Why so many ships are grounding

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Benz

I was hoping it would explain actually [I]why[I]
Surely there would have been a pilot aboard: did the captain or helm disregard the pilot's directions? Is there a language barrier that could not be overcome? Did the ship behave contrary to the pilot's expectations? I think the worst thing for a pilot would be to deal with a vainglorious captain who thought he knew better, and the worst thing for a captain to deal with a hotshot pilot who thought HE knew better.
No doubt maritime law breaks down the responsibility pretty clearly, but that doesn't really help in the moment when the boat is plowing into a shoal.

Pilots are NEVER responsible despite the fact they pretty well take over when aboard. "Captains command, Pilot's advise", is the motto of the profession (my brother is one).

It's totally unfair - but if you want to go somewhere where having a pilot is mandatory, you shut up, accept it, and pay the STEEP fees.

I doubt you can come up with one answer for the groundings - however, as stated previously, the larger vessels, reduced crews, higher speeds, high commercial pressure to stay on schedule, etc. certainly contribute I believe - and I don't believe there are more groundings than historically. With over 60,000 deep sea vessels out there, there are damn few accidents. We have radar, GPS, AIS, traffic separation schemes, Vessel Traffic Control, DSC communications, electronic charts, etc., etc., etc. Pretty well every one of them was carefully implemented and has contributed to an overall improvement in safety.

The Evergiven went aground in the Suez canal because, after an argument between the two pilots aboard, they went ahead and took her through in a sandstorm with high winds. Bad, human, decision. The captain could have overridden the pilots, but didn't. Of course, he was under pressure to stay on schedule.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Pilots are NEVER responsible despite the fact they pretty well take over when aboard. "Captains command, Pilot's advise", is the motto of the profession (my brother is one).

It's totally unfair - but if you want to go somewhere where having a pilot is mandatory, you shut up, accept it, and pay the STEEP fees.

I doubt you can come up with one answer for the groundings - however, as stated previously, the larger vessels, reduced crews, higher speeds, high commercial pressure to stay on schedule, etc. certainly contribute I believe - and I don't believe there are more groundings than historically. With over 60,000 deep sea vessels out there, there are damn few accidents. We have radar, GPS, AIS, traffic separation schemes, Vessel Traffic Control, DSC communications, electronic charts, etc., etc., etc. Pretty well every one of them was carefully implemented and has contributed to an overall improvement in safety.

The Evergiven went aground in the Suez canal because, after an argument between the two pilots aboard, they went ahead and took her through in a sandstorm with high winds. Bad, human, decision. The captain could have overridden the pilots, but didn't. Of course, he was under pressure to stay on schedule.

It seems like they were holding that San Francisco pilot responsible for the Cosco Busan incident some years ago. Everybody wanted a piece of him, which is where I first began to wonder how responsibility is allocated, and to be grateful I'm not a pilot.
But I see a theme in names here, Evergiven, Everforward, perhaps their next vessel should be named "Evergrounded"

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Benz

It seems like they were holding that San Francisco pilot responsible for the Cosco Busan incident some years ago. Everybody wanted a piece of him, which is where I first began to wonder how responsibility is allocated, and to be grateful I'm not a pilot...

Capt. John Cota admitted to two misdemeanor charges [plea deal], of polluting the waters, and killing migratory seabirds, by running the container ship, “ Cosco Busan”, into the Delta Tower of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, in thick morning fog, and was sentenced to 10 months in prison.

A National Transportation Safety Board report [1] faulted virtually everyone involved in the voyage - the ship's captain, and crew, the company that failed to train them, the authorities who renewed Cota's license, and Coast Guard spotters, who failed to provide clear warnings. But it assigned much of the blame to Cota, whose job was to guide vessels safely through the bay.

The NTSB said a medically unfit pilot, an ineffective master, and poor communications between the two, were the cause of the accident.

In their determination of probable cause, the Safety Board cited three factors:
1. the pilot’s degraded cognitive performance from his use of impairing prescription medications;
2. the absence of a comprehensive pre-departure master/pilot exchange and a lack of effective communication between the pilot and the master during the accident voyage, and;
3. the master’s ineffective oversight of the pilot’s performance and the vessel’s progress.

Contributing to the cause of the accident, the Board cited:
4. the failure of Fleet Management Ltd. to adequately train the Cosco Busan crewmembers before the accident voyage, which included a failure to ensure that the crew understood and complied with the company’s safety management system, and
5. the U.S. Coast Guard’s failure to provide adequate medical oversight of the pilot in view of the medical and medication information that the pilot had reported to the Coast Guard

[1] NTSB Report ➥ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/MAR0901.pdf

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's how one recognises Brits in Portugal..
They walk on the wrong side of the pavement..

Or drunk, in union jack shorts, singing "knees up mother brown", rubbing timothy whites sun oil on their puffy, raw, purulent flesh 'cos they overdid it on the first day

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Perhaps because in the past 30-40 years promotions, etc. were based on many factors other than merit?

Sounds like the Navy.

[nortonscove]

Not much of an article really. So we now want to explain and put into place plans for every conceivable mishap. Good luck with that. I would argue that the whole question is based on the same B.S. assumptions gleaned from the idiotnet. Starting any articles or posts with wondering why more ships are going aground based upon two incidents is a total failure to acknowledge shipping history. That the ocean is littered with wrecks tells me that the article is nothing more than self promotion at its most bold. Yes new issues will arise with new technology and larger vessels but we are coping better than ever to the changes as a result of better planning and foresight. Not to pretend there won't be the occasional hiccups in the trajectory.

[mf70]

Like all previous posters, I have no statistical data on tonnage losses to back up the feeling. However, it's undisputable that a) ships ARE getting unimaginably big, and both the world's primary chokepoints (Suez and Panama) have expanded to match. In turn, every port has done the same. However, the same humans are driving the vessels, making the same number of errors and bad judgments. The vessels have gotten bigger, but the operational systems (navigation, cargo handling, and salvage) haven't yet been refined to match. I enjoy the thoughts of https://youtube.com/c/WhatisGoingonWithShippingwSalMercogliano on this.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by nortonscove

...Yes new issues will arise with new technology and larger vessels but we are coping better than ever to the changes as a result of better planning and foresight. Not to pretend there won't be the occasional hiccups in the trajectory.

Of course, but we don't always get it right, and it's not unreasonable to expect that supersizing ships is accompanied by better and more dependable procedures. Like, not missing a starboard turn in a clearly charted and marked shipping lane...

[Dieseldude]

Based on the article, it is inclusive if groundings have been increasing. It seems that only major incidences are reported by the news media, so public awareness is limited. Sensational incidents bring the subject to public attention, but full extent of the situation goes unknown to most people.


The article focused on mishaps of just two vessels, and made some general remarks. So a general conclusion cannot be made based upon this. Volumes could be written about groundings and other shipping incidents if one were to do a lengthy study of recent incidents. In commercial shipping, there are just too many variables that effect the possibility of major safety incidents. Fatigue factors include crew size vs. work demand, schedule of time at sea vs. time off, training standards, experience, living conditions aboard, moral, etc. What is the "safety culture" like aboard a vessel? Maintenance involves complex variables. Is the crew doing all required maintenance, and is the company facilitating good maintenance? I have seen some serious laxness that can be traced to both crew and management.



Is the vessel well supplied with materials, spare parts, service information, and specific training? Is the company diligent to do all maintenance and repairs during periodic overhauls and dry docking? I have seen ambitious overhaul lists prepared by crew and officers get reduced by management to cut costs and reduce vessel time spent off hire. Is the crew getting all the administration work done that has an effect on safety?


The trend of companies to reduce crew numbers certainly has had an effect to increase demands on crew. The trend of reduced port call time has reduced opportunity to do maintenance when equipment can be taken out of service. There has been an increase in required administrative tasks and record keeping. Technology turnover presents problems. It seems that there is always new technology and software to learn and deal with. A trend for shipping companies to grab crew from the cheapest sources in the world introduces a whole other set of variables. The better that crew are paid and respected, the better the work that can be expected.


The culture and practice of ship owners and administrators is a whole other world to consider. Are they exercising good care and diligence over vessels and crew? Is vessel management really well qualified and experienced to competently do their job? There has been a trend away from putting experienced mariners in management, and instead placing people with business and management degrees. This lack of hands on practical knowledge seems to produce some undesirable outcomes and situations.



Port and pilotage matters have been mentioned in other postings.



Operating large vessels involves just too many details and variables to thoroughly examine through the limited scope of an online forum. This entry has only touched on a few.

[Colonel Bob]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

If you want to come out and say that shipping companies put minorities in charge and that caused accidents, then embrace the bigotry and just say it. Otherwise, what, exactly, are you trying to say here? What specific factors of the "many factors other than merit" are you referring to and how did those lead to mishaps? Any data to back up that stance would be welcome.

Despite the "cuteness" of your effort to cancel the poster, I think his statement is clear and well demonstrated in daily events.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

Or drunk, in union jack shorts, singing "knees up mother brown", rubbing timothy whites sun oil on their puffy, raw, purulent flesh 'cos they overdid it on the first day

Damn.. your a really old bugga..
Timothy Whites was bought out in 1968.. around the same time 'Knees up Mother Brown' went outa fashion.
Sure your not getting confused with American Cruise ship passengers in the Caribe..

[Jamme]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Damn.. your a really old bugga..

Timothy Whites was bought out in 1968.. around the same time 'Knees up Mother Brown' went outa fashion.

Sure your not getting confused with American Cruise ship passengers in the Caribe..

Perhaps a quote from Monty Python (or as they say these days, Monty “Putin” [emoji12])

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x36cxnp