Don't anchor in the channel and this won't happen.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Also at that time there is clearly plenty of room between the rescue boat and the stalled boat for the ship to pass between the two if had been able to.

You do notice that the "rescue" boat is driving into that space, don't you? The tanker has to avoid colliding with him too.

Originally Posted by skipmac

However at 300-400 yards away it is far too late for a ship of that size to alter course at all. It is obvious that the ship is already committed to passing the stalled boat on the far side and would be unable to change that decision at that point.

Since you're an expert, why don't you tell us what the advance is on a 10º turn for that class of ship?
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but when the video starts the "rescue" boat is already inside a half-mile and closing on the tanker - he didn't beam himself there, so the tanker probably would have made , or at least started the alteration before the video began.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by rognvald

because my value of human life is different than yours.

You're pretty self-righteous for someone who doesn't care about the 15 or so lives on board the tanker, nor the wholesale slaughter of aquatic life that could result from spilling 5 million gallons of who-knows-what chemical into the water.

[Jim Cate]

Wow! Another laurel for humanity! I can only imagine, based upon my personal code of ethics, how I would deal with killing an innocent person(s)( in this case most likely disabled in the water) if it could have been prevented.

from Rognvald

So enlighten us, oh morally superior Knight Errant, if you were this highly skilled pilot/skipper, and your evaluation of the situation was that if you altered course you would put the ship aground at the edge of the channel, and that if you didn't alter course you might hit the runabout. You know that should you strike it, the occupants might or might not be harmed (their death is certainly not assured). You also know that if you put the ship on the bank that your crew might well be at risk, that if the tanks are ruptured their toxic contents would be discharged, that a massive cleanup would be required and the health hazards involved could lead to death or disease in both workers and local citizens. Further, your wrecked ship could block the channel for a period, causing widespread fiscal losses... All these factors flash through your well trained mind... what do you decide???

I don't know what I would do or what the skipper should do, and that is what I was getting at: it is not a simple "morally, I must avoid hitting that runabout at any cost" decision. Your criticism of the ethics of those who might choose to continue ahead is poorly supported IMO.

Jim

[FamilyVan]

Of course Rog, you are correct in saying my opinions are hear say, I have no real experience with how ships interact with solid objects on the water, just opinion.



Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Stu Jackson]

FV,

Wow, I might have been on your ship in Antarctica in 1991.

Sweet.

Stu

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

FV,

Wow, I might have been on your ship in Antarctica in 1991.

Sweet.

Stu

Stu, these are old photos from 2010. I don't think this old gal ever made it south. These photos were taken in Canada. She's an old boat, built in 70, I served on her for many years.

The Canadian government couldn't spare a ship to go that far south. Its possible a ship like her was purchased from the GOC as an expedition vessel.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[BigBoater917]

Those are cool pics, thanks for sharing.

The incident in the video ocurred while the ship was inbound Ambrose Channel heading into NY. It's not my video so I can't really add much more info as to the exact portion of the channel they were in when it happened.


Edit- I surprised at the amount of replies. I'm speaking anecdotally but I would be surprised if most of the deaths in incidents with commercial vessels weren't the ones involving tugs and tows. There are a lot more of them and they are much more common in the waters that most cruisers frequent.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

To expand on the concern that the stern presents in this (and many other) scenario is, if the Tanker crew had elected to perform a large helm movement to starboard (many mariners will instinctively avoid port alterations in collision avoidance situations), not only could he have swung out of the channel (bad), but it would have been hard to prevent the stern from sliding over/into the run about.

As he got closer to the edge of the channel (depending on water depth), his control over his ship would have become increasingly precarious.

Same thing with backing the snot out of her, he would likely have yawed all over the place, especially if its shallow, maybe still hit the run about and put her aground outside the channel.

A little scoot to starboard seems like pretty reasonable action to me.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Indeed. It was nicely done and there were no casualties. I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. Looks like the helmsman threaded the needle between the runabout and the edge of the channel without either running down the runabout or putting his vessel aground -- a nice day's work, and I bet the master bought him a few beers later on that evening.


There sure are a lot of misconceptions on here about how ships maneuver. As Lodesman said -- they can't stop on a dime, but most ships can turn very fast. Furthermore, the effect of a turn is a direct function of speed, so a fast moving ship actually has more control over a crossing than you do.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. It was nicely done and there were no casualties. I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. Looks like the helmsman threaded the needle between the runabout and the edge of the channel without either running down the runabout or putting his vessel aground -- a nice day's work, and I bet the master bought him a few beers later on that evening.


There sure are a lot of misconceptions on here about how ships maneuver. As Lodesman said -- they can't stop on a dime, but most ships can turn very fast. Furthermore, the effect of a turn is a direct function of speed, so a fast moving ship actually has more control over a crossing than you do.

Ah- Dockhead, you must have been out sailing, I was expecting you to weigh in on this one sooner.

This is an illustration of my terminology "scoot", not really a course alteration, he still has the same heading as when he started, but he has scooted over to the edge of the channel.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Ah- Dockhead, you must have been out sailing, I was expecting you to weigh in on this one sooner.

This is an illustration of my terminology "scoot", not really a course alteration, he still has the same heading as when he started, but he has scooted over to the edge of the channel.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Sailing in the Gulf of Riga en route towards Ventspils and Gdansk, tacking. I'm off watch for a little while

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[CSY Man]

Interesting discussion.
I used to be the guy steering 30,000 ton chemical tankers for a living.
Large turns take some planning, but in this case it looks like they pinpointed the drift of the disabled boat and the distance to the Starboard buoy pretty good. The tanker would probably have stopped the engine in case of a man-overboard situation.
They would also have been on the VHF and used the horn.
The harbor pilot, the captain and the mate on watch would have all been on the bridge as well as a helmsman and perhaps his relief.
If you go full reverse on a loaded tanker, nothing happens except you feel a rumble and a vibration, then after several minutes she will slow down.
As for dangerous cargo polluting the bay: on similar size chemical tankers we had 30 to 35 tanks, sometimes with different cargo. (The most popular cargo was Vodka, not because of free booze on your off-watch, but because the tank was easy to clean)
We also carried perfume. (The ship would smell like a whore house, fish oil, palm oil, gasoline, methanol, whatever.
The bottom of the tanks had heated steam coils to keep cargo warm as needed, otherwise it could go solid in cold weather.
Also interesting voyages: Once we went up a river in Borneo to load palm oil, middle of nowhere with a few straw huts being the port facilities. Another time we sailed from South Africa to Austraila in ballast, 3 weeks at sea with a constant rolling, did not get seasick, but sick and tired of the rolling, so did everybody onboard, but no escape.
Back to topics: I try to stay at least 1000 feet away from big ships, and in this case, ship channels, easy to see a big boat coming from far away, give 'em a wide berth

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Interesting discussion.
I used to be the guy steering 30,000 ton chemical tankers for a living.
Large turns take some planning, but in this case it looks like they pinpointed the drift of the disabled boat and the distance to the Starboard buoy pretty good. The tanker would probably have stopped the engine in case of a man-overboard situation.
They would also have been on the VHF and used the horn.
The harbor pilot, the captain and the mate on watch would have all been on the bridge as well as a helmsman and perhaps his relief.
If you go full reverse on a loaded tanker, nothing happens except you feel a rumble and a vibration, then after several minutes she will slow down.
As for dangerous cargo polluting the bay: on similar size chemical tankers we had 30 to 35 tanks, sometimes with different cargo. (The most popular cargo was Vodka, not because of free booze on your off-watch, but because the tank was easy to clean)
We also carried perfume. (The ship would smell like a whore house, fish oil, palm oil, gasoline, methanol, whatever.
The bottom of the tanks had heated steam coils to keep cargo warm as needed, otherwise it could go solid in cold weather.
Also interesting voyages: Once we went up a river in Borneo to load palm oil, middle of nowhere with a few straw huts being the port facilities. Another time we sailed from South Africa to Austraila in ballast, 3 weeks at sea with a constant rolling, did not get seasick, but sick and tired of the rolling, so did everybody onboard, but no escape.
Back to topics: I try to stay at least 1000 feet away from big ships, and in this case, ship channels, easy to see a big boat coming from far away, give 'em a wide berth

Interesting observations, I too wheeled on a chemical tanker (GP), just a little one though, about 7000 grt, we mostly carried Diesel, Jet A1 and bunker C (also steam heated tanks) but occasionally we would get a scary cargo like gasoline.

I feel your pain on tank cleans, January off Anticosti island with your rain gear and overalls soaked through with oil- that's a different kind of cold and was a very strong motivation for joining the Coast Guard and getting my WKM.

One major difference was our bridge compliment, open water (more than 5 miles from shore) the mate was alone on the bridge and auto was driving. Inside of 5 miles the wheelsman was called to the bridge (usually from chipping and painting, chipping ice, shoveling snow or tank cleaning).

The ship only carried 3 bridge officers, Captain, mate and 2nd mate. In the st Lawrence proper we carried a pilot, but any other river or channel (Detroit, St Clair etc.) It was just the mate and wheelsman on the bridge- one of the reason mates on the lakes are so well paid, is most have pilotage exemptions.

Captain would be on the bridge for locks and docks of course. A big wide channel like that the captain wouldn't be bothered with an less the mate was a total numpty. Even in ice (she was A1, but oddly single skinned, no longer a chemical tanker obviously) the captain wouldn't be on the bridge unless it was tight.

A big foreign going tanker like that I have no experience with.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You do notice that the "rescue" boat is driving into that space, don't you?

Of course I do. I did actually watch the video.

The tanker has to avoid colliding with him too.

I would consider the ship the standon vessel and the rescuer the give way vessel, putting the first responsibility on the rescuer to steer clear of the ship.

Since you're an expert, why don't you tell us what the advance is on a 10º turn for that class of ship?
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but when the video starts the "rescue" boat is already inside a half-mile and closing on the tanker - he didn't beam himself there, so the tanker probably would have made , or at least started the alteration before the video began.

While I do appreciate you designating me an expert I cannot accept that honor in this particular field. However in this situation I think even rough approximations will show with a fair degree of accuracy that the actions of the rescuer did not force the ship to pass on the far side of the other boat.

The ship was identified by one of the real experts as a bulk carrier. I looked up the specs and the vessel is about 600' long, 100' beam. Maybe one of the real experts could comment on the distance required to alter course to give the +/- 300' necessary for the ship to pass on the near side of the boat but by my non expert guess several ship lengths, at least 2000-3000'

At the start of the video the ship appears to be about 1000' from the boat so certainly their course was set well before the video began. Also at the start of the video anyone would agree that that there is no way the ship could alter course to pass on the near side of the boat, regardless of the position of the rescuer.

By your own estimate at this point there was on the order of half mile, call it 2000' between the rescuer and the other boat so at least as much room on the near side for the ship to pass as there is on the far side between the boat and buoy, if the ship could have altered course in time.

If you back up in time to a point where the ship could have altered course the gap between the rescuer and the other boat would have been even greater so if they had wanted, the ship would have had even more room to pass on the near side of the disabled boat.

Further, it is clear from the video and I'm sure also to the crew on the ship that the rescuer was under way, under control and aware of the situation and could have steered away to give the ship room to maneuver in any direction. No I am not a mind reader but I think it a very logical conclusion to draw.

Bottom line, I see no hard evidence that the actions of the rescue boat forced the ship to pass between the other boat and the buoy.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Back to topics: I try to stay at least 1000 feet away from big ships, and in this case, ship channels, easy to see a big boat coming from far away, give 'em a wide berth

A little off topic but I do appreciate this comment. Not to minimize the benefit of AIS and radar, especially in an area where fog could be a problem but sailing in the tropics I never had a problem not running into a big ship. Like you say, it's easy to see a big boat coming from far away.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Stu, these are old photos from 2010. I don't think this old gal ever made it south. These photos were taken in Canada. She's an old boat, built in 70, I served on her for many years.

The Canadian government couldn't spare a ship to go that far south. Its possible a ship like her was purchased from the GOC as an expedition vessel.

Then could be the one I saw here on The Bay a few years ago. The one I was on down there was a USCG vessel.

Still neat.