Thames River? I get a whole lot of stuff from the agents regarding the boarding arrangement, but the passage plan is not part of that. I will say that your pilots give one of the most in depth Master / Pilot exchanges I’ve come across.
2 Likes
If the pilot has a plan showing the tugs are going to be made fast at 14 kts the captain can questions that.
If the plan is to make the tugs fast at, say 6 kts and the pilot is not slowing down early enough to accomplish that can be pointed out.
Better yet mark the slow-down points on a chartlet.
It’s understood that sometime plans have to change to meet changing circumstances.
That’s good to hear Mr Yankee.
If you ask the pilot he will either have a hard copy or can email you a copy.
They may be doing the email in advance of arrival for the Ultra Large vessels, this includes the deep draft ones as well. That will be when you have 2 pilots boarding and not for training purposes. I was always clear in my explanation of the 2 pilot system that we were both equally qualified and that although today I was the Lead Pilot tomorrow even with the same person I may be Second Pilot.
The reason I guess for not adopting the email system in advance is purely logistical due to the allocation times the pilot has which can at busy times be quite short.
There are longer allocation times for Ultra Large and an additional step in the checking that the plan is safe.
All plans are checked for viability by the duty pilot with regards to UKC and timings but for Ultra Large both pilots check independently the entire plan and it is also verified by the duty pilot.
KC
Plans do need to be fluid.
Any departure from the plan should be explained to the bridge crew and justified.
For example if due to a delay in a departing ship the planned meeting point has to be adjusted the inbound may have to maintain a higher speed than is on the plan in the latter part of the passage. This should be justified by explaining that there IS sufficient UKC at this state of the tide and I will be down to slow speed by the tug time.
Their crews are from SE Asia mostly Indian and Ukraine.
Above is a statement of fact and does not qualify as an assessment of their qualifications . Period.
Your effort to maintain
is noted and greatly appreciated as well as your veiled innuendo , based on your subjective opinion suggesting , I am ingaged in some subversive activity here spoiling your precious harmony.
However You are kindly invited to froward your deleted part in PM so I can offer You a coherent rebuttal of your accurate observations and conclusions. Cheers
Sir SIRK !!!
You did great .
Absolutely perfect comment especialy about the use of anchors in this particular case . Letting them go ( few shackles) was pointles and luckily for the bridge team the anchors did not catch , otherwise both chains would be gone with such energy and mommentum. You made my day today. THX
You have to try everything in Emergency , anchors in particular , points for insurance Company and standard procedure as well. The only thing to decide to drop or not , are the submarine cables ( power or internet EX: Singapore) , might be more expensive than the outcome .
1 Like
Once again a good point understood by 5th/6th graders.
As You wisely observed staying on anchor is not the same as dropping it while underway . In some ports we let go anchor under way but under strict conditions of paying out no more then 1.5 x depth of water and it was on shallow waters to stabilize the bow when going stern in , when tug was not available or bow thruster conked out . Coasters of abt 5000 dwt.
And You are absolutely right . In the first case we are dealing with static situation, when all the forces acting on the chain equalise and are acting in oposite directions like in “action versus reaction” example.
In the second example we are dealing with dinamic situation and it is a diferrent ballgame. Some of the gents here may be, should consult as a minimum Halliday and Resnick’s Principles of Physics instead of exploring in depth their egos. It is never too late to learn sth.
I’ m open mind , don’t worry , I know I’m learning every day , thing is , I have procedures to follow as well , at the end , the only question will be : Why ? And most of the procedures are done and updated after incidents like this. I will still drop anchor in case of Emrgncy , is just me .
I have requested the pilots plan for a Great Barrier Reef transit some years ago so it could be entered into the ECDIS prior to arrival. Since that time the complete plan for north and south transits is available electronically which is admirable.
The complete opposite in every aspect is the passage up the Amazon to Manus where the charts come with the pilots.
These days it is possible to issue an electronic copy of the pilots passage plan before boarding so it can be compared with the ship’s version.
2 Likes
Depends on the engine. Newer MAN ME engines can. There is no camshaft to shift, the start air system is all solenoids controlled by computer. When you go to crash astern the automation should cut fuel, apply start air opposing forward rotation and then apply fuel as soon as the engine is rotating in reverse with no need to wait for it to windmill down. That’s the theory and what the manual said. I fortunately never needed it.
2 Likes
The only time I have ever seen a crash top in a Merchant ship was a steam turbine VLCC. The automation was by Hokoshin (sp?) and was very advanced for its time. The ship was classed and ran UMS without problem. The master pushed the emergency control button and the computer immediately switched into a high speed program area and as the telegraph was moved to full astern the ahead turbine manoeuvring valve shut and the astern turbine manoeuvring valve opened. The computer ran up a 1600KVA diesel alternator , put it on line and took the turbo Alternator off line.
We pulled up in time and avoided our 400,000 tonnes creating a new canal through Zebrugge.
The tug who had carried away their line on the centre lead aft was re-secured and various individuals booked their laundry times.
Steam turbine warships used to approach a replenishment ship from the waiting position at 24 to 26 knots and in a calculated position ring stop. The E/R staff would keep the shafts stopped by monitoring the telltales on the rev counters using the astern turbines. The de acceleration was immediate and was like being in a bus braking. Engines were rung ahead when the ship was at the same speed as the replenishment ship, typically 12 to 14 knots.
In Hong Kong one time I was 2nd mate and on the bow of one of those 270 m LASH ships.
We were heading for the container dock, approaching way too fast and the captain ordered the stbd anchor dropped.
I let out the chain until it was leading out more than a 45 degree angle then had the brake tightened. Wheel was hard to stbd and the ship turned smartly to stbd away from the cranes.
In hindsight I’d think that would be the better move here, turn the bow away, better to hit with the stern.
Far less energy to turn a ship than stop one. Less turning power without the engine of course.
1 Like
re. adherence to YM procedures or any procedures one must suspect their SMS did not contain " in emergency let go your anchor with 4-5 shackles in the hosepipe irrespective of the situation. " I could be wrong of course.
It’s time to butt out of this conversation.
Thanks again.
You are correct that letting out 5-6 shackles of anchor will not work. The trick with using the anchors to stop the ship with headway is not to let out more than one or two shots of chain. You want the anchor to drag, but not to catch. If it catches it will break the chain or pull it all out. At one or two shots there will still be considerable slowing effect, but the flukes will not bite in. Yes, it will bounce along on the bottom, but it is still useful drag. You have to be careful to tell the mate on the bow to pay the anchor out with the winch (if there is time) or to let it fall and IMMEDIATELY put the brake on.
… but if the engine is direct drive there must be enough air at high enough pressure to stop the windmilling propeller and force it in the astern direction - no? In my experience this won’t happen over 6-8 knots. Since this is a more common arrangement I suspect Hogsnort is correct that the engine would not start astern.
1 Like
The thrusters may or may not have been working. From outside the ship you can only tell by looking for their wheel wash. Sal was showing the starboard side of the ship. Presumably the thrusters were trying to push the bow away from the dock, to starboard, meaning the wheel wash would only have been visible on the port side - not shown.
The anchors were out, but he said 5 or 6 shackles. Since the chain was “up and down” I suspect they dropped them at the last minute and never applied the brake. No stopping force there. If they had let out 5-6 shots at over 6 knots or so the anchor would have kept on going.
As for the ship’s wheel wash, the disturbance shown in the photo/video looks like tug wash. Those z-drive tugs throw out wheel wash all the time, even just sitting still.
All speculation of course.
1 Like
You have replied to my comment , where I have spoken to Alias Sirk . I have placed two additional comments including pdf page frm a trusted source - Nautical Institute of GB, that in plain language explains and confirms my position.
I did employ this technique on smaller ships what I have mentioned in my previous comment.
There are a number of publications from competent institutions confirming above and i have them and read them many times. I will provide link to one of the participants who mentioned, He is still in the learning process
.I think it is a proper attitude to have humility to say that , then being a pompous clown claiming to know everything. . Nobody here can figure out basis utube or other clips , what has realy happened .
But old salts irrespective of what size of the vessel they commanded in the past or are still active, should comment and even speculate . I see nothing wrong in that as long as we do not pass judgements being wise after the event.
I have not met a master comanding a ship of this size , who has not passed and received a certificate from internationally recognised institution that trains ship masters on ship models like Warsash institute , Grenoble and many others
. So i find it hard to believe, there was an idiot on the bridge in command of this vessel although old salts may judge that all that happened as we witnessed viewing the clips was idiotic. There was something more sinister there and investigators will find it and may be we will be lucky to get a glimpse at the results in abt two years or more.
Cheers.
One of such facilities , may be less known is shown in this Tom Scott FB profile in the link . Have met some Canadian pilots in Vancouver who trained in this particular facility.