Kind of going with what Mr. McDowell just said, it may
be a little bit more complex than it was represented. I
talked to Mr. Ringelberg afterwards, the forward bulk head
was at the fire wall, and underneath the fire wall is the
transmission, and at least on our DUKWs their located through
there.  So basically there's a large piece of machinery right
in that area where the bulkhead would go across.  And so
there would be a significant amount of engineering there to
make that watertight, although it may be able to be moved
back and realigned.
I think in our scenarios, we have vacuum braking systems
and so on many of those voids we'd have to completely re-
engineer our braking system to open up those voids, which all
of this is possible, but the re-engineering of the equipment
in those voids could be expensive.
And I think lastly, which you noted, was that if the
foam is not properly fastened into the DUKW itself, it really
will be ineffective.  And so I think the engineering of that
and the structural costs associated with engineering the foam
and attaching the foam to the DUKW could be more than what he
had represented. But definitely it's something that we are
going to explore immediately.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
MR. GAVINSKI:  It's something that Wisconsin Ducks would
consider. The cost is minor from our point of view, but we
would have a concern about our maintenance program and how we
are able to get down into the bilge and move around and do
the things that we would have to do down there with the foam
in the bilge.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.
We'll go on to the next question.  The next question is
a broad question, and I invite you to speak at some length,
because instead of asking a number of short questions, this
is an all encompassing one, if you would, describe for us the
company's management's oversight of its repair and
maintenance program.  For instance, how problems are first
detected, how corrective actions are taken, how the
accountability is assigned, and the maintenance repair
records, how they're kept, how it is insured that repairs are
properly done in a timely manner, and how recurring problems
are tracked and so forth.  The whole cycle, the feedback
loop.
Mr. McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Okay.  First of all, in the detection
process there are several ways to identify a problem with the
DUKW.  The driver, first and foremost, we try to keep them on
the same vehicle.  Each vehicle, although we build them the
same, it's just like cars, they have a little bit different
sounds and characteristics. So any deviation from that is
really identifiable by our operator.
At the start of the day he does -- the DOT has a
mandatory check-off list that we use, but we have embellished
it quite a bit to encompass the safety features that we want
to ensure are in place for the operation over the course of
that day.  And in the inspection he will check the propeller,
our V-strut and some other things:  life jackets, fire
extinguishers and some other items that aren't normally found
on the Department of Transportation's check-off list.
At the end of the day, we have our daily maintenance
program which is done immediately after the DUKW has
completed its duty, and we have a check-off list for our
maintenance people to identify any deviations in fluid
levels, or any things that they see in the corresponding
mechanical apparatus that could impede its ability to do a
good job the next day.
If any one of these people finds a particular item that
needs to be repaired, they write it up on a form that's in
triplicate; one copy goes to our dispatcher, which is what we
call a top at our primary facility, and then two copies go to
our maintenance staff.  Maintenance staff then tries to
identify, based on what's written on the form, what the
problem is and goes about the task of correcting it so the
DUKW will be prepared for the next day at work.
Once the repair work is done, then the dispatcher has
his copy identifying that there was a problem.  He comes down
the next morning to verify that the work has been completed.
 Depending on what kind of work was performed, the driver in
his DOT check-off, one of those copies goes into the DUKW and
part of his check-off is to check the log on the DUKW; and if
there is repair work that has been done, then he would know
what was done and drive the DUKW out that morning to make
sure that everything has been repaired properly.
And more than likely, depending on the kind of repair,
our maintenance supervisor would take the DUKW out that
evening, after the repair work was done, to verify that it
was completed properly.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  I had a follow-up question, Mr.
McDowell.  Did you say it was the Department of
Transportation check-off list?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Does it have marine aspects included in
that check-off?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No, it doesn't.  I'll be glad to share
with the group the form that we use and the things that we've
identified as items that we've added to the list that we
think that are prudent.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes, please.
MR. MCDOWELL:  It will take a minute for me to find it.
 If you want to go ahead ...
MR. CHATTERJEE:  I'm sorry, did you want to -- do need
some time to...
MR. MCDOWELL:  Just let me see if I can find it real
quick here. [Pause]   All right, I have it in front of me.
Do you want me to go through the items we check?
Mr. CHATTERJEE:  Basically, I wanted to know when you do
in-water testing, when you it necessary to test it in the
water?
MR. MCDOWELL:  When we do our repairs, this may not
sound quite right, but the boot system from our prospective
is very easy.  We've done it so many years that there's not a
lot of problems that we find in association with it.  What we
do when we have repair work done in that area, there's an
additional maintenance supervisor technician that will take a
look at it and ensure that the inspection, or the
installation has been done correctly.  And then we put it
into service.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And how would you test Higgins pumps
and the pumps?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Oh, I'm sorry.  That's primarily on our
daily maintenance program.  On more of an annualized basis,
we do have a periodic maintenance program that's done at
approximately 200 to 250 hours.  In that, there's thirty-some
pages of things that have been identified that we go through
and check off, and they're signed off by individual
inspectors through that process.  It's a pretty time
consuming process.
We also have an annualized inspection.   We call it our
Winter Rebuild Program, where we go through the equipment
thoroughly top to bottom, front to back.   We check wheel
bearings and everything on the equipment.  At the end of the
season, we do go out and strip out all the seats, the
floorboards, and do a water float test to verify that there's
not any water encroachment in any of the compartmental areas
that hasn't been identified through normal operation, and
make the appropriate repairs at that time.
Then we go through and do the entire Winter Rebuild
Program and have the equipment prepared for the next
operating season.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  How frequently are the Higgins pumps
tested?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Approximately every 200 to 250 hours.
And we do have a test at the start of the season that we run
for the Coast Guard as well.
We've designed a 35-gallon water tank that we have up on
a fork-lift truck next to the DUKW and we run a pipe into the
inlet.  We take the pick-up [strainer] off of the suction
side of the Higgins pump off and pipe the hose from our 35-
gallon test tank directly into the pump, and we activate the
system.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.
You've addressed this question in some ways, so you do
have a preventative maintenance policy?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Oh, absolutely.  We're very proactive in
what we do.  We've run thousands and thousands of trips in
our operating environment, which is very demanding.  We go up
some steep hills off road and some other things that aren't
normally done.  So we've had the opportunity to discover the
weaknesses over the equipment over time, and it made the
proper improvements, and our maintenance program has been
designed to support that.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you have a maintenance supervisor
who reviews that the work is done, that each person assigned
to their task are doing -- are in fact doing the enforcement,
to check on the enforcement of the policy?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  Jay Hyatt is in charge of our
maintenance staff, and that's his role and responsibility.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  I'll ask the same question of Mr. Andy
Wilson now. Your company's management's oversight of your
repair and maintenance program, please.
MR. WILSON:  First of all, similar -- a lot of what we
do is very similar to Ride the Ducks.  I think one of the
most critical things we do is, we do keep the same driver
with the same vehicle so they get to know that vehicle.
We also, which we can provide, have a DOT check-off list
that's performed daily as well as at the end of the day.  Any
issues that the drivers would have would be filled out and
taken care of that night.  So we have a daily review.
We also have a weekly inspection of all critical systems
that we have found that could be prone to failure, and so
those are inspected on a weekly basis.
And then similar to Ride the Ducks, Branson, every 250
hours we do a periodic maintenance or inspection, and then
annually, similar to Ride the Ducks, we strip out the seats.
 We inspect everything in each DUKW.  We have several
mechanics going through it annually for about a five-six day
period, rebuilding certain items, inspecting certain items.
In terms of the way we manage the shop before the
Arkansas incident, we had a total of seven maintenance
personnel for our seventeen DUKWs that we operate.  We
decided to go to a two-tier review standard after the
Arkansas incident.  So now we have increased our staff as a
result from seven to ten.  So we have ten maintenance
personnel for our seventeen vehicles.  Tony Cerulle is the
head of the -- director of vehicle maintenance and has been
in that position for five years.
We then have two assistance managers that work at night
and then the rest are mechanics.  So, as the work is
performed, after that work is done, it is now inspected. So
there's a two-tier review process that we have implemented
because of the Arkansas incident.
In terms of responsibility, anytime a driver writes
something up is that -- the response that -- needed a repair,
that response is then -- well, all repairs are written up.
We keep logs, repair orders in essence,  so there's an audit
trail as to all the work that's been done on each DUKW.  And
then on any daily maintenance that was done or daily repairs
is that that work order also goes back to the captain so they
know that the work was completed and what needed to be done.
I guess, lastly, we're in the process, which I think is
important, we're building a state-of-the-art facility that we
will be moving into in a couple of weeks.  That's significant
to that -- also helps the repair and maintenance of these
DUKWs.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  In addition to the DOT checklist, as
far as marine items, Howell fittings, and inspection of those
items are concerned, do you have an addendum check-off list
for those items?
MR. WILSON:  Yes.  Especially on the weekly, we inspect
the Higgins pump on a weekly basis to make sure it is
completely operational.  As I said, mainly the weekly
inspections that we go through that we have critical systems
that we believe need to be inspected on a ...
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Is the Higgins pump accessible for a
weekly inspection?
MR. WILSON:  Yes, it is.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  How do you access it?
MR. WILSON:  I'll let Tony answer that.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Isn't it under the floorboards?
MR. CERULLE:  Yeah, you can remove a seat and remove the
floorboard and get right to it easily.
MR. CHATTERJEE:   And it's a visual inspection that you
do weekly?
MR. CERULLE:  Ah, you do a visual.  You also do a
mechanical, where you take the strainer off, check the
bearings, check the chain tension, chain alignment, sprocket
key-way, the sprocket itself.  Just basically check
everything.  You also grab the impeller end and the sprocket
to make sure the shaft isn't broken.  Just to make sure it's
completely functional, check all the hosing, piping.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And the inspection results are
recorded?
MR. CERULLE:  Oh, yeah.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  When you developed this addendum
checklist on marine items, on what basis do you establish
that checklist?
For instance, the DOT checklist is predetermined and
given to you.  As far as the marine checklist on seals, on
hull, two-hull fittings, and things like that, on what basis
have you selected the items and their frequency?
Have you consulted with the Coast Guard or with your
peers or with other companies that operate DUKWs?
MR. WILSON:  Mainly, you know, part of it is just logic
order of the critical systems, and the other thing is that
the systems are -- any systems that are really critical to
safety or reliability.  We believe that reliability equals
safety, and so anything that has to do with reliability and
safety that's a critical system, we decide to inspect on a
weekly basis to make sure it was intact and functioning.  And
we have certainly reviewed this with the Coast Guard.  I
don't recall if they've had direct input, more than we've
given them our check-off list for review.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  You've just touched on my
next question.  What do you consider to be the critical
safety items that need maintenance inspection on your part?
MR. WILSON:  On a daily basis, weekly basis?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  All of them.
MR. WILSON: I'll turn that over to Tony, because that's
his job.
MR. CERULLE: Thanks.  Anything safety related: bilge
pumps, steering systems, braking systems, hull integrity,
anything that involves safety is a critical item.
In a CFR reg, they even have a classification of what
are vital systems, which include the bilge system, anything,
basically anything water related, that's safety.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And how often do you test the Higgins
pump operation in the water?
MR. CERULLE:  The Higgins pump is tested every year with
the Coast Guard in our annual inspection.  The weekly
inspection bears up the mechanical end of it.  It's not
actually water tested on a weekly basis.  But if there's any
question of its working, it can be tested very quickly in the
shop or take it out to the water and flood the hull or
whatever you need to do.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  But annually you test it in the water,
annually?
MR. CERULLE: With the Coast Guard, yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  We're going to move on to Mr. Dan
Gavinski and ask the same question of you?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Wisconsin Ducks has an extensive marine
maintenance and repair program. I guess what I'd like to do
is just run through, starting in our fall season, when we're
starting to wind down, as that is when we start our
preparations for the following year, and just run through our
checklist on what we do in the fall.
First of all, the seats are taken up, the floorboards
are removed, the hull is washed, then we take the DUKW to the
lake for an inspection of the hull.  We check the bilge and
electric pump.  They go over the discharge hoses.  Then we
start preparing the DUKWs for the wintertime.  Obviously in
Wisconsin it does get cold.  We do an oil change.  We put
anti-freeze in the motor.  We drain the differential, and we
put oil in the differential for the wintertime.  We check the
fume and water alarm, the outside of the DUKW is washed.  And
then, when our shop supervisor takes the vehicle to the lake,
he is making note of any -- if there is any leaks in the
vehicle or any repairs  that he is going to have to be doing
during the wintertime and/or welding repairs on the vehicle.
 We have a welding repair checklist that he goes over.
Then we have a winter maintenance program, which starts
with the hull is scraped of any loose paint and then it's
repainted.  The braking system is gone over, emergency brake
is checked, the wheel bearings, transmission, transfer case,
prop transfer, seals, bearings, u-joints, rear ends, bogie
axle, stabilizer, torque rod.  The springs, the rudder and
the prop are re-packed.  They do an inspection of the
steering column to make sure that the blowers are operating.
 Then, as we get closer to springtime, the floorboards are
repainted.  And if any repairs of the canopies are needed,
it's done during our winter season.
Then, in the springtime, in preparation to opening, we
start to reverse what we just did. The battery is put in. We
spray paint the bilge with a second layer of paint. The
floorboards are painted, the plugs are put back in, the
antifreeze is drained from the vehicle, oil is taken out of
the differential, grease is put back into the differential,
and we do an overall greasing of the vehicle.  The brakes are
bled, our supervisor will check the fuel shutoff valves and
the hand-turned shutoff valve at the back of the DUKW.
They go through the lights, the PA, put the radios back
in.  They check the blower, the hand held bilge pump is
tested.  Then, the vehicle is taken back to the lake for our
spring inspection of the hull.  They also check the bilge
pumps at that time to make sure that they are operating
properly, make sure that the discharge hose is in place.
They check the water alarms, the fume and fire alarm is
tested on the vehicle, go thru the tiller line, and then we
have an outside inspection of the fire extinguishers.
And then, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
comes in and does an inspection of our life saving equipment
which is the ring buoys, the life preservers.  We have a
checklist to make sure the fire buckets are put back in,
flashlights, tiller line tools, our first aid kit.
And then, our drivers start coming back to start
working.  When they come back, they're going to be taking
their assigned vehicle out for a practice trip.  They may
take one, they may take two, depending on how many years they
have worked for us, and then the vehicle is ready to go with
passengers.
At the end of that first day, the vehicle is greased,
the prop and the rudder is greased, and the short shaft is
greased.  And when the mechanics are underneath the vehicle,
they are doing a daily inspection of the under-hull of the
vehicle.
And then on a weekly basis, we have a weekly greasing
done of all of our vehicles.   We have a trap door that
enables our mechanics to get down into the bilge to do the
greasing of all the zerts that have to be done.  There is a
list of eighteen items that they are checking in the hull.
There's a list of seventeen things that are being checked
underneath the hull, and then there are also seven or eight
items that are checked off in the engine compartment.  Those
mechanics will sign those sheets that those things were done,
and then, if there's any maintenance that is required, it is
taken to our shop supervisor or shop foremen.
Our drivers will have a DUKW checklist sheet that they
fill out.  If there are any maintenance repairs that they
have discovered, they'll write that up at the end of our day
or when it happens.  If it's during the middle of the day,
they take the vehicle up to our shop.  They fill out the
report, and then our shop supervisor will review that.
For instance, first thing in the morning, when we start
our operation, they're going through the sheets that were
filled out the previous evening, and then our assistance
manager, one of our assistant managers is always at our shop
during our morning shift, and he is reviewing with our shop
supervisor or shop foreman what vehicles are down, how long
they will be down, and then the assistant manager will be
assigning a spare DUKW for the day.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you very much Mr. Gavinski.
I have one question on pumps, on bilge pumps and de-
watering pumps.  Do you have a Higgins pump?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Yes, we do. And an electric pump and the
hand-held pump.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And how often are those, the
Higgins pumps and the other pumps tested in the water?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Spring and the Fall, then they're checked
weekly.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So it's tested twice a year in the
water?
MR. GAVINSKI:  That is correct.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
Going back to Mr. McDowell.  Mr. -- you're with the same
company, Mr. Wagner, right, as Mr. Gavinski?  Okay.
Going back to Mr. McDowell, on the DOT. inspection
checklist, do you know, does the DOT or highway or state or
federal inspector come in to review your maintenance logs on
the -- do they review the DOT checklist?
MR. MCDOWELL:  They have, but it's not a frequent
occurrence.  It's generally as -- when we get a new DUKW
ready to go and on the road, they do come in and do the
oversight on the serial numbers, on the motors, and some
things like that.  We do take them through and keep them
abreast of what we're doing.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And the review of your maintenance logs
on the DOT checklist?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Not to my knowledge.
But, Ron, have they?  Ron's our safety officer and helps
in oversight of regs.
           [Ron's answer is inaudible]
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. McDowell, please repeat the answer
for us.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Not generally.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And how often do they come into your
shop?  Is it annually or approximately or ...
MR. MCDOWELL:  When we have a new DUKW that's getting
ready to go on the road, they are part of the licensing
process, but beyond that it's an infrequent occurrence.
MR. CHATTERJEE: Mr. Wilson, is your experience the same
with the DOT inspectors?
MR. WILSON:  We're not subject to the jurisdiction of
the DOT but the Department of Public Utilities, the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Transportation
Division, and we do receive licensing from them, and they do
come in on an annual basis and inspect it as a bus vehicle.
As to the details of their inspection, I know they do brake
tests and ...
MR. CERULLE:  Checks everything, basically, and inside
and out for, you know, safety, sharp edges, that kind of
stuff.
MR. MCDOWELL:  If I can make a comment there, too.
Prior to Andy getting up and started, I wanted to commend
them for taking the time out of their schedule to come to
Branson to study and understand the DUKW completely from
front to back.  They had two individuals at our shop over the
course of two days that went through the equipment quite
extensively before they're allowed to come into the market.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. Cerulle,  do they express an
interest in reviewing your maintenance logs?
MR. CERULLE:  I think they've viewed them before.  It's
not a constant thing, but they're certainly available if they
want to see them, sure.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
Going back to Mr. McDowell again.  What are your sources
for obtaining spare parts for DUKWs?  Do you use commercial
manufacturers to supply new parts, or is there any
difficulties with surplus army parts?
 MR. MCDOWELL:  Part of our vision as a company to grow
this business, we had to identify that those parts are not
readily available, there is a limited supply, and what kind
of impact it would have on us as we try to grow the business.
 And so, as we're looking at the new generation DUKW that
we're developing, we did a lot of analysis out in the
marketplace, in terms of whether it's already been proven for
this weight and class and size of vehicle.  That part
availability would be there, and what kind of parts would we
have to take upon ourselves in the manufacturing process.
And through that process, we've eliminated almost
all of the items that are not readily available so we will
not get in trouble on down the road in terms of reliability
and part availability.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And, as far as maintenance manuals,
what do your mechanics use?  Do they have access to the old
army manuals?  Or do you have your own?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We do have a have a complete set of the
old military manuals.  They're very specific to the original
configuration, of course, and, in some instances, they're
helpful.
But, generally speaking, what we have chose to do and
are in the process of doing, is to develop our own
maintenance manuals as it pertains to our particular
configuration of the equipment that we're developing.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.
Same question for Mr. Wilson:  Your sources for spare
parts and manuals.
MR. WILSON:  Similar to Mr. McDowell, much of the DUKW
that we operate uses new parts, readily available parts.  The
main parts are obviously the hull, which has been, you know,
much of that has been replaced.  We need the steering box,
transfer case, prop box, prop shaft and propeller.  And, most
of those things are -- we do have spares, but -- and those
are the main, original DUKW parts that we continue to use.
Otherwise, everything else are off-the-shelf parts that are
readily available today.  So, yeah, there is a limited supply
of the original DUKW parts that we do utilize, but do have
stock on hand.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  I'll address the same question to Mr.
Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI:  We have both commercial suppliers and
military suppliers.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And do you experience any difficulties
with shortage in those areas of parts?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Over the last several years, we're
starting to get down on our supply of brake parts, brake
drums, and two years ago we switched over to a disc brake
system to handle that situation.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  As far as manuals availability for your
mechanics to work with?
MR. GAVINSKI:  We have original military manuals put out
by General Motors and the Army.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
This question is for Mr. Andy Wilson and then, Mr.
Cerulle, as you see fit.  If you would, give us an idea, if
you like, on your modified design that you've developed for
the drive shaft seal.  And, if you would, explain to us the
reasons why the design was developed and compare it with the
traditional seal housing arrangement for the boot, if you
want to go into it.
    MR. WILSON:  I'll just give a brief overview.  We
did realize that when and if there was a boot failure that
there was a chance for a large volume of water coming through
that boot, and this was before the Arkansas incident.  So Mr.
Cerulle developed a device that basically eliminated the
need, although we are going to put the modified boot system
back on this winter to provide redundancy.  And basically the
original design of the boot system -- the reason that the
boot system was developed is because the axle is moving and
the drive shaft needed to have flexibility.  That was the
original need for the design of the boot.  And, that
flexibility was occurring with the universal joint internal
to the hull.  And so, what this device does, it brings the
drive line external to the hull so the flexing of the drive
line is occurring external to the hull.  And that's done via
this device which bolts up where the boot would traditionally
bolt up, and it's just is an extended drive shaft that brings
that universal joint external.  So all that flexing that's
occurring is basically a carrier bearing.  And the design is
significantly better.  When and if there was a failure of a
carrier bearing that there would be nominal leakage.  And
with the putting the boot system back on, it would provide,
again, redundancy.  So we put the original boot system on,
and if that should fail, then this would be the back-up
system.
MR. CHATTERJEE:   I have a follow-up.  Mr. Wilson, does
this new arrangement restrict the motion of the drive shaft
when it comes to going down ramps in any way?
MR. WILSON:  No.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So it does not impose any limitations
on how steep of a ramp the DUKW can handle?
MR. WILSON:  No.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Is any others among you that
would like to share ideas on any other ...
MR. WILSON:  Can I have a follow through on that?
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.  Sure.
MR. WILSON:  One of the things that we also have found -
- one of the things that is very difficult to find is the
boots.  That was the other thing that concerned us, that the
supply of boots was very limited.
And the other thing that also concerned me was that it
only had a single clamp on it, which is not traditional.  I
consider the boot system a through hull fitting.  And
traditionally, you'd always double clamp that and the
original boot did not have the room to put two clamps on it.
 So when we retrofit this new boot system that we're
developing, we found a brand new design of boots, and it has
the space to double clamp it as well.  So, I just wanted to
also interject that in redesigning an entire system that
there are new boots that are available that allow for double
clamping, but does require significant modification to the
receptacles where the clamping would occur to allow for the
double clamping to occur.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.
I was going to invite any of the other panelists to
share any ideas on design modifications that they are
considering or have implemented to make a DUKW safer.  Any
volunteers?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We are actually reviewing that, but we
don't have anything to submit at this time.  There's some
issues  -- we rubber mount our transfer case for vibration
noise reduction, and so there's a certain amount of range of
motion that needs to be accommodated for when we're going up
our steep mountains and things.  Our class vehicle with our
additional capacity is a little higher to gross vehicle
weight, so we're reviewing what Andy has and, hopefully,
we'll be able to incorporate it into our system.  But in lieu
of that, we'll continue to try to find a reasonable
alternative for us and others.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
Earlier this year we found that some DUKWs were operated
without their drive shaft housing tube-hinge assemblies, as
they were originally designed by the Army.  What is the
purpose of the housing hinge assemblies that are at the
forward end of the shaft housing?  And do you believe that
the DUKW should be operated without their housings or without
the hinge assemblies or should they  -- do they serve any
useful purpose and should be retained?
Mr. McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  It's been our experience that we believe
that that is a necessary component of the DUKW.  It holds the
drive tube in the correct relative proximity as it relates to
the differential and allows the boots to function properly.
Conceivably, the drive tube could get out of position without
the hanger being in place.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.
That's all the questions I have.  I'm going to pass the
questions on to Dr. Sind-Prunier.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  I have one follow-up question on Mr.
Chatterjee's question.   I'd like to first direct this to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.  You've been in operation for how
many years now?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Fifty-four.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Fifty-fours years.
Now, Mr. Chatterjee had asked you some questions about
the inspection procedures for maintenance that you follow and
you went into an elaborate discussion on your annual protocol
for maintenance.  I was wondering, how has that changed over
the years or have -- has that been a very consistent and
regular procedure from going back how far?
MR. GAVINSKI:  It's been consistent, as far as our
records go back, to the early fifties.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And have you changed the
procedures or do you still follow the same ...
MR. GAVINSKI:  Basically follow the same procedures,
unless there was some Coast Guard new requirements through
the years, and then those were added to the list.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Are your vessels under Coast
Guard inspection?
MR. GAVINSKI:  We are not at the present time.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Mr. McDowell, similarly, you also
have, I believe they are written procedures, checklists that
are followed?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  And how are those -- have those
changed over the years?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes, they've evolved over time.  We've
invited outside consultants and resources to come in and
provide oversight on what we've been doing.
We've been working with the Coast Guard quite
extensively on the development of our new equipment and
implemented procedures, as it makes sense with the new
equipment.
We have a consultant, Fred Seaman.  What's the title,
Ron?  Seaman Safety Services.  He comes in and helps do an
overview.
We've invited the State of Missouri in to do an overview
on our entire operation, manufacturing and so forth and
received input from them through our safety committee that
meets monthly with all the disciplines of our company.  We
receive input from them, so we take a very proactive approach
to the sensitivity of the safety issues in regard to our
customers, our employees, and the people we come in
interaction with.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Just for sake of completeness,
Mr. Cerulle, I understand you have a daily, a monthly, as
well as an annual inspection checklist?
MR. CERULLE:  The daily is the driver DOT type
checklist.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Is the driver?  Right.
MR. CERULLE:  There's the weekly mechanic checklist, and
it's a periodic 200-hour inspection which ends up being every
month in the summertime.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Now recognizing yours as
probably the youngest of the companies, they have been in
operation about five, roughly five years, but....
MR. CERULLE:  Yes.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  ... how have those checklists
changed over that time?
MR. CERULLE:  Initially, we probably followed the
leader, Ride the Ducks, where they have been in business so
long.  It's evolved due to lack of conditions for us.  You
know, the DUKWs are on different terrain than their in, items
we've identified as being close to scrutiny than may be the
case somewhere else.  It's just evolved over the years of
usage of the DUKWs, things we find pertinent to be monitored
closely.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  What would cause you to monitor
something more closely?
MR. CERULLE:  For instance, if you're on a smooth road
surface as your toll route, you probably wouldn't have any
problem with say, you know, suspension bushings, or what have
you, you know.  If you were on a rough terrain, you might go
through suspension bushings or leaf springs more frequently,
in that case you'd say, you know, "I have to monitor these
closely, where someone else might not have to."  On that I
do.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Would you, like I say, maybe
characterize your checklist as being risk based in some sense
that, when you identify a problem, you scrutinize it more
closely and incorporate it into your procedures to ensure
that that is consistently done?
MR. CERULLE:  I guess you could say that, yeah.  A lot
of it, too, is just like Andy said earlier, common sense,
things that you know are a high safety factor that you have
to monitor closely.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Can I interject there, please?
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:    Sure.
MR. MCDOWELL:  In the instance of the suspension system,
the Boston roads are more of a patchwork-type road system
because of all the utility work that's ongoing, and with the
central artery project going on it's a little bit more than
that, so it's a little bit of a challenge to keep that in
place.  So, not only do we monitor it closely, once we
identify our problem then part of our role and responsibility
is to help come up with a solution to the problem, so as we
go into the next season, yes, we'll monitor the improvements
closely and see what kind of progress we've made, and if it's
not what we would term acceptable because of it's frequency
of maintenance.  And we would continue to work and monitor on
that particular problem.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  Thank you.
From listening to, and the fact that it sounds like the
companies, at least that are represented up there, seem to
have some well-developed procedures based on your experience.
 And it would seem that there is a considerable body of
knowledge about maintenance practices and safety procedures.
 Do you feel these are things that all operators need to be
aware of if they are going to operate in this industry?
Are there certain things in particular that you feel
just are not unique to your operations but are essential to
safety throughout the industry?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Would you like me to address that?
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Yeah, we'll go from ...
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, as I think about this, you have to
think about the sizes of the companies, and their experience,
 and how they're getting started up, you know.  When I
started in business, I was driving, mechanizing, and
managing, and doing all the skill sets.  So to develop forms
to hand to myself, probably wouldn't make a whole lot of
sense, but I understand the necessity for documentation for
overview, and I think that's an important role and
responsibility that we all need to accept.
But as I think about the evolution of this business, the
responsibility of the ownership, I would say that it's
probably as important for the culture of the company to be
developed to support the safety and the ongoing
responsibility that they have as hauling passengers for hire.
 It doesn't do a lot of good for management to develop forms
and systems and processes if inevitably the front line staff
doesn't implement them, so that's part of why we brought Fred
Seaman on, to further that within our company to deeply
ingrain that into our culture.  It's been incorporated in our
core value statement, and we're working hard to achieve a
status level from the State of Missouri that really requires
that to be a part of our culture.  If that's done, then a lot
of these things will be done automatically, which is really
the intent, I think, of why we're here -- not to develop a
form to make sure that it's done as much as getting the right
culture in place to allow this to happen naturally and have a
self placing organization as it relates to safety issues.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.
Mr. Wilson, do you have any different thoughts on that?
MR. WILSON:  I have some very strong thoughts on that.
Again, I mentioned yesterday that the regulatory community in
Boston, which included federal, state and local regulators,
literally would not take me seriously, because they asked the
question, "What experience do you have to operate this
business?"
And even though I was a very accomplished businessman, I
was in investment banking, which really had nothing to do
with the DUKW business.  And, it was not until I brought an
experienced operator to the table, like Mr. McDowell, that
they would begin to even consider permitting me, and that
included the Coast Guard in Boston.  And, that made a huge
difference.  And I do look back and I think, you know, some
of the terms that were used yesterday, novelty vehicle,
novelty vessel, this is a very unique business.
You know, given my business experience, I really do not
know of a business that requires so many business skill sets
to be successful.  And that has been my concern as this
business is emerging is to, you know, what level of
experience and knowledge new operators are required to have
to be successful.
And, I will continue to stress that I think I would have
failed if I had not brought Mr. McDowell's twenty-plus years
experience to the table, both from an equipment standpoint
and a maintenance standpoint, because again, I think somebody
mentioned yesterday, there is real DUKW science that exists
and that DUKW science only comes through experience and
knowledge and entering this business cold.  I'm not too sure
that that could be easily accumulated.  So I feel very
strongly that experience, the checklists -- you know,
checklists don't -- they're just checklists.  It doesn't mean
that they train somebody exactly what they're looking for.
Tony and my mechanics started off by being trained in Branson
and this made a huge difference in our success.  So I feel
very strongly that this whole area needs to be examined.
And again, I'll just throw a concept on the table, that
the Department of Public Utilities put us through, which was
a concept -- and we had to have a public hearing on this ----
- concept being fit, willing and able.  And I think the
fitness standard came because I was able to affiliate myself
with Mr. McDowell and his experience.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Mr. Gavinski, any different thoughts
on that?
MR. GAVINSKI:  I think it's very important that all DUKW
operators share information with other operators, especially
new people that are getting started in the business.
Wisconsin Ducks has never had a problem answering any
questions to any operators who were first thinking about
getting in business.  I always made myself available to
answer questions to them, and our shop personnel were also
made available.
We've had quite a few people through the years who have
come to our operation and reviewed it, and we've always
welcomed them to come.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  I'd like to go back to something that
I believe it was Mr. Cerulle had said earlier, about your
inspection procedures.  And I think he specifically mentioned
the V-Strut, and some specific maintenance checks that are
done, or the daily checks by the operators that addressed the
V-Strut.  What was the genesis of that requirement?
MR. WILSON:  Actually, that was...... if you don't mind,
I'd like to answer that.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  That's fine.
MR. WILSON:  It's my understanding that there was a
casualty in the Washington D.C. operation, and which I had
heard by the grapevine that there was some casualty.  And I
had not heard about it.  And the V-Strut is -- the prop shaft
comes out, the V-Strut holds it, and there's a bearing cap on
the end with two bolts that hold the bearing cap on, and
apparently the nuts -- and then there's seizing wire that
goes through the nuts that keep the nuts from backing out.
And apparently the nuts had backed out.  This is what I was
told. The prop shaft came loose and then that tunnel kind of
chopped up the back end of the tunnel.  So, I had heard about
that by word of mouth.
Went back to the Coast Guard, found out -- tried to get
as much details as I could.  Realized it was a very easy
thing to do on a daily and weekly basis to inspect to make
sure just that that seizing wire was in place.
And with Mr. McDowell's help this year, we're also
adding a redundant V-Strut.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So...
MR. MCDOWELL:  I've got a picture of that, too, if it
would be appropriate to share with the group. It's a very
simple apparatus that would basically negate that exposure.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  So, in addition to your own
experiences with maintenance problems, etc. that cause you
to, you know, adjust your procedures for what you check, in
addition learning from the experience of others, in
particular casualties involving DUKWs has proven helpful,
prior to the recent attention on DUKWs because of the sinking
in Hot Springs, were you aware of any problems with the
sealing systems or the sealing system on the DUKW?
I'll start with Mr. Wilson, since...
MR. WILSON:  We had had problems with the bands on the
boots in a few instances and that had concerned me, yes.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  You had had problems with the
bands on the boots.  Were these reportable casualties?
MR. WILSON:  Looking back, the answer is yes.  At the
time when they were issues, they were -- I did not consider
it a casualty because all of our safety systems worked, but
it concerned me enough to redesign our system.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.
Mr. McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We have completely redesigned the entire
rear portion of our DUKW to minimize that exposure with our
overload fixed leaf spring system.  We've increased the
length of the drive shaft to limit the range of motion with
the primary drive shaft, and as it relates to the boot
system.  I've not had a single problem since we've re-
modified that system.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  What prompted those
modifications?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, as I went through yesterday and
showed you some of the areas of concern there, basically you
have to be very critical in terms of measuring all those
components and making sure they are all correct, the exact
correct length for all those systems to work properly.  And
rather than have to worry about those kinds of issues, we
said, "What's the better way to do this?".  And so, we spent
quite a bit of time in the development of that.  Like the
gentleman with the Aqua Terror [Hyrda-Terra?], we basically
had the disposition, that, if -- based on all the trips that
we've run -- and we've run over a hundred thousand trips over
the course of the years -- what would we do to design this
DUKW to eliminate those exposures that we look at as a
potential incident, you know, creating incident in the
future.  So we tried to eliminate all the areas that we feel
like those risks may exist.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  The gentleman from Wisconsin,
prior to the recent events, were you aware of any specific
problems or specific incidents involving sealing systems
failures?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, I was not.
We consider it, as Bob had also said earlier, it is
routine maintenance for us.  It's not something that we dwell
over a lot.  We've been operating for so long everything has
become pretty routine now.  We're maintaining about sixty
amphibious vehicles.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  Thank you.  Finally, one
final question.  And, given -- well, actually I guess it's
already been asked so I won't trouble you with it.
Mr. Henry, do you have any additional questions?
MR. HENRY:  Yes.  Yes, I do.
Mr. McDowell. Large amphibious passenger vessel
operations have the critical mass to devote resources to an
effective maintenance program.  What should our expectations
be for the effectiveness of maintenance programs for the
small amphibious passenger vessel operators?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, I believe there's a real
opportunity for management to take advantage of what I would
call mentorship.  The drivers obviously have roles and
responsibilities.  What we're working on right now, which a
small company can do quite effectively, is to ask one of the
drivers to take on the responsibility of being the expert on
procedures of going in the water.  Another driver can take on
the responsibility of the DOT check-off list and be actually
a trainer for new people that come on board, and it
significantly increases the breadth and depth of your
organization, and is a wonderful management tool.  People
will look at the safety items from a more objective
standpoint instead of being resistant to change, if they have
the opportunity to take pride of ownership.  So even a small
company, there are some things that they can do to create
some significant change in both the culture and the practical
application of these safety features.
MR. HENRY:  And, Mr. Wilson, can you talk for Boston
Ducks?
MR. WILSON:  Can you re-ask the question, please?
MR. HENRY:  Basically, large operations, you know, have
the critical mass that can be devoted to an effective
maintenance program.  What should our expectations be for the
small operator, who maybe runs just a couple boats and
doesn't have the resources to, you know, specifically devote
to maintenance?
MR. WILSON:  Well, I guess my opinion on that is that I
was a small operator five years ago.  We opened up with four
vehicles, which I consider to be small, and moved ten
thousand people in our first season.
I can only speak to my own experience.  When I opened
up, immediately what I did is, I acknowledged the various
areas of the critical parts of this operation.  So I hired a
director of vehicle maintenance immediately, a director of
operations immediately and a director of marketing, which I
know isn't critical here.
I think unlike most others that have opened up after me,
we were very well capitalized.  I mentioned yesterday that we
opened up with 1.6 million dollars worth of debt in equity
for a small company operating four DUKWs carrying ten
thousand people our first operating season, it was
significant.  So I opened up with a mind that I wanted to be
safe out of the gate.  That was my first concern.  So, again
I held myself and again, the regulatory community, I think,
held my company to a standard to make sure that we were going
to be successful and safe, and that's how we did it.
MR. HENRY:  And, Mr. Gavinski, for Wisconsin Ducks.
MR. GAVINSKI:  I think that if there are new operators
getting into the business, they have to expect to spend money
so that they can maintain the same safety standards as a
large organization does.  Anything that goes wrong in a small
organization, it's going to affect the larger ones also. So
from a larger standpoint looking at the smaller operators, I
would hope that they do not compromise on any safety issues.
MR. HENRY:  Following up on that statement, an accident
by any DUKW operator is going to reflect on all DUKW
operators.  Can you gentlemen suggest any approaches, as a
collective group, to pass on your experience and knowledge,
especially if you've operated a lot of DUKWs and seen a lot
of different types of damage incidents to the smaller
operators who may not have that experience level?
Mr. McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  It is a significant challenge.  You know,
as I think back of how the DUKWs were first released out of
military service, they were complete and pretty well ready to
go.  You put the flame arrester on it, the vents and put
seats in it, life jackets, fire extinguishers, so forth and
they were safe equipment.
What concerns me today is that a lot of the DUKW hulls
that have been stripped out are now being purchased and
retrofitted and put into service.  And it's because of the
year that they were built, it's becoming more difficult for a
new operator to understand what are the critical components.
We are hoping to get together as a group after this
session to work at identifying, you know, some of those
issues that help everybody understand the responsibility and
the opportunities that we have to work together as a group to
deal with this very issue.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  Again, I concur with Bob.  Bob, for a long
time, has been pushing for some sort of association.  But,
again, I'm not trying to harp on this, but I was held a very
difficult standard in my own regulatory community, and I
think I run a much better business today because of
government.  And I will go back -- I don't know the answer to
this question, but I'm sure that people that go into the
airline industry or whatever also have some sort of base
qualification to get into certain, into that industry.  I
assume so.  I hope so. And, I was held to that standard in my
own regulatory community, and so I still have to ask that
question, "Should that standard be applied not only to me but
to any potential operator?"  And, I kind of answer it with a
question.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And Mr. Gavinski?
MR. GAVINSKI:  I agree with what Mr. McDowell said.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Mr. McDowell, what type of vehicle
deficiencies, damage, repairs and modifications would prompt
you to notify the Coast Guard?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, I guess if there's a significant
breach of the hull, welding repairs, so forth.  What we are
doing with our particular office, because of its geographical
proximity to our location -- it's about a five hour drive --
we're reviewing and updating our notification procedures.
We're generating a check-off list basically on all of the
modifications that we're making.  They're aware of the
modifications that we have that we are in the process,
through our winter rebuilds, to upgrade some of the equipment
to have a little bit more of a consistent product.
We, through the e-mail process, are able to send
pictures and things like that so they can visually review.
 They're welcome to come through our facility at any
time.  We have several DUKWs in process concurrently so they
can review all stages and development of the DUKW.
But, from a maintenance standpoint, they review our
maintenance records.  The Coast Guard has a regulatory person
that's dedicated just to that.  He comes in and inspects our
records as it pertains to our drug testing program and
everything else. So, we'll do anything that is requested of
us by our local MSO, and look forward to working with them on
those issues.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And, Mr. Wilson, for Boston Ducks.
And what I'm really trying to get at is the non-routine need
to have the Coast Guard notified of damage or modifications
or repairs.
MR. WILSON:  Over time, our understanding of what should
be reported, and has developed over time -- and, basically,
if there's been anything that's compromised the seaworthiness
of the DUKW at this point, we contact the Coast Guard and
consult them.  And if they choose to come in, then they
choose to come in and review what occurred and any corrective
action that we've taken.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Now, Mr. Gavinski, you don't have
Coast Guard oversight, but I have the same question.  Is
there a regulatory oversight within Wisconsin that you would
notify in case you were making modifications to your DUKWs or
had significant damage or repair work?
MR. GAVINSKI:  There is no one that we would notify.
If we found a failure in something at Wisconsin Ducks,
we have an excellent relationship with the Coast Guard office
in Milwaukee.  Even though we are not under their
jurisdiction, we follow their regulations.  And we would
readily, openly communicate with that office anything that
has happened at Wisconsin Ducks.
MR. HENRY:   Okay.  I'm just a little curious in
following up to some questions that Mr. Chatterjee had on the
Higgins pump. I'll start with Mr. McDowell.  Could you
explain exactly how the Higgins pump is tested in water?
MR. MCDOWELL:  We did a water test once with Alan
Gavinski, which was one of our inspecting officers.   We just
simply pulled the large plugs out and went out in the water.
 And it automatically activates the system.  But now we --
that why we built the tank.  Our water location is over ten
miles away, I believe, so it's not practical to drive all the
DUKWs out there, so we do it right on sight, on property,
with that thirty-five gallon tank, and you can tell in short
order, I mean it is immediately discharged.  It's amazing how
quickly it pumps the water out.
MR. HENRY:  And you say this is a test you perform
annually on each DUKW?
MR. MCDOWELL:  No.  More than annually.  At the start of
the season we do it, but it's a part of our periodic
maintenance program as well,  So 200 to 250 hours,
approximately in that hour framework.
MR. HENRY:  Is there an effective way to test the
performance of the Higgins pump without putting it in the
water or a tank?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.  The inlet pipe will only allow so
much water to come in to the Higgins pump.  And as long as
you don't, through your testing process, impede the water's
ability or the feed rate to the pump, you know, I would say
that it would simulate, you know, the same kind of scenario
out there in the water.
One of the things that we did do as of a result of the
incident, is the discharge hose has a couple -- the discharge
outlet pipe rather has two hoses on it that are clamped in
position.  We've designed a contiguous pipe with mandrill
bends all the way to the exterior of the DUKW, so there's no
way that anybody could misinstall it.  It's a permanent
fixture in our DUKWs now.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And Mr. Wilson, whoever would like to
speak for Boston DUKWs, on the same question?
MR. WILSON:  It is tested annually, and I believe it's
tested by filling the hull right now with water.
MR. CERULLE:  That or you could also remove the strainer
and tip it upside down and fill the strainer and pump up with
water from a hose or a container like Bob uses, what have
you.
MR. WILSON:  And I'm also of the belief that our weekly
inspections to making sure that the pump is mechanically
intact and all hosing, and what have you, you know, the
weekly inspection of the system to make sure it's all intact
also is an important feature.
MR. HENRY:  And Mr. Gavinski for Wisconsin Ducks?
MR. GAVINSKI:  In the spring and the fall our shop
supervisor checks the Higgins pump.  He looks down to see if
the impellers are working properly.  If there is a problem
with it, we have a one-inch belly plug that we can pull on
the vehicle and put water into the bilge and then it will
work.  And he would check it.  If there is a bearing out,
then the drivers know it because it makes a loud noise.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  But there's no routine to actually do
a performance test of it on a regular basis?
MR. GAVINSKI: We check it ...
MR. HENRY:  Actually pump the water?
MR. GAVINSKI: We check -- no.  No, we don't.
MR. HENRY:  One last question.  Prior to the Arkansas
incident, my understanding of seals probably didn't go any
further than what you would find on a front wheel drive, CV
joint, which is sort of a weather cover, dust cover.  And I
suspect you can purchase similar covers in the same
configuration that we would find on the boot seal of a DUKW.
And I'll start with Mr. McDowell.  What properties do you
look for in ordering replacement boot seals?
MR. MCDOWELL:  They're not readily available.  That's
one of the topics of discussion I hope to address with the
group at large.
We were looking at re-manufacturing that particular
component, but we're holding off until we had a good feel on
what the findings may or may not be as a result of this
hearing.  I'm sure there will be some discussion on it as we
meet afterwards.
MR. HENRY:  And Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: Well, we did develop -- if I understand your
question, we did redevelop this system before the Arkansas
incident,  and we did research to -- have decided to also
retrofit, as I mentioned earlier, in addition to this system,
a modified boot system.  And, we basically did research and
testing on new boots that were available in the marketplace.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And Mr. Gavinski?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Based on our past usage of the boots, we
have about a five-year supply of the boots.  But in
anticipation of that, we are in the process of having a new
one made and it should be available within a month.
MR. HENRY:  I have three cards from the audience.  Two
of them are related, and I'll read the first one. "How many
patches can a DUKW's hull accept?"   And in parenthesis is,
"The assumption is that the hull becomes weaker the more it
is patched."
And there is a similar question. "How frequently is
welding and hull repairs required?"
Mr. McDowell?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, you do need to be sensitive to the,
 I guess, heat affected zone.  If you end up putting a quilt,
so to speak, together versus putting in new material.
The relative condition of the DUKW when you start, I
guess, is really the predeterminates of what you ultimately
do to it.  But basically if some of the ribs, where they
attach, were spot welded, and there's a lamination area there
that is susceptible to corrosion, it's generally easier to
remove the entire side and replace it as opposed to going
through and doing a lot of patchwork. So, my recommendation
would be to, you know, do a good overall repair.
A lot of the DUKWs in the past that we've acquired
through private individuals have been patched with Bond-Do or
fiberglass and other materials that we certainly don't
recommend, and that's why we sandblast the entire vessel to
make sure there's no areas that have been patched over that
aren't readily, visibly, identifiable to the normal
inspection process.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Wilson for Boston Ducks.
MR. WILSON:  The first time we had to do a hull repair,
the Coast Guard came in and it was a fairly small repair.
And they pretty much defined standards as to hull repair in
general, and so we learned a lot through the Coast Guard.
I'll let Tony finish.
MR. CERULLE:  I can't speak for the other MSO's, but our
MSO holds us to a standard of, I believe, is three inches
from the hull breach.  You have to crop out the steel to good
steel, no pitting and all corners have to be rounded, too.
They would prefer, if you have an area of repairing that
already has previous patches, if it's possible to crop out a
larger section to ensure the stability and integrity of it.
MR. WILSON:  So, in other words, you won't have multiple
patches.
MR. CERULLE:  No.
MR. WILSON:  If you're patching an area that's already
been patched, they've instructed us to cut out the whole area
of patches and just put one patch in instead of a patchwork
quilt.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  And Mr. Gavinski for Wisconsin Ducks?
MR. GAVINSKI:  If we do have any holes, we try and cut
out a whole section.
We've been maintaining our vehicles for fifty-four years
with the intention that we're going to be operating for
another fifty years and obviously we don't run in salt water.
 They are extensively maintained and we try not to get in a
position where we are patching it.
MR. HENRY:  And one last question I'll ask of each of
you.  Is there a feasible way to inspect or test for water
saturation of closed cell foam if this were to occur?
And I guess if you feel like you can respond to that,
fine, if you want to pass on it.  Mr. MCDOWELL?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Well, I'm not as knowledgeable as I need
to be on this subject, but we did do some preliminary review
on that.  My comment regarding the saturation came from an
article that I read in Boat Builders publication.  And they
talked about the foam.  Once the exterior edge of the foam
has been damaged, which can happen very easily just from
people bumping up against it, then there is a possibility to
get encroachment of moisture over time.
Now, maybe some of the closed cell foams are quite a bit
more sophisticated since this article was written or maybe
some of that information was inaccurate.  But in that article
they talked about the difficulty of removing foam and
identifying the saturation point over time.  How much has the
additional flotation been damaged over time?  So, even though
you feel like you may not have water in the boat, if you have
saturation on one side, then the DUKW, of course, would start
listing, as if you did have a breach in the hull on that
side.
So, I'd say, that just in terms of practical
application, once the foam has been installed, that you could
go out and do a float test and draw the water line, or
actually we could weld it in place so it couldn't be removed
easily, and then do that on an annual inspection process to
determine how much degradation of the foam has taken place
over time.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  Obviously I have no experience at this
point.  I would concur somewhat with what Mr. MCDOWELL just
said.  I would also think that it would appear that these
cells would be able to be removed, and just by weighing them
or feeling their weight you would know whether or not they
were saturated or not.  Obviously, that would be a concern if
we go with this type of system.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Cerulle?
MR. CERULLE:  I concur with Mr. Wilson.
MR. HENRY:  And Mr. Gavinski?
MR. GAVINSKI:  We have not done any research on the
matter.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Can I have a further comment on that?
MR. HENRY:  Yes, Sir.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Most of the applications that I am
familiar with, they inject the foam in rather than have a
removable body.  We went to Tracker Marine just to study the
process.  They do that on their seventeen and a half foot
fishing boats.
To get the density of foam in there consistently in the
void sizes that we're talking about, it's a little bit more
of a challenge than probably the average boat builder would
want to deal with as a new type installation.  The expansion
area needs to be calculated quite accurately, and the jigging
needs to be in place properly so it doesn't bow out the side
of the DUKW during the installation process, and things like
that.  So there's a lot of considerations that need to come
into play through the installation process.
And if it were to become saturated, it would be quite a
job to remove that product out of the cavity.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you, Sir.
One of the questions from the audience included some
operational questions on licensing, manning, and we'll defer
those to a later panel and turn it over to the executive
panel.
MR. JOHN HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Very good.  Any questions from
this end of the table?  Ms. Murtagh?
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  Actually, I had one question
that I think could -- the information could really just be
submitted for the record, and that goes to Mr. Gavinski and
his maintenance expert.  One of the questions that was asked
was, you know, "How often you do particular maintenance on
the pump and on the vessel?" and you indicated that you do
things, you know, weekly, monthly, but you didn't give the
details of that.  I would appreciate it if you would provide
that to us for the record.  You don't have to do it right at
this moment, but, if you would, it would help us quite a bit
so we can take a look at all of the other information as
well.
I did have some additional questions for you, sir, and
that is, the other operators, at least the ones that are
here, have Coast Guard oversight and you indicated that you
are not under Coast Guard inspection.  Do you have oversight
from an independent organization?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, we do not. Other than our life saving
equipment.  We were under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard
 until, or through 1990.
MS. MURTAGH:  And then that was changed. So, since then,
you don't have any regulatory organization, as I understand
the answer to the question.  Do you have any independent
organization that you yourselves use, outside organization
that you have come in and do an independent review of the
hull, the equipment on your vessels, other than the life
saving equipment?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, we do not.
MS. MURTAGH:  And who looks at the -- is it the life
preservers? Or do you have additional life saving ...
MR. GAVINSKI:  The Department of Natural Resources looks
at them. They check them every spring.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  The concept that I have heard from
all of you is to share the information as owners and
operators, which is very promising, but you are only a
portion of the industry.  Do you have anticipation of
expanding this organization, this owner-operator-builder
organization to all of the operators?
You had indicated that you were going to meet after this
meeting so that is why I was curious. If you would answer,
please.
MR. MCDOWELL:  I'm not sure what the future holds.   I
know we want to be a part of maturing this product and
elevating its status in the sightseeing industry. I think it
is a viable venue for entertainment and sightseeing that can
be utilized in many different locations safely, and it's our
hope to be a part of that.
MS. MURTAGH:  I guess I'm looking more from a safety
standpoint, because that's ...
MR. MCDOWELL:  That is a critical component of it and
can't be done without it.  Obviously, we've spent quite a bit
of time developing those systems and processes to support
that, in addition to modifying the equipment, so, yes.
Absolutely.
MS. MURTAGH:  Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON:  I guess I'm not clear on the nature of your
question you're asking.  As an organization, are we looking
to expand other markets or are we looking to help the
industry become safer?  I'm not really ...
MS. MURTAGH:  Yes, I'm sorry.  The latter was the intent
of my question.  I understood from the answers you all had
given before, you intended meeting as a group after this
forum to potentially share information regarding maintenance
safety features, that kind of thing.
MR. WILSON:  The answer is ideally has been mentioned,
you know, after the Arkansas incident, you know,  any --we're
all kind of affected by one another's operation.  So it is my
number one concern to make sure, not only we are doing what's
necessary but what other operators are doing.  I would much
rather work together as an industry and hopefully develop
either our own standards, our own regulations.  But if that's
not the case because people won't come to the table, then,
quite honestly, I feel I have no other choice but to turn to
government to step in and do that.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  Mr. Gavinski?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Bob has suggested that he would like to
get together with the other operators .  I would hope that
everyone would attend the meeting after this session has
ended.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  Mr. Gavinski, if I could do a
follow-up on the question I'd asked you before.  You don't
have Coast Guard oversight.  Do you have any oversight from
the highway side for the operation of the DUKWs?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, we do not.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Before going to Mr. Tyrrell, let me
ask a follow-up question that Ms. Murtagh got into.  In terms
of how much of the industry that this panel represents, you
represent three of the twenty operators that we've
identified, at least in our preparation for this forum.  Mr.
MCDOWELL, how many DUKWs do you operate?  How many vehicles?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Approximately twenty units.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Twenty?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Yes.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  And, Mr. Wilson, how many?
MR. WILSON:  Seventeen.
And I would like to interject that I think that the
three companies represented up here probably represent about
99 percent of the carrying capacity of this industry.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Could you repeat that?
MR. WILSON:  I would have to say that the three
companies up here represent, I don't know, ninety-some odd
percent of the entire industry in terms of passengers carried
is represented at this table right now.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Well, that's what I was going to get
to.  That's what I was leading into by getting some
preliminary statistics, but -- very good. I just wanted to --
that was my thinking, that you probably represented a very
high percentage of the number of passengers carried each
year, but wasn't clear on the exact statistics on that.
 Mr. Gavinski?
MR. GAVINSKI:  I don't know if it is that high.  I
haven't done a survey of the other people in the industry.  I
know what we carry, but I don't believe it's 90 percent.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  And, Mr. Gavinski, did you say
earlier that you have sixty DUKWs in operation?  Is that the
figure?
MR. GAVINSKI:  We own ninety-two but we have forty-five
tour DUKWs.  We have some vehicles that we use as shuttles
from our ticket booths in the outlying area.  It's about
fifty-eight to sixty that are operational.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  At any rate the point I was
trying to make is, although you are only three operators, you
do represent a significant segment of the amphibious vessel
tourist industry in terms of the number of people you carry
year in and year out.  And, I think in this section that ran
in this forum on maintenance, it's apparent that the
approaches you all have been taking are quite comprehensive
in the maintenance area.
Mr. MCDOWELL?
MR. MCDOWELL:  Mr. Hammerschmidt, they've prepared a
slide.  We were talking earlier about this prop shaft
protector.  Before we close with our session, I'd like the
opportunity to put it on the overview so people can further
understand the comments regarding Andy's proposal or
presentation on this.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Very good.  Let me ask one other
quick question of Mr. Gavinski.   In your fifty-fours years
of operation, or your company's operation, do you know of any
accidents that your company has experienced in all those
years?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Through fifty-four years, we have had
some minor incidents.  There has never been an incident that
was related to mechanical failure.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Okay.  Just while we have you here,
can you recollect any evacuations that have occurred in your
operation?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Zero.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Zero. Okay.  Thank you.
And before we go to this slide let's go to Mr. Tyrrell
for a question.
MR. TYRRELL:  Yes.  Mr. Gavinski, could you tell us what
happened in 1990 to remove your company from Coast Guard
inspection jurisdiction?
MR. GAVINSKI:  The Wisconsin River was declared non-
navigatable, so the Coast Guard did not have jurisdiction
after that.
MR. TYRRELL:  I see.  Even though the Coast Guard has no
inspection jurisdiction, do they have any other jurisdiction
over any aspect of your operation?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, they don't, other than the fact that
we do follow the regulations that they impose.  We have open
dialogue with them.  They are willing to come up and look at
our operation any time that we ask them to come up.
MR. TYRRELL:  Does the State of Wisconsin place any
operational restrictions on your business?
MR. GAVINSKI:  No, they do not.  Other than our shuttles
--  there is an inspection by the Department of
Transportation of our shuttles because they are licensed as
buses.
MR. TYRRELL: I see.  If you were to, God forbid, have
an accident, would you be required to report that accident to
any state or federal agency?
MR. GAVINSKI:  I'm sure that we are.  We'd have to
report it to the Department of , I think it's Safety and
Building Inspections.  I think that's what category it falls
under.
MR. TYRRELL:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
MR. GAVINSKI:  I believe that's the category that we
would fall under as far as if anyone is injured.
MR. TYRRELL:  Would the local sheriff or police or law
enforcement, state police or anybody like that have any sort
of role if there was some sort of accident?
MR. GAVINSKI:  Technically, no.  We operate our land
portion of our tours all on our own property.  We cross a
county highway at three locations.  When it has happened in
the past, we have had them come in though, yes, and do a
report.  It's basically for our insurance company.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Then let's proceed with the slide
that Mr. MCDOWELL would like to describe for us.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Just for clarification for the audience.
 It's a little difficult to see.  I'll do my best.
[Showing slide]
Right here you can see the wire tie and the bolts that
secure the cab to the bottom to the V-strut that Andy was
referencing.  If this particular component was to come apart,
we've designed a retention ring.  There's clearance in
between the shaft and this tube stock here that allows for
the removal and maintenance of the babbitt bearing that's in
the rear.  It's just secured by these three supports here.
They're easy to install and it just eliminates that exposure.
  Is there any comments you want to make, Andy?
MR. WILSON: No.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  We thank you for that added
information.
MR. MCDOWELL:  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Seeing that there's no further
questions for this particular panel, let me thank you very
much for your participation this morning and for your
responsiveness to all the questions.  It's been very
informative, and you may stand down.
We will take a ten minute break before proceeding to our
next panel.
[Whereas, a break was taken from 9:45 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.]
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  The next panel will be addressing
issues concerning vessel inspections, policies and
certification.
MR. TYRRELL: We don't seem to have all of the panel
members here.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:   And, we'll wait until all of the
panel members are in their positions.  [Pause]  Ready for
action?
MR. TYRRELL:  This panel is composed of Captain Brian
Basel, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief of the Office of Compliance,
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; Lt. Commander Eric
Christensen, U.S. Coast Guard, from the Marine Safety Office
in Chicago, Illinois; Lt. Commander James Whitehead, U.S.
Coast Guard, Chief of Inspections at MSO Boston; Lt. Dean
Firing, U.S. Coast Guard.  He's with the Vessel Compliance
Division at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; and Mr. Robert
Thompson, who is a consultant that the NTSB has arranged to
participate in this proceeding.
I would like each one of you, if you wouldn't mind,
starting with Captain Basel and moving down the table, give
us a brief description of your duties and responsibilities,
and if Mr. Thompson would give us a brief description of his
background and experience.
Following the self introductions, Captain Basel will
give a short presentation of an overview of the Coast Guard
inspection process.
CAPT BASEL:  Thank you Mr. Tyrrell.
Just in a nutshell, the Office of Compliance for Marine
Safety is the office that is charged with promulgation,
promulgating the guidelines necessary for the field to
conduct their inspections.
One thing I would like to add though, is that we are
also the third and the final level in an appeal process.
After the OCMI and after the District, should anybody feel
aggrieved by a decision in the field that it is unwarranted
or unreasonable in your specific operation.  And we encourage
people to use that process. It's not used enough.  Thank you.
  I might also add, if I could, I have been the officer in
 charge of Marine Inspection in Tampa which had a DUKW, also
in Cleveland, and my background is in quite a few field tours
in Baltimore, overseas in Rotterdam, in Louisiana, and
District Tours in New York, as well as being Chief of the
Coast Guard's Traveling Inspection Staff for four years in
Washington, D.C., as well as a tour in Washington on the
promulgation of the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Manual.
 Thank you.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.  Commander Christensen.
COMMANDER CHRISTENSEN:  Yeah, and as I stated yesterday,
I'm Chief of the Inspections Department at Marine Safety
Office, Chicago; twelve years experience within the Coast
Guard.  My entire career has been spent in marine inspection.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you.
COMMANDER WHITEHEAD:  I hold a similar title to Lt.
Commander Christensen.  I'm Chief of Inspections and
Investigations at MSO, Boston, basically overseeing all
inspections of vessels ranging from liquified natural gas
ships, fishing vessels, small passenger boats, including
DUKWs; and investigations relating to those also.
MR. TYRRELL: Thank you.
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  I'm Lieutenant Dean Firing with the
Vessel Compliance Division.  My main duties there at this
time are the Program Manager for the Ultimate Compliance
Program; the Program Manager for the Streamline Inspection
Program.  Also compliance issues relating to sub-chapter T
vessels, small passenger vessels.  I have twelve years in the
marine safety field in inspections and investigations.
MR. TYRRELL:   Thank you very much.  Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.  I've recently retired after
twenty-two years in the Coast Guard;  starting inspecting
DUKWs when they arrived at the Chicago location.
Went to MCDOWELL's, when he was down in Branson, to get some
early experience so I could get familiar with what I was
looking at; reviewed the policies from St. Louis, authored
the '98 DUKW policy, submitted it for review and
authorization.
I've been working with DUKWs, looking at different DUKWs
for quite a few years. I was part of the investigation on
Miss Majestic sinking just before retirement, and have stuck
with several companies after that to assist them in complying
with the Coast Guard regulations.
MR. TYRRELL:  All right.  Thank you very much.  Captain
Basel, you have a short presentation?
CAPT BASEL: Thank you.  What I'd like to do is just
lay out a quick -- do a quick rundown of what the Coast Guard
procedures, inspection procedures are and what their
guidelines are.  And I think that may allay some of the
questions that may come up.
On a small passenger vessel, once the initial
construction and outfitting is completed, as we heard
yesterday, very detailed initial inspection of the hull, the
fittings, the machinery and all the equipment is conducted.
And the inspector is satisfied that applicable regulations
have been met.  At that time a certificate of inspection,
which is valid for three years, is issued.  Annual re-
inspections will be done of a similar scope but to a lesser
degree.
Sub-chapter T, that we've heard so much about, is a
special set of regulations specifically designed for small
passenger vessels.  It recognizes that there are many
different designs and applications, and that the application
of what is known as sub-chapter H for the larger passenger
vessels would be both difficult and highly inappropriate.  It
is specifically intended to provide the flexibility, where
it's appropriate, to both the vessels and to the OCMI.
That's exactly why that sub-chapter was written.
There is other guidance on inspections available to
inspectors in the form of our marine safety manual, which
will clarify issues or provide additional guidance on unusual
vessels.  For example, the authorization to allow radiator
cooled engines on the DUKWs has been in this manual now for
more than twenty years.  The NAVIC is another form of
guidance, published particularly when we desire information
to be disseminated to industry.  And you've heard a lot about
the NAVIC being the Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular.
Several times yesterday, you heard of a possible NAVIC
on DUKWs. Several weeks ago, I met with some of the DUKW
industry leaders, prior to being aware of this forum, and
discussed a working meeting; sit down and really roll up our
sleeves and lay out the issues and concerns and all of the
best practices.  So many of which we have heard this morning
and yesterday.  We're looking for national consistency.  And
as we heard, this industry has grown very rapidly and is
expected to keep growing.  Many of the unique features of the
amphibians are expanding.  It is readily apparent that there
are many initiatives and combinations of initiatives that can
appear capable of providing the level of safety desired by
everyone.  The time has obviously come to consolidate all of
the local initiatives into a national policy, be they from
the industry or be they from some of the various Coast Guard
and Marine Safety offices that have promulgated their own
unit and instructions.
As you may have seen in the report of the Miss Majestic,
the Coast Guard has made quite a few recommendations to our
own procedures to improve these processes.  And we will deal
with them most expeditiously.  I would like to remind
everybody the barring the need to revisit a vessel, due to
deficiencies that might be noted in the inspection, the Coast
Guard may only visit a vessel once in a year.
There is a tremendous responsibility placed on the
owner, on the operator and on the master, as we've heard this
morning, to maintain his vessel and equipment in a seaworthy
state.  Meaning, meeting or exceeding the existing
regulations.
Amphibious vessels are unique in that they are
essentially dry docked after each trip, providing the
responsible party the opportunity to continuously examine the
exterior of that vessel.  This factor alone is a significant
consideration of any OCMI where special consideration is
given as opposed to strict application of sub-chapter T,
where it may not be practical.
On the other hand, this unique operation provides
opportunities to conduct modifications that might not be
readily apparent to an inspector.  On this note,  I caution
that the regulations require that the Coast Guard be
notified, and we've heard it here this morning, when any
repairs that affect the safety of the vessel are conducted.
Obviously we've seen the need to elaborate exactly what is
meant by that statement, particularly in regards to boots.  I
would, however, strongly suggest that in the next working
group that was mentioned, that we carefully define this and
any other penetrations, boots and any other penetrations that
are unique to amphibians.
In the recommendations of the report or discussions of
the Traveling Inspection Staff.  This is a team of five very
experienced and senior officers that are available to assist
the OCMI or the Chief of Inspection Department or Inspectors.
 In any case, where they feel they may have something unique
and different that they would like a second opinion on, or it
may exceed the unique expectations or the training of the
people in that port.  To this point they have never been
called, that I'm aware of, on a DUKW which tends to tell me
that there is a fairly good level of field confidence in the
inspection of the DUKWs.
In closing, I believe we need to make mention of just
the human factors.  We've touched on that earlier, in
particular in the Miss Majestic case.  We can always say,
"What would have happened?" the what if scenarios. " What if
the clamp had been a little tighter?"  "What if the hinge
assembly had been in place?", "What if a deficiency report
with a brief time frame had been written?", "What if the
Higgins pump was operational?" "What if the operator had
noticed the bilge discharged sooner."  "What if there had
been an in the water check of the boots?"  And I could go on.
 I think a lot of these are listed in the report as
contributing factors.
What I am saying is that every weak link in this chain
involves a human factor.  The safety net involves not only
the owner and the master but also the mechanic and the
inspector.  The importance of maintenance, training, drilling
 can't be over emphasized, and we've heard that here.
I thank you, and I think the panel will be pleased to
attempt to answer any questions that you might have.
MR. TYRRELL:  Thank you very much, Captain.
Mr. Ash Chatterjee will lead off questioning this panel.
MR. CHATTERJEE:   Thank you Mr. Tyrrell.  Good Morning
gentlemen.
My first question is directed at Captain Basel, and then
I'll ask the same question of the others.  In May 1999, the
Coast Guard issued an internal bulletin called an AIG, titled
-- quote -- "Inspection Safety Awareness of DUKWs" --unquote,
which required the MSO's to inspect the watertight integrity
and safety aspects of DUKWs and their zones.  Please give us
an update on what was checked and what was found.
CAPT BASEL:  Okay.  In fact, there were two safety
alerts that were issued, to use that term. The AIG is just an
addressee of who it goes to.  But essentially, it was
immediately after the incident a safety alert was put out.
It basically just said "Get it, take a look at every one of
these things. We don't know what happened yet, but get a look
at the underwater body, take a look at all of the through
hull fittings, anywhere where water intrusion might come in."
I say approximately two weeks later, obviously the
report was not out, but at that time there was a reminder to
make sure everybody had been out on each of the DUKWs that
were in existence or inspected at the time.  And now, it was
additional guidance, as far as flooding areas, to get out and
take a look at specifically hinge assemblies, bilge systems,
bilge alarms and that notifications of escape is being given
in the briefings.  Again, these were just notifications,
reminders to stay on top of this and obviously that
recommendations would be coming from the report.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Could you clarify the notifications and
the findings were sent out to the field?
CAPT BASEL:  Yes, these were sent out to every Marine
Safety Office.  It may have been limited to each one that had
a DUKW, but perhaps I think Lieutenant Firing, who was in
Washington at the time, was probably the drafter of those.
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  The address that you have there went
out to all Marine Safety Offices, including all district
offices.  So, The address is a general address to get
information to basically any Marine Safety personnel in the
Coast Guard.
MR. CHATTERJEE:   Yes, my question has to do with what
was found and what was checked.
CAPT BASEL:  At that time, we did not ask for the
findings to be returned.  We were sending out notices of what
to look for specifically.
MR. CHATTERJEE:   Can you give us an update now, at this
point as to what was found.
CAPT BASEL:   As I said, we did not ask for the
information to come back, so we have not compiled that in
headquarters.  Again, it was a notification and obviously
we're waiting for the exact findings of the report.
MR. CHATTERJEE: Lt. Commander Christensen, what have you
found in your MSO?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  When those safety alerts came out,
actually we had already gone out and conducted an inspection
following -- in fact, I believe it was the next day following
the casualty, we sent out our duty inspector to take a look
at, I believe. it was three DUKWs, and that duty inspector
was the not yet retired Mr. Thompson.  Although I remember
most of the conversation that Bob and I had regarding what
was found, I would like to ask that he, since he was the
inspector that went out there and looked at that, perhaps he
could share his more detailed account.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. Thompson, please.
MR. THOMPSON:  Yes, I went out the next day and looked
at the DUKWs that were operating in Chicago, namely Chicago
Duck Tours, made some recommendations of what I found to be
less than perfect boots, anything that looked questionable.
Spoke with them about -- immediately they went into the
repair replacement operation.
Upon getting down there to Hot Springs, I made a
courtesy check of the other DUKW operation that was down
there, the National Park Service DUKWs.  Took a look at their
DUKWs, crawled under them.  Spoke with Don about those parts
that were underneath there, whether they were good, bad or
ugly.  Took at look at the rest of the DUKWs that belonged to
Yellow and White.  Made recommendations as I found them.
MR. CHATTERJEE: Any general findings, any general areas
of weakness?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, in some instances we found where
the brackets were missing or maybe missing a bolt or two.
Some boots were less than what I would use or certificate
with.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON:   That was it.
CAPT BASEL:  If I might also add that that safety alert
was also put out on the web for everybody, for anybody to see
also.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
CAPT BASEL:  With the guidelines of what we were looking
for.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  Lt. Commander Whitehead?
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  Yes.  the day after the Arkansas
casualty, myself and our senior investigating officer,  who's
a qualified inspector, went to the Boston DUKW facility, went
through each of those DUKWs, both internally, externally,
checking all the hull, the through  hull penetrations.
I think within two days, two or three days had another
inspector who is very familiar with the DUKWs, probably our
most senior inspector on the DUKWs, go and check the three
DUKWs in Plymouth. I believe on one of the DUKWs, it was
found one of the retaining wire on the strut for the
shaft, the propeller shaft was found missing and those were
replaced.
On the Boston DUKWs, we found two things that later I
brought those up verbally to Boston DUKWs, and we followed up
with a letter to them, and it's since been corrected.  Those
two things were the life jacket stowage.  While you could
take the life jacket out, I found them to be kind of tight
and needed some strength to pull them out.  So, I recommended
that they change that arrangement a little bit so that they
could more easily come out, which they did.
The other thing was, I just had a concern on the side
curtains.  They were -- to prevent them -- they have to go on
the highway when they go to their location in Boston, and so
they had a bungee cord arrangement to keep the curtains in
place so they didn't flap in the wind, which could be
dangerous.  They've since, as Mr. Wilson, I think, stated
yesterday, they've since changed that to where they can just
pull a lever and those would immediately release.
  MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  Lieutenant Firing, would
you like to add anything to that?
LIEUTENANT FIRING: I believe I would, yes.  The first
message that we sent out was immediately after the casualty.
 We had received calls at headquarters from the field asking
if there were problems with DUKWs.  We immediately ran a
casualty database out of our computer database to find out if
there were class problems that we could identify, if we knew
of any particular problems. The results of that were
immediately published out in the first message, which stated
that we did not seem to have any problem that we knew of.
But here are the casualties and here is what has occurred on
DUKWs.  And it encouraged the OCMI's to go out and look.
The second message was sent out after the Miss Majectic
had been raised.  There appear to have been suspect areas.
The shaft housing connections, and also egress.  The second
message directed the district commanders to ensure that the
OCMI's pay particular attention to the shaft housing areas on
future inspections.  And also to require the operators to
give specific instruction during the safety orientation on
means of egress from the vessel.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Thank you.  Captain Basel, could you
provide details of any changes in inspection policies for
DUKWs since May of 1999?
CAPT BASEL:  Again, the Coast Guard has not put out any
changes.  What we've heard here now is what we anticipated
once the report was completed.  We would be doing a forum to
look at all of the best practices, pull together some of the
best policies and practices that are out there, sit down, as
I said, roll up our sleeves with the industry and really put
together some sound guidelines that really address the
industry as it expanded.  And we still look forward to doing
that.  I think today's forum has just been outstanding. It's
given us a leg up on where we wanted to go, probably early
next year now that the report is out.
But to answer your question directly, we have not made
any specific changes.  There's been a lot of lessons learned
right now, but we have not changed any national policy.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Just for clarification, the
Coast Guard Industry group that's going to be addressing
DUKWs and amphibious vessels, is the intent of that to
develop policies for industry practices or is it to develop
your inspection policies?
CAPT BASEL:  I would say it could be both.
Where it goes, I really don't want to say just yet.  If
the regulations are needed, perhaps we'll have regulations.
If certain guidelines are needed, we'll have guidelines. I
think we've heard a lot of things here as far as maintenance.
 I think we a question was presented yesterday regarding the
SIP, or Streamline Inspection Program. I think the DUKW
industry is an absolute perfect candidate for that type of
program.  But I would still envision that the NAVIC would
have quite a few guidelines because there is a need, I think
as we have seen, for individual offices to have some unique
conditions for their specific area.  I think we've seen some
of them as we've talked about distances offshore, lengths of
run, things that haven't been mentioned, some have, some do
not have anchors.  And there are reasons for that -- whether
you are on running rivers or calm lakes, and so forth.
There's a whole lot of practices that will be specific,
but I think everybody has seen a tremendous need to bring all
of these together into one instruction to give the OCMI a
chance to look at all of the best practices that are out
there.  Perhaps there will be other ones that that unit had
not thought of that others had thought of, and then they can
put together the best possible policy for his specific
operation.  So we're not setting any limitations on where
we're going with this, with our working group.  We're going
to leave it wide open, whatever's necessary that's what we're
going to do.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Captain Basel, why do you feel that the
Streamline Inspection Program is appropriate for DUKWs?
CAPT BASEL:  Well, as I said in my opening statement,
the Coast Guard may only get down to a vessel once a year.
That probably doesn't happen very often.  The inspectors are
out in the field.  They know what's going on in most of their
areas.  They probably will stop in when they're in those
 areas.  Those are the reality of what goes on.
But the Streamline Inspection Program is a program where
we step back a little bit more, and we have more of an
oversight role, where we stress on the owners -- and they lay
out very detailed programs on how an inspection should be
done to a level that at least meets, if not exceeds, our
regulations.
You do not have the Coast Guard coming down saying do
this, do this, do this.  The responsibility is on the master
and the owner and the operator to know exactly what is
required.  And in that regard, the boat is not made ready for
an inspection on an annual basis.  It's much easier for the
owner to maintain it to the regulations at all times.
Everybody in the process knows what's required and everybody
plays a role.
There's an ownership role in there and what we've found
in that process is that, as the individual masters and owners
start taking that responsibility on, they wind up doing and
meeting the regs much, much more.  They're more aware of
things and not waiting for people to tell them what to do.
They're aware of exactly what is required.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  In the Streamline Inspection Program,
how does the Coast Guard insure that all owners fulfill and
discharge their responsibilities in an equitable manner, big
operators and small?
CAPT BASEL:  We still come down and do our annual
inspection.  Much of it more would be on the record keeping,
on the drills, and a quick review of what is going on
operationally on the boat.  We do not walk away from it.  We
still do our inspections.  But again, it's on the recording
and on the capabilities of the owner and of the master to
maintain the vessel.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Does the Coast Guard require DUKW
operating companies or amphibious vessel operating companies
to maintain records, maintenance records for review during
inspections?
CAPT BASEL:  No, we do not.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Do you recommend that they do so?
CAPT BASEL:  Well, I think we're going to get into that
in our working group, but I think the panel before us laid
that out pretty well.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Where do you draw the line between
maintenance and inspection, given that we've heard that DOT
has certain maintenance checklists?  What is the philosophy
where -- do you not feel that review of maintenance records
would help your inspectors in doing their inspections?
CAPT BASEL:  There's no question they might be of some
help.  But right now, the regulations do not require that
owners maintain records for us.  Certainly those that are
maintaining records and the Coast Guard is asking certain
questions -- it's nice that in order to go to a maintenance
record and say, "Here's what we've done.  Here's how often
we've replaced a boot." for an example and so forth.  But,
again, I say that right now that is not required in the
regulations.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay. Thank you.
CAPT BASEL:  Is it a best practice?  I would say,
certainly, it might be.  And it's something that we can look
at in that working group.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Something worth looking at?
CAPT BASEL:  Absolutely.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Sure.  Thank you.  A basic background
question, more for the audience.  What are the inspection
intervals for DUKWs and what are the areas of focus for COI
[Certificate of Inspection] inspection and re-inspections?
What are the different areas of focus?
CAPT BASEL:  Sure.  Essentially, they are the same.  The
annual re-inspection, same equipment just to a lesser degree.
 During a COI inspection, essentially, the hull, all the
equipment that's the internal structure and external
structure that's readily available, the pertinence, all the
machinery, life saving, fire fighting, essentially everything
that you see on the DUKW.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
CAPT BASEL:  Just again, as I led off with, to the
annual inspection, same scope just to a lessor degree.  It's
a check.  It's normally done between the tenth and the
fourteenth month of the annual anniversary.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  I'd like to know some more
details about the Coast Guard policy for inspection of de-
watering pumps.  What was your policy before May '99 and has
that changed since?  And are operational checks in the water
or is actual pumping required to test those pumps?
CAPT BASEL:  Okay.  As we said yesterday, the Coast
Guard has no requirements for de-watering.  We have bilge
requirements which is designed -- if you'll look in the
regulations, I think Captain Lance mentioned the capacity of
the pumps, it is designed to handle the routine leakage that
you get in normal operations, be it from some seals or glands
or normal leakage or rain and so forth that might go into the
bilges.  That is what our bilge requirements are.
Some units of, as we heard yesterday from Lt.
Commander Christensen in Chicago, require the Higgins pump to
be maintained on the vessel as a piece of original equipment.
 Again, we need to take a look at that as a working group, if
that is something that should be required.  But right now
that is not a Coast Guard requirement, unless that pump is
the pump that is used in a certain area for the ten gallon
per minute capacity.  There's nothing to say it can't be a
250 gallons per minute. But again, our requirements are for
bilge systems, not for de-watering systems. I think you had
another part to that question.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yeah, I was going to ask, isn't the
Higgins pump considered in the bilge pump category?  I use
the word de-watering, but if you would like to call it a
bilge pump, is that what it is called by the Coast Guard?
CAPT BASEL:  We would call it a bilge pump, yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  And what is the Coast Guard
policy for checking our operational checks in the water made
on that pump by the inspector?
CAPT BASEL:  The Coast Guard requirements during an
inspection require an operational check of the bilge pumps.
It doesn't go any further than that.
We've heard some inspectors may require a water, a test
with water, some may not.  Again, I'll look at a working
group to make sure we have a consistent policy on what is an
operational check.
Again, the amphibs are unique in that they're out of the
water. Normal small passenger vessels in the water, you
hesitate to pump your bilges because you may have a pollution
incident.  So an inspector may or may not actually test with
water.
I found it gratifying this morning to see that most of
them are testing with water.  And in some cases there are
quite a few additional pumps that are there, if one pump
should fail.  I heard one owner say he was putting in six
pumps.  That's fantastic.  Again, that is exceeding the
regulations, but it may be necessary and it probably will be
considered one of our best practices.  Some inspectors do;
some inspectors may not.  Operational check is all that is
defined.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  If you test the Higgins pump without
water, would you construe that as an operational check?
CAPT BASEL:  I would tend to think it could be, yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Of pumping air?
CAPT BASEL:  That is operational, yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.
CAPT BASEL:  Ideally, you would check with water.  I
think most people do check with water.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
CAPT BASEL:  There's a lot of ways of doing that as we
heard today.  Taking it out, putting water in the hull.  I
have never -- I have been on DUKWs. I have never specifically
conducted an inspection on a DUKW.  I was not aware of
exactly what might happen if you put five or six or seven
inches of water in the bottom of a DUKW, whether that would
be a practical way of testing it, but I think I heard this
morning that that is a practical way, either in or out of the
water.
MR. THOMPSON:  Actually, I believe you would find that
that would cause that hull to stretch, begin splitting seams
with the thin material.  I believe you might cause more
damage than it's worth when it comes to filling the hull up
with five or six inches of water.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Could you clarify that again?  Did you
say testing with a few inches of water in the hull?
MR. THOMPSON:  If you filled the hull up with water, as
was suggested, you're probably going to stretch that hull and
cause damage to it.  The hull was designed to keep water out,
not keep water in.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So, residual water remaining in the
hull could be a problem, is that what you're saying?
MR. THOMPSON:  If you put six, eight, ten inches of
water inside the hull, you might cause damage to the hull.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  So, an alternative means would need,
you'd need to find an alternative way of testing the
operation of the pumps?
MR. THOMPSON:  The idea of piping a water tank of water,
a tank of water into the Higgins pump, right over the side
and bringing it in that way, that was excellent.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.
MR. THOMPSON:  I think that's a good test.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Yes.
MR. THOMPSON:  I would advise against dumping a bunch of
water into the hull.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
What was the Coast Guard policy for inspections of seals
and boots, for boots and band clamps before May of '99; and
has there been any changes in that inspection procedures
since?   Captain Basel or anybody else who wishes to answer
that.
CAPT BASEL:  No, there have not been any changes.  Right
now, the procedure is just looked at as another external hull
fitting or pertinence.  Inspector would look at the boots,
look at the condition of them, look at the assembly and so
forth, as he would in a normal through hull fitting, noting
that that is a fairly unique arrangement but it would be a
visual examination of the system.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. Thompson, the seals can be looked
at as a through hull fitting, as CAPT Basel said, but are
there any differences that you look for when you look at
seals and boots versus a regular through hull fitting?  What
are the things you might want to be aware of when you do this
unique inspection?
MR. THOMPSON:  On the initial construction, of course,
you'd pull the seals apart, look at them and make sure
they're in good condition, and they're the right type for the
installation that was intended.  Make sure that somebody is
not installing something of a lighter weight or something
that was not intended to be a water seal into the vessel.
In the original policy which we implemented in '98, it
did not involve the re-inspection of the boot seals.  In the
later policy, which was written and implemented, we realized
there was a deficiency.  And we included in what would
normally be a five year dry docking of the vessel, we
included the re-inspection of the boot seal, for that boot
seal to be removed at that time so you could get a good look
at it, because the upper seal on the aft drive shaft is very
difficult to inspect while it's in the vessel, and it's very
much compressed.  And with grease laying in there or water
laying in that boot seal over time, it can deteriorate if you
pull it out.
It's such a maintenance issue that if it's in the least
bit deteriorated, it becomes much cheaper and easier at that
point for the owner to replace a seal at that cost instead of
putting it back in and then looking at it and pulling it back
out, let's say, six months down the road.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Mr. Thompson, is there any way you can
tell the tightness of band clamps by visual inspection.
MR. THOMPSON:  Yes.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  How do you tell the tightness of the
band clamps during inspection?
MR. THOMPSON:  Well, if it's a typical band clamp, you
put a screw driver on it and see if it's tight.  It's just a
typical hose clamp is what's used .  There are better hose
clamps, different hose clamps out there that use a nut driver
type device to tighten them up.  There are those type clamps
out there.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  In your experience did inspectors
actually normally check the tightness of those clamps as part
of the inspection process, or they don't get to that level?
MR. THOMPSON:  We'd crawl under the DUKWs, slip on a
creeper and go underneath there and take a look at the seals
and wiggle them with our fingers and stick a screwdriver on
to them, if we could see them, because mechanics really had
to be able to reach them to tighten them up so we'd be able
to reach them and check the tightness.  That wouldn't be a
problem.
CAPT BASEL:  I'd like to add that I disagree with that.
 I don't believe that the inspectors should be underneath
vehicles with tools checking tightness and stuff like that.
That is not within the realm of Coast Guard inspection.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  And how would you propose that they
verify that?
CAPT BASEL:  Just have their own mechanics.  You're
looking at it, you can feel it.  But the Coast Guard
inspectors do not carry tools to do those things, be they
wrenches or screwdrivers or whatever.  They typically will
not do that.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  In your opinion, Captain, what would be
the best way of exercising oversight that it is in fact
tight?  Do they ask the mechanic would you think or ...
CAPT BASEL:  Yeah.  You take a look at it.  Is it tight?
 Does it feel tight?  You have to put the trust in the repair
procedures.  Unless you see one that is loose or may be a
little bit loose, you might ask somebody to try to tighten
it.  But the Coast Guard does not touch or operate equipment.
 They can ask the owner to operate anything.  We do not do
that ourselves.  Inspectors are trained specifically not to
start operating equipment.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  My last question to Captain Basel.
Does the Coast Guard have any agreements on inspection with
the DOT or highway authorities?  Or do you feel that there
are areas that should be adjoined responsibility for
inspection?
CAPT BASEL:  I'm not aware of any right now.  But
certainly what's happened here and what we've heard here
could be very well brought up as a best practice.  We are not
 in any way adverse to sharing things with any of the states,
particularly if we see something that they should be
interested.  And we would look forward to them calling us, if
they see something on the marine side that maybe outside
their realm that is in our realm.  And I think those are
things that we will look at in the states and we need to make
those connections.  And I think we'll probably see that as a
best practice in the guidelines.
MR. CHATTERJEE:  One follow-up to that for any of the
other members of the panel.  Have you had any occasion to
deal with the state or highway authorities on overlapping
areas or has this issue come up in your experience.
[Panel members indicating no]
MR. CHATTERJEE:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's all I have
and I'm going to turn the questions over to my colleague, Dr.
Sind-Prunier.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  I've got a question I'd like to
direct to Lieutenant Firing, if I may.  You mentioned that
following the accident involving the Miss Majestic, the Coast
Guard issued a safety alert that was provided to the MSO's as
well as placed on the web.  And my question here is, I
presume that's not standard procedure that every time there's
a casualty reported to the Coast Guard that that information
-- a safety alert is not normally issued as a matter of
routine?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  I can't state if it's a issue of
routine.  In this particular instance, we had a loss of life
and we felt the urgency to get the information out to the
public as quick as we possibly could.  Even if we did not
know what the cause of that casualty was, we knew that there
were certain issues that would come up.  We wanted to raise
the level of interest throughout the entire industry.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Okay.  And you also mentioned that as
part of that there was a review of prior instances, mishaps,
I forget how you characterized it, but other casualties
involving DUKWs and that that was communicated at that time
as well?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  Yes, ma'am.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Was that information available short
of filing a Freedom of Information request prior to that
time.  In other words, when the Coast Guard learns of risk-
based -- information of risks to the industry, can operators
access that information in any timely easy fashion so that
they might incorporate it into, you know, checks that they do
in their own operations for safety purposes?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  The information is contained in our
database and is inaccessible.  It can be accessed, yes.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  It can be accessed?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  Yes.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Is the Coast Guard aware of any prior
sealing system failures or is the incident, the accident
involving the Miss Majestic, the first documented problem
involving sealing system failure?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  From the casualty statistics, this
is the first account.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER:  Thank you.
MR. HENRY:  We had a number of responses from the
audience.  The first question I will read and address to the
panel, and if you feel you can respond to it, please
acknowledge.
"To the Coast Guard:
"Why did the Wisconsin River change status from
navigatable waters of the U.S. to non-navigatable?  What
caused the Coast Guard to change that status?"
CAPT BASEL:  The Coast Guard did not change that status.
 The U.S. Congress did.
MR. HENRY:  This question is in respect to Stalwart
amphibious DUKW, amphibious passenger vessel.  And the
question is, "As a Stalwart enters the water, the windshield
glass are submerged.  What standards must this glass meet?
"Is there an operator standard for entering the water as to
speed?"  "If upon entering the water and the glass fails,
what are the chances of survival?"  And four, "If the dash
was covered with water will the electrical bilge pumps
operate?"
CAPT BASEL:  I'm not sure if anybody up here has the
Stalwart experience.
MR. HENRY: Or any policy on entering the water for any
amphibious passenger vessel?
CAPT BASEL:  Not that I'm aware of, no.
These are things again, when we do our session, we're
not going to limit it to DUKWs; we're going to limit it -- we
are going to go to all amphibs.  And I think these are good
questions that we are going to need get some policies out on.
 There's no question about it.
MR. HENRY:  The next card is addressed to Captain Basel.
  "You stated in your opening statement the need for
uniform standards for the industry.  Considering the
statement yesterday by the Chief of Chicago that they wrote
their own book of regulations for their use, how do you plan
to bring unity to the regulations and eliminate spot
regulations as Captain Anderson had construed, or
constructed?"
CAPT BASEL:  Well, I think that was a misconception of
what was said yesterday.  What Chicago did was issue a unit
instruction with some guidance as far as how various
regulations was interpreted.  There are others out there,
those that may not have seen them.  There's one in Tampa,
there's also one from St. Louis, very similar, but again,
addressing some differences.
If we write a national policy on DUKWs those will
automatically be cancelled by the units.  Or they may take
their unit instruction, pull out those items that are
pertinent to their specific operation, and modify their own
unit instruction. That is not a problem.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  "Prior to the Arkansas incident, had
their been an effort on the part of any Coast Guard to
develop a national policy on DUKW inspection?"
CAPT BASEL:  No, not prior to it.  Other than what we
saw in the -- we mentioned the radiator issue in the marine
safety manual.  What's happened as these operations arise
locally, they are local issues because these vessels fall
into sub-chapter T.
Various units have taken the step to layout some policy.
 In some cases it may be for a variety of reasons.  There may
be a larger unit that may have more inspectors, some units, -
- and I'm speculating here as why some may or may not have
done it -- they may be scattered operations, various
inspectors looking at it.  Smaller units may have only one or
two inspectors and then inspectors more throughly familiar
with these vessels.
But once the national policy is laid out every unit will
revise their instructions, I'm sure, to comply with the
national policy and the best practices that apply to them.
MR. HENRY:  Mr. Christensen, were you aware of any
effort prior to the Arkansas accident to develop a national
policy?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  When we were in the process of
revising our DUKW policy, as Mr. Thompson stated, he authored
a DUKW inspection policy in January of 1998.
When I assumed the role of Chief of Inspections in
Chicago in the summer of 1998, and in a review of the
policies, I found some areas I wanted to have some better
clarification on.  So in January of 1999 we started looking
at our DUKW policy to bring it more in line with the new
small passenger regulations to which I was familiar with.
So, but as far as a national policy, we talked among
ourselves and said "Gee, wouldn't it be nice." but it didn't
really materialize into anything probably because of the safe
operating history.  We knew that we wanted to do some locally
that addressed the unique operating issues.  But, we might
have bantered about in the bullpen on national, that would be
great. But, it was something -- I believe it was something
that our operators were wanting, because we had DUKWs that
were being delivered to our zone that did not meet our
standards.
And so, there was a call on their part to perhaps accept
what was being delivered from other offices.  That again was
discussed internally but we just continued to work on our own
local policy.
MR. HENRY:   Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON:   Yes, sir.  Upon getting into the DUKW
business, I realized there was a need to see standardization
of the DUKWs as I traveled from one area of the country to
another.  As they were supplied from one area to another,
there were differences in policies.  And we began discussion
about getting something together that would standardize the
DUKW construction and inspection business throughout the
Coast Guard.  We were working towards that end.  We didn't
make it there before the Arkansas incident.  But we were
working on it.  We saw a need for it, much like Mr.
Christensen said, because some of the DUKWs were delivered to
our zone, were substandard with the way we inspected them.
So, we saw the need and I'm glad that we're going to finally
get one together.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  If I could add to that.  Being that
my previous tour was at Coast Guard Headquarters, I still had
a bit of, you know, headquarters geek in me, and I felt that
if we were going to republish our -- sorry, Sir, [laughter]
If we were going to republish our DUKW policy that
incorporated all of the new small passenger vessel
regulations, that we would then submit that up to
headquarters for possible review into a national standard.
But again, that was not done in a fashion prior to the Miss
Majestic casualty.
MR. HENRY:  Okay.  Thank you.  This is a question I will
address to Captain Basel, but any other member of the panel
that would care to address response to this.
"From what has been heard during this forum it is clear
that some DUKW companies, and I suspect that we can expand
that to amphibious passenger vessel companies, have a strong
safety culture.  Does the Coast Guard take this into
consideration during it's inspections?"
CAPT BASEL:  Absolutely.  In putting out the policies,
there's no question.  And we have heard it here from other
Coast Guard members.  Historically, this has been a very safe
industry.  We've heard it from both Coast Guard and from the
industry members.  And I think that's a very true statement.
 When you look at it, conditions that you may put on a
certificate, you are looking at that.  You are considering
that.  It is something that you would consider as you look at
any special considerations, as the term is used, in applying
conditions of operation or specific routes or any other
things.  Certainly.
MR. HENRY:  Would any other panel member care to comment
on that question?
[No response.]
If not, we'll go to the last question submitted by the
audience.
"There are different requirements from one district to
the next regarding the use and fastening of side curtains.
And I believe here we're talking possibly emergency egress
considerations.  Can we expect a more uniform and consistent
policy on such issues in the future from the Coast Guard?"
CAPT BASEL:  Yes.  No question about it.  I think that
is going to be a key topic as we get into the working group .
 There have been some definite lessons learned here.
MR. HENRY:   Very good.  Thank you.  We'll turn this
over to the Executive Panel.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Let's see.  Ms. Weinstein, do you
have some questions?
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Yeah, I have a question for Captain
Basel.  Are you aware of any other companies besides
Wisconsin DUKWs that is not responsible to reporting to the
Coast Guard?
CAPT BASEL:  I'm going to pass that off to Lieutenant
Firing.  I've only been in this position since August.  He's
been there for five years.  He probably has that information.
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  One of the problems with that is we
don't know exactly who the own inspected operators are
because they don't report to us.  Through informal searches
we found a few.  Two in Wisconsin.  I believe there's also
one in Texas that are operating.  But we have not formally
gone out and looked for the own-inspected operators.  We've
tried to provide the information to the public and hope that
they receive it.
We've also, for the safety alerts, gone through member
organizations such as the Military Vehicle Preservation
Society to try to get information to those people.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Well, that might be something if Mr.
McDowell gets his association together, that you could work
together to identify all the operators.
CAPT BASEL:  We fully intend to do that because we've
already discussed that anything that comes out of the working
group -- as a matter of fact I believe it's addressed in the
report, we should get the operator of any DUKW vehicle
and we'll be making that effort, no doubt.
MS. WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  That's all John.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Other questions from the Executive
Panel?  Ms. Murtagh?
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you, Member Hammerschmidt.
Captain Basel, this actually goes beyond the amphibious
vessels because, as we've heard, there are frequently pockets
of information, experience, knowledge that exist for
inspecting vessels like the DUKW.  And they are put together
at the local level; they don't necessarily become a national
standard.  Let me ask first about the DUKWs, and then I'll go
on beyond that.
The draft standard that had been put together, what is
the status of that at this moment?
CAPT BASEL:  The draft standard?
MS. MURTAGH:  That had been put together by I believe
Mr. Thompson and it had been reviewed and potentially
considered as a national inspection ...
CAPT BASEL:  I'm not aware that they've sent that to
headquarters, and typically that will be done in some cases
by field units.  They'll put together a package where they
see that there is some guidance lacking, let's say, and
submit it to headquarters for publication as a national best
practice.
I did a similar thing down in Tampa.  I forwarded one up
on riveting, for instance, on the older vessels 'cause there
was a lack of guidance out there on something like that.  I'm
not sure if that has been sent to headquarters.  I don't
believe it has.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Mr. Thompson was referring to the
Marine Safety Office, Chicago Policy.  As far as moving it up
the chain, that would have been to the OCMI of Chicago for
review.  And again, we were going -- our revised policy was
going to be sent to headquarters for their information to see
if they wanted to do anything with it.
MS. MURTAGH:  You're talking in the past, so I'm asking
now about the current and future.  Is that going to be
something that will be forwarded to Captain Basel's shop to
review?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Already has been.
CAPT BASEL:  I have them all.
MS. MURTAGH:  And again, I know it's 100 percent
hindsight, but for special policies that are developed out in
the field for knowledge of inspection and those kinds of
things, is the office at headquarters going to take a pro-
active look and see if there are policies on other passenger
vessels, for example, inspection policies that might be
incorporated?
CAPT BASEL:  I think we have a lot of means of doing
that.  I see representation here from the Passenger Vessel
Association, and we have partnerships with America's
Waterways Operators and a lot of other partnerships out
there.  This is exactly what we're doing in the partnership
role is getting these best practices, getting them out there,
sharing information.  An example I can give you right now is,
some of the tremendous working groups that are going on on
high speed craft, things like that.  Yes, we are doing
everything we can to share that information, provide it as
best practices, to work as best possible in a non-regulatory
mode, to get compliance by the industry to standards that
may,  in many cases, far exceed the regulations.  And
normally we are able to do that at much more expedient
process than publishing regulations that take quite a bit of
time, required cost benefit analysis, require the -- I forget
the name of the law -- the Administrative Procedures Act, and
so forth that takes several years sometimes to go through.
There are better ways of doing things.  And I think right now
we're doing that in quite a few fields.  I think this is
probably the next field that something like this will be
coming along.  It's great to hear that the DUKW industry
people see themselves, the experienced ones are now seeing
themselves as mentors, or the bigger operators as mentors of
those new ones and so forth, and their willing to share what
may have been considered proprietary information in the past
because they realize that any one incident would affect their
entire industry.  And I think that you can go back to the
Exxon Valdez and other incidents where that happens.  And I
think the ground work is there.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you.  I have one last question for
you Captain. Your working group, or quality action team,
whatever it is that you're going to end up calling it, how
often will you be meeting?
CAPT BASEL:  We haven't decided that yet.  We haven't
decided what we are going to call us.  Again this was us
brainstorming with some of the industry leaders that have out
there.  Where do we need to go?  How do we want to do it?  We
don't know.  It might be a room like this.  We may -- I hate
to think of how many pages of notes I have from this session.
 I'm sure it's about fifty pages of all the stuff that went
on.  We break that out into topics, break in out into various
working groups.  We haven't set out yet how we will do that.
 Everybody will be invited.  There will be no secrets to it
and we'll go from there.
MS. MURTAGH:  Okay.  Thank you.  If you'll just keep us
up to date on that we'd appreciate it.  Thank you.
CAPT BASEL:  Sure.  Absolutely.  Love to.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Mr. Tyrrell?
MR. TYRRELL:  Mr. Thompson, I was wondering if you could
give me a brief overview in how you were trained to be a
Coast Guard maintenance inspector?
MR. THOMPSON:  Step one, you go to a training course in
Yorktown, Virginia on inspection practices policies, use of
the Code of Federal Regulations, current inspection
procedures policies.  It's an extensive four-month school
which gives you your basic toolbox to work from.  Then you
branch out into different areas.
I ended up in New York for a couple of months, then saw
an opportunity to go to Chicago. Took the Chicago job and
became interested in inspecting barges and T-boats and DUKWs
in particular.  Just pretty much took it from there.
MR. TYRRELL:  At this four-month inspection school that
you went to, was there any specific instruction in techniques
for inspecting amphibious passenger vessels?
MR. THOMPSON:  Not at all.
CAPT BASEL:  Can I elaborate on that?  I did a
graduation address of every marine inspection course.  I
think there are six of them this year.  I usually play the
role of the OCMI in a series of ten or twenty scenarios.
Next Friday, I think, there's not too much doubt what the
scenario is going to be.  There won't be a lot of DUKW
information.  They will now be provided that report next
Monday.  And on Friday, I'll be the judge, I guess.
MR. TYRRELL:  I'm sorry.  I didn't hear.
CAPT BASEL:  We will be getting DUKW information to the
inspection course.
MR. TYRRELL:  That will be incorporated into the current
inspection course?
CAPT BASEL:  Without a doubt.  And those twenty-plus
inspectors that are coming out this year will have detailed
knowledge of this report.  As I say, we go through ad-
scripted scenarios.  This casualty will be the key scripted
scenario.
MR. TYRRELL:  Mr. Thompson, as a Coast Guard inspector,
when you conducted an annual re-inspection and a tri-annual
inspection for certification of a DUKW, did you always -- was
it your practice to always operate the bilge pumps with
water?
MR. THOMPSON:  No, Sir.
MR. TYRRELL:  It was not?
MR. THOMPSON:  No, Sir.
We test the operation either by lifting the float switch
or turning them on manually from the cockpit.
MR. TYRRELL:  So I take it from that that sometimes, or
maybe you could characterize how often, these inspections
would be conducted on dry land versus in the water?
MR. THOMPSON:  We conducted our inspections with --
there were times we'd end up at the back wheel well.  You
could fill that up with water, enough to get the thing to
pump, to get the pumps to operate and discharge water.
I never made it a routine to pull a plug, put the boat
in the water and watch it sink, and then make sure that the
pump would pump it out and keep it floating.  I wouldn't do
that.  But if an owner chose to do that I wouldn't stop him.
I think it's an excellent choice.
I think the proposed testing procedure by pumping water
into the pump or turning the suction upside down and filling
it with water to make sure it operates.  That's excellent.  I
guess, as an inspector, we should share that from zone to
zone.  I think that's excellent.
MR. TYRRELL:  I was just trying to get an idea of
whether or not - how often the inspection itself - let's
forget about the bilge pumps for a minute -- would have been
done on dry land verses having the inspection performed while
the vessel was afloat.
MR. THOMPSON:  We would do all of our - I believe we did
-- all of our inspections for certifications were in the
water, because we also had to see also drills, crew
preparedness, operational safety of the vessel, re-
inspections.  I can't think of too many that I didn't do
without taking the DUKW into the water.  I believe we did
most of our inspections, if not all of our re-inspections, in
the water.
MR. TYRRELL:   How does that jive with what is done in
Boston?
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  It is similar that the Higgins pump --
the one Mr. Cerulle indicated -- we test that with water.
That's usually done out of the water though, but, you know,
with a hose to the Higgins pump.
The electrical bilge pump's similar, you know, the flow
switch might be lifted.
For us, every inspection, whether it be re-inspection or
three-year inspection for certification is done, started out
of the water, and then the DUKW is driven into the water and
drills are performed.  So, every inspection is done both in
and out of the water.
CAPT BASEL:  This is the type of item that I say is - -
these vessels are an excellent candidate for the SIP program.
 What happens in this is, maintenance procedures and so
forth, operational procedures, are laid out.  And typically,
they are going to be far in excess of the Coast Guard's
requirements.  They may say, I'm going to do something like
this once a week or I may do it once a month or whatever.
But it typically becomes more than the once a year that we
come down there, so we encourage that program.
And at that point the Coast Guard oversight role, as
long as the person has been accepted into that program, and
they have to have a very detailed program and accepted into
that program, then we trust those operators that they are
doing those tests, using water or however the procedure is
laid out, as the way it's going to be done.  But at that
point we may not necessarily have to see.  Take the pumps off
and so forth.  It expedites the inspection process, but we
are satisfied that the requirements are not being met but
probably exceeded.
MR. TYRRELL:  Okay.  What I was trying to get at was to
get a feeling for your opinion on the quality of an
inspection of one of these vehicles, if the inspection were
performed without taking the vessel into the water.  Mr.
Thompson, could you comment on that first?
MR. THOMPSON:  I don't think you're going to get a good
feel for the total condition of the vessel without taking it
into the water, because of the areas of concern especially
around the rear axle, where you've got that sandwich
construction with the inside frame with the shell on the
outside frame.  You've got several areas of the vessel where
it may look great, it may run great, but until you put it
into the water, you take it for a test drive to see if it's
going to leak, you're not going to know if it's working great
or not.  You're not going to know if the boot seals are
working properly, if the axles are all going to work the way
they should be working.  All the systems operating correctly
is what makes it go.
MR. TYRRELL:  Could I ask Commander Christensen and
Lieutenant Whitehead to answer the same question as far as
the quality of the inspection.  How do you feel?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  It is the policy at MSO Chicago, as
Mr. Thompson has stated, that we take the DUKWs underway.
It's at that time that we can either conduct an abandoned
ship or a man-overboard drill or something like that.  And
that's best performed, obviously, when you can see the
ability of the operator to handle the emergency underway.  So
it's our policy to do that.
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  I would concur with Commander
Christensen the same.  The DUKW in that respect is no
different than any other vessel.  You have to see it in the
water so you can check the internal hull and do the drills.
MR. TYRRELL:  Mr. Thompson, what about looking at the
exterior bottom of a DUKW.  Would that be a routine part of
every inspection for certification and re-inspection that you
have conducted in your experience?
MR. THOMPSON:  Absolutely. Yes. Looking at every aspect
of the DUKW that you can possibly see: the outside body, the
boot, the seals, the clamps.  Looking at the interior of the
DUKW to the extent that it's exposed.  And generally
speaking, that would mean on a three-year basis you would
either have the floorboards pulled, or see the inside of the
body of the DUKW to see that every component is in place.
Which is part of the reason I would personally go against
foaming, because you cannot see the inside of the framing.
Any deterioration of the framing on the inside that would not
be accessible, was it covered with some type of devise.  You
crawl in every hole and look as far as you can see.
MR. TYRRELL:  All right.  Thank you.  Commander
Christensen and Lt. Whitehead.  Same question.   Would you
consider having the inspector crawl under the vessel as being
a vital part of the inspection for certification and re-
inspection?
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  Yes, it's something we do.  The DUKW's
unique in that it dry docks every day, unlike any other
vessel.  But, yes, that's always part of our typical
inspection to crawl under the DUKW and look at every
accessible part.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  Same thing at MSO Chicago.
CAPT BASEL:  If I could elaborate on that a little bit.
 I think these are best practices, and I think this is the
common way things are done.  It's not necessarily required
that the vessel be out of the water for the certificate of
inspection.  The entire inspection could be done if it was
done strictly in accordance with the regulations in the
water.
MR. TYRRELL:  Yes.  I understand that.  I was just
trying to get a feeling from the panel members who have
experience in inspecting DUKWs as to what their opinion would
be as to what a high quality inspection entails.  And I
realize that you can comply with regulations and do something
less.
CAPT BASEL: Yes.
MR. TYRRELL:  I was wondering what the experience has
been in Chicago and Boston as far as receiving any passenger
complaints of safety problems involved with any DUKW
operations.  Has there been any and, if so, what types of
complaints have you received?
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  In my experience anyway, while I've
have been in Boston, is, we haven't received any.  Shortly
after the casualty, I did receive some phone calls, just
concerned parents.  I think it mostly came from parents whose
children, you know, school trip on the DUKW, just concerned
about, "Do you check these things?  Are they safe?"  Those
type of questions, but it wasn't a complaint from someone
that had been on the DUKW?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  I would concur with Commander
Whitehead.  That is exactly what we would receive.  We would
receive concern from teachers and that who had school trips
going out to ask us if the DUKWs were safe or not.
MR. THOMPSON: We did receive that one report from a
concerned passenger that had a concern about excessive noise
coming from the engine compartment, which I turned over to
the investigation officer.  It's a possible locks of brakes,
but I turned it all over to the investigation officer.  That
was the one that I had received.
MR. TYRRELL:  But there haven't been a large number of
them?
MR. THOMPSON:  No. They're safe.
MR. TYRRELL:  That's all I have, thank you.  Thank you
very much.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT:  Thank you Mr. Tyrrell.
Ms. Murtagh, you have another question?
Ms. Murtagh: Yes, I do.  Thank you.  Lieutenant Firing,
you indicated that there were two safety alerts that were put
out earlier this year.  And one of them you had said, I
believe, and if you would clarify, the local OCMI's, all of
the offices of the MSO's were asked to review the escape
provisions for the DUKWs.  They were asked to review those
procedures, elaborate on those procedures.  If you could just
clarify what it was exactly the Coast Guard told their field
offices to do, sir?
LIEUTENANT FIRING:  I could actually submit the message
directly to you, if you'd like, and read from it right now.
 The last section of that message states: Conditions
dictate that future inspections of DUKWs should take due
notice of areas that, on intentional flooding, can be
prevented or minimized to that, and specific attention should
be given to the condition of the hinge assembly of the shaft
housing, which is designed to prevent axial movement and
retention of the boot seals to the entire bilge system
including performance of high level alarm testing.
In addition, operators should be directed to include
specific guidance to the passengers concerning escape routes
prior to the DUKW's entry into the water during the required
safety orientation.
MS. MURTAGH:  If I might ask, I guess, a multi-part to
that.  My understanding is that the bilge pump is not
intended to de-water, so it is not intended to account for
uncontrollable flooding.  And there are high level alarms
that are installed, and they are required now by regulation,
to warn the operator that water is in fact entering the
vessel.
Is there any requirement -- or has there been any
guidance given, to your knowledge, to the operators to say
that if the high level alarm activates, you should
immediately prepare the passengers to depart the vessel?   If
any of you could answer that I would appreciate it.
CAPT BASEL:  I don't think that guidance has been given.
 Perhaps I think we would have to go to the companies and see
what guidance they have given to their masters what to do if
a high level alarm goes off.
One of my concerns with the use of the Higgins pump --
and I'm not so sure that's it's been addressed here just yet
but I'll certainly bring it up -- is that this is a shaft
driven pump.  If that master has to get down into the bilges
to take a look and see what's caused that high level alarm to
go off , she's not steering, he or she is not operating that
boat, the boat is probably put in neutral and that pump is
not pumping at that time.  Or, if they have stepped back and
told the passengers to put on their life jackets and they're
helping them do that, the boat is probably in neutral, and
that pump is not pumping.  So, we need to be careful on the
reliance on that pump in that regard.
I think looking at what we've seen here today, we can
take a look at some of the limited offshore routes.  The
naval architect presented times that it would take to flood.
 These are all things that need to be taken into
consideration in the distance to route offshore.  Is the
person directed to, if the Higgins pump kicks in, to just run
that boat to the closest shoreline.  We've got to look at
that kind of stuff as we get into the best practices.  I
think they're very worthy of consideration when we look at
bilge pumps, de-watering pumps.
MS. MURTAGH:  Thank you Captain.
Do any of the other local inspectors have any knowledge
other than that?  Any different opinions on what you would do
with regard to advising the operators for the activation of
the high level alarm?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  I believe the CAPT covered at least
what I would have to say.
LCDR WHITEHEAD:  Yeah, same.
MR. THOMPSON:  I would ask them to submit their
operational procedures and you would show right there.  If
their operational procedures say: If the high level alarm
goes off, head for shore.  I think that's something each
individual company would be able to provide you with.
MS. MURTAGH: Okay. To follow up on the other aspect of
it, which is that each of the offices was to review what was
told to the passengers, what kind of briefing that the
passengers were given with regard to escape.  What occurred
in your local offices?  What was your experience with what
the passenger briefing included?
LCDR CHRISTENSEN:  The passenger briefing -- and I'm
sure Mr. Thompson will back this up -- that was something
that we were already looking at, so it was found already to
be acceptable.
In addition, unless I am wrong, the DUKWs that I have
seen in our zone have none of the canopy restrictions that
are found on other DUKWs.  So we were very well aware, as
indicated in our policy, that the most likely egress is
overboard.  So, that is just something that we would make
sure that the operators had their script that would comply
with the regulations and any unique features of the DUKW
would be included in that. And that had already been the
case.  So we didn't have to do any modifications.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Christensen instigated a surprise
inspection, unannounced inspection policy.  And there were
times when the operator didn't even know we were there.  We
would go down and stand by the vessel, and we wouldn't be in
our uniform.  We would just look like another passenger.  We
might listen and walk away.  Several times I listened to
announcements and going over policies by the Master, and
walked away.  They didn't even know I was there, which was --
the best way to take a look at it and find if we had a
problem is to not announce presence.
MS. MURTAGH: But, were the operators telling the
passengers to immediately put on their life jackets before
they got into the water?  Or were there other directions that
were being given?
MR. THOMPSON: They would show them how to put them on,
or go over the location and the use of the devices.  They
wouldn't give them direction as to what to do ahead of time.
 They would say: This is where they are.  This is how to use
them.  It is definitely the master's prerogative to direct
operations as he sees fit, when the time comes.  What he
teaches them at one point may not be what he tells them to do
at another point.  He has to react to the situation.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN: In addition, in talking to the
operators in the Chicago area, I understand that it is their
common practice to, prior to entering the water, to offer up:
If you would like to wear a life jacket, you can wear a life
jacket.  And that is something that is internal.  That is not
something we would require.  But it is not something we would
disagree with either.
LCDR WHITEHEAD: Similar to Chicago's, what we have done,
and continue to do, in Boston -- after the casualty, I did
discuss the briefings with Boston Duck Tours just ensuring
that everything that was supposed to be included was.
I have, personally, in plain clothes -- I assume the
driver didn't know who I was -- rode a Boston Duck, and the
briefing was as I thought it should be.
MS. MURTAGH: And they were being told to put on their
jackets before they entered the water?
LCDR WHITEHEAD: No.  To my knowledge they don't tell
them to put the jackets on before they enter the water.  A
passenger that requests it can put on, you know, if he wants
to put on a jacket before they enter the water, can do so.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN: At the master's discretion.
LCDR WHITEHEAD: But they were just told similar to what
Mr. Thompson said.  They were told the location of it; that
it was donning instructions, means of egress, you know, that
type of thing.  Basic safety brief.  But to my knowledge they
are not to put on the life jackets before they enter the
water.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Looking over at our Technical Panel,
I see that Mr. Henry has a question from the audience.
MR. HENRY: We have one more question, and I'll
paraphrase this a little bit.  While visiting Boston, we
observed two DUKWs in the water and witnesses a steady stream
of water coming from the bilge pump discharge pipes.  How
much water entry is allowed?  And do all DUKW's seals, etc.,
leak this amount of water?
Mr. Christensen.
LCDR CHRISTENSEN: I'm not prepared to speak for Boston.
MR. HENRY: Okay.  As a general question, would you care
to address that?  I think we are looking on the inspections
side of it.
LCDR WHITEHEAD: That's why bilge pumps are there, to
take care of routine, small amounts of water, you know,
either through the shaft penetration or typically could be
through the rudder packing of the shaft penetrations.  Small
amounts of water could - in a wood boat, of course, they
could come through the hull.
I was going to say, I would defer to the Boston Duck
Tours to say what's the routine amount of water that comes
in, and how that is handled.
CAPT BASEL: What Mr. Wilson is saying, there is a stream
of water coming out of his inter-core [heat exchanger] at a
steady stream.  Perhaps that may be it.  That that's
something that does often come up on a lot of boats, that
there is cooling water coming out of the side.  I'm not
exactly familiar with what his operation is.
I think to answer your question, there should not be a
steady stream of bilge water coming out of any boat.
LCDR WHITEHEAD: They may not have been from the -- now
Mr. Wilson reminds me.  The Boston Ducks, they're not keel
coolers, inter-cores to cool the engine, and they may have
seen the stream coming from that.  It comes, you know, into
the boat to cool the engine and then back out again.  So it
may have been what they saw.
I know from my ride on the Boston Duck there was not a
steady stream of water coming from the bilge pumps.
MR. THOMPSON: See the normal overboard discharge of a
cooling pump.  That would be normal.  It could be
misconstrued or mistaken for a bilge pump overboard charge.
CAPT BASEL: I think we're speculating on something here
that's really too late to answer at this point.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Very good.  If Boston Ducks needs to
elaborate on that answer any further, I think there will be a
future opportunity when we get into operation safety.
At this point, seeing that no other questions are
forthcoming, let me thank this group of panelists for your
participation, your cooperation, and your responsiveness at
this public forum.  Your interest, your attentiveness, and
your commitment to transportation as well.
Thank you, and you all may stand down.
Because we are, to put it kindly, well behind schedule
on this morning's schedule, I think we should press on,
without taking a break at this point, to our next panel.  If
anyone needs to take a break, let's do it individually.  If
you make phone calls and those type of things.
So, Mr. Tyrrell, please call the next panel.
MR. TYRRELL: Our next panel will consist of Mr. Brian
Kempf, Acting Boating Law Administrator for the State of New
York; Colonel Richard Murray, Director, Department of
Fisheries and Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law
Enforcement for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Mr. Paul
Donheffner, President of the National Association of State
Boating Law Administrators; and Mr. Ted Woolley, a Boating
Law Administrator, Division of Parks and Recreation for the
State of Utah, will participate by speaker phone.  He was
unable to attend by person.
The agenda shows that Mr. Engfer, from the State of
Wisconsin was also going to participate.  But due to
unforeseen circumstances, Mr. Engfer will not be here.
Good morning, gentlemen.
First, I would like you, if you wouldn't mind, introduce
yourselves and give us an overview of your duties and
responsibilities, as it relates to boating safety.
MR. KEMPF: I am the Acting Boating Law Administrator for
the State of New York, and I am also one of four Marine
Service Representatives responsible for marine inspection of
commercial vessels in the State of New York.
COLONEL MURRAY: I am the Director of Division Law
Enforcement within the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
in Massachusetts.  We're the state's primary marine
enforcement agency.  And I also serve as the state's boating
law administrator.
MR. DONHEFFNER: I'm the Boating Law Administrator for
the State of Oregon, and currently I'm President of the
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.
MR. TYRRELL: Ted, do you want to introduce yourself?
MR. WOOLLEY: This is Ted, in the box.   I'm the Boating
Law Administrator for Utah, and over the boating program
here, wide state of Utah right now.
MR. TYRRELL: Thank you very much, sir.  How do you hear
us?
MR. WOOLLEY: Very well.
MR. TYRRELL: Mr. William Gossard from our Office of
Safety Recommendations and Accomplishments will lead the
questioning of this panel.
Mr. Gossard.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell.
We are going to try and accelerate our discussion this
morning.  For the executive board and for us, we do have some
tables from the State of New York at Tab 6, the State of Utah
at Tab 7, and NASBLA's Model Act that addresses passenger
vessel safety, which is found at Tab 9.  These were provided
to us earlier for the record.
I'll begin questioning with Mr. Paul Donheffner, who is
the President of the National Association of State Boating
Law Administrators.  Mr. Donheffner, could you provide a
general assessment of the NASBLA's [National Association of
State Boat Law Administrators] members activities relevant to
amphibious passenger vessels.
MR. DONHEFFNER: I would be happy to.  First, I would
like to just give a brief overview of NASBLA is.  We are a
professional organization consisting of state officials,
boating law administrators, having responsibility for the
administration and enforcement of state boating laws.  Our
association is recognized for its stewardship for
recreational boating safety.
The state boating laws and regulations cover a large
range of subjects, including vessel registration and titling,
safety equipment, carriage requirements, boating operations,
including regulated areas, boating while intoxicated, a
subject such as mandatory boater education, boating
accidents, and other subjects related to recreational boating
safety.  These state laws cover both state waters and as well
as joint jurisdictional waters, which we share with the U.S.
Coast Guard.
The majority of these laws and regulations are intended
to cover the 12 million registered recreational boats using
our nation's waterways.  In most instances, the same laws
apply to small vessels that are used for commercial purposes,
including passenger operations such as guided fishing,
carrying passengers for hire, and so forth.
Common examples of those state laws that would apply
would include vessel numbering, life jacket requirements,
navigation lights, fire extinguishers, sound signaling
devices and the like.  They cover them because these vessels
fall under those aspects of state law.
With reference to amphibious passenger vessels, we
surveyed our membership in July of this year to ascertain
what special state requirements might exist.  That survey
identified a total of eight states in which amphibious
passenger operations were identified.  Those states included
Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, Utah,
Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.  Subsequently, and
the map over there shows it quite well, the Safety Board has
identified fifteen states with amphibious passenger
operations.
Based on the information that we have, with the
exception of Wisconsin, it appears that most of those
amphibious passenger vessel operations are being conducted on
water subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction.  Consequently, the
vessels would be subject to federal requirements for vessel
inspection, as you've heard in some of the previous panels.
For the most part state authorities are not exercising,
nor have they sought, authority to specifically regulate
amphibious passenger vessel operations, because they are
subject to Coast Guard regulation, for the most part, with
the except for the State of Wisconsin.
On the sole state waters, and the sole state waters
where there are amphibious operations, they would be under
the jurisdiction of the state boating administrator or his
agents, in terms of marine safety, and on joint
jurisdictional waters that responsibility would be shared
with the Coast Guard, and perhaps with other federal agencies
as well.  Such as the park service or the forest service, it
would happen to be in areas where they have federal
jurisdiction as well.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you.  There are states in NASBLA that
have sole state jurisdiction; is that correct?
MR. DONHEFFNER: That is correct.
MR. GOSSARD: One of its functions that NASBLA does is
our model acts, and NASBLA has submitted, for the record, a
model act that would be applicable to domestic small
passenger vessels; is that correct?
MR. DONHEFFNER: That is correct.  We have submitted, for
the record, that a model act was adopted in 1992.  But, to
the best of my knowledge, it has not been enacted by any
states since then.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you.  At this point I would like to
go to Brian, Mr. Kempf from the State of New York.  Could you
just briefly describe, since you are one of the states that
has sole state waters, and does have a DUKW operation, if you
could, please, briefly, explain your program, and where your
DUKW operators, and perhaps we have an example of it if
Antion is here to show it.
MR. KEMPF: The New York State Navigational law is found
in the Consolidated Law, State of New York, Chapter 37.
We've actually been inspecting boats under the legislation
passed in 1909, believe it or not.  And we currently inspect
approximately 250 passenger-carrying vessels in the state, of
which only one is the unique DUKW.  And what we have tried to
do - this is a relatively new operations.  What we have tried
to do with the DUKW is to bring it in line, pretty much with
the inspection standards that we apply to the more
conventional boats, looking of course to organizations as the
Coast Guard and the ABYC to give us some direction as to what
specifics might also be required of this unique vessel.
MR. GOSSARD: Could you run through quickly what your
inspection program is for the state.
MR. KEMPF: Sure.  It is a general hull inspection, water
tight integrity, condition of the hull.  We look at the
propulsion system, the fuel systems, all the safety equipment
on board: life jackets, VDS, fire extinguishers, navigational
lights, horns, steering.
MR. GOSSARD: We've heard discussion in the last days on
the canopies, could you explain any operation limitations on
this DUKW and where it's located, where it operates?
MR. KEMPF: It is currently operating on Lake Placid and
upstate New York in the Adirondack Park, a relatively
sheltered water, relatively small.  Unlike most of the DUKWs
we've seen to this point, it has been modified to have an
enclosed structure.  This is basically a cannibalized
transport bus that has been mounted upon the existing hull of
the DUKW.  She is equipped with egress, of course, through
the companion way of the stern.  She has two large kick-out
windows on either side, and she has two overhead escape
hatches.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you, Mr. Kempf.  Do you require a
licensed operator?
MR. KEMPF: Yes, we do.  We license the operators of all
public vessels.
MR. GOSSARD: And your state requirements, do they follow
loosely Sub-chapter 2, United States Coast Guard
requirements?
MR. KEMPF: Basically yes.
MR. GOSSARD: Do you have a mandatory PFD law in your
state?  Do you require children to wear PFD when on this
vessel?
MR. KEMPF: No, they wouldn't be required, as state law
requires all kids under twelve to wear a life jacket, whether
it be recreation or commercial.  Being an enclosed vessel, it
does not require that the kids wear the jackets.
MR. GOSSARD: You have no operating limitations on this
vessel?
MR. KEMPF: Not at this time.
MR. GOSSARD: Okay.  They can operate at night?
MR. KEMPF: It is equipped with navigational lights.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you.  Does the State of New York
require pre-departure inspection by the operator or the crew?
MR. KEMPF: We don't require any formal pre-departure
inspection, although I know this vessel does have one.  And
I've gone through it with the operator.  But again, it is a
total voluntary thing.
MR. GOSSARD: And you require more than one operator, I
mean crew member on this vessel.
MR. KEMPF: She's rated for 28 passengers, which exceeds
our 25 minimum criteria, so there must be one other person on
board to assist with the tour.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Kempf.
Mr. WOOLLEY?
MR. WOOLLEY: Yes.
MR. GOSSARD: Could you please explain your DUKW
operation location and what kind of requirements you've
developed for that operation?
MR. WOOLLEY: Yes.  Thanks, Mr. Gossard.  Our DUKW is
operating on the Great Salt Lake.  The Great Salt Lake is 80
miles by 40 miles, which is a large body of water, and very
salty.  The DUKW is operating out of Antelope Island, which
is the largest island on the Great Salt Lake.  And there's
actually people that are operating our concessionaire for the
state park that is located there at Antelope.  And they have
been the concessionaire for about the past ten years.
This last spring they decided to offer a DUKW-type ride.
 There's another boat out there on the Great Salt Lake that
is operating.  It is a cruise ship.  Not really cruise, but a
dinner type cruise.  It's a 60-foot boat that is a Coast
Guard inspected vessel.
When I discovered the addition of the DUKW, once the
DUKW arrived we did kind of a pre-inspection of it to see the
condition of it, and the requirements.  Also at this time I
was searching the web to try to educate myself on what kind
of requirements we should need.  And also, I was contacting
the Coast Guard to find out exactly what they were doing.
Oh, I might mention, there was a DUKW operation on the
Great Salt Lake about 20-25 years ago.  So the Great Salt
Lake has had somewhat of a history of DUKWs, but there
haven't been any ducks out there for about 23 years.
In contacting the Coast Guard, I had some problems
because the Great Salt Lake is a sole state water.  I was
informed of this, which I already knew.  And finally, I got a
hold of a Dave Sandall out of the St. Louis Coast Guard
office, and he was very helpful.  Both he and Alan Gadess
were very helpful in providing me with information of what
they were doing in the St. Louis area with the DUKWs, and
they also steered me towards some other things.
And so, through my research and the assistance of the
Coast Guard out of the St. Louis office, I was able to put
together some requirements for this DUKW, and also shot some
photos and sent through the internet back to the St. Louis
office.  They, again, assisted me on some things.
Of course, while we're in the middle of doing this
inspection of the DUKW and putting together requirements,
that was about the time the tragedy occurred in Hot Springs.
 The owner of the DUKW kind of slowed down operations trying
to see what the outcome was going to be from this.  And from
that also we made a couple of minor modifications.  But I'm
quite pleased that we only made a couple of minor
modifications to what we already had.
The original requirements we had for this DUKW, it would
be a short type duration voyage.  No longer than 30 minutes
on the water, and that would include going and coming.  And
they would also be operating within a half mile of the
causeway that's on the Great Salt Lake.
The Great Salt Lake is a very treacherous body of water.
 The winds can come up quite rapidly and get some very good
waves, because its kind of a shallow body of water, so it's
quite a large wind type.
Another requirement we have, that it only be operated in
daylight hours with unrestricted visibility.
In working with the Coast Guard, we came up with a 30-
person maximum, including passengers and crew, to be carried
on board.  We do allow it to operate with just one crew
member on board.  We also already had a requirement that the
passengers would remain seated during the voyage; and have a
requirement that the DUKW will not be operated if the wind
exceeds 20 miles per hour.  And the DUKW cannot make any
weight changes without our written authorization.
Since the report from the DUKW accident, the only thing
we did add to that is, we added some additional bilge pumps.
 Right now it has the mechanical bilge pump on it, and we
were requiring two electrical before.  After that Hot Springs
incident, we added two more bilge pumps placed in the rear of
the DUKW.  And the other addition we added after the report
was a high-water alarm.  So if the water gets above the bilge
pumps, then a high-water alarm kicks on and to notify the
operator to head for the nearest shore.  And, like I say,
they should be within a half mile at all times of shore.
The owner of the DUKW -- they had constructed a canopy
for it, and they had constructed some shelf outboard of the
canopy, where PFDs should be stored.
After the incident of Hot Springs, the owner decided not
to put these shelves on.  They thought a better of way of
doing the life jackets would be to, at the time the person
pays for the trip, hand them the life jacket, so that they
would carry it on board with them.  And thought it would be
probably a little bit easier for them to then wear it,
instead of having to store it.
We do have a 12 and under life jacket requirement, and
we do requirement that the children that fall into this
category to wear the life jacket at all times during the
voyage on the water.
The DUKW is equipped with a breakaway canopy on top of
it.  They put it on with Velcro.  And they used a material,
instead of a canvas, they used a -- which I thought was a
kind of unique material they came up with.  It was what the
nurseries use for shading plants.  It is kind of a mesh.  So
they put that on with Velcro.  And prior to taking the DUKW
onto the water, the operator of the DUKW will show the
passengers how to break away this top.  How it fits on with
Velcro and where the points are so they can break away.
Also, prior to going on the water, the operator will
show the person how to put the life jacket on that they carry
on board with them, make sure that all the 12 year olds have
it on at this time, and also encourage passengers to go ahead
and wear it.  They will not be required to wear it unless
they are twelve or under.  They'll also show the location of
the fire extinguishers on the DUKW and the type four
throwable devices.
And the DUKW, prior to use on the water each day, the
seals will be inspected by the operator, to make sure that
they're still in good condition.
Hopefully, I've answered all your questions.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you, Ted.  I think you answered
almost all of them.
A question real quick for Mr. Kempf.  How many
inspectors do you have available in the State of New York?
What are their qualifications?
MR. KEMPF: We presently have four inspectors.  The civil
service requirements for the position of marine inspector is
that the individual, first, be an unlimited licensed U.S.
Coast Guard Merchant Mariner, and also be a graduate of
either a federal or state merchant marine academy.
MR. GOSSARD: Mr. Woolley of Utah, you are the single
inspector for the State of Utah?
MR. WOOLLEY: Yes.  I also use our chief mechanic from
our boat shop with me in doing the inspection.  And I put
together the stuff, and he kind of did the inspection on it.
 Kind of a team effort.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you.
MR. WOOLLEY: Oh, I forgot to mention, Mr. Gossard, we do
require the operators of the DUKW to be licensed.  We have a
state licensing program for commercial operations.  They're
licensed through that.  And they are also licensed with a
commercial driver's license as carrying passengers for hire.
 And the DUKW is registered both for on the highway, with a
safety inspection for the vehicle, and then it is registered
as a boat.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you. Colonel Murray of Massachusetts.
 Although we have heard discussions that DUKWs in
Massachusetts are inspected by the United States Coast Guard,
you also do have authority over those vessels, if you would
like to exercise it; is that correct?
COLONEL MURRAY: We would have the authority, if
necessary.  We share many responsibilities with the Coast
Guard, and have a formal MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]
with them in the first district.  But inspection of
commercial passenger carrying vessels is not one of those.
We defer it to the Coast Guard in that area.
MR. GOSSARD: Now, we heard extensively in the last two
days from Boston Ducks, but are there other DUKW operations
in Massachusetts?  And where are those locations?
COLONEL MURRAY: There are two other DUKW boat operations
that I'm aware of.  One is on the North Shore in Gloucester-
Salem area, and then there's one below Boston in Plymouth.
MR. GOSSARD: Do they operate in the ocean, Gloucester
and Plymouth?
COLONEL MURRAY: Gloucester and Plymouth do, yes.  In all
cases they're operating on joint jurisdictional waters.
MR. GOSSARD: And you're familiar with the Boston Duck
operation.  They operate where?
COLONEL MURRAY: They operate exclusively on the Charles
River.
MR. GOSSARD: And have you ever received any public
comments about DUKW operations or the safety that you could
share with us?
COLONEL MURRAY: Only that I've never received any
complaints about the operation, nor am I aware of any
accidents or incidents.  It's only since the incident in
Arkansas that the awareness of this type of operation has
been raised to a new level.
I think, from a personal perspective, the one that they
operate in Boston, because I work in the Boston office,
they're probably more noticeable on the roadway than they are
on the waterway, which, I think, is a credit to their
operation.
I have within the last two weeks received some comments
from our local harbor master concerning operation of the DUKW
boats in the Plymouth area that I would be glad to leave with
you.
MR. GOSSARD: I'd presume we'd need some of that for the
record just for interest from the harbor master of Plymouth.
MR. TYRRELL: Are these related to safety matters?
MR. GOSSARD: I believe so.
COLONEL MURRAY: Partially correct.  Most of our
interaction on the state level concerns having to do with
access to the waterways.  Conflicts between recreational
boaters and that type of thing.  But not safety-related
issues.  Although there is in this letter that I have, there
is one area of operation that could be described as a concern
about safety that may be relevant to the hearing.
MR. TYRRELL: Sure.  We would be happy to accept a copy
of that.
COLONEL MURRAY: Okay.
MR. GOSSARD: In the interest of keeping our time short,
because we are way behind our time frame, the State of
Wisconsin representative could not be here, but he mailed
comments to Mr. Donheffner, and I would to have those also
entered into the record.
MR. DONHEFFNER: Would you say that again, please.
MR. GOSSARD: Provided e-mail comments, the
representative from Wisconsin, to Paul Donheffner, President
of NASBLA, and I would also like to submit those for the
record.
MR. DONHEFFNER: Certainly.
MR. GOSSARD: Finally, I'd simply wrap up what we've
heard in the last two days that we are having a task force,
chaired by the Coast Guard, with the operators and others
involved in looking at the best practices for amphibious
passenger vessels.  I would like to have NASBLA's feelings
about participating on that effort, since there are only
currently two vessels on sole state waters, but there very
well may be more vessels in the future.  And since they
oppose a differing condition, perhaps we could hear from Mr.
Donheffner whether he would like to participate in that
effort for NASBLA.
MR. DONHEFFNER: NASBLA stands ready to work with the
safety board and the Coast Guard to address amphibious
passenger vessel safety, particularly on sole state waters
where there may be gaps between federal regulation and
federal inspection, and current state requirements.  And
certainly, if there's a rapid expansion, as I heard earlier
today, into additional sole state waters, this may be an area
where we need to particular further.  We would stand ready to
assist the safety board and the Coast Guard in doing so.
MR. GOSSARD: Mr. Tyrrell, that's all the questions I
have.
MR. TYRRELL: Mr. Henry.
MR. HENRY: I would like to re-ask a question that was
handed in from the audience that was addressed earlier, and
I'll generalize the question.  In the Arkansas accident we
found that the DUKWs operating on Lake Hamilton had, at one
point, been inspected by the states, and there was a switch
to the Coast Guard, based on a consideration of navigable
waters.  From what we've heard today, in Wisconsin, at one
point those DUKWs were inspected by the Coast Guard.  There
was a reconsideration of the navigability of the waters in
Wisconsin, and the DUKWs dropped out of Coast Guard
inspection.
Would the panel care to discuss the considerations of
determinations of navigable waters with respect to DUKW
operations and DUKW safety?
COLONEL MURRAY: It's obvious that we are not all jumping
at the opportunity to comment on that.  Maybe I could just
make a general statement.  From a Massachusetts' perspective,
certainly the Coast Guard is in a much better position to
conduct these inspections than the state is.  Nor does the
state have any desire at the present time to get into the
business of inspecting these types of vessels.
What I am concerned about, however, is that if the
business continues to grow as it is, and the business should
now become operational on sole state waters, then
Massachusetts will have to develop a mechanism by which they
could conduct inspections of these vessels.
I think what I heard here today was encouraging, that
they were going to develop national standards, or models, or
guidelines to go by.  And I think regardless of who the
inspecting authority is, that would be helpful.
MR. WOOLLEY: Mr. Henry?
MR. HENRY: Yes, sir.
MR. WOOLLEY: In Utah, of course, we don't have any Coast
Guard presence, so we pretty much are it as far as inspection
goes.  We do have three bodies of water where the current
jurisdiction is Coast Guard.  And I would guess that we are
in the inspection business to stay.  If it becomes lucrative,
I would say that maybe some more would be added, but we've
kind of accepted this responsibility.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Kempf.
MR. KEMPF: I know in the State of New York the question
of navigability has raised its head from time to time,
particularly on the lesser tributaries, the Susquahanna
[River] and places like that.  And within the last five
years, much to my surprise, I understood we had received a
letter from the Coast Guard designating parts of the
Susquahanna upward of the impoundments, the dams, what have
you, are no longer considered navigable waters of the U.S.  I
think I'm using the right terminology.  But they, of course,
would not inspect vessels on that waterway.  So we, of
course, would then step in.
So to answer your question, if a DUKW did appear on the
Susquahanna, uphill of an impoundment, yeah, it would fall
under state jurisdiction.
MR. DONHEFFNER: I guess my response would be that on
some marginal waterways where it's not imminently clear that
it's the waters of the United States, there has been some
shifting over the years of responsibility, with the Coast
Guard finding reason or, in this case, in Wisconsin congress
finding that it is no longer a navigable waterway.  Sometimes
the reason for that are mysterious to us at the state level.
But I think it underscores the fact that there may be
places where there's an opportunity for these vessels to fall
through the cracks, in terms of Coast Guard oversight.  And,
if need be, the states are going to have to step up to the
plate and assist in filling in those holes so there is some
safety oversight in areas that no longer are federal waters,
and now are sole state waters.
But for the most part, with the exception of Wisconsin,
if you look at that map, I think most of the areas where
they're currently operating are subject to federal
jurisdiction.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, and I'll turn the questioning over
to the Executive Panel.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Henry.
Any other questions from the Executive Panel?
[No response.]
Seeing and hearing none, and if there's no further
questions for this panel, let me thank you for your
participation in this public forum, for traveling some
distance to be with us, and taking time out of your busy
schedules to help us get better understanding on some of
these safety issues.  We thank you very much.  You may stand
down.
Mr. Tyrrell, what is our next panel?
MR. TYRRELL: Our next panel is identical to the panel
that preceded this one: Captain Brian Basel, U.S. Coast
Guard, Chief, Office of Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
Is Captain Anderson -- are you going to be on this
panel?  You were replaced by Commander Christensen on the
previous panel.  Is that still holding, or are you going to
retake your place?
Lieutenant Commander Whitehead, Lieutenant Commander
Eric Christensen, and Mr. Robert Thompson.  This panel is to
discuss operational safety requirements; whereas the previous
panel was to focus on inspection.  Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier
will lead off questioning.
She's not here.
Would the witness panel care to make an opening
statement?
CAPT BASEL:  I think looking at this and looking at some
of the questions that were submitted to us earlier, it is my
feeling that we've really covered the two panels.  We went
quite long in the first panel, and I think we've covered,
from our perspective, everything both of these panels.  So I
have no opening statement for this panel.
MR. TYRRELL: All right then.  We'll let Dr. Sind-Prunier
proceed with her questions.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: And from the chairman's perspective,
I would caution against any redundancy in the questioning, if
we can keep from it, given the time frames we're operating
within.  Thank you.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: If you could answer for me, what is
the basis used for determining the passenger capacity on
amphibious passenger vessels?
CAPT BASEL: I think we went into that yesterday.  This
is a variety of things, be it the stability test, seating
criteria, rail length, or deck area.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.
CAPT BASEL: Any one of them would be a limiting
criteria, or it could even be the amount of life-saving gear
on board.  Any of those would be a restricting criteria.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  Is egress specifically taken
into account in determining the number of persons authorized
on board?  And if so, how?
CAPT BASEL: I think again we went into that yesterday,
not necessarily determining a number of persons on board, but
how they're going to go out.
In this case, yes, egress is.  We got into the spacing
of the aisles, the seats and so forth, and I think the
conclusion we heard yesterday is, there is multiple egress.
The fact that it is over the side, along side every seat.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I didn't want to go back to that
discussion, but maybe we will at this point.  Does the Coast
Guard know how people get off DUWKs in the event of an
emergency?
CAPT BASEL: I think we've heard that we've never had an
evacuation.  But, yes, that decision is made that the egress
will be over the side when they made the decision to allow
the reduction of the aisle widths.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Has anything been learned in the
aftermath of the recent accident that will change the Coast
Guard's thinking along those lines?
CAPT BASEL: I think we are going to have to leave that
to our working group to put out the best practices.  I think
I can honestly say, yes, but exactly what will be left to
this working group of this industry, and other experts to
pull the best practices, possibilities of how to do it, and
so forth.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I think my remaining questions have
been answered.  Tony?
MR. MURRAY: I have no further questions.  Thank you.
MR. HENRY:  Are there any other - and I'll call them
nitch -- industries that can possibly provide experience and
the benefit of a look at their operations, when you all start
your industry forum, your working group, such as possibly the
submersible passenger vessel industry.
CAPT BASEL: Sure.  I think that's a good example right
there on how things were put together when that industry was
started.
I, personally, was involved out in Hawaii, and
particularly in the licensing area.  There were operations
manuals, special license was based on the operations manuals.
I think you have a panel later on on licensing.  Perhaps some
of the licensing procedures may change again.  I don't really
want to speculate as to where we may go in that working
group, but I think the next panel will also look at that.
Are there very applicable sections of the War
Department's Manual?  And it is my understanding from the
report that there are.  Perhaps that kind of thing could be
incorporated into a licensing requirement.  Again, I'm
speculating on where we are going.  But, yes, there are other
industries like that where we could build on stuff.
MR. HENRY: Will there be an opportunity to also gather
the input from the amphibious passenger vessel riding public,
within the scope of your upcoming forum?
CAPT BASEL: I would envision that this will be open to
the public.  But it is intended to be a roll-up-the-sleeves,
get-down-and-dirty, and pull-together-best-practices type of
session.  I don't know where we are going to go.  We haven't
formatted the procedure yet.  If anybody has best practice
and is able to contribute, we are not going to bar anybody.
We may have to limit some of the working groups and so forth,
but our intention is to keep it as wide open as possible.
MR. HENRY:  Thank you.  I believe the questions that I
had have been addressed in earlier panels with the Coast
Guard, and I will pass questioning to the Executive Panel.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Henry.
Does that complete the questioning from the Technical
Panel?
MR. HENRY: It does.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Other questions from the Executive
Panel?
[No response.]
Very good.  Gentlemen, let me thank you again this
morning, although it is about noon now, for your
participation and responsiveness to our questions.  And also,
let me commend you for your commitment to transportation
safety.
We will now move to our next panel.
MR. TYRRELL: The next panel consists of Mr. Bob
McDowell, President, Branson Ducks; Mr. Ron Hobbs, Director
of Safety for Branson Ducks; Mr. Andy Wilson, President of
Boston Ducks; Mr. Phil Young, Director of Operations for
Boston Ducks; Mr. Bob Pierson, Chief Operating Officer for
Chicago Duck Tours; and Mr. Dan Gavinski, President of
Original Wisconsin Ducks.
This panel will discuss operation safety of amphibious
passenger vessels from the perspective of the vessel owner.
Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier will lead the questioning.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I just have a few questions, because I
think a number of the questions that I've had have been
addressed earlier in the forum.  But I do have a few specific
ones that have not been addressed.
I would like to know -- and I guess we can work left to
right there - what provisions have you made for accessability
by passengers with disabilities?  And perhaps, more
importantly, what provisions have you made for ensuring the
safety of passengers with disabilities?
MR. MCDOWELL: We've spent quite a bit of time discussing
this over the years.  We try to take a forward leadership
role in creating accessibility for the disabled.  On our new
model DUKW, we have an electric hydraulic system that will go
from the primary deck area up to the -- it is hard to
describe, but to the rear portion of the deck, where we have
a hatch and an external lift system that allow a wheelchair
to be placed on the deck and secured.
We worked through this with a local ADA association
within our community.  And after completing this project, I
believe they've nominated us for an award for ADA compliance.
In the past we have basically, physically helped people
on and off the DUKW, and placed them on the deck.  We do have
some concerns in carrying passengers that do not have any
upper body mobility, and their ability to help themselves in
those particular kinds of situations.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Again, if we can just, for the
sakeness of shortness of time, emphasis the second part of
that as provisions for the safety of passengers with
disabilities.
MR. WILSON: Since the beginning, we've been ADA
compliant.  I think the major safety feature that happens is
that to be ADA compliant, we've put the wheelchairs on our
back deck which does not have a canopy at all.  This issue
was raised when we were opening, and I asked specifically if
there were special requirements by the ADA, and specifically
a woman that was in a wheelchair that we had to go beyond
that, and the answer was no.  I'm not aware of anything else
that can be done at the current time.
MR. PIERSON: Currently, at Chicago Duck Tours, our DUKWs
are not ADA accessible.  We operate a large trolley company
there with over 40 vehicles in our fleet, so we are very
familiar with ADA compliance.  But because of the unique
nature of the DUKWs, we've kind of taken a back step and
tried to look at how we can best serve compliance for the ADA
Act, as well as best serve our customers.
I think as we move forward in the 2000 season, we are
still in the formulation stages of coming up with the best
way of doing that.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  The next question.  How does
your company address the issue of children, particularly with
regard to the maximum capacity of your vessel?
While we're at it, let's ask the second part of the
question at the same time, and that is: What specific
provisions, beyond the Coast Guard's requirement that
additional PFDs be carried for children, do you make to
ensure the safety of children?
And let me ask one thing.  In particular, do you address
anything in your passenger safety briefing about children?
MR. MCDOWELL: What we do in terms of our compliance with
the life jackets, we have - the ten percent rule we find in
our operation probably is not suitable, so we have on every
trip, underneath the seats of our double seats are -- adult
life jackets are located above, but the children's life
jackets are located underneath each double seat.  If we have
the occasion to have a special group that has more than the
allotted amount that we have on that particular vessel for
that group size, then we'll put the additional life jackets
on board.
And when we go in the water, we very specifically tell
the passengers where the life jackets are located, how to don
them, where the emergency egress areas so, and so forth.
MR. HOBBS: And along those same lines, right before we
go into the water, there is a PFD up by the captain's chair,
and he actually demonstrates.  Pulls it out -- and it is
usually a child's.  It is just easier to fit in that
location, but he does demonstrate exactly how for the adult
to put the PFD on the child.
MR. WILSON: We're certificated to carry 32 people, and
that includes - if it is an infant, that is counted as a
person, number one.
Number two, if there are more than -- we carry eight
children.  If there's more than eight children, we currently
have bags of life preservers that we put on board.  And we're
probably going to go to the system that Mr. McDowell uses
with putting them under the seat.
Lastly, one of the questions that was raised, as it
relates to school groups, we do require school groups to
bring one chaperone for seven children.
MR. PIERSON: As part of our standard operating
procedure, in our passenger briefing, obviously, we cover in
great detail the donning procedures, locations of life
preservers, etc.  And, in addition, similar to Andy's
operation, we provide for, prior to disembarking our boarding
location, a physical count of children to make sure that we
have an allotment sufficient to cover the amount of children
on board.
MR. GAVINSKI: Wisconsin Ducks carries 22 passengers on
board, and the ten percent rule is three child life
preservers.  We've added a fourth one.  We also have
available on our dispatch stand additional child life
preservers, when the need dictates.  For school groups we
require one chaperone on each DUKW.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Thank you.  I think that's all the
questions I have that haven't been addressed, at least to
some extent, so I will defer the questioning.
MR. MURRAY: This question is for Mr. Rob Pierson.  We've
heard much about the operational safety of the other
companies, could you just give us a quick overview of your
company, and also the training that your operators receive?
MR. PIERSON: Certainly.  We've been in operation for
three full seasons now.  We this past season operated with a
fleet of three DUKWs.  We currently have two that are being -
additional DUKWs that are being readied for inspection by our
local and myself.
Like I said before, we also operate a very large trolley
tour operation that's been in business in Chicago for a
number of years, and this is an adjunct business that we went
into three years ago.
In terms of operational safety, I think you heard from
Mr. Christensen earlier, we've operated safely within those
three years.  There have been no casualty reports
unnecessary.  And, as part of our safety training, obviously,
without going into a great deal of operational detail, all of
our captains undergo between four and six weeks of training,
depending on their skill set when they come to us prior to
operating the DUKWs in the water.  Hopefully, that answers
your question.
MR. MURRAY: Yes, you have.  Thank you.
Would anyone else on the panel like to add to that?
[No response.]
I have no further questions.  I would like to turn it
over to Mr. Rob Henry.
MR. HENRY: Part of operational safety is listening to
your passengers and concerns they may express on the
operation of amphibious passenger vessels.  Can each of you
tell me what mechanisms you have within your organization to
gather this feedback, and what you do with this information?
Mr. McDowell.
MR. MCDOWELL: Primarily, we have three resources.  We do
a lot of Q&A with the drivers, and we query them on the
responses they receive, verbatim.  We also, as I expressed
earlier, have at least five percent penetration on our
surveys.  And we do a lot of survey research and ask
questions such as: How do they feel about the safety of the
vessel?  What improvements do they feel like we should make?
 And so forth.
And we also have hired a firm out of Springfield,
Missouri, which is 40 miles to the north of us, to randomly
come in, without knowledge of management or anybody else.  It
is called our Secret Shopper Program, where they show up on
sight, and they've been given a directive of questions to
quarry the employees with, check for operational procedures,
and things of this nature.  And we have a report submitted to
that company to us that we assimilate, and management reviews
and makes recommendations based on those responses.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: It is very, very similar.  We have a Secret
Shopper Program.  We do customer surveys.  I'm not aware that
we've received a complaint on any safety aspects.
Occasionally, we get comments from our passengers about the
narration.  Any comments, both good or bad, that we get from
any of our customers are reviewed and investigated internally
as to any corrective action that's been taken.  But I'm not
aware that there's been any safety concerns expressed by our
customers.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Pierson.
MR. PIERSON: As part of our operating in Chicago of the
past years, including with the trolley company, we've also
used secret shopper survey companies to assist us with that.
 In addition to that, twice per year we do survey cards on
board the DUKWs, as well as on board our trolley operation,
and which customers, after completion of those surveys,
receive a complimentary gift for completing the survey.  So
it gives us a very clear indication of what we're doing well,
where our perceived areas of improvement, etc.
In addition to that, we hold captain's meetings once per
week, and we get feedback from them as well as from our
boarding staff at our boarding location.  Customer feedback
as they disembark the vessel at the end of the tour.  And we
use that to modify any operating systems we might in place,
in order to improve the experience for our customers.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Mr. Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI: Our local visitor and convention bureau
does surveys of our business and other businesses in our
city, and those surveys are forwarded to us.  We also receive
comments from the public through our ticket agents, our
drivers, and our office staff.  And anything that would be of
the negative nature would be addressed with the employee, and
with the customer at that time.
MR. HENRY: Thank you.  The next question I will ask each
of the DUKW companies to respond to.  But basically the
question is: What are you doing within your organization to
foster a culture that provides for the safe operation of
amphibious passenger vessels?
Mr. McDowell.
MR. MCDOWELL: I think that's a very critical component.
 There's a lot of things that can be done and should be done.
 But I think it is imperative for management to take a
leadership responsibility regarding the safety and all the
components that support it.
Like I said, we have empowered Fred Seaman's Safety
Company to come in and do a complete overview to help in
support of that culture, all the processes and procedures
that we've developed, also support it.  We've developed
mission statements and core value statements with all of the
employees, with full employee sessions, so they can have
input and buy in from the genesis of the concept.
We have a lot of sub-meetings with our safety committee
or drivers' committee.  We even have a social committee to
plan events, to generate the right kind of care and culture
in our company so we can implement the necessary components
for a safe and healthy operation.  We invite, like I say, the
outside scrutiny from the State of Missouri to come in.
And I think everybody at our company really has a strong
feel for doing what is right.  You know, we don't work from
an adversarial standpoint with the Coast Guard.  We're glad
they're there.  They do an excellent job.  They help provide
a lot of leadership for our company.  And so, as such, it is
important for me to be confident in our staff's ability to
maintain what the objectives are that management set aside as
our, you know, policies and procedures.  And I'm confident
that that takes place regardless of whether I'm there or not.
 
So, from a certain perspective, you may say that
part of our culture, because of that, allows for self-
policing.  And I think ultimately that is our role and
responsibility as management, to stand behind the glass wall,
so to speak, and be able to watch the systems in place and
not feel like you have to break the wall to go through and
correct a lot of things, that most of those issues will take
care of themselves.
MR. HENRY: Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: There are a numerous things.  We have a
four-point mission statement.  Our first point is safety.
It's the most critical thing.  We believe it's what leads to
our success and long-term sustainability of our business.  I
mean there are numerous things that we do and focus in on
constantly.
Some specific examples, our company pays material
bonuses to all our employees.  The material part of it can be
affected by their safety, their individual safety and how
they operate the business.  And so, we really place a huge
emphasis on this in all regards.  We have manuals.  We are
training and focused in on safety.  When we operate, we
operate with what we call two sidewalk drivers or captains.
And that way if a captain comes in in the middle of the day
and gets a headache and can't drive any more, then the
sidewalk driver goes and fills that seat.  So there are
numerous things that we have invested in.  We put our money
where our mouth is across the board on numerous cases.  I
could go on and on and on about that.  But some examples.
MR. HENRY: Thank you.  Mr. Pierson.
MR. PIERSON: In our organization probably two things to
mention in regards to your question.  First, we have a very
close and good working relationship with the Coast Guard.
And our MSO has always been very proactive when it comes to
safety concerns.  And I think you've heard earlier on earlier
panels from Mr. Christensen and Mr. Thompson that they have
in the past two years, for instance, come out with local
inspection procedures, which have helped us as a company get
stronger and better in terms of the safety we provide on
board the vessels.
Second to that, in our company it certainly has always
been important to us.  It's the first aspect of training and
safety.  And then, beyond that, we have a reward system for
both our drivers, as well as our captains on the DUKW side of
our organization, for safety awards that are given out
annually, for safe practices, etc.  So I think for us it's
certainly a large concern in our close relationship with the
MSO, and the MSO's role help further that along quite a bit.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Mr. Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI: Wisconsin Ducks has been very aggressive
in our dealings with the print, TV and radio media.  And
after the incident happened down in Arkansas, they were all
invited to our facility to review it, report on it, as they
pleased, and it was very well received by them, and also by
the public.  And we've always tried to have a good
relationship with them so that we can get this information
out as how safe our operation is.
MR. HENRY: I have one last question, and it sort of
follows from the organizational safety culture.  You all
described how you deal with the feedback from passengers.
I'm also interested in the observations, concerns, the
feedback that is generated by the junior members of your
organization, the new mechanic, the new operator, who may
have a concern with the safe practices.
And how in your organization do you allow their concerns
to filter up through your organization to the appropriate
level for positive consideration?
And how do you acknowledge and minimize barriers to that
feedback from within your organization?
Mr. McDowell.
MR. HOBBS: We've been very effective in implementing
from right when I came on board, which is almost seven years
ago, a highly effective safety committee program.  And what
we've done in that regard is, a member from each of the
different disciplines within the company: mechanics, new
production, the jocks.  We call them jocks.  The ones that
load passengers, the ones that deal with the public, photos.
 We have representatives from all of those different areas
that get together as part of the safety committee, and we
bring any problems that have been identified throughout the
month -- we meet on a monthly basis -- and we bring them, and
we discuss them, and we assign a particular member of that
committee to ensure the solution that we've come up with, the
answer, the action to be taken is accomplished and is
committed to it.
Along with that we have what we call our Safety Inaction
Program.  And what it simply is, is that everyone is always
free to make safety suggestions.  We have a little form that
we fill out.  And those are always brought -- immediately we
check them daily, or they can hand them straight to the area
supervisors.  And, depending on the value implementation,
they're all rewarded simply something for coming up with a
valid safety idea.  And then, as they're implemented, they're
worth more.  In other words, there's a staggered amount as to
the rewards they get for coming up with ideas.  And they can
come up with as many safety ideas, as the individual looks at
an area that concern.
Along with that, we have a separate safety committee on
the production side of our house.  At the production side,
the welders and that, every area of the production group out
there we have a separate safety committee that represents
those.
I am a member of both and that allows me to take ideas
that might be generated from a captain concerning a seat
location out to production.  I believe it was yesterday it
was brought up that: How do we communicate from the user side
of the production to the ones that are producing it?
Well, at our organization it is through me.  They can
bring them up, and I take them straight over to the general
manager at the other one, and we discuss it.  Anything that
needs immediately action, I have the ability to implement
through the general manager over there and get it taken care
of.  So it's working really good.  And the incentive program
is working very good also.
Mr. MCDOWELL: Just one additional comment just from an
overview kind of umbrella cultural thing.  All of our
management team has been sent to extensive covey leadership
training, and we've opened the program up to any employees
that want to step forward and go through the training as
well.
We've sent a great deal of folks through the program,
which helps them have the confidence to take their ideas to
management, and whatnot.  So we very much support all of that
kind of thinking and hold it up high.
MR. HENRY: Thank you.  Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: We do numerous things.  We hold weekly
management meetings as well as periodic meetings with all
aspects of our staff.
My basic management philosophy is, the only bad question
is the one that goes unasked.  I could elaborate on that, but
the only time that I personally get concerned is when someone
doesn't ask a question.  And I assure everybody that if they
ask a question that they will get a legitimate response.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Mr. Pierson.
MR. PIERSON: I think probably the simplest answer for us
is that we hold staff meetings according to job class.  And
during those staff meetings that are held every two weeks,
anyone in our chain from maintenance, from our boarding
personnel to our captains to our ramp attendants, all of
those people have the ability to have input on all
operational aspects to their manager.  It's always attended
by one of our senior management in the company.  If not, one
of the owners of the company attend those meetings.  And
through that process we're able to help them bring their
ideas, as well as their concerns and ideas on improvement to
fruition.  And it has been immeasurably helpful in our
organization, because those people are really the DUKWs, the
nuts and bolts.  But truly, they are the people out there who
ensure the safe operation each day, as well as ensure our
customer's comfort, safety and enjoyment.  We try to utilize
them as a resource for improving our operation through that
method.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Mr. Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI: At our organizational meetings and
subsequent safety meetings, we encourage open discussion with
our employees.  Also I have an open door policy.  Anyone is
free to come into my office and talk to me about anything.
We also have a grading done of our drivers every two-
and-a-half weeks.  A grade is given to them on their
performance.  They're broke up into groups of either six or
seven drivers, and the team receives rewards based on the
performance in the previous two-and-a-half weeks.  And we
know by doing that it has facilitated open discussion with
our employees, amongst themselves and amongst management.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Mr. Young, would you care to
add anything within your organization that Mr. Wilson didn't
cover?
MR. YOUNG: Well, we have driver meetings, and a lot of
different ideas come from that.  We also have a suggestion
box that we look at periodically, and bring up any -- it's
nice to have it all written down, a suggestion, so it is
acted on.  That's about it.
MR. HENRY: Thank you, sir.  Dr. Sind-Prunier had one
more question.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I have two questions.  There are some
questions from the audience that, I think, could possibly be
answered by this panel, as opposed to the next one, that
address some of the issues regarding operator qualifications.
 I'd like to address those now, if we could.
If I could ask each of you: What qualifications are your
operators required to have?  And particularly, I'm interested
here with regard to experience in order to, first, operate a
vessel.
MR. MCDOWELL: Well, on the roadside we have to have a
CDL license.  The Coast Guard is, I believe, a 25-ton license
at this time that's renewed every five years.  The minimum
training time that we have for the operation of our equipment
is five to six weeks.  Somewhere in that range.  Sometimes it
goes longer, depending on the particular experience of the
operator.
The Coast Guard does require a certain amount of
previous maritime experience, and it is up to the individual
to document that.  And we submit it for review, and it's
approved.
Part of the training process is not only unique to the
DUKWs, the Coast Guard licenses are specific to all kinds of
vessels and all kinds of crossing experiences, lights,
navigation, weather, things of this sort.  We do CPR
training, first aid training.  It is quite an extensive
program.  And we physically go out, of course, and make many
trips with those individuals until they are competent to
operate.  And because we are a single operator vessel, we
also spend a great deal of time in the development of the
tour, so in the early stages they're completely comfortable
with that responsibility of both giving the tour and
operating the DUKW prior to cutting them loose.  So they'll
have some of the individuals that have taken the
responsibility of training; for instance, a driver on how to
enter the water, or different aspects of the tour.  These
individuals would spend one-on-one time with them until they
are handed off to the next person, and forth and so on.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Boston.
MR. YOUNG: We follow all those things from the Coast
Guard also.  I think over half of our drivers already had
captain's licenses.  And we had 25 tons and up.  There is a
restricted -- similar to a launch tender's license that the
Coast Guard has come up that they're a captain on the Charles
River, while they're operating a vessel of 31 feet.  And the
requirements for that is that they have water experience.
They have to be able to document 120 days on the water within
the past three years.  And we provide all our new captains
with a five- to six-week training program, where they're not
always on the water in that five to six weeks.  We take them
out for safety drills and periodically during through the
weeks so they get repetition in doing safety drills and
docking, and entering and existing the water.  Repetition
helps a lot in making them remember what they have to do.
We come back every season.  All the drivers go through a
two-week retraining period of going in and out of the water
and doing everything that we do on the water.  That's about
it.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Thank you.
MR. WILSON: I would just like to add one thing.  The
Boston Coast Guard does require every two months that we take
all our captains out and execute safety drills as well.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Thank you.  Mr. Pierson.
MR. PIERSON: Yes.  On our end it's a very good question.
 As we've gotten into this business, we have noticed that
unlike the motor coach business, or the on land tour
operation business and those type of vehicles, there is not a
readily available employee pool of folks with experience in
this kind of vessel, and this kind of vehicle.
Because of that, certainly we've, unlike our trolley
operation where there's a readily available supply of people
with CDLs and a large experience level driving vehicles that
carries passengers, for us it was a unique situation.  We've
handled it through -- obviously, we have Coast Guard
certified captains.  But mostly through our training process,
as well as utilizing, initially, in our first year, an
outside source, who came to us from Florida, who had previous
DUKW operation experience, who helped us develop training
manuals, training situations, etc., so that we could carry
those forward as we build an experienced employee base for
driving and captaining these kind of vessels and vehicles.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Mr. Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI: We have pre-employment drug testing of our
employees.  Then they go through a four- to six-week training
session.  They get their CDL exam, which is both a written
and practical exam.  We require them to take a boating safety
class, and then they'll take, on an average, a minimum of 50
to 60 ride-alongs with senior drivers.  They will take an in-
house United States Coast Guard Rules of the Road exam, which
is based on the exam that I had taken when we were under the
jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.
We have, as I said earlier, an organization meeting.  We
have four safety meetings during the summer.  The drivers, as
I said, are graded every two-and-a-half to three weeks.  They
have first aid and CPR.  That's about it.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: One final question, and that is: At
any time do you operate with more than one crew member on
board?  And if so, under what circumstances?
MR. YOUNG: We're required to have a deck hand at night,
if we have any special charters going out at night.  We
normally only run a normal tour up until sunset.
MR. MCDOWELL: We're a single operator operation without
a deck hand.
MR. PIERSON: Yes.  On our end, we operate with a single
operator, but -- and I can't speak for the other companies
represented or the companies in the audience -- we also
operate at the -- not at the request of the MSO, but in
cooperation with the MSO.  For lack of a better term, it is
often referred to as the "ramp boy."  And that person is
responsible for assisting the captain prior to water entry.
On a visual exterior inspection of the hull, the
underside of the hull, ensuring that the rudder is operating
correctly, ensures all plugs are in place, and the seals are
in place, etc., prior to.  So, although we do not operate
with a second person on board at our water entry location, we
do operate with a staff person who assists in what we view to
be critical safety areas, ensuring that prior to the DUKW
entering the water that everything is in place and operating
correctly.
MR. GAVINSKI: We have one employee on board.  Just the
driver.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  Thank you.
MR. HENRY: We'll turn it over to the Executive Panel.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Henry.  Other
questions from the Executive Panel?
Ms. Weinstein.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Yes.  I have two questions.  My first
question, I guess I would like just an answer, and the answer
will be either one or two.  I'd like to ask each operator: If
a child is carried on board, or seated on the adult's lap,
when you count the number of passengers, do you count them as
one or two?
Let's start with Branson.
MR. MCDOWELL: Like the Boston operation, each heart beat
that's working is counted as a ticketed customer.  We issue a
ticket regardless of whether or not they are a paying
customer.  What do we charge for that, Ron?  It is just for
our ticketing system.  That way each driver, once he leaves
the dock, he knows exactly how many people are on board.
That information is given to him prior to departure.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Okay.  Boston.
MR. ERICKSON: Two.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Chicago.
MR. YOUNG: We would count them as two.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Wisconsin.
MR. GAVINSKI: Each are counted.
MS. WEINSTEIN: And do you keep any kind of a passenger
list so that you know whose actually on board?  Or do you
just count numbers?
MR. MCDOWELL: We don't have the names of every
individual on board, but we know the exact head count, both
in terms of adults, children, and infants.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Boston.
MR. WILSON: We keep a head count, a detailed record of
head count when the DUKW leaves.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Chicago.
MR. PIERSON: Our ticketing software allows for and
requires a name entry, but not for every passenger but for
every group.  So, for instance, if someone tickets four
passengers under the name Thompson, we will have that
availability, but not for every passenger.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Wisconsin.
MR. GAVINSKI: Total passengers.
MS. WEINSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Ms. Murtagh.
MS. MURTAGH: Yes.  Thank you.  I actually have a series
of questions.  First one, actually, is for Wisconsin Ducks.
You indicated that your operators were graded every two to
three weeks.  If you could give me an idea if that grading is
for safety or is it grading for how they conduct the tour?
MR. GAVINSKI: It's for safety.  We have time intervals
that they are to go from one location to another.  And we do
not want them, for instance, on land driving faster than a
certain time interval.  And they also are watched to make
sure they're in the right gear when they're driving on land.
 And also, their speed on the water is graded.
MS. MURTAGH: Is that some sort of a standard check-off
sheet that you have an individual keeping track of?  Or how
is that done?
MR. GAVINSKI: We have six supervisors that are watching
our employees.  Last summer we did 2600 safety checks of our
drivers.
MS. MURTAGH: Could you submit just a standard kind of
assessment for the record?
MR. GAVINSKI: Yes, I would.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.  Mr. Pierson, since this is the
first opportunity we've had to actually talk to Chicago
Ducks, if I might ask you, if you would pass onto your
company, could we get some, for the record, maintenance and
repair type of standards in intervals that you normally
conduct them?
MR. PIERSON: Certainly, we'd be more than happy to
provide the check lists that are used, etc.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.  For each of you, do you have a
standard briefing that your operator uses?  And if you could
give me an idea of what the contents are?  Or is it a
standard that you can just submit us a copy for the record?
I'd appreciate it.
And I'd like to start actually from right to left this
time.
MR. GAVINSKI: Yes.  It is standard.  Arms and hands
inside the vehicle, no smoking, and they show where the life
preservers are located and how to put them on.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, it is standard.  And, in the interest of
brevity, we'll be more than happy to supply you with a copy
of that.
MS. MURTAGH: Okay.
MR. HOBBS: Our's is standard, too.  They show where the
location of the life preservers are, where the throw rings
are located, the amount of fire extinguishers on board, and
their locations.  And individual drivers chose to whether
they show how to put the life preservers on themselves.
At the Ducks we have numerous safety briefs.  We have
one that we have when we start off at the first, which deals
mostly with safety on the road, you know: Be seated at all
the times, no standing up while the Duck is in motion, keep
your arms and hands inside when we pull away from the dock,
be prepared for sudden stops, hold the children back away
from the bars in front, things along those lines.
During our trip we have a lot of off-road time.  So when
we are making turns across other traffic and stuff like that,
we prepare them to change in the momentum, so we warn them to
hang on.  Along those lines.  Especially when we are up on
the mountain and coming back down, trees and stuff like that.
 Of course, the drivers are always away from it, but we don't
want the little kids sticking their arms out any way.
We do have a complete safety brief prior to going on the
water on how to don the life preservers, where they are at,
fire extinguishers, and all that's required by that.  And we
do have that on paper, and I could leave you a copy of it,
too.
MS. MURTAGH: Okay.  If each of you would answer.  Do you
have an expectation for your drivers to have the children put
on life preservers before entering the water?  Or any of your
other passengers?
And the second part of that actually is: If there were
an emergency, is your expectation that they would put on
their life preservers before using their means of escape?
Mr. McDowell.
MR. MCDOWELL: Well, prior to the incident, we had never
had an occasion of a customer to request a life jacket.
Since that time we have, and we gladly give it to them, if it
gives them comfort.
We have had quite a bit of discussion through our
management meetings on the procedures Ron was going through
there.  And at one point, I believe, we went a little too far
with it.  And there's a certain amount of equity in
somebody's mind in terms of what you would find normal during
the course of a routine explanation of safety procedures.
And when you go kind of beyond a little bit, they start
wondering why in the world they even got on board, you know.
 A lot of things go through a lot of people's minds.  I think
make it clearly understandable, short and brief.  But to get
the job done is important.
Our operations manager is not here with us today, but we
are currently reviewing all the emergency procedures and
whether or not it's practical for everybody to don the life
jacket prior to going over board or not.  But at this time
that's what we recommend.  If the driver feels like, or the
master, mate, that he is in an unrecoverable situation then,
by all means, to don the life jackets and proceed over board.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.  Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: We have no requirement.  We do not require
passengers to wear life preservers when they are in the
water.  We have never refused somebody if they wanted to wear
one.  And again, our emergency procedures are to go over
board.  And we'd request that they put their life preserver
on if that, you know, God forbid, ever happens.
MR. YOUNG: We had many school groups after the accident
ask to put the life preservers on before they left the Duck
stop.  Of course, we let them do it.
And what I found was, when they came back, it created
high anxiety for normal, not the school groups, just regular
passengers sitting there waiting for the next Duck to leave.
 They start asking, you know.  Their anxiety level got high
just worried about why do they have life preservers on.
MR. PIERSON: We do not require it as part of our
standard procedure.  We make it available, The life
preservers is part of our water side passenger safety
briefing.  If anybody would like to wear a life preserver,
they're welcome to.  Or place one on a child that they're
accompanying.
In terms of whether or not it is policy for us to
require -- prior to an emergency procedure to require it, be
placed on prior to exiting the vessel, we leave that up to
the captain to determine the nature of the emergency.  And to
be able to make those types of decisions on board the vessel
at the time, because we feel each situation is unique and
requires the captain's level of experience, etc., in order to
safely have people leave the vest during an emergency
situation.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.
MR. GAVINSKI: No.  And the customers do not want to wear
life jackets.  We would leave it up to the driver to make
that decision, if he felt he was put in that type of
situation.  Obviously, we would encourage him to do it.  Even
if he had the slightest doubt in his mind that something was
going wrong, we'd want him to tell the passengers to put them
on.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.  Each of you indicated that if
you had a school group with a lot of children versus the
normal number of adults, with just their own children aboard,
you would provide additional children's life preservers.  How
do you go about doing that prior to the vessel departing?
MR. MCDOWELL: It's pretty simple.  I mean, we just do a
head count.  Most of them have chaperones, and we just
assimilate how many additional life jackets are required. We
bring them up, put them on, and go about our routine.
MR. YOUNG: We do the same.  We ask their weights.  If
the weight is all wrong, then we add life preservers.
MR. PIERSON: The exact same situation.  We do a head
count.  We ask weights and, if necessary, we place additional
life preservers on board prior to a disembarking the on-land
boarding location.  Our dispatcher will make that
determination.
MS. MURTAGH: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
MR. PIERSON: Our dispatcher will make that
determination.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you.  I just have a couple of final
ones here.  And that is, I noticed that during some of the
other panel discussions, for example, we were talking about
having the hull filled with water, that there was kind of a
reaction from the owners to some of the answers that were
provided.  If any of you have any additional comments on any
of the information that was provided by any of the other
panels, I would like to hear that now, if I might, please.
MR. WILSON: I'd like to respond to the one question
about the continually running bilge.  We installed what I
call an inter-cooler heat exchanger that pumps water into a
heat exchanger to remove engine and transmission heat, and we
pump it out the side right by the driver.  So all our DUKWs
have a continual stream of water flowing from it, which is
the inter-cooler, and we operate a dry standard in our hulls.
 In other words, if there's any action, even miscellaneous
bilge water, you know, we investigate it.  So I wanted to
comment on that.  So if somebody saw a stream of water, that
would have been our heat exchanger.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you for that clarification.  Anybody
else?
MR. GAVINSKI: Part of Wisconsin Ducks' training process
is taking our new employees out in a Duck in Lake Delton, and
we take the middle one-inch plug out so that the drivers know
what it looks like when the Higgins pump is working.  They
know how to react to it, and they'll know what to do.  And
they did not agree with what Mr. Thompson was saying this
morning about it.  It did not make any sense to me.
MR. MCDOWELL: I concur.  And I've talked to the Naval
architect shortly after that session to get his feedback on
the ten inches of water causing irreparable damage to the
hull.  That certainly has not been our experience.  And if
that is the case, then had a major problem with the hull
beyond structural design.  It had degraded due to metallurgy
failure or whatever.  But that's certainly not a valid
comment from our experience.
MS. MURTAGH:   Thank you. Mr. Gavinski, if I could, it
seemed as if you have another comment with your inspection?
MR. GAVINSKI: I just wanted to clarify something I had
said this morning. The question was posed to me about who has
jurisdiction on us after an incident, and I was responding to
what would happen on land.  We are under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Natural Resources as far as reporting any
incidences that would, or if there were property damages.
And of course we would have to follow Wisconsin Boating Laws
and Regulations.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you all very much.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you, Ms. Murtagh.
Any questions?  Mr. Tyrrell.
MR. TYRRELL: I would like to ask each one of you to tell
me what you view as the most serious operational safety
hazard involved in operating DUKWs.
MR. MCDOWELL: From our experience I would say that
probably our biggest exposure is on the land side.  I know
this forum is primarily as a result of the water-related
incident.  But the original DUKWs were built with a single
line brake system, and because of that there's not a lot
redundancy built into it, and its taken the leadership of the
individual companies to develop plans and programs related to
the brakes that will bring them up to current technology
standards.
It's relatively difficult to gain support because of
product liability issues from the outside community to do
that.  But I know its something we've address, and I hope its
something the other operators will address as well.
MR. WILSON: I would have to say the land side is
probably from a safety standard is also the one that needs
most mono-works management.  The other area I know I get
concerned about is thunderstorms in the middle of the summer.
 Thank God for the internet 'cause we get lifetime radar now.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Mr. Pierson.
MR. PIERSON: I think it is a combination of on land and
water that, certainly for us, we see one of the most critical
is the potential for operator error.  And we believe that
that probably, for us, when we look at the operation, is the
most critical area, and the area that we devote by far the
most attention to, in terms of safety training and retraining
of staff.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Mr. Gavinski.
MR. GAVINSKI: Wisconsin Duck's biggest concern, up until
two years ago, was the braking system on the vehicle.  We run
our DUKWs over a sandbar, the sand would get into the drums
and cause excessive wear on breaking fast.  But since we've
eliminated that, it's now a lower priority for us.
MR. TYRRELL: Thank you very much.  That's all I have.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Okay.  Thank you very much, Mr.
Tyrrell.
Regarding your last question, what percentage, generally
speaking, of the movement of a DUKW excursion is on the land
versus on the water?
MR. MCDOWELL: Well, in our particular operation, I would
say it about a third on water and two-thirds on land.
MR. WILSON: Same for us as well.
MR PIERSON: Our certificate requires a certain limited
amount of time in the water.  I'm sure everyone else's does
as well.  So it is about 60 percent land versus 40 percent in
the water.
MR. GAVINSKI: Ours is fifty-fifty.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you.  Seeing that there are no
other questions from anyone from the panel, like me, once
again, thank most of this panel for your contribution at this
public forum.  Your volunteering to assist us has been highly
appreciated, and again, your responsiveness and contribution
on this panel is also noteworthy.  Thank you.
Mr. Tyrrell, please proceed with our last panel.
MR. TYRRELL: Our last panel actually consists of an
individual, Lieutenant Commander Dave Dolloff of the U.S.
Coast Guard, National Maritime Center.  Lieutenant Command
Dolloff will discuss licensing of amphibious passenger vessel
masters.
Good Morning, Commander Dolloff.
LCDR DOLLOFF: Good Morning, and thank you for allowing
me to be here.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Could you just give us a brief
summation of your background and your duties and
responsibilities with the National Maritime Center.
LCDR DOLLOFF: I'm assigned currently to the National
Maritime Center in Arlington, Virginia.  The main purpose of
the National Maritime Center is administration of the Coast
Guard Licensing Program.  My duties there are as Assistant
Chief for the Licensing and Evaluation Branch.
I've been in the Coast Guard for over 26 years.
Thirteen-and-a-half years of those have been in the Marine
Safety Program as a Marine Inspector, Marine Investing
Officer, and a Licensing Officer.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIT: Thank you very much.
Dr. Paul Sind-Prunier will lead off the questioning.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: You may know the answer to this
question, because I think that I asked it of the operators,
but I'll ask you, because I would like for you to elaborate a
little bit more about exactly what the distinctions are here.
 If you could tell me, what license must an individual
possess from the Coast Guard standpoint before being
permitted to operate an amphibious passenger vessel?  And I
understand there are some distinctions here, so if you could
talk about the different licenses that are currently required
by different MSOs, and what the distinctions between them
are.
LCDR DOLLOFF: If I could, I wrote out a few comments
here to sort of generally talk about licensing, which might
help.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Perfect.
LCDR DOLLOFF: The Coast Guard issues licenses through
seventeen different Regional Examination Centers around the
country.  These RECs are part of designated marine safety
offices, under the authority of the OMCI.
Licenses are issued to applicants who meet regulatory
requirements, including experience, physical condition,
character, training requirements, and knowledge.  Those
meeting the requirements are issued licenses, which specify
the grade, such as master or mate; propulsion mode such as
steam motor or auxiliary sale; tonnage, which is a
representation of the vessel; and route, such as inland, near
coastal or oceans.
Currently, amphibious vessels are under hundred gross
tons.  To operate one of these vessels, which are considered
to be an inland vessel, you need to have at least a master of
25 gross ton license for inland waters.  To obtain one of
these licenses, you need at least 360 days of underway
experience, completion of a first aid and CPR course,
completion of a Coast Guard administered examination, plus
the other pre-requisite items, such as character and drug
testing.  Some sea service and/or the examination may be
substituted for by completion of a Coast Guard approved
course.
In addition to this, operating companies may request the
use of mariners with licenses that are restricted on their
face to specific organizations or areas.  These can be
obtained with 120 days of service, completion of the boating
safety course and completion of a reduced examination.  This
is in addition to the other pre-requisites like other
licenses, character drug testing, and physical condition.
The OCMI examines each of these requests and considers
the nature of the operation, the waters to be navigated and
the vessels to be operated.  The request may be approved or
the OMCI may request that some modifications be made to the
program.
Some companies operating amphibious vessels have
requested, and received, approval for use of limited
licenses.  And the requirements vary by zone.  Other
companies utilize masters with licenses of suitable route and
tonnage to man their vessels.  This may include traditional
100 ton licenses, which we normally see for T-boats, that
could include an unlimited mate or master license.
This concludes my opening comments, and I'll answer your
questions.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I appreciate that because that did
summarize exactly our understanding of the licensing
regulations as well.
One question I do have is, regardless of whether we're
talking about 360 days experience or 120 days experience,
based on a different type of license that is issued, how does
the Coast Guard evaluation, both in terms of quantity and
quality, of that experience?  Or is there no requirement
along those lines?
LCDR DOLLOFF: To obtain a master's license you need to
have a certain amount of underway experience on deck.  For
lower level licenses, for licenses issued for service for
vessels under 100 gross tons, it can be self-certified, if
you own a boat.  Or the owner of the boat on which the
experience was gained needs to prove that he or she owned the
boat, and make a statement to the fact that they were
underway for this period of time.  And they try to come up
with the dates they were underway.
In terms of how well they performed on that experience,
or especially what they did, there is no requirement for
that.  Just that it be service on deck.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Is there a requirement that that
experience be obtained on a motorized vessel?
LCDR DOLLOFF: Self-propelled vessels; yes, ma'am.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Must be self-propelled.
And are there any other requirements in terms of what
type of vessel it is?
LCDR DOLLOFF: Well, size, of course.  And if we're not
just talking amphib vessels.  If you want to be on a sailing
vessel, you have to have a certain amount of experience on
sailing vessels.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: And specifically with regard to the
amphibs, is there any restriction on where that sea service
may be obtained, on what type of vessel?
LCDR DOLLOFF: No, ma'am.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  The purpose of that experience,
what is the Coast Guard looking for here in terms of what the
operator is able to demonstrate?  I mean, what is the
rationale for having sea service as a requirement before
issuing an operator's license?
LCDR DOLLOFF: I think it is important that somebody has
been on a boat before you'll at least let them drive it.
There's been a long history of licensing and it is found
-- I can't address, certainly, all the history to how
licensing regulations have come about, but we look to make
sure that somebody has been underway on a vessel, expecting
that it is a smaller level license.  It may be a recreational
vessel, but they've had exposure to the operation of the
vessel, that they've learned, as you would, the point end
from the square end of the boat.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.
LCDR DOLLOFF: That's sort of simplified, but it is hard
for me to define anything more than that.
The regulations say "under way."  And right now, that's
all the requirements we have to work with.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Does the Coast Guard have any concerns
with regard to the self-certification of sea service?  And
what measures does the Coast Guard take to ensure that, in
fact, when somebody self-certifies their sea time, that in
fact they have that experience?
LCDR DOLLOFF: Coast Guard has a Commandant Note in place
which directs the Regional Exam Centers to scrutinize a
certain percentage of license applications received, where
they're using self-certified sea time.
Regional Exam Centers traditionally -- evaluators, who
are looking over the applications, will look for, of course,
obvious claims: more days than there are in a month, or more
days than there are in years, which occurs from time to time.
 Or that they've been underway at times when they knew they
couldn't possibly have been underway.  Lake Chaplain in
January, for instance.
Very often, when somebody is building an application for
a license, they didn't necessary know they would be applying
for a license when they were earning the time.  And for those
of you that have been recreational boating over the years, if
you would suddenly decide to get a license, to try and go
back and reconstruct the days that you were specifically
underway is very difficult.  So it is not unusual to see an
application that might have a generalization of sea service
in a monthly period over a period of time.
I know I'd be in the same situation to go back over my
recreational vessels from five or six years ago, and say I
was underway three days in the month of July in 1988.  It
would be very difficult.
So you have to make some allowances for that in
evaluating sea service.  And you have to rely a certain
amount on the person who is making the claim, who is saying
this person was on my boat for ten days, for twenty days, for
thirty days during these months.  And I'm making that
statement understanding that it's an official application for
a government credential.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Is there a penalty if somebody would
misrepresent the information on their application, or in the
certification of somebody else's hours?
LCDR DOLLOFF: It is easier to me to address the
individual who is applying for the license.  If somebody
submits an application that is found to be fraudulent, then
the Coast Guard has two options: They can seek revocation and
suspension procedures under an Administrative Law Judge.  Or
they can declare the license null and void, if it is an
original application and say that in absentco, which is as
how we put it.  As if it never was issued, and request the
return of the license.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  After an operator receives
their license, is there any review of their qualifications?
And if so, what is the nature of that view?  And what is
expected of an operator in terms of maintaining their
qualifications?  And in this particular case getting vessel
specific knowledge on, you know, recognizing that, you know,
as you mentioned, many of them did not have it on the same
type of vessel previously.
LCDR DOLLOFF: There is no former review of an operator,
once he has his license and he's working.  Except, if it
comes to light that a mariner is negligent in his or her
duties, then the Coast Guard has the authority to charge for
negligence, or incompetence, and seek to return the license
through an Administrative Law Judge under the Suspension and
Revocation Procedures.
DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Okay.  I have no further questions.
Tony.
MR. MURRAY: Yes.  Commander Dolloff, I have one
question.  I understand there is a NAVIC that will be
developed addressing amphibious passenger vessels.  Will your
office, the National Maritime Center, have a chance to either
have input into that development of the NAVIC, or have a
chance to review that before it is issued, addressing
licensing of DUKW operators and captains?
LCDR DOLLOFF: I'm not specifically aware of how they
plan to meet to put together the NAVIC.  As a representative
from National Maritime Center, I would expect to be involved,
yes.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Commander.  I have no further
questions.
MR. HENRY: Commander Dolloff, in the licensing process
for the operators of amphibious passenger vessels, is there a
requirement for local knowledge?  And if so, how is that
demonstrated?
LCDR DOLLOFF: It depends on the type of license that's
going to be issued to an individual.  A maritime academy
graduate, as a third mate, could walk into the organization
and work as a master on those vessels.  There's no
requirement to demonstrate local knowledge on those inland
waters.  If there's a specific program in place that's been
allowed by the OCMI to issue a restricted license, then there
may be.
One company has a training program, which we heard
about, which includes 50 trips and a training program, and
that's going to include local knowledge in a program that's
approved.
But if you are obtaining a license that is not
restricted to DUKWs, then you're not going to have a local
knowledge requirement to get the license; no, sir.
MR. HENRY: We've spent the last day-and-a-half talking
about the uniqueness of these vessels and their operation.
Is there anything in the Coast Guard licensing process, exams
that specifically addresses the uniqueness of amphibious
passenger vessels?  Any specific questions in the exam
procedures?
LCDR DOLLOFF: No, sir, except for the limited license
programs that have specific training programs in place to
license restricted operators.  There would be vessel specific
information in those in the testing.  But other that that,
no, sir.
MR. HENRY: Okay.  That's all the questions this panel
has.
I understand Mr. Tyrrell has a question from the
audience?
MR. TYRRELL: Yes.  You may have answered it, I'm not
sure, but I'll read it and we'll see.  It says: Since
yesterday, we have found a variety of levels of Coast Guard
licensing.  One would be none, non-Coast Guard supervised
areas.  Two, route specific license.  Three, a 25-ton master
inland or 50-ton master inland, which apparently is required
in some areas.  Why can't we have one national standard?
Some DUKW operators are held to the highest standards, at
great expense, while others operate with lessor required
qualifications?
LCDR DOLLOFF: That's a little more complicated to
answer.  Probably the most common license that the Coast
Guard issues is what we call a 100-ton license.  It is
commonly what's used on small passenger vessels as master.
If somebody's experience is gained on very small
vessels, however, they won't qualify for the higher tonnage
until it is issued as perhaps a 25-ton license, if all the
experience was on a small pleasure boat.  So that's one way
you have a variety of licenses is, based on their experience,
they've been limited in tonnage.
So, in reality, we have a limited license restricted to
DUKWs, which is also used for launches, yacht clubs, camps,
and so forth, fishing guides.  People taking out a small
group of people out on various restricted waterways.  It is
felt that full experience of an inland or near coastal
license isn't always necessary.  Or the testing for very
limited operations of limited scope, limited waters, limited
time in the water.  So there are allowances made for that.
So, really, we have two tiers of licensing.  We have
restricted licenses that are limited to specific areas; and
then we have all other licenses which are not limited by type
of vessel.  They may be limited in tonnage or route.  I don't
know if I answered that quite right.
Some companies choose to licensed masters that have
earned their licensed through the traditional routes.  Some
companies may have difficulty obtaining enough licensed
masters to perform that job; or they feel that the nature of
the operation warrants reduced testing and service, and have
requested and received approval to use a lesser
qualification.
In this allowed form to regulations, to use limited
licenses and it specifies the amount of time underway that is
required.
Did that answer that?
MR. TYRRELL: I believe so.  Thank you very much.  I have
no other questions.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Seeing that there are no other
questions from our Technical Panel or our Executive Panel,
Mr. Dolloff, we thank you very much for participating in this
public forum, for traveling her from Arlington, Virginia to
be with us, and for helping us in our efforts to, hopefully,
improve amphibious vessel safety where necessary.
LCDR DOLLOFF: Thank you very much.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you.   With the completion of
the questioning of Panel #9, we bring to a close this public
forum.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my
personal thanks to all of the participants.
The discussions were extremely interesting and valuable.
 Your thoughts and comments have provided important insights
into both the valuable potential benefits, and the serious
possible problems, involved in the operating of amphibious
passenger vessels.
With your input in hand, the Safety Board will be better
able to assess the safety impact of DUWKs, LARKS, and ALVIS
STALWARTS on passenger vessel safety, and will thereby be in
a position to speak with a better appreciation of the
realities involved.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize, and
thank, the NTSB staff members who were instrumental in
organizing the forum.  In particular, Mr. Paul Voorhees, Dr.
Paul Sind-Prunier, Mr. Ash Chatterjee, Mr. Tony Murray, Mr.
Bill Gossard, Mr. Antion Downs, Ms. Eunice Billinger, Ms.
Gena John, Ms. Arnitra Bridges, and Ms. Lucille Waldren.
At this point I might ask, are there any administrative
notes from anyone that we need to cover before we come to a
close?
Ms. Murtagh.
MS. MURTAGH: Thank you, Member Hammerschmidt.
I really would like to thank everybody from coming.  And
if there are comments that you would like to give us with
regard to the improvement of DUKW safety, we would appreciate
it.  And you can submit those to us through our Office of
Marine Safety.  If you need the address, we can get that
information for you.  Thank you.
MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Thank you, Ms. Murtagh, that is very
good point.
And I want to also remind everyone that we have asked
for a variety of documents and information over the past day
and a half, and we certainly would look forward to receiving
those requested items.
Also, I would like to thank the United States Coast
Guard, the state officials of New York, Massachusetts,
Wisconsin by their submission, and Utah, the National
Association of State Boating Administrators, the Passenger
Vessel Association, and all the amphibious passenger vessel
owners and operators.  You were all extremely informative and
very enjoyable.
I especially want to thank the owners and operators for
sharing their privilege company operating procedures in the
name of passenger safety.
Once again, I thank you all.
I now officially call this public forum to a close.
(Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m. the public forum was closed.)
 
 
 
 

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

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

___________________________
OFFICIAL REPORTER

286
 
 

ANDERSON COURT REPORTERS (931) 589-3839

483
 
 

ANDERSON COURT REPORTERS (931) 589-3839
 

ANDERSON COURT REPORTERS (931) 589-3839

- -
 
 

ANDERSON COURT REPORTERS (931) 589-3839