[QUOTE=tugsailor;170743]The best looking survival craft I’ve seen are the Canadian egg shaped float free capsules. But I’d prefer steel over fiberglass.[/QUOTE]
Such a boat exists. It was designed in Norway in 1904: http://sonsofnorwayblog.blogspot.sg/2012/04/ole-brudes-lifeboat.html
To prove it’s capability the designer sailed across the Atlantic in his invention.
Unfortunately the idea did not catch on because of cost.
Free fall Lifeboats are the best way of getting away from a casualty, whether in heavy weather, or in case of fire.
Side launched free fall Lifeboats does exist on a few Offshore vessel. It is still required to have 100% coverage on either side, however.
This to ensure safe launching in case of heavy list. It is still better and safer than davit launched Lifeboats.
[QUOTE=ombugge;171188]Free fall Lifeboats are the best way of getting away from a casualty, whether in heavy weather, or in case of fire.
Side launched free fall Lifeboats does exist on a few Offshore vessel. It is still required to have 100% coverage on either side, however.
This to ensure safe launching in case of heavy list. It is still better and safer than davit launched Lifeboats.[/QUOTE]
There is a great deal of difference in the way a modern enclosed lifeboat is launched using a side davit and the way the older open boats were launched with side davits.
With the modern enclosed lifeboat the crew boards the lifeboat in the stowed position, a couple safety pins are removed, the gripes are released, the brake is open and the boat is lowered to the water where it is released. It’s a very simple operaton.
By contrast the older open boats had to be lowered to the accommodation deck where the tricing pendants would cause it to swing in so the crew could board. To launch the boat then had to be raised so the tricing pendents could be released. The whole time the boat was kept close alongside using the frapping lines which had to be rigged.
It would be much more difficult to launch the open type in heavy weather. The real purpose of the lifeboats on vessels like the El Faro is to meet regulatons.
For what it’s worth, as a mariner, I’d focus more on avoiding heavy weather and less on the lifeboats.
My last ship with open boats was 5 years ago. She had one traditional open boat (not a Fast Rescue Boat) and one enclosed boat. No issues with either boat or davit.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;171195]There is a great deal of difference in the way a modern enclosed lifeboat is launched using a side davit and the way the older open boats were launched with side davits.
With the modern enclosed lifeboat the crew boards the lifeboat in the stowed position, a couple safety pins are removed, the gripes are released, the brake is open and the boat is lowered to the water where it is released. It’s a very simple operaton.
By contrast the older open boats had to be lowered to the accommodation deck where the tricing pendants would cause it to swing in so the crew could board. To launch the boat then had to be raised so the tricing pendents could be released. The whole time the boat was kept close alongside using the frapping lines which had to be rigged.
It would be much more difficult to launch the open type in heavy weather. The real purpose of the lifeboats on vessels like the El Faro is to meet regulatons.
For what it’s worth, as a mariner, I’d focus more on avoiding heavy weather and less on the lifeboats.[/QUOTE]
With all due respect KC I disagree with a few of your statements. Tricing pendants have quick release hooks. The boat does not have to be raised to release them. I have sailed on more than one ship that had tricing pendants on enclosed boats.
Frapping lines are used to help minimize swinging of the lifeboat during raising or lowering. A swinging enclosed boat can be smashed against the hull of a ship just as badly as an open boat. The point being you might consider using them on any boat given the prevailing conditions.
A good number of the open lifeboats I have dealt with also had covers that were to be used to minimize exposure. (Unfortunately I don’t recall the crew ever practicing their use.)
An open lifeboat has a few advantages over an enclosed boat. 1) Little or no chance of being overcome by exhaust fumes if there was an exhaust leak. 2) If people get sick, they puke or relieve themselves over the side. A bit more constrained in an enclosed boat. 3) Evacuation. I once saw a 3rd mate light his room on fire by accidentally setting off a flare. Imagine if that were in an enclosed lifeboat. Lastly, 4) Backup means of propulsion. Yes, I am referring to oars. What happens in an enclosed boat if the engine fails to start, runs out of fuel, or breaks down. They are a cork on the ocean.
My point being all the advantage does not necessarily go to an enclosed lifeboat though their pluses far out weigh their minus and thus the current standard on new construction.
You’re right Chief Seadog. I do recall the quick release on the tricing pendants.
I do agree that the open boats have some advantages but like you said, in heavy weather the advantage goes to the enclosed boats. Also in my experence with regards to the launch in general and in particular in heavy rolling the crew in an enclosed boat is going to be a lot better protected if the swinging of the boat can not be controled. Aside from the protection offered by the enclousre the crew is buckled in.
I’ve seen the quick motion the boat makes when the tricing pendants are released when the boat is still alongside catch the boat crew by surprise during a drill.
You’re right on the details, my main point is that all side davit boats are not created equal. I think the main point is the steps required of the deck crew with extreme vessel motion having to launch including having to swing the boat alongside for boarding vs just everyone just getting in and letting it rip.
BTW Chief, don’t need the “all due respect part” when you call me out on some BS.
I have six 30 year old 60-man open lifeboats on my ship. Not only are they a maintenance nightmare but I’ve had many an actual nightmare about launching them in heavy weather. About 7 years ago we had a manufacturer survey the ship for possible replacements. One of the problems per the surveyor was the mandate that lifeboats now have to be boarded from their stowed positions. Based on available deck space and the width of the house this was not feasible in our case. I’ve never actually sighted the mandate but it’s probably in the LSA or SOLAS manual. If so we have the eurotrash at IMO to thank for yet another “contribution” to our safety and well-being.
Do the regulations need change? Ah, yeah.
I very much agree with KC that the cover-for-the-captain storm-avoidance measures should come first, and by a country mile. Prevention before response. If you’re lowering the lifeboats it’s usually because the voyage planning already got an F-minus.
But there’s another trap here waiting for us: one type of important safety improvement being held hostage by another because everyone can’t agree on priorities.
We don’t need any of the all-at-the-same-time-or-nothing crap to start. For example: tantrum-throwing unless the very first step is “state-of-the-art lifeboats and/or liferafts (plus other stuff) on every vessel yesterday or I’ll stamp my feet and hold my breath!”
The stakes are much too high now. There must be debate, but overall a deliberate approach will be most helpful.
None of these potential safety improvements are mutually exclusive.
I only worked on two foreign-flagged passenger vessels. Both boarded at the deck level. You walked directly onto the Fassmer lifeboats. The lifeboats were designed to carry 55 wearing PFDs. As tenders the boats were full carrying 35 without PFDs. There were no safety belts. The seats in the middle were benches with no back supports. If you were rolling down the side of big waves in a heavy weather you would be pulverized unless everyone was so wedged together that they were collectively stuck. But it would still be better than being in an open boat. I’m trying to picture people in an open boat rowing in a hurricane
IIRC, there were 10 open lifeboats of over 100 man capacity and two smaller ones of about 36 man capacity and 82 liferafts.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;170486]The Mercy class hospital ships (USNS MERCY, USNS COMFORT) primarily have open lifeboats in addition to semi-closed tenders and scores of life rafts.[/QUOTE]
have lifeboats killed more people than they have saved in the last 20 years?
[QUOTE=powerabout;171328]have lifeboats killed more people than they have saved in the last 20 years?[/QUOTE]
I believe that is correct, more killed then saved. Unless you count the passengers evacuated from the Costa Concordia. I think I saw that on Bob Couttie’s site
[QUOTE=powerabout;171328]have lifeboats killed more people than they have saved in the last 20 years?[/QUOTE]
I believe the answer to the question asked is no. As maligned as they maybe in this thread they have saved more people than they have killed. While I do not know the exact numbers 2 incidents come quickly to mind. First, the sinking of the MV Explorer in 2007 when she struck an iceberg. All 91 passengers, 9 guides and 54 crew took to the ship’s (open) lifeboats and were rescued. Secondly, Costa Concordia when she sunk a few years ago had 4229 persons on board the vessel. While the evacuation was chaotic the fact remains 23 of the ship’s 26 lifeboats were launched and the majority of the passengers & crew left the vessel in lifeboats.
This is just my 2 cents. This is not meant to minimize the numerous fatalities that obviously have occurred.
I just want to say that open vs. closed boats is meaningless unless a boat can be safely and successfully launched with all personnel aboard in the worst possible scenario. Boats that require wires to be launched would never have succeeded in the EL FARO tragedy no matter now well designed the boats were.
I believe every ship should have a capsule style rescue device which sits high on the ship and which is designed for personnel to board and seek refuge in. Should a vessel founder beneath the capsule being high up it would lift off with its buoyancy.
There would be many ways to design such a rescue capsule so it could also be launched as well which is more or less an enclosed freefall boat however those are not of a design to make is easy for personnel to board in very short order nor can they list off a ship going down beneath them
[QUOTE=c.captain;171349]I just want to say that open vs. closed boats is meaningless unless a boat can be safely and successfully launched with all personnel aboard in the worst possible scenario. Boats that require wires to be launched would never have succeeded in the EL FARO tragedy no matter now well designed the boats were.
I believe every ship should have a capsule style rescue device which sits high on the ship and which is designed for personnel to board and seek refuge in. Should a vessel founder beneath the capsule being high up it would lift off with its buoyancy.
There would be many ways to design such a rescue capsule so it could also be launched as well which is more or less an enclosed freefall boat however those are not of a design to make is easy for personnel to board in very short order nor can they list off a ship going down beneath them[/QUOTE]
It’s 101 year’s since Ole Brude sailed from Norway to USA in such a device.
http://sonsofnorwayblog.blogspot.no/2012/04/ole-brudes-lifeboat.html?m=1
[QUOTE=Kraken;171354]It’s 101 year’s since Ole Brude sailed from Norway to USA in such a device.[/QUOTE]
and thus we discover how much we have regressed and forgotten in a century
Anyone ever rode an enclosed life-raft in 140 mph winds and 50’+ seas? Anyone ever attempted to launch any type of survival craft in such conditions and lived to tell about it? I am very grateful to say I have not had such an experience. I hope I never do.
I wonder if the crew of El Faro even had the time to attempt a launch of its survival craft? Beam-to in the trough, listing by 15 degrees, a ro-ro ship flooding with the potential for a lot of free-surface effect. Rogue waves. I’m just speculating but sometimes we have to recognize the fact that no matter the equipment, the frequency of drills, safety regulations and how smart we think we are, the sea is a wilderness and an overwhelming force that can swallow any vessel, old or state-of-the art, with impunity and without discretion.
That being said, perhaps we as American Mariners can once again petition out representatives to point out that many American Seamen work aboard vessels that were built over 30 years ago. By contrast, European seafaring nations are leading the way with cutting edge technology at sea. Maybe the problem in the U.S. isn’t the building and designing of better safety equipment but the structure of the Maritime Industry itself. Namely, marine business interest holding too much power over government regulators and maritime labors almost non-existent voice in meaningful marine innovation.
Mean while, the structure of Maritime Industry in Europe seems to be more of a triumvirate predicated on three main interest. The marine business sector, government regulation sector, and the maritime labor sector. Each sector enjoys equal access and influence over maritime safety, design, and profitability. The influence of the maritime triumvirate influences maritime education, not only for future mariners but for future Marine Executives and Maritime Regulators. It seems to be working quite well for all interest involved in other maritime nations. Perhaps its time for a cultural shift in the American Maritime Industry paradigm.
The Sea will always have its way but innovative and improved safety technology will save countless lives and millions of dollars in property. I would suspect the savings would translate into increased profitability for business and increased demands for good-paying jobs for Labor.
What say You?
[QUOTE=Lookout;171364]Anyone ever rode an enclosed life-raft in 140 mph winds and 50’+ seas? Anyone ever attempted to launch any type of survival craft in such conditions and lived to tell about it? I am very grateful to say I have not had such an experience. I hope I never do.[/QUOTE]
No but I have seen them ripped from their mounts in a typhoon and fly like kites on the painter until the shreds vanish in the spray.
There is nothing short of an escape capsule that offers the slightest hope of survival in conditions like that. The reasons why open boats still exist are political and social issues that have fomented revolutions for centuries … given our current and foreseeable political and social future I believe that Don Quixote had a better chance than the likes of us to make changes.
[QUOTE=c.captain;171349]I just want to say that open vs. closed boats is meaningless unless a boat can be safely and successfully launched with all personnel aboard in the worst possible scenario. Boats that require wires to be launched would never have succeeded in the EL FARO tragedy no matter now well designed the boats were.
I believe every ship should have a capsule style rescue device which sits high on the ship and which is designed for personnel to board and seek refuge in. Should a vessel founder beneath the capsule being high up it would lift off with its buoyancy.
There would be many ways to design such a rescue capsule so it could also be launched as well which is more or less an enclosed freefall boat however those are not of a design to make is easy for personnel to board in very short order nor can they list off a ship going down beneath them[/QUOTE]
Exactly, a large steel insulated float free capsule with heavy fendering, good seats, air supply, heat, provisions, and communications where all nonessential crew could seek refuge in an emergency, and where the rest of the crew could join after an abandon ship order.
[QUOTE=Lookout;171364]Anyone ever rode an enclosed life-raft in 140 mph winds and 50’+ seas? Anyone ever attempted to launch any type of survival craft in such conditions and lived to tell about it? I am very grateful to say I have not had such an experience. I hope I never do.
I wonder if the crew of El Faro even had the time to attempt a launch of its survival craft? Beam-to in the trough, listing by 15 degrees, a ro-ro ship flooding with the potential for a lot of free-surface effect. Rogue waves. I’m just speculating but sometimes we have to recognize the fact that no matter the equipment, the frequency of drills, safety regulations and how smart we think we are, the sea is a wilderness and an overwhelming force that can swallow any vessel, old or state-of-the art, with impunity and without discretion.
That being said, perhaps we as American Mariners can once again petition out representatives to point out that many American Seamen work aboard vessels that were built over 30 years ago. By contrast, European seafaring nations are leading the way with cutting edge technology at sea. Maybe the problem in the U.S. isn’t the building and designing of better safety equipment but the structure of the Maritime Industry itself. Namely, marine business interest holding too much power over government regulators and maritime labors almost non-existent voice in meaningful marine innovation.
Mean while, the structure of Maritime Industry in Europe seems to be more of a triumvirate predicated on three main interest. The marine business sector, government regulation sector, and the maritime labor sector. Each sector enjoys equal access and influence over maritime safety, design, and profitability. The influence of the maritime triumvirate influences maritime education, not only for future mariners but for future Marine Executives and Maritime Regulators. It seems to be working quite well for all interest involved in other maritime nations. Perhaps its time for a cultural shift in the American Maritime Industry paradigm.
The Sea will always have its way but innovative and improved safety technology will save countless lives and millions of dollars in property. I would suspect the savings would translate into increased profitability for business and increased demands for good-paying jobs for Labor.
What say You?[/QUOTE]
Has anyone ever tried recovering a enclosed lifeboat in a two foot chop and light winds where the davits are 90 feet from the water?
It’s my view that requiring lifeboats designed for worse possbible scenario would be a waste of money. I’d rather see the money spent somewhere else , upgrading the NWS / NHC computers and sending more mariners to heavy weather avoidance class. For example. It has been noted by CJS that that’s not the choice of course.
With regards to upgrading the Jones act fleet. I think the quesiton should not be how will this effect the Jones Act but how will it affect the Jones Act Fleet. I"ve had a few conversations with pilots agents etc over the years and my impression is that other countries deliberately use the tax coce, deprecation for example and a more rigorous inspection and regulatory regime to encourage more frequent vessel replacement. I noticed for example that ports in Europe replaced the conventional tugs with tractor much quicker then did the U.S. The U.S. East Coast in particular. Let’s not even get started on the ATB loophole.
As far as lobor having a seat at the table, this has been discussed here on numerous occasions.
