Oil tanker & cargo ship collide - North Sea
Discussion
eharding said:
road hog said:
Remember those 2 russian agents that were sight seeing cathedrals...
Is this captain going to say he was whale watching and didn't see the tanker
I suspect the Rowley Birkin defence might be in order.Is this captain going to say he was whale watching and didn't see the tanker
'CAAAAAAIIIRRRRRROOOO'
Arnold Cunningham said:
One of the things I find interesting about "human factors" is that it looks at every angle - but consequentially never says someone screwed up, but usually says something caused that person to screw up. Which is both great - but also sometimes deflects responsibility.
Sometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
Not completely true. Whilst you are spot on that the HOF discipline does consider Human, Technology, and Organisation, it doesn't preclude assigning blame to the idiot.Sometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
Section 7 of the HASAWA, for example, allows for prosecution of the individual and not the organisation.
That said, HOF would question why the selection and training program is not screening out idiots.
I've seen S7 prosecutions happen, albeit very rare as the socio-technical system should be robust enough to screen out the incompetent.
Arnold Cunningham said:
One of the things I find interesting about "human factors" is that it looks at every angle - but consequentially never says someone screwed up, but usually says something caused that person to screw up. Which is both great - but also sometimes deflects responsibility.
Sometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
Coasting trades often use 6 on-6 off, which is murderous even if you get a decent amount of rest off watch; there's plenty of data showing it's more or less guaranteed to induce fatigue within a day or two of starting a trip. Combined with dSometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
heads in the office, statutory paper blizzard, weather, charterers asking for the moon on a stick yesterday, the normal processes of ships falling to bits and needing mended, it's quite easy to not get that rest and then fall asleep when you aren't supposed to. I don't expect anything will change though, as that would cost ship owners money.hidetheelephants said:
Coasting trades often use 6 on-6 off, which is murderous even if you get a decent amount of rest off watch; there's plenty of data showing it's more or less guaranteed to induce fatigue within a day or two of starting a trip. Combined with dheads in the office, statutory paper blizzard, weather, charterers asking for the moon on a stick yesterday, the normal processes of ships falling to bits and needing mended, it's quite easy to not get that rest and then fall asleep when you aren't supposed to. I don't expect anything will change though, as that would cost ship owners money.
As soon as I had enough clout at work to change my watch system from 6 on 6 off to 8 on 8 off I did.heads in the office, statutory paper blizzard, weather, charterers asking for the moon on a stick yesterday, the normal processes of ships falling to bits and needing mended, it's quite easy to not get that rest and then fall asleep when you aren't supposed to. I don't expect anything will change though, as that would cost ship owners money.The fun thing is that the MCA then deemed it didn't meet the hours of rest requirement for 10 hours off in ANY 24 hour period, despite it being infinitely more pleasant for those involved and popular.
The compromise was 8 on 8 off 4 on 4 off, which means that every person gets 8 hours off in one go every 24.
This is if you only have 2 watchkeeping officers, to cover 24 hours between 2 people.
My ship currently runs with Master on an as required basis and 3 deck watch keepers working 4 on 8 off and Chief Engineer working as required and 3 engine watchkeepers working 4 on 8 off, 3 deck crew working 4 on 8 off and a cook.
This is massively over manned, but I'd be very unhappy with any less.
hidetheelephants said:
Arnold Cunningham said:
One of the things I find interesting about "human factors" is that it looks at every angle - but consequentially never says someone screwed up, but usually says something caused that person to screw up. Which is both great - but also sometimes deflects responsibility.
Sometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
Coasting trades often use 6 on-6 off, which is murderous even if you get a decent amount of rest off watch; there's plenty of data showing it's more or less guaranteed to induce fatigue within a day or two of starting a trip. Combined with dSometimes I do think the answer should also include "He's an idiot", because there does seem to be an absence of personal responsibility in society these days. It's always someone else's fault "they made me do it" - well, if you weren't happy about it, why didn't you speak up. You were in charge!
But I digress.
heads in the office, statutory paper blizzard, weather, charterers asking for the moon on a stick yesterday, the normal processes of ships falling to bits and needing mended, it's quite easy to not get that rest and then fall asleep when you aren't supposed to. I don't expect anything will change though, as that would cost ship owners money.
I have zero experience of boats aside for bring passenger on a few, but whilst the finger is pointing at the ship that was on a collision course with an anchored ship and understandably so, however would the anchored ship not have some sort of automated or human watch in place for such measures? Ie spot something large headed your way be it visually or via radar or AIS and then get on the radio / get on the horn etc etc? Or would the crew only be aware of an incoming ship as if made contact? Not trying to shift blame, far from it but I'd have assumed such ships of her nature would have some degree of "defence" as it were.
Davie said:
I have zero experience of boats aside for bring passenger on a few, but whilst the finger is pointing at the ship that was on a collision course with an anchored ship and understandably so, however would the anchored ship not have some sort of automated or human watch in place for such measures? Ie spot something large headed your way be it visually or via radar or AIS and then get on the radio / get on the horn etc etc? Or would the crew only be aware of an incoming ship as if made contact? Not trying to shift blame, far from it but I'd have assumed such ships of her nature would have some degree of "defence" as it were.
I'm sure they had an anchor watch but they couldn't possibly have got under way in time to avoid the crash.They might have hailed the approaching ship on the VHF to say "watch out for us" but if the approaching ship wasn't listening for radar alarms or looking at the radar presumably they weren't listening to the radio either.
They will have had a watchkeeper on the bridge, but unless they were due to enter the river within an hour or so it's quite feasible the engineer on watch may have been off doing maintenance away from the engine room, hypothetically as far away as the forecastle. The watchkeeper would need to have spotted the Solong, decided they were not going to change course at least 10 minutes or at a range of at least 4 nm away, roused a crew to raise the anchor and alerted the engineer that the engine is needed immediately. Not impossible but unlikely and evidence suggests it did not happen.
hidetheelephants said:
They will have had a watchkeeper on the bridge, but unless they were due to enter the river within an hour or so it's quite feasible the engineer on watch may have been off doing maintenance away from the engine room, hypothetically as far away as the forecastle. The watchkeeper would need to have spotted the Solong, decided they were not going to change course at least 10 minutes or at a range of at least 4 nm away, roused a crew to raise the anchor and alerted the engineer that the engine is needed immediately. Not impossible but unlikely and evidence suggests it did not happen.
Please elaborate - why? These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
Matthen said:
Please elaborate - why?
These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
Many reasons due to the cost of trashing a big MD lump and all the other systems required for manoeuvring.These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
Just one example is that journal bearings are typically used instead of roller or ball bearings in your Scania, so you need to fire up the jacking oil system, i.e you have a pressurised film of oil instead of a ball or roller.
Matthen said:
hidetheelephants said:
They will have had a watchkeeper on the bridge, but unless they were due to enter the river within an hour or so it's quite feasible the engineer on watch may have been off doing maintenance away from the engine room, hypothetically as far away as the forecastle. The watchkeeper would need to have spotted the Solong, decided they were not going to change course at least 10 minutes or at a range of at least 4 nm away, roused a crew to raise the anchor and alerted the engineer that the engine is needed immediately. Not impossible but unlikely and evidence suggests it did not happen.
Please elaborate - why? These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
These are very large 2 stroke engines, the checklist you run through to start one will take about 15 mins on a good day.
Thermal shock is the biggest risk so the engine oil is heated and circulated to warm the engine, and then it can be started by using compressed air to turn the engine over.
2) Heaving the anchor will take time, and given the size of ship and depth of water I would estimate 30 mins to heave the anchor up and start making meaningful headway.
3) Ships pass other ships at anchor routinely at distances of around a mile, if they ship was to start up and heave the anchor every time another ship came near it would be chaotic, mandating a 3 mile clearance for anchored ships would be impracticable.
4) Read the collision regulations, they are very comprehensive and cover all eventualities, there is no onus put upon anchored vessels in the event of a risk of collision existing. The only possible finding that a court could bring against the Stena Immaculate's Master could possibly be that he wasn't making the correct sound signal for restricted visibility.
Rule 35(g) states "A vessel at anchor shall at intervals of not more than one minute ring the bell rapidly for 5 seconds, in a vessel of 100 meters or more the bell shall be sounded in the fore part of the vessel and immediately after the ringing of the bell the gong shall be sounded rapidly for about 5 seconds in the after part of the vessel. A vessel at anchor may in addition sound three blasts (on her fog horn) in succession, namely one short blast, one prolonged prolonged blast and one short blast, to give warning of her position and of the possibility of collision to an approaching vessel."
No-one does the bell and gong thing that I have ever seen, but I have had to sound short-long-short before when a yacht was approaching me at anchor in fog.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7...
Matthen said:
Please elaborate - why?
These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
Yeah. getting a ship from anchored, probably with main engine off but still hot to the ship moving at 10+ knots takes more than a few minutes
For interest, this is a walk round the engine room of another ship with the same engine, I think : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M8H_6ObVxQ
For interest, this is a walk round the engine room of another ship with the same engine, I think : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M8H_6ObVxQ
Stick Legs said:
Matthen said:
hidetheelephants said:
They will have had a watchkeeper on the bridge, but unless they were due to enter the river within an hour or so it's quite feasible the engineer on watch may have been off doing maintenance away from the engine room, hypothetically as far away as the forecastle. The watchkeeper would need to have spotted the Solong, decided they were not going to change course at least 10 minutes or at a range of at least 4 nm away, roused a crew to raise the anchor and alerted the engineer that the engine is needed immediately. Not impossible but unlikely and evidence suggests it did not happen.
Please elaborate - why? These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
These are very large 2 stroke engines, the checklist you run through to start one will take about 15 mins on a good day.
Thermal shock is the biggest risk so the engine oil is heated and circulated to warm the engine, and then it can be started by using compressed air to turn the engine over.
2) Heaving the anchor will take time, and given the size of ship and depth of water I would estimate 30 mins to heave the anchor up and start making meaningful headway.
3) Ships pass other ships at anchor routinely at distances of around a mile, if they ship was to start up and heave the anchor every time another ship came near it would be chaotic, mandating a 3 mile clearance for anchored ships would be impracticable.
4) Read the collision regulations, they are very comprehensive and cover all eventualities, there is no onus put upon anchored vessels in the event of a risk of collision existing. The only possible finding that a court could bring against the Stena Immaculate's Master could possibly be that he wasn't making the correct sound signal for restricted visibility.
Rule 35(g) states "A vessel at anchor shall at intervals of not more than one minute ring the bell rapidly for 5 seconds, in a vessel of 100 meters or more the bell shall be sounded in the fore part of the vessel and immediately after the ringing of the bell the gong shall be sounded rapidly for about 5 seconds in the after part of the vessel. A vessel at anchor may in addition sound three blasts (on her fog horn) in succession, namely one short blast, one prolonged prolonged blast and one short blast, to give warning of her position and of the possibility of collision to an approaching vessel."
No-one does the bell and gong thing that I have ever seen, but I have had to sound short-long-short before when a yacht was approaching me at anchor in fog.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7...
RabidGranny said:
Stick Legs said:
Matthen said:
hidetheelephants said:
They will have had a watchkeeper on the bridge, but unless they were due to enter the river within an hour or so it's quite feasible the engineer on watch may have been off doing maintenance away from the engine room, hypothetically as far away as the forecastle. The watchkeeper would need to have spotted the Solong, decided they were not going to change course at least 10 minutes or at a range of at least 4 nm away, roused a crew to raise the anchor and alerted the engineer that the engine is needed immediately. Not impossible but unlikely and evidence suggests it did not happen.
Please elaborate - why? These are big compression ignition engines, or big electric motors; why does it require any more involvement than starting a Scania?
(Genuine question - I’d have thought all these systems would be computer driven at this point; needing little if any manual intervention)
These are very large 2 stroke engines, the checklist you run through to start one will take about 15 mins on a good day.
Thermal shock is the biggest risk so the engine oil is heated and circulated to warm the engine, and then it can be started by using compressed air to turn the engine over.
2) Heaving the anchor will take time, and given the size of ship and depth of water I would estimate 30 mins to heave the anchor up and start making meaningful headway.
3) Ships pass other ships at anchor routinely at distances of around a mile, if they ship was to start up and heave the anchor every time another ship came near it would be chaotic, mandating a 3 mile clearance for anchored ships would be impracticable.
4) Read the collision regulations, they are very comprehensive and cover all eventualities, there is no onus put upon anchored vessels in the event of a risk of collision existing. The only possible finding that a court could bring against the Stena Immaculate's Master could possibly be that he wasn't making the correct sound signal for restricted visibility.
Rule 35(g) states "A vessel at anchor shall at intervals of not more than one minute ring the bell rapidly for 5 seconds, in a vessel of 100 meters or more the bell shall be sounded in the fore part of the vessel and immediately after the ringing of the bell the gong shall be sounded rapidly for about 5 seconds in the after part of the vessel. A vessel at anchor may in addition sound three blasts (on her fog horn) in succession, namely one short blast, one prolonged prolonged blast and one short blast, to give warning of her position and of the possibility of collision to an approaching vessel."
No-one does the bell and gong thing that I have ever seen, but I have had to sound short-long-short before when a yacht was approaching me at anchor in fog.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff