Shen Neng 1 aground on the Great Barrier Reef. - Page 5 - Ships Nostalgia
04:07

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Shen Neng 1 aground on the Great Barrier Reef.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #101  
Old 14th April 2010, 13:54
alastairrussell alastairrussell is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 14th April 2010, 14:20
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
That seems to be a question best asked of the shippers, Alastair.

Her Equasis record does not look what I would call a bad one. Look for yourself but there are no detentions at all by any MOU states, and no recent deficiencies at all.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 14th April 2010, 14:25
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Oh dear...

Quote:
Originally Posted by alastairrussell View Post
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair
Alastair

It is possible that not every conclusion you have reached is entirely accurate.


Mark
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 14th April 2010, 14:50
alastairrussell alastairrussell is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Mark

Can I ask you have you been bought off by the COSCO ?

Alastair

Last edited by alastairrussell; 14th April 2010 at 22:35..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 14th April 2010, 15:14
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by alastairrussell View Post
Mark

Can I ask you have you been bought off by the COSCO ?

Alastair
Alastair

Of course you can ask; the answer is NO.

Regards
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 14th April 2010, 15:14
alastairrussell alastairrussell is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
Mark

Can I ask you why you have suddenly taken a dislike to COSCO? Please tell me what I have said that you think is wrong! Ttion in SN?. I feel that I am an person so please please tell what I have said that gives you the impression that what I ansaying is what I am saying is wrong?

Alastair

Last edited by alastairrussell; 14th April 2010 at 23:31..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 14th April 2010, 15:23
Thamesphil's Avatar
Thamesphil Thamesphil is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,439
It is not true that the AIS was switched off as AISLive reports the last signal on 12/4/2010 18:29:11 UTC.

I have never heard of Google Earth tracking ships' AIS signals before, but if they do, it is clearly unreliable. Personally, I prefer to rely on a system that is designed specifically to track ship movements.

Brgds
Phil

Last edited by Thamesphil; 14th April 2010 at 15:53..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 14th April 2010, 15:43
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by alastairrussell View Post
Mark

Can I ask you why you have suddenly taken a dislike to COSCO? Please tell me what I have said that you think is wrong! Ttion in SN?. I feel that I am an person so please please tell what I have said that gives you the impression that what I ansaying is what I am saying is wrong?

Alastair
Alastair

As your posts now appear to me to make no sense whatsoever, maybe it is best for everyone if I leave them to one side – In case you feel I am being unduly harsh, you appear to be asking if I have been “bought off by COSCO” and then, when given the answer as a negative, you proceed to suggest I have “taken a dislike to COSCO”. As those two statements seem rather contradictory, you may possibly forgive me for not wanting to continue what is becoming something rather like nonsense.

Other Members may be able to guide you further on the various unwise conclusions you have arrived at; although I can sympathise with anyone who finds the guidelines of RightShip even more complicated than the offside rule. It is certainly not a subject for the unwary to preach about.

Regards
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 14th April 2010, 16:13
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
1. Why did the "back" of the ship hit the reef?
Because it didn't turn the corner.
2. Why was that?
Because it was on autopilot and the man in the wheelhouse was asleep
3. Why was that?
Because he was too tired to stay awake
4. Why was that?
Because the Australian coal industry kept him up all night
5. Why was that?
Because they were in a big hurry to load his ship
6. Why was that?
So they could make more money, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 14th April 2010, 17:08
Santos Santos is offline  
user
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonga View Post
Alastair

As your posts now appear to me to make no sense whatsoever, maybe it is best for everyone if I leave them to one side – In case you feel I am being unduly harsh, you appear to be asking if I have been “bought off by COSCO” and then, when given the answer as a negative, you proceed to suggest I have “taken a dislike to COSCO”. As those two statements seem rather contradictory, you may possibly forgive me for not wanting to continue what is becoming something rather like nonsense.

Other Members may be able to guide you further on the various unwise conclusions you have arrived at; although I can sympathise with anyone who finds the guidelines of RightShip even more complicated than the offside rule. It is certainly not a subject for the unwary to preach about.

Regards
Mark
Well said Sir,

I think judging by the time of day in his part of the world, other influences may perhaps be at work

Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 14th April 2010, 22:23
Iain B Iain B is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by alastairrussell View Post
Tonga

Go back to School mate!! Two star bulk carriers are not allowed to load in Australia!!.

So why was she sent down to Gladstone?

Tell me Tonga why has her AIS been switched off before and after she ran aground? She still does not register!

Google earth now registers all the AIS Ships, yachts and boats that have got the gear onboard.

And I thought you were a RO?

Alastair
I had a look in Rightships and yes she is currently showing as a 2 star ship, because of the casualty. Her underlying rating is a 3 star ship and as I see it she has been reduced to 2 star as a result of this incident.

2 star ships do load in Australia. The ship would need to be physically screened by a screener and the history of whatever the reason she is a two star ship would be evaluated. This reason for the reduction to 2 star may be due to an incident or a caualty, a change of owner or manager, age related, a terminal report, a PSC detention or other PSC report, (I think they also include 5 items on the PSC report to the equivalent to a detention (I dont understand that - any PSC in China is 5 items from what I hear).

The Rightship system is OK, but for me the PSC input weighting is too significant. The quality of PSC inspections appears to be deteriorating and therefore the value of the Rightship rating can only be as good as the data input it is using. (hence my pervious posts about PSC etc.)

As underwriters we try to use Rightship but I find it of less use than we had initially hoped. It does not tell us anything that we can't see from having a proper look at the PSC record and lloyds casulty reports.

Rightship is trying to introduce the same sort of vetting criteria, systems and protocols that are usual in the tanker business. Rightship are no where near as sophisticated as the oil majors and the information input is much weaker. On the other hand it does have more transparancy and the dry bulk side of the business needs something like this.

Iain

Last edited by Iain B; 14th April 2010 at 22:30.. Reason: spelling typos etc.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 14th April 2010, 22:27
trotterdotpom trotterdotpom is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 18,519
Can I display my ignorance and ask what are "Rightship" and "PSC"?

John T.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 14th April 2010, 22:31
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by trotterdotpom View Post
Can I display my ignorance and ask what are "Rightship" and "PSC"?

John T.
RightShip Pty Ltd is owned equally between BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto Shipping and Cargill Ocean Transportation. The three parent companies are RightShip's only shareholders. - Their own text states:

RightShip is a ship vetting specialist, using its growing influence to promote safety and efficiency in the global maritime industry. Formed in 2001, RightShip offers the commercial shipping industry a Ship Vetting Information System that is the most comprehensive, holistic, online risk management system in the world.


The rest of it is located here

PSC = Port State Control and is the concept whereby the Port has the Authority to inspect the ship. In their own words "Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules....". more can be found here

Last edited by non descript; 14th April 2010 at 22:58..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 14th April 2010, 22:51
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
What the stars really mean...

As hinted at earlier, there is really no quick/easy answer as to how the Star Rating works, as in a way it actually depends more on the client than on RightShip themselves; i.e. what the Stars mean to one Client, can and do mean something different to another.

To give small insight into part of the scheme:

A three, four or five-star rating means the ship is an acceptable risk.

Two stars means the user must contact RightShip for further review of the ship's risk profile.

A one-star rating indicates that RightShip would need to do more detailed investigation, including a physical inspection of the ship and/or an audit of the vessel and its management systems.


So we can see that there is no actual firm ruling that a particular number of stars has to mean a particular standard – indeed the colour of the stars is also another guide…
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 14th April 2010, 22:54
trotterdotpom trotterdotpom is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 18,519
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 14th April 2010, 23:17
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by trotterdotpom View Post
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.
Yes indeed.

So from all of this we can see that there is no actual firm ruling that a particular number of stars has to mean a particular standard – indeed the colour of the stars is also another guide…The most valid point is that RightShip is merely producing a data-base for their clients, and what the individual clients take from it, is largely their own choice – it is not written in stone as to what a star will mean to the world at large. So the broad-brush approach of saying categorically that 2 Stars = X is not a recipe for wholesale accuracy.

Having such a body is certainly a step in the right direction, but many feel that it is far from perfect and PSC Inspections can unfortunately miss as much as they catch. Maybe it is one of those things that can be seen from both sides with a degree of equal clarity, depending upon whose moral high ground one is standing on at the time. . In reality, the idea that ship can be marked down from a wonderful 5 Stars to a rather lowly 2 Stars, purely as a result of a Code 17 Deficiency, is a little worrying and can paint a rather unrealistic picture of the actual event and or quality of the ship.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 15th April 2010, 00:26
Paul J Burke's Avatar
Paul J Burke Paul J Burke is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 307
Unhappy re grounding

The whole thing that strikes me about this grounding in broard daylight, is that no-one could have been on the bridge, or whoever was supposed to be there, was obviously sound asleep!!! How could this happen in this day and age with all the "you beaut" gear on the bridge,ie-radar G.P.S.and all the rest of it.Wouldnt there be an alarm of some sort, that would trigger if the vessel veered "miles off course'in this case, or even as it was getting closer to shallow water ??? No doubt the inquiry will 'reveal all", in fact 2 men are before the Court already "awaitng their fate". Cheers. Paul
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 15th April 2010, 01:54
Orestes Orestes is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 46
It is reported in today's Courier Mail in Brisbane that the old man and the mate have been arrested!! It also states that the cause of the accident was that the mate missed a waypoint!!(read my previous thread). Maybe he was asleep,but he was NOT plotting the ships position on the chart otherwise he would have seen he was standing into danger. You can say what you like about having GPS, Radars, AIS, Ecdis charts, if you dont plot the position on the chart they are of no use at all!!This was amistake of failing to carry out basic coastal navigation.
With regards to fatigue,we used to unload 73000 tonnes of Bauxite in Gladstone in 33 hours , it was all rip **** and go, in and out, and yes we got tired, however we had dead man alarms(result of the Doric chariot incident)in the wheelhouse.I was sure that I NEVER sat down whilst on watch, as I reckon that the minute you do tyou are switching off, and that actually is af act!!
It has been suggested that 2 pilots be carried Brisbane to Torres Strait. Where are these pilots going to come from. Australia has not got the seafaring manpower to fill those positions.Command and masters C1 are the usual requirements, I only know of 1 pilot who did not have command, although he had traded as mate in the Reef for years and had good local knowledge.
Like most grounding this was sheer neglect of following the usual practise of seamen, bad training,and probably mates relying on alarms and gadgets to do their job

Orestes
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 15th April 2010, 02:28
kazza kazza is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
My location
Posts: 271
Shen Neng 1 Grounding in GBR.

Some great photos, charts and other information are obtainable at:


http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/About-us/M...-1-photos.aspx
__________________
Keith S
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 15th April 2010, 04:14
Portway Portway is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22
Shen Neng 1 Grounding on GBR

Orestes. Can only but agree with your comments.

Mandatory use of marine pilots should be used for ALL ships leaving and entering this and other delicate areas. Other countries don't give a toss about fragile marine environments in particular the Owners, Management and some Ships Masters. We have to make sure that laws are put in place and operating procedures are adopted that will ensure the best possible maintenance of our natural resources.

Sorry for repeating these words that have been used in other comment to this saga.

Portway Sydney Australia.

I
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 15th April 2010, 04:52
alastairrussell alastairrussell is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
A factual 6 page preliminary investigation report of the grounding can be read in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau web site (www.atsb.gov.au). I have attached a media conference hand out


I note the following:

• The engine room is flooded !!!

• The actual loading time was 24 hours and not the overnight job as previously reported.

• The C/M had a 4 hour 45 minute break prior to going on watch but in that time he only slept for 30 minutes, why!

Alastair

Shen Neng 1 Media Conference Talking Points

Today the ATSB is releasing a preliminary factual report on the grounding
of Shen Neng 1 at Douglas Shoal at 1705 on 3 April 2010.


These are the facts as known to date by the ATSB and it should be stressed
that this is preliminary report only and that this investigation is in its very
earliest stages.

The ship had departed Gladstone that morning at 1054 with a full load of
coal bound for China. On board were also 977 tonnes of heavy fuel oil,
more than half of which was stored in double bottom fuel tanks (at the
bottom of the ship).

The master’s intention was to navigate the ship through the Great Barrier
Reef via the commonly used passage to the north of North Reef Lighthouse.

Refer to Chart Aus 426

In the time leading up to the grounding there were a
number of critical events:

At about 1330 the second mate and master decided to alter the ship’s
planned route slightly.

Refer to Chart Aus 819

Note that Douglas Shoal is not shown on this Chart

In the process of changing the planned route, the crew did not alter the
“off- track” or course alteration “waypoint” alarms set in the ship’s Global
Positioning System (GPS) receiver unit. These navigational safeguards
remained set for the original course.

At 1530 the second mate altered course to the new planned route. Shortly
thereafter he received an “off-track” alarm on the GPS and “accepted” this
alarm. (Remember that this alarm was still set up for the original route.)

At 1600 the second mate handed over the watch to the first mate. During
this process the change of the planned route was discussed as was the fact
that the GPS had not been programmed with the new course alteration
waypoint. The first mate was now alone in the wheelhouse with an ablebodied
seaman acting as look out.

It was the first mate’s first time navigating through this area.

The first mate had had a very busy time while the ship was in Gladstone
loading and he had had only 2.5 hours of broken sleep in the previous 37
hours.

Shortly after 1600, the ship moved into the area covered by chart Aus 820,
however the first mate did not change the charts on the chart table, nor did
he establish the ship’s distance from the next course alteration point.

Refer to chart Aus 820

At approximately 1630, about when the ship reached the course alteration
point, the chief engineer visited the ship’s bridge for five minutes or so to
check the main engine revs. The first mate had intended to fix the ship’s
position at this time but now decided he would do so at 1700.

At 1700 the first mate took the ship’s position coordinates from the GPS to
plot its position. It was at this stage that he took out chart Aus 820 from the
chart drawer. At this time he realised that the ship was past the amended
alteration point and was very close to Douglas Shoal.

He attempted to alter course at the last minute but this action was too late
and shortly thereafter the ship grounded at a speed of about 12 knots.
The grounding caused extensive damage to the ship’s hull including to the
double bottom ballast and fuel tanks.

In essence, a simple succession of errors on the part of a very tired crew
member had resulted in the grounding.

ATSB’s investigation is focusing on:

• Shen Neng 1’s bridge resource management practices including passage
planning, watch-keeping and passage monitoring.

• The ship and its management company’s safety management systems in
general with respect to guidance that could have prevented the grounding.

• The ship and its management company’s fatigue management systems,
including work/rest schedules and practices on board.

• Human factors issues including fatigue, distractions and situational
awareness.

• Existing protective measures in the Great Barrier Reef, including the
coastal vessel traffic service, coastal pilotage and ship routeing guidelines and recommendations.

• Initial incident response on board the ship, control and monitoring from
ashore and salvage efforts.

Our role is to have a very close look at the whole system of safeguards
which allowed this accident to occur and to identify ways the system can be
improved to prevent it happening again.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 15th April 2010, 05:48
Billieboy Billieboy is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1970
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 4,302
Seems a bit daft to me, for Australia to load a three star ship, then complain that a two star ship had been loaded!

Someone seems to have a didgit problem!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 15th April 2010, 07:02
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
It seems to me that any serious accident will have several causes, because for the "system" to fail several things have to go wrong.

The fact that this was the Mate's first loading of this ship may have made him more tired.

The change in the planned route.

The 2/O's not re-programming the XTE and waypoint alarms in the GPS when the planned route was altered, and his not erasing the original route.

The Chief Engineer visiting the Bridge just as the ship arrived at the a/c point.

The lookout behaving - well, like a lot of lookouts do.

Not having the next chart up (is that just me? - I think if he had had it up, or had a look at the small scale chart (was that up?) he might have been more active in fixing the position.) As it was, he let an hour go by between fixes, which very obviously wasn't enough. Was the proximity of the Reef really present to his mind? But ships that do fix their position often enough and correctly enough don't go ashore.

The Mate's failure to get his head down for more of the four hours he had off. Too tired to sleep, or a good video?

Etc.

"Bridge resource management" issues, as the ATSB have, unsurprisingly, said. Next instalment - Captain Wang's Standing Orders, I predict.

"There but for the Grace of God go I."

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 15th April 2010 at 09:20..
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 15th April 2010, 09:11
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by trotterdotpom View Post
Thanks Tonga - more inspections! Bill Davies must be turning in his grave.

John T.
Can Assure you Bill is alive and well and watching all of you !.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 15th April 2010, 09:30
barnsey's Avatar
barnsey barnsey is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1955 - 2005
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
My location
Posts: 2,931
OK you lot here is the simple answer .....hope you all open it as its a PDF file ....

All really very simple .... Ch.Off. doing all the work as per usual dropping ballast and loading his first cargo first time in Gladstone .... V/L sails 30 odd hours later mate has an hours shut eye 2/0 changes track with permission of master but they don't put the new waypoints in the GPS, no alarms... C/O on watch 1600, misses the 1630 GPS position which was more or less around the a/c position .... ship runs aground 1700 as he puts the GPS position in the Log but not on the chart.... too late.

Yup, fatigue, Bridge resource management and so on....

Barnsey
Attached Files
File Type: pdf ATSB mo2010003_prelim Shen Neng 1.pdf (561.1 KB, 31 views)
__________________
Barnsey Consciousness: Those annoying times before and after Personal Fatigue Management, ZZZZzzzzz
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parker Reef off Whitsunday O.M.Bugge Wrecks 36 25th May 2014 01:01
Liberty Ship On Reef isleofthanet Wrecks 3 8th May 2009 22:00
Daedalus Reef sidsal Brocklebank Line 10 7th January 2009 17:47
Reef Paul UK Royal Navy 2 5th March 2007 22:59
s.s. barrier jock paul Ship Research 0 20th June 2006 18:51



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.