Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Hi does the Green Lily qualify ?
Could similar Lifeboat incidents happen again
- Thread starter Capt Popeye
- Start date
Hi does the Green Lily qualify ?
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Might strongly suggest that a big and involved rescue operation would be best managed by a combination of Lifeboat Crew , Coast Guards , Helicopter Rescue etc where an over view of the events can be effectively managed and appropriete actions taken by all involved in any operation
There is also a Management decision on the 'apparent risks ver the possible sucess' with the proviso of 'real risks ver apparent sucess' of any tricky operation ; reading up on the 'Green Lily' rescue on utube outlines such responsibility and decision making
There is also a Management decision on the 'apparent risks ver the possible sucess' with the proviso of 'real risks ver apparent sucess' of any tricky operation ; reading up on the 'Green Lily' rescue on utube outlines such responsibility and decision making
NorthUp
Active member
There were delays, but maybe she was not the best example to quote
Kukri
Well-known member
I don’t think there was ever any secret about it. It was always the intention.
The MCA charter was to cover the tugs’ running costs, only, not their capital costs, and any Lloyds Form or other salvage awards were to be split between the Government and the owners.
A similar arrangement was in place in several other countries, including South Africa and Germany, but I have always liked the Japanese system in which Nippon Salvage is owned by the major Japanese marine insurance companies. It has proved very durable.
Kukri
Well-known member
May I refer you to the Sosrep system?
The SOSREP – an introduction and looking to the future
Introduced by the late Lord Donaldson of Lymington - who was so to speak “one of us” - a keen yachtsman.
Here’s the current Sosrep:
Maritime & Coastguard Agency appoints new SOSRep
Last edited:
Juan Twothree
Well-known member
One of the main things we are taught when training to be a helm/cox is to weigh up risk vs benefit.
We're prepared to take greater risk if we think we can save life. If it's just to save a vessel, or there's an alternative, safer, way to get the crew to safety, then we'll take the safer option.
I command an inshore lifeboat, so there is a lot more potential for things to go wrong, and people to get hurt.
It's not a nice feeling to have to say "sorry, we can't do this", but sometimes, due to weather, state of tide, location of casualty, or any/all of the above, it just can't be done.
westhinder
Well-known member
As far as I’m aware, France still retains its rescue tugs. The Abeille Bourbon Abeille Bourbon - Wikipedia
replaced the Abeille Flandre and is based in Brest
Stemar
Well-known member
It's absolutely right that you should have this option, and that you shouldn't be afraid to use it, but have you ever had to?
Juan Twothree
Well-known member
Yes, quite often, although only rarely in a life threatening situation.
A more typical example might be getting tasked to a yacht bring driven onto a lee shore.
It would be nice to be able to get in there, pass a towline and drag it back afloat. But in big breaking seas, and not enough water, we might not be able to. Anchoring the lifeboat and veering down might be an option, but again it depends on the circumstances.
It's not great to have a yacht on the beach being battered in the surf, but even worse if there's a lifeboat on the beach next to it, suffering the same fate.
Stemar
Well-known member
I'd have to agree with that, even if it were my yacht on that beach.
boomerangben
Well-known member
I am pretty sure that all the links in the rescue chain are well aware that there are times when there isn’t enough time, it’s too late, it’s too dangerous, it’s simply not possible. On scene (or indeed at authorisation launch/take off/set off) those in charge of teams or assets have to make the call on how much they can do. In the case of vessels and aircraft the skipper has the ultimate call and the legal responsibility to their crew and equipment. The decision to say no is very hard but extremely important and can really only be made by those on scene. The best outcome generally comes with an early decision to request help. In my view the best form of defence is a culture within vessel ownership/marine insurance/cargo owners and crews where a call for assistance at an early stage is the norm.
Stemar
Well-known member
Kukri
Well-known member
There has not been any doubt about this in the minds of insurers for at least the past 125 years - it was precisely this that led to the creation of Lloyds Form of Salvage Agreement, in the 1890s.
The “big idea” is that the bargaining can be done later, when all the risks and all the services provided can be assessed dispassionately by experts, and not in real time.
There are two things that screw up this ideal state of affairs.
One is that those on board the casualty may not fully appreciate the gravity of their situation. As has been said of bankruptcy, marine casualties “happen slowly, then all at once”.
As a young man I was probably involved in well over a dozen cases where things “got away from” a crew who were sorting out an engine failure or a steering failure in these waters. The biggest was the brand new Onassis VLCC “Olympic Bravery” which set out on her maiden voyage from St Nazaire, where she had been built towards Loch Striven, to be laid up. She grounded and became a total loss on the north coast of Brittany a few hours later.
My involvement was for the salvage tug and she was “one that got away”, for us.The entire industry muttered “fix!”, because there was no doubt that the total loss proceeds were worth a very great deal more than the brand new ship was, but a couple of years ago I had lunch with a friend who had been my opposite number on the underwriters’ side. His previous job had been as a reactor officer in RN submarines and in interviewing the crew it became quite clear to him that the engineers - all well experienced men - Onassis ran a very good operation - had simply not understood the boiler automation.
Rather than make an expensive link call to Head Office and look stupid they thought they had time to sort it out - and then they didn’t, and there wasn’t time for the station keeping salvage tug to get there from Brest.:
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
The second situation is where the people ashore think they know better than the people on board.
One of these is scarred onto my memory.
On Thursday 16th March 1978 I was sitting in my Principal’s office in darkest EC3 when the phone rang. It was Ralf Rutkowski of Bugsier - their “Pacific” was en route to a VLCC with a broken steering gear 10 miles off Ushant in an F9 westerly… Ralf didn’t think they could make it - nobody had ever tried to tow a laden VLCC in a whole gale - he had ordered the sister tug “Seefalke” which had sailed for Hamburg running light a few hours earlier, to head back and help but given the distance she had already steamed she would not get there before 9 pm.
The Master of the Pacific was Hartmut Weinert and I had stepped ashore from her not long before.
The Master of the Amoco Cadiz was named Bardari and he had with him a supernumerary called Len Chapman from P&O Safety Services.
The Cadiz had been built in Spain and her Hastie four ram steering gear had been built using Whitworth threads on the studs. This as any engineer will tell you is bad practice, given the loads involved. One pair of rams failed at the studs, then the other.
You know the rest of the story, but you may not know that Hartmut offered salvage services on Lloyds Open Form and Amoco Fleet Management in Chicago told Bardari to refuse and insist on a day rate hire.
Ralf called me to check and be sure that - as he and Hartmut both thought, being salvage professionals - if the Pacific could tow the tanker into a place of safety on the English side of the Channel - we were thinking of Lyme Bay - we could arrest ship and cargo and claim salvage at common law. I confirmed that, so Hartmut told the tanker “We can sort that out later” and got on with trying to make a towing connection.
Despite which, the papers were full of the tug “refusing to help until salvage had been agreed”.
The stupid thing here is that if Bardari had made, at the least, a “PAN” call when the steering engine failed - as he should have done - the “Seefalke” would have been there in time to help. But his Head Office told him not to do so!
One of these is scarred onto my memory.
On Thursday 16th March 1978 I was sitting in my Principal’s office in darkest EC3 when the phone rang. It was Ralf Rutkowski of Bugsier - their “Pacific” was en route to a VLCC with a broken steering gear 10 miles off Ushant in an F9 westerly… Ralf didn’t think they could make it - nobody had ever tried to tow a laden VLCC in a whole gale - he had ordered the sister tug “Seefalke” which had sailed for Hamburg running light a few hours earlier, to head back and help but given the distance she had already steamed she would not get there before 9 pm.
The Master of the Pacific was Hartmut Weinert and I had stepped ashore from her not long before.
The Master of the Amoco Cadiz was named Bardari and he had with him a supernumerary called Len Chapman from P&O Safety Services.
The Cadiz had been built in Spain and her Hastie four ram steering gear had been built using Whitworth threads on the studs. This as any engineer will tell you is bad practice, given the loads involved. One pair of rams failed at the studs, then the other.
You know the rest of the story, but you may not know that Hartmut offered salvage services on Lloyds Open Form and Amoco Fleet Management in Chicago told Bardari to refuse and insist on a day rate hire.
Ralf called me to check and be sure that - as he and Hartmut both thought, being salvage professionals - if the Pacific could tow the tanker into a place of safety on the English side of the Channel - we were thinking of Lyme Bay - we could arrest ship and cargo and claim salvage at common law. I confirmed that, so Hartmut told the tanker “We can sort that out later” and got on with trying to make a towing connection.
Despite which, the papers were full of the tug “refusing to help until salvage had been agreed”.
The stupid thing here is that if Bardari had made, at the least, a “PAN” call when the steering engine failed - as he should have done - the “Seefalke” would have been there in time to help. But his Head Office told him not to do so!
Attachments
Last edited:
Sandy
Well-known member
And Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer (SNSM) charge to tow a vessel. Many UK sailors forget that.
Kukri
Well-known member
All RNLI crews have the right to do so - technically they can choose to charter the boat retrospectively, on terms that they pay for the fuel and for any damage and they can then can claim salvage.
In earlier days, when most lifeboat crews were fishermen, this was often done, but it has become less popular these days.
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
Going back to the “Union Star”, Union Transport to their credit ordered Captain Morton to take the tug (Wijsmuller’s “Noord Holland”) but the “Noord Holland”’s Master has stated that by that time there was nothing he could do as the seas breaking over the “Union Star” were such that nobody could have secured a tow line.
Frogmogman
Well-known member
Quite right.
The SNSM are there to save lives, not to provide a breakdown service. French insurance policies reflect this fact; if you have proper cover, your insurer should pick up the tab.
Frogmogman
Well-known member
I well recall being shocked at the hysteria and anger directed towards some or the fishing boats that salvaged yachts abandoned in the 79 fastnet.
Totally illogical and unreasonable. The risk, expense and time devoted to salvage surely deserves recompense ? Better than those yachts piling up on the rocks.
boomerangben
Well-known member
Kukri, I always find your insight and expertise of matters relating to the merchant marine fascinating. Thank you for sharing.