[QUOTE=juneau74;170571]OK - I feel I have to post this. I’m pretty sure IF the El Faro sailed on one Boiler to accomplish repairs enroute to San Juan, that the COTP Jacksonville would have had to “sign off” on what’s called a “Permit to Proceed” - again not positive, but fairly sure……….and that fact surely implicates not only TOTE but the USCG - and that is IF what they were planning to do with repairs was admitted to the CG, but if it was not reported to the CG to get that PTP, then we’re legally dealing with Seaworthiness Issues here.
I’ve had to get that PTP to “legally” proceed from Port Angeles to Portland to repair a crack in a Rudder Shell Plating……
I had to do it a number of times during my career as Master - sometimes it came thru verbally from the COTP and I had to legally document it in the Official Log, but when I got to where I was going I always got a “Hard Copy” so it is clearly documented in CG Records - because if you as Master do not report a Deficiency and sail without that Permit from the CG, the vessel can technically be deemed UNseaworthy.
I’ve talked to Engineers recently where I work who sailed the El Faro & Sister Ships and at Full Power they had 30,000+ SHP.[/QUOTE]
Hmm maybe, generally they are issued a letter of deviation for in-op nav equipment, mechanical issues would normally be a condition of class, but unless there is a reported loss of propulsion, or a notable deficiency resulting from a PSC inspection, what they do on the open ocean in respect to taking down engine machinery, service, etc… Not in scope of influence of the USCG, although will say that comes from most of my experience being with foreign flag, but don’t thing any difference this type of documented vessel
[QUOTE=c.captain;170603]NO, I AM NOT GOING TO FILTER ANYTHING! There is beginning to be too many pieces here that do not fit the picture on the puzzle’s box. Am the only one who sees this?[/QUOTE]
Well here’s one piece that fits perfectly.
YOU don’t have all the facts, and you aren’t going to get them tonite, nor before the investigation is done.
Further, there’s a lot of hurting and worried people around here, so put a sock in your “theory” instead of being a self aggrandizing dick. If you got something useful, which even I admit you usually do, then go ahead and post away.
But there’s families out here hurting right now and such aspersions cast out without basis in fact can cause misery to those who need solace. We don’t care about your soon to come bloviation about a coverup, no matter how you justify yourself.
Sometimes just shutting up about stuff you don’t know is the decent thing for real life, not forum fantasy land. When my dear friend lay in hospital with stage iv cancer, I didn’t rush up to tell her that her mom was dying the day I found out. Time makes all things clear my friend. Time makes it clear.
[QUOTE=+A465B;170610]Time makes all things clear my friend. Time makes it clear.[/QUOTE]
fine…time proved I was right about the ship’s loss and I am going to be proved right that smoke is already be blown up our asses hence why TOTE made their “we’re responsible” statement. Just BS lies to sooth the weak and simple minded
[QUOTE=c.captain;170603]NO, I AM NOT GOING TO FILTER ANYTHING! There is beginning to be too many pieces here that do not fit the picture on the puzzle’s box. Am the only one who sees this?[/QUOTE]
Maybe they didn’t care if it was unsafe because they wanted the product there on time. Also, maybe they didn’t care what happened to the ship because whatever insurance money they would get would get would outweigh any lawsuits they would get? I really hope it’s nothing like that but you never know. I am just speculating here, it could be nothing like that at all, it could be all innocent. We don’t know! As a matter of fact I don’t think I want to know. I think I’m going to go become a facilities mechanic at Disneyland.
[QUOTE=c.captain;170611]fine…time proved I was right about the ship’s loss and I am going to be proved right that smoke is already be blown up our asses hence why TOTE made their “we’re responsible” statement. Just BS lies to sooth the weak and simple minded
I am out…goodnight[/QUOTE]
You may well be right in the end, which you often get credit for, but the posters here are too far away to see it right now, and lots of people are looking for real information now.
Useful observations and perhaps insight. But a cover up? No, there’s no reason to allege that based on a sliver of a snapshot of a slice of third hand posits and a smidge of hard data. I’ve seen real marine casualties that on first blush looked entirely one way with parties I’d be happy to hang on the spot, but after a year or two of investigation, analysis and court testimony - it most certainly found not so.
Sorry. But that’s reality of real life. Have a good nite. Take a look at what comes out tomorrow and maybe there’s a nugget there…
I completely understand the theory of leaving things behind in the search for survivors. However, wouldn’t leaving behind a survival suit (with or without a body) invite further investigation at a later date? In other words, on Sunday you investigate the suit. On Monday, somebody else spots the same suit and (not knowing it is the same suit), dispatches an investigating helo crew? Wouldn’t this just repeat over and over? In search and rescue, they use spray painted “X” marks to indicate houses that have been searched after a tornado. Is there a similar method for dealing with the ‘interesting’ items spotted during a search?
Can anyone with direct knowledge (rather than speculation, which we have enough of), comment on this?
FYI, it appears that the primary official method that the USCG is using to post pictures is the Seventh District twitter feed. Earlier this PM, they posted three new pictures of debris:
[QUOTE=cajaya;170612]Maybe they didn’t care if it was unsafe because they wanted the product there on time. Also, maybe they didn’t care what happened to the ship because whatever insurance money they get will outweigh any lawsuits they will get? I really hope it’s nothing like that but you never know. I am just speculating here, it could be nothing like that at all, it could be all innocent. We don’t know! As a matter of fact I don’t think I want to know. I think I’m going to go become a facilities mechanic at Disneyland.[/QUOTE]
Not really a business plan for a Jones Act trade shipowner, so let’s give it a break. We will know one day.
[QUOTE=c.captain;170599]plus this from earlier today
this really is beginning to smell of a MASSIVE FUCKING COVERUP here…critical information held by TOTE is being buried because there is no one left alive to say otherwise!
My stomach just turned…I am sick all over again and not in grief but in utter disbelief that this is going to be allowed to happen[/QUOTE]
I mean that what I was implying before you and me got sideways, and that’s not meant to be any disrespect to the master or crew, I just know a little how these things play out, you got a port engineer, line managers, planners, port captains, salesman, all various departments within the owner, often misaligned interests, and the master is stuck in the middle, then throw in pressure from the port to clear the berth, limited lay berth options, it gets sticky quick
[QUOTE=texasshipagent;170615]If I can ask and for no other reason the curiosity and interest in maritime history which stickship was that ?[/QUOTE]
this miserable whore
thing about it is I did love her even though she was filthy and unseaoworthy but I was young and had an idealist’s fervor. I would not take her across Puget Sound today.
[QUOTE=+A465B;170617]Not really a business plan for a Jones Act trade shipowner, so let’s give it a break. We will know one day.[/QUOTE]
Let me say this, jones act or any owner, current market, they all behave like they are bleeding from the neck over pennies, classic example, there is not hardly a grain elevator in the country built as such you can properly land a ships gangway, so more often then not, a rental shore gangway is required, makes sense yes ? For safety ? I admit the rental company is steep, 60 ft certified and insured gangways ain’t cheap neither, but they will fight, bicket, throw around c/p terms, send pages of angry emails, over $2500 as if that $2500 was going to lock the doors to the company and send them all to the soup line. Yet I have also seen then fight tooth and nail over a $85 seaman association port levy, but blindly spend $800 to avoid $23 in duty for a $50 box of o-rings that came airfreight and once you take it onboard no ones what it is for and gets thrown in a locket somewhere
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;170590]Marine traffic isn’t always that reliable. I don’t know how many times I know the boat is inbound or at the dock and it won’t show up.[/QUOTE]
Yea I’ve seen the same many, many times as well even in the GoM where you are fairly close to shore and more communication equipment
thing about it is I did love her even though she was filthy and unseaoworthy but I was young and had an idealist’s fervor. I would not take her across Puget Sound today.[/QUOTE]
I’m [QUOTE=texasshipagent;170621]Let me say this, jones act or any owner, current market, they all behave like they are bleeding from the neck over pennies, classic example, there is not hardly a grain elevator in the country built as such you can properly land a ships gangway, so more often then not, a rental shore gangway is required, makes sense yes ? For safety ? I admit the rental company is steep, 60 ft certified and insured gangways ain’t cheap neither, but they will fight, bicket, throw around c/p terms, send pages of angry emails, over $2500 as if that $2500 was going to lock the doors to the company and send them all to the soup line. Yet I have also seen then fight tooth and nail over a $85 seaman association port levy, but blindly spend $800 to avoid $23 in duty for a $50 box of o-rings that came airfreight and once you take it onboard no ones what it is for and gets thrown in a locket somewhere[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know. Commercial pressure is part of life, like why we get in the car and go to work v. staying home and playing with the kids. But realistically, this set of causal factors will be explored in the regulatory investigations, and much more so in the civil litigation associated with persons and property. Just the way it is so no sense getting knickers in a twist and alleging coverup now. Not even close.
[QUOTE=texasshipagent;170615]If I can ask and for no other reason the curiosity and interest in maritime history which stickship was that ?[/QUOTE]
He posted a picture of it in some other thread about 10-14 days ago I believe. Maybe you can do a search of all his posts and find it, it wasn’t that long ago.
[QUOTE=+A465B;170566]im not sure that was what was stated.
A discussion of weather on the route, yes.
As they passed. No.
As for the office call, assuredly it will be looked into with objective perspective as part of an investigation in due course. There is little need to speculate.[/QUOTE]
When the sister ship left San Juan it headed south of Cuba and west towards Mexico . Then came east towards Miami and up the coast of Florida . It went some 200 miles around . Not sure if the 2 skip passed at some point .
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;170587]That position at 2250 hrs is about 24-16N 74-57W
That would put Joaquin ESE about 105 miles away .
The discussion:
The wind field:
The El Faro would have been about 4 hrs from Crooked Island passage assuming 20 kts, Joaquin was forecast to move towards Crooked Island and was about 90 miles NE of the Island.
Looks like part of the planned track is just inside the 34 kt wind field. I wouldn’t call it conservative plan but it’s certainly something ships in fact do. El Faro should have been able to maintain good speed on her planned track I would guess. To me it looks like what Tote is saying is right, if the El Faro had not broken down she would have been OK.
If the El Faro broke down NW of Crooked Island the winds from Joaquin would have pushed it east to a point NE of Crooked I.[/QUOTE]
Useful and seems consistent with the limited data so far publicly available. Not every answer to all things, like which hatch popped open and what got flooded, as in was there water on the vehicle decks, but very insightful. Thank you.
[QUOTE=texasshipagent;170623]She is familiar, what was her name ?[/QUOTE]
All I knew that was Esco in Brownsville, that’s the Spirt of Grace from Lake Charles, an old Alamosa class vessel, interesting history that one, thanks
