Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kyle Stubbs

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Maritime Research and History / Re: Unknown shipwrecks in the Red Sea
« on: April 28, 2024, 04:55:23 AM »
The location of the wreck is consistent with the location where the Greek-flag ATTIKI (IMO 6617295, built 1966 as MASASHIMA MARU) was lost in 1978.

https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?59458

2
MattB,

It has been reported that the heavy-lift crane barge en route to the site is Donjon Marine's CHESAPEAKE 1000:
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2521355

The 500-ton capacity derrick barge WEEKS 533 has also been reported en route, as well:
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/1466844

3
Found a bunch more Ports that need amending of the "Portland" variety.

Portland, Oregon, USA:
Exists in database as both "Portland, Oregon United States" and "Portland United States"

Portland, Maine, USA:
Exists in database as both "Portland, Maine United States" and "Portland (me) United States"

Portland, Victoria, Australia
Exists in database as both "Portland Australia" and "Portland-au Australia"

4
I think ID-ing old photos that don't meet the site standard and reporting them should be OK.

That would be a significant clean-up operation, and rather than looking backward, we can better spend our time dealing with what is ahead of us.

I feel like there are some situations where it should be prioritized. For example, bad images are often given an exemption and kept on the site when they are the first image uploaded of a particular vessel. In the long run, however, how often is the photo readdressed after other examples that do meet the quality standards have been added? I can see this kind of "temporary exemption" regularly slipping through the cracks, especially for vessels that do not have an IMO number.

Perhaps, in particular if a vessel is still active, the vessels featured in photos granted a temporary exemption for poor quality should be added to a "wanted" list of vessel photos, either publicly viewable or maintained for admin use only?

5
Pieter, thank you for the prompt response. It would not surprise me to find a few more like those above, so I will identify them as I find them.

I have also found a couple that are functionally duplicates within the database:

Newport OR United States / Newport (or) United States
Newport RI United States / Newport (ri) United States
Richmond Virginia United States / Richmond (va) United States
Kingston United States / Kingston ferry United States

In the case of Kingston, both locations include the lat/long of the ferry terminal at Kingston, Washington (roughly 47.79, -122.497). There is also a Kingston in the state of New York (roughly 41.919, -73.979), which is a Hudson River port, and home to a significant shipyard. I suspect "Kingston United States" may have been intended to be this port, but got the other's lat/long.

In the case of Richmond, there is also a third "Richmond United States" with the lat/long of Richmond, California, so it should probably be modified to something such as "Richmond (California) United States."

6
Shipping News and information / Re: Longest Ships name
« on: August 25, 2023, 03:24:17 AM »
It's not an oceangoing vessel, but one of the longest current names I've seen is on a harbor dinner boat operating in the San Francisco Bay area:

CABERNET SAUVIGNON COMMODORE

In fact, the name is painted in large enough letters that it takes up nearly a quarter of the vessel's length...

https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/3041344

7
I've found a few cases in the locations that also could use clarification, especially where names have been doubled up. I'm including lat/long to help out whoever may take on fixing this issue.

I may add more in additional posts if I find them, but for now I have:

Toledo, United States (41.7, -83.46) - Should be Toledo (Ohio), United States
Toledo, United States (44.6142, -123.94) - Should be Toledo (Oregon), United States

Rockport, United States (37.8908, -87.0455) - Should be Rockport (Indiana), United States
Rockport, United States (44.1834, -69.0727) - Should be Rockport (Maine), United States

The following aren't doubled-up, but I recommend modification to match common usage:

Channel Islands, United States - Channel Islands Harbor, United States
Judith Point, United States - Point Judith, United States

8
Site related news, functions and modules / Grays Harbor (USA) Ports
« on: August 24, 2023, 03:12:26 PM »
I just recently noticed a port in the United States that seems to be separated from what should be a "parent" port.

Within the ports listing, "Grays Harbor, United States" exists as an umbrella port area, with two sub-ports:

Aberdeen, Grays Harbor, United States
Hoquiam, Grays Harbor, United States

As a result, I had often uploaded photos taken at the small fishing port of Westport, Washington under the parent "Grays Harbor" location, since the town is at the harbor entrance, about 20 km west of Hoquiam, the nearer of the two other ports. Just yesterday, however, I noticed that the location list now includes a port of "Westport, United States" with a lat/long (46.9086, -124.105) that corresponds to the town on Grays Harbor.

Given that Westport is associated with the greater Grays Harbor area, and is even the base of operations for the Grays Harbor pilots, shouldn't it be listed as a Grays Harbor sub-port as well?

9
Appearance-wise, SANGU seems to be the ex-LINDISFARNE, in one regard, and TURAG matches up to ex-GUERNSEY in another.

Of the LINDISFARNE and GUERNSEY, the LINDISFARNE had a series of 5 fixtures of some sort attached to the side of the bridge wings, while the GUERNSEY did not. Photos of SANGU show the same five fixtures. It took a bit of digging, but I finally found an image of TURAG at the following link, which shows the absence of the same fixtures. The TURAG photo also shows the presence of a cableway down the port side of the superstructure, of which the placement seems to be a feature unique to GUERNSEY. LINDISFARNE images also show a cableway, but it's shorter, and probably about a meter closer to the bridge wing.

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/bangladesh-navy.168818/page-296#post-10644483

Images of the port side of SANGU also show the cableway placement matches that of LINDSIFARNE:

https://history.gg/hms-guernsey-launched-aberdeen/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/33297516@N05/3718424396


Dealing in miniscule details like that isn't an absolute certainty, but I can think of no reason such fixtures would be added to one vessel, but removed from the other, and vice-versa.

10
Shipping News and information / Re: Ships sold for scrap
« on: March 22, 2023, 08:07:30 PM »
I stumbled upon this one a couple months late:

DOLPHIN, IMO 8034825, US-flag, 51m x 10m fishing vessel built 1944, arrived at Ensenada, Mexico on 04 January 2023, presumably for scrapping.

11
Shipping News and information / Re: Ships sold for scrap
« on: January 06, 2023, 05:52:21 PM »
It looks like the season's been opened for container vessels...

https://gcaptain.com/wan-hai-lines-selling-10-containerships-for-scrap/

And so it continues. K-Line's 2001-built AKINADA BRIDGE, IMO 9224532, is reported to have arrived at Alang on 5 January 2023.

12
Shipping News and information / Re: Sisterships...?
« on: November 19, 2022, 03:59:36 AM »
I'm seeing that Ten of those 1,489 GT suppliers were ordered from Halter Marine's Moss Point yard:

#1793 CAPE HOPE - ON: 1076117 IMO: 9207182
#1794 CAPE BEAUFORT - ON: 1076186 IMO: 9208887
#1808 CAPE HAWKE - ON: 1076185 IMO: 9214630
#1809 CAPE BYRD - ON: 1076184 IMO: 9216377
#1810 CAPE ST. JAMES - ON: 1076183 IMO: 9219848
#1811 CAPE ST. JOHN - ON: 1076182 IMO: 9224934
#1812 CAPE DAVIS - ON: 1088474 IMO: 9229922
#1813 CAPE DOUGLAS - ON: 1088475 IMO: 9234551
#1814 CAPE NOME - ON: 1097128 IMO: 9236884
#1815 CAPE NORTH - ON: 1097129 IMO: 9240184

13
Site related news, functions and modules / Fishing Vessel Naming Convention
« on: September 15, 2022, 03:47:13 PM »
Good Morning,

I have uploaded a significant number of fishing vessel photos over the years, and going back through them I have noticed occasional, inconsistent changes to the vessel names, so I wanted to clarify the site policy.

I tend to upload photos following typical site guidance of giving only the full vessel name (in all caps, but we don't need to rabblerouse that subject again...). Some of my photos have since had the vessel amended to include some form of vessel registration, in a rather inconsistent manner, so I'll offer a few examples:

1. CELTIC
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/3040789
The name has been amended to CELTIC 591971, to reflect the US Coast Guard Official Number clearly displayed on the hull as a visible identifier.

2. ALASKA VICTORY
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2823242
Name amended in a similar manner to ALASKA VICTORY 569752. However, the official number is nowhere to be seen on the vessel exterior, and the only clear identifier is the Alaska Fish & Game registration 61083. As a result, the edit in theory consistent with the above format, but inconsistent with a policy of using a visible identifier, which would result in ALASKA VICTORY 61083 if formatted like cases 1 and 3 together suggest.

3. ALASKA QUEEN II
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2230203
Named amended to ALASKA QUEEN II 21382. In this case, the number in use is clearly marked on the hull, but is a provincial fish and game registration (The vessel's official number is 174105). As a result consistent with the method used in case 1, but inconsistent with case 2.

4. CELTIC
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2292828
Inconsistent with Cases 1 and 3, and questionably consistent with case 2. Name amended to CELTIC 687681. The new name uses the vessel's official number, but the only marking on the hull is Washington state license number WN314KWA. The "KWA" suffix ID's her as registered to the Quinault Tribe. In theory, state license and national documentation are mutually exclusive, but tribal vessels tend to be issued a state license to fish in waters governed by a US state, so both have standing to be the "official" registration.

With those in mind, I notice many more that haven't been changed, so I wanted to find out what the preferred method would be for a few other typical cases in United States fisheries, or if this is just so much of a headache that the names should be left alone:

A. STEALTH
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2276804
Ex-Canadian fishing vessels have been entering US fisheries through a method of admeasuring for state license. Concurrently, the most "official" registration for the vessel is either California state license CF2484V or Alaska state license AK6277AU. Neither was visible on the hull at time of photo, and I've seen evidence that registration in one state doesn't necessarily mean another is abandoned. State licenses may also change under the same state when a vessel is sold to a new owner. Her only "permanent" identifier, Canadian documentation number 391849, ceased to be valid when she came under US flag.

B. BUCK AND ANN
https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2297393
Inconsistent requirements for different fisheries mean that multipurpose fishing vessels can bear a whole smorgasbord of markings. In this case, the vessel displays her US official number (591368), and fish and game registrations for three different states (32862, 32426, 43295). If this were to be matched to the example set by cases 1 and 3, the name could be something like: BUCK AND ANN 591368 32862 32426 FG43295.

Thank you for your input.

14
Shipping News and information / Re: Ships sold for scrap
« on: August 26, 2022, 11:47:22 PM »
Fish Processor DOLPHIN (Comoros Flag), IMO 7710745, ex-R.M. THORSTENSON, STELLAR SEA, LIBERTY, ISLAND MARIANA, ANTILLA departed Port Angeles, Washington, USA this morning, 26/8/22 showing AIS destination of Alang.

15
The numbers issued by IMO to naval vessels can all be found in the IMO's public access GISIS Ship and Company Particulars system, even if the vessel descriptors are a bit hit-or-miss.

For example, a query for the US Navy destroyer "Zumwalt" finds the following vessel:

ZUMWALT
IMO #: 4676766
Type: Yacht
Type (detailed): Destroyer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk