ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Shipping News and information => Topic started by: Timsen on May 09, 2016, 08:33:49 AM
-
http://zj.people.com.cn/n2/2016/0508/c228592-28294079.html
http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/asia/fire-on-maersk-boxship-after-serious-collision-off-ningbo.html
-
AIS tracks
It is unbelievable how often both ships changed courses like both tried to make a collision and on top of that the Northern Jasper made in the last
moment a hard PORT maneuver, which is explizit mentioned in the rules not to do,, both 5 degrees timely to stb and they would have passed easy. Really would like to know what nationality officers were on those bridges and where they got their licenses !!!!!
https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/6068-Video-Safmarine-Meru-collision-with-Northern-Jasper-in-East-China-Sea
-
do these guys have radar, radio or eyes.....uncredible, more like bumper cars
Allan
-
Believe me, it's more or less common practice these days that a lot (putting it mildly) of mariners have absolutely no idea what they are doing on watch.
Radar, Ecdis and all other electronic aids, not to forget AIS, only make things worse. Just look outside and take sight-bearings of visual targets (that you spot outside the window!) and these accidents would never happen.
Nationality's, yeah better not to talk about that.
Cheers,
Roy
-
@ Roy
Well,,when as Master one mentions to a young OOW to look out of the window you are considered as backward.
The main problem is that a lot new electronics like ECDIS/AIS etc was "pushed" onto ships and officers without proper training. It is most of the time placed aboard and deal with it or not.
This back and force as you can see on both ships tracks is exactly what is today standard. Bear in mind we talk about big ships and not little coasters and such. Also the abandoning of the vessel seems to have been a panic reaction, in other words badly trained crews which loose quick situation awareness.
-
Thank you Ted for an amazing link (repeated here) and your comments
https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/6068-Video-Safmarine-Meru-collision-with-Northern-Jasper-in-East-China-Sea
-
Well, it certainly looks like "Northern Jasper" was hell bent on hitting the "Meru", and the latter did not have many objections...
-
Exactly Ted,
And nowadays with these 'cut throat' and fierce competition the one with the cheapest crews is loosing the least money.
And 'never mind' as long as they have proof of training and all their certificates according STCW the insurance company will pay out.
I guess you also have lots of "experiences'.
Cheers,
Roy
-
I can well remember having to explain to some of my officers that the most important collision avoidance equipment was the wheelhouse windows.
Tony
-
Unfortunately...it is reality of ourdays, when every professional field is being suffered by very low skilled personell. Navigation is not an exeption. All these hitech features force the human to be more and more stupid itself. Dozens of electronic aids of navigation... + wifi and smartphone used by OOW and we have lost the real seaman on the bridge...
I don't know the details of collision, but the video, linked here, is showing that something wrong with that guys...
-
To all you doom-mongers out there, the number of ship losses and significant casualties has been on a downwards trend over the past 20 years despite huge growth in the global merchant fleet.
I suppose it's sheer luck that ships are not sinking left, right and centre in today's congested waterways and oceans ::)
Brgds
Phil
-
The other issue is that today, news is more freely available, hence these kind of incidents enter the public domain quicker.
The Vessel Tracker video only shows the tracks of the vessels in question, it fails to show other "issues" in the region at the time (weather conditions, other vessels in the vicinity etc.), so lets stop jumping to conclusions - we (sat at desks, looking at a computer screens) do not know the factors involved which resulted in this unfortunate incident.
Krispen
-
Capt Ted said "Really would like to know what nationality officers were on those bridges and where they got their licenses !!!!!"
Maybe from a guy in a bar in Panama! (That HAS happened)
-
Hi Phil,
I like to invite you to make a trip on board and that will change your ideas.
Indeed it often goes just good, but really the modern (young) seafarer considers it all as a computer game with little situational awareness.
Cheers,
Roy
-
Why would it change my ideas, Roy? However modern seafarers go about their business, I'm just stating a fact
Brgds
Phil
-
In my limited, but valid experience. I find that those seafarers coming fresh out of college can be split into two types. Those that want to be there and those that are there because they want the money or to see the world. I joined the merchant navy as a young man who wanted to go to sea, who was proud to wear the uniform, who wanted to be apart of the history. There are others like me who have an interest at what we do.
Unfortunately some out there do it for the money or lifestyle. These people jump through the college hoops and once out in the big wide world struggle as they have paid little interest into their profession other than what they needed to pass an exam. Once on the bridge in a real situation the college structure is useless. That interest and learning that should have been carried through isn't there and these young officers struggle. Relying on computer screens which are only useful if you have been bothered to learn to understand them and again have an interest in it.
This lack of or wrong type of motivation to do the job, I feel is a fundamental reason as to why safety in the job sometimes falls down. Yes accidents can and do happen and we can all make bad decisions. But I feel the quality of person as a professional on the bridge can be scrutinised further than what tickets they hold. You have to look at the person as a person not a ticket.
That little extra I feel makes a hell of a difference when it comes down to who you want to navigate your vessel for 8 hours plus a day.
John
-
Has anybody been able to see any of the photos of NORTHERN JASPER - IMO 9466960 - after the collision like in particular the bulbous bow, and hull bow?
-
@ Phil and others
I had a 2.Officer on the bridge, I caught him in the english channel to make the port maneuver, it is clearly stated in the COLREGS not to do it "SHALL NOT" . He did it anyhow. When asked and referred to the paragraph in the COLREGS he did no give a answer, after asking closer his answer : I did not involve myself yet with those regulations too much !!!!!
Another 2.Officer, whom I asked when sailing down from Montevideo to the Magellan Strait and the daylight got everyday longer I asked him why that is so. No answer. Then I took the Nautical almanac and showed him
for example in march that on 1 day at a certain hour the declination (Lattitude) was 00-01-0 N and 1 hr later 00-02-0 S and what happened in that hour, his answer : The sun went over the North pol.
And yes,,it is pure luck that we don,t have more accidents and in congested areas (English Channel/ Strait of Gibraltar / Malakka Strait and so on only not because all is tracked by land stations and someone plays not along is called on VHF.
It is today standard that officers on the bridge,,10-12 miles apart and on a head on course with another vessel calling the other vessel and asking what the intention is. AS per COLREG it is clear,, both vssels changing course to their stb side and make a clear red on red pass. My guess is 40-50 % they change the rules and pass green/green or as I witnessed in the NorthSea years back they agreed to pass green to red !!!!!! Now that was fun to hear the outcome on VHF when one realized that Green on red does not work !!!
It,s the wild WEST out there!!!!
-
As much as I agree with your sentiments Ted and see it as much as you do, it's important to note that not every person on the bridge of a vessel chooses to go about his or her work in this way. Yes unfortunately as a generalisation it is a common practice, but should be noted that it is still the exception not the rule.
John
-
@ John
of course it is not all, then we could shutdown shipping business right now. !!!
A lot companies try hard to keep it straight,,for example the company where I work for, but there are companies around they do not follow up too much and those make the shipping always and again a bad
name. Unfortunately one hears of course only about the bad matters and not about a ship just came around the world with no incident,,,THAT WOULD HAVE NO NEWS VALUE !!!!
-
Based on the navigation rules at the link below do you all think that Rule 14 and Rule 15 apply? When you look at the photo of the firefighter vessel, the sea condition seems pretty good maybe slightly choppy? This area for sure looks like it has alot of congestion / traffic? In this situation is there other rules that should apply? Thanks for the help everybody.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf (http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf)
-
Rule 14 applies, but I don't think 15 does - as both vessels were head on.
There's a few troubling things with this accident;
1. Why on earth did they steer closer to each other, given there was more than enough sea room for the Jasper to stbd?
2. Why did neither vessel realise they were going to smack each other until it was far too late?
3. Why did the Jasper cross the Meru's bow in the first place? There's plenty of sea-room behind her!
4. Why did the Meru essentially keep plodding along at a merry 18 knots, when it was clear the jasper was playing a very dangerous game of chicken?
...Was noone looking out of the window?!
N.B. I'm a cadet, and I always place more trust in what I see out of the window than what the new-fangled ECDIS is telling me ;)
-
I agree with many comments regarding missuse of equipment (specially AIS), acting against RoR etc. Moreover, for me is sometimes scary to learn how many Officers, young and not-so-young, unfortunately prefer changing the course to Port side in head-on and nearly head-on situations. I see this as a huge problem on nowadays ships.
However, when I was a boy, say 40 years ago, my late grandfather used to say: "Who are those young men, they do not know nothing about true seamanship...". So it looks like in the meantime nothing big has changed.
-
Speaking about ECDIS - I was wondering about that. Do you all think any one of these ships had this Totem Plus system?
http://www.totemplus.com/ecdis.html (http://www.totemplus.com/ecdis.html)
-
Speaking about ECDIS - I was wondering about that. Do you all think any one of these ships had this Totem Plus system?
http://www.totemplus.com/ecdis.html (http://www.totemplus.com/ecdis.html)
I doubt it. I'm not sure it's a wise idea to have a system which advises oows on what action to take either, as there's a very real risk people will become over reliant on it.
-
Good answer smithy166 :) cheers to you from my hole LOL
-
Update about the Northern Jasper - Article credit fleetmon and Mikhail Voytenko
https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2016/12779/northern-jasper-vs-safmarine-meru-update-may-11/ (https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2016/12779/northern-jasper-vs-safmarine-meru-update-may-11/)
(https://www.fleetmon.com/media/maritimenews/njasper.jpg)
-
You know Phil,you maybe stating facts.
However we see more and more accidents and collisions happening at sea,on rivers in harbors and at approaches.
Makes one wonder why with all today's technological advances,that no one uses the age old system of opening your eyes,and see whats happening.Rather then relying on all the fancy equipment.
And yes as an ex-sailor I too question the abilities of today's sailors.
PS;I studied at the Zeevaartschool De Ruyter in Vlissingen ,3rd Officer Foreign Going.Passed
worked for van Nievelt Goudriaan.
-
Why Gerry would you question the abilities of today's sailors? Was your ability questioned by ex seafarers when you were at sea?
At the end of the day, incidents have, do and will happen and as most people know an incident is just a result of a series of breakdowns.
Yes some sailors are better than others and of course some are far more experienced. But until we know all of the findings of the said incident it is unfair to put blame solely on one sailor. Upon hearing of a plane crash the flight crew aren't immediately blamed. Failures leading up to what may or may not be pilot error are attributed and looked at for their significance beforehand. This could have been a total breakdown in bridge resource management or simple communication breakdown by a team of people.
It's not fair or appropriate I feel to question a sailors ability unless the facts are known and that to generalise the ability of 'modern sailors' as a whole is wrong. As I've said before, it comes down to the person to an extent, but also the training colleges and courses, the crew as a team and even the employer and working conditions.
John
-
There seems to be an awful lot of Luddites out there. I am sure that, if it had not been for the introduction over the years of VHF, radar, ACAS, ARPA, AIS, ECDIS and all the other electronic gismos, collisions would be much more frequent than they are today.
-
Well Bob and John,
You know the thing is, and I may sound old-fashioned and/or might have sounded old-fashioned in my previous posts in this topic, that cost-cutting is King.
Why in the first place have western-european companies reflagged their ships, why did they put foreign crews on their ships.
Not because those crews were better or specifically worse performing. No, and you know, it's because of money.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no good eastern asian officers out there. Because I know there are a lot of good asian officers out there. But you get what you pay for. And that's really the whole point.
And because of the cut-throat rates and the fierce competition a lot of companies don't want to pay, so then don't expect officers that have a drive to perform good.
Cheers,
Roy
-
Of course it's down to money. How else would there be success, entrepreneurism and employment?
Unless of course you want the whole world to adopt the old Soviet style of state-run business. Look how well that turned out. No thanks.
Brgds
Phil
-
So having decent professional standards = Soviet style economy?
Then again that's probably how shipowners think, of which I've never met a poor one.
-
Phil,
You get what you pay for is in my opinion pure economics. I have no idea how you came up with the Soviet-union, or anything relating to that, regarding this topic.
I hope you are aware of the old adage in shipping: If you pay monkey you get monkey. And that's what's happening.
Once again there are good crews (from al nationalities) out there, but everything has it's price.
Cheers,
Roy
-
John,
Was merely an observation of whats happening around the world,and following this and other sites for many years.
Of course there are thousands of good sailors,lets hope the quantity of bad sailors is not as large!
And yes many more and larger ships sail the oceans then in my day.
And with all that has come an ever increasing need for sailors to be better educated.
The question remains:Are they?
Kids at school do all the work on computers and calculators,when last have you seen a kid whom is capable of adding and subtracting without a calculator?
That is my view,no disrespect to any sailor.
Just saying.
Gerry
-
Good sailors quietly keep doing they job well, while bad sailors make headline news...
I guess every one of us can mention some example about lowering training and education standards, not only in seafaring. So, humans keep challenging the ever advancing technology...
-
To be fair I think every person who has added to this thread each has a point which could be considered. Maybe it's time for the shipping industry to look at all angles rather than to continue down this path. Looking at other industries and their evolution may also be beneficial.
Technology of course is not a bad thing, but maybe it's not being utilised within the industry to full effect?
For example the company I work for has a different type of electronic chart system for almost every type of vessel. Each one has a different specification and some of which are so completely inaccurate that one would never trust such a system in certain navigational situations. Therefore with equipment like this, the only thing to do IS to look out of the window.
Whereas on with other systems I would cross reference with the electronic AIDS. This unfortunately means there is no standard.
I am also very interested in the aviation industry. Lots can be learnt here.
Regular simulator rides could be a steady way of continuing competence in particular circumstances. Those course of this nature I have been on were excellent. Putting one under pressure and strain and learning about yourself and how you react in a situation can be a steep curve.
TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) is an automated response by the aircraft to the pilot in command. Warning them of aircraft nearby. A similar system which interprets rule of the road and perhaps provides an option could be useful. Yes this may take skills away, but for all those incidents that do happen like the one in this thread then maybe they could be avoided. I have no doubt that the OOW on the bridges of these two vessels knew the rules, but maybe assistance from a marine standard TCAS could have avoided an incident like this completely. A system like that may well have provided an alternative to the poor decision made.
Just a thought,
John
-
To be fair I think every person who has added to this thread each has a point which could be considered. Maybe it's time for the shipping industry to look at all angles rather than to continue down this path. Looking at other industries and their evolution may also be beneficial.
Technology of course is not a bad thing, but maybe it's not being utilised within the industry to full effect?
For example the company I work for has a different type of electronic chart system for almost every type of vessel. Each one has a different specification and some of which are so completely inaccurate that one would never trust such a system in certain navigational situations. Therefore with equipment like this, the only thing to do IS to look out of the window.
Whereas on with other systems I would cross reference with the electronic AIDS. This unfortunately means there is no standard.
I am also very interested in the aviation industry. Lots can be learnt here.
Regular simulator rides could be a steady way of continuing competence in particular circumstances. Those course of this nature I have been on were excellent. Putting one under pressure and strain and learning about yourself and how you react in a situation can be a steep curve.
TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) is an automated response by the aircraft to the pilot in command. Warning them of aircraft nearby. A similar system which interprets rule of the road and perhaps provides an option could be useful. Yes this may take skills away, but for all those incidents that do happen like the one in this thread then maybe they could be avoided. I have no doubt that the OOW on the bridges of these two vessels knew the rules, but maybe assistance from a marine standard TCAS could have avoided an incident like this completely. A system like that may well have provided an alternative to the poor decision made.
Just a thought,
John
They obviously didn't know the rules, otherwise there would have been no collision. Introducing a marine version of TCAS or adding yet more checklists will only make things even worse, just as the introduction of AIS made collision avoidance by VHF a thousand times worse.
After all, giving an idiot on the bridge of a ship better equipment does not make him safer, it merely makes him more dangerous.
Let's remember that STCW has not brought everyone up to a decent standard, it has in fact brought everyone DOWN to the lowest common denominator.
Everyone seems to think the airline industry is the be all and end all of procedure, it is not. In many ways it's totally inapplicable to the marine world for a hundred different reasons.
The core problem today amongst nearly every nationality of young (and some not so young) officers is a lack of knowledge and experience beyond the absolute bare minimum required. Many do not even have that, all brought about by training schemes, colleges and cadetships which are not fit for purpose and are merely an exercise of putting bums on seats to comply as minimally as possible with STCW and things like the tonnage tax.
Unlike in the past where you had to grapple with very basic navigational equipment (if any), the navigational workload of the modern OOW is non existent and almost entirely revolves around ship dodging and following the accursed red line. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of collisions and groundings will simply not occur providing that the OOW possesses both adequate knowledge and (real) experience, plus a proper lookout is being kept.
Keeping a good lookout is the easy part, ideally have a rating on the bridge 24 hours a day solely dedicated to lookout duties. At the very least between sunset and sunrise and in all busy areas.
The knowledge and experience part can only be achieved by the following:
1) Return seatime and watchkeeping requirements for all certificates back to what they were pre STCW 78/95. In the case of cadets ensure seatime does actually have some value where the cadet is placed in a ship with individuals of the same nationality and ideally of their own company. End the farce that is cadet training groups.
2) Ensure that a greater depth and breadth of tuition at the nautical colleges is provided during a cadetship. Also ensure that subsequent senior certificates require real college time and classroom lessons, together with written AND oral exams. These should be properly constructed and externally invigilated - colleges setting and marking their own exams is nothing short of a joke.
3) Abandon pointless "all in one" cadetship schemes like (so called) Foundation Degree and Professional Diplomas, as they are not worth the paper they're written on and all they produce is seriously underqualified individuals who have a grossly unfair short cut to senior certification. That in itself is setting up serious problems for the future.
-
Well how can it be proven if the OOW knew the rules?
By an oral exam he/she passed. Not much use now is it?
I meant an AID like TCAS and regular simulator sessions so as to improve the standard that is out there now. We can't turn back time and re-train these people from day one, but if we can build in a higher level of redundancy going forward then surely this would be safer?
I agree that many of the college courses and cattle farms of officer production lines are wholey inadequate. I should know I went to one! You have a mix of sub standard courses built on tonnage tax etc and young men and women who are maybe not adequate for the job. ( not all, some) 3 years later you get a sub standard officer with a sub standard education but a college and shipping company who are quids in. I agree, wrong motives=wrong outcome.
Unless the fundamentals of business change its going to take a mighty leap for necessary changes to take place.
John
-
Well how can it be proven if the OOW knew the rules?
By an oral exam he/she passed. Not much use now is it?
I meant an AID like TCAS and regular simulator sessions so as to improve the standard that is out there now. We can't turn back time and re-train these people from day one, but if we can build in a higher level of redundancy going forward then surely this would be safer?
I agree that many of the college courses and cattle farms of officer production lines are wholey inadequate. I should know I went to one! You have a mix of sub standard courses built on tonnage tax etc and young men and women who are maybe not adequate for the job. ( not all, some) 3 years later you get a sub standard officer with a sub standard education but a college and shipping company who are quids in. I agree, wrong motives=wrong outcome.
Unless the fundamentals of business change its going to take a mighty leap for necessary changes to take place.
John
If someone truly knows the rules inside out (word perfect) to start with and is examined on them constantly as a cadet both at sea and at college and then in Orals, then they stick with you for life. So they should, as they are absolutely fundamental and the overriding component of the job of any OOW.
You keep using that word aid. You should know as well as I do that any of the grand systems you refer (which don't exist) will never be used merely as an aid, they will be in fact be relied upon by the idiots out there. Accordingly I'm very resistant to anything that will take their eye off the ball even more.
-
Well how can it be proven if the OOW knew the rules?
By an oral exam he/she passed. Not much use now is it?
I meant an AID like TCAS and regular simulator sessions so as to improve the standard that is out there now. We can't turn back time and re-train these people from day one, but if we can build in a higher level of redundancy going forward then surely this would be safer?
I agree that many of the college courses and cattle farms of officer production lines are wholey inadequate. I should know I went to one! You have a mix of sub standard courses built on tonnage tax etc and young men and women who are maybe not adequate for the job. ( not all, some) 3 years later you get a sub standard officer with a sub standard education but a college and shipping company who are quids in. I agree, wrong motives=wrong outcome.
Unless the fundamentals of business change its going to take a mighty leap for necessary changes to take place.
John
If someone truly knows the rules inside out (word perfect) to start with and is examined on them constantly as a cadet both at sea and at college and then in Orals, then they stick with you for life. So they should, as they are absolutely fundamental and the overriding component of the job of any OOW.
You keep using that word aid. You should know as well as I do that any of the grand systems you refer (which don't exist) will never be used merely as an aid, they will be in fact be relied upon by the idiots out there. Accordingly I'm very resistant to anything that will take their eye off the ball even more.
Again Malim I agree with you, (hopefully) most of us out there know the rules, inside out. But one thing this case as with many others have shown, is that people work towards their certificates pass them and then incidents happen. This shows that the knowledge that should be there isn't. Now that's either down to the individual or the education process that got them there. Tricky I know as the rules are the rules you either know and understand them or you don't. So the next question is, how do you ensure these officers do know the rules and continue to hold their knowledge? Like Malim says it should be second nature but in many cases it obviously isn't. There most certainly is an over reliance on navigation aids. Your eyeballs are the first tools you should use along with your ears. The rules of the road were not written with electronic gadgetry in mind.
Maybe it should be minimised, but what is left should be there as a safety measure to support the OOW not as something that gives irrelevant information and makes 101 distracting noises?
-
If someone truly knows the rules inside out (word perfect) to start with and is examined on them constantly as a cadet both at sea and at college and then in Orals, then they stick with you for life. So they should, as they are absolutely fundamental and the overriding component of the job of any OOW.
Malim, knowing the rules word for word doesn't mean a lot now days. The idea of them is ensure that when a situation develops the OOW will know what action to take. I have seen a lot of people who memorise the rules word for word but then then you put 2 toy boats in a situation on a desk they have no idea what to do but just spew out word for word the rules.
I think a lot of why this sort of thing happens is to do with the quality of training some officers get and also the experience they have as a cadet/AB. If they are lucky to get a CO or even any crew member who shows enthusiasm in teaching them it reflects on how they act/work when they are Officers.
Robbie
-
If they know them, forgot them or whatever. The bottom line is they did not follow them this time.
Here is a good article about it. Red to Red - Green to Green. The fact that Northern Jasper manuvered to port is concerning and may play a critical role in apportioning fault. I would think they were also manuvering around fishing boats in this high density fishing area at the time of the accident. Be safe out there.
http://maritime-executive.com/blog/nightmare-for-mariners-collision-at-sea (http://maritime-executive.com/blog/nightmare-for-mariners-collision-at-sea)
-
I made a comment 2 pages back on 10th May, but seems to be have been ignored whilst the argument of poor crewing etc. has carried on.
The AIS video has limitations, and does not give us a complete picture and therefore we can not draw conclusions on this alone. We only see the two 2 vessels in question, what it fails to show are other vessels which were in the area at the time, which could have contributed to the incident. What we can see is some strange manoeuvres by the Northern Jasper before the collision. This could suggest they were avoiding something - it could be that the crews were actually following the rule book to avoid another incident which then lead to this. We will not know for sure until we see a report of the accident.
I would also point out that there are now more ships afloat now, than there ever has been in the past, and with more congested seaways accidents are going to happen. Though, in terms of percentage of the fleet accidents have reduced - this can be attributed to better training and also modern technology. What we must do is make sure technology does not take over - something I fear has happened in this thread, as we look at just one part of the picture - the AIS plot!
Krispen
-
I agree, Krispen. As I said before in this thread, there would be many more collisions if not for all those electronic gismos our sailor and ex-sailor friends keep complaining about.
-
Electronic wizardry is all well and good provided it is used properly and responsibly, often it is not.
I was never a sailor, that non de plume is reserved for those who pretend to go to sea in grey ships and yacht clubs. However, I was and still am a seaman.
-
BobS and Krispen
all valid points, so even when
Northern Jasper had other vessels on her stb on which they reacted with course changes, that still does not explain why the last port course change into the path of the other ship. If there were other traffic on her stb side, then another option would have been to reduce or stop,, but a full port maneuver into the path of another vessel can not be excused by traffic on the stb. If so,,that would mean I can do it against the rule if I have a seemingly good excuse to do so.
-
I stand corrected, Jim. I was being a bit flippant and didn't put the brain properly in gear regarding sailors and seamen. No disrespect intended. This incident seems to me such an outrageous contravention of every rule in the book that I think the inquiry will reveal either the involvement of a third party (eg fishermen) or, more likely, some kind of steering or other technical failure. We'll just have to wait and see.