For those not familiar with the rec.boats newsgroup, it contains postings of all sorts about recreational boating. A frequent topic in the past has been "Bayliner Bashing." The economical entry level Bayliner boats are frequently slammed as "cheap trash." There were several posts about the crash focusing on that theme that were not reposted here, but you will see some references to them.

Note- this accident was later aired on NBC Dateline on 21 November 1997 and another round of discussion occurred in the recboats newsgroup. We also archived that discussion.

Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 23:05:13 GMT
From: Lee Lindquist 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, Two Die

The boat was a bayliner 'deck boat'. It had been rented for the day, and had 11 POB.

At the point where the video starts, the boat had about a 30-degree down angle, with the forward 25% of the boat awash, and the outboard nearly out of the water. There are conflicting stories about how the boat got to this point -- one is swamped by boat wake.

At this point, the boat had no control, and was swept into a barge moored under the 17th street causeway. (A second bridge is being built next to the first, and the barge was part of that construction)

That barge bad a flat, angled bow, the boat first was wedged under the bow of the barge by the current, and subsequently carried under the barge.

It will be interesting to see what really caused it. The barge is not in the main channel, but off to the side of the bridge. There are currently barricades and signs 'forcing' boats to use the main channel under the bridge.

If I had to guess, I'd expect in-experienced rental operator. Who knows, maybe a wake caused 11 occupants to shift within the boat and put the rail under.

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with bayliners, although it may reflect poorly on 'deck boats'.

Lee Lindquist

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 07:03:52 -0400
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

The couple who drowned were from Roth, Germany. They were in a rented Bayliner boat when a large wake swamped the boat and a swift current sent it crashing into the barge.

For divers in the rescue, the 9- to 12-mph currents were a challenge.

We never really dove in those waters because of the swift current,'' Zimmerman said. ``When we got the call, the current was just starting to go out.''

The water was dark, about 20 to 22 feet deep, he said. Visibility was about five feet.

- - - - Monday's news reports had the boat driver heading towards the barge to get out of the current. Today's update says a swift current sent it crashing into the barge. I wonder which it was?

Also note how fast the current was--9 to 12 miles an hour--is *really* whipping along, eh? There are many boats that could not make any forward progress at all in that kind of current.

Does anybody know the capacity of a 25-foot Bayliner? I know there are several models of Bayliner in that size. There have been no details published yet on precisely how the boat was swamped. Did the wake come over the bow? Over the sides? There would be no transom cutout on a boat that size, if it were outboard powered, because it would have a bracket, right? And if not an outboard, it would be an I/O with a high transom.

Can anyone fill in some of the holes about the configuration and handling of 25' Bayliners

Harry Krause

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 02:28:28 GMT
From: Paul and Cindy Kruse 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

As much as we love to bash Bayliners in this group, I do not believe we can blame them for this accident. It was a rental boat. Apparently, the operator did a bad job of operating it. I suspect that he took a large wave over the bow in the rough water of the inlet, and then drifted back into the barge. It does amaze me, though; that the people would be out in water rough enough to swamp the boat, and apparently only one of them had a life jacket on. Even after the boat was swamped, they did not put their PFD's on. (The one lady who had a PFD on is one of the people who died.)

While the primary cause of this accident is most likely opperator error, I would like to ask a question to the group: Why would the Bayliner float bow under and stern up after being swamped? Do you think that perhaps it had inadequate floatation in the bow?

Paul Kruse

Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 10:03:22 -0400
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Photo of Capsizing Bayliner

www.herald.com/docs/021708.htm

RBBI note - the photo and article referenced above are also provided on our Fort Lauderdale Accident page

Apparently the boat took a wake over the bow and sank. According to the report, the boat was not overloaded. Perhaps the scuppers were not large enough to drain the water out of the boat?

The lawyers are going to have a field day with this one.

Harry Krause

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 11:11:37 -0400
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

jcoogan wrote:
> 
> In <5idm6e$4lq@news.atlantic.net>,  (Paul and Cindy Kruse) writes:
> >GLENN MURPHEY  wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>Sounds like Capt. STUPID was at the helm,  so this is Bayliners
> >>fault????
> >
> >Yes, Capt. STUPID was at the helm, and he was the primary reason for this
> >accident; but I will also lay some of the blame on Bayliner.
> >
> >When the boat was swamped, it floated with the bow down and under water, and the
> >stern high.  I believe that if Bayliner had properly distributed the floatation
> >so that it would float level, then the boat would not have gone under the barge.
> >I say this after reviewing the video of the accident that was broadcasted on the
> >local news station several times.
> >
> >(Paul Kruse)
> >
> .I apologize in advance for being offensive, but if your spelling and your
> .engineering are on the same level, I think we should disregard your post!
> 
> .Plus, you have previously admited your anti-Bayliner prejudice!
> 
> jcoogan

I've not commented yet on any connection between the boat capsizing and it being a Bayliner. I did see those same video clips and I also wondered about distribution of floatation and also the size of the scuppers. I even wonder about the design of those pleasure barges--not Bayliner's design in particular, but the genre in general. They all look unboatlike, if you will.

Speaking of distribution of floatation, I wonder if Bayliner even was required to provide floatation in the boat. Seems to me that the floatation regs don't apply to boats larger than 20' although many reputable manufacturers of boats between 20' and 30' do stuff their boats with foam. I have no idea what Bayliner does in general or in particular.

Harry Krause

Date: 9 Apr 1997 18:01:05 GMT
From: Ed 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, Two Die

Lee Lindquist  wrote in article
<334a7bf9.2037810@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>...

> If I had to guess, I'd expect in-experienced rental operator.   Who
> knows, maybe a wake caused 11 occupants to shift within the boat
> and put the rail under.
> 
> It doesn't seem to have anything to do with bayliners, although it
> may reflect poorly on 'deck boats'.

Several months ago, I assisted in the rescue of several persons who had abandoned a deck boat (not a Bayliner - though I don't recall the manufacturer) in Tampa Bay. The boat had taken a large wake over the bow from a cargo vessel coming up the bay. The deck-boat's bow raised over the first wave (about 3 to 4' ) and burried into the next wave. subsequent waves added more water into the already swamped hull, and the boat settled into a bow-down attitude similar to that described in the Port Everglagdes incident.

I was about 500 yards away in my 23' Maxum when this incident occured. I too had a wave break over the bow, but the cuddy cabin design of my boat prevented me from taking on significant water. I was the first boat on the scene, and with the help of two other boats which arrived quickly, was able to pick up three of the six people from the deck boat (another boat picked up the remaining three), and was able to tow the partially submerged boat (by it's stern) to shallower water. Incidently, all aboard the deck boat where wearing PFDs.

Perhaps there is a problem with the design and/or floatation characteristics of this type of boat.

Ed Kleinhample

Date: 10 Apr 1997 04:04:31 GMT
From: "Harry J. Stearns" 
To: GLENN MURPHEY 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

GLENN MURPHEY wrote:
> 
> Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
> >
> > GLENN MURPHEY wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >Sounds like Capt. STUPID was at the helm,  so this is Bayliners
> > >fault????
> >
> > Yes, Capt. STUPID was at the helm, and he was the primary reason for this
> > accident; but I will also lay some of the blame on Bayliner.
> >
> > When the boat was swamped, it floated with the bow down and under water, and the
> > stern high.  I believe that if Bayliner had properly distributed the floatation
> > so that it would float level, then the boat would not have gone under the barge.
> > I say this after reviewing the video of the accident that was broadcasted on the
> > local news station several times.
> >
> > (Paul Kruse)
> 
> As i recall positive floatition is not REQUIRED in any vessel above 19
> ft.  Do any of the BIG NAMES provide floatition on their Big boats.    I
> dunnknow.......
> 
> Glenn<><>M>M<> 

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:07:03 GMT
From: Walt Bilofsky 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

(Paul and Cindy Kruse) wrote:

>While the primary cause of this accident is most likely opperator error, I would
>like to ask a question to the group:  Why would the Bayliner float bow under and
>stern up after being swamped?  Do you think that perhaps it had inadequate
>floatation in the bow?

Walt Bilofsky

Date: 10 Apr 1997 18:01:56 GMT
From: Ed 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

> Glenn<><>M>

> What I find most interesting is that the Bayliner was a rental.  If
> these boats were inherantly unsafe would any company purchase a fleet of
> them to rent to relativly unskilled operators?????  Food for thought.

The one factual statement that our 'friend' Harry has stated is that many Bayliner models in the under-20' range are not built to the level of rigidity that one might see in a more expensive line of boats, and Harry is correct that a 17' Bayliner (for example) is considerably lesss expensive than a comparable Sea Ray product. I should point out that I have seen 20' Sea Rays with split hulls too.

The Bayliner products are NOT dangerous in any way IF OPERATED IN AN INTELLIGENT and SAFE manor - Don't go jumping 10 foot swells in a 15' Bayliner (don't try it in a 20 Grady White either). Don't slam into a sea-wall to see if the hull will survive it.

One issue that has been discussed many times is that this was a rented boat. I do not know what level of experience the operator had in piloting a vessel of this type - based on the acounts of the accident, I would guess little or none. Rented boats operated by inexperienced persons are (IMHO) a hazzard in any waterway. Perhaps some of the liability for this accident lies with the rental company for turning an inexperienced person loose at the helm of a good-sized boat with little or know training. On the other hand, how many of us could control a large boat that is taking on water, in an 8-10 knot current, in a narrowed waterway, likely with other traffic in the area???

Several accounts of the accident stated that a large wake from another vessel caused the boat to begin taking on water, other accounts state that a large wave pushed the vessel against the work barge. If the first account is in fact true, then the operator of the other vessel was operating in an irresponsible manor to drag that large of a wake through a under a narrow bridge (keep in mind that the operator of a boat is responsible for damage caused by his wake). If this fact is in question (no wake), it is possible that a standing wave caused by the swift current through a narrow channel may have caused the operator of the vessel to loose control. Why did the boat maintain a bow-down attitude after taking on water? One photo that I saw on the web showed the vessel pointing apparantly up-river (based on waves streaming off of a nearby bridge pile) with it's bow submerged, and it's engine apparantly running and in gear. Would not the force of the current tend to hold the bow submerged in such a situation. Again - the current is not the fault of Bayliner, or caused by any fault in the design of the boat

In short, the fact that a Bayliner boat was involved is neither here nor there. The facts and accounts prove only that a dangerous set of circumstances, and likely the inexperience of the operator resulted in a tragic accident. These same circumstances could prove dangerous for any type of small boat.

Ed Kleinhample

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:14:03 -0700
From: Erik Vaaler 
To: andrew 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

 >Harry Krause wrote:
> < the bow of a barge (scow) and a number of people needlessly drowning
> snipped.>>
> 
> I haven't been following the Bayliners suck/No They don't threads so
> forgive me if you haven't participated.
> 
> This wasn't intended as a Bayliner sucks post was it?  If so, it had
> nothing to do with the make and model (other than size) of the boat.
> Had they been on a 25ft (Whaler/GW/your brand here) boat the same thing
> would have happened.
> 
> Now a 50ft Hatteras would have been a different story.
> 
> A.

http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi/folders/acc/ftlaud/ftlaud.htm
RBBI Note - Nice plug for our site, thanks Erick!

I agree about the Hatteras. It probably would have sunk the barge

Erik from SF/Boston

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:05:35 GMT
From: Paul and Cindy Kruse 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

Harry, if you did not get this thread started, then someone else would have. I, for one, do not see any evidence that you were bashing Bayliners when you got it started, and I do not have any trouble with the way you posted it.

I did not see the accident, and I was not out on the water in the area when it happened; though I am familiar with the water in that area. I have paid close attention to all the news reports, and have seen the video on TV several times. I have also read the account in four different news papers. Much of what is reported contradicts with other reports, and some of it simply makes no sense.

With that said, let's take a closer look at some of your additional questions:

[snip]

>The questions that remain for me are these:

>What were the sea conditions that lead to the boat taking such a large
>amount of water over the bow that it capsized?

Judging by the video in the area of the barge, it appeared as if the water was fairly calm with a strong current. I estimate the current to have been about three knots, or perhaps a little less. This is consistent with the amount of current I have seen in that area during a change of tide. Some of the news reports put the current as high as 12 mph, which I do not believe at all. The current may have been higher near the inlet where swamping occured, but I still do not belive it was as high as 12 mph there.

I believe the accident with the barge happened about a half mile from the inlet, with the current flowing into the inlet on the incoming tide. The boat was swamped closer to the inlet, and was carried from there to the barge. There would have been perhaps a 1-3 foot chop in the inlet at the time, judging by the marine weather reports.

A strong current like this in the inlet will do very strange things with the waves and wakes. I have seen eight and ten foot high standing waves that were only ten or twelve feet peak to peak, and this on very calm days. I have crossed though standing waves like this in a number of the South Florida inlets, but would never have attempted to do so in this boat--especially loaded like it was. It would be too easy to scoop an entire wave into the boat and swamp it completely. Over the years, I have seen many boats swamped and/or capsized in exactly this same manner. I believe this is exactly what happened in this case.

One time not very long ago, it was a beautiful day and my wife and I decided to take one of my dad's boats out for a ride to Sebastian Inlet. This was a 19 foot I/O with a closed bow. We started near the Port Canaveral locks, went south in the Bannana River to the Indian River, and then to Sebastian. The water was like glass, and we cruised very comfortably the entire way. We got to Sebastian on an outgoing tide, and decided to poke our nose out into the ocean. I was completely surprised by a patch of 10-12 foot waves with near vertical faces. They were only about ten feet appart. It took very careful manipulation of the throttle and wheel to prevent being capsized or swamped. Fortunately, we were past it in only a few seconds. Once we were out in the ocean, it was once again calm--flat as glass without a puff of wind. Not wanting to go through the inlet again, we decided to return to Canaveral via the ocean route.

I believe this is exactly what happened in the case of this Bayliner. I have thousands of hours in about a hundred small boats in this area for experience, yet I believe that I might very well have been swamped in this open bow "party barge," if I had taken it into the same conditions I found that day at Sebastian--especially if about half of those eleven people were in the bow at the time.

After this Bayliner was swamped, the bow floated down and below the surface of the water, while the stern floated high. The engine was still running, but it appeared as if the prop was biting as much air as water. I do not believe he was able to manurver much with the engine after being swamped, but rather was carried along with the current.

The last I heard, the USCG was still trying to figure out were the mysterious "wake" came from. We know that it did not come from the barge, since it was at anchor. I suspect that it was not a "wake" at all, but rather a standing wave that is very common in these inlets.

>How much floatation was in the boat. I believe that over a certain size,
>floation is "optional." Was this boat over that size? 

I do not know what the magical size limit is, beyond which the USCG no longer requires floatation. It is somewhere between 20-23 feet, because I have seen many boat this size and bigger that do not have flotation.

This is one place where we can give some good credit to Bayliner. This boat had plenty of floatation to float it, all the people, and the engine--even when completely swamped. The problem was the distribution of floatation, such that the stern floated very high while the bow was under water.

>How did the manufacturer resolve the floatation problem?

I'm not sure he did. Since this was an outboard, he had plenty of space to put the floatation under the deck in the aft part of the boat; but with the open bow desing, he apparently could not find enough space forward to place floatation.

>If you can show me an instance in regard to the Bayliner capsizing where
>I posted anything that stated definitively there was something wrong
>with the boat or its design, please do so. Otherwise, you're just
>venting your usual pro-Bayliner B.S.

I think it is clear that neither you nor I particularly like Bayliners, at least not the ones built in the last ten or fifteen years. That is simply because they do not meet our boating objectives and requirements. They have, however; found a market nitch by meeting the boating objectives of a significant part of the boating population. For them, I'm sure that they are very fine boats.

I do not believe that you have been bashing Bayliners as a result of this accident, and I hope that no one believes that I have, either. Not only would that be in very poor taste, but it would also be a rather ignorant thing to do; since the same thing can happen to any similar boat in similar conditions. We all need to learn from it, lest it also happens to us.

Date: 11 Apr 1997 03:12:19 GMT
From: "Harry J. Stearns" 
To: GLENN MURPHEY 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

GLENN MURPHEY wrote:
> 
> Glenn<><>M><
> 
> What I find most interesting is that the Bayliner was a rental.  If
> these boats were inherantly unsafe would any company purchase a fleet of
> them to rent to relativly unskilled operators?????  Food for thought.

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:56:48 GMT
From: jwilli
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 10:41:37 -0400, Harry Krause 
wrote:

>FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A rental boat
>took on water Sunday after a large wake and a strong
>current sucked it under a moored barge, killing a
>German couple and injuring another passenger. 
>
>The captain of the boat apparently tried to steady 
>the 25-foot Bayliner Sunday, and steered it alongside
>the larger barge. 
>
>`He didn't appear to be experienced enough to
>deal with a boat taking on water like that,'' said
>police spokesman Detective Clinton Ward. ``He
>had a hard time handling the boat.'' 

Sandy

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:01:56 -0700
From: robert j duckstein 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

the engine failed on a flood tide near a bridge... the venturi effect was magnified there was no control at the helm [by the captain or the rudder] panick ensued, proper instuctions were not issued. possibly due to the fact that the command of english was not fully understood by the two deceased german tourists. non the less the captain of the vessel is always responable for his crew..not bayliner...the fact that the vessel rose at all should attest to the production/design of said hull. persaonlly i don't like 'em..... but the fault does (sic) lie with bayliner it lies with the man at the helm.

robert

Date: 11 Apr 97 09:34:01 -0500
From: acssysdsc
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, Two Die

> :The boat was a bayliner 'deck boat'.  It had been rented for the
> :day, and had 11 POB.
> 
> Can someone confirm that this was actually a 25 ft boat?  Surely
> someone familiar with bayliners has deduced the exact model by now.
> It looked smaller to me, but I only caught about  5 sec worth
> of the film..
> 
> What is the rated capacity?

dsc - acssysdsc

Date: 11 Apr 97 09:39:29 -0500
From: acssysdsc
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

>>As much as we love to bash Bayliners in this group, I do not believe we can
>>blame them for this accident.  It was a rental boat.  Apparently, the operator
>>did a bad job of operating it.  I suspect that he took a large wave over the bow
>>in the rough water of the inlet, and then drifted back into the barge.  It does
>>amaze me, though; that the people would be out in water rough enough to swamp
>>the boat, and apparently only one of them had a life jacket on.  Even after the
>>boat was swamped, they did not put their PFD's on.  (The one lady who had a PFD
>>on is one of the people who died.)

dsc - acssysdsc

Date: 11 Apr 1997 13:40:10 GMT
From: Ed 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

> Eleven people on a 25 foot boat??  Aren't there maximum capacity
> plaques on boats that size?

The capacity, according to the dealer, is 13 persons or 2000 lbs (motor, passengers, fuel, gear, etc).

Ed Kleinhample

 Date: 11 Apr 1997 17:44:56 GMT
From: George Jefferson 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Bayliner Capsizes, 2 Die

: :the engine failed on a flood tide near a bridge...

There is clearly a rooster tail thrown by the still running engine. In fact one report said it was still running when the boat resurfaced. If there was a mechanical failure involved that would be of interest, but I dont think you can call it "engine failure"

:the fact that the vessel rose :at all should attest to the production/design of said hull.

well, it clearly had sufficient posative flotation, or it would have just sunk. ( ironically that would have been preferable in this situation ). I think they need to reconsidert the distribution of the flotation..

Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:07:52 -0400
From: Dave Brown
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

> Rental opperators usually buy the cheapest thing they can put their
> hands on that will serve a given purpose.  Reason.... Just like rental
> cars, people abuse them to no end!!  Why spend more money when its going
> to get abused just as bad as a lower cost boat.  It's all dollars and
> cents ...........

1. Keeps the return clients happy becasue they're driving the newest rig
2. No down time due to repairs
3. Gives me a supply of used pontoon to sell in a market that will scoop
up any good used boat.
4. Keeps my water front free of scows.

My two cents,

Dave Brown
Brown's Marina

 Date: 12 Apr 1997 15:58:36 GMT
From: "Harry J. Stearns" 
To: dave.brown
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: More Details on Bayliner Swamping

Dave Brown wrote:

> While I can't speak for other rental operations, I can tell you what I
> do. I rent pontoon boats as part of my marina operation and yes, I do it
> for profit. 
> My boats
> are purchased new annually and sold at the end of every season. This
> does a number of things for me:
> 
> 1. Keeps the return clients happy becasue they're driving the newest rig
> 2. No down time due to repairs
> 3. Gives me a supply of used pontoon to sell in a market that will scoop
> up any good used boat.
> 4. Keeps my water front free of scows.

Sounds like you may have a good franchise idea on your hands ;-)

Harry Stearns

Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page