Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

Having never served in a tanker, but having worked around them, I’m curious, how many tankers actually maneuver around literally thousands of fishing vessels? Or even a dozen for that matter. For good reason, my experience is that generally mariners exercise the rule of gross tonnage around them, realizing how maneuverable tankers are, particularly as slow or no speed.

[QUOTE=Robert;69885]Having never served in a tanker, but having worked around them, I’m curious, how many tankers actually maneuver around literally thousands of fishing vessels? Or even a dozen for that matter. For good reason, my experience is that generally mariners exercise the rule of gross tonnage around them, realizing how maneuverable tankers are, particularly as slow or no speed.[/QUOTE]

Any tanker, or other ship, in and around China, Korea, and parts of SE Asia maneuvers through hundreds of fishing boats, coasters, and heavy ship traffic all day long.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;69873]How is it more unsafe then anchoring? Your ability to get out of the way is very limited at anchor and you are FWE. When you drift you can drift away from traffic. Plus you face the risk of dragging anchor. I’ve dragged close to the beach at FWE, that’s no fun. I"d like to keep the engines on SBE on the hook too, that’s not going to happen.[/QUOTE]

  1. the COLREGS has rules for other vessels to avoid a vessel at anchor and a vessel at anchor has clearly defines lights and shapes

  2. if you are the master, why on earth don’t you have your engine on standby at anchor if you feel it is for the safety of the ship?

not jabbing my pointy stick at you but certainly wondering about that second one.

Not sure what this means: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3f_NOC

I don’t subscribe to this ‘logic’ that someone can simply ‘opt’ to be NUC. (Or RAM)

Sounds like sure fodder for a lawyer… IF something ever happened.

[QUOTE=cappy208;69909]Not sure what this means: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3f_NOC

I don’t subscribe to this ‘logic’ that someone can simply ‘opt’ to be NUC. (Or RAM)

Sounds like sure fodder for a lawyer… IF something ever happened.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I no doubt that admiralty lawyers would be lining up to feast at this trough if anything were to ever go down.

[QUOTE=c.captain;69907]1. the COLREGS has rules for other vessels to avoid a vessel at anchor and a vessel at anchor has clearly defines lights and shapes

  1. if you are the master, why on earth don’t you have your engine on standby at anchor if you feel it is for the safety of the ship?
    .[/QUOTE]

As for the first - the choice is drift offshore or go anchor. Say you are well offshore and the chances of collision are roughly one in a billion . At anchor say the chances of dragging or having to shift out under unfavorable conditions are 1 in 10. If the only advantage of going to anchor is to have a clear status with regards to COLREGS then it doesn’t make sense to shift in.

As to the second, I agree, absolutely, if the risk of dragging is high it is prudent to be at SBE or at least have the engines kept ready so you can get it at short notice. My point was you can’t be at SBE at anchor all the time though it would be nice if you could. If we didn’t have to make cost/risk tradeoffs life would be simple. Be we do and it’s not.

K.C.

I think I can see why a large ship would need to drift at FWE, and SBE would be impractical to maintain for an extended period. And why it would not be possible to restart the engine within a meaningful time frame upon the approach of traffic. It seems to me that once the ship has been at FWE for a few hours, it is effectively NUC (even if by choice).

Aren’t most diesels in large ships slow speed (120 RPM) direct-reversible with no reduction gear or clutch?

Don’t these engines normally run on heavy fuel that has to be pre-heated to a high temp? Don’t these engines have to start and warm up on light fuel? Don’t they have to manoeuver on light fuel? Aren’t those big slow speed diesel engines designed to run at least half ahead to prevent cold liner wear and other serious engine problems?

I’m not an engineer and I’ve never sailed on large diesel ships. However, I have sailed on old direct-reversible tugs (Enterprise and Fairbanks-Morse). A direct reversible is coupled directly to the shaft with no clutch. So, whenever the engine is running its providing propulsion, either ahead or astern.

There is a time consuming process to start a direct-reversible engine after a few hours of FWE (Finished With Engines). Its long the lines of: 1. start pre-lube pump, 2. open test cocks on each cylinder (compression releases), 3. bar the engine over a couple revolutions by hand or with jacking gear, 4. use starting air to blow the engine down (blow fuel and water that may have accumulated on top of the pistons out through the test cocks), 5. close the test cocks, and 6. start the engine in either ahead or astern.

To change the direction of propulsion with a direct reversible, you must: 1. stop the engine, 2. wait for the wheel to stop turning the engine; 3. reposition the cam shaft (on a 4 cycle engine like an Enterprise), and 5. restart the engine rotating it in the opposite direction. If you try to rush the process, the cam shaft may not move and the engine will restart in the wrong direction, so that you have to stop and start the process all over again.

I imagine that its quite a process to start a ship that has been drifting at FWE for several days.

[QUOTE=cappy208;69909]Not sure what this means: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=def3f_NOC

I don’t subscribe to this ‘logic’ that someone can simply ‘opt’ to be NUC. (Or RAM)

Sounds like sure fodder for a lawyer… IF something ever happened.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is claiming that it is logical, the claim in fact is the opposite, that the COLREGS don’t have any provision for ships in drifting status even though there are hundreds if not thousands of ships around the world drifting on FWE right now.

As far as the lawyers go - they were ready to go after the captain and mate of the Hebei Spirit who by all reports did everything right and spend how many months in Jail? It’s understood that the sharks are circling in the event of an incident - so what? Better to bend the rules with low risk then be following the letter of the law and high risk.

K.C.

EDIT: Put it this way. Ship A is drifting with the engines on FWE. Ship B is approaching on collision course and believes it is the stand on vessel . Ship B is trying to determine the status of ship A, specifically is ship A going to maneuver to stay clear? Ship A then turns on it NUC lights. Ship B now realizes ship A cannot maneuver.

Has this action by ship A made the situation more safe of less safe? Is what the ship A did 100% in compliance with the COLREGS?

The answers are yes it made the situation more safe and no it is not 100% in compliance with COLREGS.

K.C.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;69915]Nobody is claiming that it is logical, the claim in fact is the opposite, that the COLREGS don’t have any provision for ships in drifting status even though there are hundreds if not thousands of ships around the world drifting on FWE right now… [/QUOTE]

I think the original question in this post was exactly that, is it logical and proper seamanship (remember rule of good seamanship is the catchall for the grey areas in the rules). I say drifting with a plant at FWE and inability to get underway is in fact contrary to the practice of good seamanship and I for one would not accept some company’s mandate that I shut everything down to save money. Leave a plant with heaters and lube circ running 24hours, Be on MDO instead of IFO. Turnover the main every so often to ensure rapid availability. Ie. do everything possible to be able to maneuver so for any reason there is a collision while drifting, the master will not be hung.

Remember that there are many ships steaming out there with nobody on the bridge or at least nobody paying attention. DO NOT TRUST THE OTHER SHIPS OUT THERE TO ALWAYS STEER CLEAR! Drifting on FWE is dangerous and only for a fool master to do.

I would love to drift while still in standby overnight for days…cha ching! When I worked on car carries we drifted over on Japan a lot. Go fwe and wait. Cant say there has been a whole lot of drifting with the tankers I have worked. When we do it is usually during the day and we will stay in standby and bump the engine over ever half hour or so. Otherwise we go to anchor. As long as the old man doesnt complain that the ship cant go in because the engineers are OPA 90’d out will standby all night. Yes there is a time consuming process ( usually about 30 minutes) for getting the engines ready, but in an emergency I can have them ready from FWE in under 10 minutes.

[QUOTE=c.captain;69917]Remember that there are many ships steaming out there with nobody on the bridge or at least nobody paying attention. DO NOT TRUST THE OTHER SHIPS OUT THERE TO ALWAYS STEER CLEAR! Drifting on FWE is dangerous and only for a fool master to do.[/QUOTE]

Think about it this way. When a ship is anchored near a busy port the risk of collision is not zero. It is greater then zero. Yet when ships anchor in good weather they do not typically keep the engines ready to maneuver even though to do so would reduce risk. The reason they do not is because the cost of staying on standby is not considered to be worth the reduction in risk. .

There are place in the ocean where the risk of collision is far lower then near a busy port. If the risk of collision is low enough why pay the cost to lower the risk further when you considered unnecessary in port?

There are places in the ocean where the risk of collision is practically zero. If the captain believes that the risk of collision while drifting is unacceptable then of course the engines should be kept ready to maneuver.

Otherwise no point in paying for infinitesimal reductions in risk.

K.C…

[QUOTE=brjones;69919]I would love to drift while still in standby overnight for days…cha ching! [/QUOTE]

I believe if you read the ISM Code you will not find a exception for “cha ching” in a Section 4.

EFFING VESSEL OWNERS…GODDAMNED CHEAP BASTARDS THEY CAN BE!

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;69921]There are place in the ocean where the risk of collision is far lower then near a busy port. If the risk of collision is low enough why pay the cost to lower the risk further when you considered unnecessary in port?

There are places in the ocean where the risk of collision is practically zero. If the captain believes that the risk of collision while drifting is unacceptable then of course the engines should be kept ready to maneuver[/QUOTE]

It’s all in the nature of the circumstances. Most times vessels drift to wait is near a port to await a berth hence higher levels of traffic by simple location. If in transit and told to await new orders, also likely on an established route. Not many tankers just out in the middle of nowhere told to hold where they are.

A master does need to make the call but I have been on tankers early in my career and we drifted literally where the master was told to stop and await orders. Flipping traffic cursing us up one side and down the other for just sitting there where everybody was at. Just like a car just stopping in the middle of the road because the driver needed to read a map or something. If drifting, at least go to where you aren’t going to bloody inconvenience everybody and their brother.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;69921]Otherwise no point in paying for infinitesimal reductions in risk. [/QUOTE]

Why does being SBE cost so much more on a slow speed ship anyway? The main is shut down but just kept ready to start on short notice. There should be a watch engineer so no overtime to speak of. Where does all this extra money enter the picture?

[QUOTE=c.captain;69924]Why does being SBE cost so much more on a slow speed ship anyway? The main is shut down but just kept ready to start on short notice. There should be a watch engineer so no overtime to speak of. Where does all this extra money enter the picture?[/QUOTE]

Unmanned engine room,no watch engineer. However the OT is pennies to the companies, but they love to cut it when they can

The last ship I sailed on with watch standing engineers was a steam ship. I would think days spent SBE, rolling the engine every half hour would cause lots of alarms, and unhappy duty and c/e’s. Probably more wear and tear on the engines too.

[QUOTE=SeaSick;69932]The last ship I sailed on with watch standing engineers was a steam ship. I would think days spent SBE, rolling the engine every half hour would cause lots of alarms, and unhappy duty and c/e’s. Probably more wear and tear on the engines too.[/QUOTE]

Christ! Steam tankers…STILL! I though every steam product tanker would be OPA90’ed out already although I imagine there must still be a couple of crude carriers still working on the west coast. Are there any still?

I know many LNG carriers are steam since they burn the boil off gas for fuel but even so, what’s the big deal keeping enough steam up in the boilers to at least make a few turns if needed. I can can’t see going FWE and drifting. This ain’t Action in the North Atlantic when they drift in the fog to try to elude the U-Boat!

[QUOTE=c.captain;69934]Christ! Steam tankers…STILL! I though every steam product tanker would be OPA90’ed out already although I imagine there must still be a couple of crude carriers still working on the west coast. Are there any still?

I know many LNG carriers are steam since they burn the boil off gas for fuel but even so, what’s the big deal keeping enough steam up in the boilers to at least make a few turns if needed. I can can’t see going FWE and drifting. This ain’t Action in the North Atlantic when they drift in the fog to try to elude the U-Boat![/QUOTE]

Well, I was talking about a container ship, but the last tanker I sailed on had a steam plant as well. AHL was operating some “hybrid” tankers, old steam plant with new house and double hull, up until a year or two ago, when they went belly up. I think the ships are still around somewhere, some may still be arrested, not sure what will become of them once the courts are done with them.

[QUOTE=SeaSick;69937]Well, I was talking about a container ship, but the last tanker I sailed on had a steam plant as well. AHL was operating some “hybrid” tankers, old steam plant with new house and double hull, up until a year or two ago, when they went belly up. I think the ships are still around somewhere, some may still be arrested, not sure what will become of them once the courts are done with them.[/QUOTE]

If I recall correctly they all ended up in the Beaumont NationalRustyReserve Fleet. Didn’t MarAd have to pay off on the mortgages for those floating abortions? Whose effing idea was it to put an old steam engineroom on the end of a new hull? I wonder now if somebody could buy those hulls now for scrap value and then have a new stern built with a modern engine plant and end up with a pretty decent OPA 90 qualified product carrier for cheap?

[QUOTE=c.captain;69934] I can can’t see going FWE and drifting.[/QUOTE]

It’s a matter of applying basic principles of risk management.

risk = (probability)x(hazard)

Evaluating risk requires an understanding of both hazard and probability. Risk management requires an understanding of budgeting limited resources, not just money, man-hours and attention are limited as well.

A ship with no wheelhouse watch is a hazard, as is ship which has lost steering while entering an anchorage. However it is not just a matter of identifying hazards it also requires evaluating probability.

Procedures can be followed by rote without understanding or, when circumstances change, new procedures can be developed if the underlying principles are well understood.

K.C.