Shen Neng 1 aground on the Great Barrier Reef. - Page 9 - Ships Nostalgia
03:43

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
  #201  
Old 23rd April 2010, 12:30
James_C's Avatar
James_C James_C is offline   SN Supporter
Malim Sahib Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 8,572
Assuming he wasn't equally as tired having spent all night dealing with the now endless nonsense that is Port/Coastguard/Cargo paperwork/Intimidation, sorry immigration of course....
__________________
Regards,

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 23rd April 2010, 12:32
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
James, that's pretty much how I see it, with the proviso that the Mate may have seemed OK when he went below, and the 2/O's change of route to one where overstanding the a/c point would lead to fairly immediate danger without correcting the XTE and waypoint alarms seems at the least unfortunate and at the worst irresponsible. The Mate's failure to plot sufficiently frequently was what finally did the trick but that was a consequence of fatigue, I think. I won't be casting the first stone on that one. There but for the Grace of...
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 23rd April 2010, 12:36
James_C's Avatar
James_C James_C is offline   SN Supporter
Malim Sahib Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 8,572
Andrew,
I would certainly agree. There will no doubt be the usual politico/media inspired witch-hunt which will make no contribution whatsoever to solving one of the biggest problems affecting every ship and seaman out there today - excessive hours and fatigue.
__________________
Regards,

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 23rd April 2010, 12:41
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
James, I find I am off to a pow-wow with the MCA aboard the Wellington on "the human element" next Thursday; I've no doubt at all that this case will come up. We seem to have been going round in circles on this issue for the last twenty years at least.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 23rd April 2010, 14:23
Billieboy Billieboy is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1970
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 4,302
I agree with you up to a point Mike, but a government report cannot just call a vessel, "unseaworthy on leaving port", without implicating the harbour master, and/or the pilot, who must have seen that the chief officer was fatigued.

Otherwise what are they being paid for? Modern, (let's say Rotterdam), Port regulations require ANY responsible person visiting a vessel inside Harbour limits, to report any and all, "doubtful circumstances", found on board. On consideration the harbour master will take any action needed. Failure in reporting can lead to the so called responsible person being charged with neglect of duty.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 23rd April 2010, 15:39
greektoon greektoon is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1978 - 1990
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S View Post
It is still "Masters Orders and Pilots Advice" Billie boy me old china!
The final responsibility lies with the Master.
He should have realised that his chief officer was too tired and fatigued to take the watch and covered for him.
Pretty obvious to me.........
Mike, it may not have been obvious at all. Fatigue can be very insidious.

Furthermore, in this context the unseaworthiness argument is a non runner in my view.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 23rd April 2010, 16:41
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by greektoon View Post
Mike, it may not have been obvious at all. Fatigue can be very insidious.

Furthermore, in this context the unseaworthiness argument is a non runner in my view.
I agree with both points - the practical one and the legal one.

Of course, seaworthiness has both a seaman's meaning and a legal meaning.

The seaman's meaning is "Would I go to sea in this vessel?" The legal meaning can be quite different.

Certainly there is no issue of unseaworthiness under s.39(v) of the Marine Insurance Act and I doubt if there is one under the Hague-Visby Rules (although, if the officers had been incompetent, there might indeed be one - see the "Hong Kong Fir")

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 23rd April 2010 at 19:45..
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 24th April 2010, 04:31
Ray Edward Skelton Ray Edward Skelton is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11
Quote Mike S

It is still "Masters Orders and Pilots Advice" Billie boy me old china!
The final responsibility lies with the Master.
He should have realised that his chief officer was too tired and fatigued to take the watch and covered for him.
Pretty obvious to me.........

Quote Ray Edward Skelton
"Barrier Reef....what Barrier Reef!" or "Missed it by that... much" Doesn't say much for the MASTER, does it.

The Master should be in the HOT SEAT. after all he is the person who has the overall command of the vessel and as the MASTER he is the person in charge.

[RESPONSIBILIITY LIES WITH THE MASTER]

Part of the problem in today’s world seems to be in stepping up to the plate and accepting responsibility for your actions or in this case inaction.

Jim, in reference to your thread, the Australian media, particularly in the last 7-8 days, have more or less ignored any reference to this incident. So to say that the media were beating the story up is not quite true. It is difficult enough to find news even from local sources in Central Queensland concerning a matter that could have been devastating the Queensland coastline, the environment, the tourist industry and the economic viability of this area. And, as previously stated by various persons, the authorities and the salvers have done a wonderful job in getting this vessel into safe waters. It will be some time in the next couple of weeks before we know the final outcome.

Regards Ray Edward Skelton
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 24th April 2010, 12:35
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
My location
Posts: 985
In response to remarks from Billie Boy and others I muse that we are perhaps seeing the result of years of expediency and cost saving?
I guess having been so long out of the marine world I am not up to speed on the enormous amount of paper work and rubbish that has to be dealt with. Would it not be fairer to say that the need is to make maximum duty hours mandatory?
How any one can be expected to operate anything after 18 hours plus continuous duty is beyond me and although I like every one else I have done it in practice, maybe it is now time to make this a hard and fast IMO ruling.
The bean counters have gone one step too far.
There is no way these two poor unfortunate men should be blamed for what has happened if the hours they have had to work are shown to be genuine. As for the four hours rest that was supposed to be available to the C/0 I wonder. After all that time awake 4 hours is totally inadequate.
Sadly this still does not alter the legal responsibilities of the Master however it does show that there is a far bigger problem that is the underlying cause.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 24th April 2010, 14:02
John N MacDonald John N MacDonald is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 855
Sorry Andrew. I obviously missed the bit about a lookout being on the bridge as well as the 1st mate. I'd have thought a well trained lookout might have been aware of what was happening!
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 24th April 2010, 16:35
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,573
From what I read on a number of collision's/grounding's although the Lookout is listed as being on the Bridge with the W.O. because of lean manning he was usually somewhere else on "standby" either in his cabin/ messroom or in one case the Master had put him on day's. At least the little Dutch "Clog's" that use to ply the North Sea had a dog as part of the Bridge team which barked loudly when it sensed danger.
Thank's to those who are keeping us up to date on this vessel, I am interested in the eventual fate of her as I have a small wager on.
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel

Last edited by chadburn; 24th April 2010 at 17:07..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 24th April 2010, 19:33
Billieboy Billieboy is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1970
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 4,302
Mike S #209, quite right, but the problem will be the IMO getting enough people to line up on the right side, in order to get it voted through. Perhaps a thin end of the wedge could be states putting it up as a requirement, to be overseen by the harbour master of the specific ports; eventually people will get the idea, just as the got the idea of non pollution and load on top.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 24th April 2010, 20:07
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
Since I was once greeted, by Neil Sandes (aka Sandes of the River)of Steamships Trading, with the words "What the xxxx is a beancounter doing in a double bottom tank?" (I was about two feet deep in mud, rust and Floatkote, and denied being a beancounter, but I don't think he believed me) I feel unusually well qualified to comment!

Part of the problem here is that at very many coal and ore loading ports there is really nowhere for a laden vessel to go except to sea, and the speed of loading
is really dictated as being of necessity "fac" by the length of the queue waiting to load, and hence by the demurrage bill).

Any Master proceeding to the anchorage, dropping the Pilot and getting eight hours kip for all concerned before summoning the Pilot again and proceeding to sea will be sure of getting a "We fail to understand..." letter, or rather email, if not from his owners then most certainly from his charterers.

Gearless containerships solve the problem by firstly handing over stowage to the Terminal and secondly making extensive use of deepsea Pilots. Large tankers commonly carry a daywork Mate as Cargo Officer, and quite right too, but neither of these looks like the right solution here. A bulk loading terminal is not the servant of the ship in the way that a box terminal is, the deballasting issue is far more critical and if I were Master of a Panamax or a Cape I would be very hesitant about handing my ship's safety over to any loading terminal.

There might be a case for owners to have a cargo officer at the loadport who would join the ship on the coast. But I don't see how to legislate for this.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 24th April 2010, 20:49
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
I guess on most ships you have a Master and three mates. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to ensure that the first person on watch has sufficient sleep even if it's the master.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 24th April 2010, 21:19
James_C's Avatar
James_C James_C is offline   SN Supporter
Malim Sahib Moderator
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
My location
Posts: 8,572
NoR,
That's again ensuring all 4 haven't been up for inordinate amounts of time whilst alongside.
The 2nd/3rd mate will have no doubt been on sixes, with call outs for mooring/standbys on top of their 12 hours of duties. PLUS lets not forgert attendance for the ubiquitous Australian Coastguard drills/inspections, loading terminal inspections/audits and of course mandatory attendance for the Australian immigration ID parade - a requirement for all personnel on vessels arriving in Australian ports regardless of the time of day immigration choose to appear.
The working day of a vessel today with regards to the hoops/paperwork/bull wotsit that has to be jumped through is far in excess of what we were encountering even 10 years ago.
__________________
Regards,

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 24th April 2010, 21:40
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
James-C

Yes the Australians are an officious lot. I remember joining a ship in Brisbane when they took my passport off me at the airport and returned it when I signed on.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 24th April 2010, 21:42
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
James is absolutely right.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 24th April 2010, 21:59
non descript non descript is offline
user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
My location
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_C View Post
NoR,
That's again ensuring all 4 haven't been up for inordinate amounts of time whilst alongside.
The 2nd/3rd mate will have no doubt been on sixes, with call outs for mooring/standbys on top of their 12 hours of duties. PLUS lets not forgert attendance for the ubiquitous Australian Coastguard drills/inspections, loading terminal inspections/audits and of course mandatory attendance for the Australian immigration ID parade - a requirement for all personnel on vessels arriving in Australian ports regardless of the time of day immigration choose to appear.
The working day of a vessel today with regards to the hoops/paperwork/bull wotsit that has to be jumped through is far in excess of what we were encountering even 10 years ago.
That Sir is a Five Star comment; very well put.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 24th April 2010, 22:45
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
None of the above is an excuse for grounding a perfectly seaworthy vessel in good weather. Stop making excuses...there aren't any.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 24th April 2010, 23:19
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
Not looking for excuses, looking for explanations.

Not quite the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 25th April 2010, 00:36
rcraig rcraig is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,697
There are very strict rules for hours of work for aircraft pilots and air traffic controllers. They may be exceeded in particular circumstances.

Lorry drivers in the EU are not allowed in general to exceed 4.5 hrs. without a 45 minute break, nor 9 hours in the day, again with exceptions.

Is fatigue different for merchant seamen? Would a master or mate last long if he decided to drop anchor for fatigue reasons? Assuming, of course, that it might be possible to do so in the first place, points that have already been made.

NoR
"Stop making excuses; there aren't any"......you may be right but I have not found life quite that simple in the main.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 25th April 2010, 04:32
reefrat's Avatar
reefrat reefrat is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 261
........

Quote Ray Edward Skelton
"

Jim, in reference to your thread, the Australian media, particularly in the last 7-8 days, have more or less ignored any reference to this incident. So to say that the media were beating the story up is not quite true.
Regards Ray Edward Skelton[/QUOTE]

A media beatup is understating the case. Ill informed press comment included the statment that the vessel was using an unauthorised channell through the reef. This is not true,, MSQ reports that 30% of vessells departing Gladstone use this channel and are authorised to do so.
The media in matters maritime are an ASS
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 25th April 2010, 06:24
tsell tsell is offline
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
My location
Posts: 4,373
Shen Neng 1

I don't know if this site has been mentioned on this thread, but I have just read a very extensive report of the grounding on www.cargolaw.com
It is an in depth chronology of events described in extensive text and high resolution pictures.
Select 'Breaking News' and enter 'Coaling on the Great Barrier Reef'.
It includes the full factual ATSB Transport Safety Report.
For those members who have not come across this site it has endless hours of reading on marine and other disasters.

Taff
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 25th April 2010, 07:26
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
Taff, that isn't the full ATSB report - that has still to come.

What has been published is the Report of Preliminary Investigation.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 25th April 2010, 08:33
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
There are no excuses. We all know it's difficult, because we all (well most of us) have been there. Navigation is the first priority on a ship..even when she's tied up !. Forget this at your peril. Having a couple of properly rested watchkeepers is essential, although you wouldn't think so, the way port operations are carried out.

Years ago I was mate on a two watch vessel. We were due to sail, but the master had contracted a nasty flue like cold whilst we were in port and really wasn't well, but we were going to depart regardless. Suddenly yours truly decided 'bugger this' (or something similar) and I refused to sail until the company gave us another watchkeeper. They did, with very bad grace and my card was well and truly marked. Of course it wasn't my place to do that. It was the master's job to declare himself unfit. And therein lies the rub. Most people are reluctant to declare themselves unfit, or too fatigued to work, it's seen as a sign of weakness, when in fact the converse is true.

Whilst there are no excuses for running the Shen Neng 1 aground, I do feel sorry for those involved.
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.