Unsafe berths for container ships - Ships Nostalgia
00:30

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

Unsafe berths for container ships

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 26th February 2010, 10:44
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
Unsafe berths for container ships

You may say "what is he wittering on about" because by definition a gearless container ship is only ever going to berth with cargo aboard at a dedicated terminal, where the berth has been laid out properly, so there can't be a problem, can there?

Well, there can, if you are trying to shoe-horn the biggest possible ship into the berth pocket, and with the recent very rapid rise in sizes we are now using Post-Panamaxes on routes where we were using 3,000 TEU ships or smaller, three years ago.

We have had a couple of incidents where frankly the way the bow and stern springs had to be set was unsafe and the ship moved on the berth.

Which leads to the next issue; container ships are now the size of a Suezmax tanker or a Capesize bulker but with far more windage...yet unlike the tanker industry there is no practice of logging the condition of mooring warps, and no special training or guidance on mooring is given.

I can assure you that demolishing a container crane is not cheaper than uprooting a Chiksan!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26th February 2010, 10:57
Billieboy Billieboy is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1962 - 1970
 
Join Date: May 2009
My location
Posts: 4,302
I agree Andrew, I was wondering when the Super Boxer owners and Managers were going to wake up. Rotterdam has extended and extended the jib length of their cranes to the maximum, at least most of the crane owners had the foresight to to build the bases and undercarriage to a much heavier spec back in 1970. I've been away from the Rotterdam quays for the last 16 years, but I still keep as up to date as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27th February 2010, 08:16
mansa233 mansa233 is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: May 2007
My location
Posts: 70
I agree that many container berths leave a lot to be desired. On one of my regular calls we have about 80 metres of ship overhanging the end of the quay. Not a hope in hell of a decent lead. What annoys me more is the inadequate provision for access to the ship. Crane rails are invariably too close to the edge of the quay to allow the gangway to be landed.
In my company we do carry out regular inspections of all moorings. However I agree about the poor training. But isn't this partly because people are not around long enough these days to gain on-the-job experience? Cadets spend too little time doing hands-on seamanship; Officers are promoted too rapidly; And the whole mooring operation is rushed to get the ship working cargo as quickly as possible - very often the cranes commence discharge before 'stations' has stood down. Mad!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27th February 2010, 10:19
callpor callpor is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1962 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 773
Andrew is correct. Safe mooring of large container vessels has been neglected over many years. If you consider all the research done by the Tanker Industry and OCIMF back in the 1970's to determine what is a safe mooring, it is surprising that it has taken so long for the container vessel and terminal operators to wake up to this issue. After all, if the mooring system fails, the transfer system is likely to fail with all the added damage and cost involved. I recall from the early 1980's that the oil majors were lobbying the classification societies to make moorings a Class item but to the best of my knowledge they were not successful. At least one oil major publishes minimum mooring standards which are rigourously applied and OCIMF published detailed guidelines many years ago. It is only recently that more general guidelines have been published by the Nautical Institute. A safe mooring is not a question of using best practice or experience, it is a predetermined retention capability for the size of vessl involed taking full account of the windage and any inherent currents. There are far too many marginal quays where the planners and operators clearly fail to appreciate this fact. In my view these berths are unsafe.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27th February 2010, 13:33
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 is a huge relief to find that I am not "on my own" here - thanks, chaps.

A part of the problem may be that many of the larger ships are owned by the lines using them rather than on timecharter so there is no charter party with a "safe berth" clause in it as there is for tankers and bulkers, which tends to focus the mind a bit.

What we often have is a company ordering its own ships onto a berth at a terminal with which it has a Terminal User Agreement which makes the shipowner liable for all and any damage to the Terminal's equipment (eg linesmen's van window broken by a monkey's fist on a heaving line because the idle so-and-so's had parked it in the line of fire - genuine recent example from a UK terminal!) but which absolves the Terminal from any liability to the vessel, so it all comes down to "blame the Master", which is not my preferred solution to any safety issue!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2nd March 2010, 18:00
alexjb alexjb is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1969 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
My location
Posts: 5
also

...and also many terminals do not supply adequate mooring gangs to handle the larger lines of larger ships - typically on a panamax we see an average of a hour per (8 hour) port call lost due to this, so that the money the terminal saves on smaller mooring gangs is lost many times over by the owner and operator (and this loss indirectly affects our pay!)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 7th March 2010, 03:21
Klaatu83 Klaatu83 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
My location
Posts: 4,142
During the Iraq War (2003) we had to bring a large container ship into Kuwait harbor to discharge military cargo (both American an British). Although she wasn't Panamax, she was still too large for the available terminal facilities. We could only get in and out of the harbor at high water. Also, when tied up to the dock her bow or stern stuck out at least 150 feet beyond the end of the dock, which meant that we were always tied up without any head or stern lines (depending upon whether we were tied up bow-in or bow-out). In the event of bad weather we'd have been in real trouble. Fortunately, however, the only really high winds we experienced during that period were in Dubai, where docking space wasn't at a premium and proper leads were available.

Another container port I would characterize as dangerously sub-standard would be Bar, in Montenegro. We had been sent there to discharge famine relief supplies destined for Kosovo on behalf of the U.N. The port had only a single crane, which wasn't long enough to reach more than 2/3 of the way across the deck (our ship had a beam of 100 feet) and wasn't tall enough to handle any containers loaded higher than the third row above the main deck. They also had no trucks for handling the containers on the dock, only a couple of farm tractors! At that time, early in 1999, Bar was supposedly the only seaport available in Yugoslavia because, by then, all the rest were in newly-independent Croatia. Years earlier I had been to Rijecka, which was then in Yugoslavia but is currently in Croatia. Rijecka was a much larger, more modern and far better-equipped port than Bar, so I have no doubt that the Yugoslavians were capable of providing far better facilities than were made available at Bar.

Last edited by Klaatu83; 7th March 2010 at 03:31..
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
Naming of Union Company Ships flyer682 Union Steam ship Co Of New Zealand LTD 36 30th January 2020 05:40
WW2 Tankers North Alantic raybnz Tankers 368 20th April 2016 17:55
Palm Line Ships List Steve Hillyard SN Directory Discussion 102 12th January 2016 07:53
Empire Ships John Rogers Ship Research 68 7th December 2009 19:33
Overboard The Stories Cruise Lines Don't Want Told KIWI Books, Magazines, TV, Video & Publications 70 13th March 2007 13:30



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.