only to the extent that a newer (diesel) ship would have had effective watertight closures for its ventilators and hatches into the holds but more importantly that a diesel ship would not have had a lube oil supply to the propulsion engines which could lose suction with a significant list or heel. of course, a newer ship would also have had modern lifesaving appliances which would have included gravity launched enclosed lifeboats.
in the case of EL FARO, her old hull did not fail nor her old machinery so given no or less water in the holds and no loss of lube oil suction to the turbines the vessel would most likely survived her encounter with Joachim that morning. something as simple as having more lube oil in the supply tank to the turbines might have made the difference between living and dying?
Bell said Davidson was a 24-year maritime veteran who had sailed in bad weather on numerous occasions, although it was clarified that his experience was not with that type of cargo ship and not as a ship’s master. She also noted that some within the company had “dwindling confidence” in his leadership. One employee, in an email, referred to Davidson as a “stateroom captain,” implying that he spent more time in his own room than on the ship’s bridge.
in the end, if he had stayed on the bridge that night and realized he was not going to pass to the south of the center of Joachim, then the loss of the ship would never have occurred. It really ends up being as simple as that but why did TOTE allow him to be so reckless? Why did they not closely monitor his actions and step in when it appeared he was taking the vessel into danger? if there were confidence issues with him, why not ensure you knew he was not taking undue risks with their ship? I have had vessel owners watch me every minute with PurpleFinder and call me to ask what my plan was when bad weather was between my position and the destination.
Davidson was literally asleep at the switch but so was TOTE so in essence they are both at fault. With vessel tracking technology that exists, there is no reason to not stay right on top of things when there is potential danger in play during a vessel’s voyage.
The requirement for the vents is that they be "weathertight. I believe the “2nd Deck” was the freeboard deck. Looks like the vents were designed so that sea water entering the vents would drain out the “drain holes”. The vent louvers are apparently are fixed and can not be closed. Doesn’t seem like a very good design.
Not sure if the fire dampers were also intended to keep sea water out or not. On the El Yunque the fire dampers were found to be in very poor condition as was the plenum, but I’m not sure what the photos in the CG report were showing exactly.
Presumably on the new TOTE ships sea water can not enter directly from the sea in high heel angles like the El Faro experienced. That entry path was a major factor in downflooding of the El Faro.
Secondly there is a requirement for a open/shut display panel to show the watch mate if any watertight opening have been left open at sea. This was first source of the flooding which caused the list. So with the new requirement for a panel more likely that a open scuttle would be discovered by the crew and closed.
My view is a newer ship with open/close indicator and weathertight vents would have a much better chance of surviving. As far as the loss of propulsion, low-speed diesel engines will shut down on low lube oil pressure with heavy rolling / list.
This is from the Marine Executive:
The crew were not adequately informed of the importance of securing the fire dampers in the ventilation trunks for El Faro’s cargo holds. Under the vessel’s COI, these dampers must remain open under way. In the vessel’s downflooding calculations, they are assumed to be closed under way. The dampers were open, and on the low side they would likely have begun to admit water about 40 minutes before El Faro sank.
Our (PCTC) cargo vents are over 25 meters from the sea. They are kept closed at al times at sea except during the working day when the holds are ventilated. They are closed at the end of the day and kept closed in bad weather.
I was always amazed when I observed ancient steam turbine driven LASH vessels that had been converted to carry containers trading out of West Coast ports to Hawaii. If I had been master of one of these vessels under any other flag but the US I would have had my wrists out ready for the handcuffs following a port state inspection.
Yes, he needed to be on the bridge for the close encounter with Joaquin and he did in fact tell both the 3/M and the C/M that he planned to be on the bridge for much of the night. Also he did not leave any night orders.
However if the plan required that the captain be on the bridge it was a bad plan. If the encounter with T/C Joaquin was going to so close that the captain’s presence is required it’s too close.
Better write good solid night orders and brief the watch officers the day before.
It’s a matter of margin of error. The plan should be made such that the passage can be made without the assistance of the captain. Then in the case things do not unfold according to plan the captain can be called.
If the captain felt that the skill level required to make a safe passage was such that his presence was required it too risky if safer alternatives are available.
Are we talking stateroom or office? Mine are attached and there is a difference to me from my normal daily routine of emails, emails, emails coupled with paperwork, paperwork, paperwork and sitting on my couch watching a movie. I spend an inordinate amount of time in my office. Not much in my stateroom. The current job description of ships Master has very little to do with pacing the wheelhouse in my opinion.
That being said, a reputation as a “stateroom captain” is not something I am hoping to achieve anytime soon. I’m on the bridge in some fashion or another on every watch for general ships business and coffee but always available if needed. Pulled 14 hours piloting through the North Sea just the other day when the conditions were bad enough to warrant me to do so.
I agree, but it’s a good idea to get out of the office and have hike around the decks (I work RO/RO) at least once per port just to see what happening. Don’t get involved, just hike through the decks with your eyes open.
My involvement with cargo is mostly the stability condition, special case (high value cargoes), or if the mate requires my assistance. I want to be informed but not micromanaging every last detail. That is the mates job.
The fact that Davidson was criticized for not being more involved with cargo is kind of odd to me. It might explain some things about the corporate culture over at tote.
I think that’s right. I’ve never been on that class of ship but I know the crews there get hammered.
One thing the struck me was that at the hearing the TOTE captains mentioned that they would relieve the chief mate in the wheelhouse on a routine basis so he could get caught up on his work. I get the impression that the pace there was such that everyone was at 110% all the time.
That’s the setup to take short-cuts because that’s the only way you can get your work done on time.
I agree completely, I reviewed the stability printout and signed it off before it was filed. I walked around the vessel every afternoon at sea and relieved the mate each morning so he could shower before we had breakfast after 0800 at sea. The time on the bridge gave me the opportunity to review and sign off on the various logs as well. On occasions such as renewing crane runners (376 metres and 2.5 tonnes of wire) I kept the morning watch for the mate so he could supervise the job.
In port my office not my stateroom called on more of my time than anything else and the mate generally got on with it.