ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: Gigantomaniacs on: Yesterday at 08:39:31 pm
@Peter
the infrastructure at the ports is the main problem and the moving of gigantic numbers of container in a
rather short time connected with the loss of time for other economic factors like trucks/cars stop when long trains passing full of container or ever more roads etc . All this and much more makes most probably the low cost shipping obsolete when taken all into account.
Will see what happens,,,  another point is seldom addressed,,what happens when a really huge container carrier gets lost at sea. Whole factories will stop producing goods. All above is almost never really taken into the account of ever bigger container vessels calculations.
kind of shortsighted one would say.

btw rotterdam had it relative easy to move terminals to the seaside, Hamburg has the problem that the
seaside sites where it would be possible to build new terminals do not belong to Hamburg !!!  A very complex situation with a lot of factions weighing in.
It will be interesting to see over the next years how it pans out
2  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / ISPS-standards for shore leave in the change,,,or ? on: July 21, 2015, 10:15:36 pm
Personally I do not believe a big change will happen however and how much goodwill is behind it.,,,on the end,,who cares much on 20 foreign sailors in a port !!!!
And this goes for a lot ports, below is for US-ports. But also ports in Colombia/Brasil enforcing  heavily restricted shore leave procedures or not at all beside emergencies
(In Buenos Aires and other ports in ARG for example (2007/2011) it was not allowed for a vessel to carry out life/rescue boat drills which the master has to carry out as per IMO-reg.)
I got presented a fine in the next following port because we were over the allotted time frame for such drills by teh port state control !!!! PSC=port state Control, another matter of big jokes and zero real results)
The most funny explanation for denied shore leave was in a East Coast port, a coal station. The Authorities came aboard, everybody got his landing permit and all were happy. I asked the agent what procedure crew has to follow to transit from the berth/ship to the gate of the terminal, He answered no shore leaves permitted, prohibited by the owners of the power station. For the fun of it I further inquired and was referred to one of the power station managers. I met the gentlemen later that day, very nice guy, and I asked him, whats the deal

:::::!!!!! They (owners of the PS)  can not allow the power station to let transit "foreigners" over their property ashore into the city, because if the "foreigners" (as we all know most sailors are half their life or more foreigners and therefore at least "suspect to..."
commit a terroristic act and/or accident the survivors in such cases and their possible survivor families would sue the PS with the argument that the PS permitted foreigners over their property into the city !!!!
GUESS who came on that idea ?   CORRECT Lawyers !!!!
Take them out of the system and all will be normal again in this world (my personal opinion)

brgds
capt ted 





Shore Leave: Re-think on Balancing Security, Seafarer Rights

Before port states became hyper-sensitive to security issues, shore leave was natural part of a seafarer’s life. You worked long and hard hours at sea, often for extended periods of time on long voyages. When the ship reached port, you went ashore and decompressed, connecting with family and friends.

That and much more changed after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The IMO adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code mandating enhanced security onboard vessels subject to the SOLAS Convention. The United States adopted the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), which superficially resembles the ISPS Code, but is significantly more rigorous. Other nations have adopted domestic legislation implementing and enhancing the ISPS Code provisions. The end result is that shore leave for mariners is no longer something that can be taken for granted.

With regard to access to a port facility, the ISPS Code is quite general. It provides that the Port Facility Security Plan should establish the security measures covering all means of access to the facility. For each of these means of access, the plan should identify the appropriate locations where access restrictions or prohibitions should be applied for each of the three security levels.

The MTSA, as promulgated, is significantly more specific. It provides for the issuance of biometric transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs) to individuals with valid business reasons for requiring unescorted access to a US-flag vessel or secure areas of a US port facility.  Only individuals who have undergone a security clearance are eligible for a TWIC. All other individuals, including seafarers on foreign-flag vessels, must be escorted when on a US-flag vessel or in secure areas of a US port facility.

The MTSA Port Facility Security Plan must include provisions for establishing and maintaining physical security, passenger and cargo security, and personnel security. The current regulations for facility security plans are largely silent, though, with regard to seafarer access to the shore. Soon after implementation of the MTSA, complaints were made by seafarers and by ship owners about the inability, at some port facilities, of seafarers to get ashore and for vendors and other maritime representatives to reach a moored vessel. In some cases, vessels resorted to waterside means for embarkation and disembarkation, using tugs and other small watercraft to ferry persons and goods between the moored vessel and the shore. Some port facilities prohibited transit through facility, even prohibiting seafarers from stepping onto the pier to obtain draft readings. Others would only allow transit if scheduled well in advance, and then charged seafarers and others high fees for the required escort service.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 added a note following the Maritime Transportation Security Plans provision of the MTSA providing that each facility security plan approved by the Coast Guard “shall provide a system for seamen assigned to a vessel at that facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen’s welfare and labor organizations to board and depart the vessel through the facility in a timely manner at no cost to the individual.”

The US Coast Guard is in the process of preparing regulations to officially implement this statutory provision. Under the USCG proposal, each owner or operator of a facility regulated by the MTSA would be required, within one year of promulgation of the final rule, to implement a system for providing access through the facility that enables individuals to transit to and from a vessel moored at the facility and the facility gate in a timely manner and at no cost to the individuals. The system must comply with the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) regulations, meaning that persons without a TWIC would have to be escorted by someone with a TWIC. Individuals entitled to such access would include: (1) seafarers assigned to a vessel moored at the facility; (2) pilots and other authorized personnel performing work for a vessel moored at the facility; (3) representatives of seafarers’ welfare and labor organizations; and (4) other authorized individuals in accordance with the Declaration of Security (DoS) or other arrangement between the vessel and the facility. Among the means of access that a facility may provide is escorted access or monitored pedestrian access routes between the vessel and the facility gate.

The categories of “other authorized personnel” and “other authorized individuals” would include persons such as port engineers and superintendents, technicians, port agents, new crew (not yet technically assigned to the vessel), marine insurance agents, cargo surveyors, and family members of the seafarers. While not specifically stated, it is assumed that vendors and maritime attorneys would be included in these broad groups.

The term “timely access” is intentionally left vague due to the wide variety of facility types, sizes, and the nature of their operations.  When the facility security plan is reviewed by the USCG Captain of the Port (COTP), the access proposal in the plan will be analyzed to determine if it appears timely under the circumstances.  Among the factors to be considered are: (a) the length of time the vessel is scheduled to be moored at the facility; (b) the distance of egress/ingress between the vessel and the facility gate; (c) the vessel’s watch schedule while at the facility; (d) the facility’s safety and security procedures; and (e) any other factors considered relevant.  Individuals who believe that they are not being provided timely access may communicate that to the facility security officer or to the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is seeking, through 31 July, comments on its proposed regulations.  Numerous comments have been submitted to date.  Seafarers and seafarer representatives are strongly supportive.  Facility representatives have raised a variety of concerns that deserve consideration.  First, they contend that the one-year time frame for implementation of security plan changes is insufficient.  Since a significant portion of the time would be consumed by USCG review of the changes, their point is valid.  Secondly, they argue that transit of persons through the facility raises security and safety issues.  This point is less valid.  Everyone knows of the increased security and safety issues.  Congress made the decision to move ahead regardless.  Thirdly, there is the issue of whether a person seeking to transit the facility to visit a vessel will be permitted onboard by the vessel.

This is a good point, but one that must be worked out by the facility and the vessel, not by regulation. Fourthly, facility representatives note that the list of “authorized personnel” and “authorized individuals” in the regulation is more expansive than the group identified in the statute. The Coast Guard has broad authority to broad authority to interpret and make more specific various statutory provisions, including this one, but it should consider whether these terms need modification.

The major point raised by the facility representatives relates to the costs that will be incurred due to the regulation. They contend, probably correctly, that the costs estimated by the Coast Guard, are understated. More importantly, they contend that facilities should not be required to bear the costs. Careful reading of both the statute and the proposed regulation reveal that there is nothing to prevent the facility from passing the costs on to the vessel moored at the facility. It is recommended that facilities work with vessel owners and operators to allocate these added costs in an agreeable manner. In this regard, it should be noted that these transits of the facility are for the ultimate benefit the vessel, not the facility. For those facilities with official tariffs, changes to those tariffs may be necessary.

The bottom line here is that vessels moored at facilities in the United States should not be held in the equivalent of solitary confinement. Reasonable access of crew members to well-deserved shore leave must be guaranteed. Likewise, reasonable access of third parties to the vessel is also important. Providing such reasonable access is a component of the services expected of the facilities, just like their provision of services related to the cargo carried by the vessels. These regulations are long overdue and, with minor modifications, should be promulgated as soon as possible.
3  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: What's hanging off the stern? on: July 19, 2015, 03:32:21 pm
@ Juergen

I thought the same,, for a fishing line it looks a little much rope.  heaving line,,could be,,but doubt it. First 2 years of my sailing on small coasters 75/76 we did not have washing machines neither. This was the way to wash working clothes,,the more delicate were done by hand.
4  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Progress report on the site on: July 09, 2015, 01:46:28 am
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
5  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: NYK Olympus blackout on the Elbe river on: July 05, 2015, 12:08:27 am
hi jens

could be as easy as malfunction automatisation. When I sailed the Hartmann 2500 TEU ships
from 2004-2008 we took often in the beginning on the european rivers Elbe/Thames/Schelde all the automatisation out and drove the ships in manual mode. 
Only way to reach port safely, those electronic hick-ups were later on eleminated.

but those are total stress situations which I don,t need anymore and any other Capt neither.

brgds
capt ted
6  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Standing Down on: June 30, 2015, 12:50:59 am
Well Ken,,we had our run ins,,but we always worked it out,,,will miss you MAN !!!!

That the site is taken over by some members and if one does not agree with them one is a bad member is
nothing new to me, one can only hope that the site may go back to former "normalcy"
honestly I doubt it :-(((

Ken,,all the best,,and realx,,do your pictures and keep posting,,I will do so too however not at the pace
I did before,, somehow the "zest" is gone


brgds
capt ted
7  Shipspotters all over the world / Shipping News and information / Re: Tragic accident at Bremerhaven on: May 22, 2015, 07:59:20 pm
that's all what they need now !!!   Sad
8  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 19, 2015, 11:10:09 pm
Well Tuomas

in the whole mail is nothing stated that it is a NO-REPLY mail,,is it ?


9  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 19, 2015, 08:49:04 pm

btw,,the below is a normal return answer from this site on inquries,,,
don,t know if that counts as satisfactory answer ?



This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

 THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

 YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

 Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:

      webmaster@www.shipspotting.com

 Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)
10  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 19, 2015, 08:45:39 pm
@ Aleski

Until now I did not get from you nor Ken a satisfactory explanation why you started deleting my funnels ,at least under questionable circumstances, or could it have to do that I was in the progress to overtaking you in quantity and quality of funnels posted ? . At least that was the time when you started deleting more of more of mine, and when I posted for "test" a few clearly better funnels then yours, you ignored and left your funnels on because there were already a better one on this site,,of course yours.
Those are the facts. Another point brought already before up,,should a ADM be allowed
to post in a cathegory where he/she heavly posting him/herself and policing them.


11  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 19, 2015, 06:10:46 pm
@  Pieter

I am aware of that, that's exactly my point, but uploading is also bandwith, as every klick is and I wanted to show you and others that waiting for the little klicks is nothing compared what other members do to upload pictures and then there are people who want to restrict picture of a ship not of the uploader.
Honestly if this site will do that,,then they loose further uploads from me and I do it elsewhere. I took already all my 500 funnel pictures off because the ADM in that department
got a itchy delete button always in favour of his "funnels"  I would hate to take all my pics off because of the above. I can live with the 4 per ship per memeber, but 4 per ship
in entirety would render for me this site as useless

brgds
capt ted
12  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 19, 2015, 01:07:19 pm
@ Pieter

Well what I can say,, I (and for example CaptainPeter too ) uploading usually via USB stick
which is privately purchased in ports, at a cost between $20-$50 for 500 MB sometimes 1 GB.
In other words we put considerably time , upload of a 200 kb picture can take sometimes 3-4 min and break off now and then and when more then 5-6 uploads we get kicked out of the site, and also money into this hobby.
So "hardship" what you outline as waiting 30sec is for us the norm.
Bandwidth comes down to the equipment installed and used by the web owner, and if they do not have enough bandwidth that sometimes someone has to wait 30 sec then they may be should put better equipment into the business (YES Shipspotting.com is now a business) instead of getting the idea of limiting the number of pictures which seemingly some members having in mind to solve that problem

brgds
capt ted.

13  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 17, 2015, 09:33:01 pm
Everyone can have his/her opinion and political correctness was never one of virtues.
but for me it is simply common sense.
this site got so popular because one could upload pictures as long as they meet the standard of the site. if there are now guys who promoting limiting pictures of ships and not
as now for photographers per ship then I seriously question in that respect common sense.

Then one has to ask oneself,,who in gods name would go out and take pictures when they know already they can not upload them. This site reached nearly 2 million pictures and its popularity because of that,, They would not have 100.000 if peoples can only upload when only 4-5 ships are in entirely per ship is allowed.
That's for me common sense. Others may call my view it unfriendly or stupid,, no problem with me whatsoever on that. But if those guys promoting restrictions then they should also come with an idea how to promote still to members to keep taking pictures and upload them.
That is after all "going out-take and upload pictures" the only life line this site has !!!

 
14  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 17, 2015, 07:33:23 pm
@ Cornelia
well said also !!!
Seems to me like too much individuals who would like to put their "view" stamp on the whole site.  Lets hope that common sense prevails,,but I am afraid .......

capt ted
15  Shipspotters all over the world / Site related news, functions and modules / Re: Photographs on this site on: May 17, 2015, 03:50:08 pm
@ Pieter and others

I can,t follow your/some arguments,, this website allowed us and bandwidth Huh WHAT ??

Come on,,who profits daily from the posters/members ? They make money with our pictures
and I have to be thankfull ?,, I think, if at all,  that should may be the other way around.

and bandwidth,, well if they want to have daily upload of 500 and more pictures then I can only suggest get a better bandwidth, but not limit me by not posting at all as seems to be some  argument also,, Picture on the site already,,delete mine ?  and who decides which 5 picture of each ship can stay.
I they would to do that,, only the 5 best pictures, then they can darn well buy them from me but not get them for free anymore when I have to compete with 1000th of spotters por slots of 5 pictures

and added value,,what means that,, If I go by that the ships crest section should be deleted right now. Or for that matter a few other sections we have here.
But certainly there is added value for some members who like ships crests.

It comes own to the personal view and what one likes,,but not a added value !!!


brgds
capt ted
  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved