LAKE GEORGE--It was a warm sunny autumn afternoon in Warren County when a group of 47 senior citizens from Michigan and Ohio boarded the 40-foot long tour boat Ethan Allen on Oct. 2, 2005, for a cruise along the shoreline of Lake George to view the vibrant reds and orange hues of the fall foliage.

About 20 minutes into the cruise, the boat capsized, throwing the 47 passengers and the captain into the water. The boat sank in 70 feet of water near Cramer Point. Twenty people died.

Following investigations conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board, the Warren County Sheriff's Department and a Warren County Grand Jury, all of which determined no criminal negligence existed, the NTSB investigator-in-charge of the Ethan Allen probe says that the federal investigation was seriously flawed, evidence was withheld and he wants Congress to reopen the investigation.

In fact, if all of the evidence is reviewed, there may be probable cause to bring charges of criminal negligence based on who knew what when.

The Ethan Allen had been scheduled to take the first group of leaf peekers out that Sunday at 1500 hours or 3 p.m. but the director of the tour group asked if the cruise could depart about a half hour early. The tour boat had made two trips earlier in the day and the vessel operators on those cruises, Captain Richard Paris and Hugh Quirk, one of the owners of Shoreline Cruises Inc., later told investigators that the trips had been uneventful.

Richard Paris, 76, a retired state trooper and operator of the vessel, said that in preparation for his trips that day, he had checked the bilge area and did not observe any water of the forward bulkhead. The pump removed bilge water from either the engine compartment itself or the forward space, according to the setting on a selector value.

Quirk said that he had arrived at Shoreline between 7:45 and 8 a.m. that Sunday and the "first thing I did was check out the Ethan Allen".

"I climbed into the engine room and checked the bilges, the oil and transmission fluids….I sat in the engine room and checked everything. It was the first time I had ever been in there".

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) immediately sent a team of investigators to the accident scene. Leading the NTSB team of 12 was Robert Ford who served as the Investigator-in-Charge. NTSB. Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker accompanied the team and served as principal spokesperson.

Less than 10 months after the accident, on July 25, 2006, the final NTSB report was presented in Washington, DC., with the NTSB maintaining that the capsizing was the result of a series of factors that occurred.

Both Paris and Quirk say that they didn't notice a list or tipping of the Ethan Allen as it departed on the cruise and didn't notice it as being "bow heavy". But the NTSB final report concluded the boat had a 2 degree list to port when it left the dock.

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the capsizing of the Ethan Allen was the vessel's insufficient stability to resist the combined forces of a passing wave or waves, a sharp turn, and the resulting involuntary shift of passengers to the port side of the vessel. The vessel's stability was insufficient because it carried 48 persons where post-accident stability calculations demonstrated that it should have been permitted to carry only 14 persons. Contributing to the cause of the accident was the failure to reassess the vessel's stability after it had been modified because there was no clear requirement to do so", the NTSB report issued in late July, 2006, concluded.
NTSB - Marine Accident Report
NTSB - Stability Safety IssuesStability Issues
NTSB - Ethan Allen Presentation (Power Point)

Now Ford, the investigator-in-charge of the NTSB probe, says the report is flawed and has asked for a Congressional investigation into the NTSB's handling of the matter, alleging that crucial evidence was withheld from the final report which could give cause to bring charges of criminal negligence in the case. He wants the case reopened.

Although a detailed file was sent in early February by Ford to both Congressman James Oberstar, (D-Minnesota) chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) a member of the Congressional Appropriations and Transportation Committee, only Wolfe has acknowledged Ford's request.

Wolf told Ford that he had contacted Oberstar on his behalf and requested that Ford's questions and concerns be addressed. Wolf has said that as soon as he had received any information about the matter, he would contact Ford. So far, Ford has had no acknowledgement from Oberstar's office except for receiving his return mail receipt.

Attempts by The North Country Gazette to contact Oberstar's office about Ford's request were also unsuccessful.

As the senior Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Oberstar serves as an Ex Officio member of the House subcommittees on Aviation, Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation, Public Buildings & Economic Development, Railroads, Surface Transportation, and Water Resources & Environment.

A 530-page report issued by Warren County Sheriff Larry Cleveland summarizing the the sheriff's department investigation had concluded that "no culpable criminal conduct had occurred" although Ford's allegations supported by documentation indicates that the sheriff's department investigation of the matter was also seriously flawed and an investigator sent to South Carolina to observe testing on the boat's pumps admitted to NTSB investigators he was out of his league and didn't know what he was observing. http://tcattorney.typepad.com/wrongfuldeath/2006/02/docs_received_b.html

Paris and Shoreline Cruises pleaded guilty earlier this week to a misdemeanor charge of violating the state's Navigation Law by failing to have more that one crew member on board. Paris and his employer were indicted by a Warren County Grand Jury. Warren County district attorney Kate Hogan said that the law had prevented her from bringing charges of criminal negligence in the case based on the known evidence.

But Ford says that evidence was withheld and if the investigation is reopened and all of the evidence reviewed, particularly that involving the replacement and installation of a water pump just months before the accident, it could constitute grounds to bring criminal negligence charges.

The NTSB contracted an independent naval architect firm to provide detailed stability data and information from the Ethan Allen, Ford says. Using the data, the staff expected to explain how and why the vessel capsized. Based on the results of the firm's study, one factor by itself would not have been sufficient to cause the capsizing. Therefore, if any of the factors cannot be supported, the probable cause is flawed, Ford says.

He says such is the case with the Ethan Allen investigation.

Ford was a marine accident investigator in the Office of Marine Safety (OMS) at NTSB from February 2001 until March 2006. During this period, he was an investigator for a number of high-profile marine accidents including the explosion on the Norwegian Cruise Line vessel Norway at the Port of Miami, the collision of the Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi and the sinking of the U.S. fishing vessel Arctic Rose.

He was either project manager or group chairman for a number of small passenger vessel accidents. His final accident investigation was as the investigator-in-charge during the on-scene portion of the Ethan Allen investigation. He resigned from the agency last March, saying he felt the "management of the office was more concerned with the timely production of a report rather than on conducting a thorough investigation. I believe the final report into the capsizing of the Ethan Allen was produced with the focus on timeliness and that there are significant flaws in the investigation".

There were a lot of politics involved too, he says, especially with the appointment of Dr. John "Jack" Spencer as NTSB's director of the Office of Marine Safety in August, 2005, two months before the Ethan Allen tragedy.

In summarizing what he maintains are the vulnerable areas of the NTSB's final report, Ford says that the report relied on "cherry-picked" information from interviews. He says that interviews to the Warren County Sheriff's office that he had entered into the public docket before he left the federal agency were removed before the release of the docket. The deleted information would have contradicted the investigation conclusions in the published report, according to Ford.

Ford also charges says that crucial video and photographic evidence was not entered into the docket and was not addressed in the report that could have contradicted the report's findings.

Importantly, in regard to the gap found in the boat's water pump, Ford says there was no analysis of the destructive testing conducted on two raw water coolant pumps that had been installed on the Ethan Allen.

"Assumptions were made regarding the waterline of the pump in relation to the centerline of raw water pump without further documentation in the report", Ford charges and he has provided documentation to Oberstar's office that addresses specific factors found in the report.

Ford contends that if the NTSB can release one report that is superficial and flawed, the integrity of the entire organization is at stake. "Who will represent the interests of the victims and families if the NTSB loses the trust of the public", Ford asks and he has asked Oberstar in his capacity as chairman of the transportation committee to reconsider the investigation into the capsizing and sinking of the Ethan Allen.

There are six issues to be addressed in the final NTSB report, Ford points out, which include the two degree port list, the Ethan Allen making a sharp turn and allegedly heeling to port in the turn. He takes issue with the NTSB's assertion that passenger statements were consistent regarding turn to starboard and a passing wave, that there was an "insignificant" amount of water in bilges and the analysis of the raw water coolant pump.

In his summary of dissent, Ford notes that the two degree port list was disputed by the captains of the Ethan Allen and its sister boat, the de Champlain. Video and still photographs which may have provided additional information were not entered into docket nor evaluated, he says.

He points out that passenger statements were inconsistent whether the Ethan Allen was in a turn to port or starboard. The captain of the Ethan Allen was consistent in his statements that he had, at best, just begun the turn to starboard. Paris also stated that the vessel, at most, would heel slightly in a turn.

Ford says that there was no consistency among the passengers as to whether they were struck by a passing wave as it has been claimed.

More troubling, there was no explanation as to how the raw water bilge pump developed a gap in its housing and there was no analysis to evaluate the destructive testing conducted at the NTSB laboratory. The information in the factual report would seem to indicate the Ethan Allen was experiencing some vibration, Ford says. How would vibration influence bolts to the raw water pump, he asks.

The NTSB report says that when the overloaded Ethan Allen departed the dock, it already had a 2.20 list to port, which would have reduced the vessel's port freeboard and limited the maximum angle of roll to port that the vessel could sustain before the deck edge submerged. In addition, the vessel had almost one foot of trim by the bow when it sailed, according to the report.

Ford points out contradictions to these assertions. The list was determined during the stability assessment performed by a contracted Naval Architect firm. The port list was based on the load model of the vessel using passenger weights that in most cases were estimates. Interviews contradicted the existence of a list, he shows with documentation.

William Perry, captain of the de Champlain, an eyewitness to the Ethan Allen departing the marina, was interviewed on Oct. 7, 2005.

Q. Could you tell anything about the boat, was the boat down below the head or by the stem have a list on it?

A. No, it didn't appear to have any unusual, unusual visual quality that I noticed based on the, you know, number of people. It was on its normal position from what I could see from -- for that.

Q. Would it be normal to have a list or down by the head or starboard-

A. Backing out in close proximity to the dock where there's very little -- water turbulence, perfectly calm, it looked perfectly normal to me. It didn't appear to be out of normal.

Paris told NTSB investigators on Oct. 11, 2005:

Q. Okay. Do you recall that day if the boat was ever -- was down by the head or had a list on it when you loaded the boat? Do you recall when you -- you're back (indiscernible) but once you got on your way, do you recall the boat being down by the head or having a list?

A. It didn't have a list. I know that.

Q. Okay. So you didn't notice either a list or -

A. No. I would not have left if the boat was like leaning over. I don't like to drive them like that. It's like driving a car with two flat tires on the same side, you know, your car's going down the road like that.

Q. Do you recall if the boat was down to the stern at all?

A. No.

Q. SO the boat was basically level on two planes?

A. Basically, yeah.