There’s a ship in front of you. To me, ECDIS isn’t a fallback in extremis…
I’m sure the anchored vessel will surely share some fault (wrongly). Probably shoudl have (if they didn’t) sound the danger signal. And i have no idea of their power configuration, and how much avaiable power they had to maneuver at all on a no notice. Im used to very maneuverable vessels, which even at a very low power-available level could thrust way from to some degree within the watch circle.
On no notice? Most likely none. The engine was probably secured when they were FWE at anchor.
In an emergency? Maybe get the engine in 10-15 minutes. And that would be fast.
Again, i said depends on the vessel. Please dont take my words out of context.
In any event, its bullshit to blame the anchored vessel. I’m talking from the other side here.
And i probably should have thought beofe posting, tanker…probably running on aux power to keep the lights on?
Ive worked on mutliple engine configurations, where you keep a main in lieu of any aux gen, which would allow for movement.
Generators for hotel services, main engine for propulsion. Two separate systems (sort of).
The OOW on the Stena Immaculate should have seen the vessel heading towards them and called them on the VHF or satellite phone.
I haven’t seen any reports that the Stena Immaculate was calling them.
I know from experience that anchor watches are very boring. Many OOWs won’t be looking at the radar constantly when on anchor watch, they will be on the computer doing admin or on their phones. They should look at the radar ever so often but some might get carried away doing an admin task and not look at the radar for a long time.
Radar/ECDIS should have better alarms for alerting OOW to ships on a collision course.
Current systems lead to alarm floods, too many irrelevant alarms get activated so either the volume gets turned down or the alarms get deactivated.
It is the same for all these rigs getting accidentally hit by ERRVs, the control rooms on the rigs should have better alarm systems to tell them when a ship is on a collision course. Rig control room operators are busy with other tasks, they can’t look at the radar constantly.
The systems should be designed better so they don’t lead to alarm floods, only serious risks of collisions should activate an alarm, not all these irrelevant ones.
I see that the Master of the Solong is reportedly Russian.
Actually, due to the fog, (which I’ve read was reported, and as seen in the above video) they are likely going to be in trouble for not sounding a bell in the forward part of the vessel, and a gong in the after part of the vessel at 1 min intervals, and in this case, the signal of one short, one prolonged, one short. The use of the danger signal would actually be prohibited in this case unless they were in sight of each other, which would probably be at the last moment.
But to the Stena’s credit, I’ve never actually heard anyone using their bell and gong, to the point where there are actually no good sound clips of it what it sounds like on the internet.
I don’t know - every OSG ship I was on had the electronic bell and gong, and it was used at anchor in fog routinely. Stena is known for building pretty nice ships, I’d be surprised if they didn’t have that piece of equipment on it.
Russians are Europeans ??? How come ?? .The only thing I read in the main stream sewage media is they are NOT . 
Having said that it looks like german owners are in collusion with ruskies aimed at destroying important strategic supplies of NATO allies. Immediate sanctions of said owner seems to be a valid proposal.
Never trust Russians und Germans and the good old school of " keeping the ruskies OUT und Germans down on their knees " is still valid and in dire need of implementation with immediate effect.
All important ingredients of a developing conspiracy theory appear to exist.
Looking at the video from this story, looks like the systems did their job to the best of their abilities on the Stena ship. Fire monitors still running, a bit of smoke damage to the house, and you’re going to need new mooring lines, but all things considered, looks like only the contents of one tank burned/was evaporated. IG and flooding the deck, and I’m sure support vessels prevented anything else catastrophic.
The container ship on the other hand, is not looking so good.
She is one of a series of tanker built at Guangzhou Shipyard with the type describsion IMOIIMAX:
Video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wouiwRFeseo
Her propulsion and generator configuration:
| Main engine | 1x MAN-B&W/Dalian 6S50ME-B9 - 2 stroke 6 cylinder combustion engine 7.201 kW at 117,0 rpm |
|---|---|
| Propellers | 1x Fixed propeller |
| Generators | 4x Main diesel generator sets each 1.000 kW |
| Source: scheepvaartwest - Stena Immaculate - IMO 9693018 |
Dear Dr.Bugge.
I am in the state of SHOCK. And I mean it.
Is this the same shipyard as mentioned below:
In CHINA???
I am really loosing it here. Pls be so kind and explain how is that possible???
Built in China , US Flag, US Crew. - is somebody fooling me here.
The chinese gantry cranes are spying on good Us citizens ( stevedores) in ports, the mobile phones with this damn tik tok or whatever are spying too, brainwashing US Youth with communist propaganda , Chinese have bad dudes as allies and good buddies with ayatollhs. Juzus!!!
And chinese built ship is picked up to perform task and missions as described in recent gCaptain articles.
Correct me if i am wrong here. Does that mean that with the prefix of " IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY" -one can bend the rules , statues, declarations , sanctions - you name it and believe that all watching this circus are stupid not comprehending dudes?
The key wording in the Madeira manning rules re. nationality appears to be:
PS> Just waiting for the comments on the Master being Russian. 
The very same:
Known to build ships cheaply, but they break down within a year or two.
No reputable shipowner would even dream of building their ships there.
PS> They probably use slave labour too.
That muddies the waters, but I’m still going with negligence. No one was looking out the window of the Solong.
Funny how quickly we jump from negligence to conspiracy. Humans are dumb and do dumb things.
I agree that this is simply negligence. I like this graphic from the BBC because it inadvertently displays the different ways the vessels were navigated:
Now compare Solong’s track. Straight arrow. No deviation for traffic at all, even though Stena’s track shows the normal course changes of a ship in traffic.
There is of course some conspiracy theory about the collision being intentional. But if it was the Solong would have still had to make the normal course changes for traffic etc. that is apparent in the Stena’s track, even on a kamikaze run. But there are no course changes.
Both are operating in the same environment. The Stena showed active navigation along her track. The Solong shows a vessel following a magenta line.
Now, Solong’s track on the BBC graphic could simply be an approximation of more complex conning through dense fog. But there was dense fog. Zero visibility. So why is the Solong traveling at 16 knots right into a recognized anchorage for vessels?
That alone is gross negligence, and if the Solong’s captain was negligent of that, it’s not a leap to guess he was negligent over the vessel’s course, or, more exactly , on his oversight of his OOWs.
These types of howling mistakes occur frequently. In my neck of the woods the exemplar is the Queen of the North grounding in BC. That ferry also had a straight as an arrow track line before grounding. The difference was no fog. All that occurred is that the OOW got complacent. Got involved in a conversation with the watch (2 ABs). And forgot to make a turn. All the players were highly experienced. Every bit of nav gear known to man was glowing in the wheelhouse. And yet a little distraction was all it took to sink a ship.
And mind you the QOTN was operating in one of the most difficult places to navigate in the world, the BC Inside Passage. Orders of magnitude more difficult than where the Solong was steaming.
So, it’s not difficult to figure simple, ripe negligence was going on in Solong’s bridge. Either no one looking at the radar, or ignorant in interpreting the display, or both. High rate of speed into a known anchorage in dense fog with no course changes. All simple negligence, within the bounds of normal human stupidity.
don’t care - I am blowing the whistle anyway - yelling on the radio, sounding the collision alarm - would 100 % rather be laughed at for over-reacting than not doing any of the above -
Was this a “recognized anchorage”, or just an “anchorage of convenience” while waiting for pilot, tide or wharf space at any of the five major ports on the Humber bank; Grimsby, Immingham, Killingholme, Hull and Goole?
The designated anchorage is clear marked by buoys near the NE entrance to the Humber Estuary:
No designated anchorage 10 miles offshore.
PS> Looking at the number of pipelines and cables in this area there is good reason why the designated anchorage is well defined and marked.
The Solong’s three past passages at the accident site:
March 3: underway from Port Grangemouth, in the Firth of Forth (near Edinburgh), to Rotterdam.
March 8: underway from Rotterdam to Grangemouth.
March 10: the crash trip, underway from Grangemouth to Rotterdam.
The AIS-Route for all three voyages; from outside of the Firth of Forth to the crash site appears to be an identical straight line.
Only when strongly zooming in, it shows three straight voyages.
On March 5/6 they entered the Humber River on a voyage Rotterdam-Hull-Rotterdam…
