What Happens To Lost Containers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- My eternal thanks to the community for supporting this video: / casualnavigation
✩ABOUT THIS VIDEO✩
In this video, we look at what happens when containers fall off a ship? Do they sink? Or do they float and forever plague the oceans as "growlers", waiting for unsuspecting yachts?
✩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
✩WITH THANKS✩
➼ Images used under license from shutterstock.com
Bath Duck - Meowu / Shutterstock.com
Truck - Yuri Schmidt / Shutterstock.com
✩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
Royal Navy submarines have also been known to hit containers that have submerged but are buoyant at a depth below the surface. An ex navy friend said who had served on subs
It seems to be incredibly unlucky to hit such a container.
Former, not ex*
@@neues3691 Subs when not on mission likely use shipping lanes for navigation
@@om7303 ha, ha. Are there shipping lanes below the surface.
I'll take that as a joke comment.
@@neues3691 yes, but it happens
The idea of a small rubber ducky floating alone across the sea is both wholesome and sad.
The sea carries them to shore eventually and people pick them up. They'd have quite a story to tell. :)
I don't think wholesome means what you think it does 😂
"That is because you are crazy. It has no feelings."
th-cam.com/video/Nix6tC3vvjs/w-d-xo.html
This is why the sea-level is rising. Because that's years of cars, ships , containers and airplanes.
@@stinga_ this is what happens when u dont graduate high school
15 years ago I decided to move back from Australia and packed my entire life into a 20' container. Guess, what... the container was lost at sea 🤪
Actually tragic
That sucks.
I guess we could say at least you yourself was not in there, so you have at least survived 15 years without your life?
But for serious, sorry to hear that, must really suck. Stuff like couches and clothes can be replaced, but memorial stuff like pictures, souvenirs etc have such emotional value
If anything good has happened in the last 15 years? it may not have happened had your belongings not been lost - maybe you would have been somewhere else :)
How was the insurance claim? Did they pay up pretty quickly or were they a PITA about everything?
How much data did you lose?
So my dad was a sailor on a soviet merchant ship. One day they got a call that a Japanese ship lost some containers in a storm in some region nearby and to "avoid the hazardous area". Somehow, the crew 'misunderstood' this message to be "free foreign products in the area" and quickly dredged them up to find some undergarments and record players, soaked about halfway up but with the top half completely dry. So yes, they float and, as it turns out, are totally free for the taking.
Idk sounds like an average post delivery
Yeah sounds like what I'd do
Thats hilarious😂😂
Wow! Not quite as rewarding as a container filled with high quality Scotch, but still not a bad haul.
In Soviet Union VHS player had price about 1-4 year average salary.
Could exchange it for used car or appartment.
I keep them in my garage, arrr
Can i have one?
@@ripnobsure mate!
Ok
Can I have one?
Rrg
The next question that comes up is: Is there an "industry" that specializes in reclaiming containers lost at sea?
Probably depends on where they get lost, if a ship loses a container in a harbor or "inland" waterway its probably high priority to fish it put of the water so it doesn't disrupt normal operations.
Otherwise its unlikely that enough get lost for a full on salvage industry to sustain itself on lost cargo. Maybe a generic ocean cleanup organization will activate fish up lost cargo containers when practical, but thats probably mostly contained to stuff close to shore. (Way easier to intercept junk in rivers than the open ocean)
I've had such an idea for a business venture: fly seach patterns with autonomous, solar-powered UAVs carrying magnetic anomaly detectors. If an anomaly is detected, get visual confirmation, then send out a salvage boat. A small boat's crew can attach buoyancy devices, tracker and a radar reflector while the backoffice traces the owner and determines if salvage will be profitable.
This was my thought as well, especially given the suggestion of radar beacons. Getting them out of the water would be the best solution. But in most cases it probably wouldn't be economically viable to recover them, perhaps if close to shore or a whole load of them, but not a few individual containers here and there. Plus in most cases the cargo would probably be ruined by seawater and, even if something valuable initially, would have little salvage value. Extreme of this would be electronics, a container stuffed with laptops and smartphones is probably the highest value of any, but if it's been in the water and flooded they'd be ruined and nothing but E-waste. Though, just from an ocean safety perspective, a bounty could be incorporated as well, whoever salvages the container and brings it to shore gets the bounty plus the container and contents.
@@quillmaurer6563 One could probably auction off the contents of salvaged containers for a profit. While a distributor will not accept the cargo of a container that swam, there are people in the second-hand trade who might take the gamble that a portion of the cargo will be undamaged, or refurbishable.
Cargoes like specialty chemicals in drums or lumber will be not be functionally affected, and the owners and insurers will happily pay salvage.
There may also be environmental organizations who will fund the salving of hazardous cargoes that have no value.
I've seen some people make tiny houses out of the containers before.
I remember reading about the bath toys. They were nicknamed "Friendly Floaties" by the scientists and enthusiasts
Friendly Floatees was the product name
Plastic Ducks are still washing up on beaches, not always intact but with bite marks or damage, showing how indestructible plastic is in the oceans.
While, perhaps an ecological concern, those same rubber duckies gave scientists new insights into currents of the ocean
RIP to sea life that choked on those unpleasant duckies
@@onsokumaru4663evidence? Or speculation that always involves worse case scenario to a highly exaggerated degree? You know, if it saves just ONE microbe!
Imagine being a twilight-zone marine animal and seeing these huge metal structures like ships or cargo containers just falling past you out of nowhere.
Fish Cargo Cult!
As there is little light down there, they wouldn't see it coming.
@@JohnyG29They could feel the negative pressure? I'm not sure how fish work
"Why is that whale rectangular?"
@JohnyG29 whales and Dolphins might see it, especially near the surface. They're intelligent enough to notice it too. Must be a strange sight.
I always recall the story of a woman who came to the US from China inside of a shipping container. Makes me wonder how many poor souls are lost in such travels being smuggled like cargo. R.I.P.
Oh jeez I didn’t even think of that!!!!! And the worst part is those people are undocumented so who even knows..?
Q how many poor souls are lost in such travels being smuggled like cargo.?
A Not enough
@@FC-qe1wlI’d rather have someone who travels the ocean sealed in a cargo container to get here as a fellow American than a moron who makes jokes like this.
@@FC-qe1wl Q how many internet trolls get fed to hogs in the deep forest? A Not enough
@@FC-qe1wlA lot of drowned people.
Send the navy after the floaters. It would be good exercise in hunting down tiny dangerous things and who wouldn't want to loose a torpedo on a container of rubber ducks!? Sometimes my brilliance exceeds that of Jeremy Clarkson himself.
your brilliance has its own gravitational field
Your genius is almost frightening
🤣🤣
You have no idea how much those torpedoes cost...
@@johnkeith8072 less then a sailing Yacht. Especially if you consider the training value
Another thing: good stowage isn't just good for preventing hazardous floaters, it also means that lucrative cargo isn't being lost, and it probably makes the crew safer as well.
Slow down the lost containers from happening: Ports weigh each container as it comes in and check the bill of lading for it's stated weight by shipper, variation gets investigated if it's heavier by more than 500 kilograms and shipper gets fined the cost of the investigation. New bill of lading issued with accurate weights. Since the biggest cause of lost containers is improper loading due to inaccurate weights this will slow the losses.
A float running up a tube with a spring loaded radar reflector mounted to the side of the container means it hits the water and the reflector is deployed by water coming into the bottom of the tube. As the container sinks lower the float lifts the reflector higher.
Yeah companies just have no incentive to do it and this would also have to work no matter which side of the container ends up pointing up. I don't see it being cost effective (needs to be nearly free) and working for all four sides.
* ... *its* stated weight...
Remember: his/her/its are a matched set; none have an apostrophe.
I think the cranes can automatically weigh each container every time it is shifted. When it arrives at the port, the weight can be noted automatically; don't rely on documentation that comes with the container.
The float part is easy enough to get working on all four sides.
Just install it on one of the two ends,make it strong enough to survive impact with the ocean,then have the tether long enought to counteract it getting wrapped around for whatever reason.
Then just have the international community enforce these on containers,because screw corporations,ensuring that containers are made safer.
A follow up would then be an international crane ship service that goes out and scoops up any containers that they can find,or outright puncture the daylights out of the container to ensure it sinks,with the bill being footed to the companies who dropped the container in the first place,because screw corporations two,screw harder.
Steal the productive wealth in order throw more government at it. That's always worked in the past.
Is that shipping company ‘Ever’ not having issues on the high seas?
No, only on large rivers and canals. 😝
Don't forget sandbars, too!
They're a large portion of a large industry operating globally, so issues will happen from time to time. Excluding that one really expensive incident, I have no idea how their record compares to the rest of the shipping industry.
At this point, everyone are making fun of every company with ‘Ever’ in it's name.
Really long ratchet straps need to be used to secure the containers. Then hire a confident guy on each ship who’s only job is to keep waking up and down, twanging each strap and saying ‘that’s not going anywhere’
How about a spring loaded radar reflector that pops up when wet for some time?
Cheap metal sheets that don't need to stay in tact long and easy to retrofit
"up" could be any of four directions, not sure how it would work without batteries and be cost effective, and pop up regardless of orientation
Would it appear on radar/sonar? Tho?
@@paulgemperlein626 six
Good idea, you could also just use buoyancy to pop it up. Have an open drainpipe like structure with a movable buoyant insert. Water enters the bottom and pushes the insert up with the radar reflector on the top of it. the more the container sinks, the higher the reflector gets above the container. Net result is when the container is high in the water, the reflector is only just above it, when the container is very low in the water, the reflector is high above it. Cheap and low maintenance solution.
I was wondering this myself. Could sping loaded retro reflectors be attached within the stacking gap that would release and latch in place effectively hoisting a distress flag visible to radar with no energy requirements beyond the initial potential energy in the spring.
About 25 years ago, an offshore minicontainer (8'x6'x8') containing food supplies destined for a North Sea oil platform (NAA for those interested :) ) got swept off the back of the supply vessel, and floated around for about 7 months over winter, before being spotted, retrieved, and returned to its originator (who had already claimed loss from insurers). Needless to say, all the frozen food had to be thrown away.....
1. Explosives is a terrible incentive for (a) terrorists to loot them, and (b) 1 in 10,000 to malfunction and start a chain reaction to blow up almost every container and sink the ship or destroy a port.
2. Anything involving batteries is expensive, prone to failure, and already said, in this video, to not work.
3. Corner reflectors on spring-loaded masts is only good if you have them in all four directions on each end.
4. Anything which lets water in faster, is useless if the cargo itself is bouyant, as pointed out in this video.
5. Anything which opens the doors after a week's immersion in salt water or after release from its anchor points (tie downs? the corners, whatever they are called) is just begging for thieves to trigger and get inside.
In 1984 a helicopter dropped a 40 foot container into Port Stanley harbour. It floated very high in the water and was easily towed to shore. Flotation was doubtless aided by the fact that the container was filled with empty beer kegs being sent back to Courage's brewery!
Why were beer kegs flying by helicopter?
@@somethingsomething404 there was no container terminal or dock - the CH47 Chinook helicopter was being used as a flying crane to transfer containers from the land to the ship at anchor.
Parametric rolling is not stopped because of OoW whom are afraid of their captain, whom is afraid of losing his job when arriving late at the next port.
I encountered this on an Abis Shipping D-class ship where the captain did not wanted to wait for the storm to cease. We ended up with enormous damage to the cargo and the ship plus we had to enter an emergency port for re-stowing the cargo.
A very expensive lesson learned.
As one of the yachties floating around the ocean in my boat i can assure you my own incompetence vastly outweighs any risk of a submerged container.
The ocean is ridiculously huge, any resources spent preventing people from hitting lost containers would be far better spent on training and safety equipment for the yachts.
I feel like your talking pace is back at what it used to be. I really love it when you speak at this pace!
Good ideas here except for one problem. They’re losing about 1 container in 100,000 shipped. That means if you add $1 to the cost of ALL the containers, the cost per lost container is already $100,000 before any salvage operations.
The south east coast of Florida is covered in these containers. It is very expensive to take them away, but at times, they have valuable contents that the hotels and condo buildings do use.
I think these are probably a standard case of maritime salvage, pretty much "finder's keeper's." This channel had a video discussing salvage law and a rare example with a whole ship, but I'm sure containers are far more common. Probably in most cases the owner just writes it off the moment it falls overboard and has no interest in recovery.
Anything washing up on a UK foreshore below the high water line becomes Crown Property as the Crown owns the sea bed up to 3 miles out. Permission has to be obtained to remove it from HM Customs and Excise as is classed as theft of Crown Property without or smuggling if sold on. Beachcombing above the high water line after a storm just needs the beach owners permission if not a public beach although a container or contents are the Insurance Company's property.
@@tonys1636 I am not aware of any crowns washing up on Florida beaches, but it might have happened
@@johnl5316 Our U.S. laws are often derived from traditional English law, with the individual state governments taking on the role of the Crown. The State of Florida owns the seabed itself from the high water line to three miles out. Different types of property on the seabed are administered under different laws, and it isn't immediately obvious to me as a casual Googler who would own a container that washed up on Florida beaches. For example, natural resources and historical shipwrecks in that three mile limit both belong to the state. But foreign military vessels that shipwreck in Florida waters continue to be the property of the foreign country, etc.
@@tonys1636 the monarchy is doomed soon anyway
A well rounded look at this tricky old problem.
I’ve worked with shipping containers. All shipping containers have air holes. The hole prevent the container from imploding. Some containers carry hazardous chemicals that alter the air in the container, which intern causes the imploding. Hence the need for air holes.
You are full of sh!t. No shipping container has 'air holes' in them. The shipping containers are weather tight, not air tight.
Your reference to '_hazardous chemicals that alter the air in the container, which intern causes the imploding'_ is false. Chemicals cant cause an implotion. And if 'some containers', as you put it, imploded on a regular basis, then a) we would hear about it. And b ) it would be forbidden to transport the chemical in present form and volume both by road, air and rail.
This seems unlikely to me
Why would a container implode??
@@lolzlolz102water pressure
The reason I found this video is because I wanted to know the likelihood of these containers imploding when sinking- this is the closest answer, thank you!
All containers should be required to be outfitted with a tracker instead of treating them as hazards, require that the company that lost them, retrieve it. Failure to retrieve a container before the tracker dies or if it sinks results in heafty environmental impact fines.
They are more than just hazards to other ships.
Not possible or viable
Cost, electrics ...
@@jonnywakefield8796 That is, why it should be enforced by international law. I'm pretty certain, that even shipping giants like China would support the idea, if universal enforcement is ensured, so nobody can bypass it. And that is actually pretty easy: ban noncomplying shipping companies from entering your port ever again, and confiscate noncompliant containers found during unloading without reimbursement.
You'll see the owners running for their money.
Just a snarky side node: the countries that have a coast at the Baltic Sea, namely Germany, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia have a long simmering time bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea: two wars, and the subsequent shoddy 'cleanup' by the British have let to hundreds of ships and gigatons of ordnance, both chemical and conventional disposed there. The ships often with remnants of toxic fuels in their bunkers, all rusting away. Much of it is in the waters of Poland, and the Poles can't make up their mind whether they should allow the Germans to clean it up, or shoulder the extremely expensive operation on its own. Now that is in the Baltics, where water isn't that deep. Now imagine the same situation with containers of highly toxic chemicals in the midst of the Atlantic. Can you imagine any country volunteering the expenses for that? That is, why it should stick to those that own the risk - the companies managing and ordering the transport.
I'm sure China - with such a splendid record of environmental responsibility - would jump on this idea in a hearbeat and pay all fines promptly with a minimum of hassle in the event they couldn't recover the containers promptly.
Or maybe they'll just not care, and pass on the cost of the few fines they might have to pay to Wal-Mart, which will pass on the cost of the fine to the customers, who will continue to shop at Wal-Mart for all their chinese-made crap now that nothing is manufactured in America (or anywhere else) any more.
@@dougearnest7590 1.) Like I said above: the US may enforce compliance by confiscating containers, that are not up to snuff.
2.) China isn't a communist country for some decades by now. It is hyper capitalist. By now, it is second up in the number of billionaires behind the US. You have to go after the shipping companies, not the countries.
It is more about having the support for this in the international community. If all the important destinations in Europe and America enforce it, China will fall in. Sure, with an attitude like yours, it will never work.
@@Misophist I'm guessing you weren't burdened with an overabundance of intelligence, and I'm guessing in our current situation that could be cause of congratulations. Your last comment supports this, and proves you weren't imbued with much class, either.
So, enjoy the kool-aid, and know the Peoples Liberation Army thanks you for shopping at Wal-mart.
I am a research engineer and 100GDT licensed master. I have a container design change idea that would solve the "problem" of floating containers. When researching the economic prospects of a patent application I learned that nobody has ever held a shipping company accountable for the damage caused by their container. If a yacht or fishing vessel hits a container they are always occupied with trying to save their vessel rather than diving on the container to get it's number. Most aren't even sure it was a container they hit. The only economic incentive for the shipping company is to avoid the loss of the container in the first place and preventing a customer claim.
I wonder if a floating container is spotted where it's likely to be a hazard, do they try to salvage it or try to sink it, which is safer and/or cheaper?
It would depend on the nature of the cargo. If it's bath toys like in that 1992 incident or something that can be easily and swiftly replaced, or something like cars that are already totaled by the ocean, it can and probably will be sunken to save on money.
On the other hand, if it's absolutely essential, like food, drinking water, emergency supplies, integrated circuits, crude oil, or other certain chemicals, there's an urge to salvage the container and ship whatever is unaffected onward to the destination
@@LegoWormNoah101 What if you don't know what is in it? It's not always easy to find out especially if the markings are obscured.
@@LegoWormNoah101 I don't think they would try to save water-rotten food or salt-water contaminated drinking water. It's rare for the cargo to be able to survive being submerged in seawater for extended periods of time.
Based on what was in the TV Sea Patrol inspect then sink is likely. A small boat goes over and they look it over. Partly to get the registry number to call in about whoever lost it, whether others were lost at the time etc. Then a few penetrating rounds, which might be rifle or MG fire not cannon, to make the navigation hazard go away. In the show they were about to sink like that when someone noticed an jury rigged vent on it. They checked and it was immigrant smuggling so they almost killed those people.
@@Croz89 You have to investigate a container before sinking it. Several containers filled with immigrants are lost each year, you would NOT want to be blindly shooting at a container full of men.....
Here is an idea...how about the conpany that lost the containers is heald reaponsible for cleaning up after themselves
Then they just pass the cost on to the customers (or more likely the customers insurers) by declaring general average.
Capitalists are very very rarely held accountable so why would our governments that are essentially ran by capitalists start doing that now?
And of course thanks for the awesome explanation, the lovely illustrations and the overall **really** great production quality! It shows that someone educated themselves about video production! 😉 Much appreciated!
Imagine you're being trafficked through these things and your container goes over the railing falling onto the ocean and seeing the seals that keep the doors closed start failing, slowly rising water levels. Keep an eye on your children
I witnessed and took photos of a shipping container that got hit by a water spout 4 stacks of containers around 10 or 12 high, slowly leaned over to the side, then crashed into the ocean. Most bobbed for 30 seconds then slowly disapeared below the surface, a couple floated around for 5-10 mins before going under. I can tell you as a captain, this is the one atory that keeps us up at nigjt during a crossing. Ive crossed the Gulfstream dozens of times at night on autopilot with radar and never once have seen a deadly lurking container. The stories always go that during a crossing a boat hits a container, it damages the boats center board or keel, they take on slightly more water than the pumps can handle and slowly sink. I literally have always added extra equipment just for this situation.
I remeber containers washing up on the south coast. Locals were dragging motorbikes out of them.
romania
One solution could be a plug, with chain or rope attached to it on one end, and on the other the cargo ship (or the next container). whilst on the cargo ship, the plugs would remain at their place, making the container water tight. Once they fall off, the plugs will come out and the containers will sink. Provided the cargo lets them.
Additionally perhaps there could be a rule that you mist fill a container in away that it can contain only certain amount of floating cargo, like only 1/3 of rubber ducks. So the self floating containers will sink as well after their plug has been removed.
I think that will require you to implement the plugged sealing system on the containers after they are docked. So, they are not fully weather-proof before that. How is that going to work? If you make it weather-tight it will resist water for some period anyway
@@Gangakinartheke I think it is very simple: A hole on the container, a chain and a plug. By default, like on a truck, the container is plugged with its own plug. But when a container has been put on a cargo ship, the crew is responsible to pull out the plug, and plug the container next to it with it. So every container would be plugged with an other containers plug. Wo when they fall off, plugs would come out. But while on the road, the container would be always sealed.
On ships and trucks, the crew is already responsible to check every container regularly, so they would be responsible for the plugs. Super cheap, and simple solution.
Won't help when the cargo itself is bouyant.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Still, helps in most of the cases, and does it easily and cheaply. Also, I addressed this in my original comment already. This could be easily done by regulating the proportion of the self floating contents within every container.
The latter might be tricky for the current system to work with, no purchaser is going to want to pay for 3 containers when they only need 1. So you'd need to find a way for low density and high density cargoes to be mixed and then separated again at either end, which would obviously still add cost but would probably still be cheaper.
fridays are my favourite day already but you make them even better
Great content as always. Thank you
if transmitters/gps tags are added to containers a salvage company could locate them and recover them before they become a threat to other ships.
Good luck with that in the Southern Ocean!
not worth it financially. containers worth maybe 20-60k of goods most off the time (when not water logged mostly worthless after sinking). salvage opps would be 100s off k
further problem: It seems the number of shipping containers on the planet is not known with the vaguest of certainty, but I will say something around 50 million. The cost of fitting all of them with GPS and locator transmitters would not be remotely viable if only 1000 or so go missing each year. And, as per the video, most of those likely sink quick quickly anyway and are unrecoverable.
The better way is for crews to use lashings that are more secure instead of all janky to save time and money. 🙌
And taller lashing bridges so that the topmost containers aren't only held vertically by twist-locks, possibly in combination with better lateral lashing.
@@tamsinp7711 or maybe some netting to help the container ship actually contain the containers instead of leaving a trail of polluting hazardous metal boxes across the oceans, just cos they're insured for losses
@@awakeningEmpath problems with that suggestion:
1. The netting would need to have a very high breaking strain (as would its means of attaching) to withstand the force from multiple containers each weighing 20-40 tonnes. That sort of strength would make each net very heavy. If you've ever seen footage of container stacks swaying in rough seas, you'll realise how many the nets would have to take the weight of.
2. You would need multiple sizes of netting for each bay above deck due to different stacking heights. That would require secure storage for all of the nets not currently in use.
3. Netting would have to be removed before each unloading/loading operation. The nets, once removed would need to be stored somewhere. Given the weight of the nets, this would require additional cranes on the dockside; also additional time before and after loading/unloading.
Considering how many TEUs of containers are handled by ports each year (in 2009 the figure was something like 450 million TEUs handled; the total number of shipping containers worldwide is about 65 million), the number of containers lost each year is relatively low (average for 2020-2022 was 2301 per year; that is about 0.003% of all containers, or 1 in 28,000), although still problematic.
My suggestion of taller lashing bridges to ensure that all containers are lashed, not just the first 5 tiers above deck, would be simpler and more effective. It would also be cheaper than your suggestion for netting and wouldn't impact the available deck space, nor would it delay unloading/loading operations in port.
Probably wouldn't work, but they could be equipped with a strobe light that gets powered by using seawater as an electrolyte.
Unfortunately, there's so many containers out there that any technological solution won't be economically viable.
Just make it very easy to sue the carriers for large damages even with partial information, then the companies will comission a reliable solution.
The only thing I can think of is perhaps fitting radar reflectors to the corners of the containers. It wouldn't be perfect but radar reflectors are entirely passive. Just shaped pieces of metal. So building them into the design o the container wouldn't be that hard.
There is the fact that radar reflectors would always be functional but I don't think there would be any downside to making containers and their transports even more visible to radar.
I definitely agree that radar retroreflectors would be an easy solution, even if not perfect.
The radar beam still has to actually hit the container, but a retroreflector would atleast return a lot of the energy that strikes it back to the source making it appear to be way bigger than it is. (Hopefully enough to actually count as a target to most systems)
I think the only real downside to them would be when cargo ships are in close proximity thats a lot of retroreflectors returning alot more energy than normal. (Not sure how much return energy a typical radar is capable of recieving without issues.)
idea: explosives. I mean, its a terrible terrible idea. but its an idea.
Haha just put a bunch of sodium in each container, what could go wrong
20.000 TEU on board a vessel. No. Don't add explosives please.
The Canadian Navy likes to hit sea containers with their ships when leaving Halifax a fair bit.
A passive reflector based system like Recco that is used to find skiers in avalanches would be a cheap solution. Then vessels at risk of submerged containers could invest in the detector equipment while others wouldn't be obliged to bear the cost.
I was thinking of this. How expensive could summer radar retro reflectors cost? And they don't need any batteries!
I think the problem would be that when almost (or completely) submerged, improving the radar signature isn't enough because they're probably going to be completely occluded by waves.
Maybe design a system where they raise up as the container sinks?
But who would be obliged to cough up the massive cost for the reflectors? The system you mentioned - RECCO reflectors - costs around 30 USD per piece. You would need at least 4 of them on a container to account for the fact containers can sink any way and so you dont know what parts would be underwater. So 120 USD per container, meaning someone would have to pay 120 MILLION dollars for every million containers they own. Shipping at the moment is in dire straits financially, a cost like that could cripple the industry.
@@Debbiebabe69 The cost of that wouldn't be significant, it's having them all get broken off or caught on things that would be the issue.
@@Debbiebabe69 Shipping SAYS it's in dire straits financially. If you actually go look at the books, certain subcompanies are making record profits. Don't fall for the oldest trick in the book.
@@Debbiebabe69 its only 5% of a container price - not catastrophic. Especially considering that a wholesale price would be several times smaller.
What an awesomely simple video. I love this channel
Its such an incredible video I can hardly contain myself
@@awakeningEmpath omg that joke definitely hit rock bottom
What about magneto-acoustic resonators?
They pick up radio waves of a given frequency, and then return a radio signal to the sender.
These are ultra-cheap, completely flat (so they aren't in the way), and require no power source.
With how sensitive modern radars are, you don't need to reflect that much of the power to get detected, so you can get away with a sub-optimal antenna. So even though the sender's radar wavelength is far too long to be fitted inside a reasonably sized sticker or screw-on tag, you can simply chose an antenna size making the radar's wavelength an appropriate multiple of the antenna's length.
Yes, you'd lose a lot of efficiency, but we just need to give a ship enough warning to change course a few meters. A larger ship needs longer warning, but will also have a stronger radar with fancier signal processing mounted higher up, translating into more time to avoid the obstacle.
that sounds like it could work, actually! 🤗
Just subbed and I’ve been inside one of these containers. Yes they are heavy but if they get lost out at sea it all depends on if the freight inside keeps it floating longer or makes it sink quicker
Please do a video on the rubber ducks
Very interesting. As a follow up it would be informative to see what shippers and their insurance carriers do, for example do they attempt to quickly send out vessels to survey the area where the containers fell, do they ever attempt salvage, do navies/coast guards purposely try to sink them to avoid the dangers you highlighted, etc.
Thanks for the information.👍👍
Fascinating, and something I'd never considered.
I was on a 47 foot Jeaneau sailing boat on a voyage from Jamaica to Mexico and then on to Kemah, Texas, the captain being my brother warned me while on my watch to be careful of lost containers. That was the summer of 2002. Very hard to see especially at night.
So a man made equivalent of icebergs to yachts?
How about a location beacon that is activated when the box gets low in the water? Or Maersk, Evergreen et al set up a search system for fallen boxes that finds the floaters and darts them with trackers. Cost effective argument is good PR and creates a way for their ships to avoid floaters.
When my grandma lived in Alaska she found some of the toys that washed up onshore from the containers that spilled she still has them today it's pretty cool
I wonder if you could determine whether a container would sink, float, or barely float before it actually sinks, and only fit trackers to dangerous containers. I also wonder if you could instead use the tracker (receiver?) to send a signal to open/detach the doors of the container and free the cargo, allowing the container to sink all the way down.
Containers are locked and sealed with pretty crude locking bars, an auto-open function for these tens of millions containers worldwide would require expensive and complicated machinery which takes valuable space inside the container and it would most likely be a nightmare to repair that each time some forklift driver tossed around the container. Also cargo is often strapped down inside the container to prevent it from moving around so just opening the doors won't even help much. But i think it would be possible to put a tracker in all containers who are under a certain weight to track the ones which are dangerous to float for a long time.
I guarantee a lot of people just saw these containers as those things that float ashore to get looted, never thought it was such a problem until now!
We had a boat load of flooring pine, lost overboard about ten years back, ended up on beaches from Littlehampton as far East as Eastbourne.
It's a legitimate salvage I'll have you know!
Spring-loaded whip aerials with a corner reflector at the tip, rigged so that normally they're flush with the container side but if the lashing is improperly removed the aerial will deploy the corner reflector. Not perfect
Another absolutely fantastic video
I think a better solution would be to have slightly imbalanced containers. Maybe this screws up moving the containers around, but maybe not to much. What this does though when a container goes overboard is make it naturally adopt a tilt in one direction. Have the up door in the up direction have one of those devices that detects water, but instead of just allowing the water in, it could unlock and open the door. Then all the buoyant cargo can just float away and the container goes to the bottom.
I had a similar thought of a piece in the door latch that dissolves or corrodes when submerged in sea water, after a day or so submerged the doors open. I've heard of some ships with watertight doors having a similar (faster-acting) system that releases the doors automatically to close by gravity or springs if the ship begins to flood, very fail-safe. From what I recall from an Oceanliner Designs video about Titanic, those doors had float mechanisms that released the doors in a similar manner. Problem with such a design - for either a watertight door or container door - is that something that dissolves quickly when submerged would likely still slowly dissolve just from the moisture and humidity of the maritime environment.
Be careful of what you wish for. This might be an interesting solution for bathing toys and empty beer kegs. But would it be for LNG-containers too? Or containers containing hazardous chemicals, like technical lubricants, cooling fluids, etc.? Would you really want to scatter those about into a large area?
That might render possible cargo recovery impossible. Risk of accidental opening would rise. Also wouldnt it mess with crane operators? Because it would have inertia way outside from center while you need throw lot of these around ASAP. It might help with collision risk though.
I think a water soluble system that activated a spring loaded flag would be great! Basically you’d just need 4 per unit.
The mechanism that prevents the flag from springing could be made from the same materials that the seals on the doors. This would ensure that they erode at the same relative rate.
Therefore they would spring out at roughly the same time that the container is at its most dangerous @casualnavigation
I like this.
Embedding a metal half cube retroflector in the top of the dips in the corrugated walls might make them more visible to radar, even if just a small section is above water
Watched a documentary on ppl who try to enter ports secretly by hiding in these containers. After watching this?!…. new fear unlocked.
Is there a data available regarding how many pleasure crafts collide with containers? There was a Robert Redford movie about this some years ago.
Some thoughts for containers that float on the surface for extended periods:
Change the loading and construction so that the container will always float end down. An 8x8x40 container that has 5% of its volume above the surface, floating with one of the long sides up, would have just under 5 inches of the container above the water. If you change it so that the end is always up, that same 5% would become 24 inches above the surface, giving it increased visibility and radar signature.
Second, with the container always floating in the same orientation, you could put a boom that would extend from the end when the container falls into the water. So take the 2 feet above water from the previous container, and then put a boom adding an extra 5 feet of height, with something highly visible on the end, and you now have a flag or ball 7 feet above the water's surface.
Third, you could change the container construction to deliberately give it a bigger radar cross section. For example, build all the edges to function like the radar reflector "balls" that are 3 plates set at 90° angles to each other.
Another thought is to build the above-surface end of the container to be highly visible to satellites, so lost containers can be easily located by general mapping or specialized search satellites and then picked up by recovery vessels. I am not saying this would actually work, and even if it could work it probably wouldn't be economically viable, but I am just writing down thoughts so I figured I would include it.
the problem with loading a container like that is when it gets put on a semi eventually either the axle weights will be way wrong (so they will have to unload and reload every container), and the other problem is that isn't really possible with (most probably) loads.
polystyrene padding would help with boyancy until it can be retrieved / scuppered
An interesting presentation. Thanks!
I like the idea though, that the rubber ducks escaped their steel container.
What about if the ships and yachts could use sonar sensors, in addition to the radar sensors? The sonar sensors would work underwater to detect the floating containers
That is expensive military equipment, and even if you had the money to install, those they wouldn't probably sell it to you as it can be used to track submarines ( even though they rarely use active sonar)
Also it would be too expensive to mount sonar devices on containers, that's probably worth 5 times the cargo inside anyways
@@cideltacommand7169 Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info
Since most containers don't float, how about a slightly costly solution for those that do. Like based on cargo.
Or a mechanism to open the doors after prolonged submersion
What about a salt water degradable part in the door locking mechanism that can be replaced when the container is packed? If the doors break open after a month in the ocean, buoyant cargo can escape and the container will sink. If it's a small part of the lock that has to be there to close the container and preferably breaks upon opening, it will be both relatively cheap and easy to replace and impossible to forget to install a new one. You could also have red colored metal equivalents of the part for long term land-side use.
I remember years ago reading a book by, Brian Callison, called a ship is dying. He deals with a ship in a big storm that strikes a submerged container. The damage is like the titanic but the ship sinks very fast. Good book well written. I was serving in subs at the time. The book didn't go down to well amongst some of the crew .
Also I worked in the USA for a environmental cleaning company .one job we had involved a big container ship that got caught in a bad storm and lost a good bunch of it's forward container's. How ever there were about half a dozen that were hanging over the side just about hanging on, and some had hazardous materials in. We had to stand by as they tried to cut them free and lower them to the dock. Fun fun fun!!!
Two options spring to mind: the first is using seawater ingress as the trigger to start power flowing to the transmitter, perhaps mounted inside at the center of buoyancy. Chemical degradation from seawater can be used to time when the transmitter turns on.
The second is to use an RTG, like the USCG weather stations in the 60s/70s, to power a transmitter. This would likely be way too expensive for any but the most valuable cargo containers, but gammaisotope tagging (using relatively low power gamma sources of known frequencies) may be less costly and easier to find.
Tilt door collapse mechanisms. If the container becomes unstable beyond a certain degrees of rotation, the door locking mechanism or hinges become less stable, potentially leading to door removal and buoyant materials to leave the container?
Maybe it would be an option to attach some slender buoy to the container that gets disconnected when the container is in the water for a while (but stays attached with a kable or so) and uprights itself with a radar reflector on top? Might be a bit of a challenge to engineer that reliably, low maintenance, cheaply and lightweight/compact at the same time ^^
Or put the transmitter on the inside, activated by water on three of four sensors placed on each face - so once the container is half-submerged, then it'll start transmitting. A minimal power signal, but enough to be picked up a kilometers away and set off a 'container hazard, reduce speed' alarm.
Won't happen though. Another hundred dollars worth of equipment per container? That'd be too much.
Those Rubber Duckies went into the extra large bathtub!
🤭 good one
Incredible video. Question, is it possible to have a slightly submerged radar pod in the front of small vessels that would allow them to navigate around potential hazards like this?
Simple float bouy that shows where the submerged object is
Or it releases a radar reflector when exposed to sea water?
@@terryboyer1342they're always exposes to sea water
What do you mean by float buoy? Like it would inflate?
@@paulgemperlein626 a float on a rope to show where it is.bit like a bouy over a wreck.we had flashing lights on life rafts soon as we was in the water
@@whiteonggoy7009 I'm struggling to imagine what this would look like when stowed and how it would deploy. Keep in mind each container has to have one and rope has other possible issues with things getting tangled up
A container of Twinkies was lost at sea in 1971, washed ashore on a Pacific island and was rediscovered in 1975. The contents were in perfect condition, and supplied the citizens of New Caledonia with free treats until finally running out in 1987. The desperation that followed sparked civil conflict which threatened to spread throughout French Polynesia until authorities in Paris were able to negotiate the long-forgotten yet remarkably successful Baguette & Brie Accords.
Random ideas. A passive tracking device that reacts to radar and sends out a ping when hit with a radar or sonar wave. A device that's powered by salt water. A coating that is easier to detect with radar or is far more reflective, making the radar signature of the surface area that's actually exposed seem much larger than it is. A device that unlocks or opens the doors or releases the hinges when submerged or water reaches a certain level inside the container to allow the cargo to escape the container so the container can sink and the cargo does what it does.
I wonder if there's a solution involving observation satellites? Since we have so many eyes in the sky, flagging the containers in a database and keeping rough track of their location might be an easy ish add on mission for some currently existing satellites?
It's an interesting engineering challenge because the eventual fix will need to be stupidly simple, really cheap, easy to refit current containers with, ideally passive (no battery), and cant mess with the form factor. That's a doozy of a requirements list!
Do those yachts have sonar systems that could pick debris like that out? I imagine that the weight vs utility might be a reason they don't, but surely most ships could mount a simple surface proximity sonar, if they don't have one already (I assume, without any research, that they would already).
Are there any efforts to recover lost containers? Wouldn't tracking them make recovery a more effective or potentially profitable operation?
container salvage & reclamation is probably an untapped market
I feel like a deployable radar reflector wouldn't be hard to design, and would help out quite a bit for anything that isn't a stealth vessel gone dark. Might be tricky getting it to actually deploy when "lost" but not get in the way during normal operations.
Design concept that just popped in my head: 4 tuning-fork looking devices (top front, top back, bottom front, bottom back) with their "prongs" wrapped around the sides of the shipping container. Near the bottom of each prong is some kind of sensor that detects if it has been submerged for X duration, and when the criteria is reached it winches upright a high-vis marker pole. Should be able to be streamlined to fit current shipping crate designs, and since it is just making a pole of metal stand up it wouldn't need a significant long-term power source.
one day i wish someone could tell me why they don't just use giant nets or strong (metal) 'ropes' to tie containers down better.
there's got to be a MILLION ways to cheaply, easily & effectively prevent it.
instead of just bloody stacking boxes like toddlers
Well, they use metal wires to attach them to on another and the container ship. They have also strapping points, where they also can be attached. They aren't just stacked on top of one another.. That would indeed be childish.
Yeah, they are secured but at some point when a ship is tipping, it's better to let them just fall off rather than catch a wave and take the whole ship down with them. Also, it's somewhat rare and probably covered by insurance. The companies that would have to implement your suggestion are the large entrenched shipping companies and I don't think they have much incentive to drive up costs experimenting with or adopting new innovations that might solve this problem.
Casual Navigation has a video on this topic,as well.
I wonder if a forward facing sonar device could be attached to yauts to detect this. Would also allow them to detect reefs and other hazards.
Lots eventually wash up onto shores and can be a mix of people looting them or requires cleanup
You could outfit them with time release dye materials similar to the dyes used to locate emergency life boats and ejected pilots. Initiation of the release could be limited until after submersion. Once they sink the dispersion would make them invisible below a certain depth.
Some kind of radar reflecting beacon/buoy could be attached to the outside of the container door in a small box, with a few meters long rope. Let's say that the sealing of this box opens after about 48 hours of direct seawater contact and lets the buoy swim over the serfice. With this technology, the container becomes visible on the radars, wich is enough for smaller vessels, to avoid collisions. And it's also independent from every source of energy, because the shape of the buoy itself provides visibility on the screen.
Use RFID tags, they reflect radio waves transmitted by readera
Rubber seals that cover holes in the container, designed to pop inward or open as a vent when water pressure is applied. Cheap, easy to manufacture and install on existing containers.
Covered at 5:00 - doesn't work if the contents itself buoyant.
@@zpvnrt agreed, but it would solve a big part of the problem, it is not a single solution for sure.
And rot and need constant inspection.
@@petermgruhn rubber doesn't rot and inspection is mandatory anyway for containers.
@@pablor3138 Rubber doesn't rot but it does dry out
Maybe a "chain-link fence cage" that gets placed over the ship's top and containers after they are loaded and tack welded in place?
Could even be done in multiple small sections to make removal and attaching easier.
My idea is a spring-loaded simple radar reflector on top of containers, triggered by a hydrostatic release half way up the container. This is not foolproof as it doesn’t work if the container stays flipped over in the sea, and I have no idea how practicable this is, but I think this is a fairly low cost proposal.
My thoughts exactly. As an engineer, I would say that it's very practical, but he cost would be the determining factor. And not just the initial cost of the indicator, it wold need maintenance periodic testing.
You could use the devices that only let water through after X time has passed to activate the locating device only when the container is most dangerous (like aircraft black boxes that only start trasmitting after being submerged)
There are batteries that only produce electricity when salty seawater enters the casing and reacts with the alkalines in the plastic shell, that would be the most obvious solution to this problem imho.
That is to complicated and too expensive. Would never get implemented because of cost.
Yeah, best that there be a mechanism so that the device knows it's one of the low-floating containers before it activates. And even then, it could just be a local radio transmission to keep things cheap but still warn nearby vessels. Would actually be even cooler that way cause then people could decide to just avoid it or attempt salvage
@@bobthegoat7090what would be too expensive? It's just a simple electronic with a few sensors and some sort of radio transmitter. If anything, the trouble would be reliably keeping the battery charged
Doesn't help when the cargo itself is bouyant.
Some type of spring loaded, high visibility flag, on an extendable boom that can be triggered by sustained seawater contact. Mounted on each corner so no matter the attitude of the container in the water, some will be visible.
Stevedore here, one small point.
Most non refr containers have a plywood or similar floor which is much more likely to fail than a metal one, this would be much more likely to at least spill the cargo and sink the box.
My solution would be to fine the shipping companies for negligence.
That is not a solution.
@@marshallsayre5015 might not be a solution; however, a few fines and I bet the transport industry will find a solution.
If you've attached trackers to them, couldn't you recover them? If so, then the trackers would only need to remain on for a week or so
It's likely not be worth the foort tbh.. they are floating in the middle of nowhere, and spread far apart from other containers.. so a salvage operation would be quite costly I'd imagine.
@@KezenmacherMaking the one that lost it fully liable for all damages and a fine for however long it's in the water might change that.
Radar reflectors? Something that'd rise up from the top in a case of submersion and reflect radars to make them visible. Or maybe a mechanism to unlock the doors when submerged.
Either way, making sure they don't end in the water is most important.
I think that an international trade agreement should require it to be the shipping company’s responsibility to either keep debris out of the water, fetch it if it does get into the water, or pay a hefty fee if they leave any in the water. This way they will be economically incentivized to keep cargo on the ship in the first place or to collect it.
I heard that if you find lost container "loot" you get to keep it, is that true?
Excellent question: Under the Law of salvage you have a right to make a claim of a proportion of the value of what you have salvaged. The percentage you get depends on where you find it and how likely it is that the cargo would have been lost if you hadnt salvaged it.
Just don't tell anyone that might snitch on you and yes
You don't really need a battery powered device to track containers. Add a satellite based tracking device and solar panels on 4 sides (so one is always facing up) and they would be trackable during the daytime. Then flag them as safe to destroy if whatever was inside didn't pose a hazard to marine life and coast guards or navies could use them as target practice. If the contents was a hazard the shipping provider should be held liable for any recovery costs.
I don't think 4x solar panels and the antennas necessary to reliably connect to a satellite from low in the water are economically feasible. Connecting to a satellite (rather than just receiving location info like with GPS) is finicky. Look up "sofar bombs", they're a much cheaper and simpler way to locate things. Basically they're just metal spheres engineered so that they burst at sound channel depth so that the sound travels really far and can be picked up and triangulated by hydrophones.