Overlooked & Overloaded: The Loss of FV Northern Belle

then the commander. of operations at Air Station Kodiak stated; "To his credit, he gave us a precise position, a starting point for us. His actions, based on everything I have learned, saved his crew. If he had not gone into the cockpit and made the distress call, the result "This would have been very serious." From then Coast Guard District 17 vessel safety coordinator Ken L, the officer cited "Responsible for all Coast Guard safety efforts for Alaska's commercial fishing industry."   He stated this during a meeting of the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act Committee, which took place on May 11, 2010, just a couple of weeks after the sinking; "On April 20, the fishing boat Northern Belle capsized and sank... in the central Gulf of Alaska.

If you read any of the media reports, you know that the captain did not survive the sinking, he is being hailed as a hero for staying behind and making an emergency call. He may have died while leaving the ship at that time. However, the three crew members were saved after two and a half hours in the water. of that boat was in June 2004. Talking to you now, I had no idea at the time, and I hate when that happens It was in Bristol Bay selling salmon... when I took a look at that boat, they didn't give it one. decal.

It had some issues, a short list of work, and those items were apparently not addressed by the Coast Guard for any follow-up. We believe that the vessel was acting in a tender capacity, and since I have it in quotes, I will define that when. We are talking about rental charges. Taking cargo from Seattle to Dillingham, which is in Bristol Bay, we believe... for one of the fishing companies, and that's one of the main focuses that this ongoing investigation is looking into, exactly. nature of that trip. We are trying to determine the type and quantity of cargo loaded on board the Northern Belle and the stability conditions of the vessel.

This brings me to the Aleutian Trade Act and the Rental Charge. The law was passed by Congress in 1990, just after the Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Act of 1988. Its goal was to allow vessels that transported cargo to remote Alaska communities to continue in service despite not having been inspected at the time. Same time. time ensuring that they entered a gradual period where they had to meet a higher set of safety standards. No one ever enforces all of this because it applies to about 20 Aleutian Trade Act ships. But that's the set of regulations that apply to these guys.

Congress specifically identified 20 vessels in service at the time, so the Act allowed Congress to allow in law those vessels to continue to be protected, elevate them to a higher security status, and continue to compete with other vessels that were already in service. service transporting cargo. . Congress saw the need to guarantee that service to Alaska's remote rural communities as an incentive to allow bidding to continue without having to move to inspection status.   The Aleutian Trade Act area is very specifically defined in the regulation.   This line at 153 degrees west runs through the center of Kodiak Island and heads west to the end of the Aleutian Chain.

So that was the area in which those vessels were expected to be able to remain in service, a service in which they had been, in some cases, for decades, competing with larger vessels from Sea Land and APL and some of the shipping companies. larger transport. Nothing is ever easy and this topic is not simple.  As defined in the regulations, a fishing vessel (and I think about 98 percent of the vessels that exist operate in District 17) as defined by the regulations is a vessel that commercially supplies, stores, refrigerates or moves fish, fishery products or materials directly related to fishing or fish preparation to or from a fishing vessel, fish processor or fish tender or a land-based fish processing facility.

So it's this general grab bag that says you're a fishing industry boat as long as what you're doing is related to commercial fishing." Now, even researching the history of the boat like I normally do, it's like This thing was a ghost... it seems to have gone unnoticed for so long. It's not exactly strange, the sheer volume of boats out there, both past and present, means these things happen, and not always bad ones. intentions. If an incident like this happens, it leads to an investigation... just the nature of the industry, I guess. Here's my own opinion piece this time, based on a decent amount of comments on videos like these and actually. , my own work experience Well, especially as a workplace safety instructor; as a society, it's kind of part of our culture, it's natural to hold in high regard the brave men and women who venture into the oceans. ..

And for good reason. It has also been part of our culture, as society evolves, to begin normalizing things like the need for seat belts in cars, fire extinguishers in buildings, or accessible emergency exits, along with countless other topics that would have been completely taboo. just a few decades ago. But when studying cases like Northern Belle, it's surprising to see how "normalized" these deaths remain, like "someone has to do it, it's inevitable." And while there is some truth to this due to the inherent dangers posed by Mother Nature, a good thought experiment is to compare it to the inherent dangers of aviation and what commercial aviation has done with *aircraft* stability calculations. ...even on cargo planes. , not just those that transport passengers.

Or even extend that to the nature of space travel and the vehicles that have transported astronauts and cosmonauts for so many years. These modes of transport are not without risks, of course, but today it is unthinkable that errors in loading, lack of stability calculations or negligence for years in maintenance would cause aerospace accidents... ...and when applied to commercial passengers, It is almost non-existent in modern times as one of the risk factors. This is intentional. Stability calculations are beyond being taken seriously now in aviation: they are simply part of the routine...completely ingrained in the culture. By those calculations, you have a go or no go situation...simple as that.

And the same goes for maintenance of aircraft structures, pre-flight checks, etc. But when these incidents occur on the high seas and lives are lost, especially among seafarers... there is an almost superhuman idolatry to it.  Yes, the teams that come out in this line of work are incredibly brave... it's something I could never do personally, there's no doubt about that. However, this industry-wide normalization of

loss

of life can help maintain a culture of giving it your all, consequences be damned.   A culture where the stigma was, and sometimes still is, that it is normalized to scoff at having a working knowledge of stability needs, scoff at calculations, or skip those steps of keeping a boat and its occupants up to date on safety equipment. security and/or training. "Pfft, they're heroes!

Heroes don't need some stinking calculations." It is normalization in an industry that, fortunately, is improving, albeit slowly. Although in stark contrast, the US Coast Guard rescue teams who literally signed up knowing full well... I quote; "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back!"  They *are* signed up to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. And yet, it is fully integrated into *their culture* and policies to perform stability calculations, constantly train on safety procedures, and keep their equipment in operational condition.  It doesn't mean it's not dangerous, it is very dangerous... but they are going to go out (under the same conditions) not only to stay alive, but they will be prepared enough to stay alive plus 1, plus 2, plus a whole group of others. alive.

The chances of survival may increase. The men and women who fish the high seas, who make the enjoyment of seafood possible, who sustain their local economies when literally no other commerce is available, are brave, there is no doubt about it. But I don't think that makes them any less deserving of maximizing their chances, within the limits of what is feasible, of being able to return home safely to their loved ones... In Memoriam... So, real quick since A lot of people have been asking lately. The music I use to support my voiceovers, create the atmosphere and all that, is produced and licensed for use by the artist Mors.

He is an expert in the music industry and his typical clientele are those artists looking to make a name for themselves; as vocalists, rappers and other similar aspiring musicians. The links to it will be below and yes, most of the songs can be listened to without a license. I even listen to a lot of them when I'm out and about.  His flair for ambience and dark tones, however, is something that uniquely fits into my creative process, haha, whether you like it or not... I'm not exactly a vocalist looking to make a name for myself in the music industry .

But as with most things I do, it tends to be unique, I guess... And as many of you know, I'm VERY picky about the atmosphere I create in these videos. So, go watch him and tell him Sam said what's up... Anyway, as I said before, these videos are only possible without sponsors due to the large number of viewers, subscribers and especially Immortar's followers.  Especially now that behind the scenes Mors and I are teaming up to take down a known copyright abuser who has been attacking the channel for a couple of years, it's not quite over but I'll take every victory he can get .  I will go into more detail on this in a community post later.

Don't forget, you are important... and your safety matters.