[QUOTE=Dutchie;173633]Has it dawned on somebody or am I alone in this, I have a suspicious mind yes I know, in thinking that the S-VDR is not supposed to be found, it would probably be too damaging to the owners. I suspect that somebody ashore decided to call off any further search actions.[/QUOTE]
I cannot agree with you more! TOTE is complicit in the loss of the EL FARO and they don’t want any evidence to ever emerge how close they are to the vessel’s losing power. Now all they have to do is to stick with their story that they don’t know what happened and will get off in the end. I wished someone from Poland would speak what the riding crew was aboard to work on but we have never heard a word which makes me think they have also been muzzled. WHERE ARE OUR UNIONS HERE?
Looking for it with a CURV tethered ROV is a waste of time if the part of ship it is attached to is not located. The sonars on CURV are very good, but doing an area search with one is nigh on useless. Been there, done that.
Not sure what side scan gear APACHE deployed with and how effective it is for smaller bits
Maybe NTSB knows lots of details related to probable cause already. Remember there was early mention of some recorded call …
[QUOTE=lm1883;173614]You should have figured that out when they left the only recoverable body at sea.[/QUOTE]
As long as there is any hope of finding someone alive, the priority should always be on finding and rescuing the survivors instead of recovering bodies.
We have multiple big OSVs with ROVs on them sitting at a dock in Louisiana (off charter) right now that could be looking for it or inspecting the El Faro but yet they send some old ass out-dated Navy tug to do it?? Sounds like they really didn’t want to find it to me (and “they” can control the Navy to make sure they DONT find it)
I have been thinking about the VDR and it may have been knocked off by a wave when the el Faro sank. I personally mounted a satellite dish dome on a tanker above the bridge (shipyard welded the base to top of the house.) The entire thing was gone after going through a typhoon on the way to Japan, base and satellite tv dome. This was wind and spay not a solid hit by a wave.
I agree they gave up early and used a tug that was built the year I started work at MSC back in the 80’s. MSC could buy a DP-2 from an offshore company cheap today but they will spend millions keeping that crap running until some pork-barrel political hack spends 300 mil on 20 year old DP-1 technology on a new build.
[QUOTE=Too bad steam is gone;173671]I have been thinking about the VDR and it may have been knocked off by a wave when the el Faro sank.[/QUOTE]
In fact that would have been a good thing because with any luck the floating device, painted in a vivid orange color, probably would have been spotted and recovered. Without such a wave the fixed VDR would sink with the ship to the bottom of the ocean. As it was mounted on top of the navigation deck, which separated and is probably at least partly lying in the sediment layer, it could be hidden in that layer and difficult, but not impossible, to reach. Another possibility is that it broke loose from its mount and lying somewhere in the sediment. A third possibility is that it broke free later and drifted to the surface and was carried away undetected by currents to hopefully wash up somewhere.
As most ship owners also Tote always go for the cheapest possible solutions when it comes to life saving equipment for their precious crews. They just don’t give a shit. Take for instance the life boats on board the El Faro which were from a previous and almost forgotten era. The Epirb was a fixed, manually operated, not an automatic floatfree type. The VDR was also a fixed type, the cheapest version. Not the more expensive floatfree type with a hydrostatic release mechanism, a beacon transmitter and an Epirb so that the equipment can be found rather easily. If the floatfree VDR had been installed the costly and ineffective search mission for the fixed recorder would not have been necessary. Well as it is now Tote could not care less as in the end the US tax payer is so kind to pick up the bill for these futile search exercises…
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173683]Where do you get that information?
I think all EPIRBs are required to have hydrostatic releases so I don’t believe your assertion unless you have solid proof.[/QUOTE]
Already a while ago I read somewhere that the Epirb on the El Faro was located inside the wheel house which would mean that it was of the fixed type and had to be activated manually. Both fixed and float free brackets are available. See the manual of the Tron 40S. The manual reads for instance: “This bracket is similar to the FB5 and FB4 bracket but does not have the hydrostatic release mechanism.This bracket is typically used to store the EPIRB inside the wheel house or other protected areas of the ship.”
[QUOTE=Dutchie;173684]Already a while ago I read somewhere that the Epirb on the El Faro was located inside the wheel house which would mean that it was of the fixed type and had to be activated manually.[/QUOTE]
There was speculation that the reason the EPIRB wasn’t transmitting was that it might have been taken inside in preparation to abandon ship. I don’t believe anyone suggested it was permanently mounted inside the bridge.
Since the El Faro was SOLAS it was required to have an automatic EPIRB: “An automatically activated, float-free [406 MHz] EPIRB has been required on SOLAS vessels (cargo ships over 300 tons and passenger ships on international voyages) since August 1, 1993. The Coast Guard requires U.S. commercial fishing vessels to carry this device, and requires the same for other U.S. commercial uninspected vessels which travel more than 3 miles offshore.”
:mad:[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;173686]There was speculation that the reason the EPIRB wasn’t transmitting was that it might have been taken inside in preparation to abandon ship. I don’t believe anyone suggested it was permanently mounted inside the bridge.
Since the El Faro was SOLAS it was required to have an automatic EPIRB: “An automatically activated, float-free [406 MHz] EPIRB has been required on SOLAS vessels (cargo ships over 300 tons and passenger ships on international voyages) since August 1, 1993. The Coast Guard requires U.S. commercial fishing vessels to carry this device, and requires the same for other U.S. commercial uninspected vessels which travel more than 3 miles offshore.”
Are there any Crowley crew here who know if a Crowley unit was weatherbound at this time? Or if one went the long way via the Old Bahama Channel? It would be interesting knowing how the competition went at the time. I bet the ‘race’ was on from the seabuoy.
[QUOTE=cappy208;173811]Are there any Crowley crew here who know if a Crowley unit was weatherbound at this time? Or if one went the long way via the Old Bahama Channel? It would be interesting knowing how the competition went at the time. I bet the ‘race’ was on from the seabuoy.[/QUOTE]
If you’re talking about the Crowley barge I could easily see them taking a much more conservative route. That is because of the nature of tugs and barges vs. ships and shouldn’t reflect too negatively on the El Faro.
What ever happened to the signet tug that lost/slipped the barge around the same time? Swept under the carpet by their clean shaven bible thumping kings point Jeaux boss?
2000’ of wire and bridles makes a hell of a sea anchor. Slows it down nicely. Must have been picked up as there was no commotion about a lost barge being salvaged.
I don’t mean it as a negative comment towards the El Faro crew, more as a general description of the highly competitive nature of schedule, price and publicity garnered by ‘on time’ every time driving decisions by both operators.
