car carrier

[Keith Tindell]

The marine investigation of the car carrier which was put adround in the Solent is now out. A version is available on the BBC news website. The conclusion basically is that the weight of cargo was calculated wrongly, water tank contents were falsified, and a whole lot of bad practises. Seems no one individual is to blame, kt

[j.sabourn]

Another way of saying Incompetence Keith. Doesn't really surprise most ex seafarers. Although if figures have been deliberately falsified there must be room for criminal intent. However I wouldn't crucify anyone before hearing a truthful and honest account of the incident and not some reporters own answer to how it happened. Thanks your post John S

[Ivan Cloherty]

Well I'll take the BBC's report with a pinch of salt, as according to them it went aground off Plymouth (who moved it?), think I'll wait for the official report in the Marine Press before passing judgement/comment

[Keith Tindell]

I only put it on as its the first of any report I have heard, I also would like to read the the full report. BBC report says no person to blame, if it's poor procedures someone must be! Kt

[Ivan Cloherty]

Initial reports from UK Maritime Authority indicate that their investigation shows that the vessel had a higher centre of gravity than that assumed by those on board due to a number of reasons (i) the weight of the cargo was lighter than that assumed (ii) consequent ballast arrangements were therefore incorrect (iii) the vessel was going off her normal trade route on this occasion but figures fed into the computer were for her usual trade route (iv) the stability calculator is only as good as the information fed into it and incorrect information had been processed and (v) the vessel therefore sailed in an unstable condition which became aggravated when the vessel lost power whilst on a sharp starboard turn causing her to heel over and take on water.

Just as well it happened where it did, as she could have been lost with all hands if mid ocean

[j.sabourn]

I assume she was carrying cars. As the actual weights of cars are known, seems weird that they were underestimated as to weight. Makes one wonder where if loading Grain of various types with approximate S.Fs ( stowage factors) without the input of computers how such would have fared. As believe one had to prove to the grain inspector that the ship could maintain a positive GM of, if remember correctly either 6 inches or a foot with the ship finishing up loaded with no free surface, and had to have this built into your grain plan for the voyage of the grain settling and hence having free surface effects. I thought they built these car carriers fool proof as regards stability, apparently not. Like supply boats they had such a large gm it was nigh on impossible to get to negative stability, in fact a lot were built with what was called stability tanks to raise the centre of gravity to make the ship more tender. So much for computerised shipping. Seems the individual is less in control than of byegone days. JS

[John Arton]

If its down to incorrect stability calculations then it does not say much for the seamanship of the Master and Chief Officer as even when manoeuvring off the berth, with tugs I assume, they should have noticed that she was very tender and taken steps to investigate the stability. Loss of engine power alone can be held responsible for her grounding (believe that was deliberate) but as Ivan said if you feed shite into the loading computer you will get shite out. Any seafarer worth his salt should be able to "feel" that there is something not quite right with his/hers ships stability the moment the ropes are cast off.
rgds
JA

[j.sabourn]

Right through the soles of your feet. Even if wearing Brothel creepers JS

[j.sabourn]

All the years I was mate I loaded the ship by my own calculations. If a master wanted to interfere I would let him get on with it and tell him so. The first thing a mate of the old school had to learn fast was to get around a ship and get the feel of it. I had two really close shaves with masters interfering one was on the ship I walked off in Japan under another excuse, and the other one accepting the owners requirements which were definetley unsafe and the ship was lucky to make it from WA to Durban. Most masters I sailed with more than one voyage and they never interfered with the loading of vessel, however these were all getting on in years and ships were manned correctly in those days. I have been on many rust buckets in the offshore industry and not so long back was sailing with the only aid to navigation being a magnetic compass and a sometimes debateable radar set. However one got to get an affinity with a ship and I wouldnt decry them for that, they are just getting old as we all are. They should all be looked after the same as any ladyfriend we may have. It is the biggest and best lifeboat around. Nowadays it is a different ball game and have experienced it myself in last years at sea where thrown on a ship and told to take her away with little or no knowledge of the capabilities of the vessel. This would of in the case of the car carrier be extenuating circumstances for the grounding of the car carrier and would have every sympathy for those involved. Sometimes it is outside interferences that lead up to disasters in shipping also. Ships nowadays seem to be run from the shore, and the saying too many cooks spoil the broth applies. JS

[Keith Tindell]

As said it could have been a loss of all hands, would not give me a lot of confidence in serving on a car carrier. Even without the loss of life, had this thing sunk in the main channel it would have effectively blocked the whole of Southampton water, including the Fawley oil terminal, container berth, ferries etc, kt