Hoegh Osaka aground on Bramble Bank

[Deleted User YDKXO]

As I was suggesting in #83...

Yeah, I thought that was clear from all the media reports as well

 

[chanelyacht]

please forgive my obvious lack of knowledge on these matters but with all the modern day sensors, computers, ballast water pumps etc etc, I am confused (which is easy in my case) as to how the vessel was declared "safe for sea, or signed off as" before leaving the quay at Southampton in the first place.. ..... just baffling on my part..

Probably because she was safe for sea. In exactly the same way a fault can develop on your car five minutes after leaving home, the same can happen on ships. If this was down to human error, or sudden system / equipment failure, there would have been no indication as she deberthed.

As with the Cemfjord on the same day, catastrophic events can happen.

 

[sailorman]

Probably because she was safe for sea. In exactly the same way a fault can develop on your car five minutes after leaving home, the same can happen on ships. If this was down to human error, or sudden system / equipment failure, there would have been no indication as she deberthed.

As with the Cemfjord on the same day, catastrophic events can happen.

As happened here this week
http://gcaptain.com/gearbulk-owned-ore-carrier-sinks-vietnam/

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I would be surprised if the problem leading to the listing had been discovered before the ship reached Fawley: otherwise the obvious thing to do would have been to dock it at the oil terminal.

Heavens, no! A crash docking at the oil terminal would risk damaging oil transfer pipes and causing a spillage and could block one of the UK's major oil importation facilities! I would have thought that a better idea if a ship gets into trouble in Southampton Water would be to beach it on the other side in the shallows off Netley. Yes I think you're right about when the ship started to list though; it seems logical that the ship would have started to list to starboard during the first turn to port that it undertook which would have been the turn to the east around the Bramble Bank.
One other question that this whole incident begs is this. How is it possible for a modern sophisticated ship to leave harbour with such an obvious ballast or fuel tank malfunction that could capsize it on it's first hard turn to port? Were there no alarms on the bridge? Were the skipper and pilot aware of the malfunction but chose to ignore it? And if they weren't aware, was anyone else on board aware of the malfunction and why didn't they report it to the bridge immediately? IMHO, there's a lot more to come out about the cause of this accident and it could be that much of it won't reflect well on the skipper, crew and maybe even the pilot

 

[[70521]]

One other question that this whole incident begs is this. How is it possible for a modern sophisticated ship to leave harbour with such an obvious ballast or fuel tank malfunction that could capsize it on it's first hard turn to port? Were there no alarms on the bridge? Were the skipper and pilot aware of the malfunction but chose to ignore it? And if they weren't aware, was anyone else on board aware of the malfunction and why didn't they report it to the bridge immediately? IMHO, there's a lot more to come out about the cause of this accident and it could be that much of it won't reflect well on the skipper, crew and maybe even the pilot

We will all read the MAIB report with interest when it is published. I am quite sure that:

a) All of the crew are shaken up;

b) the master and pilot understood the results of their actions; and

c) disasters are a chain of events;

 

[Mariner69]

We will all read the MAIB report with interest when it is published. I am quite sure that:

a) All of the crew are shaken up;

b) the master and pilot understood the results of their actions; and

c) disasters are a chain of events;

+1

 

[benjenbav]

Heavens, no! A crash docking at the oil terminal would risk damaging oil transfer pipes and causing a spillage and could block one of the UK's major oil importation facilities! I would have thought that a better idea if a ship gets into trouble in Southampton Water would be to beach it on the other side in the shallows off Netley. Yes I think you're right about when the ship started to list though; it seems logical that the ship would have started to list to starboard during the first turn to port that it undertook which would have been the turn to the east around the Bramble Bank.

I take your point! But that wasn't quite what I meant. I entirely agree that it would be a poor (verging on disastrous) decision to crash a ship half-over on its side into the oil terminal. I was thinking more that if the problem had been detected in its very early stages whilst the ship was still upright and handling normally - let's say as a result of an auto-alarm being triggered to indicate an incorrectly open set of valves - it would have been relatively easy to go alongside at Fawley and get the problem fixed or at least do a bit of head scratching about it.

 

[chanelyacht]

- it would have been relatively easy to go alongside at Fawley and get the problem fixed or at least do a bit of head scratching about it.

Sorry, it wouldn't.

For a start, Fawley doesn't have "spare" berths - it may have had one or two vacant at the time, but they would have had inbound arrivals booked. You couldn't know how long the casualty would be alongside for, and not all product lines go to every berth at Fawley - so you could be knocking Fawley capacity out for a while. You also would not have long to decide what the cause of the problem was - if it were an as yet unknown fire on board, bringing it alongside Fawley would not be a popular move!

There are a number of very good reasons why Fawley is not designated as a casualty reception berth.

 

[benjenbav]

Sorry, it wouldn't.

For a start, Fawley doesn't have "spare" berths - it may have had one or two vacant at the time, but they would have had inbound arrivals booked. You couldn't know how long the casualty would be alongside for, and not all product lines go to every berth at Fawley - so you could be knocking Fawley capacity out for a while. You also would not have long to decide what the cause of the problem was - if it were an as yet unknown fire on board, bringing it alongside Fawley would not be a popular move!

There are a number of very good reasons why Fawley is not designated as a casualty reception berth.

I'm sure you are right, CY, but would be interested to understand the preferred choices if the issue with this ship had been detected whilst still in Soton Water. Deleted User suggested beaching on the Netley side. Would that be a possibility or would it be better to go on and out around the Brambles and beach the ship there as has happened.

I appreciate that this is somewhat academic if the problem only manifested when making the turn to port around the Brambles but there must be contingency planning for ships which develop problems in Soton Water.

 

[JumbleDuck]

BBC news last night interview someone involved with loading of vehicles and he stated that all vehicles were well secured and should be ok.

They may well be OK mechanically, but there could well be issues with leaking fluids from batteries, transmissions, engines and the like. I would not be at all surprised if the whole load is scrapped.

 

[MrB]

From twitter just now


Mike Golding @GoldingMike
High water and #Osaca RoRo is moving!Three tugs have rotated her 40 degrees - wriggling her free? Looks like they have quit for now.

 

[mjf]

Indeed, but as you didn't expand on your theory it was very hard to put it into context, especially for someone (like me) who thought the vessel had the starboard side on the bank.

Indeed. The heading on the initial AIS I viewed showed heading N with stbd side on the bank. The ship was moving northward but heading differently. Just shows how careful you need to be when assessing AIS info that displays ship shape targets

 

[KevB]

From twitter just now


Mike Golding @GoldingMike
High water and #Osaca RoRo is moving!Three tugs have rotated her 40 degrees - wriggling her free? Looks like they have quit for now.

That's interesting. Must mean the cargo inside is where it should be.

 

[MrB]

That's interesting. Must mean the cargo inside is where it should be.

I was just reading this from one of the deck hands, he said all the heavy machinery was chained down and the cars strapped down.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11701063.FIRST_PICTURE__Inside_the_stricken_Hoegh_Osaka_container_ship/

 

[jonjo]

I was just reading this from one of the deck hands, he said all the heavy machinery was chained down and the cars strapped down.

Interesting, the merchant marine pro's here are claiming that poor ballast handling could not have caused such a dramatic list so it must have been poor loading practice and the dockside workers are saying we did our bit propper.

 

[jonjo]

That's interesting. Must mean the cargo inside is where it should be.

Too much speculation I think.

They might just be realigning the ship on the bank to facilitate later measures to roll the ship upright in shallow water.

 

[Wavey]

I appreciate that this is somewhat academic if the problem only manifested when making the turn to port around the Brambles but there must be contingency planning for ships which develop problems in Soton Water.

At it may well go something along the lines that if the vessel is compromised and likely to falter, then having given due consideration to the safety of those on board, if at all possible you put it somewhere which will not cause hindrance to the continued operations of the port and use of the associated channels.

Which is pretty much what those in command did.

 

[dragoon]

From twitter just now


Mike Golding @GoldingMike
High water and #Osaca RoRo is moving!Three tugs have rotated her 40 degrees - wriggling her free? Looks like they have quit for now.

The weather is turning down here compared with how it's been - I can just about see where she is from the house, and the wind has got up in the last few hours. They might be making some provision to keep it in place with some stronger winds expected.

 

[chanelyacht]

I'm sure you are right, CY, but would be interested to understand the preferred choices if the issue with this ship had been detected whilst still in Soton Water. Deleted User suggested beaching on the Netley side. Would that be a possibility or would it be better to go on and out around the Brambles and beach the ship there as has happened.

I appreciate that this is somewhat academic if the problem only manifested when making the turn to port around the Brambles but there must be contingency planning for ships which develop problems in Soton Water.

The Port Emergency Plans accommodate a number of scenarios, from pax vessel fire to groundings and other emergencies. The pilots all have excellent knowledge of the best places to go given the time constraints of the emergency. I'm told that one think ishort supply during this incident was thinking time!

The normal contingency for non-stability related issues is get towage alongside quickly and into the emergency reception dock or the dry dock.

 

[chanelyacht]

Interesting, the merchant marine pro's here are claiming that poor ballast handling could not have caused such a dramatic list so it must have been poor loading practice and the dockside workers are saying we did our bit propper.

Nope, the sequence of events is entirely consisted with a catastrophic ballast handling system failure.