ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: USCG Searching for Missing Container Ship EL FARO  (Read 17405 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2015, 11:20:27 pm »

@BobS
Keep in mind these type of ships are around 40 plus years and to my knowledge never one of them sank and /or had stability problems because of water came through the big open doors.
I saw one of them years back close up in San Juan and those decks are widen open on both sides !!!
The flow off should be not a problem, the stability could be under certain circumstances,but then,,all container ships, special smaller ones should have then the same problem again and again and they do not to my knowledge.
On top of it, it happened in a hurricane where a lot of ships will not perform perfect, to say the least.
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Bob Scott
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2015, 11:52:49 pm »

Possibly the reason none of these ships has sunk is that, until this one, none had been called on to face the full force of a hurricane, especially (as some reports indicate) after having experienced a power failure. And of course, if not for the stupid Jones Act, that ship would have been recyled into razor blades or rebars decades ago. Similarly, if the Americans didn't have such stupid gun laws, an awful lot of dead people would still be alive today. Regarding these old ships, they were, as I said  in my earler post, an accident waiting to happen. And now it has! 
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 11:58:42 pm by BobS » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2015, 01:12:27 am »

Well Bob
That might be,,but a lot ships sank in such storms before or even in lesser storms all around the world
That none of these ever came in such a situation would however also speak of the good design of the ships also when they look arckward and good qualification of the crews which sailed them.
Most probably we never will find out because nobody seems to have survived the sinking and therefore whatever is afterwards found in investigations will be to a big extent "could have happened or could have been"
For my part, when one looks at the track of the vessel, I wonder why she did not go via Old Bahama channel and the whole thing would not have happened in the first place.
 
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Pier Master
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2015, 04:28:27 am »


For my part, when one looks at the track of the vessel, I wonder why she did not go via Old Bahama channel and the whole thing would not have happened in the first place.
 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Captain Ted.

Regards, Brian.
Report to moderator   Logged

Blistering barnacles...
Bruno Boissonneault
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2015, 01:24:57 pm »

I must say that I agree with the reflexion put forward by the Florida lawyer, this tragedy would  ultimately qualify as a Jones Act induced tragedy. There is only so much things you can renew on a ship that has been run hard fo 45 years... There is a reason that MOST commercial vessels sailing foreign going rarely see 30 years of service, let  alone 45.

Maybe 33 deaths will be enough to send a wake-up call, it did not register after the Marine Electric casualty in the 80's unfortunately. If the owners had the choice to built foreign instead of trying to stretch an asset beyond its useful life could this have been avoided ? There would most likely still be an American Merchant Marine today, and safer, newer, more economically viable ships sailing.

This will sound probably harsh, but I know its not going to get questionned, it never is, it would be unpatriotic to do so.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2015, 02:54:26 pm »

@ Piermaster

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Captain Ted.

Regards, Brian.

I am certain that I would have gone Old Bahama Channel, one will never find out why the Master went the other way. Fortunately I work for a company which has the stand point the Master decides and nobody else which comes down to, "screw the ETA/schedule if needed".  It is a very good situation/condition to work under.
Report to moderator   Logged

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

Posts: 958


Something something Danger Zone.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2015, 04:20:21 pm »

I must say that I agree with the reflexion put forward by the Florida lawyer, this tragedy would  ultimately qualify as a Jones Act induced tragedy. There is only so much things you can renew on a ship that has been run hard fo 45 years... There is a reason that MOST commercial vessels sailing foreign going rarely see 30 years of service, let  alone 45.

Maybe 33 deaths will be enough to send a wake-up call, it did not register after the Marine Electric casualty in the 80's unfortunately. If the owners had the choice to built foreign instead of trying to stretch an asset beyond its useful life could this have been avoided ? There would most likely still be an American Merchant Marine today, and safer, newer, more economically viable ships sailing.

This will sound probably harsh, but I know its not going to get questionned, it never is, it would be unpatriotic to do so.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.



Why is the onus on the law that's been in use for decades? All US maritime companies have to be familiar with it and base their operations to suit it. Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those companies operating the vessels to know their limits and replace them before they become dangerous? TOTE, the owner of Sea Star Lines, certainly saw fit on the Alaska run, and replaced the sisters of EL FARO, which had managed to survive the rigors of the North Pacific for many years, with a pair of new, US-built Ro/Ros. In fact, EL FARO's replacement also are currently under construction as well.

However, what if one of those replacements, had it already entered service, encountered teething problems and lost power in the same storm? Would it have made it through going beam-to in a Category 4 hurricane? It's probably designed to, as was EL FARO, but life has a way of messing with best laid plans.

But, instead of sitting at home speculating and playing the blame game, we all should just mourn the lives lost, and praise the Coast Guard search and rescue teams risking their own lives to seek truth.

Kind Regards,
Kyle
Report to moderator   Logged

"Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often." -Mark Twain
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2015, 06:25:37 pm »

At least the newer vessel would not have those SOLAS exempted open type life boats - and that too points the blame to the Jones Act.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2015, 07:07:50 pm »

OK gentleman,,,then I would say,,the proponents of too old,, where is old ?
10 years,,, 20 years,, 30 years,,or only then when something happened ?
The vessel was fully certified by ABS a respected classification company, inspected by USCG
roughly 7-8 month ago (standard is every 12 month rough)

I had a breakdown with a 2500 TEU vessel in the middle of the N-Atlantic in force 11-12
Reason why the engine broke down, damn oil level sensors which activated because the ship hit a few waves
in rapid succession.
The vessel was at that time two years old,,, also replacing it ?
Report to moderator   Logged

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

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2015, 07:11:01 pm »

@ Lappino
you are sure they are SOLAS exempted, because that would mean they are under SOLAS standard
may be exempted to be renewed/replaced, but most probably SOLAS approved still. ?
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2015, 07:57:09 pm »

Of course the vessel had SOLAS approved lifeboats, but they were exempted from the latest requirements due to the age of the vessel, i.e. LSA code requires motor driven lifeboats, while one of El Faro's boats was manually powered.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2015, 08:07:38 pm »

@ Lappino,,ok thanks for the info,,appreciated
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Malim Sahib
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137

Merchant Seaman.


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2015, 08:55:58 pm »

Of course the vessel had SOLAS approved lifeboats, but they were exempted from the latest requirements due to the age of the vessel, i.e. LSA code requires motor driven lifeboats, while one of El Faro's boats was manually powered.

The LSA code only requires enclosed, motor driven lifeboats (TEMPSC) for vessels built after 1986. In that sense the LSA fit on EL FARO was perfectly within the regulations for a vessel of her age, no exemptions are required.
My current vessel (passenger ship) has open lifeboats, only two of which have engines - the remainder have oars and sails.
Even if EL FARO was equipped with TEMPSC, launching one of them safely from their stowage position (very high) in those weather conditions would have been impossible. The ship is your best lifeboat in such a situation, so you stay onboard until the bitter end, unfortunately that also means it's often too late to abandon safely.
Even if they did abandon in good order, due to the weather conditions the chances of survival for even the best equipped survivors was and is effectively non existent.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 09:02:37 pm by Malim Sahib » Report to moderator   Logged
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2015, 07:29:27 am »

You are right, what I wanted to say is that the latest requirements did not apply to the vessel due to her age - and this only reinforces the problems with the Jones Act.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bruno Boissonneault
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2015, 01:07:15 pm »

Case in Point

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/missing-el-faro-cargo-ship-highlights-vulnerability-of-aging-us-fleet/
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.051 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved