Ship stuck on Bramble Bank.
Discussion
DJFish said:
These car carriers usually have quite complex ballasting arrangements because of the high superstructure, also (someone one more current than me will be able to confirm this) ballasting rules mean that ships often have to be clear of port before they start discharging dirty foreign crayfish infested ballast water, as was the case with the Cougar ace.
So it could well have been a ballasting snafu.
Fire fighting water would come from the ships service pumps or the emergency fire fighting pump which take water from the sea.
Ships generators can also recycle ballast water for cooling purposes so that's probably how the power's still on.
I don't know that the ballasting is particularly complex, no more so than box boats; it will all be driven by the mate from a slightly Flash Gordon desk with buttons, lights and gauges, often in the ship's office but sometimes it will have its own cubbyhole. The ballasting will be worked out using some ancient software with an awful user interface and ghastly BASIC-style graphics, or if the computer's smoke has escaped or the mate is a luddite, he might use a scary sliderule thing instead.So it could well have been a ballasting snafu.
Fire fighting water would come from the ships service pumps or the emergency fire fighting pump which take water from the sea.
Ships generators can also recycle ballast water for cooling purposes so that's probably how the power's still on.
I doubt the gennys are running, the angle of dangle would likely kill them; it's more likely to be emergency battery power running stuff.
Mr_B said:
It looks like there is a guy standing ( some how standing at a 45 degree angle ) on the deck, to the right of the loading ramp.
They will be maniquens / dummies, dressed up as crew in high viz ... the idea being (i believe) for somali pirates to think that there is crew on deck that might see them ..... Seen them on these roro's anchored in Singapore when sailing past, first time we were thinking "why's that miserable
not waving back ..." eta - that lookes proper f
ked ..... nice parking though !!!! Edited by XJSJohn on Monday 5th January 10:16
ecsrobin said:
CAPP0 said:
ecsrobin said:
Illegal drone footage. Hopefully the CAA do more to crack down on this.
Struggling to see where the illegality was commissioned? I doubt the drone came within 50m of the ship. And in any case who's to say the drone operator is not licensed?Best get the full Fun Police SWAT team out anyway though, just in case.
The thing is I do enjoy these drone videos, but the owners need to take more responsibility for the rules of the air, for instance at Bournemouth airshow someone was flying one at height during displays again in restricted airspace and flying within 50m of a large crowd.
(perhaps they should get lots of drones to land on the high side to square it up a bit??)
ecsrobin said:
He's operating within a TDA (Temporary Danger Area) which is sfc to 8,000ft with a 1nm radius centred from the ship.
The thing is I do enjoy these drone videos, but the owners need to take more responsibility for the rules of the air, for instance at Bournemouth airshow someone was flying one at height during displays again in restricted airspace and flying within 50m of a large crowd.
Is there any general exclusion zone around such incidents? I was surprised to see on the drone's video a sailing dinghy go merrily past between the ship and much of the other traffic.The thing is I do enjoy these drone videos, but the owners need to take more responsibility for the rules of the air, for instance at Bournemouth airshow someone was flying one at height during displays again in restricted airspace and flying within 50m of a large crowd.
Sheepshanks said:
Is there any general exclusion zone around such incidents? I was surprised to see on the drone's video a sailing dinghy go merrily past between the ship and much of the other traffic.
Not sure on the general rule, but I read that the initial 100m zone around this one has been extended to 200m.Max_Torque said:
God yeah, can you image the damage that the sub 5kg drone would do to that 35,000 tonne ship if that irresponsible pilot crashed into it! I mean, it might slightly scuff the paint or something......... ;-)
(perhaps they should get lots of drones to land on the high side to square it up a bit??)
But the damage caused to a person on their yacht as it falls on top of them from height or an aircraft surveying the site expecting the airspace to be clear. (perhaps they should get lots of drones to land on the high side to square it up a bit??)
There are rules for a reason. It is harmless realistically in what he's doing but if hes broken rules on this film what's to stop him not observing the rules of the air next time in a built up area. He's also not allowed above 1500ft in that area which I believe a DJI can go above.
hornetrider said:
Sheepshanks said:
Is there any general exclusion zone around such incidents? I was surprised to see on the drone's video a sailing dinghy go merrily past between the ship and much of the other traffic.
Not sure on the general rule, but I read that the initial 100m zone around this one has been extended to 200m.For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
markmullen said:
ecsrobin said:
He's also not allowed above 1500ft in that area which I believe a DJI can go above.
That is a fairly odd argument, akin to complaining that someone drove a 911 through a 30 limit when their car can do 190mph.XJSJohn said:
They will be maniquens / dummies, dressed up as crew in high viz ... the idea being (i believe) for somali pirates to think that there is crew on deck that might see them .....
"Big" Phil Campion -- a mercenary and former SAS soldier -- works the private-security circuit to protect everything from embassies to shipments in conflict zones including Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Israel. He brags that he's never been kidnapped, captured, tortured or killed (obviously) -- One of his regular missions is to defend ships against pirates: "Most pirates are only interested in easy targets, so if you put out a strong 'don't mess' message, a lot of them will back off," says Campion. Lining the deck with dummies to make it look like there are more people on board is a good tactic, especially if they're equipped with fake weapons: "I'm a dab hand at knocking up a fake AK-47 from a bit of cardboard."
From the November 2013 issue of Wired magazine)
ecsrobin said:
So the aviation version is a TDA (temporary danger area) the maritime equivalent is a TEZ temporary exclusion zone.
For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
I confess I have never heard of either restriction - and whilst ignorance is no defence, these are not generally listed as exclusions when you google 'drone laws" or similar. Needs to be made clearer/more pronounced, as this type of thing is exactly what will draw people to have a look using their drones.For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
ecsrobin said:
So the aviation version is a TDA (temporary danger area) the maritime equivalent is a TEZ temporary exclusion zone.
For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
Note that NOTAM J0004/15 refers to a Temporary Danger Area, rather than a Restricted Area (Temporary), and uses the term 'urgently requested':For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
Q) EGTT/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/080/5047N00118W001
B) FROM: 15/01/05 09:00C) TO: 15/01/07 15:00
E) TEMPORARY DANGER AREA. OWING TO THE EMERGENCY AT THE SOLENT A
TEMPORARY DANGER AREA TO BE KNOWN AS EG D099W HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY A CIRCLE RADIUS 1NM CENTRED ON 5047N 00118W. TO ENSURE THEIR
OWN SAFETY AND TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH CONTROL AND SAR
ACTIVITIES, PILOTS ARE URGENTLY REQUESTED NOT TO FLY IN OR NEAR THE
AREA WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF SOLENT SEARCH AND RESCUE (EMERGENCY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) TELEPHONE 01329 244538. PILOTS ARE FURTHER
WARNED THAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS
OF FLYING REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 161 OF THE AIR NAVIGATION ORDER
2009. ATC UNITS CLOSE TO THE INCIDENT AREA ARE REQUESTED TO ADVISE
AIRCRAFT ON THEIR FREQUENCIES OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS NOTAM.
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 8000FT AMSL
Strictly speaking, I think Unauthorised entry into a Danger Area only becomes a criminal offence if access is prohibited within the Period of Activity of the Danger Area as listed at in the AIP ENR 5.1 by reason of bye-laws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 and associated legislation.
For those Danger Areas where bye-laws which prohibit entry apply, the Remarks column 3 of AIP ENR 5.1 includes the year and number of the relevant Statutory Instruments (SI).
Since this is a Temporary Danger Area, I suspect no such bye-laws exist.
Of course, as per the wording of the NOTAM, the TDA can be upgraded to a RA(T) without notice should it be deemed necessary, and having folk dick about with camera drones in the vicinity would be as good a reason as any.
hornetrider said:
Not sure on the general rule, but I read that the initial 100m zone around this one has been extended to 200m.
TBH, most of the boats I sail in would be looking like the ferry, at most states of the tide, if they got within 200 metres. (If she's where I think she is).eharding said:
ecsrobin said:
So the aviation version is a TDA (temporary danger area) the maritime equivalent is a TEZ temporary exclusion zone.
For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
Note that NOTAM J0004/15 refers to a Temporary Danger Area, rather than a Restricted Area (Temporary), and uses the term 'urgently requested':For this incident the exclusion zone is 200m and no vessel is allowed within unless you have the secretary of states representative permission.
It's a criminal offence to enter that area.
Q) EGTT/QRDCA/IV/BO/W/000/080/5047N00118W001
B) FROM: 15/01/05 09:00C) TO: 15/01/07 15:00
E) TEMPORARY DANGER AREA. OWING TO THE EMERGENCY AT THE SOLENT A
TEMPORARY DANGER AREA TO BE KNOWN AS EG D099W HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY A CIRCLE RADIUS 1NM CENTRED ON 5047N 00118W. TO ENSURE THEIR
OWN SAFETY AND TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH CONTROL AND SAR
ACTIVITIES, PILOTS ARE URGENTLY REQUESTED NOT TO FLY IN OR NEAR THE
AREA WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF SOLENT SEARCH AND RESCUE (EMERGENCY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY) TELEPHONE 01329 244538. PILOTS ARE FURTHER
WARNED THAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AT ANY TIME TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS
OF FLYING REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 161 OF THE AIR NAVIGATION ORDER
2009. ATC UNITS CLOSE TO THE INCIDENT AREA ARE REQUESTED TO ADVISE
AIRCRAFT ON THEIR FREQUENCIES OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS NOTAM.
LOWER: SFC
UPPER: 8000FT AMSL
Strictly speaking, I think Unauthorised entry into a Danger Area only becomes a criminal offence if access is prohibited within the Period of Activity of the Danger Area as listed at in the AIP ENR 5.1 by reason of bye-laws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 and associated legislation.
For those Danger Areas where bye-laws which prohibit entry apply, the Remarks column 3 of AIP ENR 5.1 includes the year and number of the relevant Statutory Instruments (SI).
Since this is a Temporary Danger Area, I suspect no such bye-laws exist.
Of course, as per the wording of the NOTAM, the TDA can be upgraded to a RA(T) without notice should it be deemed necessary, and having folk dick about with camera drones in the vicinity would be as good a reason as any.
The next problem with posting the footage on YouTube is if press ask to use it the CAA then regard that as commercial footage and have brought action against individuals although I believe no fines as of yet. Just fines for flying within 50m of a bridge which was around £4,000
Anyway back to the ship.
stain said:
When I last visited the docks there were dozens of Rollers, Bentleys and Land Rover products being loaded to be dropped off in the Middle East.
Now on my first day at work after Christmas - I had wondered but now its been confirmed as public knowledge so FYI there is (at a guess) £1 - 1.5 million worth of brand new Buses on that boat which were going to Bahrain. Ouch!As-well as a lot of premium vehicles, Rolls Royce/Bentley as said.
From what I have hear it was 1/3rd to 1/2 capacity, although the 'value' could be very high by the sounds of things!
onesickpuppy said:
maser_spyder said:
Fill S/B Port Side ballast tank, kersplosh, empty both/all ballast tanks, refloat on high tide.*
Fixed that for you.- I am not a marine salvage expert.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff