Here’s something you don’t see everyday.
The video at the end of the gCaptain article of the container stack collapse is wild. Also, I feel a bit out of touch here, but what is an emissions capture barge?
1 Like
This has started to become a big deal. If the ship doesn’t have a shore power option, they have to have one of these barges come alongside. They basically hook a snorkel up to their stack and scrub their exhaust with a urea system. So far these barges are only being used in LA/LB and Port Hueneme at this time as far as I know.
3 Likes
That is some impressive improvisation from the fireboat crew using their monitors to wash the containers back within reach out to pier (keeping the channel clear-ish) while they were still buoyant. I suspect their efforts probably reduced the incident’s footprint and may have played a major role in reducing the time and resources required to reopen that terminal.
4 Likes
Here is a Splash 24/7 article about the incident:
But the Master will probably be arrested anyhow.
Or it will be blamed on Chinese remote interference with crane operation.
PS> At least it can’t be blamed on “parametric rolling” this time.
1 Like
| GISIS |
Ship Particulars / IMO 9954187
MISSISSIPPI
| Name: | |
|---|---|
| MISSISSIPPI | (effective 2024-03) |
|---|---|
| IMO Number: |
| undefined |
| Flag: |
| undefined |
| MAR (Portugal) | (effective 2024-03) |
|---|---|
| Call sign: |
| undefined |
| MMSI: |
| undefined |
| Ship UN Sanction: |
| undefined |
| Owning/operating entity under UN Sanction: |
| undefined |
Characteristics
| Type: | |
|---|---|
| Container Ship (Fully Cellular) | (effective 2024-03) |
|---|---|
| Date of build: |
| undefined |
| Gross tonnage: |
| undefined |
Companies
| Registered owner: | |
|---|---|
| MPC Ecobox OPCO 4 AS | (effective 2024-03-27) | |
|---|---|---|
| IMO Company Number | 6416681 | |
| undefined | -— | -— |
| Nationality of registration | Norway | |
| undefined | -— | -— |
| Address | C/O: MPC Container Ships ASA Dronning Mauds gate 3, 0250, Oslo, Norway. | |
| undefined | -— | -— |
| Company status | Active | |
| undefined | -— | -— |
EQUASIS
| IMO number | Role | Name of company | Address | Date of effect | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6004384 | Ship manager/Commercial manager | MPC CONTAINER SHIPS ASA | Dronning Mauds gate 3, 0250, Oslo, Norway. | since 27/03/2024 | |
| 5797164 | ISM Manager | WILHELMSEN AHRENKIEL SHIP | Palmaille 67, 22767, Hamburg, Germany. | since 27/03/2024 | |
| 6416681 | Registered owner | MPC ECOBOX OPCO 4 AS | C/O: MPC Container Ships ASA Dronning Mauds gate 3, 0250, Oslo, Norway. | since 27/03/2024 |
Classification
Status
DNV (IACS)
Delivered
since 27/03/2024
Surveys
DNV (IACS)
Last renewal survey 27/03/2024
Next renewal survey 27/03/2029
Safety management certificate (Recognised Organisations)
| Classification society | Date survey | Date expiry | Date change status | Status | Reason | Top C/V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNV (IACS) | 27/08/2024 | 27/08/2029 | 27/03/2024 | Delivered | Convention |
P&I Information
UK P&I Club
Inception at 27/03/2024
| IMO number | 9954187 |
|---|---|
| Vessel Name | MISSISSIPPI |
| undefined | -— |
| Ship Type | Container Ship |
| undefined | -— |
| Flag | Portugal |
| undefined | -— |
| Year of Build | 2024 |
| undefined | -— |
| Length Overall (m) | 255.00 |
|---|---|
| Length BP (m) | |
| undefined | -— |
| Beam (m ) | 37.37 |
| undefined | -— |
Less then 6000 teu capacity , should be in the ballpark saying 5000 teu or abt
Typical SHITSHOW. Been there & done that. She did not loose boxes sailing across Pacific .How come??? Because all containers where lashed .
She lost boxes after berthing ??? Wow . How come ?. Because lashing bars were gone and semiautomatic t’locs were opened . Accidents like that happen from time to time especialy when bottom t’locs are opened prior opening t’locks on higher tier and the vessel develops a list which is not compensated by automatic anyiheeling system .Could be, antyheeling system conked out and shit happened before they identyfied the problem of excessive list.
Now .There are two options regarding unlashing.
- The normal one (highly recommended) is the agent arranges the shore gang to unlash paying an arm and leg for the service ( huge money )
or - The Agent ( ZIM CHARTERED
) wants to save some money and contacts the master prior arrival asking for crew service. and offering money ( under time charters it often happens) . Master gets the offer , calls c/o and deck crew and things are arranged. The catch here is that the vessel must unlash all before hitting berth in USA . Generally when pilot boards almost all cargo is unlashed.
The trick is to convince the pilot to take turns slowly and gently so the stacks will no get waterborn prior docking .
Needless to say this arrangement is btw the Agent , Master & crew without the knowledge of the principal so once the money is distributed all are happy .
It is stressfull and sometimes not worth the effort as the master ass is exposed to the bareable limits in case of some casualty as technically the vessel arrives at pilot station in a condition which is not seaworthy and that may cause the master to end up in US prison. and loss of licence.
2 Likes
Crane malfunction? May be but one gantry works one bay and no other at a time. Unless it caused collapse at worked bay and a sudden , uncompensated list caused by it, triggered domino effect on other bays.
2 Likes
San Francisco
1 Like
As seen in the video:
Two cranes with the boom down. One have been moved away (probably after the aft stack collapsed).
The other is holding up a stack of containers, thus reman in in place.
There are many videos regarding this incident. And i repeat again : one gantry in position is working one bay only unless it shifts from one bay to another what sometimes happens when there is a shortage of gantries. Hence one gantry can cause the collapse of containers in one bay only by crane driver mistake/error. or some other technical reason resulting in aplication of lateral force on unsecured container stack of 7-8 tiers.
2 Likes
Its California. the usually cold iron the ship like it was plugged in to shore power or a genset on the barge or shore the emissions barge captures the exhaust
or some hocus pocus of that nature
Did anyone see the barge guys scrambling for their lives? Crazy. Any news reports have details on whether everyone was safe?
Thanks Spo
Was going to ask for anyone with container ship knowledge to contribute.
Seemed to me like a really Blimey moment.
Have you ever seen this happen anywhere else?
I have not seen it or experienced sth similar but I do confirm that all lashings are gone prior gantry movements. Hence the antiheeling system is set to abt +/- 1 deg sensitivity what of course brings angry shouts from engineers as the pump is geting crazy pumping back an forth.
BUT of course the setting must be applied with some common sense taking into account the arrival GM condition. If it is high and the boat is stiff then sensitivity may be changed to higher values say +/- 5 deg. With low GM one must set lower values.
It is a standard routine to discuss with chief stevedore how the gantries must work and stevedore cooperation regarding this is very important. It is not advisable to alow gantries to discharge /load only one side so it is agreed that each gantry works alternate sides.
I looked again at her dimensions and noticed her summer draft is bigger then then similar ratio LOA/B vessels I sailed on. Hence probably her max container intake is more the expected 5000 teu I have mentioned before..
Another issue B/beam related is the arrival stability. Comparing 300 mtrs loa/40 m beam with 300 m loa /32.5(old Panamax) have observed under different loading /ballast conditions the wider body ships have always better stability what is in line with theory/geometry.
SO my gut feeling is she was very tender on arrival and due to wathever reasons which I hope soon will be disclosed listed too much .
Regarding similar accidents, I have not heard/read about such a huge loss of boxes alongside but two or 3 outside stacks go overboard from time to time. I saved pdfs from this accidents but need to find them. In all of this smaller scale events the lack of communication and coordination BTW ship & shore was blamed and in all cases bottom twist locks were unlocked and all lashing bars were gone too.
Cheers
5 Likes
. The distance some will go to not pay the tariffs . . .
2 Likes
Thanks Spo.
Really interesting explanation.
Parked loads of Container Ships but never worked one.
2 Likes
I would estimate the list to starboard to be between 7° to 10°. This is well outside the acceptable limits for a cellular container vessel of her size. This alone should not have caused the stacks to topple unless there was acceleration in the vessel’s movement . I very much doubt that the ship was anything other than upright when she first came alongside. What happened to cause the list as very few boxes have been discharged looking at the video.
In the video it is difficult to tell if the ship moved much and the initial cause maybe that the list was enough to cause a container collapse in the after stack precipitating a domino effect.
The longest lashing bars used are about the limit of weight and length that a reasonably fit young man can handle.
1 Like
Similar happened to old APL Belgium in OAK years ago. Stack fell onshore; terminal tractor trailer got lucky by about 10 seconds. As previously stated, if you unlash/unlock everything and then discharge all the way down one cell trying to get a hatch cover off (because the gantry driver is just following orders), leaving an adjacent tall cell unlashed, let alone multiple…. avalanche by a single good bump is possible. Too much list to one side due to inadequate (or often broken) anti-heeling system capabilities COUPLED with (at times) 4-7 cranes all discharging from the same direction can make this happen even more easily.
Every now and then this happens even to lashed boxes if crane is a little careless and hits an unlashed / unlocked stack with a hatch. I would say losing containers alongside in the port is 9 times out of 10 due to gantry operators. And it’s a few boxes, NOT avalanches like this.
However, 2 different bays dozens of meters apart is a catastrophic CF. Good grief.
1 Like
Agree with the explanations above. Cranes do hit boxes, lashings must be removed, ships arriving fully loaded after long voyages can have stability issues. However thousands of vessels have discharged without incident. Guessing, without any direct knowledge, something went very wrong with the ships stability.
Way many carriers operate today cargo handing supervision is from a central point far removed from the discharge/load location. Perfect example Golden Ray in Brunswick Georgia. Central planners not aware or experienced enough to adjust stowage and stability after a change in port rotation. Vessels master not car carrier experienced contracted crew from a crewing company not dedicated to the vessels type. . Result she capsized. Port captain attending experienced with the vessel’s particulars would have prevented the incident.
It’s likely experienced supervision could have avoided the recent container stack incident
3 Likes