COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 32 Number 10
June 2005
Candy B II: Findings from Coast Guard report
A comprehensive Coast Guard investigation into the loss of the Candy B II found insufficient evidence to determine exactly what happened to the 44' vessel on Oct. 10, 2003.
However, it did reveal a number of “known and suspected problems” that may have contributed to the tragic sinking that claimed the lives of Maine fishermen Howard Crudell, Ralph Boyington, Adrian Randall, and Brandon Feyler.
The investigation report was compiled by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Commercial Fisheries News.
Like dozens of other vessels, the Candy B II had been modified to go scalloping. The following information is taken primarily from the “findings of fact” and “conclusions” sections of the Coast Guard investigation report and is presented here for one purpose only – to provide our readers with the investigators’ observations about what went wrong in the hope that they may be used to reduce the risk of vessel losses in the future. —Editor
PROVIDENCE, RI - The Candy B II was a 23-gross ton, wooden-hulled vessel built in 1950 by renowned boat builder Harvey Gamage of South Bristol, ME.
Though homeported in Waldoboro, ME, the boat had been tying up in Provincetown while fishing to the south for scallops.
The first anyone heard that the Candy B II was in trouble was at 10:23 pm on Oct. 10, 2003 when the vessel’s EPIRB went off. Upon arriving in the signal area approximately 42 nautical miles southeast of Nantucket, a Coast Guard helicopter crew spotted the EPIRB’s flashing beacon but very little debris. The vessel was never recovered.
Early on, several factors indicated the possibility of a collision, including the proximity of the EPIRB to a traffic lane, the lack of a radio distress call, the presence of fog, and the fact that a marine vessel had made a blind call earlier in the evening telling fishing vessels to stay clear.
However, extensive study of arrival and departure records from a variety of sources in both the US and Canada, visual examination of two vessels, interviews of the officers on watch, and other information gave no credence to the theory.
“Based on the evidence available, the possibility of a collision causing the sinking of the Candy B II is considered negligible,” the Coast Guard report stated.
Instead, investigators found evidence to suggest that the Candy B II could have experienced stability problems and possibly rolled over.
Findings of fact
According to the Coast Guard report, the Candy B II’s new owner had “shifted fisheries from seining and dragging to scalloping and altered the vessel to perform that fishery” after the vessel lost most of its multispecies days-at-sea.
Among the report’s “findings of fact” were the following.
Marine surveys conducted in 2001 and 2002 included recommendations for repairs that were “not addressed.”
The survey report noted that the lock nut on the inside of the stuffing box was worn and held in place by a wooden wedge. It stated, “This works but should be repaired.” The survey report also stated that the deck hatch dogs were inoperable and should be repaired or renewed “to insure watertight integrity.”
A photo indicated that the Candy B II had “a relatively high main deck resulting from her designed purpose to transport the catch.” While the high deck made for a larger fish hold, “any weight on the deck would clearly raise the center of gravity more significantly than on a lower deck.”
Photos showed several items had been added to the vessel. They included paravanes – each weighing about 600 pounds and reportedly made out of 40' of 4" schedule 80 pipe. During the investigation, the vessel owner told interviewers that he added the paravane system “to increase the vessel’s stability.”
Other added items included a gallows frame with a spool of about 6-1/2' and a large boom attached to the mast below the original.
Stem damage was noted in the initial marine survey report. Repairs were made and the mast “stayed tied to the stem and carried the added stress of the new boom.”
“Oak fastened by carriage bolts” was used to anchor the added stabilizers and to repair the stem. Receipts indicated that the carriage bolts may have been steel galvanized bolts rather than marine-grade bolts.
The Coast Guard report explained that marine-grade bolts have cut threads of the same dimension as the shaft to allow for a tight fit when passed through planks and frames. The tight fit prevents moisture build-up and “working” of the bolt. Marine-grade bolts also have a “much heavier coating of zinc” and cost more than standard bolts.
“The standard bolts would not be permitted in a Coast Guard-inspected wood boat,” the report said.
Several photos showed that drainage from the deck was “very limited with two small scuppers in the waist of the vessel.” The photos also indicated that the threshold of the cabin door appeared to be about 4" above the deck, “much lower than the fish hold hatch coaming.”
Another photo showed the companionway from the wheelhouse to the forward berthing and galley “showing the potential for unrestricted flooding.” And
The vessel was equipped with a life raft, an EPIRB, and an adequate number of survival suits, which were stored in the forward compartment.
Stability issues
After analyzing these and many other facts, the Coast Guard concluded, “There is insufficient evidence to determine the fate of the Candy B II.”
However, the investigation report added, “It is clear that the vessel’s stability was significantly reduced by the modifications (additions) made for scalloping.”
Specifically, the report stated, “Each of the items added – the stabilizers, the dredge, boom, cables, and hydraulics – were above the main deck.”
From interviews with people familiar with the vessel, the report added that the large boom “had to be brought up to a sharp (high) angle to position the dredge to clear the gunwales.”
“The additional weight of scallops and any uncleared rocks or debris on deck would further diminish reserve stability, especially if it was permitted to shift on deck,” the reported stated.
“Bringing the dredge over the side in seas that were apparently better than 6' and steep would certainly risk flooding the deck and/or down flood the vessel,” the reported continued. “It appears that there was a potential for the load to block the scuppers in the waist of the vessel, further degrading vessel stability.”
Roll over?
The Coast Guard further noted in its conclusions that the life raft was never found, suggesting “it became tangled in the rigging, which further suggests the vessel rolled over.”
Also supporting the roll-over theory was damage to the EPIRB antenna. The Coast Guard ordered an extensive examination of the antenna from a private engineering and testing laboratory, which included viewing the antenna through a scanning electron microscope. The lab report “suggests some type of fouling or trouble being deployed from its case.”
The Coast Guard also raised the idea that the dredge could have played a role in the sinking.
“We have seen in other fishing vessel casualties that dredges hitting the side of the vessel as it is recovered and deployed have opened seams resulting in flooding and even sinking,” the report stated. “The hull of the Candy B II was not designed with re-enforcements to protect it from a scallop dredge. There was no evidence or claim that any had been added.”
The Coast Guard singled out the vessel owner’s statement that he had added a paravane system to improve the Candy B II’s stability for specific comment.
“This was a very serious misconception,” the report stated. “These systems simply provide a more comfortable ride by dampening the vessel’s rolling action.”
In fact, the Coast Guard continued, such systems can create hazards, “particularly when not part of a professional design nor professionally installed.”
Conclusion
The final statement in the conclusion section of the Coast Guard investigation report is as follows.
“While the fate of the Candy B II remains unknown, there are known and suspected problems with the vessel.
“The stem repair was never inspected and had an increased load put on it from the new boom that handled the dredge.
“The engine cooling water system had failed in one spot with makeshift repairs attempted (and) other parts of the same system may have wasted and (been) prone to failure. (And)
“Deck drainage seemed inadequate and easily blocked, particularly in heavy, steep seas when the vessel (was) known to heel significantly.
“These and other problems demonstrate that, without professional oversight, any number of hazardous conditions can develop on a vessel without the recognition of the operator.” /cfn/
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
