http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oil-tanker-hits-Bay-Bridge-41
A double-hulled oil tanker owned by Overseas Shipholding Group sustained damage, but is not believed to be leaking oil after alliding with the San Francisco Bay Bridge Monday morning.
Mindy Talmadge, a San Francisco Fire Department spokesman, said that the MV Overseas Reymar, a 69,636 DWT Panamax oil products tanker, swiped the easternmost tower of the bridge’s western span at approximately 11:37 a.m, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle. The tanker sustained damage to its starboard side, Talmadge said, but is not believed to be leaking oil. Visibility was at about a quarter mile at the time of the allision, according to media reports.
The ship departed from the Shell Refinery at Martinez, CA early this morning and was reportedly being maneuvered under the direction of a San Francisco Bay Ship Pilot when the allision occurred.
A unified command is being set up in response to the incident.
The Overseas Reymar is a Marshall Islands-flagged, ABS-classed, oil products tanker 100% owned and operated by Overseas Shipholding Group.
I am staying out of this one.
what about how many antidepressant, antianxiety, antiinsomnia and male enhancement medications the pilot takes everyday?
It shows 11.5kts that the time they sideswiped the cribbing! When will the fuck will these supposed experts in shiphandling learn to slow the fuck down in such low visibility?
Oh well, at least there’s no spill this time and the bridge is still standing…
Count on another opening in the Bar Pilots Association soon.
[QUOTE=c.captain;93706]what about how many antidepressant, antianxiety, antiinsomnia and male enhancement medications the pilot takes everyday?
It shows 11.5kts that the time they sideswiped the cribbing! [/QUOTE]
You have the wrong side of the bridge for your data point.
The plot you reference has a couple of bogus track lines to confuse things as well.
The ship had been in Martinez to unload. It came down under the Bay Bridge (one pass) this morning at about 1:20 AM PST) to Anchorage 9 to take on fuel, then departed at about 11 AM for sea for the second pass under the bridge and the allision.
"The tanker left a dock near the Shell refinery in Martinez early Monday before passing south under the Bay Bridge, briefly anchored, then turned around and heading back north, according to the ship’s track on MarineTraffic.com, a commercial ship-tracking website.“
Read more:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-error-looked-at-in-tanker-probe-4172745.php#ixzz2HLaR7siz”
The data point that you reference 11.5 knots/148 degrees …09:19:00 UTC is for the south bound passage (west end of west span) at 01:19 PST. The ship ended up in Anchorage 9 for bunkering.
The allision with the “E” tower occurred on the eastern end of the west span going northbound at about 1120 PST on the way to sea. There is an available data point 11.8 knots/358 degrees, 19:17:00 UTC, 11:17 PST just before the allision with the E tower
This may allow you to validly argue argue “too fast”
here’s the track with the time stamp you mention…my error on the other one I posted. I misunderstood which span the ship was going under when the allision took place. So shoot me!
YES, STILL TOO FUCKING FAST…AGAIN!
Shell was in there somewhere…again.
[QUOTE=Scallywag;93732]Shell was in there somewhere…again.[/QUOTE]
wouldn’t that be just sweet? then you can poke your iddy biddy pointy stick at me some more.
haha to you little man
Mine is not pointy, its blunt…like a baseball bat, more surface affect that way.
[QUOTE=Scallywag;93735]Mine is not pointy, its blunt…like a baseball bat, more surface affect that way.[/QUOTE]
more like a wiffleball bat I’d say…
keep swingin tho son…maybe you’ll hit one one of these daze like this young lad managed to. It’ll feel really awesome for you when you do!
eh batter, batter, batter…SHWING!
.
So…the report says visibility was only .25 mile…11.8 knots seems WAY too fast, at least for the bridge transit. If I’m not mistaken, this is the same span that capt. Cota transited with the Cosco Busan in the fog a few years ago. He kissed the Delta tower with the PORT side of the ship. Looks like this guy smacked the Echo tower with the STBD quarter of the tanker. WTF is going on down there with the SF Pilots and VTS?? This is embarrassing!
looks like we have another Cota here folks…
By By PAUL ELIAS | Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The pilot of an empty oil tanker that crashed into the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was involved in three previous accidents, records obtained Tuesday show.
Pilot Guy Kleess was held responsible for two of the accidents and ordered to undergo more training after a ship he was piloting damaged a dock in Stockton in 2009, according to records from the state Board of Pilot Commissioners.
The disclosure came as two federal agencies and the state board pursued investigations of the crash of the 752-foot tanker Overseas Reymar.
The U.S. Coast Guard classified the accident as a “major marine casualty” because it exceeded $500,000 in property damage. However, no oil leaks were reported and the bridge remained open. No crew members were injured.
Coast Guard Petty Officer Pamela J. Boehland said investigators interviewed Kleess on Tuesday. The ship’s master — or captain — and key crewmembers were also interviewed.
She also said no alcohol was found in any of the critical crew members tested, including Kleess. Boehland said investigators are still analyzing samples for drug use.
Human error is one factor being explored by the Coast Guard as a possible cause of the crash. Visibility at the time was about a quarter-mile, but officials didn’t say if that was a factor.
The National Transportation Safety Board said it will coordinate its investigation with the Coast Guard and proceed in light of safety recommendations made after another tanker, the Cosco Busan, hit a nearby tower on the same bridge in 2007 and spilled 53,000 gallons of oil into the bay.
The state board licensed Kleess in 2005 after he completed a two-year training program and joined an elite cadre of mariners who are required by state law to guide every large vessel in the San Francisco Bay and other Northern California waterways.
Board records show Kleess was involved in three prior shipping accidents. He was found at fault in two of the incidents, and all were considered minor, agency chief Allen Garfinkle said.
“They in no way reflect on his skill,” Garfinkle said.
Kleess was held blameless when the bow of a ship he was piloting in the Sacramento River on Aug. 27, 2009, “took a sudden sheer to the left” and ran into the bank at slow speed, according to a report to the Legislature.
Two days later, Kleess was found at fault when a ship he was piloting damaged a dock in the Port of Stockton. No damage estimate was provided for repairing a wooden pylon used to support a catwalk.
Kleess agreed to undergo four training runs in the narrow and shallow inland waterways that Garfinkle said are the toughest routes for pilots to navigate.
“Only our most elite pilots go up there,” Garfinkle said. “It takes a special person to do that type of work.”
The commissioners’ 2010 annual report showed Kleess also was held responsible for allowing a ship he was piloting on May 26, 2010, to stray into shallow water in the Richmond Inner Harbor, causing a tug boat tending the ship to briefly run aground. The board found there was minimal damage and Kleess wasn’t disciplined for the incident.
Other agency records also showed that pilot Guy Kleess was placed on medical leave in August 2010 for an undisclosed ailment. His license expired in November of that year. The Coast Guard cleared him for duty, and his license was renewed on Jan. 11, 2011, minutes of a monthly meeting of the pilot commissioners show.
A call to Kleess’ San Francisco home on Tuesday went unanswered.
Board records show Kleess went to work on oil tankers for Exxon Oil Co. after graduating from the United States Merchant Marine Academy in 1976.
The company promoted him several times during the next 13 years. He ultimately attained the rank of master — or captain — of his own ship. He held various other high-ranking mariner positions with other companies before entering the San Francisco Bay bar pilots training program in 2003.
Investigators also will inspect the hull above and below the water line, but Lansing said it wasn’t breached.
The bridge sustained minor damage and remained open after the accident that damaged 30 to 40 feet of “fender” material that will need to be replaced.
The fender system made of steel and wooden timbers was built onto the west span to absorb such strikes.
OSG Ship Management Inc., the parent company that owns the Marshall Islands-registered Overseas Reymar, said the accident occurred as the vessel hit an underwater portion of the massive bridge structure. The ship was not carrying oil as cargo, only fuel to power its engines, Goodyear said.
The crew reported no loss of steering or propulsion, and initial investigations showed no water leaks from any of the ballast tanks, said Darrell Wilson, a spokesman for OSG.
California Emergency Management Agency spokesman Jordan Scott said the superstructure of the bridge was fine.
Associated Press writers Lisa Leff, Sudhin Thanawala and Terence Chea contributed to this report.
“our most elite pilots”? WHAT THE FUCK?
Pilot Associations are mafias plain and simple…
[QUOTE=c.captain;93915] when the bow of a ship he was piloting in the Sacramento River on Aug. 27, 2009, “took a sudden sheer to the left” and ran into the bank at slow speed, according to a report to the Legislature.[/QUOTE]
I hear that BS all the time…Don’t buy it. Their job is to provide the local knowledge and shiphandling expertise to avoid any such situation. If i tried using that excuse as to why I did damage to a terminal while landing a barge I know what the reaction would be. I am familiar with guys who do ‘sterile’ shiphandling on a daily basis and there is just an understanding there is ZERO room for error and operate as such.
Bad couple weeks of mariners…slow the hell down, and don’t do stupid stuff (towing in GoA). Problem solved? Yet another topic for a BRM lecture.
[QUOTE=c.captain;93915] WHAT THE FUCK?QUOTE]
There never has been much controversy of the definition of pilot’s associations, so nothing new there.
What I find interesting is the CG didn’t hesitate long to chime in to publicize its interests in marine safety in the wake of a “major marine casualty.” Wasn’t the Bounty sinking a “major marine casualty” by definition? At least the tanker allision hasn’t killed anyone yet …
Has the CG made any comments about the threat to lives and the environment created by circus ships and their crews?
[QUOTE=“c.captain;93915”]“our most elite pilots”? WHAT THE FUCK?[/QUOTE]
Not all pilots are created equal, some are better than others…
Looks like John’s running his mouth off again to reporters. Here’s his latest “expert” comment to the AP which will be published in most of the nations F’n newspapers tomorrow :mad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/bay-bridge-oil-tanker_n_2442084.html
Mariners and others say the Vessel Traffic Service is a form of air traffic control with one crucial distinction: Its communications are advisory rather than mandatory like air traffic control.
So “warnings” from the service are often phrased as questions rather than direct statements of danger.
“They are not there to order captains around,” said Capt. John Konrad, a veteran operator of large ships who now operates the respected mariners website gCaptain.com. “They’ll ask a lot of questions.”
Konrad and others said expansion of the authority of the service was debated after the cargo ship Cosco Busan unleashed a massive oil spill when it crashed into the Bay Bridge in 2007. But little change resulted because the service only monitors large ships.
“Mariners like me oppose giving them that much authority,” Konrad said. “Unlike air traffic control, VTS doesn’t know where every small boat on the bay is. They may say turn right not knowing there’s a sailboat there.”
Jeff Bornstein, a lawyer who represented Capt. John Cota, the pilot of the Cosco Busan, said the service asked “what are your intentions” as the ship steamed for the center of a tower. Bornstein said if the service had issued an explicit warning, Cota may have had time to change course and pass under the bridge safely.
Instead, Cota said he planned to maintain course without opposition from the service, realizing too late that he was misreading onboard instruments.
Still, Konrad, Bornstein and others warned that no conclusions can be made until the Coast Guard releases the recorded communications with the Overseas Reymar.
Surely the first section of your post is sarcasm. John’s comments seem reasonable, reserved and professional.
[QUOTE=dredgeboater;94030]Surely the first section of your post is sarcasm. John’s comments seem reasonable, reserved and professional.[/QUOTE]
I’m grateful to him for gCaptain but he shouldn’t talk to the press. We have to protect our own! And he may or may not be justified calling himself captain but he certainly ain’t a pilot or “veteran operator”. This is why pilot associations hire PR firms, so they can prep real captains with a canned response that won’t inflame the liberal public.
Instead of worrying wether John is speaking out of turn why don’t these pilot “associations” worry about not bashing into stationary objects they’ve passed by a million times? Why don’t instead of hiring their kids and other family members open the books for other qualified mariners to get one of the jobs? Maybe with a broader pool of possibly more qualified mariners this stuff wouldn’t continue to happen. It’s speaks volumes a pilot “association” needs a PR firm to protect their cushy $300k+ a year jobs.
Wow. Not sure where you are a pilot but I see you think very highly of yourself and “your own”. I have heard many definitions of a “real captain”, curious what yours is? I have interfaced with pilots who probably would not be considered “real captains” by any stretch of the imagination. Most were great and some I didn’t want to meet anywhere in a channel unless they would need a shovel to hit me. Same could be said for the ones that sailed for years as Master before becoming a pilot. You don’t need to be a pilot or even a “veteran operator” to objectively comment on such an incident. I did not see any comments that would “inflame the liberal public”. If anything probably the opposite. Just objective comments and a warning to not start drawing conclusions before the facts are known. Today’s modern media will grasp for straws by pulling BS of Facebook and Twitter or embellishing details from public records. Already the San Francisco Chronicle is making dramatic statements of Unit 61s previous piloting incidents that are public record. They take a relatively minor incident with no damage and turn in to “crashed an empty 609ft bulk carrier into a pylon supporting a catwalk”. For our industry as a whole, there needs to be a stronger voice than that garbage. It’s not just pilots to whom incidents happen. Just look at the NY ferry this morning.