Another Ship adrift in Aleutions

B

breausaw

New member
Here we go again.

Should be exciting to see how this all plays out, hopefully no loss of life or damage to the environment but things can get mighty messy out there.

http://www.adn.com/2010/12/03/1586105/c ... t-off.html

Another argument for twins, or a really big kicker.

I’m sure they will drop the hook, but that only slowed down the last cargo ship that washed ashore in the same area a few years back; you would think dropping anchor would keep them into the weather even if its just dragging through water.
 
Looking at the NOAA chart of Atkia Island, it seems to be steep too, and some rocks and reefs outlying. Anchoring might be a problem--even if they could get it to hold. Unfortunately large ships anchoring systems are not as effecient as our small vessels. They depend on both the weight and fluke of the anchor (relitatively small) and the chain. I have seen some large ships drag in what seemed like moderate conditions--especially where there were heavy seas.

Interesting that the diesel power is so reduced without the supercharger. I would think that there would be some way of decoupling the supercharger--but it may be a two stroke diesel- as many of the ultra large ones are--and need the supercharger for air induction.

There are certainly a number of tugs with enough power to pull that ship in Alaska, but many of them are tied up with the escort duty of supertankers. some distance away. Hopefully the two vessels from Dutch harbor will get there, and the weather will moderate.
 
Hi all,
The latest news here in Alaska on channel 2 evening news is that they got the motors restarted and that two vessles were approximately 4 hrs away and continuing towards the vessel just in case they had more problems.

Regards, Doug
 
the Golden Seas emergency is another black mark for the region's busy trade route, used by thousands of commercial ships per year traveling between North America and Asia. In the past two decades, two large commercial ships, the Selendang Ayu in 2004, and the Kuroshima in 1997, ran aground in the Aleutians
Click to expand...

1000's of ships per year and only two aground in over two decades sounds like a good record to me. its this type of poor reporting that keeps me from reading most news papers.
 
I don't think we have to accept periodic losses of nearly a half million gallons of Bunker C and the environmental impacts of these losses, to conduct business in this world. It isn't bad reporting to bring these spills to light, it is the facts.
 
Jay said:

"Another argument for twins, or a really big kicker."
Click to expand...

Fully agree here. One would think those ships would have 2 engines capable of maintaining at least a reasonable propulsion in most situations. As some of you already know, I am a firm believer in twins, unless you are on a lake.

As to acceptance of 2 untoward incidents when thousands of ships go without, ---- would we be anymore accepting of 2 commercial plane crashes when thousands of others don't? There is just too much at stake.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

IMGP1255.thumb.jpg
 
Just having two engines is no guarantee that they will not both fail. Many times fuel in the culprit in smaller boats. I have friends who are captains, engineers and radio operators in these larger vessels. Many of them can be repaired at sea--or even one cylinder decoupled and the vessel continue on to port. These large ship engines are ultra reliable--same with the commercial tug and many medium size ship engines.

Remember the cruise liner which was disabled off Mexico. She had at least two engines and drive systems, yet was disabled by a fire. So having two engines for those rare instances, is not justified.

There are many ships which go aground because of navigational or other human errors--how do we prevent these?
 
"Remember the cruise liner which was disabled off Mexico. She had at least two engines and drive systems, yet was disabled by a fire. So having two engines for those rare instances, is not justified.

There are many ships which go aground because of navigational or other human errors--how do we prevent these?"
Click to expand...

Having two engines would, logic says, decrease propulsion inability due to engine failure by half. Fuel issues are not, technically, engine failure. The fire on the Carnival cruise ship caused secondary engine failure, probably due to loss of electronics control, or fuel transport, (hosing) destruction items beyond their "at sea repair" capabilities. They lost power of the primary electricity generator too, not just the propulsion engines. A fire, of any magnitude, in the engine room would disintegrate the electrical control cabling and panels rapidly, producing loss of communication and control of the mechanical plants.

Four hours out of Ft. Lauderdale, we were inbound on a RC cruise ship, when we had a loss of electrical power. When the generator system came back on line, there was a surge, and that took out control to the Starbd engine and bow thrust system. It gets very dark onboard, at 0400 in a center cabin. The 6 hour additional delay, due to slowed port approach and timing for two additional harbor tugs, cost many folks the loss of airport connection. Having my handheld VHF, it was fun to listen to the marine chatter as we connected with the tugs and were escorted into the dock.

As to the human error part. Good Question Dr. Bob. Maybe integrating the control systems, Forward looking sonar, tighter tolerances on the GPS with inputs from both for and aft GPS receivers on anything over 60 feet, more detailed navigation chart systems with more frequent updates, and for, aft and beam clearances programed onto a high def radar. All these to overcome the human on board missing something. Then of course, each system would need to be redundant, from the sensor to the power unit. Possible, yes; practical, no. So we fall back onto the human, doing his best, most of the time, and hoping not to have a catastrophe.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
hardee":mk2g879q said:
[quote It gets very dark onboard, at 0400 in a center cabin. Harvey
SleepyC :moon
Click to expand...

Just as an aside- We always get an inside cabin on cruise ships. They are cheaper of course, and that is a consideration, but, even when all systems are go, I never sleep better than when in those inside 'sensory deprivation chambers'. :smiled
 
Marty, We have done that too, except for the Alaska cruise. That one.... didn't want any sensory deprivation. In fact, didn't spend nearly enough time sleeping :lol:

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
I believe that many would be shocked at how many vessels in the middle of the ocean are not properly maned--that is the single watch stander may be asleep, making coffee, using the head or just not paying attention. In our cruising (we do stand full watches) we have had to take diversionary tactics to avoid being run down at least a dozen times. On several instances we have confirmed that the watch stander was not available or asleep. I have also lost friends whose small vessels were run over by freighters. So the human element is always a very major element.

Remember that the majority of ships on the sea do not have the high tech gear which Hardee refers too. Forward looking Sonars? No way. Dual GPS/GPS compass --again not going to be purchased.

It looks as if aid is to this ship--and the beans will not be spilled into a mass of fuel oil.
 
Back
Top