USCG EL FARO hearings part deaux

Professional Mariner Forum
61

Well frankly then I think he got some poor coaching. If they thought about it before hand why wouldn’t their answer include words like:

[I]Mr. Roth-Roffy I can see where you might say that but believe me we have been through our SMS front to back looking for policy and procedures that could be changed or added to make sure something like this can never happen again. We have looked at the performance of all managers in the chain and performed detailed analysis of what decisions were made and why.[/I]

Part of the SMS is supposed to be the use of continuous improvement principles and one would think this was an event where some critical thinking skills maybe could be used to find something they could admit to needing improvement but I understand the legal realities too.

Roth-Roffy opened the door for them to make their case for what good ship managers they are but it is a bit sad they found no more elegant words to demonstrate their management skills, commitment to continuous improvement or appreciation of the merchant seamen who work for them than this “is all about an accident”.

I guess fairness demands I note that I am not where I can see the hearings and this article is a snap shot of one exchange so maybe (I hope) they demonstrated that elsewhere in the testimony.

62

[QUOTE=Dutchie;185038]… to me it sounds rather threatening. Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Just sounds like a poorly maintained old boiler that never got much down time. The condition of the burner throats is bad but I agree (without actually having seen them) that it would not be a “show stopper.”

It also sounds like some bad burner nozzle, diffuser, and air foil maintenance issues.

I wonder if the NTSB guy is having a thorough peepee whacking this morning …

63 
Has to be more to it than just burner throats. Those could be remedied over a couple days with some super plastic and a bricko gun to beat it in. Just those repairs would require shutting that boiler down the day before to allow it to cool down. Then allow enough time to let the super plastic dry and then slowly bake it in as you bring the boiler back up. Maybe with their tight schedule it kept getting put off. I would imagine if the throats are in that bad a shape the front wall fire bricks and insul blocks were prolly shot as well. Like I said has to be way more to it.

I can’t remember what type of boilers she has. Anyone know if they were B&W’s, FW’s or CE’s? I can’t remember if they were top fired or not. The week I spent on her in 92 was mostly doing main steam line valve work and a couple of safety valves. That was a long time and many ships ago and I’ve killed way to many brain cells in the interim.

64

860×522 111 KB

65

After reading and listening to much of the proceedings, I found myself becoming overly burdened with the details, as many of you here may have. Then I re-read this article by Mario Vittone. I think he cuts through the fog quite well when he points out that the details, such as the age of the vessel, and the condition of things like the lifeboats, matter far less than the decision that ultimately sank the ship- and that was to sail in the direction of Joaquin. Had that decision not been made, those 33 would still be here.

Give it a read.

http://gcaptain.com/we-wont-learn-anything-what-sank-el-faro-and-what-didnt/

I still look forward to whatever answers can be gleaned from the SVDR- but as Mario said, we have seen these same things happen time and time again. What has to happen is a change in thinking. A change in decision making in the context of risk management.

It was not a piece of failed gear that sank the ship. It was a decision that sank the ship.

66

While watching todays hearings, I thought it was very interesting that Tote’s Lawyer called for a recess and when they came back the line of questioning was changed. They were asking about if there was ever any complains about Cargo being late. Ms. Lisk from Tote said not as far as I know. Come on you can not tell me that she has never had complains! To hear her speak one would think that the shippers had no worries in the world on whether their cargo showed up on time or not.

What ever was said off of camera made them end the line of questioning.

Also, at the end the NTSB Rep apologized for his statement the day before to the Tote VP that (as he said) was being taken out of context and was in no means a statement slamming Tote for any failure of Management. Someone mush have slapped his Dick big time!

67

[QUOTE=Tugs;185096]While watching todays hearings, I thought it was very interesting that Tote’s Lawyer called for a recess and when they came back the line of questioning was changed.

What ever was said off of camera made them end the line of questioning.[/QUOTE]

behold the power of M_O_N_E_Y! Those of us who don’t have it are powerless for any meaningful change against the ever present demands for higher P_R_O_F_I_T_S!

68

[QUOTE=catherder;185089]After reading and listening to much of the proceedings, I found myself becoming overly burdened with the details, as many of you here may have. Then I re-read this article by Mario Vittone. I think he cuts through the fog quite well when he points out that the details, such as the age of the vessel, and the condition of things like the lifeboats, matter far less than the decision that ultimately sank the ship- and that was to sail in the direction of Joaquin. Had that decision not been made, those 33 would still be here.

Give it a read.

http://gcaptain.com/we-wont-learn-anything-what-sank-el-faro-and-what-didnt/

I still look forward to whatever answers can be gleaned from the SVDR- but as Mario said, we have seen these same things happen time and time again. What has to happen is a change in thinking. A change in decision making in the context of risk management.

It was not a piece of failed gear that sank the ship. It was a decision that sank the ship.[/QUOTE]

I expressed the same point of view in an earlier post and was ridiculed for it. All the hand wringing and nitpicking isn’t going to change a damn thing.
As Joe Friday used to say : "Just the facts ma’am."
I feel for the families and friends of the victims having to listen to so much pointless drivel in these hearings, i.e. in the first set of hearings: “What does a captain do?” Seriously, WTF? I had to stop watching.

69

[QUOTE=catherder;185089]After reading and listening to much of the proceedings, I found myself becoming overly burdened with the details, as many of you here may have. Then I re-read this article by Mario Vittone. I think he cuts through the fog quite well when he points out that the details, such as the age of the vessel, and the condition of things like the lifeboats, matter far less than the decision that ultimately sank the ship- and that was to sail in the direction of Joaquin. Had that decision not been made, those 33 would still be here.

Give it a read.

http://gcaptain.com/we-wont-learn-anything-what-sank-el-faro-and-what-didnt/

I still look forward to whatever answers can be gleaned from the SVDR- but as Mario said, we have seen these same things happen time and time again. What has to happen is a change in thinking. A change in decision making in the context of risk management.

It was not a piece of failed gear that sank the ship. It was a decision that sank the ship.[/QUOTE]

Very true. The master along with the owners of the company made a decision to sail towards Puerto Rico knowing a storm that may develop into a hurricane was approaching their route. So far so good, plenty of time to correct course later. The master with the company’s complicity decided to enter into the area of the storm . A reasonable person whether on land or sea would turn tail and run from danger or steer FAR away and the master could have done that. But the master chose not to do that and his decision was supported by the owners of the vessel. To say the schedule of delivery had nothing to do with the decision is disingenuous. That the head of Tote in testimony says he is not a mariner and knows nothing of the these matters is akin to the CEO of a pharmaceutical company selling a badly researched drug which ends up killing people and then using as his defense he is no chemist or expert in pharmacology since he was just hired to make money. The buck stops at the top, NOT the bottom.

70

[QUOTE=tengineer1;185107] The buck stops at the top, NOT the bottom.[/QUOTE]

Not in this country in this century. The buck stops in the CEO’s bank account or whichever PAC delivers the greatest return on investment.

71

A bit off the direct topic, but relevant;
In 1999 I investigated the capsize and sinking of an AHT off the East Coast of India while assisting a 90,000 DWT tanker approaching an SPM buoy, with the loss of 4 lives. (My job was to determine cause, not to blame anyone)

When I eventually was allowed on board the tanker I was “attended” by a Superintendent and Legal Adviser from the Owners. I was presented with neatly typed and signed Statement from the Master and each of the Officers, which I put aside unread and asked to see the “Bell book” from the Bridge and the rough log from the Engine room, as speed at the time was of essence. (Later I found the Statements to have exactly the same speed at time of accident, down to 1/100th of a knot)

After some whispering between my “minders”, they suggested that a coffee break would be appropriate.
My request was eventually complied with, but when we asked the building yard to supply the curve of rpm/time it was denied on instruction of the Owner.

Obvious similarities with the case at hand??

72

[QUOTE=Tugs;185096]While watching todays hearings, I thought it was very interesting that Tote’s Lawyer called for a recess and when they came back the line of questioning was changed. They were asking about if there was ever any complains about Cargo being late. Ms. Lisk from Tote said not as far as I know. Come on you can not tell me that she has never had complains! To hear her speak one would think that the shippers had no worries in the world on whether their cargo showed up on time or not.

What ever was said off of camera made them end the line of questioning.

Also, at the end the NTSB Rep apologized for his statement the day before to the Tote VP that (as he said) was being taken out of context and was in no means a statement slamming Tote for any failure of Management. Someone mush have slapped his Dick big time![/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute.

Didn’t a Congress-turd or two apologize publicly to BP right after the DWH incident (not “Accident”) for the (well-deserved) thrashing it was getting from the press and public?

This country is not a constitutionally represented democratic republic. It is an oligarchy. Business and government, giving each other a back slap with one hand and a wank with the the other.

73

[QUOTE=ombugge;185120]A bit off the direct topic, but relevant;
In 1999 I investigated the capsize and sinking of an AHT off the East Coast of India while assisting a 90,000 DWT tanker approaching an SPM buoy, with the loss of 4 lives. (My job was to determine cause, not to blame anyone)

When I eventually was allowed on board the tanker I was “attended” by a Superintendent and Legal Adviser from the Owners. I was presented with neatly typed and signed Statement from the Master and each of the Officers, which I put aside unread and asked to see the “Bell book” from the Bridge and the rough log from the Engine room, as speed at the time was of essence. (Later I found the Statements to have exactly the same speed at time of accident, down to 1/100th of a knot)

After some whispering between my “minders”, they suggested that a coffee break would be appropriate.
My request was eventually complied with, but when we asked the building yard to supply the curve of rpm/time it was denied on instruction of the Owner.

Obvious similarities with the case at hand??[/QUOTE]

of course it was the tug’s fault because they didn’t trip their quick release hook or didn’t have one or any number of other reasons, not because the tanker was going too fast…NEVER! COULDN’T EVER HAPPEN! IMPOSSIBLE!

74

[QUOTE=c.captain;185143]of course it was the tug’s fault because they didn’t trip their quick release hook or didn’t have one or any number of other reasons, not because the tanker was going too fast…NEVER! COULDN’T EVER HAPPEN! IMPOSSIBLE![/QUOTE]

It was an AHT, using the winch. No hook. Yes there was a quick release on the Bridge and locally on the winch. The 3rd. Eng. was standing by the winch and knew how to do it. When asked why he didn’t do it he answered; “the Captain never told me”. When the tug rolled he walked the side and was picked up from the keel, not even wet.

The connection on the tanker was a soft eye rope forrunner on a bollard. No tools available to cut the rope. Bosun claimed he had run to the galley to fetch a cleaver and cut the rope, but by then the tug had turned turtle. (It took all of 45 sec.)

Why didn’t the Ch.Eng. standing on the winch controls release from the bridge, or the Master order so?? I don’t know, they both died.

Aside from the fact that the tanker used too high speed for the tug to follow. By the time he lost control and shouted; “you are going too fast”, it was too late. The problem was that the Master was an Indonesian, for whom it is impolite to say NO, or to “cause and trouble”.
If that had been me or you, that Mooring Master would have got an earful long time before it got critical.

It was also not because he was inexperienced, or incompetent.I worked with him many year earlier, when he was Assisting Superintendent and Rig Mover for UNOCAL in Indonesia. We did many rig moves together.

PS> After checking the condition of the wreck by ROV at 800 m. WD to confirm that doors were closed and hatches battened down, we established the likely speed required to capsize the tug with the towline at 45 degr. angle from C/L, calculating backwards.
We found that to be >6.25 kts.
Not a problem for a Harbourtug towing over the bow. Try to follow a turning tanker at that speed with an open stern AHT, going backwards.

If I remember right the “declared” speed over ground by all and sundry on the tanker was 2.38 kts. (Actually I look it up in my report just now)
The Master claimed that he had checked that on a radar that was not even on. (I had confirmed that with the 3rd. Officer. I always start from the bottom up when interviewing the persons involved in casualties)

75

[QUOTE=catherder;185136]I wouldn’t doubt that for a minute.

Didn’t a Congress-turd or two apologize publicly to BP right after the DWH incident (not “Accident”) for the (well-deserved) thrashing it was getting from the press and public?

This country is not a constitutionally represented democratic republic. It is an oligarchy. Business and government, giving each other a back slap with one hand and a wank with the the other.[/QUOTE]

Oh it is an elected democratic republic. The problem is the people keep electing their mayors, council members, senators and house members over and over but expecting a different result which is insane. They think the only election that matters is for president when in a representative democracy the president matters little. The only conclusion to be drawn is the electorate is ignorant and therefore easily manipulated into voting for their own demise. They blame other religions, other political beliefs, immigrants, gays, welfare, “obamacare”, unions, the military, pensions, national debt etc for all their problems rather than accepting the fact that it is the people they put into places of power from their own homes and states that are screwing them into oblivion.
As the famous Catherder once said, “vote no incumbent”

76

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”
— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.

77

[QUOTE=Lee Shore;185184]“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy…[/QUOTE]

From a man who did not speculate about a future thing called democracy, he knew what it is: Winston Churchill >>>

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

78

[QUOTE=Urs;185187]From a man who did not speculate about a future thing called democracy, he knew what it is: Winston Churchill >>>

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”[/QUOTE]

Not to highjack the thread but our founding fathers would disagree:

“Democracy is the most vile form of government. … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths.”
— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”
— Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”
— Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) Founding Father& signer of the Declaration of Independence

79

The weather information that the weather service sent to the El Faro may have been 10 hrs old.

Given the rapidly changing forecast the outdated information may have been an important factor in the choice of the route.

From the Portland Press Herald:

Richard Brown, vice president of operations for the weather company, said Davidson was receiving tracking data on Hurricane Joaquin that was 10 hours old, even as the storm strengthened rapidly in the time before the ship went down.

80

This is unthinkably sad.