By registering with our site you will have full instant access to:
268,000 posts on every subject imaginable contributed by 1000's of members worldwide.
25000 photos and videos mainly relating to the British Merchant Navy.
Members experienced in research to help you find out about friends and relatives who served.
The camaraderie of 1000's of ex Merchant Seamen who use the site for recreation & nostalgia.
Here we are all equal whether ex Deck Boy or Commodore of the Fleet.
A wealth of experience and expertise from all departments spanning 70+ years.
It is simple to register and membership is absolutely free.
N.B. If you are going to be requesting help from one of the forums with finding historical details of a relative
please include as much information as possible to help members assist you. We certainly need full names,
date and place of birth / death where possible plus any other details you have such as discharge book numbers etc.
Please post all questions onto the appropriate forum
-
4th December 2022, 02:32 PM
#11
Re: zeebrugge disaster
The major point that didn't come out in the inquiry was the practice of leaving the berth with the bow doors open.
The two guys I knew said the fans were inadequate to clear the exhaust fumes so it was custom to turn into the wind with the doors open then close them when ship was heading for the breakwater.
A ship should be secured and seaworthy before leaving the berth.
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
5th December 2022, 12:42 AM
#12
Re: zeebrugge disaster
I know it's not as near the same, but would the Chippy or Mate leave the forecastle of a ship without securing the claws on the anchors? It must have been something that they did every time they left port never mind who was in charge, it's when something becomes a wrong but continues to be a habit that problems arise, and it's to late afterwards.
Des
R510868
Lest We Forget
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
5th December 2022, 03:26 AM
#13
Re: zeebrugge disaster
It was usually the chippy who was left to cement up the spurling pipes Des usually with an apprentice to assist any proper chippy would take umbrage if he thought the mate didn’t trust him with such a minor job to his mind. The reduction in crew numbers in later life if one can say had any redeeming features then. Everyone had to pull their weight otherwise a lot of pressure was put on others . If ones pulling power didn’t agree with the majority. Then it was the high road the next time in port by public consensus . I sailed with the same people over and over again on different ships and believe we all trusted each other to do the right thing .This does not mean I agreed in thereduction of crew numbers by any means whatsoever . Ships wee manned by the BOT or MOT to go from A to B only and for ships with a heavy work load it was left to the owner to only man to the BOT level . We all know there are owners and owners . Just another excuse to turn a blind eye to the obvious . JS
R575129
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
5th December 2022, 04:31 AM
#14
Re: zeebrugge disaster
Like so many similar accidents could have been avoided in easy manner.
Guy on the bow, light on the bridge, so easy.
We have a RORO ferry here in Melbourne, never heard of anything close to that occurring, but it was in the end human error, any every day cause of accidents.
Happy daze John in Oz.
Life is too short to blend in.
John Strange R737787
World Traveller
-
Post Thanks / Like
-
5th December 2022, 11:12 PM
#15
Re: zeebrugge disaster
RORO Roll on Roll over. Free surface effect.
MS Estonia disaster claimed 852 lives in September 1994. She lost her bow doors in heavy weather? But she also left port with a slight starboard list. She was late in departing.
https://youtu.be/6t8Djm-l3oA
https://youtu.be/WMK_4mbJgDM
-
Post Thanks / Like
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules