[QUOTE=Topsail;159012]You better make sure that the traffic proceeding along with the current is clear before closing or blocking down that channel. You may not help your case and create much more problems or incidents. Just riding over an anchor can hole a fuel cofferdam and make a spill. Twisting a rudder stock in the mud can happen so easily…[/QUOTE]
As far as I know when fog sets down in the Houston Ship Channel it’s every man for himself. If you are on a ship that is not suitable for anchoring and the channel is blocked you are F.U.C.K.E.D.
So the question is if the forecast is 100% chance of fog and you are safety anchored or moored should you transit? My view is it’s not prudent.
Someone needs to take a hard look at marine safety in the Channel. Movement coordination is evidently done on a informal basis between pilots. The VTS only monitors traffic rarther then controls it. There are too many big ships with dangerous cargoes moving to contiue with the haphazard approach used now.
I have limited experience there but one-way traffic whether in certain areas, visibility, or alternating hours would help I think. Also, maybe VTS should be monitored by an experienced pilot looking for problems. Between however many hundred pilots they have, if they stood one 8 hour watch every week of duty I am sure it would be covered.
If you go to a forecast base approach you risk losing commerce to weather that doesn’t happen but it’s s small tradeoff when you can brag about your new safety record.
In VTS (equivalent) systems throughout the rest of the world, what type of people normally supervise movements?
Following my experience and the era we’re leaving in, I am not in a position to conceive that a channel can be blocked by vessels that shall be equipped with on-board or carry state of the art ENC-ECDIS, to allow them to carry on til a designated anchorage area is reached if requested. If it’s the case, I agree that they have serious problems to solve to upgrade their practice to a safe level. Holding dangerous cargo carriers alongside if fog forecast is as likely as apparent, I agree with that as well. Instead to reinvent the wheel, I would make a thoughtful risk analysis study comparative with other major pilotage districts and come up with acceptable solutions for all parties involved.
Some major VTS in Europe have a pilot on watch. I think that it is a good solution when users agree to pay the pilot as much as the pilotage frees for the service. Ships movement is supervised by civil servants mostly issued from the CG. They provide all information needed but stay away from decision making except in special bylaw traffic circumstances.
[QUOTE=z-drive;159057]I have limited experience there but one-way traffic whether in certain areas, visibility, or alternating hours would help I think. [/QUOTE]
Suez Canal. If you want to welcome larger leviathans, that’s a solution to be considered.
[QUOTE=z-drive;159057]I have limited experience there but one-way traffic whether in certain areas, visibility, or alternating hours would help I think. Also, maybe VTS should be monitored by an experienced pilot looking for problems. Between however many hundred pilots they have, if they stood one 8 hour watch every week of duty I am sure it would be covered.
If you go to a forecast base approach you risk losing commerce to weather that doesn’t happen but it’s s small tradeoff when you can brag about your new safety record.
In VTS (equivalent) systems throughout the rest of the world, what type of people normally supervise movements?[/QUOTE]
A lot of ports have a “Port Control” It’s generally run by or supervised by the pilots. When you approach port "Port Control will tell to proceed in or where to anchor. As you approach the pilot staton you get handed off on a different channel to talk directly to the pilots or the boat for the pick-up. Once the pilot gets on board he call Port Control and checks in. In Houston you call the pilots, I think its the dispatcher, for instructions and call the pilot boat for the rendezvous and pick-up. It’s more or less the same thing except I think port control has some control over vessel without pilots as well.
The VTS just keeps an eye on the radar to make sure everyone is behaving.
You could upgrade a VTS to an ATC (Air Traffic Control) and take control of the traffic. But that’s a major move which I don’t think necessary in our case. I am positive that the pilots are in a better position to assure the safety of the navigation. Following a thoughtful risk analysis attended by all interested parties, you could come up with a new set of rules that would have to be obeyed as well as by the VTS, the pilots and the industry. Nevertheless, one of the major problem that I realized, is the width of the channel in relation of the combined beam of transiting vessels. I think that they already overridden the safe limit. Whether you dredge the channel width against the environment, slow the speed down radically and prevent overtaking to tabulated checklist, restraint to one way traffic or so. Anyhow, an ECDIS PPU is a must to prevent blocking the channel in adverse visibility conditions. .
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;158984]Some of the meetings go smoothly, sometimes not so much. It’s woudn’t take much for things to go wrong in dense fog. Pilot not on top of his game, fatigue or distraction, helmsman putting the wheel over wrong, gyro error, a little curret.
Like most incidents probalby more then one contributing factor.
I think the application of standard risk assessment would led to the conclusion that if there s a high probability of fog then a tanker with 200,000 bbls of MTBE ought to stay tied up until the forecast changes, is proven to be wrong or it clears up.[/QUOTE]
Listening to the voice recording got me to ask this question:
I paraphrase.
Pilot A realizing collision is imminent: “Bring her left, bring her left.”
Pilot B: “I can’t.”
Pilot A: “Why can’t you?”
That’s what I would like to know. Why couldn’t he go to port?
Kinetic energy = (Displacement x Speed²) ÷ 2
Kinetic energy = (50,000mt x 9²) ÷ 2
Kinetic energy = 4,000,000 mt
Ounce that energy have already developed a momentum to starboard in view to meet on one, how can you bring it back over to port within seconds to act upon a too late and desperate VHF call?
That’s about it. They’re willing to take the chance to have an accident ounce a while by keeping the big money show running nonstop. If something doesn’t go by the plan, will make a nice report, fine the pilot, put him in jail and take his license away while the captain enjoys certain protections from his state of flag. Well, the pilot is getting paid for that. Having a frank conversation in the middle of the night with a so called captain wholly devoted to Poseidon, Lu-Hsing, God, Mahomet, Buddha, Office, Agent, Money, while savoring a sweet instant nestle coffee? Whishing these same Masters to be aware of local forecast and be more assertive with the agent/office when ordering the pilot? Paper work expected to be completed by 02h30 … will call the pilot for 02h00 weather permitting or not. If he delays the departure, make the tugs and linesman waiting, will give him iFun calls.
If you ask a captain… close by the mic of the VDR if he is all set to leave a safe berth to proceed in dense fog at 02h30am, he will say Yes Mr. Pilot. If you then ask him how we’ll justify such a decision if something goes wrong, he will answer that he had a good pilot. Welcome in the club …
[QUOTE=lm1883;159184]There was a big push to do this in San Francisco after the COSCO Busan incident. The USCG was unwilling to accept the responsibility and more importantly the liability. The current system works well but sometimes shit happens.
NOAA needs to find the funds to install visiometers at various points along the Ship Channel and tie them into the PORTS system so the pilot can get real time visibility information and make a better decision about conducting the transit.
Masters need to be aware of the local forecast and be more assertive with the agent/office when ordering the pilot. The captain is frequently looking to the pilot to pull the plug so he has a fall guy, and is disappointed when the pilot says “ok, let’s single up”. f there is any concern about proceeding, have a discussion about it in the masters office. You’d be amazed how frank the conversation gets when both parties know it’s not being recorded.
My problem is I run world-wide from Abu Dhabi UAE and Aqaba Jordan to Xingang China and Zarate Argentina. If I was running into the same port every week and knew the skill level of the pilots and boat drivers I could contribute better to a discussion . On my side I have an idea how reliable my crew and equipment is but I often have to defer heavily to the local expertise of the pilot with regards to local conditions.
I once told an agent I would not enter into the locks in Bremerhaven Germany with 35 kt winds and 45 kt gusts. Turns out it’s routine. They have 7000 hp tractor tugs, one at each end and with one pushing alongside, they yank you around like a rag doll. Lesson learned. But there are many foreign third world ports where the pilots are shit and tug driver are worse. Which ones are they? That’s the question.
In Houston It never occurred to me that a pilot would run up the channel with a high probability of fog and no plan B. Now I know, lesson learned.
Plan A, putting his head in a bag is less painful than to put it on the block. Plan B looks to be keeping going as you’re stuck in the channel. Plan C seems to be anchoring in the channel against the current/wind as it is blocked. Plan D, anchoring in the same circumstances but with a following current/wind in a hold on fast me boy manner. Plan E, managing a grounding, an allision or a collision. Plan F, managing an oil spill. Plan G, facing the consequences of being a pilot. Plan H, trying to find job on a pleasure boat or in a maritime academy.
I did refuse to proceed in adverse weather conditions against all odds. But be ready to face the music. It goes all the way to sarcasms and insults from captains to wet chicken reputation from own colleagues. So now, I’m in a position to understand why some pilots will still proceed. That’s the game and you will have to live with it!
[QUOTE=Topsail;159212]I did refuse to proceed in adverse weather conditions against all odds. But be ready to face the music. It goes all the way to sarcasms and insults from captains to wet chicken reputation from own colleagues. So now, I’m in a position to understand why some pilots will still proceed. That’s the game and you will have to live with it![/QUOTE]
I thnk the best approach is rule-based. Many ports have some rules (wind speed and total combined beam for two way traffic are common)I believe SF now has rules with regards to visibily. Pilot assocatons could develop more sophisticated rules based on experience and the COTP could implement them.
[QUOTE=lm1883;159184]There was a big push to do this in San Francisco after the COSCO Busan incident. The USCG was unwilling to accept the responsibility and more importantly the liability. The current system works well but sometimes shit happens.[/QUOTE]
I agree that at this point shifting to shore control makes no sense. But I think VTS shore monitoring needs to be looked at.
I don’t know what the VTS in Houston does, you’d think they’d be keeping an eye on a tanker loaded with MTBE underway in the fog meeting another ship. In some foreign ports (Singapore) the VTS would have called the instant that inbound ship strayed into the wrong side of the channel. I suspect they are using an alarm / software ARPA system of some sort where the VTS operator is alerted by alarm to ships on collision course.
On the new AIS-RADAR ECDIS generation, you find a multi meeting point function which will advise instantly where and when vessels will meet to preset CPA’s. If there is a tow that decides to cross a fairway and by doing so, a risk of collision exist with a transiting cargo as it happened recently, the VTS would get an alarm and be in a position to order the vessel in error to act immediately to avoid a collision. You can even drag the meeting point to find out what speed reduction is needed to avoid any close call.
VTS needs the authority to apply simple commonsense rules like;
Negative, we’ll authorize you to depart when the visibility improves to half a mile, (tilt-swing-zoom cameras),
Negative, we’ll authorize you to depart when vessel B is clear of the channel as the visibility is restricted in that area, no other traffic reported,
Negative, we’ll authorize you to heave-up anchor when the down bound vessel is clear of the channel as visibility is restricted,
Negative, you’re not allowed to anchor in the channel due to incoming traffic, proceed to emergency anchorage Alpha,
Negative, no overtaking permitted as down bound vessel Z is approaching,
Reduce your speed to such as required by the squat-meeting table,
Reduce your speed to meet oversize tanker vessel Y below such curve,
CG 007 proceed immediately to buoy WX as we have a report that sailboat Y is sailing or cruiser Z is drifting dead center of the commercial channel and give’em a good smack behind the ears for me, will you !!!
VTS currently has the authority to “Direct”. On rare occasions. (From the user manual).
" (4) Direct: On rare occasions (and during heightened security conditions) VTS may direct movement or actions of a participant. Direction is typically given in cases when the VTS observes obvious violations of regulations, or an immediately dangerous condition exists which the participant is, or appears, unaware of. Directions will normally be in the form of a general objective such as staying out of a certain area, proceeding to an anchorage or berth, passing no closer than a certain distance from a vessel or facility, or in grave situations altering course to avoid an imminent collision or grounding."
BTW, VTS came into being after two Standard Oil tankers collided in fog.
If that ship didn’t move at that time, it would have sailed at another time with a Houston Pilot. It was not an American flag tug or ship that could have been piloted by a Federal non State (Houston) Pilot. A lot of people complain about “State Pilotage Monopolies”, but the fact that there is no competition for work, is supposed stop pilots from moving vessels for fear of loosing the job to a competing group.
I am not sure, but I would guess what ever money a ship pays the pilots is divided amongst the pilots equally. So even if that particular pilot didn’t pilot that ship he would have made the same amount of money off that move.
