Seems the USCG is concentrating on arrival alongside procedures. When what appears to be the obvious cause, which is removal of lashing by the crew during transit inbound to save the cost of the stevedores doing it
Edit: Here’s the article.
Several containers struck an at-berth emissions control barge moored alongside the ship. The barge was carrying roughly 2,000 gallons of renewable diesel. A crew member suffered minor injuries, and the barge sustained significant damage. In a separate incident during the same period, four containers nearly landed on another emissions control barge after what the Coast Guard described as ineffective container-securing practices.
This was not my point the conclusion of the USCG and there remediation does not address the fact that the lashings were taken off the containers by the crew prior to berthing and in my opinion is the reason that the stacks fell
How is that obvious to you?
Did containers collapse during transit or when the vessel was alongside.?
If containers collapsed alongside what is the difference who unlashed them?
Both the crew or stevedores basis arrival stowage plan drop all the lashings on containers destined at the port of arrival .
Crew at the masters/owners risk before arrival berth , stevedors after berthing.
Vessel was on Zim time charter . Have You seen terms and conditions of the governing CP accompanied by raider clauses?
It says there who is responsible for what and who orders or can order what.
Normal scenariio : charterer Zim agent arranges /orders shore labour to do the job and pays an arm and leg.
Abnormal scenario : charterer agent approches the master prior arrival to drop lashings at sea offering payment what is a fraction of stevedores fee. Must be done prior hitting berth due to labour regs in USA.
Depending on weather and vsl GM ( tender or stiff) master agrees or not . Very risky . In case of loss overboard it is easy to blame the master
of deliberately compromising the seaworthiness of the vessel, which must have cargo lashed according to CSM until arrival berth.
Can the charterer agent order the master to do it. ?
Yes he can but master may refuse due to reasons mentioned above.
The rights of agents/charterer are in the CP.
Quote
The Master and the vessel are at Charterer orders regarding vsl demployment but Master/ Owners responsible for navigation and seaworthiness .
Charterers to be free to employ crew for this or that ( hołd cleaning , ulashing and/or simililar. ). Crew during such employment to act as Charterer SERVANTS and will be renumerated by Charter.
End quote.
Have several copies od BALTIME and NYPE CP versions and if sb is intrested in terms and conditions in detail , i may deliver links.
Another danger to master.
Have seen mamy SMS and none of them even suggested remotely the master can drop lashings during navigation. And vessel during pilot leg to berth is navigating and must be in seaworthy condition.
So you loolse lashings and one may loose job, licence and reputation.
,
Time chartered vsl in port is generally under charterers local agents orders.
Has previous thread on this particular issue been closed already?.
Found it still opend:
Added:
From gCaptainj FAQ
Rules
QUOTE
Browse Before You Post
Spend time reading existing topics before starting your own. Chances are your question has been asked and answered well by someone with decades of experience. Use the search bar. It works.
END QUOTE
It works?? I am not sure. 
as we have now two threads insted of one. Threads multiplication runs faster then fruit fly gene spread. Beats me.