Another 40 containers!

[chrisr]

the MAN B&W on APL England will be (almost) identical.

i would also add that (in my experience) piston oil will be rotated every few days. one charge running through the purifiers while the other is in the engine

cheers,

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by chrisr

a ship like APL England will have at least 3 generators. only one will be needed at sea (or perhaps two if she has a lot of reefers onboard)

shipboard systems will automatically start another gennie if one running shuts down for any reason...or the engineers could bring one on line within minutes

certainly a loss of AC can cause all sorts of problems (remind me to tell you how we drowned the main switchboard on a 57k bulkie one day, about 5' off a lee shore), but the problem is 99 times more likely to be control system than lube oil

oh, and i'll wager the issue on Viking Sky was hydraulic oil pressure to the drive legs...a situation impossible on normal ships like APL England

cheers,

The after action reports claimed it was loss of suction on the low sump oil. Same as El Faro. All 4 engines. Someone else also noted this above your post.

I don’t know the cause in this incident. I was just offering it as it happened is past incidents.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by hpeer

The after action reports claimed it was loss of suction on the low sump oil. Same as El Faro. All 4 engines. Someone else also noted this above your post.

I don’t know the cause in this incident. I was just offering it as it happened is past incidents.

look, i probably should not have commented on the Viking Sky situation as i have no direct knowledge and her propulsion systems (diesel electric, with medium speed engines / 750 rpm +/-) is quite different to ones i'm use to.

a bit of research (which i should have done before putting my money on hydraulic oil) supports low lube oil level. however i don't think medium speed use a wet sump - i believe the low level was in a feeder tank.

anyway, such has no relationship to the APL England situation

cheers,

[hpeer]

Christ,

It’s all good. Just trying to communicate with our thumbs. LOL

[JPA Cate]

Report via ham radio this morning: from AMSA

Three partially submerged containers spotted near the Hawkesbury road bridge, about 15% showing.

If you're around the Pittwater, keep your eyes open.

Ann

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by BugzyCan

It seems logical to me that every container should have some kind of transmitter on it that activates when submerged. Then recovery would be much simpler and the oceans much safer. It would also help the shipping companies recover the goods inside.

It would typically cost much more to attempt salvage of a container then the value of the cargo inside, particular since the goods inside would likely be severely damaged and eventually wetted. Equipping and maintaining each container with an EPIRB would be very expensive and none are commercially viable. An alternative is to deploy a device on each container that aids in sinking the container.

http://www.worldshipping.org/industr...AL_July_10.pdf

In 2016, the international liner shipping industry transported approximately 130 million containers packed with cargo, with an estimated value of more than $4 trillion.

Per the World Shipping Council surveys very few containers are lost at sea.

The most recent 2017 survey gathered input for 2014, 2015 and 2016. All WSC member companies responded, and additional information was made available on certain non-member catastrophic events. For each of the three years surveyed, the average number of containers lost at sea excluding catastrophic events was 612, which is about 16% less than the average of 733 units lost each year for the previous three year period. When catastrophic losses are included, the total containers lost at sea averaged 1,390 with 56% of those lost being attributed to catastrophic events [e.g., the sinking of a ship].
This is a 48% reduction from the average annual total losses of 2,683 estimated in 2014.

The data also consistently shows that the majority of containers lost at sea result from catastrophic events. For example, in 2013, there was a total loss of 5,578 containers – 77% of which occurred with the sinking of the MOL Comfort in the Indian Ocean. The tragic total loss of vessel El Faro occurred two years later in 2015. All containers on the El Faro were lost and this event alone accounted for almost 43% of the total containers lost into the sea in 2015.

At any point in time, there are about 6,000 containerships active on the world’s seas

While containers lost overboard represent about one thousandth of 1% of the roughly 130 million container loads shipped each year, the industry has been actively supporting a number of efforts to enhance container safety that should help reduce the number of containers lost at sea,
including:

Amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention: Requiring accurate declaration of weight of each container.

Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU).

Revised ISO standards for container lashing equipment and corner castings.

Excellent video production by Yachting World titled:
Lost shipping containers - what's the risk to yachts?
Mar 30, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UveB6IUG6Q

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Montanan

It would typically cost much more to attempt salvage of a container then the value of the cargo inside, particular since the goods inside would likely be severely damaged and eventually wetted. Equipping and maintaining each container with an EPIRB would be very expensive and none are commercially viable. An alternative is to deploy a device on each container that aids in sinking the container.

http://www.worldshipping.org/industr...AL_July_10.pdf

In 2016, the international liner shipping industry transported approximately 130 million containers packed with cargo, with an estimated value of more than $4 trillion.

Per the World Shipping Council surveys very few containers are lost at sea.

The most recent 2017 survey gathered input for 2014, 2015 and 2016. All WSC member companies responded, and additional information was made available on certain non-member catastrophic events. For each of the three years surveyed, the average number of containers lost at sea excluding catastrophic events was 612, which is about 16% less than the average of 733 units lost each year for the previous three year period. When catastrophic losses are included, the total containers lost at sea averaged 1,390 with 56% of those lost being attributed to catastrophic events [e.g., the sinking of a ship].
This is a 48% reduction from the average annual total losses of 2,683 estimated in 2014.

The data also consistently shows that the majority of containers lost at sea result from catastrophic events. For example, in 2013, there was a total loss of 5,578 containers – 77% of which occurred with the sinking of the MOL Comfort in the Indian Ocean. The tragic total loss of vessel El Faro occurred two years later in 2015. All containers on the El Faro were lost and this event alone accounted for almost 43% of the total containers lost into the sea in 2015.

At any point in time, there are about 6,000 containerships active on the world’s seas

While containers lost overboard represent about one thousandth of 1% of the roughly 130 million container loads shipped each year, the industry has been actively supporting a number of efforts to enhance container safety that should help reduce the number of containers lost at sea,
including:

Amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention: Requiring accurate declaration of weight of each container.

Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU).

Revised ISO standards for container lashing equipment and corner castings.

Excellent video production by Yachting World titled:
Lost shipping containers - what's the risk to yachts?
Mar 30, 2017

thanks for trying to bring a bit of sense to the debate

unfortunately some folk don't like to let facts spoil a good story...

cheers,

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

The type of rolling that sheds deck cargo is somewhat unique to container ships is called parametric rolling. It occurs head to sea or stern to sea, what works on yachts and even other deep sea ships doesn’t work on container ships.
Pete.

Thanks for the explanation / introduction to parametric rolling. Now I know the nautical term for the sensation that describes the motion of my stomach when it acts up in adverse sea conditions. Generally leads to heaving too [as in also heaving overboard].

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Montanan

It would typically cost much more to attempt salvage of a container then the value of the cargo inside, particular since the goods inside would likely be severely damaged and eventually wetted. Equipping and maintaining each container with an EPIRB would be very expensive and none are commercially viable. An alternative is to deploy a device on each container that aids in sinking the container.

One problem with that:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/ym-efficiency-salvage-operation-labelled-disgraceful/11196252


It ended up costing about $17 million to recover the sunken containers.

[skipperpete]

Master charged by AMSA and insurers required to provide surety of $22 million.
I often wonder how the ship OWNERS manage to avoid public and legal scrutiny in these incidents. In this case CMA CGM a french company and in the now distant Costa Concordia casualty it was Carnival cruises.
Odd that the ship was found to have structural deficiencies ....under the Singapore flag..... definitely a very critical survey regime to sail under.
Pete.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by StuM

One problem with that:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-10/ym-efficiency-salvage-operation-labelled-disgraceful/11196252


It ended up costing about $17 million to recover the sunken containers.

Well that was very cost effective... $17 million cos some fisherman may pull up a few bicycles.... they should be thankful they aren't fishing in the North Sea where the normal by-catch is unexploded bombs....

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

Master charged by AMSA and insurers required to provide surety of $22 million.
I often wonder how the ship OWNERS manage to avoid public and legal scrutiny in these incidents. In this case CMA CGM a french company and in the now distant Costa Concordia casualty it was Carnival cruises.
Odd that the ship was found to have structural deficiencies ....under the Singapore flag..... definitely a very critical survey regime to sail under.
Pete.

AMSA's 'second mates in suits' finding deficiencies in a 19 year old ship? Nothing new there...

If you want a case of the owner avoiding scrutiny just look at the 'Prestige' case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_oil_spill
Note that ABS ducked for cover as well... and got away with it....
Unknown parties posted bail for the master... who promptly did a runner to much applause from right thinking people in the industry....
In 2016 the master, then in his 90's, was sentenced in abstentia to two years in the slammer.. https://shipsandports.com.ng/captain...er-2002-wreck/

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

AMSA's 'second mates in suits' finding deficiencies in a 19 year old ship? Nothing new there...

If you want a case of the owner avoiding scrutiny just look at the 'Prestige' case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_oil_spill
Note that ABS ducked for cover as well... and got away with it....
Unknown parties posted bail for the master... who promptly did a runner to much applause from right thinking people in the industry....
In 2016 the master, then in his 90's, was sentenced in abstentia to two years in the slammer.. https://shipsandports.com.ng/captain...er-2002-wreck/

Prestige sinking was an intentional disgrace. spain was criminally at fault for not allowing a ship in distress into a port of refuge, and spain was 100% at fault for the disaster that unfolded.

to blame the master is so wrong is defies belief...

cheers,

[NevilleCat]

Not sure why industry and general public (let alone the sailing and commercial fishing industry) accept the loss of any shipping containers at all. It is not acceptable on land when a truck or train loses it's load.
If it takes a financial impost to change the slack thinking around this then I'm all for it.
Why not? At the moment it is hidden true cost of shipping and an unclaimed responsibility. Just so we can have $3 T-shirts?
The chances of hitting one according to that video are vanishingly small and yet in her introduction she is able to list a few known events. Given the surface area of the world's oceans and the small number of cruising and racing yachts out there at any time, doesn't the fact that there are any events and sightings at all indicate that there might actually be more containers floating out there than speculated?
As a lay person I wonder why the sides of the hulls could not be simply raised to the max level of container loading? At least it would stop the things toppling off surely? And they already have all that extra windage when loaded.

[IslandHopper]

Video of AMSA rep announcing charges, sorry only only found on Facebook at the mo....

https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAustra...1124414909430/

....also AMSA APL England shipping container loss - Update 5

https://www.amsa.gov.au/news-communi...gn=APL_England

Friday 29 May 2020
Charges have been laid against the master of the APL England, which lost about 50 containers overboard off Sydney on Sunday. The offences relate to pollution and/or damage of the Australian marine environment as a result of poor cargo loading.

AMSA General Manager Operations Allan Schwartz said laying charges against the ship’s Master was not undertaken lightly.

“This and other incidents remind us of the important role the ship’s Master has in ensuring the ships that ply our waters are operated safely and do not damage our marine environment.

“Today’s actions should not detract from the responsibility of the ship owner APL Singapore, insurer Steamship Mutual, and operator ANL who remain accountable for remediation of any impacts of this incident.

“We welcome ANL taking responsibility by engaging contractors to undertake shoreline clean-up and retrieve some of the floating containers this week, but the impacts of this incident could take months, if not years to remediate and we expect these efforts to be sustained for however long it takes.”

Mr Schwartz said the ship remained under detention in the Port of Brisbane and would not be released until its serious deficiencies have been rectified.

“As of today, AMSA has placed an additional requirement on the owner of the ship under the Protection of the Seas Act which must be met before the ship will be released from detention.

“This action seeks financial security from the insurers in the order of $22 million. This provides a commitment that they will remediate all impacts of this incident. That $22 million covers estimated costs including that of a clean-up.”

AMSA’s investigation is ongoing.