Sistership EVER FORWARD Run Aground in the Chesapeake

[BobMc]

For a SWAG, it looks to me that the ship driver (whomever it was) missed the turn in the channel and plowed straight on into the shallow water outside the eastern edge of the channel. These big ships have all the electronics you could ever use, but inattention by the crew is the weak link.

[GordMay]

A SAFETY STUDY OF THE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHIP MASTERS/WATCHKEEPING OFFICERS AND MARINE PILOTS ~ by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB Report #SM9501)
The objective of this safety study is to identify safety deficiencies associated with teamwork on the bridge, including communications between marine pilots and masters/OOWs.
➥ https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r...01/SM9501.html

[marcjsmith]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I got to test-drive my friend's Tesla Model 3 on the weekend. It has this display that shows the vehicle in its lane, with lines, and alerts when one strays out of it. I believe the Tesla even has the ability to hold its lane automatically.

My point being that if this ability exists on a $40k automobile, surely it's possible to have sufficient onboard alerts to keep a zillion-dollar megaship in a channel. This could possibly even be done with OpenCPN running on a tablet carried by the pilot, ffs...

I don't think you can compare a nav system on a 5000lb $40K car with a 1000ft 127,000 ton ship.



the ship is 2 years old, pretty sure it has all the modern gee wiz gizmos, which work well in open water and unconfined spaces. In the end you've got mark II eyeballs and skill.



I'm sure there were warnings and alarms going off. With a that much mass and momentum, pushing the button harder on the tablet won't make it turn any faster.

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I got to test-drive my friend's Tesla Model 3 on the weekend. It has this display that shows the vehicle in its lane, with lines, and alerts when one strays out of it. I believe the Tesla even has the ability to hold its lane automatically.

My point being that if this ability exists on a $40k automobile, surely it's possible to have sufficient onboard alerts to keep a zillion-dollar megaship in a channel. This could possibly even be done with OpenCPN running on a tablet carried by the pilot, ffs...

I would not be surprised if the cause of this grounding was the crews over-reliance on the technology on the bridge. Like people who cannot navigate around their own town without the nice gps lady telling them where to go.
I was recently driving someone's new subaru with lane assist. On the highway a deep vicious pot hole loomed, but when I tried to swerve around it the car took control and would not let me swerve. F that.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by marcjsmith

In the end you've got mark II eyeballs and skill.

.

I have a couple of the Mk I eyeballs, they're slowly wearing out.

What are the Mk II eyeballs?

[BobMc]

Originally Posted by BobMc

For a SWAG, it looks to me that the ship driver (whomever it was) missed the turn in the channel and plowed straight on into the shallow water outside the eastern edge of the channel. These big ships have all the electronics you could ever use, but inattention by the crew is the weak link.

I "mis-spoke" a bit in my earlier post (quoted above). It looks like the ship driver initiated the turn too late and the resulting advance and transfer carried the ship out of the channel on the outside of the turn. The ship's AIS doesn't show the dimensions so it's impossible to tell the way the ship is laying, so even a pure failure to turn could result in the current position.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

I would not be surprised if the cause of this grounding was the crews over-reliance on the technology on the bridge. Like people who cannot navigate around their own town without the nice gps lady telling them where to go.

I hear you. I use maps, on land as well as water; I don't need or want some synthetic voice or guide giving me turn-by-turn directions.

But geez, keeping a big boat in a channel? Planes can already land themselves, and that's a fast-changing problem in 3-D, whereas ship navigation is 2-D and a few orders of magnitude slower. All I can think of that caused the grounding (besides gross human error) is maybe a steering breakdown that prevented the turn being executed properly.

[psk125]

Originally Posted by BobMc

According to AIS data from MarineTraffic.com, she's still in the same spot as yesterday, and this is after an all-out effort last evening at high-tide with 5 tugs and a dredge.

This boat is not going anywhere soon, especially with "all-out efforts" by only five tugs. As Pippa points out in post #12, EverForward drew 13m leaving Baltimore. She is in water that is from 8m to 7m deep. She's stuck in at least 5m of mud, and her bow is up on the bank so it shows her riding even higher than the 13m she draws. To get her off they first need to remove the mud that has backfilled the furrow she made on the way in. Figure that is at least one boat length (+/- 300m ) long,50m wide, and perhaps a meter deep. That's 15,000 cubic meters. Then they need to loosen the ship from the bank she is has perhaps climbed 1m (or more) up on. That's another boat length long and 50m wide, and perhaps 5m (13m-8m= 5m) deep. That makes 75,000 more cubic meters, for a total of 90,000 cubic meters, which is more than three million cubic feet. Dredging this will take weeks, if not months. There were two dredges on site recently, and since the ship's engines cannot run with intakes stuck in the mud, they will likely need more than five tugs to pry her loose. When the USS Missouri (around 40,000 tons disp.) went aground off Norfolk, they used about ten tugs to get her back afloat. Everforward displaces about three times that. High tide (+/- 1') is not going to help much. They have to dig.

[El Pinguino]

Anyone on a ship like 'Ever Forward' that relied on electronics to take them down a narrow channel would deserve everything that came their way.

My last dayjob had all that fancy stuff that in theory could take you from berth to berth with the only human input needed being collision avoidance - aside from all the work in setting it up.

When she was new we had it all set up for navigation in channels - wheel over points, rudderlimits etc etc etc.

First time we tried it it worked perfectly. 3º of stbd helm applied spot on the 'wheel over ' point.
Then half way through the 90º turn the system decided to apply 20º of port helm.
We never used it again in pilotage waters.

That was equipment designed by a market leader, Kongsberg Maritime Systems - parent I think of Simrad amongst others.
They had previously been called NorControl with the 'Nor' being short for Norwegian.
They changed the name because through out the industry they were known as 'No Control'.

And also - even in hand-a-matic you only have to miss your wheel over point by a few seconds.

And also also - everyone knows the difference between being a surgeon and being a ship master?

Surgeons get to bury their mistakes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And also - even in hand-a-matic you only have to miss your wheel over point by a few seconds.

Are you saying that a few seconds (meaning a few, not 30+) of hesitation at the helm of a containership, during a normal (non-emergency) maneuver ... like turning 30 degrees to starboard to follow a channel...is sufficient to be catastrophic? Really? To me that just screams unsafe speed.

A related thread is here.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Are you saying that a few seconds (meaning a few, not 30+) of hesitation at the helm of a containership, during a normal (non-emergency) maneuver ... like turning 30 degrees to starboard to follow a channel...is sufficient to be catastrophic? Really? To me that just screams unsafe speed.

A related thread is here.

Well Yes - I was actually thinking of 29 seconds .
At 13 knots her rate of advance is 7 metres per second, 70 metres in 10 seconds, 194 metres in 29 seconds ( you have to deal with these sorts of figures when working out 'wheel over' points whether in handomatic or on 'full auto').

10 seconds could get you into the putty - and the poo - in many situations.

Lots of unknowns here - weather conditions , pilot's experience, the quality of this particular ship's BRM.

I think I will wait for the official report.

And also I don't think this is a catastrophe. 'Costa Concordia' was a catastrophe, this is just a ship that has run aground. It's been happening since the Ark hit Mt Ararat.

[marcjsmith]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

I have a couple of the Mk I eyeballs, they're slowly wearing out.

What are the Mk II eyeballs?

Right and left.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And also I don't think this is a catastrophe. 'Costa Concordia' was a catastrophe, this is just a ship that has run aground. It's been happening since the Ark hit Mt Ararat.

Maybe catastrophe is too strong a word, but it's a bit worse than just a bad day on the water. The ship is huge, but not designed to be solidly grounded... she's full of fuel, the operation to dredge and tow her off is massive... this operation could still go pear-shaped and it's a pretty big pear... what's your word? And is this the sort of screwup we should just shrug and accept?

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by flightlead404

I have a couple of the Mk I eyeballs, they're slowly wearing out.

What are the Mk II eyeballs?

Mk I models refurbished.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Maybe catastrophe is too strong a word, but it's a bit worse than just a bad day on the water. The ship is huge, but not designed to be solidly grounded... she's full of fuel, the operation to dredge and tow her off is massive... this operation could still go pear-shaped and it's a pretty big pear... what's your word? And is this the sort of screwup we should just shrug and accept?

I'd go with 'a bit of a stuff up'. I've seen far worse.

She isn't grounded beam on to in a rolling surf , she hasn't broken her back which would have happened by now if it was going to happen, there is no pollution, nobody died, the captain isn't incarcerated in a Turkish jail. If it was an equipment failure then most likely no damaged careers. Human error? The pilot is there on an 'all care no responsibility' basis.

It doesn't affect me in the least.

Lets see what the report says.

BTW ships are 'solidly grounded' every time the go into dry dock. Its when they are unsolidly grounded that they end up with a broken back.

This is 'aground' -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hilton...n/photostream/

I sailed on three of her sister ships, nice ships.