El Faro VDR - 26 hrs of Information Recovered

Professional Mariner Forum
21

According to the NTSB the ship may have gone DIW at around 0600 hrs. This was the forecast at the time:

HURRICANE CENTER LOCATED NEAR 23.4N 73.7W AT 01/0900Z
POSITION ACCURATE WITHIN 25 NM

PRESENT MOVEMENT TOWARD THE WEST-SOUTHWEST OR 240 DEGREES AT 4 KT

ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE 948 MB
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS 105 KT WITH GUSTS TO 130 KT.
64 KT… 25NE 30SE 20SW 20NW.
50 KT… 40NE 60SE 30SW 40NW.
34 KT…100NE 120SE 100SW 80NW.
12 FT SEAS…220NE 180SE 100SW 180NW.
WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT. RADII IN NAUTICAL
MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.

FORECAST VALID 01/1800Z 23.1N 74.2W
MAX WIND 115 KT…GUSTS 140 KT.
64 KT… 35NE 40SE 20SW 20NW.
50 KT… 60NE 70SE 40SW 60NW.
34 KT…120NE 130SE 100SW 90NW.

The postion of the system center is given with a 25 mile error. The postion of the ship as given by the NTSB is 39 miles NE of Crooked Island. They may have been in the SW quadrant. That might put them just close to the edge of the 64 kt wind field which was also reported elsewhere.

The 64 kt wind field extends only 20 miles from the center, at the center the winds were 105 kts with gusts to 130 kts.

The ship may have been on track to cross south of Joaquin as planned, just not the 65 miles they planned. Considerably less.

Depending upon which forecast the were looking at they may have believed that they had already cleared Joaquin or that it was pulling away.

Possibly the ship went DIW at around 0600 and then sometime between then and 0700 when the first call was made and as Joaquin approached the incident(s) which caused the flooding and the list occurred?

With a 15 degree list and other problems (possibly flooding and/or shifted cargo) and with serious problems in the E/R the El Faro would have been in bad shape to face reported 30 foot seas and 105 kts winds with 130 kt gusts.

Here is the first phone call again

Audio 1: Voicemail left by Capt. Davidson to John Lawrence, designated person a shore

Captain Lawrence, Captain Davidson, Thursday morning 0700. We have a navigational incident. Umm,

I’ll keep it short. A, uh, scuttle popped open on 2 deck and we were having/had some free

communication of water go down the 3… 3-hold. Have/getting a pretty good list. I want to, uh, just

touch – contact you verbally here. Everybody’s safe, uh, yeah but I want to talk to you.

Here is the second call:

Capt. Davidson: I have a marine emergency and I would like to speak to a QI. We had a – a - a hull breach. A scuttle blew open during a storm. We have water down in 3-hold with a heavy list. We’ve lost the main propulsion unit. The engineers cannot get it going. Can I speak with a QI please?

Here is the summary of the the call between the captain and the DPA. Evidently on the second call Davidson was put through to DPA Lawrence.

The operator then transferred the call to Lawrence, who had been trying to dial back to the captain. That part of the call on Lawrence’s cell was not recorded, but he recounted it to the Coast Guard board from his notes.

“Once I was connected to Captain Davidson he said, ‘We’ve secured the source of water,’” Lawrence said. “He told me the crew was safe.”

Lawrence asked for the ship’s position, and heard Davidson speaking with a female crew member, probably second mate Danielle Randolph.

“She also spoke in a very calm voice, and said there were 48 miles east of San Salvador” in the Bahamas, Lawrence said.

Davidson said he thought the crew would be able to pump out the No. 3 hold, Lawrence said.

“He told me, ‘No one’s panicking,’” Lawrence said. Davidson described conditions with wind from the northeast and 10’ to 12’ swells.

“What kind of list are you talking about, Cap?’ Lawrence asked. Davidson replied it was about 15 degrees.

Davidson told Lawrence “he would push all his buttons” to initiate distress signals, Lawrence said he would notify the Coast Guard, and the men ended the call.

The first call was at 0700 and and the CG received the electronic distress signals at about 0715.

According to electronic alert system data sent by the vessel at 7:17 am EDT on Oct. 1, its last reported position was about 20 miles from the edge of the eye of the hurricane.

The master ordered abandon ship and sounded the alarm about 7:30 a.m., Oct. 1, 2015. The recording ended about 10 minutes later

22

so the call to the DPA is at about 0700 and abandon ship sounded at 0730

situation under control (according to master) and crew safe to nothing under control and crew ordered to jump into the sea

obviously a major situational change in those few minutes but does the VDR recording give the investigators any clues or is there too much background noise?

simply put, the propulsion casualty is the underlying cause the the EL FARO’s loss. without it the ship would have survived and to this day I still want to know what happened to the plant however I fear that we will likely never know exactly what that was…all we will be able to do is to try to come up with the conceivable scenarios like with the loss of the EDMUND FITZGERALD but there won’t be any songs written about the EL FARO which will keep the memory of the ship alive decades later.

very, very sad for any of us who have chosen the sea

23

KPChief, wasn’t one of the issues with the VDR that they hadn’t serviced the battery? If the battery in the UPS was dead, that means that it would stop working as soon as it was severed from its hard-wired power supply from the ship, wouldn’t it?

24

[QUOTE=c.captain;189529]

simply put, the propulsion casualty is the underlying cause the the EL FARO’s loss. without it the ship would have survived and to this day I still want to know what happened to the plant however I fear that we will likely never know exactly what that was…[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that there are more data channels than jus voices on the bridge. I know that rudder command and response, and engine command and response are included. Might there be channels that would allow us to diagnose the ME’s problem? Something from the ECR’s monitor and control system?

all we will be able to do is to try to come up with the conceivable scenarios like with the loss of the EDMUND FITZGERALD but there won’t be any songs written about the EL FARO which will keep the memory of the ship alive decades later.

Strikes me that a major name wrote and produced a song for the Deepwater Horizon. For all the good that did. Do you remember one lyric? Me neither. Even old men in their cups think the Edmund Fitgerald is a piece of camp, no mater how directly applicable the analogy is, in this case. There is no appetite for tragedy in popular culture, now. I could load you high with examples. Worst natural disaster in the history of the recordeded world happened in the last decade, and it has been forgotten already.

25

[QUOTE=c.captain;189509]given the conditions there could never been an effective effort to get everybody off in boats or rafts so it must have been jumping off. even if the survival suits were maintained in ready boxes by the embarkation stations it would have been very difficult for the crew to don theirs before getting off so that means lifejackets if those were close to the boats but maybe even those were not kept there which means jumping off with nothing? even if survial suits were donned by more POB I still could not see survivors coming through those seas but we would have had more bodies found. if most had lifejackets on there still should have been some bodies found during the search. of course, rafts should have been found inflated having deployed automatically when their hydrostatic releases allowed them to float off however maybe those also all failed? still there was never ever a chance to get any people into them.

this simply shows that most conventional lifesaving apparatus is not designed to be used in extreme conditions which is a terribly flawed oversight. there should be some form to get people off a ship in the worst possible scenario. a float off chamber kept high on the superstructure would to me be something that might work and I have always wondered why in 2016 ships sail with equipment which was designed more than half a century earlier? even a stern launched free fall lifeboat likely would not have worked in this situation with a ship heeled over very far. it seems plainly simple that there should be some form of safe refuge for all persons which have a chance to save a crew inextremis but we all know that owners never want to spend that kind of money unless it is a mandate of SOLAS.[/QUOTE]

The prototype for a safe refuge that would float up when a vessel sinks has existed for over 110 years:

800px-Brudeegget.jpg800×600

The history behind this invention: http://sonsofnorwayblog.blogspot.no/2012/04/ole-brudes-lifeboat.html

A modified version of this could be made to be both fire proof, pirate proof and free-float, or launchable at high list.

PS> Most commonly used “over stern” launch system for Freefall lifeboats are designed for max. 20 degr. list: http://www.norsafe.com/Products/Freefall-systems1/GES-18-Freefallsystem/HD18/

26

As per the SOLAS regulation there was only a type S-VDR installed on the EL Faro is that correct? The S-VDR does not monitor or have as many input parameters. The S stands for simplified.

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages/VDR.aspx

27

This is what the NTSB says was recovered:

About 26 hours of information was recovered from the VDR, including bridge audio, weather data and navigational data.

VoyageMaster II S-VDR Voyage Data Recorder

Mandatory S-VDR Signal
List:
Data & Time (GPS)
• Latitude & Longitude (GPS)
• Speed (Speed log)
• Heading (Gyro)
• Bridge & VHF Audio
• Main Radar (substitute AIS if Radar is impossible to record)

If NMEA Serial output is available (IEC 61162):
• Depth beneath the keel
All IMO mandatory bridge alarms
• Rudder order & response
• Engine order & response
• Hull opening status
• Watertight & fire doors
• Wind speed & direction
• Hull stress monitor

Standard Configuration
The basic S-VDR system consists of the following:
Data Acquisition Unit (DAU):
• 1 VHF Input
• 2 Radar Inputs
• 8 Serial Inputs (NMEA) • Removable Hard Drive • UPS (2 Hour)
• Lockable, wall mounted
4 Microphone Units
Protected Data Capsule (12 Hour) Mount for Capsule with 50m cable Bridge Alarm Unit
Playback Software
Manual

Optional:
• 24 Hour Protected Data Capsule
• Remote Video Unit (2 add.Channel)
• Bridge and water-tight microphones
• Audio PCB (4 Add. Mics, 10 max
• Serial Modules (4 or 8 inputs)
• Backup Removable HD

28

[QUOTE=Lobsterlobber;189538]KPChief, wasn’t one of the issues with the VDR that they hadn’t serviced the battery? If the battery in the UPS was dead, that means that it would stop working as soon as it was severed from its hard-wired power supply from the ship, wouldn’t it?[/QUOTE]

Not really an expert on this stuff and I always seem to be out at sea when the hearings are going on so I don’t know of the relevant testimony about that. Again my understanding but you are not allowed to open up the capsule, the service company has to change those batteries. I thought the memory media in there did not rely on power. The pinger/beacon would though. My assumption would be the data unit is writing to the chips in the capsule right up to the cable being severed. The beacon would then work as long as the battery lasted. Sure we will hear more as NTSB releases data, audio and commentary.

29

Twenty six hours of data was recovered, starting at 0537 hrs on the 30th, just 8 hrs after the ship left JAX and ending 10 minutes after the order to abandon ship was given. That data is far more valuable then what ever possibly could have been captured after 0740 hrs on the 1st… It’s very likley that no data was available to be recorded.

Not sure where the disscussion crosses the line into morbid curiosity but speaking for myself I’d rather not even appear to have gone there.

30

[QUOTE=Emrobu;189542]My understanding is that there are more data channels than jus voices on the bridge. I know that rudder command and response, and engine command and response are included. Might there be channels that would allow us to diagnose the ME’s problem? Something from the ECR’s monitor and control system?[/QUOTE]

The S in S-VDR stands for ‘simplified’, intended for use on older ships which didnot have equipment with a modern digital serial interface, just the bare minimum was required. Old equipment can be modified to provide for a serial output but at extra cost. It was a kneefall to owners of old ships to exempt them, purely for economic reasons. Only old passenger ships have to carry a full VDR, thus the equipment has to be modified.

Mandatory S-VDR Signal

List:

• Data & Time (GPS)

• Latitude & Longitude (GPS)

• Speed (Speed log)

• Heading (Gyro)

• Bridge & VHF Audio

• Main Radar (substitute AIS if Radar is impossible to record)

The El Faro’s S-VDR, as far as I know was not connected to the ship’s propulsion, Bailey board, engine room alarms, water tight doors, fire doors, hull openings and you name it. Too expensive.

I expect that the eye of the hurricane can be seen on the recovered radar screen pictures so they must have known the distance towards the eye. Probably more information can be extracted from the radar pictures such as the wave direction and heading of the ship. When the radar screen turns black would indicate the time when the water ingress into the wheelhouse took place.

NTSB states that they collected weather data so that would probably mean that the anemometer was working after all or do they have other means?

31

[QUOTE=Emrobu;189542]My understanding is that there are more data channels than jus voices on the bridge. I know that rudder command and response, and engine command and response are included. Might there be channels that would allow us to diagnose the ME’s problem? Something from the ECR’s monitor and control system?[/QUOTE]

The S in S-VDR stands for simplified intended for use on older ships which didnot have equipment with a modern digital serial interface, just the bare minimum was required. Old equipment can be modified to provide for a serial output but at extra cost. It was a kneefall to owners of old ships to exempt them, purely for economic reasons. Only old passenger ships have to carry a full VDR, thus the equipment has to be modified.

Mandatory S-VDR Signal

List:

• Data & Time (GPS)

• Latitude & Longitude (GPS)

• Speed (Speed log)

• Heading (Gyro)

• Bridge & VHF Audio

• Main Radar (substitute AIS if Radar is impossible to record)

The El Faro’s S-VDR, as far as I know, was not connected to the propulsion, Bailey board, engine room alarms, water tight doors, fire doors, hull openings and you name it. Too expensive.

I expect that the eye of the hurricane can be seen on the recovered radar screen pictures so they must have known the distance towards the eye. Probably more information can be extracted from the radar pictures such as the wave direction and heading of the ship. When the radar screen turns black this would indicate the exact time when the water ingress into the wheelhouse took place.

NTSB states that they collected weather data so that would probably mean that the anemometer was working after all or do they have other means?

32

[QUOTE=Dutchie;189552]
The El Faro’s S-VDR, as far as I know was not connected to the ship’s propulsion, Bailey board, engine room alarms, water tight doors, fire doors, hull openings and you name it. Too expensive.

I expect that the eye of the hurricane can be seen on the recovered radar screen pictures so they must have known the distance towards the eye. Probably more information can be extracted from the radar pictures such as the wave direction and heading of the ship. When the radar screen turns black would indicate the time when the water ingress into the wheelhouse took place.

NTSB states that they collected weather data so that would probably mean that the anemometer was working after all or do they have other means?[/QUOTE]

I agree that there is no reason to think that there is any engine data recorded.

With regards to the anemometer, there was testimony that it didn’t work in the past, it was unknown if it was working when the ship left Jax. The NTBS says they have wx data, likely it’s wind speed and direction, don’t know what else it could be. I believe the El Yunque had a digital anemometer, if the El Faro had the same or similar one either it was working or possibly the data output was working but not the display.

As far as seeing the eye on radar, it may not be a valid assumption in general that the crew was aware of and able to comprehend all the information that was available, especially given the situation at the time.

33

40-year-old boilers and related propulsion machinery should not be asked to outrun a tropical depression / hurricane. Especially ones that were not tested properly previously. There is no silver bullet in this case. Prayers to the victims, families, and friends.

34

[QUOTE=ombugge;189544]The prototype for a safe refuge that would float up when a vessel sinks has existed for over 110 years:

800px-Brudeegget.jpg800×600

The history behind this invention: http://sonsofnorwayblog.blogspot.no/2012/04/ole-brudes-lifeboat.html

A modified version of this could be made to be both fire proof, pirate proof and free-float, or launchable at high list.[/QUOTE]

As the saying goes this is Columbus’ Egg! For a ship in real distress a list of over 20° Is easily reached preventing the covered lifeboat from being launched. Nice. Only a float free boat will do in my opinion. Back to the drawing board!

I just ordered the book about Ole Brude’s escapade on Amazon. I must know how you could live with four men and that for five months, in the cramped spaces of a 6 meter little boat without driving each other crazy. No sun deck either. I hope to learn how they managed food and water for such a lengthy period. Did they have a hand pumped head on board? Many questions. Danes are crazy people…:wink: I am a bit claustrofobic and would have preferred to get on board the Kon Tiki with good old Thor Heyerdahl instead!

35

FYI I just talked to the NTSB and they gave me this response regarding the released of the VDR audio:

Federal law prohibits the NTSB from releasing of the audio from the VDR. We will, however, be creating a transcript of the VDR contents and will release that in the coming months, likely before the end of the year.

36

[QUOTE=Mikey;189566]FYI I just talked to the NTSB and they gave me this response regarding the release of the VDR audio:Federal law prohibits the NTSB from releasing of the audio from the VDR. We will, however, be creating a transcript of the VDR contents and will release that in the coming months, likely before the end of the year.[/QUOTE]

NTSB may be prohibited to make the data and audio available. However, IMO MSC/Circ.1024, Guidelines on VDR ownership and recovery, states the following:
Ownership of VDR information
1 The ship owner will, in all circumstances and at all times, own the VDR and its information.
However, in the event of an accident the following guidelines would apply. The owner of the ship
should make available and maintain all decoding instructions necessary to recover the recorded
information.

And under paragraph 5:
Access to the VDR information:
5 A copy of the VDR information must be provided to the ship owner at an early stage in all
circumstances.

This means that the owner could be requested in a court of law to release the raw data and audio under the conditions of MSC/Circ.1024.

The full text of this document is available HERE.

37

[QUOTE=ak44;189590]NTSB may be prohibited to make the data and audio available. However, IMO MSC/Circ.1024, Guidelines on VDR ownership and recovery, states the following:
Ownership of VDR information
1 The ship owner will, in all circumstances and at all times, own the VDR and its information.
However, in the event of an accident the following guidelines would apply. The owner of the ship
should make available and maintain all decoding instructions necessary to recover the recorded
information.

And under paragraph 5:
Access to the VDR information:
5 A copy of the VDR information must be provided to the ship owner at an early stage in all
circumstances.

This means that the owner could be requested in a court of law to release the raw data and audio under the conditions of MSC/Circ.1024.

The full text of this document is available HERE.[/QUOTE]

There is no question that the VDR recording remains TOTE property. But there is no reason the owner is forced to release the recordings to any other parties, and the IMO guidelines have no force of law to compel them to. While NTSB is prohibited from release, they acknowledge TOTE ownership. From one of the articles, PressHerald, quoting NTSB spokesman O’Neil, “O’Neil said the audio recordings contained on the VDR will eventually be turned over to Tote Maritime – the El Faro’s owner – and it will be up to the shipping company to decide if families should hear the recording”.

38

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;189595]There is no question that the VDR recording remains TOTE property… [/QUOTE]

Thanks Jamesbrown, was not aware of the referenced article in the PortlandPressHerald, just read it.
Indeed NTSB follows the IMO guidelines. I would not expect Tote to make the recordings public, however, it would be a nice gesture if Tote gave the family members an opportunity to listen to the recordings. If not, let’s see how good our Maritime lawyers are.

39

[QUOTE=ak44;189601]Thanks Jamesbrown, was not aware of the referenced article in the PortlandPressHerald, just read it.
Indeed NTSB follows the IMO guidelines. I would not expect Tote to make the recordings public, however, it would be a nice gesture if Tote gave the family members an opportunity to listen to the recordings. If not, let’s see how good our Maritime lawyers are.[/QUOTE]

No problem, it’s interesting how some slight points are not making it to all the stories of press.

The relatives are fighting to hear the recordings. http://wgme.com/news/i-team/i-team-el-faro-families-fight-to-hear-voice-recordings-of-their-loved-ones

I don’t know if release would be a nice gesture. Who wants to hear your kin about to die? Maybe give the transcript a read before asking. I mean, if your sueing maybe the recording helps maybe it hurts… No I do t think anyone should be running to hear about it… Not sure about some of the folks quotes, especially about ‘looking forward’ to hearing… But it wouldn’t surprise me to hear lawyers using relatives to hear them. Not sure I’d let them if I were Totes attorney team, at least not without an airtight indemnification from lawsuits… The press will sue to hear them anyway.

It may be that some folks will be asked to listen who knew the crew. Depends on content of course but in some situations I can imagine the need to identify a voice to put a skill set to the content of the utterance. Not a job I care to think about.

Of course this is not new area for issues of releasing the recordings. Check out the write up on page 11 of the pdf of this link for a discussion. http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=commlaw
The main takeaway for me is that ultimately, everything gets made public. It can’t be stopped.

40

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;189595]There is no question that the VDR recording remains TOTE property. But there is no reason the owner is forced to release the recordings to any other parties, and the IMO guidelines have no force of law to compel them to. While NTSB is prohibited from release, they acknowledge TOTE ownership. From one of the articles, PressHerald, quoting NTSB spokesman O’Neil, “O’Neil said the audio recordings contained on the VDR will eventually be turned over to Tote Maritime – the El Faro’s owner – and it will be up to the shipping company to decide if families should hear the recording”.[/QUOTE]
Gosh it would be nice if individuals had the same rights as corporations. Imagine if you commited a traffic crime or were suspected of a crime and your automobile computer had information pertinent to that incident. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could decide if that information could be released? A corporation or company is not even a human being but rather a piece of paper. Why does that piece of paper have more protection and “rights” than a human being?