Ships Nostalgia banner

141 - 160 of 193 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,816 Posts
I see you would reject a straw because it was not meant for in-water rescue, Stephen. If one had simply wrecked a thruster or two in avoiding/hoo-harless-recovery from the grounding think how much better for everyone's economy (if we ignore the effect on balance of payments that is).

The BBC have just told us that she is now on course again but still aground! A concept for which no charter party has yet devised a clause ("Always afloat or safely aground"/"Safely aground, pointing in the right direction"?) .

If it worked then it would be fine. The thing is, it wouldn't work. You have to assume that there is clear water on one side and then the sand is other the other.

The good news is that the ship underway... I hope no more than 6 knots! Head for Port Said. Underwater survey and then see where she goes next... Rotterdam for discharge and drydock or take her to Alang!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,816 Posts
I guess they did what I suggested ie the crew stand on the fo'castle and jump up and down thus liquifying the water/sand mixture under the bow.
QED !
How to get the crew to jump and down? Get then to the fo'csle and get the Sparks to read out the Maconigram...
TO MASTER: IMMEDIATE. ALL CREW TO BE PAID OFF AT PORT SAID ON ARRIVAL. SALVAGE BONUS TO BE PAID IN CASH. STOP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
Shucks, I was hoping that this thread would mirror that of Costa Concordia where Seafoods, Haiwata (?), Gollywobbler, Jaguar and the many other armchair salvors would cyber wrestle for the correct salvage plan and keep us entertained to boot.. We sure do miss their contributions - or do we?

Never mind, a good job well done to all.

BW

J:cool::cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Well done to all concerned on a difficult and very challenging job.

Will it wake up the authorities to the problems and risks involved with these vessels.
I don't think so.
God forbid that a similar incident should happen to one of those floating Butlins holiday camps we have now.
Costa Concordia, Ever Given and numerous other events should serve as a warning to the shipping industry.
Call me stuck in the past and old fashioned but I think that we are rapidly reaching the limit of what is practical.
The sodding Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable.
But then I was just a leckie so what do I know about it.
I'll get off my soap box and go and have my Horlicks now nurse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,816 Posts
We need to limit the size of vessels. These new box boats should be no bigger. It is just getting over us. Of course we know we can build bigger. Like VLCC's, 250,000 MAX. Cruise ships? 6,000 pax? That should be banned. No more than 3,000 pax. Even that is too many. Tugs? Make them bigger... we need them!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,503 Posts
Stephen, In terms of design I have no doubt you are right. Empirically neither of us knows and, should a timorous approach be ever the watchword, we never will.

I am surprised that one once charged with the safety of my sovereign's local warfage that scour from modern thrusters and their potential to damage berthing structures did not prompt you to my own way of thinking. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

But we can move on. More in your See than mine, what is the insurance situation likely to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
Mind you the tanker market went from Super Tankers to VLCCs to ULCCs then FHCCs and has now come down again to VLCCs (am I right there ?) so all is not lost.
At the end of the day the insurers will dictate what is feasible.
I still have nightmares about trying to offload 6,000 OAPs into lifeboats in the middle of nowhere because some nutter fell asleep in bed with a cigar and set fire to his PJs !
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,816 Posts
Same in Bermuda wharves. In the 70's the Queen's HM had the same concerns. 50 years those same structures are still standing. Of course the standard of materials that were used are better than today!
Stephen, In terms of design I have no doubt you are right. Empirically neither of us knows and, should a timorous approach be ever the watchword, we never will.

I am surprised that one once charged with the safety of my sovereign's local warfage that scour from modern thrusters and their potential to damage berthing structures did not prompt you to my own way of thinking. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

But we can move on. More in your See than mine, what is the insurance situation likely to be.

When I was QHM in 1982 the word was that way to reduce the wear on the facility was to at least have one tug and use them. Owners claimed they did not need the tugs at all. I came back, "Yes you do. When something goes wrong and you need tug because of ER problem, weather etc, it will take at least two hours to get to you." "The first time your sailing is delayed for two hours, you will wish that tug was there." The Owners and the Agents finally agree. Finally I made an order for the ports, "ALL VESSELS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE AT LEAST ONE TUG FOR BERTHING AND UNBERTHING - EXCEPT SMALL VESSELS". One master, a real 'hero' said he did not them. I explained that he should rethink about that, you are going to pay for it anyway! The large ships in Bermuda ports use then... even if they don't need them. Over the years, more than a few incidents that had the tug not been there the ship would have been on the reef.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Pilots are a bit like the Virgin Mary or the Queen, born without sin and clothed in teflon. If anyone pins anything on a Pilot I'll dance a jig.
As a recently retired Pilot, let me assure you that the opposite is true. I was a salaried employee of a UK port operator and was aware (because of the experience of other Pilots) that I would soon be thrown to the wolves by my employer if it was necessary for their own protection .
As ships have got bigger and the potential liabilities grown the margins of safety have suffered because port infrastructure has not kept pace. The possible consequences of damage to port infrastructure, the vessel, personnel and the thing that worries the port operator the most - the 'environment ' have all grown exponentially.
I was paying hundreds of pounds a year in premiums for my own personal legal protection insurance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
jnorm59

Was PI necessary when you were a salaried employed of the UK port operator?

BW
J:cool::cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Good News, Suez Canal open.

The Great British public has now forgotten all about the Ever? Ever?.... Jim what was the name of that big boat that sunk in Egypt.
Only problem is that Aunt Madge's new TV will be a fortnighjt late.

Move along now, nothing to see here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,851 Posts
Maasmondmaritime.com gives the names of the tugs involved as -

ALP GUARD
CARLO MAGNO
MARIDIVE 703
EZZAT ADEL
BARAKA 1
MOSAHEB 2
SALAM 9
TAHIA MISR 1
TAHIA MISR 2
SVITZER PORT SAID 1
SVITZER PORT SAID 2
MOUSTAFA MAHMOUD
ABD ELHAMED YOUSIF

Apparently, the tow to Great Bitter Lake had BARAKA 1 at the bow and CARLO MAGNO at the stern, with the rest in support.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,503 Posts
E-S. Of my Sovereign, obviously, no mud to stick. With respect to the other lady I believe a question of an infant's paternity has been raised.
 
141 - 160 of 193 Posts
Top