Judging by the lack of oil, it appears the ship was empty. At least no huge mess was created.
From limited info provided, this vessel had no business to be where it was at. Owners/operators have to answer questions which will not go well. The insurers of course will have their attorneys present. That’s just how it works.
The Lady Sandra, call sign 5VHU3, sailed under the British flag so we can be sure of a formal investigation. Also the Harbour Master has some explaining to do, he should have stopped the ship going in and out to sea.
Has the Harbor Master any power in an anchorage outside the 12 NM zone?
If yes, he should have allowed (or ordered) this river ship coming into the port.
Again, Lawyers will “Help” determine the outcome/settlement.
I thought to have read somewhere that the ship shuttled back and forth between La Valetta and the anchorage. The bunker oil had to come from Malta I suppose.
I read nowhere that the ‘Lady Sandra’ was in a Maltese port before, neither La Valetta nor the southern industrial Marsaxlokk ports. And, all write that she was empty.
The AIS-track showed her drifting away from the offshore anchorage - to her last trip.
I ignore when she arrived at this anchorage, known as Malta OPL
I only know that she arrived at Istanbul on February 6.
Got a source on that? It’s certainly not true for the ones I’ve been around, but those are mostly older dry bulkers, which tend to have the dunnage right on the hull bottom.
Not really. They run with the top 20-30% of the screw in the air, but it submerges fully once you get underway. There’s usually a section of half tunnel to promote this.
The fact that these break in half on their first go in seas of any size is well known on every level of the inland shipping industry. The idea that someone would ignore this is a bit strange to me.
2 Likes
The ship heeled due to an unknown cause. After the ballast tanks were pumped out, the ship came to a straight position. Early in the afternoon, the emergency services got the situation completely under control and the relief action was completed.
I also asked my neighbor, who has with his son two inland waterway ships, about this and they confirmed that ballast tanks are common these days especially for the ships in the container trade is it a must. However, it is true that the older generation of ships, that are much smaller, don’t have ballast tanks.
2 Likes
If they were planning a sea passage it’s possible they may have put ballast in the cargo tanks. Without knowing anything about those vessels it seems like it would be a logical thing to do.
Not to say taking that thing to sea was well thought out but it would be the minimum preparation.
1 Like
I’m ready to stand corrected, but I’m not aware of any rule that would explicitly ban having crew accommodation forward as long as it is aft of the collision bulkhead.
This is from the Crew Accommodation Convention Requirements 92.
© in ships other than passenger ships, as defined in Regulation 2(e) and (f) of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (the SOLAS Convention ), sleeping rooms shall be situated above the load line amidships or aft, except that in exceptional cases, where the size, type or intended service of the ship renders any other location impracticable, sleeping rooms may be located in the fore part of the ship, but in no case forward of the collision bulkhead;
See also here.
1 Like
I stand corrected. The same text is also in the Maritime Labour Convention.
I guess the most obvious exemption is placing the whole deckhouse in the forward part of the vessel.