Why Weren't Two Anchors Enough?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.ย. 2023
- My eternal thanks to the community for supporting this video: / casualnavigation
✩ABOUT THIS VIDEO✩
In this video, we investigate a real incident where a vessel dragged anchor and collided with another vessel and a chemical terminal. We explain the anchoring conditions and ask how we could prevent this same thing from happening again.
This video is based on a real accident report published by the NTSB: www.ntsb.gov/investigations/A...
✩JOIN OUR COMMUNITY✩
/ casualnavigation
The community is our space for anyone that wants to get even more from Casual Navigation. I am eternally grateful for all members of the community as you are the ones that help me and continue to drive this channel forward.
When you join, you’ll instantly become much closer to the channel, with a range of perks and rewards depending on the tier you select.
➼ Ad-Free
➼ Early Access
➼ Bonus Content
➼ Get Involved
✩DISCLAIMER✩
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education. - บันเทิง
Ship master: "We have an emergency, we need a pilot"
VTS: hmmm, I don't have you booked in for an emergency request for a pilot, but I can pencil you in for an emergency tomorrow at 06:00, next time please book your emergencys further ahead of time.
🤡
haha
Yeah....my jaw just dropped. Worse, a friggin fly flew in. Darn amusing though.
Seems to me the parties most at fault are VTS for giving orders that we’re not only actively unhelpful, but also wrong, and the pilot who originally set the anchor points and left in a hurry without verifying that the ship was actually stable. So basically the local authorities. I wonder if they’ll actually admit any culpability or try to scapegoat the crew of the ship?
agreed !! they dropped the ball then demanded everyone else catch it but then as everyone started reaching out they said no no you cant use your hands XD like seriously this is obviously their fault thru and thru
At the end the pilot is not responsible, the master has to verify and stays the one responsible in almost any situation. The pilot is there only to give advice.
@@geennaam2712😅 the pilot is there cuz locals require it
No captain or owner wants to hire a outside party
So the liability of the ship in port is between the pilots and owner. The captain has no liability in port 😂 🤔 unless they willingly sail the ship into another
The city and port don't want liability, so they are trying to make the owner liable
You can bet they will try to lay blame with someone else.
At least part of the matter was settled out of court and the case filed by Cornerstone Chemical was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it can't be refilled) in October 2022. See Eastern District of Louisiana, case 2:20-cv-01411.
Me watching intently as an IT manager who has only been on a cruise ship twice and couldn't tell a dinghy from a Destroyer ... "If you ever find yourself in this situation.." Got it!
"couldn't tell a dinghy from a Destroyer"
You sound more than qualified to lead Russia's 2nd pacific squadron then. 😉
I'm graduated as a data analyst, and worked as a network admin before getting my current job as a contractor / service engineer. Now I have been to and traveled with literally hundreds of ships. You can get jobs on all kinds of fields in shipping, so you never know.
@@nvelsen1975 Depends. How far can he throw a pair of binoculars?
Naval terminology fascinates me. Especially weird words like "boatswain" which seems to be pronounced differently on each ship
Fear not, for in my numberless travels I figured the perfect trick to differentiate them:
You have to wait to see if it destroys something. Easy.
It's interesting how, whereas Aviation accidents and incidents often happen so quickly that people cannot respond adequately, Maritime accidents may unfold slowly, but the forces involved are so great that adequate response is incredibly difficult once things have started cascading in the wrong direction.
Well said
Rules don't matter when life is at stake but the lack of vigilance by all concerned was cumulative. The captain and crew knew they could not manouvere the ship with anchors down but failed to give VTS a two finger salute and avoid a collision.
It also seems from a lot of these like part of the issue is often a misjudgement earlier which leaves people with bad information, and people either trusting the information when they shouldn't or second-guessing when they shouldn't.
In aviation on a deceleration of an emergency is issued, the rules state that the pilot may break any rule they need to to get the plane and passengers on the ground as safely as possible under the circumstances.
the authority's guilt is the largest here. they gave AN ORDER which was opposite of helping.
bureaucratic motivation dominated over situational in the authority!!!
especially if they legally didn’t have the authority to give such an order.
"the authority's guilt is the largest here. they gave AN ORDER which was opposite of helping."
No. Obviously the whole thing started by the crew and pilot not dropping the anchor properly and not checking wether the ship was secure.
The autority wasn't contacted until the ship was way out of control and it really does not matter what they said; the captain is god on the ship, he can do whatever he feels is needed to keep his ship safe.
Ofcourse as the video says: the authority cannot give orders and as I said: the captain doesn't have to listen to orders than endanger his ship.
Also: the authority gets calls every day from stupid captains who want to move without a pilot so obviously the first thing they will say is "wait for a pilot". They probably never even realised what was going on.
If you really watch the video then you'll see that there are at least five points in the sequence of events where everybody involved simply *assumed* that the anchors where ok, even though the ship was doing things that it could not do if the anchors where ok.
It is assnine to blame one party, because nobody did their job properly.
@@vinny142 "the authority gets calls every day from stupid captains who want to move without a pilot so obviously the first thing they will say is "wait for a pilot". They probably never even realised what was going on."
If thats the case why did they tell them they can maneuver with engines (to avoid collision) but that they may not raise anchor until there is a pilot?
@@dxb338 Maybe it's possible this is a somewhat common problem there with the current, so the authority had a rough idea of what was happening, just not the severity? Just a guess though, no real idea.
The problem is, if captain ignored VTS, if it did not work, all the quilt would be on him. It is probably a rational decision to follow VTS, perhaps from insurance point of view also
I’ve anchored 100’s of times in the Mississippi River on very large ships. In high water, high current conditions the anchorages are extremely challenging. The use of two anchors helps keep the ship from slewing out into the busy channel or onto the river bank. I don’t remember ever anchoring with a single anchor in the Mississippi River. When the fog rolls in and visibility drops to zero no one wants large ships slewing out into the path of river traffic. The engine on standby when anchored in high river or close quarters was my standard practice.
I would think that it would have been better to anchor with a single anchor taking the strain, and then drop the second anchor under foot at short stay. As the ship starts to "sail" back and forth on the anchor taking the strain, the anchor under foot steadies the ship and constrains the side to side movement.
This is interesting, thanks for sharing this info. I don’t know why but I’d always assumed ships generally have the facility to lower a stern anchor and that this would help reduce the slewing out and therefore the “walking” effect seen in this video
Very few merchant vessels carry a stern anchor. I doubt that a stern anchor would have been of much use in this case as all the strain would have been on the bower anchors with the current. I've utilized a second anchor underfoot on occasion as it settles the ship down and she doesn't "sail" out on her anchor chain. When the ship "comes about" when she reaches the end of her swing and turns towards another tack in the opposite direction, tremendous strain is placed on the ground tackle which can cause the anchor to drag. I've utilized it during the passage of a typhoon in Tokyo Bay, and also with very strong current in San Francisco Bay. The problem comes when the wind or current shift direction which can cause the anchors chains to cross and become fouled which must be avoided.
@@Pilotsf the bottom is soft mud and the anchors move around a good bit. you want a spread on the anchors if you drop one close to the ship it would be easier to get them crossed especially when/if it starts dragging. nobody is anchoring a loaded ship of any size in the river in 5kts current on one anchor either. Once the river hits 14ft stage in New Orleans things start going a bit crazy and dragging anchors is common. The common VTS radio call is to "use your engines to hold position but don't heave anchor." Usually a pilot is close by, coming from another ship or one can be rushed out.
Why on earth did it take so long to get pilots to the ship(s)? You would think there'd always be one available just in case of emergencies...like what happened here
*insert gif of crabs cackling with a clawful of money*
Why did it take so long? Maybe because the pilot association just for this area alone is responsible for ≈150 miles of river? It takes time to get a pilot and boat to the location.
Logistics is a main issue, just getting there takes time. Also have a pilot standing by, at whatever location takes manpower away from other activities.
Could have been another emergency for all we know!
i have a better question: why the port authority has no concept of EMERGENCY whatsoever.
Nomadic lived up to her name, Nomadic. It sums it up perfectly.
As a local, I’m wondering when the Mississippi River turned blue, and where all these hills came from.
Probably because they crashed into a chemical factory 😂
Why wouldn’t the Mississippi River be blue? Doesn’t it run right along the pyramids of Egypt? It’s like right next to the Pacific Ocean
@@fergit0923ify the Mississippi is right next to the pacific ocean?????
@@nahx6205 yeah, it runs through Africa
@@fergit0923ifyyou're thinking of the Nile my friend. The Mississippi runs through the United States and empties into the Atlantic
It seems to me that 3 points of local operational conditions are in conflict with each other and require policy revision. 1, that the master remains in command while a pilot is on board (I believe this to be the case); 2, that local regulations require a pilot to conduct manoeuvres except in an emergency; and 3, there is not always immediate availability of pilots.
Points 1 and 2 confuse the command dynamics in the local area, requiring the master to be responsible for the pilot’s actions while being restricted from intervening. Points 2 and 3 prevents crews from taking any action to stop emerging issues until either a pilot arrives after a long wait or the issue becomes an emergency and the master be aware they now can intervene. It seems to me that these are inherently unsafe operational conditions.
Nice try. You have correctly identified the 3 primary criteria, but you have incorrectly determined their conflicts.
The Master is ALWAYS in charge. (1&2) This does not confuse the dynamic with the Pilot as the Master is NOT prevented from intervening. Indeed the Master can instruct the Pilot as to what he can and cant do and even sack the pilot, but he must request another. I have done that once with a pilot in the Suez Canal. (2&3) In this case 2 is considered an emergency and the pilot requirement does not apply. The Master cannot be prevented from taking emergency action to safeguard his ship. It would be a debatable point as to whether VTS could have prevented the Master from weighing anchor. I would have ignored VTS if I could not stem the current with anchors down.
Because you have mis-interpreted the conflicts your conclusion was incorrect.
@@csjrogerson2377 Nope. Clearly the Master did not believe they had authority to disobey VTS and/ignore the Pilot requirement. Doesn't matter what the regs say, it matters how they're enforced & actually observed. If your interpretation were correct, there'd be no accident and no accident video.
Maybe you're a corporate lawyer? They love rules where the corporate office is in de facto command right up until the point where something goes wrong and they can scapegoat the master.
@@x--. Are you seriously arguing that 'beliefs' matter more than laws... in LEGAL MATTERS!? 🤣
@@x--.Someone's lack of understanding of the law is no excuse for not following it.
@@csjrogerson2377 I accept your explanation for 1&2. However, the conflict pointed out for 2&3 does not refer to the situation in the video when an emergency was underway, it refers to any potential emerging issues which are not emergencies while a vessel is in the area and a pilot is required but not yet available. Restrictions from tackling an emerging issue allows it to progress into an emergency, which is principally unsafe regardless of how well the emergency can or may be resolved.
What an interesting video! Bravo to the Nomanic Milde actually for minimizing damage to the Atlantic Venus once she knew she was out of control. Authorities in this case always try to blame the ship, but in this case I too believe it was due to VTS not responding as they should and that initial pilot. Of course Nomadic's crew do take some blame for not noticing the drift and/or responding earlier/ignoring it when something was wrong. Very similar almost to Ever Given's situation in the $uez Canal. it was the pilot that was fault (and you'll never convince me otherwise) since he was giving orders on the ship.
Blame is for owners and lawyers.
For crew, support staff and vessles, learning from the event is the priority.
It never ceases to amaze me how slow to react ships crews are. They just sit there while they are dragging anchors, slowly getting closer to another ship. The other ship speaks up and they still do nothing until its way too late.
The point of having pilots is to have an expert in local conditions to make the best decision for the navigation/positioning of the vessel. I put this 100% on the original pilot
In aviation, we call it the Swiss cheese model. There's lots of holes in each layer, but it only takes one set to make it all the way through. An accident, incident, or mishap is almost always the result of many missed opportunities to stop the error chain. The aviation industry has put a lot of effort into creating sources to break that chain. Going to have to say, a lot of these maritime accidents seem to be the result in part of the strict hierarchy of leadership where it's one person at each point of failure. We call it Crew Resource Management. And it's a methodology of allowing the captain or person in command to maintain overall authority and responsibility, while knocking down the godlike pedestal of command to allow teamwork to happen.
So the chief screwed up and didn't catch it or deem it necessary to take action... So I guess they have the only eyes capable of detecting a problem and taking corrective action?? It just feels like between this and Exxon for example, these are mistakes that shouldn't have been just one person's to make.
Fascinating! I had an anchoring mishap myself recently, when the yacht I was on was at anchor in a place with a strong tidal current and a stiff breeze. This combination caused the boat to turn from being right behind the anchor to having it abeam, and as the boat turned, the anchor line got caught on the keel. We were able to resolve the issue with no damage, but it was a tense moment and a good lesson.
Wow, VTS seems like the biggest culprit here. Granted the situation should have been discovered sooner, but they basically ordered the crew to stop when they had no authority to do so.
Nope
It's important to keep plotting your drag and swing circles. Used to have to do it at anchor when I was the duty QM in the navy.
You should do more of these man. I feel like you could corner the ship accident stories very well with the actual data and physics.
"These investigations are not done to assign blame, theyre simply done to share the lessons learned..."
Yeah, tell that to the various insurance companies and the multiple people that were 100% fired that day lol
the problem is firing people who did not mean to cause harm but made a mistake and/or followed an incorrect procedure is pointless as you got rid of someone who is both experienced, and you just paid for the mistake of, and now will not gain from them learning their lesson. All this is on top of it not actually fixing the problem- no one went out there that day intending to crash a ship
Indeed, these systems are always built to share lesson but are always used instead to assign blame
I know that anchorage. Would think the pilot was at some fault; would think the anchor watchstander carries a good heap, too. And the master should have known VTS doesn’t trump saving the ship from danger.
if you ignore VTS your insurance will refuse to pay. Of course, if you don't, they will refuse to pay because you didn't do everything you could to prevent damage...
@@keiyakins When your ship is about to crash insurance should really not be the first thing on your mind. Or at all actually.
I’m from New Orleans! I remember this. Actually the bend by Mississippi River causes shit loads of accidents by anvil standards. She’s not an easy channel to navigate
this is in contrast to the new Carissa wreck, where despite being told to maintain engine readiness, the captain shut down the engines once the anchors were placed.
The avaiation industry actually had a term for for a series of small failures and breaches of protocal. They call it the swish cheese model.
"If you ever find yourself in that situation" I am not sure I am ever going to be in that situation, living over 100 miles in land but it is good to know these things!
Your videos are so adictive to watch, another interesting watch, Awesome work!
Love your channel, please keep it up
The same situation was in Korea years ago. Ship A was dragging anchor and hit ship B.
After investigating ship B was guilty. Because on ship A they did everything they could to avoid collision, but on B they did nothing and were just waiting.
Also, why would you just sit there when you can perfectly well see that another vessel is about to come in contact with you? You can let out anchor, you can thrust, you can do all kinds of things I'm sure to help prevent the interaction. Yes, you can't heave on your own anchors and completely remove yourself once the situation is that bad. But you can almost certainly do SOMETHING.
Not doing anything means they are not liable for any damages. Would you like to be liable for the damages this coused?
What if letting out anchor chain made the 2nd vessel hit the terminal instead? They just went from 500k in damages paid by someone elses, to paying the 11million damages (or their insurance, that would increase the insurance cost for the whole fleet)
*SO MUCH criminal negligence and incompetence in every step.*
Just like in every incident like this as the chap said.
What an excellent and thorough presentation. People can learn a lot from this.
This wasso interesting! Please do more accidents coverage, i love hearing about all the things we learn from aviation accidents, and manouvering a ship sounds at least as complex!
ok, the part where the propeller just decides to go forward instead is pretty funny
Who paid the damages? That’d be interesting to know
One recurring factor: decision-makers separated themselves from some of the necessary information but didn't delegate the decision-making.
Example: VTS made the decision(s) to not raise anchor, to require a pilot, and to require the ship to schedule their own pilot. While the decision-maker, VTS, had a lot of information about the waterway, port, local people and more, their information was incomplete because they weren't on the ship. Despite being separated from this necessary information, (it appears) they didn't 1) collect more information, 2) share the relevant information they possessed, or 3) delegate (some or all) decision-making to the ship, who had the necessary information.
Similarly, this may have been a factor when the large tractor tug approached. _If_ the events unfolded with the _mood_ described in this video, then the pilot was the decision-maker. He/she had planned the roles and actions of each of the players. But because this was a nonstandard operation with elevated risk, information _and_ decision-making should have been widely shared.
*HOW TO USE THIS* in emergency situations:
If you (believe you) are a decision-maker, then you must ensure you are collecting necessary information or delegate (some or all) decision-making to someone who has the necessary information. Collecting necessary information has at least two parts: collect the necessary information and ask other people what they think the "necessary information" is.
If you (believe you) are not the decision-maker, but you have necessary information the decision-makers don't have, you should make the information COMMONly known. (To _communicate_ means to make information _common_ with other people.) Instead of trying to communicate with only the decision-makers, choose a slightly different goal: make the necessary information commonly known. Because 1) decision-makers sometimes don't want to collect more information, 2) as the situation changes, who is making decisions might change, and 3) you might be unaware of some of the decision-makers. You shouldn't spam useless information, however, so try to limit the communication to necessary information. And, so that you can know what information is necessary, you should try to understand the situation. Finally, it _might_ be wise for you to make a decision even though you (believe you) are not a decision-maker. The following things should influence whether you assume the power to make a decision: 1) a large disparity of necessary information that you are near but from which the decision-maker is separated; 2) elevated risk; and [a couple of other things, but I'm suddenly tired and must end, sorry.]
That's okay, take a break. Do come back to finish your comment though. It's very useful information.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to determine if a piece of information IS useful. THAT detail might also be with the decision-makers. 😕
This is a fantastic comment! It gave me some insight into a problem I had this week, in fact. Thank you for taking the time to write it out.
@@christalbot210 Yes, it "can be difficult to determine" which information is necessary. In my original comment, I explicitly wrote about how to determine which information is necessary, twice. Plus, I'm describing an abstract idea to use as an _ad hoc_ procedure in an emergency: you should assume everything will be difficult.
The decision making is delegated though. VTS does not hold authority over the ship in an emergency. The captain was entirely empowered to save the vessel. It's just like in aviation really.
I work on the mississippi river and actually ran the pilots to these ships in this incident, if anyone is curious i could answer questions. The river is run a certain way and can be very different from other places especially high river.
Is it not the overriding rule that the master of the vessel is empowered to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent injury to persons or property, whatever a pilot or harbormaster may suggest or demand?
Yes, with the exception of the Panama Canal where the Pilot has statutory control of the vessel’s navigation.
try it and get sued
Thanks for another video! looking forward to another one. Have a nice weekend
You can almost hear the colorful language being thrown around on both ships.
I love your presentation of the challenges and considerations involved in the world of big ships.
Do you offer commentary on the operations of individual ports? Or perhaps, offer series' on the challenges of individual crossings/ports/waterways?
Amazing production value as usual, well done!
I dont even care about ships, but your videos are really cool!
Wooow this was really cool! Thanks Casual Navigation 😄
Some automated anchor dragging alarms seem like an obvious systematic improvement to me. Why wasn't such a system in use?
Money probably
I have an ignorant landlubber question - how do you detect the anchor is dragging?
@@MerennulliBest way would probably be a GPS monitor if you change position (which is what the Nomadic did but probably too large of an area). When I anchor a smaller boat I take a couple land waypoints and if their orientation to the other changes the boat has moved
@@WilhelmSchicklegrubeThanks. I was thinking of the problem too narrowly and didn't think of GPS.
In a modern merchant vessel, you:
1. Keep one or both radars running, while you on each screen activate 2 of what’s called an EBL (Electronic Bearing Line) on the screen. The EBL is a straight line running from your vessel to a conspicous, fixed point on the radars screen. If the EBLs move away from their conspicous points (the 2 points being different points from the other), the vessel is dragging anchor.
2. You have your ECDIS (electronic chart) show intervals of vessel’s past position(s). If the vessels drags anchor, over time you will se a pattern of past positions showing the vessel moving away from the position of the anchor (you marked the position of the anchor in the chart when you dropped anchor).
3. You activate the anchor watch mode in the ECDIS and the electronic chart will give alarm if the vessel moves far enough to exceed set limits. The limit is always a circle around the vessel, as the vessel can be expected to swing freely around the anchor as a result of changing directions of wind and tide. Size of circle is according to the size of the vessel and the chosen lenght of the anchor chain.
Everything up to the "do not raise anchor" order was understandable, though somewhat sloppy; but it should be pretty obvious to everyone that you do not need to wait for a pilot in an emergency to raise anchors, engage the engine and stop the drift. That's such an incredibly stupid "order" and equally stupid to obey it.
Would love to see your take on the KNM Helge Ingstad frigate incident that occurred in 2018
Fantastic video!
Fascinating. I always learn new things since I am just an observer of ships in my bay.
During an emergency the ones 'on site' have the better grasp of the situation and should therefore be allowed a greater degree of autonomy. VTS should've informed them they were sending a Pilot and that's it.
The issue is liability and blame. And the manner in which vessels are commercially operated/chartered. Master's struggle to put their jobs on the line to take positive decisions, which in hindsight is the right thing to do once the incident occurred, but if it was done proactively to avert an incident then the Master will get it in the neck from the back office/shore management who all weren't there to see it, nor understand it, nor appreciate it, and majority of people have got been in that situation nor with that level of responsibility. I feel these incidents are 'normal' for the marine industry. The industry is run so lean that simple losses of time can attract nutters to literally lose it, and aggressive commercial operators to claim damages. It's a brutal game.
Could you please make a video on harbour pilots, what they do and why they're still so important even for experienced captains and despite of all available modern technology.
It seems the recommendation algorithm has blessed your video!
Is there not some maritime equivalent of "Declaring an Emergency" in aviation where help will drop what they're doing and come assist to prevent a collision or spill?
fantastic video and story!
I'm honestly surprised it wasn't worse.
Even if this is a case study where lessons are to be learned. I am pretty sure there is still blame to be dished out.
First blame is on the chief officer for disregarding the findings made due to lack of familiarity with it.
"I don't know what i am seeing so everything is probably fine"
That's a very dangerous mindset to have. If something seems off, chances are everything is very very wrong and it's not just going to sort itself out.
Figure out why it seems wrong and fix it before it's too late. Because one small wrong can escalate into an uncontrollable situation really really fast if another small thing goes wrong later.
And second blame and the cause of the whole "accident" was VTS basically telling the ship that it wasn't allowed to rescue itself and just sit there waiting for a pilot that would never come.
Imagine you fall on the train tracks at a train station and security tells you to stay there because you are not allowed on the tracks and they need an authorized person that can't get there to get you off. Meanwhile the announcement speakers tells you of a train that is about to pass the station on those tracks...
Any sane person would climb off the tracks onto the platform or otherwise get out of harms way but security basically tells you that you are under arrest and shall not move because RULES.
Entirely avoidable even when you consider the reason for the chain of events that transpired. It was all because of lack of action by the chief officer and the authoritarian nature of VTS in an emergency.
In aviation, aircraft that declare an emergency are given priority over all others and don't need to follow instructions by the tower or ATC. They can use information and directions by either entity but they are actually free to just say "i am landing on runway 31 NOW and that's that" without having to worry about what rules they would otherwise have broken under normal circumstances.
The same really should apply of maritime operations. I am declaring an emergency and it's YOUR job to assist me in resolving this in a safe manner. Not tell me to wait until the emergency is a literal shipwreck.
A pilot should have been dispatched IMMEDIATELY and focus should have been put on avoiding ship to ship contact at any cost to "the rules" being broken.
Oh, it's certainly possible to assign blame. In fact, that's what the average person rushes directly towards, out of fear that someone else will blame them first, or simply to make sure "justice is served."
The problem is this puts the different actors in conflict and is a strong disincentive to learn objectively. When people conceal important data, lie to protect their interests, deny or obscure events, and avoid accepting how their actions contributed to the outcome, that directly works against learning necessary lessons and makes everything less safe.
Talk about the abandoned ship in Rio de Janeiro that hit the bridge Rio Niterói
And this is why Navy vessels always have enough crew on board to operate fully. Crazy to think they leave a ship without enough staff to respond to emergencies like this, but even with such a big loss like this one they probably still save money by not having a proper crew onboard to make it worthwhile..
The ship had its full crew on board, the Mississippi River Pilots are a separate organization with a State Charter to provide required piloting services. Think of them as highly skilled, extraordinarily well paid advisors that a foreign ship is required to employ. The orders from the Vessel Traffic Control not to pick up their anchors was certainly a causal factor. The delay of the Watch Officers in recognizing that thee ship was dragging anchor another causal factor.
To quote Adam Driver, “MORE!”
when human error is large, there's almost always a way to adjust the underlying systems to prevent similar future mistakes.
Genuinely sounds like a joke in a sketch comedy show, that they called for distress and were asked to make a formal booking
Thank you
Quite a fascinating little casualty... not the kind of thing you hear about every day!
VTS was in the wrong, foreign crew, not familiar with US rules, and maybe even english, did not challenge them. In hindsight, the vessel was at least in extremis, if not emergency, upon the master's arrival back on the bridge. A PAN-PAN, or MAYDAY call at that point would have been appropriate, and would have at least gotten everyone's attention, but also more than likely gotten assistance to them sooner. But, sometimes, when its you, you either don't think of that or are afraid to say it. In both aviation and maritime environment, early emergency notification is often a missed opportunity.
In the Military, we call it "Complacency and Incompetence".
In Aviation it's called "Get-There-Itis".
In Shipping, what's it called?
free sailors basicly ''sailors'' who has brought their first maxi 58 boat and sailing about with no regards to the rules
So Casual Navigation uploads a video on my birthday that talks about incompetent authorities…
"If you ever find yourself in that situation in future." Aye, I'll keep that in mind next time I crash my ship.
Fascinating
great video
I really hope you can make this a series, similar to aircraft investigations. This production quality is not easily sustainable but I really believe there is an untapped market for videos like this.
Hes from the maritime industry, he has no background in aviation.
Exactly what I was thinking
With all the geeky science stuff I watch on TH-cam, how come I've only just discovered this channel? It's amazing! I've already wasted an hour and a half of Sunday morning! (Although, 'wasted' is probably the wrong word!)
6:51 Damage includes the loss of anchors on both ships - couldn't the anchors easily be recovered from the riverbed?
Clearly seems like a situation of legal process over common sense. This is discussed in aviation a fair bit, pilots are reminded frequently during training that they, not air traffic control, fly the plane, the pilot is ultimately responsible for safety, air traffic control makes mistakes, and in an emergency the pilot should do whatever necessary to save themselves and their plane. Similarly pilots are taught to question higher-ranking pilots when they think mistakes are being made. Thus an aviation pilot in this situation would have said "Screw you, anchors up, we're out of here!" But this attitude is written in blood as they say, this hasn't always been the policy and numerous accidents have taught the aviation industry, and codified into regulation, "Save your ass even if you have to disregard authority." Don't know how it is in the maritime realm, I imagine things are a bit more complicated with larger crews and longer chains of command. But even so, even if the crew legally had the authority to ignore these "orders," I still don't think they should be blamed for doing what they were told, the VTS should be held accountable for failing to provide aid while ordering (whether or not the had the authority) the crew to not take matters into their own hands.
The master has an overriding responsibility to keep his crew and ship safe from harm. The VTS may issue an order not to heave on the anchors, but who's in charge onboard? It's easy to spot blame but truly in an emergency, the best amongst us react slowly.
New drinking game: take a shot everytime Atlantic Venus is mentioned.
2:00 Pilot said to keep engines on standby due to expecte weather and current.
Directions that should have been given . . . If it looks like you start dragging anchor, put the engine in forward to take some load off the anchor
Crew was like put engines is standby, got it.
i work as a deck crew in cargo ships (bulk carrier) that regularly load cargo and anchor at the misissipi river.
in my view, the party to blame here is:
1. Master and his officers for not doing a proper anchor watch and not heaving anchor to save the ship
2. Pilot who drop anchor did not made sure that the both anchors were holding
3 VTS for giving stupid orders
Reminds me of story about someone taking oral exam examiner says wind increases and you start to drag your anchor what are your actions, student veer more cable, examiner wind increases and you continue to drag, student veer more cable examiner wind increases and your still dragging, student veer more cable examiner (who wanted answer of either drop second anchor or start engines) again states wind increases what action student says veer more cable. Examiner at this point asks where student getting all this cable, student replies same place your getting all this wind!!
In the international and inland rules of the road. Rule 2 ". . . which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid danger".
Basically, the goal is to not break stuff.
Things you can say about ships but not your spouse: damn, she's dragging Two Anchors
Speaking if anchors, can you do a video on how ships untangle anchors chains, please? 🤔🤗
Best option- Never Take command 😂
Be a chief officer and avoid heart attack or a anxiety attack.
Why does it always seem like some of the most careless operators get control of these ships. Of course we're just highlighting accidents, but they still seem relatively preventable if someone properly cared and knew what they were doing.
well that's the problem probably, that people don't care, get lazy, and mess up expecting nothing unusual will happen
Because otherwise there is no accident. Good example of selection bias.
As for they seem easily preventable . Yes probably but it's always a quetion of cost vs benefit. The swiss cheese model works well to prevent accidents but it is always a trade off of how many layers you can afford and need. The reality is that the maritime industry is comparatively low risk and this is a rare accident.
Is it technically possible for every sizeable port to have standby pilots and an emergency center similar to what airports have? Sure. Is that worth it? Probably not. And unlike in aviation fatalities in such instances are very rare.
Thanks.
Can you do a video about the zeebrugge ferry disaster soon
Crew on the bow not checking the anchor before going back, crew on the bridge not checking is everything ok, .... Pilot can't see everything. Communication is of utmost importance always.
is a person who grew up on the Mississippi River the river has a tendency to have multiple coins going every direction imaginable it is also made up of loose and moving sand on the base and bottom of the Mississippi . as for letting out all other ships and could change 90% of the weight would be to dig into the ground but with the constant dredging done on the Mississippi the sand has a tendency to move multiple times so which means the ships anchors could not dig in deep enough to get a foothold into the ground also if it had a stun anchor it might have been able to being a better position .
Lazy people with authority are the most dangerous people in this world
it's almost like it was everyone's first day on the job.
Seriously, ONLY $6 million worth of repairs ? Repairing a ship must be cheap, that sounded like a lot of damage to me.
Shocking that there was a ship full of people that seemed incapable of piloting a ship, they had to wait for somebody that knew how to do it to come from shore. Madness.
Right wouldn't you expect a ship of that size to have someone on board at all times with at least some knowledge of ship handling. Of course it may have been procedural and no one was allowed to even if they have the technical ability.
When talking about ships the word "pilot" doesn't mean the person who controls where the ship is going. (that's the helmsman) A pilot's job is to guide the ship /locally/. The crew may never have been at that location before, or if they have been then conditions may have significantly changed. The pilot knows the channel locations, depths, current patterns, any tidal influence, obstacles, etc.
Pilots aren't part of the crew, they come aboard to give the crew the information required to safely navigate and maneuver in dangerous, congested, or restricted waterways.
A ship in the middle of the ocean doesn't need a pilot. It just needs a navigator and a helmsman. (and all of the other people a ship needs of course)
There's a similar thing in space flight. The pilot of Apollo Lunar Modules wasn't the person controlling the Lander. The commander was the person who actually flew the lander. The pilot's job was to feed the commander information: altitude, fuel reserves, distance to landing site, etc.
Honestly, the word "pilot" really only means "the person controlling the vessel" on small vehicles when ALL of the helm, pilot, navigation, and captaining responsibilities can fall on a single person.
Not a pilots job to steer the ship though. They should not have needed one to save the ship here or even keep it out of danger in the first place. I mean it would have been nice if a pilots had been available quickly but shoulod really not have been necessary. @@gildedbear5355
They had so many opportunities to catch on but they simply ignored all the warnings. Poorly trained crew.
Not a professional or anything, but seems that with a steady current in the river, two closely spaced anchors would be the proper thing. With the current, seems the swinging circle is going to be less just by virtue of the current. And with a known current, holding power should have been the priority.
And VTS telling them to not raise anchor, apparently they didn't realize the seriousness of the situation, unlike the bridge crew. Perhaps the bridge crew didn't make it clear just how serious the situation was?
Hi Casnav!
I know for sure I would never make any sort of mistake in any circumstance ever.
"Something looks odd. Oh, well, not my job." This is the cause of this shit show. I hope a lot of people lost their jobs.
how do we not have sensors that can immediately send out an alarm when any anchor drags more than X metres? surely we have this tech and it probably wouldn't be prohibitively expensive? also, how did they not see the ship's position shift so much with gps?
what are we, still in the early 20th century? for once we hear two ships actually radioing each other! but... marconi invented the radio in 1897, and the first recorded ship-to-ship use was in that same year!
Some of you need to go read the attached NTSB report and not just watch the video.
Seems like the crew of Nomadic Milde could have done more to save her but chose instead to wait for a pilot / follow orders from VTS so they didn't end up taking all the blame.
Master should have better understood the emergency power that they had, but the VTS screwed the pooch.
The past few years, the amount of people rushing in the maritime industry is insane. No excuse. The mentality you'd expect to see in fast food.
@10:58 I though it was a plug for a sponsor ad, felt like an idiot after and was genuinely surprised xD