ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: MSC Monterey in trouble off Newfoundland  (Read 27366 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2013, 10:30:53 pm »

@Michael

That is correct it is not always the fault of the carrier/planner,,but they are the ones who are in charge of accepting the containers (and of course their contracting agents/terminals)  
It is therefore also already in some ports that every container is weighted. The funny part,,if we discharge with a bulker via hoppers into trucks,,each truck goes over a weight station if it is a truck with a container on it often not !!!
i.e. why is it possible in one segment of shipping and in the other where through misdeclarations stability problems can arise very quick not at all.
I remember in R-dam with a container vessel, we were on draft mark, but according terminal we had 800 tons to go in about 50 container. But according to the terminal ships fault because we had not all ballast out. We had !!!!  but nevertheless they insisted.
Not unusual at all. Problem is than, if you don,t show them virtually the middelfinger,,everybody jumps on you as Capt, once you budge,,you dead meat !!!!
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
tvtech
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2013, 10:49:19 pm »

Probably the best discussion I have ever seen on the Internet.

Informed people talking sense. Thank you.

tvtech



Report to moderator   Logged
Dеnis
Photo Administrator
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: December 31, 2013, 11:24:41 pm »

Ted, I think you repeating like your older posts over & over while the containerships continue to crack! xD


Meanwhile, Happy New Year to all!  Grin  What kind of beautiful/interesting/ugly ships to spot now this year will bring?

Regards,
Denis
Report to moderator   Logged
Michael
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 01, 2014, 02:13:42 pm »

Ted, every crane we have has a load weight system, sadly it is not there to assist or protect the vessel stability, but is there to protect the crane from overweight and structural damage.

A typical large quayside rotation could be up to 4000 container moves in 30 hrs, with seven cranes working you can very quickly destabilize a vessel and out run the ballast pumps. Shippers demand faster and faster turn around times and it is getting close to the point where technology cannot keep up. If you get a delay on one or two cranes then the stability stowage plan goes to pot very quickly, it is a constant juggling act.

I don't think any port has the ability to dynamically record the weight of boxes being loaded, by the time the system has recorded the weight, sent it to the planners, added it to the stowage plan, forwarded it to the vessel (by hand delivered paperwork usually) you've probably already loaded another 20 boxes. The technology is there but the interface between planning/stowage and vessel systems is not. New systems are coming on line all the time and they all add in extra safety margins and speed up the planning process, but until we get dynamic box weights at the point of loading then vessels will always be at risk of undeclared  weights and the resultant damage/losses.

The last line of defense is the guy loading the box and to be fair they do an excellent job, very often drivers have noted what are supposed to be empty boxes going eight or nine high on deck and are loaded at 25t, the plan shows it should be up there but common sense says not, in those instances a re-stow is called for and provided.

I've also seen a MSC vessel sail with no boot topping showing and the lower 12" of the MSC logo underwater, possibly overloaded or someone painted the logo too low? I'm sure I took a photo but cannot find it at the moment, I've also got a photo of MSC Carla a few days before she broke up, I believe Le Harve was the next Port (and last) after us to load.

Be safe and have a happy new year.
Report to moderator   Logged
Cornelia Klier
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,882



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 01, 2014, 02:36:38 pm »

Yes, that "MSC" Logo is painted very low on the hull, as you can see on some photos I have taken, here.

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=596109

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1085808

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=892824

It does aesthetically not look very good, I agree on that  Grin It makes indeed looking their ships very well loaded.


Report to moderator   Logged

Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 01, 2014, 03:22:50 pm »

@Michael

I know Michael, I sailed on 5 different 3 crane ships. it protects the crane but not the"stability"   
As I wrote, stability check during load/disch is impossible so far, same as you state
Systems will come to correct that, same way as 30 years ago we worked with sextant and now
we have GPS. If one looks at the technisation of the last 30-40 years (never mind where actually) and think 30-40 years ahead,,it,s mindboggling. Amazon experimenting for example with home deliveries for orders via drones. They tested it already and it works, but of course the governing laws are not there for such matter now,, but in 10-20 years.
You order a toy and 1 hr later a drone lands in your back yard and drops the package !!!!
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Evgeniy .
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 01, 2014, 09:30:17 pm »

@Michael

I agree that the ability to dynamically record the weight of boxes being loaded is still far from real situation at container terminal. But let's take a look what we have now at terminals, the container position entered manually by stevedores with special device into system where planners can use all information about containers which are already loaded onboard. Normally after completion of cargo operations planner should provide vessel with updated cargo plan. The question is why nobody want include updated weights to this information? May be the answer is close to extra costs, "business" and so on.
My opinion that technically it is absolutely real to provide vessel with exact information about cargo weights, but of course terminals should do additional job. What about speed, it is not a question when the safety comes first, and if you win 5 minutes now later you can loose 5 hours and so on.

As example of normal weights record the US Crowley can be presented where as I know all containers are weighted at gates before delivering to the terminal (US ports, not the Caribbean ports where is another situation) and always final plan same as updated plan during operations was provided to the crew. And vessel's drafts calculated by stability programm were very close to real drafts.

Regards, Yevgeniy
Report to moderator   Logged
Jordan Seifarth
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 306


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2014, 11:39:41 pm »

The issue of weight goes all the way down the line. These days I drive a truck between Canada and the USA and every week I'm going to pick up loads that the shipper states on the Bill of Lading weigh lets say 37,000lbs and then when I go and scale the load, my gross weight is 83,000lbs (legal max weight in the US is 80,000lbs) but with an empty weight of 36,500lbs that means legally I can load 43,500lbs so the actual load on my trailer is 46,000lbs to be that much over weight. The whole shipping industry, right down from trucks, all the way yo ships is a very deceptive, back stabbing and risk taking industry where people will take all sorts of risks and try and get away with whatever they can. The shipper doesn't care, because if I dont bother to check my weight, which isn't always possible because the nearest scale is often too far away, then its all my legal responsibility when I get caught and I end up being fined hundreds or thousands of dollars and if I do go back to have some taken off, they make me wait for several hours and that hurts me because like all truck drivers in North America, I'm paid by the mile, not by the hour.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,973



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2014, 02:40:27 am »

@yegenii

May be I understand it wrong,,but so far nobody said that one does not get a updated
stowplan after loading/disch ops finished.
What is fact that during loading and discharging and often both at same time,,i.e. one bay is loaded and another discharged etc etc,,the updating would be more or less impossible.
Of course one can thing of a system where the ships pc would be Wi-Fi connected to the terminal and in that moment where a container is loaded or discharged automatic also entered or deleted,,that would give a very close actual situation.
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Evgeniy .
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2014, 10:55:35 am »

@Ted

The word "updated" is more connected with cargo designed for loading, that is what I think.
The main idea was that planner of course with stevedores help can provide vessel with updated info about containers weights. I don't have access to all parts of container terminal to see how everything is working but if to analyze what I see from vessel (that is more or less connected with specialized terminal equiped with gantry cranes) I think that at present time it is real to provide vessel with updated weights. I agree that it could require some updating in software connected with some changes in aspects of terminal work.
The real weight is possible thing at terminal. The speed of cargo operation 'll change but not so much, another question how much it 'll cost for container shipment.

Report to moderator   Logged
roostes
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2014, 12:01:13 pm »

Port operations of the vessels could be kept at the pace they are done now,if pre-stacking activities in terminals are reviewed and modified. Under modifications i mean weighing of the trucks at the gates. Only then the accurate manifest can be used for further planning and loading, stability and strength criterias met.

rgds
Report to moderator   Logged
Michael
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 02, 2014, 12:47:47 pm »

Dynamic weighting in the stack would be the best option, the rate of boxes moved is lower, time pressures are less and you would have time to adjust the load program before the vessel arrives, it would also allow you to extract seriously overloaded boxes and perhaps back track and take legal action before it even gets to the vessel. This does not solve the issue of over weight boxes on the road or rail, that as Jordan correct says, is down to the loader and his honesty in filling out the bill of lading.

We do currently run a small system that checks weights going out of the stack to the vessel but it is more to do with making sure we do not overload for twin picking operations and to be fair is probably too late in the cycle to have much impact on the vessel load plan.

Kindest
Report to moderator   Logged
IRION29
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2014, 01:23:59 pm »

While some sound theories and ideas of loading plans have been presented,it seems the thread has drifted off topic.Any updated news on what's going on with the vessel? Are there still crew on board? Will she be towed to NFLD or NS? Is it in danger of sinking?
Report to moderator   Logged
KINGROVER
JOHN D
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2014, 03:54:55 pm »

This link should take you to reederi nsb site the ship is to be repaired off Newfoundland.http://www.reederei-nsb.de/fileadmin/content/NSB/PDF-Documents/News/2014.01.03_Update_MSC_MONTEREY_ENG.pdf John D
Report to moderator   Logged
Alan Green
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2014, 10:50:19 pm »

Proposed changes to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention concerning verification of container weights are due to be implemented approx. July 2016.

The new regulations continue to place responsibility for gross weight declarations on the shipper which must be obtained by:

A. Weighing the packed container on calibrated and certified equipment, or
B. Weighing all of the packages, including packaging, pallets, etc on calibrated and certified equipment and adding this to the tare weight of the container

If the gross weight is not declared, the regulations will not allow the container to be loaded on the vessel.

The shipper can however, arrange for the gross weight to be obtained prior to loading on the vessel and in sufficient time for it to be used on the vessel stowage plan.

It is likely that the terminal/port operator will have to assume responsibility for the availability and accuracy of container weights.

As mentioned in previous posts, Ports are concerned at how traffic flows could be affected  by such requirements.

Weighbridges are not a particularly good option as the weight of the truck and trailer  need to be known in order to deduct from the overall weight and a further complication would be caused by the vehicle hauling 2 x 20' containers.

Weighing systems incorporated into gantry cranes and straddle carriers have not been particularly effective and cannot provide an individual container weight when using twin lift spreaders.

Twistlock manufacturers have continued to develop technology that allows for the container weight to be obtained via sensors under and/or in the twistlock assembly.

Bromma, RAM and STINIS are now incorporating this technology during spreader production using the system produced by LASSTEC (www.lasstec.com)which is accurate to within +/- 200 kilos per container.


Acknowledgement: TT Club Mutual Insurance Ltd.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved