Editorial: Grounding Delta Queen Not Sensible

There is a lot being said these days over refusal to grant another 10-year exemption to the Delta Queen (whose superstructure is wood) due to fire danger. The key word here is danger and whether or not the concern expressed by opponents of an exemption is or is not exaggerated.

Decade after decade, the grand old Queen has been given exemptions from Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations (Public Law 89-777) which forbid vessels operating from a United States port to carry more than 50 passengers if it is constructed primarily of wood. The DQ has two all-steel hulls under her.

If fire was a realistic danger, and if the fear of it was underpinned by a poor safety record, there might be reason for that concern. Our intelligence, however, tells us that owners of the DQ have gone to great length to make her safe—safer, we think, than many vessels of mostly steel construction. (An Internet search reveals a wealth of DQ information we haven’t room for here.)

The point is not whether a fire is possible but whether it is probable. Probability changes the equation. If it were true that danger lurks around every corner, it would be a different story.

We must not fail to mention that a new campaign has been launched to save the Queen. (Those wanting to join in merely need to visit the Internet and feed the keywords Delta Queen into Google.) Proponents of the exemption are discussing many facets of the proud vessel’s history, including the fact that she is a National Historic Landmark, that she is on the list of National Historic Places, and, that being built in 1927, she is the last of her breed. Her beautiful construction makes her a rare vessel indeed. We are more inclined to believe, however, that the salvation of the Queen could be accomplished more easily if Congress and the Coast Guard were inclined to help this grand old vessel to continue in service rather than to take her off the waterways. The government has proposed (in WRDA 2007) to spend $8 billion to fix a Florida swamp. Can it afford a few ducats for a Queen?

SOLAS regulations may sound great, for who among us does not want passengers safe from fire? But what has changed on the Queen to make her more dangerous than she was 10 years ago? Twenty years ago? To the contrary, she is (with all the attention on safety) safer now than in the past.

Government loves to crack the whip, let us know at every opportunity that it is in control and that we are going to have to toe the mark. The regulations that the DQ fail to meet were written in 1966, more than 40 years ago. Some are antiquated and do not take into consideration technical advances that have been made during the last four decades. Since then, owners have spent tons of money in the name of safety. Perhaps what has changed is attitude. Could it be that more people have bought into the idea that the grand old lady is or could be unsafe?

Government has set, at one time or another, a lousy record of making bad decisions in the name of caring for our welfare. Many lives have been virtually destroyed as a result of poor decisions. If one cares to look at the whole chessboard and not just at one piece (the DQ), we can see where inconsistencies reign everywhere. Recently we learned that NASA has been and still is concealing the fact that air travel is far more dangerous than we have been led to believe. Thousands of pilots, given immunity, spilled their guts, and a NASA bigwig was called before Congress. We’re hearing about pilots falling asleep at the controls and that close calls (dangers of mid-air collisions) take place far more often than we’ve been told. We won’t even delve into the use of alcohol.

Government is an incongruent body of not-so-small fiefdoms, each of which is controlled by a politician who may have been presented the plum by virtue of his/her loyalty to the party in power. As long as the head man/woman doesn’t do something to arouse public ire or shame the reigning party, we will all be subjected to that person’s philosophy of governing. Right now NASA is on the griddle.

The Delta Queen, with its highly trained crew of 80, carries fewer passengers (174 at capacity) than many airplanes that fly dangerous flight paths daily. Airline passengers can’t slip into lifeboats. Airline passengers do not have the luxury of 80 crewmembers looking after them throughout the trip. The DQ usually cruises within a mile from shore, while airliners fly at heights of many miles and carry no parachutes, which would be useless anyway. Are we going to stop air travel now that we know the government and the airline industry have been less than candid with us? No, we take our chances.

Many activities in life are dangerous. Plan a skyscraper, and safety experts can tell you how many lives will be lost building it. A person is safer on the DQ than crossing the street or jogging in the park. Driving vehicles is hazardous. Returning to a parked car after dark can be fatal. Then, of course, we can’t leave out the dangers of FAST FOODS! My, oh my, certainly not that! How long before comes the legislation to save us from ourselves?

The Queen deserves her exemption.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)