Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Those In Peril Upon The Sea

I think that was a cement carrier. Was a saturday night sunday morning IIRC.

Quarry stone out of Llanddulas


A few months before one ran aground on the same job out of the same quarry


That one was broken up for scrap on the beach
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Yokel

LE
For those of you who are worried about the possibility of a submarine operating at periscope depth or surfacing near surface vessels, this is an example of it going wrong. The Japanese (diesel-electric - SSK) submarine Soryu seems to have surfaced under a merchant ship - a Chinese tanker.


I think a previous Soryu was a carrier the Americans sank at Midway.

This is a picture of HMS Ambush after a similar incident in 2016

HMS-Ambush-departs-Gibraltar.jpg
 
When they intend to surface, why cant they send a tiny, localised bleepything out to test the local .... Oooh .... couple of hundred metres

Thereby not informing the eg entire Chinese Pacific Fleet and , at the same time , not getting your superstructure whacked by your mates ?
 
When they intend to surface, why cant they send a tiny, localised bleepything out to test the local .... Oooh .... couple of hundred metres

Thereby not informing the eg entire Chinese Pacific Fleet and , at the same time , not getting your superstructure whacked by your mates ?

They'll be doing something like that already. The problem is sonar (active or passive) is not underwater radar.

I suspect either the MV was going relatively slowly or drifting, or they hit near the bow, and the noise of the MV's props was masked by her sheer size (aka a "bow null").
 
The way container ships are run these days it is difficult for the captain and crew to keep up with loading and discharge operations. They arrive in port and someone from the terminal will come aboard with a loading plan for the ship and the crew will have very little say in what goes where. The cargo lashing is also likely to be done by shore gangs but the ship's officers should check the lashings before the ship sails.

The latest info is:

A press report, dated Jan 20, states: Heavy weather in the North Pacific is being blamed for the loss of containers aboard fully cellular containership Maersk Essenon Jan 16. “We view this as a very serious situation which will be investigated promptly and thoroughly,” Maersk said in its statement. They reported that all the crew was safe and that a detailed cargo assessment is ongoing. In addition, the US Coast Guard, flag state and relevant authorities have been notified.

There will no doubt be questions asked but that's why you have insurance
Aaah, Yes ... those heady days of stowage plans ...
1FA096E0-428A-4367-9FE3-64F5A23B2C9F.jpeg
BCED7BD2-07B7-4F6A-9FB9-815A968641D2.jpeg
869E36B5-1ECB-46A0-BEE8-36E2D9928E97.jpeg
0D467C85-DC69-4C98-AC47-832476B67272.jpeg
35C6FA64-80F6-4448-AFF6-CC85C1D2DF94.jpeg


... and discussing “restraint and segregation criteria” with Masters ... “Agent job, is Agent job, Da!
64A9EFA8-E1E6-4B9F-9B57-F4F9AC808294.jpeg

... and upon final inspection of the TEU stacks forward having to tell the Master that you won’t sign off on the Manifest Stow Plan until the IMDG TEUs marked “Top Stow Only” are actually top-stowed.
 
Last edited:

Another Maersk ship en route from China to the States having a spot of bother with her cargo in the (not so much) Pacific:

Houston, Feb 19 -- Fully cellular containership Maersk Eindhoven, confirmed containers were lost after the ship sailed into rough Pacific out of Hokkaido shelter. Maersk does not report the number of lost containers yet. The situation on board obviously, deteriorated Maersk Eindhoven, turned back at 0300 hrs, UTC, Feb 18. The vessel was sailing in opposite direction at some 17 knots speed either to avoid further losses and evade unfavourable wind and sea or having to seek for nearest port/shelter. Containers lost may be a major one. Many containers are adrift in the North Pacific E of Kuril islands. Maersk Eindhoven, was en route from Xiamen to US port, most probably Los Angeles, The estimated time of arrival is Mar 1.

and:

Yokohama, Feb 19 -- Fully cellular containership Maersk Eindhoven, en route from Xiamen to Los Angeles, experienced an engine stop in heavy seas, which resulted in the loss of containers overboard near Japan, on Feb 17. All crew members are confirmed to be safe.
 
An update this morning on the Maersk Eindhoven:

London, Feb 20 -- A press report, dated Feb 19, states: Fully cellular containership Maersk Eindhoven experienced a loss of engine propulsion power for three to four minutes while sailing 45 nautical miles off Northern Japan in heavy seas, on Feb 17. The loss of manoeuvrability resulted in severe rolling with 260 containers overboard and 65 containers damaged on deck. Customers were advised immediately of vessel and cargo status. Propulsion power was quickly restored on the vessel and the initial analysis indicates engine oil pressure triggered a safety feature, causing the engines to shut down. No malfunction or maintenance issues have been identified. The crew members are safe, and a complete investigation is ongoing. The vessel had no further incidents and is sailing in calm seas, returning to a North Asia port for inspection and repair. The port decision will be announced shortly. Preliminary reports show slight damage with minimal repair works required to the vessel.
 
An update this morning on the Maersk Eindhoven:

London, Feb 20 -- A press report, dated Feb 19, states: Fully cellular containership Maersk Eindhoven experienced a loss of engine propulsion power for three to four minutes while sailing 45 nautical miles off Northern Japan in heavy seas, on Feb 17. The loss of manoeuvrability resulted in severe rolling with 260 containers overboard and 65 containers damaged on deck. Customers were advised immediately of vessel and cargo status. Propulsion power was quickly restored on the vessel and the initial analysis indicates engine oil pressure triggered a safety feature, causing the engines to shut down. No malfunction or maintenance issues have been identified. The crew members are safe, and a complete investigation is ongoing. The vessel had no further incidents and is sailing in calm seas, returning to a North Asia port for inspection and repair. The port decision will be announced shortly. Preliminary reports show slight damage with minimal repair works required to the vessel.

750 containers overboard must constitute a major hazard to shipping in quite a large sea area.
Many will float near the surface.
Are they required to be fitted with any kit (Epirb springs to mind) to ameliorate the situation ?
 
750 containers overboard must constitute a major hazard to shipping in quite a large sea area.
Many will float near the surface.
Are they required to be fitted with any kit (Epirb springs to mind) to ameliorate the situation ?

It was 260 in the report not 750 containers lost overboard, still a lot. There will be no EPIRB or similar on the containers. They will eventually become waterlogged and sink, depending on what is in them, at different rates. A navigation warning will probably be sent detailing the incident and warning shipping to keep a lookout for the containers but in a large area in bad weather they are unlikely to be a long term danger.
 
It was 260 in the report not 750 containers lost overboard, still a lot. There will be no EPIRB or similar on the containers. They will eventually become waterlogged and sink, depending on what is in them, at different rates. A navigation warning will probably be sent detailing the incident and warning shipping to keep a lookout for the containers but in a large area in bad weather they are unlikely to be a long term danger.

If experience says they are not floating around near the surface for long, I guess they are not that much of a problem then.

I have heard of a couple of collisions and a few near misses ( in daytime ) but that was with sailing yachts - and over a couple of decades.
 
If experience says they are not floating around near the surface for long, I guess they are not that much of a problem then.

I have heard of a couple of collisions and a few near misses ( in daytime ) but that was with sailing yachts - and over a couple of decades.

Containers lost in shallow coastal waters would cause more of a problem. They can float around for a while, they can end up on a beach, even on the bottom they will reduce the water depth by at least 8 feet, they can burst open and spill their contents which can end up on the beach and/or cause pollution depending on what was inside. I recall one incident in the Caribbean where container loads of babies nappies ended up all over tourist beaches. They will pose less of a problem in the deep open waters of the Pacific.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Containers lost in shallow coastal waters would cause more of a problem. They can float around for a while, they can end up on a beach, even on the bottom they will reduce the water depth by at least 8 feet, they can burst open and spill their contents which can end up on the beach and/or cause pollution depending on what was inside. I recall one incident in the Caribbean where container loads of babies nappies ended up all over tourist beaches. They will pose less of a problem in the deep open waters of the Pacific.
Will nobody think of the children sea turtles ?
 
I wonder at the arrogance and stupidity of these people. They want to save the fish but have no concern for the fishermen. A boulder such as these can capsize a trawler in minutes and kill the crew on board. If that were to happen would the "celebs" named on the rocks care? Probably not.


 
Double edged sword here. I've seen the devastation caused by bottom trawlers - nothing but flat, featureless sand/mud as far as the eye can see. In a lot of cases fishermen are their own worst enemy, removing everything from an area. So long as the 'boulder field' is well documented, then there should not be a problem.

An anecdote. In northern Spain is a small fishing port called Estartit. The fishing was in dire straits due to over-fishing up to the current time. This was some 40 years ago. Off the coast are a couple of small islands - the Medas Islands. It was decided.decreed that the islands and (say) 200m around them would become a marine reserve, with a total ban on fishing.

Strangely enough the fishermen went ballistic at losing one of their best sites.

However, after a few years the fish stocks had recovered so much that the entire coastline was being repopulated.

The fishermen were very quick to say how clever and good their idea for regeneration had been......
 
I wonder at the arrogance and stupidity of these people. They want to save the fish but have no concern for the fishermen. A boulder such as these can capsize a trawler in minutes and kill the crew on board. If that were to happen would the "celebs" named on the rocks care? Probably not.


They shouldn’t be bottom trawling in a marine protected area.

fishermen are generally their own worst enemy: it’s nearly always about their catch today, not the maintenance of stocks for generations to come.
 
They shouldn’t be bottom trawling in a marine protected area.

fishermen are generally their own worst enemy: it’s nearly always about their catch today, not the maintenance of stocks for generations to come.

Then surely it is up to the authorities to police the area and stop the fishing not Greenpeace to take independent and illegal action which could result in the loss of a ship and the lives of her crew.
 
Top