I don’t believe it is possible for a crew of 20 or so on a +20K VLCS to inspect the lashing of every container while loading, nor to make sure that the lashings are kept tight during the voyage.
There may be a way to have both hatches and full height container guides?
Anybody here who can come up with an idea for how to avoid stack collapse on VLCSs?
Try NOLA, I hear they have cheap sale. 
On the issue of wreck removal, definition of wreck, carriers obligations and duties regarding clean up/removal, littoral states rights and duties regarding same and insurance role in between pls study with understanding NAIROBI CONVENTION.
Cheers
The majority of stack collapses are associated with heavy weather or the aftereffects (swell) from heavy weather (see Maersk Essen report : https://maritimesafetyinnovationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DMAIB-Maersk-Essen-Cargo-Loss-Weather-January-2021.pdf). Avoiding these areas and being aware of possible parametric or synchronous rolling would go a long way towards avoiding stack collapse.
Most commercial weather programs have a method of displaying IMO resonances that indicate if teh vessel is approaching or in areas where these are possible.
However, the mariner needs to be aware that these are available and are trained in the use of the commercial weather program. Like so many pieces of software/technology on a vessel, they are frequently introduced with no training.
As can be seen in the above polar diagram, the vessel is very close to/in an area where synchronous rolling is possible. The wind waves and swell are very close to the starboard beam and care should be taken. This care could include a speed or course change to ensure the vessel’s vector doesn’t get into the area of synchronous rolling.
If there were sufficiently large fines to affect the bottom line the shipping companies would figure out the best way to avoid loses, be it better securing methods or heavy weather avoidance.
Have to be a big enough fines to be noticed on the financial reports in the executive suite,
Or, Courts and insurers can consider a “perils of the sea” defense in light of current technology to avoid loss, and thus question the availability of general average for the loss.
Agree, “fines” are fine, but who are going to impose and enforce them?
It doesn’t help if one nation take such action alone, it has to be universal and apply in international waters, not just in territorial waters of one nation.
To get international agreement on anything like that through IMO would take years.
OK, to outfit all large container ships with guide cells will also take years and would only happen if it is mandatory.
So maybe weather avoidance, training and fines first, then cell guides (or some other lashing solution) to follow??
Investigations traced the source of the nurdles to a containership that lost six boxes overboard on December 8 approximately 50 miles west of the coast of Portugal.
Start at $10 million a box for these plastic nurdles, Six boxes would be $60 million. see if that shows up on anyone’s spreadsheet.
It might need to show up on an insurer’s spreadsheet. Insurance companies can often drive change faster than regulators. If only the ship takes the hit, it may not drive a change, especially if limitation of liability is available to the ship owner.
One of the issues with the extended cell guides on deck is the decrease in discharge and loading rates. Yes, those few seconds of additional lift required to clear them, when compounded over thousands of moves becomes a factor to consider.
Avoiding weather is a cheaper alternative…
And, draft amendments to SOLAS chapter V relating to lost containers “should” come into effect in 2026. Til then, if the lost container doesn’t contain IMDG cargo, there’s no requirement to report it internationally. It’s hard to believe…
If boxes go overboard as a result of inadequate or incorrect lashing the responsibility comes back to the ship’s deck officers and master. In Los Angeles Terminal Island I have seen as many as 9 gantries working a 20,000 vessel. Not only is the deck a very dangerous place to be the suggestion that cargo operations are being closely monitored is ridiculous.
If the instructions to masters by one P & I company were applied to the aviation world the pilot of the 737 max would be responsible for the loose bolts fastening the plug.
Well said Hogsnort 
Although not a Container Ship Officer, I have spent enough time around Large and Ultra Large Container Ships.
It is totally impossible for ships crew to monitor lashings on large ships particularly when some international voyages in Europe can be less than 6 hours.
My point from my earlier post that generated so much vitriol on here is that a shipping company with full height cell guides claiming that in 40 years they have never lost a single container. That’s like claiming that Ford have the most dangerous cars .
The likes of MSC and Maersk lose more containers than anyone else Is simply that they ship more.
A relative non entity in the shipping world like APL simply don’t ship enough containers. A Norwegian company Lys Line can make the same claim cos Thier ships only shift a few hundred containers per ship. Simple Simon.
How many containers has Grimaldi, Transfennica, or Finnline lost from Thier Ro Cons.
I don’t know but probably none.
Although big companies they are not major players in the great scheme of Container Carriers.
So to use a 3800 teu Ro Con as the gold standard for container shipping is simply ridiculous. Simple Simon.
Which led to my comment
God bless America.
As more knowledge individuals later commented.
There is much much more to container loss than full height cell guides on what is little more than a coaster, that also carries a few trucks.
Oh and BTW doesn’t APL belong to CMA CGM?
Please feel free to ridicule me if incorrect.
I did NOT suggested that “a 3800 TEU RoCon” is a gold standard for container ships.
The idea of full height container guides (as shown on the posted picture) MAY be a usable solution to avoid container stack collapses, however.
Lys-Line is now a part of Danish DFDS and operate pallet carriers like this:
You are right. APL became part of CMA CGM when they took over Neptune Orient Line.
BTW; NOL acquired APL in 1997.
I am extremely familiar with Lysvik and her sisters.
At one time in the mid 2000’s they were responsible for almost the entire stock of Becks beer that was imported into The UK via the few containers they carried on deck on a 3 ship a week service. They then left the UK with only empty containers on deck as they were fully loaded with pallets below deck.
I used them as an example of a shipping company using what would be ballast passages to carry freight to supplement the main trade.
Blooming good thinking if you ask me. But at the time I knew them they had never lost a container at sea. Hardly surprising as they carried so few.
IIRC they were never stacked just a single level but they could boast they had never lost a container at sea.
So I hardly think that single stacking containers is the solution either.
I am not smart enough to suggest a solution but smaller non mainstream outfits solutions will not transfer to the massive ships we have today.
As stated above, the extra time involved in raising the box high enough to slot into a full height cell guide would impact quite considerably on the turn around time in port.
October 22, 2021: OCT 21: M/V ZIM KINGSTON, reported to Prince Rupert Coast Guard Radio: they lost approximately 40 containers overboard when the vessel heeled 35 degrees approximately 38 NM west of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. There were no reported injuries to any crew members.
The entrance to that strait can get pretty sporty.
I have always wondered why they don’t figure out how to stager a few to lock them together better like concrete blocks or turn a few cross ways I’m sure it has to do with unloading a few here and there at different stops and building more lock locations into containers would make them heavier
