EL FARO Tragedy: Does Age Really Matter?

[QUOTE=catherder;180023]I was going to comment on that Jeep issue myself. There are an awful lot of “old” cars on the road working as daily drivers and more. We have a 20 year old pickup truck with a rebuilt crate engine and I’d have no issue taking it on a long distance road trip. [/QUOTE]
It may work, but that’s not a safe vehicle.

This old girl is 60 years old:


This picture was taken when she returned from her latest refit, in 2013.

She was built in Hamburg, Germany, delivered from the yard 24. Febr. 1956.
She was in regular Hurtigruten (Coastal Express) traffic until 2012, doing 11 day round trips from Bergen to Kirkenes, Norway with passengers and cargo, calling at 34 ports each way. Much of the route north of the Arctic Circle.

After a major overhaul in Poland in 2013 she entered service as a Cruise ship in the Svalbard Archipelago in the summers and charter cruises on the Norwegian coast in the winter: http://www.spitsbergentravel.com/start/adventures/cruise/Ships/Svalbard-Ships/MS-Nordstjernen/

The Main engine was changed to a MaK 8M453AK with 3600hp in 1983, otherwise she has been restored to her original “glory”.
Here is a link for those who are interested: http://maritimematters.com/2014/10/nordstjernen-returns/

Her younger “sister” Lofoten", built in Norway in 1964 is still active on the “Coastal Express” run: http://maritimematters.com/2014/03/m-s-lofoten-norwegian-coastal-liner-celebrates-50-years-of-service/

Lofoten has an older sister still sailing: http://www.serenissima-cruises.com/
She is presently cruising the Caribbean. Next port: Havana
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/SERENISSIMA-IMO-5142657-MMSI-376439000

I don’t care how old something is, but it needs to play by the Latest Rules. Yes you can’t refit for some hull regulations, but equipment, manning, etc are dictated by one set of rules for ALL vessels regardless of when they were built.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]

I raise you with the oldest active icebreaker in the world:


Built in 1954 and rebuilt in 1978-1979 with new engines, superstructure and shell plating. She was deployed this winter in the eastern Gulf of Finland. Originally, she was supposed to be decommissioned this year (and probably sold to Russia for an additional 20 years of service thereafter), but it instead it was decided to keep her in limited service in the future.

I’m not very proud of having such an old ship with in our state-owned icebreaker fleet, rebuilt or not.

Certain classic old ships, in certain places, under certain conditions, with certain upgrades, should have a place in the fleet, but they should be the exception, not the rule.

If US flag ships had to be replaced every 20 years, the cost of the goods they carry might increase by 1/10th of 1 percent. So what?

I’m not saying that the fact that some ships, tugs or whatever outlive their normal life span every ship could or should, far from it.
I totally agree that most “mass produced” ships of today should be taken out of service after they reach an age of 20 years or so. Why?? Because they are not built to last any longer and in most cases are not being maintained to a standard required to last any longer.

Today’s international “ship managers” are actually “asset managers”, with little or no knowledge of ships and even less interest in anything that has reach it’s projected “life span”, unless it’s market value exceeds scrap value.

In the US it may make sense to maintain old vessels in service, but at lowest possible cost.
To maintain ships as the ones shown in my post #21 is costly and not possible to justify for anything but vessels of special interest, or for special functions. A simple tanker, bulker or cargo ship does not meet those criteria.

If the US wants to remain in the overseas shipping business they have to renew the fleet. But if the cost of that exceeds world market rates by a factor of 3-4, it does not make economical sense.

If the intention is to only maintain a fleet to serve the domestic market the present policy will do that, although old and technically obsolete. If you intend to build up an internationally competitive fleet you have to play on the world market, including on the cost of building vessels and manufacture the machinery and equipment to go into such vessels at competitive prices.

Or you may continue to assemble vessels of foreign designed with foreign equipment in shipyards run by foreign companies, taking advantage of a hyped-up price for “US built vessels”.
None of those ships will be able to operate outside US waters, or without heavy US government subsidies, in some form or another.

Some further thoughts from merchant mariners and engineers on board the sister ship of the SS Poet.

http://frumped.org/2015/10/08/sinking-at-the-dock-of-the-bay-watching-the-el-faro-sail-away-the-american-merchant-marines-tragic-ss-dorian-gray-delusion/

[QUOTE=Tups;180045]While everyone hates rules and regulations, one thing that makes new ships safer on a general level is the fact that classification society, IMO etc. rules have been changed and amended a number of times to weed out unsafe practices in ship design and construction. They just don’t build 'em like they used to, and it’s a good thing…[/QUOTE]

The author of Tankship Tromedy makes a very good case that in fact the opposite is true.

While safety rules may get stricter general construction rules get laxer with time due to the “down ratchet”.

[QUOTE=Bob Frump;180090]Some further thoughts from merchant mariners and engineers on board the sister ship of the SS Poet.

http://frumped.org/2015/10/08/sinking-at-the-dock-of-the-bay-watching-the-el-faro-sail-away-the-american-merchant-marines-tragic-ss-dorian-gray-delusion/[/QUOTE]

That author again blames the Jones Act and US government preference cargo for old POS ships, but I don’t see their justification. In fact, it seems like it would be the exact opposite. Since only Jones Act vessels can do Jacksonville to Puerto Rico then the owner is protected from Chinese built and Philippino crewed vessels competing against him. Remove the Jones Act and the only way an American vessel could possibly compete would be to be a 50 year old rust bucket. As it is I don’t see any particular reason to use old ships, American owners in Jones Act trade have as much incentive as foreign owners in global trade.

[QUOTE=Bob Frump;180090]Some further thoughts from merchant mariners and engineers on board the sister ship of the SS Poet.

http://frumped.org/2015/10/08/sinking-at-the-dock-of-the-bay-watching-the-el-faro-sail-away-the-american-merchant-marines-tragic-ss-dorian-gray-delusion/[/QUOTE]

Way back in the day I made a couple trips as 2nd on the SS Port which shortly thereafter became known as the Poet. Of all the ships I’ve sailed on she was actually one of the better maintained vessels. The C/E who had been on there for years had a real PM system. That said, we sailed down to the marks even shorting us fuel and water to carry more cargo. We stopped in Bermuda for fuel and took enough to make it to Alexandria.

The Penny was in bad shape, the Port (Poet) was not, at least not in 1978. It is hard to pull a ship out of the bilges if not kept up. It doesn’t take long.

The task of keeping on top of things falls both on the company and the people sailing. The company has to be ready to spend the money when required. The people on the ships need to do the work.

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180095]The author of Tankship Tromedy makes a very good case that in fact the opposite is true.

While safety rules may get stricter general construction rules get laxer with time due to the “down ratchet”.[/QUOTE]

In the “good old days” (before computers) Naval architects made their calculations with slide rules and added a large safety factor. When more precise computer programs got into the picture it was possible to calculate stresses more accurately.
Because now we believe anything that come out of a computer to be accurate, the safety factor got reduced.
Although back in 1975 I met an old N.A. in charge of design for a now defunct US Drilling Contractor who described his philosophy thus; “I let them young Engineers do their calculations on their fancy machines, then I double it”.

The fact is that mistakes are made in the design of modern ships BECAUSE of the confidence put on computer generated data and calculations. Recent examples are; the breaking of MOL Comfort and cracks developed on a Vale ULOC on her first loading.

It is also a fact that machinery has got more reliable. Planned Maintenance Systems in use on most vessels make for better inspection and maintenance routines, but only if it is well “designed” for the particular machinery and equipment on each individual vessel, not company generic, or “off the shelf”.
NO PMS does any good if it is only an exercise in “ticking boxes” to satisfy reporting deadlines and no work is actually done however.

So does age matter?? Yes, but it is not the only criteria for a safe ship.
A well designed, well maintained vessel, manned by professional seafarers that take pride in their job and managed by an Owner that spend money on repairs and renewal of equipment when needed can last well above the “prescribed scrapping age”.

On the other hand; A vessel built and equipped as cheaply as possible, owned by speculators and operated by the Shipmanagement Company that offered the lowest cost, based on a minimized maintenance budget and manned by the cheapest possible crews hired through a crewing Agent, with no incentive or interest in maintaining the vessel since they are unlikely to return to the same vessel, or even the same company.
Such vessels, of which there are many, should be scrapped early, as they are likely to be in bad condition after only a few years.

China has a set age of scrapping, based on type of ships: http://en.msa.gov.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=24&id=47

They also subsidize scrapping to ensure that ships under the Chinese flag are meeting the latest environmental requirements set by IMO. (Who say that China is doing nothing for the environment?): http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-extends-ship-scrapping-subsidy

[QUOTE=Bob Frump;180090]Some further thoughts from merchant mariners and engineers on board the sister ship of the SS Poet. [/QUOTE]

Mr. Frump…I believe you paint all old ship black with a very broad brush and unless you have been a merchant mariner should consider that you may not be able to form a fully accurate picture of them. Although many are, every >25 year old ship is not by their age manifestly unseaworthy. It is more a question of whether the owners of an old ship are willing to invest the necessary capital to keep their ships maintained and to upgrade their critical systems with more modern equipment. I know several companies who own and operate old vessels out here on the West Coast who never stop with that investment. They know they have an asset which would be very expensive to replace so rather that squeeze every penny of profit from them, take a good percentage of the money their ships earn and put it right back into them every winter during yard periods. This way, that investment keeps on earning now many decades after you would have condemned them to the cutting torch.

Note as well that regulating away a group of ships because they have earned pariah status also can do more harm than good. How many perfectly sound and seaworthy US flag tankers were condemned to scrap due to OPA90 with the loss of thousands of jobs because some incompetent third mate was chatting up the female AB on a bridgewing when he should have had his face in the radar constantly plotting the vessel’s position? Maybe one in four of those ships were replaced with newbuilds. I’d much rather the single hull ships stayed through their useful lives with much more stringent regulation on how they were navigated.

.

[QUOTE=ombugge;180110]In the “good old days” (before computers) Naval architects made their calculations with slide rules and added a large safety factor. When more precise computer programs got into the picture it was possible to calculate stresses more accurately.
Because now we believe anything that come out of a computer to be accurate, the safety factor got reduced.[/QUOTE]

While I’m sure that’s a part of it the author of the book I mentioned describes the process he calls the “down ratchet” very well. I’ll paraphrase here:

Thethe shipyard wants to cut a corner in a build to save a little money so goes to their buddies at class and asks permission for this little deviation from the ‘minimum’ engineering specifications. Class wants to keep their customers happy, and thus keep their business, so they agree. The change is now permanent because once it’s been allowed once class can’t enforce the higher standard. Also, since the classification societies are in competition with each other (thanks to flags of convenience) everything one society allows the others have to allow.

This happens over and over again, eventually reducing the sky scraper high engineering standards of the class societies to the height of a single family house. As a result minimum safe scantling is reduced, reinforcements are reduced, etc.

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180112]While I’m sure that’s a part of it the author of the book I mentioned describes the process he calls the “down ratchet” very well. I’ll paraphrase here:

Thethe shipyard wants to cut a corner in a build to save a little money so goes to their buddies at class and asks permission for this little deviation from the ‘minimum’ engineering specifications. Class wants to keep their customers happy, and thus keep their business, so they agree. The change is now permanent because once it’s been allowed once class can’t enforce the higher standard. Also, since the classification societies are in competition with each other (thanks to flags of convenience) everything one society allows the others have to allow.

This happens over and over again, eventually reducing the sky scraper high engineering standards of the class societies to the height of a single family house. As a result minimum safe scantling is reduced, reinforcements are reduced, etc.[/QUOTE]

Well I was talking more in general; Absentee Owners wants the cost of building their “assets” as low as possible. They have no interest in the safety or comfort of the crew, or anything else, as long as they can get a good return on their investment.
Class and Flag state authorities sets minimum requirement, which is seen as the maximum required by Owners, designers and builders.

The computer bit comes in when calculations are made to prove that those requirements are met, with a minimum of safety factor.
As Marine Manager I have “cooked the books” myself to convince class that the requirements are met, so I do know that things like “bargaining” goes on, as you point out. (In some cases brown envelopes as well, I have heard?)

[QUOTE=c.captain;180111].

Note as well that regulating away a group of ships because they have earned pariah status also can do more harm than good. How many perfectly sound and seaworthy US flag tankers were condemned to scrap due to OPA90 with the loss of thousands of jobs because some incompetent third mate was chatting up the female AB on a bridgewing when he should have had his face in the radar constantly plotting the vessel’s position? Maybe one in four of those ships were replaced with newbuilds. I’d much rather the single hull ships stayed through their useful lives with much more stringent regulation on how they were navigated.
[/QUOTE]

I heard a story that it was the chart room, but you know how rumors are. . . . oh, and no chatting, either. . .

[QUOTE=cmakin;180250]I heard a story that it was the chart room, but you know how rumors are. . . . oh, and no chatting, either. . .[/QUOTE]

Why is it that in some cases people are so quick to point out the glaringly obvious point that the captain alone is responsible for the shp and refuse to even consider any mitigating factors but with the EV people go to absurd lengths to concoct stories out of thin air to absolve Hazzelwood?

quote:
“Should you find yourself in a chronically-leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.” – Warren Buffett
end quote.

  1. below is recommended reading material for those individuals who have age issues.
  2. USCG safety inspection is a sampling process similar to ISM audits- they can not check everything.
  3. Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy would not happen if management payed attention to masters, officers and crew feedback
    about wrong procedures and undue commercial pressures.
  4. History has shown clearly , that only huge maritime disasters cause some shake ups. This one has all attributes to become
    as such.

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/15_years_of_shipping_accidents_a_review_for_wwf_.pdf

http://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Comparison_of_US_and_Foreign_Flag_Operating_Costs.pdf

https://gcaptain.com/el-faro-tragedy-does-age-really-matter/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6c41fe52b3-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-6c41fe52b3-139815037

Key word: “Useful lives.”

Example: Boeing B-52

1 Like