Mega Vsl Gunvor Maersk crashes into felixstowe crane

[Hawkeye]

Hi
The posting about the number of tugs at Felixstowe had me doing a bit of research. I have seen in the past, 4 large tugs based in Felixstowe, the Trimley & Deban, both built in 1991, (or there abouts) & Melton & Bentley built in 1996. As far as I'm aware, these vessels are still here.
Also about the size of tugs, is it the size of the vessel that counts or its engine power & bollard pulling power?
The comment about if she had tugs present is taking a bit longer to find out.
Talking to other crew members about this incident, it seems that the use of tugs is dependent on circumstances, weather, wind speed & direction, high/low water etc. It also seems that the large ships have to have a tug in attendence when entering harbour, though not cornected.
If anyone has any more thoughts about this procedures, I would be happy to hear from them.

Regards
Karl
 :-)

[Ian G Hardie]

Hi
 Another Adstream tug at Felixstowe was the Brightwell the Sun London was also used from time to time, now sold but still local with Felix arc marine.
The Trimley is the only one i have seen for a long time also AIS only show the Trimley at Felixstowe.
A few years ago all large vessels had two tugs attached when arriving or departing
Regards
dumpieship

[Geert van Kesteren]

When there is a "Black-Out" of All Power : YOU CAN'T TRAIN NOTHING ON WHATEVER SIMULATOR!!!

GEERT(ZAPPA)

30 YEARS MANOEVRING AS RIVERPILOT ON SCHELDT RIVER ANTWERP

[Ben Backstay]

You can find a close up picture of the damaged crane on www.harwichhavenshipsandyachts.com in the casualty section
The Zhen Hua 5 is at present alongside under the crane, preparing to load it on deck for return to China.

[FWE]

I see that the gas terminal in the harbour at Felixstowe is a Top Tier site under the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999. Is there risk that this could happen to a containership while a gas tanker is alongside ?

[Ben Backstay]

To clear up a few facts, the vessel was berthed port side to with a 25 knot wind blowing from right ahead. Both stern and bow thrusters were operational, but a tug was made fast centre lead aft. The main engine was tested before departure. Once all the mooring lines were let go, the thrusters and tug were used to move the ship away from the quay, and she started drifting astern towards the new crane boom which was in the lowered position. The pilot ordered a kick ahead on the engine to check the stern way, but the engine failed to start. A decission was taken to get the ship back alongside to get a spring ashore to check the sternway, but when the ship was 3 metres off the quay, the funnel struck the crane boom. The damage to the ship was superficial, but the damage to the crane was serious. It was only through the quick thinking of the pilot, to get the ship back alongside that avoided a greater disaster. Had the ship struck the boom further off the quay, the crane may have collapsed, causing loss off life, and may have even blocked the River Orwell.
These ships regularly depart the berth without tugs if they are "head out". Risk assessments have been carried out and this has deemed to be a safe operation. You have to remember that even when using tugs to manoeuvre, tugs occasionally have mechanical failure, or the towing line parts, and a pilot, has to react accordingly. Sometimes the manoeuvre changes dramatically into a damage limitation exercise when equipment failure comes into the equation. The whole point of carrying out risk assessment is to analise the operation and decide what is acceptable risk and what is not. We live in a world where this has to be done for everything we do. In a totally risk free world, nothing would move. Even driving a car carries a risk that an accident might happen, but we are prepared to accept the risk. It is the same with moving ships around. The housewife expects the supermarket shelves to be full of cheap chinese goods, so the ships speed around the world at 25 knots to satisfy this demand. Sometimes things do go wrong, like in the case of MSC Napoli. I expect most people were quite surprised at what was in the containers that got washed up on the beach.
The question is raised why not use tugs? Nobody questions a cruise ship not using tugs to manoeuvre. These huge ships have 9000hp bow thrusts, and azipod propellors aft, and are great toys to play with....until a malfunction occurs.
I have many pictures of the damaged crane being rolled on Zen Hua 5 to be taken back to China on www.harwichhavenshipsandyachts.com

[Charles McAllister]

PilotB10,

Thanks for the report on the incident.  I have no doubt that the quick thinking and action of the pilot to reverse thrusters and move closer to the pier helped prevent further damage.  10 years ago in New Orleans, LA, USA, quick thinking and action by a pilot helped prevent possible injury or loss of life when Bright Field, a 68,000 ton dry bulk carrier lost power on the Mississippi River and collided with the riverside shopping mall building.

No one here criticized the pilot.  The only questions raised were about the decision to allow huge single engine ships to proceed in close quarters, adjacent to multi-million dollar/euro cranes that protrude out over the water below the level of the superstructures, without a normal complement of tugs.

I appreciate your analogy of cruise ship manuevering but, as you said, cruise ships have mutiple engines and azmuthing main propulsors.  The key, I believe, is the multiple engines, whereas most large container ships have a single engine.  Whether it is rated for 800 KW or 80,000 KW, a single engine that stops provides 0 KW power to manuever the ship.

I understand risk assessment; it is a common concept.  Risk must be evaluated considering the possible failures and their potential cost, vs the actual cost of preventive measures, like more tugs.  The general reliability of the powerplants in modern ships was a factor, I'm sure, in this assessment.  I believe this was a circumstance that was viewed as highly unlikely, very low probability.  Unfortunately, it happened, so risk gets reassessed, and maybe or maybe not changes are recommended.  Insurance companies will have a voice, I'm sure.

Again, I agree that the pilot probably prevented further damage once the power was lost.