Sea Star's El Faro

Maritime News
1945

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;177292]If there were survivors and it was necessary to make decisions about the conduct and performance of the officers and crew, in some kind of proceeding, perhaps it would be more important. Obviously the lawyers would like to have such info for civil suits. The lawyers should fund it themselves in that case.[/QUOTE]

where are the unions here? In the DERBYSHIRE loss the unions funded the search for the ship and in the end showed it was not the crew’s fault for the loss. Just shows the level of complicity of the American maritime unions with the owners. The dead master will take the blame and the SIU and AMO will keep their lucrative contract with TOTE.

I LOATHE THIS ROTTEN SYSTEM IN OUR ROTTEN COUNTRY!

1946

I’m sure the union officials are greatly concerned. I’m sure they are having a big discussion about the sinking, complete with big cigars, fine spirits, dancing girls, and a band playing. All paid for with your dues money.

1947

[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;177292]We may not know the Captain’s final words, or conversations, but we know all the relevant decisions up to that point. We know what was related to the office.[/QUOTE]

We could learn a lot from the bridge conversations, including the cause of loss of the plant (if the engineers ever knew), the cause of flooding, and what the crew was doing to try to rectify both situations. Most importantly we would learn EVERYTHING relayed to the office, not just what was on a recorded line or that the office felt like admitting to.

1948

My ship is in PR at the moment.

2 days ago, we came full stop at El Faro’s last known position. Lowered a wreath and read the names of the 33.

RIP shipmates.

1 Like
1949

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;177315]My ship is in PR at the moment.

2 days ago, we came full stop at El Faro’s last known position. Lowered a wreath and read the names of the 33.

RIP shipmates.[/QUOTE]

Any pics taken of the ceremony? I am sure that the families of the victims would appreciate such pictures very much.

Following international customs the El Faro’s wreck could be officially named by the U.S. government as a seamen’s burial site that must be accorded proper respect. This would also prevent certain salvage operations to take place to examine the site and hunt for instance for objects as official permission must beforehand be obtained from the U.S. government.

1 Like
1950

[QUOTE=Dutchie;177326]Any pics taken of the ceremony? I am sure that the families of the victims would appreciate such pictures very much.
[/QUOTE]

1951

[QUOTE=“Jamesbrown”] How would that be the ‘right’ direction? The Honorable Senator and family members see a value in the sVDR data that doesn’t seem likely to pay out for marine safety recommendations–the end goal of the investigation. Finding the wreck and making a careful examination, combined with all the relevant records and interviews the NTSB would conduct is going to provide all the necessary info to make what will likely be the only significant recommendation—don’t get cornered by a hurricane, have an escape route for weather avoidance, or maybe, just maybe, don’t go, especially if your machinery plant is less resilient than modern diesel propulsion plants and physical structure and intact stability less robust that ‘younger’ vessels.

Outstanding commentary from JB.

Although, in this specific case, I don’t think it’s exactly accurate to say they were “cornered” by Joaquin. A better analogy might be a kid, wearing old-ish sneakers, decides to dash across the interstate highway as a shortcut for getting home. The boy sees a big tractor trailer rig barreling towards him, but estimates, perhaps correctly, that it’ll be close, but he’ll still make it with some room to spare. As he sprints across the lanes one of his shoelaces either breaks or becomes untied and he trips and falls in front of the truck. Unable to gain his feet in time…you know the rest. Does it really matter whether the shoelace broke from old-age or became untied because the kid failed to check them carefully before engaging in a high-risk activity? Not really. Especially when the high-risk activity was entirely elective.

The S/V Fantome was, arguably, cornered by Hurricane Mitch in the Caribbean. But that’s not what got El Faro.

And I couldn’t help but notice that, despite your effort to distance yourself, you pretty much re-made all of Mario V.'s points too. Which is good because he’s right.

Anyway, well done with the analysis and writing, Mr. Brown.

1952

[QUOTE=captjacksparrow;177332]A better analogy might be a kid, wearing old-ish sneakers, decides to dash across the interstate highway as a shortcut for getting home. The boy sees a big tractor trailer rig barreling towards him, but estimates, perhaps correctly, that it’ll be close, but he’ll still make it with some room to spare.[/QUOTE]

That’s a worse analogy. The weather reports showed the storm turning North and leaving them plenty of room to go that route but that hurricane was difficult to model and consistently didn’t do what it was predicted to do, thus trapping them. The decision to squeeze by the storm was made shortly before losing power, not before they left port.

1953

[QUOTE=Jetryder223;177315]My ship is in PR at the moment.

2 days ago, we came full stop at El Faro’s last known position. Lowered a wreath and read the names of the 33.

RIP shipmates.[/QUOTE]

That right there is a classy and well deserved tribute, thank you for doing that.

1954

As I see it maybe the only valuable information which could have been obtained from the ship’s S-VDR is the bridge conversation. It is thinkable that the engine failure was discussed during those last instances. A lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that the bridge telephone should be monitored and recorded on the S-VDR as well. In that case the entire conversation between bridge and engine room is recorded as well the calls with other parties to and from the bridge. I donot think that these conversations are now recorded.

Has there maybe a battery powered emergency backup telephone been installed on those ships? If so also such a system should be interfaced to the S-VDR. These modifications, providing that sufficient inputs are available on the S-VDR, will cost next to nothing and the benefits are great.

Much more difficult to accomplish is how to avoid entrapment of the S-VDR because that would probably require a total redesign. Something with a by compressed air self propelled ‘fish’ which swims clear from the sinking ship…

1955

The specifications call for Sperry S-VDRs to sustain water pressure at 6000 m. for 24 hrs. as a minimum.

For a fixed data capsule installation, the following survivability
specifications apply to both VDR and S-VDR:
• Impact shock – 50g for 11 milliseconds
• Fire – 1100°C for 1 hour and 260°C for 10 hours
• Deep sea pressure and immersion – 24 hours at 6.000 meters
depth, and 30 days at 3 meters depth
The VDR specification also requires the following:
• Penetration – 250 kg mass dropped 3 meters impacting with
100 mm diameter pin
The fixed capsule must have a release mechanism to facilitate
recovery underwater by a diver or ROV, and must be equipped with
an acoustic underwater beacon with a battery life of at least 30
days.

Whether this is for leaks or structural strength is not stated, but the refr. to “30 days at 3 m.” would indicate leaks.

Has anybody seen any closeup picture(s)of the S-VDR mount and tie-down as it is now?
Since the S-VDR is not there it would be interesting to see if the tie-down has been opened (i.e. VDR removed, or attempted removed, prior to capsize) or broken, indicating that the VDR has somehow been ripped away during the capsize/sinking.
If still intact in “closed” position that would indicating that the capsule has imploded (although designed for 6000 m. WD) and somehow slipped out from the tie-down bands.

Even if the hard disk has been submerged in seawater for months I believe the data can still be retrieved. Or is that wishful thinking??

One more question; Although not “float free” type, does the VDR capsule float, or is it non-buoyant? I.e. if it had been released prior to the capsizing, could it be floating around somewhere in the sea? (As may be the EPIRB?? Although it did not function properly, it may have floated up and drifted away)

1956

[QUOTE=ombugge;177379]The specifications call for Sperry S-VDRs to sustain water pressure at 6000 m. for 24 hrs. as a minimum.

Whether this is for leaks or structural strength is not stated, but the refr. to “30 days at 3 m.” would indicate leaks.

Has anybody seen any closeup picture(s)of the S-VDR mount and tie-down as it is now?
Since the S-VDR is not there it would be interesting to see if the tie-down has been opened (i.e. VDR removed, or attempted removed, prior to capsize) or broken, indicating that the VDR has somehow been ripped away during the capsize/sinking.
If still intact in “closed” position that would indicating that the capsule has imploded (although designed for 6000 m. WD) and somehow slipped out from the tie-down bands.

Even if the hard disk has been submerged in seawater for months I believe the data can still be retrieved. Or is that wishful thinking??

One more question; Although not “float free” type, does the VDR capsule float, or is it non-buoyant? I.e. if it had been released prior to the capsizing, could it be floating around somewhere in the sea? (As may be the EPIRB?? Although it did not function properly, it may have floated up and drifted away)[/QUOTE]

Referring to your last question the Sperry VoyageMaster II S-VDR has a positive buoyancy. The weight is 25 kg and the displaced amount of seawater is according to the specs 0.02454 m3. For seawater the displaced weight is then 25,2 kg giving it the necessary buoyancy to rise to the surface. From a depth of 5000 m the rise time would around 16 minutes, but the device could have been ripped off on the way down.

It broke free from the top deck as we can see on the Curve’s picture of the deck house. It could be that the manual releases were not opened, leaving it somewhere on the sea floor held down by the cradle.

The other option is that the releases were opened by the shock and that it rose to the surface and was carried away unnoticed by the prevailing sea currents. It took weeks to ready the Apache for the search, by that time the S-VDR could have been long gone and carried away by the Gulf Stream ending up somewhere on a European coast.

The last possibility is that the device was damaged so that it became leaky preventing it to rise to the surface or it was just completely crushed in the violence of the sinking.

1957

Now to put the tittle on the I as they say…

The choice between a fixed or float-free capsule will be governed by a range of factors. On the one hand, the fixed capsule is designed for a higher level of survivability, meeting more stringent specifications for shock, immersion and fire, and a longer battery life of 30 days, as contrasted with 7 days for the float-free capsule. It also typically has a lower installed cost than the float-free device. On the other hand, the float-free capsule offers easier, faster and lower-cost recovery in the event of a sinking, eliminating the need for a submersible ROV or divers to descend to the ship and retrieve the device. But the float-free device does not meet the same standards for fire resistance, and could be destroyed if the ship burns. Moreover, there may be concerns about the ability of the capsule to float free unhindered if the ship should roll over. The float-free system will also probably have higher installation and life-cycle costs due to the need for a hydrostatic release mechanism, battery replenishment, testing on Cospas-Sarsat frequencies and more frequent replacement. The float-free capsule may also eliminate the requirement for a separate EPIRB.

As stated earlier Tote, but they are not unique in that, will always choose for the cheapest possible solution for their seafarers health and safety. Nothing but the best. In the industry the minimum requirements are always seen as maximum requirements. If Tote had installed a more expensive float-free device with a hydrostatic release mechanism the S-VDR could probably have been retrieved. It will cost a small fortune to locate and salvage, if ever, the equipment by a new survey but no worries because in this case the taxpayers will foot the bill. Penny wise and pound foolish.

We will wait and see…

1958

[QUOTE=ombugge;177379]
Has anybody seen any closeup picture(s)of the S-VDR mount and tie-down as it is now?
Since the S-VDR is not there it would be interesting to see if the tie-down has been opened (i.e. VDR removed, or attempted removed, prior to capsize) or broken, indicating that the VDR has somehow been ripped away during the capsize/sinking.
If still intact in “closed” position that would indicating that the capsule has imploded (although designed for 6000 m. WD) and somehow slipped out from the tie-down bands.[/QUOTE]

It does not appear a good quality close up of the area is released but…

The main mast was a ‘tripod’ arrangement as shown below and can help orient where the VDR should have been in the other photos.

This photo is in the NTSB docket which says it is the VDR installation of the Faro. It is mounted on a longitudinal member which seems related to the stiffening of the house top and the foundation of the mast structure. Ok not a great picture but the small angles welded to the flange of that member seem barely tacked. Sure it was inspected by flag or class though.

The top of the house is wiped clean. The mast was torn off the house top. The kick pipe cable penetration for the VDR is not clearly shown. It looks like the mast was torn off going aft as the forward brackets of the P/S legs are still there and the aft leg looks like it displaced the deck downwards as it went over aft wards.

The NTSB docket includes a listing for the 47 minutes of video but looks like you have to request it or something. Could be that includes more and closer footage of the actual mounting position. You may have to get that video if you want to draw conclusions you mention in your post. It seems if the forces experienced were strong enough to take off the mast and the top two decks that VDR didn’t have much chance in remaining in place. Lesson learned? Float free type only should be installed? Mounting location more carefully considered? Maybe it will be addressed in the report.

1959

[QUOTE=Dutchie;177425]
As stated earlier Tote, but they are not unique in that, will always choose for the cheapest possible solution for their seafarers health and safety. Nothing but the best. In the industry the minimum requirements are always seen as maximum requirements. If Tote had installed a more expensive float-free device with a hydrostatic release mechanism the S-VDR could probably have been retrieved. It will cost a small fortune to locate and salvage, if ever, the equipment by a new survey but no worries because in this case the taxpayers will foot the bill. Penny wise and pound foolish.[/QUOTE]

Your conclusion is probably true but expecting shipowners in this day and age to act otherwise is unrealistic. Why not require both? Surely the data could be written to two recording devices. Should the “beacon” specs be improved?

Some other links on the Sperry unit.

http://cirspb.ru/pdf/vm2.pdf

http://www.major-emergency-management.com/services_pdf/VDR_S-VDRGuide.pdf

1960

For those interested this link points to a page with some nice drawings of the “Great Land” (hull 673) similar to El Faro (hull 670).

http://memorieshop.com/Greatland/Plans/index.html

Click the link for the “centerline profile” at the bottom for those still doubting its ro-ro-ness. Lots of ramps and cargo aft of the house.

Thanks to whoever collected this info and posted it. Great job!

1961

[QUOTE=KPChief;177429]Your conclusion is probably true but expecting shipowners in this day and age to act otherwise is unrealistic. Why not require both? Surely the data could be written to two recording devices. Should the “beacon” specs be improved?

Some other links on the Sperry unit.

http://cirspb.ru/pdf/vm2.pdf

http://www.major-emergency-management.com/services_pdf/VDR_S-VDRGuide.pdf[/QUOTE]

I agree that it is unrealistic to expect otherwise but compared to the total operating cost of such a vessel it is peanuts. But adding up all the small peanuts can total up to a substantial amount that is true.

1962

[QUOTE=KPChief;177427]The mast was torn off the house top.[/QUOTE]

it looks like the mast was not torn off but was bended backwards and lying flat. That is because the triangular support at the base of the mast is visible and pointing upwards. A large piece of the longitudinal member just in front of the mast on which the S-VDR was fastened seems to be missing.

Indeed the foundation of the S-VDR seems very flimsy and not solid enough to withstand the enormous forces to which a sinking ship is exposed, especially not in this case. It does not seem to be of shipbuilders grade. Also the cable entry in the deck is unusual. Normally a swan neck arrangement is used for such a purpose.

1963

[QUOTE=Dutchie;177431]I agree that it is unrealistic to expect otherwise but compared to the total operating cost of such a vessel it is peanuts. But adding up all the small peanuts it can become a substantial amount that is true.[/QUOTE]

Oh I am not disagreeing with you. I think just make it law and get it over with. No sense complaining about what they should have done. When shipowners became accountants and lawyers and MBA’s first and seamen second they lost the ability to think in terms of exceeding minimum requirements no matter what prudence, seamanship, professional attitude dictate in any given situation.

Some expenses are mandatory by nature, some may improve efficiency or safety of the crew or plant and foresighted owners invest in these things. Other expenses are mandatory by regulation. Even though is is a somewhat rare occurrence (thankfully) it is at these times we all would like to have more information.

Separate discussion on whether the level playing field actually exists with regard to implementing these “required” systems and items throughout the world and whether there is any real enforcement / consequences for failure to do so.

Question: On the fixed type VDR do you know the nature of the cable connection to the data capsule? Is it a break away plug type thing or must the cable be cut by the ROV before it releases the clamps and grabs it?

1964

Why not require a Sat VDR that transmits data once an hour until abnormal conditions occur which would transmit perhaps once a minute. Then there would be no need to go looking for a physical VDR