Thanks for clear and concise explanations from several forum member.
The facts were not exactly a surprise, but that all these loop holes and differences from internationally accepted rules and regulations are still in place is.
More surprising is that the country that hold foreign ships that visit their ports to the highest standard allow this to continue. It is good to see that something is on foot to correct at least some of the blemish on the USCG’s records and US shipping’s standing in the world.
Agree that ATBs are a safety improvement over towing on the wire, but to put an engine and crew on the barge would increase safety even further. But that would make them ships of cause.
A fleet of modern coastal tankers, container feeders, RO/ROs and multi-purpose cargo ships with heavy lift capabilities would make good sense for the US.
With a long coastline on three coasts and outlaying territories far from the mainland, the size and mix of coastal vessels required would be different from most other countries and very diverse.
No need to re-invent the wheel. The technology and designs for all type and size of vessels already exists, although some modifications may be needed to suite special US requirements.
Maybe most important, the USCG would need to join the rest of the world with their rules and regulations.
[QUOTE=acesouthcoast;177068]Most ATB’s moving oil in the U.S. Will be inspected pretty soon. Subchapter M is scheduled to be unveiled in the next month or two and will be phased in over the next 7 years. It will require all towing vessels be inspected annually or every 5 years depending on the operators choice. These inspections are put in place to bring the US towing industry up to date with the rest of the world. The US shipping/tug fleet was thought of a the highest standard of safety in the past so it wasnt required to harmonize internationally. Now we are playing catch up with the rest of the world as we have been surpassed supposedly.
Most ATB’s moving oil will have little problem passing inspection as they already have a safety management system in place along with rigorous standards to maintain at the behest of the oil companies. The harbor tugs and wireboats will have the most work playing catch up.
ATB’s are created to beat uscg regulations but a positive outcome is less risk when moving oil barges when compared to towing and tighter schedules with less time lost for weather. Its a beautiful thing cruising into ft lauderdale in a swell when the older wire equipment is doing circles waiting to get in push gear when the swell lays down.[/QUOTE]
Having sailed on both wire boats and ATBs. . . I really like your last paragraph and couldn’t agree more (especially when I lived in Lauderdale back in the 80s). If I am not mistaken, ITBs with solid connections were the rule beaters of the 70s and 80s, what with deep notch tugs like the Ingram units or the cattugs like Hess and Hvide. . . but the USCG changed the rules, effectively
killing off the practicality of having a solid connection. ATBs were the next ones, with the “articulated” connections. I don’t know if Bludworth was first, but he was certainly a pioneer in the new technology (and to be honest, Robert was one of the most interesting people that I have ever met. . . certainly an challenge for a Class surveyor on a new construction project, too). . .I found his system to be better than what Belcher was running. The Belcher system featured hydraulic cylinders on the stern deck to tension large poly “facing” hawsers keeping the ridiculously large tug in the notch. Glycol filled bladders with ablative pads attempted to keep the hull tight in the notch transversely, and on the bow, an axle with about 5 or 6 airplane wheels would act to allow for the relative motion and displacement. . . From what I have heard, the BELCHER TAMPA had a failure in the glycol bags and the side to side motion beat a hole in the side of the tug in a void space. The port and starboard void spaces were very large to lower the GT. One took on water and the tug started to sink. The crew evacuated to the barge, and the tug sunk in the deepest part of the Gulf. . . The pin systems started to be installed about the time I came ashore. That type of connection made a bit more sense than the old bow clamp on the Bludworth system, but those older systems are still out there. I was onboard one about a year and a half ago.
I have been waiting decades for tugs to be inspected with a certificate of inspection that specifies required manning, proper lifesaving equipment, including a fast rescue boat, fire men’s suits, Scott packs with adequate refills, safe crew quarters without excessive noise, etc.
The USCG could have solved most of the problem decades ago by inspecting tugs under 300 GRT with the same existing sub chapter I regulations as tugs over 300, but less than 1600 GRT. But no, Congressmen and USCG admirals were coopted by the tug and barge owners and their AWO association.
If and when, sub chapter M comes along, it will be a watered down joke, with self-inspections and enough loopholes to slip a super tanker through that has the word TUG painted on the side.
It it would not surprise me if they come up with more special MMC endorsements with fewer qualifications that are restricted to tugs. Similar to the OSV only endorsements. The owners can get whatever they are willing to pay for
[QUOTE=cmakin;177084] ATBs were the next ones, with the “articulated” connections. I don’t know if Bludworth was first, but he was certainly a pioneer in the new technology (and to be honest, Robert was one of the most interesting people that I have ever met. . That type of connection made a bit more sense than the old bow clamp on the Bludworth system, but those older systems are still out there. I was onboard one about a year and a half ago.[/QUOTE]
Having sailed on and worked on a couple of the old Bludworth systems like yourself. I seem to remember a story Robert Bludworth and a guy named Max that was a foreman at his yard in Texas city, saying that the Japanese actually invented that system back in the 70’s but was never able to make it work correctly, and gave up on the idea. Robert Bludworth took the idea and made it work. You are correct a most interesting character.
Most of those units are still around. Kirby owns your baby the Sea Skimmer again (now the Sea Raven), the Invincible is up on the Great Lakes, and a couple of the old Gulf Coast Transit units are up on the Lakes now as well.
[QUOTE=ChiefRob;177093]Having sailed on and worked on a couple of the old Bludworth systems like yourself. I seem to remember a story Robert Bludworth and a guy named Max that was a foreman at his yard in Texas city, saying that the Japanese actually invented that system back in the 70’s but was never able to make it work correctly, and gave up on the idea. Robert Bludworth took the idea and made it work. You are correct a most interesting character.
Most of those units are still around. Kirby owns your baby the Sea Skimmer again (now the Sea Raven), the Invincible is up on the Great Lakes, and a couple of the old Gulf Coast Transit units are up on the Lakes now as well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I worked with Max quite a bit in my ABS days. His last name eludes me. I even think that I heard that he passed, but not sure…that could have also been Charlie, his right hand man. . . I mean it HAS been over 18 years since I was in that yard at least once a week, often more. . .
And I know my bastard child (baby infers some kind of affection) is back with Kirby. . . I even exchange some Facebook stuff with some of the crew from time to time. . . I got to know Robert when I was involved with the “construction” (or, dare I say completion) of the LIGHTNING/THUNDER. . . an interesting experience to be sure. . . including internal ABS office politics. . .yeah. . .it was a decent job, but the money they paid was ridiculous for the amount of responsibility and BS that were part of the deal. . . . and running Galveston (and Texas City and Freeport) oh, and all the offshore stuff as a one man port was a killer. . . lots of OT, but I might as well have been out at sea for the amount of time I spent at home. . .
[QUOTE=tugsailor;177090]If and when, sub chapter M comes along, it will be a watered down joke, with self-inspections and enough loopholes to slip a super tanker through that has the word TUG painted on the side.[/QUOTE]
Most likely. Like you I never understood why tugs needed their own special inspection criteria.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;177090]It it would not surprise me if they come up with more special MMC endorsements with fewer qualifications that are restricted to tugs. Similar to the OSV only endorsements. The owners can get whatever they are willing to pay for.[/QUOTE]
I’m surprised there isn’t already an AB-Towing like the AB-OSV.