Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Model Boating => Topic started by: BJ on April 13, 2007, 03:34:54 pm
-
Wonder what happened to that 6 month old Norwegian North Sea rig support vessel? The sea can be cruel.
-
The Bourbon Dolphin was moving a rig anchor at the time of the accident. At work we do the outer sheathing for Bridon ropes and I have seen the ropes and the anchors used. There is a lot of weight in them and they are not easy to move around.
-
Have I missed why she fell over?
-
They don't seem to know for certain at the moment. There are suggestions that the rig anchor she was working on may have slipped and pulled the vessel over somehow. It all happened very quickly apparently. Very tragic.
-
That's scary. Those newer type vessels are meant to be Very stable.
-
Martin
With the weight involved, I wonder if the anchor has been secured properly to the deck whilst she is carring out this operation. If the anchor has slipped to one side of the deck, things would have moved very quickly and no one would have been able to react fast enough.
They have found the father and son still in bridge.
-
It is certainly a tragedy, just goes to show no matter how new or up to date the equipment things can still go badly wrong.
Geoff
-
The rig anchor would either have been on deck or suspended over the stern roller. Even if it had been on deck and had slid to one side into the crash barriers, that would not have been enough to capsize an AHTS which is a very stable design. According to eyewitnesses, she 'girted'; i.e. the anchor wire or anchor-handling pennant moved forward such that there was a direct thwartships pull exerted on the vessel and thus a capsizing force. Whether the wire moved up the ship side or the ship moved under the wire is not confirmed but such reports as are available indicate the latter. If (and of course this is only speculation) this was the case then it suggests a loss of bridge manoeuvering control which may be human or technical in origin. The Dolphin had a 'dynpos' notation in her DNV Classification; i.e. she had the ability to be manoeuvered by a single joystick control of all screws/thrusters. I suspect this will be closely checked by the investigation: Norwegian masters of AHTS are second to none in competence and I have known many.
PS A thought for BBC licence payers - BBC Scotland reporting teams were covering the tragedy. Why was it necessary to fly up BBC London-based teams to make identical reports from identical locations with identical interviewees and thereby treble costs?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6550000/newsid_6553900/6553941.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6550000/newsid_6553900/6553941.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm)
BBC video news...
-
are they able to right the vessel? also what was the vessel that came to aid the napoli?
-
Sadly Bourbon Dolphin sank at around 9.15pm on Sunday after they cut the ancour cable securing her to the rig. From what I have read on the BBC news she lies in 3500ft of water so salvage is unlikley. I am sure I jopin other in my thoughts are with the friends and families of those who are no longer with us.
Daryl
-
According to www.smit.com the salavage barge Union Beaver is used as a base for the salvage team, but I can't see on theri the name of the tug which got Napoli to the sand bank.
Daryl
-
The Dolphin had (I think) two sister vessels. I imagine that, as the Dolphin is beyond salvaging, they will be subject to tests to try and determine the cause of the loss.
Barry M
-
In answer to the question of what tugs towed Napoli to the sand bank it was, Abeille Bourbon, later joined by Abeille Liberté.
Daryl
-
Found this on Bourbon's web site the specs for Bourbon Dolphin, but I couldn't find any referance to any sister ships, perhaps the sisters are owned by another company.
Daryl
-
The Dolphin had (I think) two sister vessels. I imagine that, as the Dolphin is beyond salvaging, they will be subject to tests to try and determine the cause of the loss.
Barry M
less than 1 year old, it is salvagable surely?
-
It lies in 3,500ft of water, technicaly possible but very very expensive.
Daryl
-
Found this on Bourbon's web site the specs for Bourbon Dolphin, but I couldn't find any referance to any sister ships, perhaps the sisters are owned by another company.
Daryl
Daryl, Having re-checked I think that you are right in that she does not have sisters in the Bourbon fleet but the fit out of DP electronics is usually pretty standard.
I was wondering if the fact that it was a deep water location had any bearing. Anchoring in those depths needs an awful lot of mooring chain/wire.
Barry M
-
It lies in 3,500ft of water, technicaly possible but very very expensive.
Daryl
the salvage cost+ value of the ship vs the cost of a new one
-
One horrible thought occured to me over the weekend. Am I right in thinking that the bow thrusters etc are controlled by a joystick in the wheelhouse. the master was in there with his son, I wonder if he was distracted in some way and caused the vessel to cross the ancour cable they were laying, I.e. explainin to his son how the job is done and looseing concentration. Or more horrendious letting his son have a go?
I hope the Norwegians find out the cause, I take it the Norwegian maritime commision is handling this, i could not find their web site.
As for salvage 3,500ft is a long way down with many tons per square inch pressure, most likley if there were any air trapped in the hull it would have imploded.
I assume mooring drilling rigs in this depth of water is not unusual, just thinking if they underestimated the weight of cable thereby making the vessel unstable. but I think they were experienced enough for that not to happen.
A tragic day for all of us who either work or have an interest in the sea and boats.
Daryl
-
I have just done a quick search into deep water salvage operations. Remeber the japanese reasurch vessel Ehime Maru sunk by a US submarine. It sank in 2,000ft of water, according to the US Navy it cost $60million to raise it ( about £30 million). So I think the cost of raising the Bourbon Dolphin must be in this region, as its deeper the cost will most likley be higher plus the cost of referbishing it. From what I can gleam from the web that's a lot more than the cost of a new one.
Looking at a few financial web sites the cost of a newbuild would be in the region of £15-20 million, as far as I can make out the insurance industry writes the vessel off if the salvage cost is more than 50% of a new build.
Daryl
-
I remember seeing one of the accident programs on discovery where a Russian pilot of an airbus allowed his son to take the controls and unforuately the plane crashed with loss of the passengers and crew.
I hope this wasn't the case here.
-
But didn't the US navy raise and tow the sunken vessel to shallower waters so the diver could extract the bodies of the missing crew. It wasn't a full recovery they left the wreck in 200ft of water when they had finished with it.
-
I think I remember the programe as my son and I enjoy air crash investigation on national geographic channel. I agree I too hope that was not the case.
I hope the results are published, does anyone have the web site for the Norwegian maritime commission?
Daryl
-
Hi riggers,
Yes they raised it to within 200ft, got the bodies out with one body missing and then towed it out to sea and sunk it in 6000ft of water. So I guess the cost of a full recovery would have been higher.
Daryl
-
I am surprised they didn't try to keep the Dolphin afloat until they could tow her in to shallower waters and see if they can determine the cause
-
One horrible thought occured to me over the weekend. Am I right in thinking that the bow thrusters etc are controlled by a joystick in the wheelhouse. the master was in there with his son, I wonder if he was distracted in some way and caused the vessel to cross the ancour cable they were laying, I.e. explainin to his son how the job is done and looseing concentration. Or more horrendious letting his son have a go?
I hope the Norwegians find out the cause, I take it the Norwegian maritime commision is handling this, i could not find their web site.
As for salvage 3,500ft is a long way down with many tons per square inch pressure, most likley if there were any air trapped in the hull it would have imploded.
I assume mooring drilling rigs in this depth of water is not unusual, just thinking if they underestimated the weight of cable thereby making the vessel unstable. but I think they were experienced enough for that not to happen.
A tragic day for all of us who either work or have an interest in the sea and boats.
Daryl
Daryl,
The Norwegian Maritime Directorate handles investigation. Go http://www.sjofartsdir.no/en/ for details.
During A/H ops the Master sits at the aft end of the bridge overlooking the main deck with consoles either side of him. The consoles incorporate (among other things) main engine throttles, propeller pitch controls and side thruster controls. These functions, when in DP (Dynamic Positioning) mode, are controlled via a joystick. The joystick system incorporates various safety interlocks that should fail safe if there is a technical fault and geographical positioning input is from GPS or DGPS or, during cargo ops, shipborne laser systems.
A second seat/consoles, also overlooking the main deck is provided for the winch operator. I really would be surprised if the Old Man allowed himself to be distracted sufficient to cause the incident to happen or would permit his son to go on the controls. Norwegian masters are a highly professional bunch and well aware that the main deck can be a highly dangerous place during A/H ops; they are unlikely to do anything that would hazard the men working on there.
-
Thanks for the info and the link, I'll look out for the report. Very interesting info, thanks for enlightening me on how its done.
Daryl
-
Is 3,500 feet deep correct? Sounds a lot for that area.
-
very sad for the families involved but goes to show these companys use ships thet are just not big enough to do the job ,allways cutting corners like in most other things in life and its allways the little guy who needs the money that suffers in the end.
-
I really don't understand your comment about "these companies use ships that are just not big enough to do the job" etc. It seems to me that you haven't looked at the facts. This ship is (was) modern and broadly comparable to many other AHTS working very successfully in the offshore business. To suggest at this stage, before there have been proper investigations into the tragedy, that the Company were "cutting corners" is misguided and unfair.
-
very sad for the families involved but goes to show these companys use ships thet are just not big enough to do the job ,allways cutting corners like in most other things in life and its allways the little guy who needs the money that suffers in the end.
Can you explain in what respect this 16,000bhp, twin-screw + 2 x tunnel thrusters + 1 x azimuth thruster, 194mt bollard pull, 75m LOA, 6-month old vessel, with a 14 man crew and one of the most powerful in the North Sea was not big enough for the job?
Barry M
-
The depth of water came from Bourbon Offshore's web site so I presime its correct.
Daryl
-
well seeing as the boat capsized due to the weight of the cable perhaps !!, id say it was too small for the job the power of the engines or anything else is imaterial.we shall see what the equiry has to say if they actually tell the truth that is!!.the other problem with modern ships is they rely too much on gismos and gadgets (joysticks and computers ::)) .also a ships weelhouse is no place for kids or spectators !!.
-
I presume they were working on this programe of exploration.
www.offshore-technology.com/projects/foinaven/
cutting edge stuff by the sound of it.
Daryl
-
Just spotted on www.smit.com their statement concering the failed salvage operation of Bourbon Dolphin, makes interesting reading.
Daryl
-
well seeing as the boat capsized due to the weight of the cable perhaps id say it was too small for the job the power of the engines or anything else is imaterial.we shall see what the equiry has to say if they actually tell the truth that is!!.the other problem with modern ships is they rely too much on gismos and gadgets (joysticks and computers ::)) .also a ships weelhouse is no place for kids or spectators !!.
If you know that the boat capsized due to the weight of cable then you're several steps ahead of the Inquiry. Perhaps they will call you? How big a ship would you have used?
-
I presume they were working on this programe of exploration.
www.offshore-technology.com/projects/foinaven/
cutting edge stuff by the sound of it.
Daryl
Where I work we made the flexible pipes in Newcastle for the Foinaven project.
www.wellstream.com (http://www.wellstream.com)
Bl00dy expensive pipes
The link below is to Bridon who make mooring lines, there is across section drawing and the different sizes of ropes
http://www.bridonltd.com/default.aspx?MarketArea=a4b2753b-c9a6-4336-a173-6adda85d6a20&ControlTypeName=bridon.controls.ExtendedProduct&ControlPath=controls%2f%2fExtendedProductApplication.ascx&EntityId=58362d3e-d6de-4cf7-b99d-c977ae8300b7 (http://www.bridonltd.com/default.aspx?MarketArea=a4b2753b-c9a6-4336-a173-6adda85d6a20&ControlTypeName=bridon.controls.ExtendedProduct&ControlPath=controls%2f%2fExtendedProductApplication.ascx&EntityId=58362d3e-d6de-4cf7-b99d-c977ae8300b7)
-
well seeing as the boat capsized due to the weight of the cable perhaps id say it was too small for the job the power of the engines or anything else is imaterial.we shall see what the equiry has to say if they actually tell the truth that is!!.the other problem with modern ships is they rely too much on gismos and gadgets (joysticks and computers ::)) .also a ships weelhouse is no place for kids or spectators !!.
If you know that the boat capsized due to the weight of cable then you're several steps ahead of the Inquiry. Perhaps they will call you? How big a ship would you have used?
sorry i re edited my post i meant to say perhaps it was due to the weight of the cable,as regards what size ship id use id say obviously a bigger one!!!.
-
Such as? Surely a man with your expertise on North Sea operations will be familiar with the current fleets? I'm sure you can give us a name of something suitable and your reasons/credentials for selecting it?
Barry M
-
Could anyone tell me how the joystick works at this level, in that does the joystick send a signal directly to a servo or similar connected to a rudder/throttle unit or whatever or does the signal go through to a computer which, in turn, sends the instruction to the servo?
If the second option, can the computer override or modify the instruction?
Thanks
Tony H
-
Another thought has occured, as it was a new vessel, would it have been fitted with any data recorder?
Daryl
-
Daryl, almost certainly I would have thought. From the information available it sounds as if the sharp turn carried out by the vessel caused the anchor line to ride up along the hull. There was probably nothing wrong with the ship itself but for some reason there was a manouevering error. As has already been pointed out, Norwegian skippers are among the most professional on the planet - but anyone can make a mistake.
-
We might find out tommorrow if they retreved it as the enquiry opens first thing in the morning. they don't hang around in Norway.
Daryl
-
Such as? Surely a man with your expertise on North Sea operations will be familiar with the current fleets? I'm sure you can give us a name of something suitable and your reasons/credentials for selecting it?
Barry M
lol bigger boat end of!!
-
Not much of a lol situation in my view - especially for those who were drowned.
-
Why dont you show the respect that these souls deserve and have a period of silence on the subject.
At least until the relevant authorities have sorted things out and the other missing sailors bodies have been found & returned to their families...
...God Bless Them All.........................Norry...
-
the lol wasnt about the situation ,dont give me all the holyer than though bulcrap either.lets hope the company gets whats coming to them and the families get propper compensation for the loss they suffered,i doubt it but we,ll see.
-
Hi Tony H,
I was fortunate enough to be invited on such a vessel - Guardsman -docked in Gt Yarmouth. The Joystick is just an input device to the engines, thruster and rudders. It's a central input device which you tell the ship where you want go and the "computer" sets the rudders, engines & thruster(s) to manover the ship to your command. I also remember that there was a device that you set for the prevailing current, the ship will then hold the set heading and allow for wind and currents. The guy was explaining it all to me and although the vessel I was on was over 10 years old at a guess, it was frightening how close to another vessel or oil rig the ship could be safely manoeuvred.
I asked about computers and GPS but he said that 'computers can't react to what they can't see!', eg. if a big wave is coming or a vessel is approaching or the ship is towing at an angle, the computer will always do as it's told.... all the way to the bottom! I guess if you think about it, if the computers detect that the ship is suddenly listing hard to port, what should it do? Go to Post? Turn to starboard? Release the tow? Pull harder to starboard? Well I'm not mariner ( shout up all my dedicated band of hecklers >:( ) but depending on the situationany of those answers could be correct, yes?
Guardsman
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q168/MBmayhem/DCP_4413.jpg)
Controlls looking forward
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q168/MBmayhem/DCP_4418.jpg)
Central consol
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q168/MBmayhem/DCP_4422.jpg)
The Joystick station looking aft.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q168/MBmayhem/DCP_4419.jpg)
As also previously stated, it could be mechanical failure of any kind, control failure, engine failure, rudder failure, load slippage, hawser failure, bitt or bollard failure anything!
Are thoughts are obviously with the families of the missing.
Martin.
-
the lol wasnt about the situation ,dont give me all the holyer than though bulcrap either.lets hope the company gets whats coming to them and the families get propper compensation for the loss they suffered,i doubt it but we,ll see.
I think you have just shown us where your knowledge of North Sea ops starts and ends. Time to keep quiet I think.
-
Martin,
DP systems are common on some other types e.g. Diving Support Vessels, Drill Ships etc. and are usually set in 'Auto' for routine operations (although always under the direct scrutiny of a couple of DP operators). A vessel discharging or backloading to a rig might also be in auto (again never left unattended). However, for A/H operations when conditions are not steady state, I would expect the system to be in manual joystick control.
The BD had a forward retractable azimuth thruster which many skippers would use during A/H ops because of its flexibility of thrust vectoring. I have some thoughts on the effect which a loss/restart/loss of this unit would have. Also, the effect of external forces such as a sudden pull from the rig anchor winch.
I know Alesund and Fosnavaag in the Heroy district; the latter particularly is a small, close-knit community where everyone will know someone who was involved. Surnames such as Remoy are common and, as I know several of that name wery well, I scanned the crew list particularly closely. Good men all.
-
There are a couple of interesting points here regarding joysticks. There are a lot of vessels, including large cruise liners, that use joysticks for manoeuvring nowadays however even the most sophisticated have significant shortcomings.
Ours controls two main shafts, two high lift flap rudders and five side thrusters all at the same time but each component of this control is dependant on the feed back signals from the individual items. It is very dramatic to see the difference from the control room during manoeuvring when the Master is using the joystick as opposed to doing it manually himself. When an experienced ship handler is manoeuvring manually the plant is less stressed, uses less load (and therefore less fuel) and everything appears to be in far better control. This all stems from one very significant point that cannot be incorporated into a control system and that is the lack of ability to predict. No control system can respond until it sees a deviation from a set point whereas a human can respond before a deviation has occurred.
There was an incident only recently with a brand new cruise liner that had just left Port Canaveral, dropped the pilot, and was starting to speed up for her passage. She suddenly heeled over so dramatically that the contents of the pools were ejected over the top decks, with the majority of the water going down passenger staircases and washing furniture and passengers with it. It was eventually discovered that the officer of the watch had changed over to the automatic pilot without setting it up correctly first and so the wheel was put hard over at almost full sea speed. My point here is that human error can still cause many issues even with the most sophisticated bridge equipment which is basically flawed in the first place.
Unfortunately the way the shipping industry is going nowadays we are getting less and less properly trained officers manning the vessels that ply our waters and things like this are likely to become more frequent. Legislation will be brought in to add more training courses to officers career paths but this will do nothing to stop companies employing officers from backgrounds that is not conducive to making competent officers and with a command of basic english that is dramatically short of a safe requirement. I'm not saying that this is the case here but it is a trend that we are now starting to follow and incidents such as this are potential results.
I agree pre-empting the results of an enquiry is not constructive and everyone should remain open minded and non acusational as regards potential causes but certainly an officers nationality is no proof of competence and the most competent ship handler I have ever come across in my thirty years at sea was a Swedish master and the worst was a Norwegian but that reflects on individuals and not nationalities.
-
See the link below, the enquiry has been postponned until Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6570673.stm
Daryl
-
Also - http://bourbon-online.com/Bourbon-dolphin-En (http://bourbon-online.com/Bourbon-dolphin-En)
-
Hi Martin,
Many thanks for the info.
My reason for asking, and I'm not being a Luddite, is that we seem to be fast approaching a technology threshold, in all forms of transport, where the 'control challenge' for the ship/plane/car is going out of the window.
Some of the subsequent posts implied the same feeling.
We drive cars that, generally, are 'easy', travel thousands of miles on auto-pilot and even set the speed of the mouse on the computer to what we feel comfortable with.
This creates the scenario where, even if the Master/Pilot or driver reacts immediately, the 'comfort settings' of the system block or slow down the move.
S**t happens in real life but it can't be pre-programmed.
May they Rest in Peace.
Tony H
-
the lol wasnt about the situation ,dont give me all the holyer than though bulcrap either.lets hope the company gets whats coming to them and the families get propper compensation for the loss they suffered,i doubt it but we,ll see.
I think you have just shown us where your knowledge of North Sea ops starts and ends. Time to keep quiet I think.
it matters not my experience in north sea operations but computers have no place in any vessell as a way to cotroll anything in my opinion wether it be ships, planes ,trains or whatever,by the way my father was a ships pilot for some 30 yrs and my cousin is an airline pilot .i think martin hit the nail on the head computers dont react to certain situations and we see more and more accidents happening with auto pilots and such like.
-
If you look on www.maib.org.uk I think you will find most marine accidents are caused by human error and not by the electronic safty systems.
Daryl
-
computers have no place in any vessell as a way to cotroll anything in my opinion
So you are proposing scrapping all those specialist vessels such as drilling rigs and deep sea exploration ships which depend on GPS/thruster links to maintain position because human reactions are too slow? What are you suggesting - that all ships be steered by a man at the back with a tiller in his hands?
And closing down all airports as soon as it gets a bit misty and instrumentation is needed to control the landings and takeoffs?
Martno1fan - you are coming across as a Luddite! With you in charge we'd still be crossing the Irish sea in coracles! ;D
-
no id say use a steering wheel or levers but not use a computer to do a job a man can do,of course they say human error is to blame for most accidents at sea its the easy way out for the companies responsible .and if you believe any investigation is ever going to be impartial where multi million pound companies are involved versus one man in the wheel house you are the Luddite not me get real.
-
How many MAIB accident reports have you read? or even been involved in. I speak from experience and I have read most that has been published in the last 3 years. The guys at MAIB do a fantastic job, their counterparts at the air and rail dept are also very diligent and impartial.
Daryl
-
yes I'm sure they are ,if thats what you wish to believe or have us believe fine but thats your opinion not mine !!.far too often the little man gets **** on from a great height to save the big companies hides and it has to stop!!.
-
you sound as though you have a chip on your shoulder. You no doupt cn enlighten us as to how you have come to form your opinions. Do you have any experiance/ qualifications of accident investigation?
Daryl
-
no chip just don't trust or believe any of these so called investigations where large amounts of money are concerned,call me sceptical.
-
I don't think that putting prejudice before facts constitutes "sceptical". I just hope you never get called for jury service.
-
yes I'm sure they are ,if thats what you wish to believe or have us believe fine but thats your opinion not mine !!.far too often the little man gets **** on from a great height to save the big companies hides and it has to stop!!.
I think we have come a long way since the days of the little man being the one who cops the blame and I also think we are very lucky to have in this country a very effective, efficient and impartial organisation in the MAIB. I think to elude otherwise is unreasonable without the support of specific proven situations and if you read MAIB reports as I have done throughout my career at sea and compare them with reports from foreign countries I think you will see how well off we are.
I believe this thinking took a significant turn when Townsend Thorensen was openly criticised in the Herald Of free Enterprise enquiry which identified a "disease of sloppiness" and negligence at every level of the corporation's hierarchy.
I also think that todays litigation happy society constantly looks for the blame at a higher level where there are higher rewards available rather than the old fashioned "give me a name" culture. Big companies are nowhere near the safe haven they used to be and shipping companies in particular are under constant scrutiny from their Classification Societies, Coast Guards, IMO legislation, Public Health, etc...etc...etc.
Unfortunately, as with most things nowadays, it is the ones who wish to bend the rules that continue to get away with it and those who wish to abide by them that find themselves with ever more stringent legislation to deal with.
-
Spellings corrected......
Men have actually died here.
Lets not argue over spellings and the use of the English language just once.
-
Spellings corrected......
Men have actually died here.
Lets not argue over spellings and the use of the English language just once.
Sorry Martin, at one point I was about to say the same thing ie never mind the spouting of theories, just be sad for the poor people involved, then this petty thing about spelling struck me amongst all the rising indignation. I should have kept quiet and zipped it ::)
Again - sorry
MikeK
-
apology accepted (my names martin too ),seriously though i apologise if ive offended anyone don,t get me wrong i as much as anyone feel for the families of the dead and maybe i should have zipped it instead of voicing my opinions on certain things.wrong time wrong place so i also apologise ,lets hope the truth comes out .
-
Since part of the thread seems to be getting into 'why accidents happen' in general, it's always seemed strange to me that collisions can occur in open water, albeit rarely, when a constant bearing should be one of the simpler things to notice or incorporate in a system.
It's probably obvious that I've got no seafaring background, being frustrated by hay-fever when applying for the RN, but that rule was even part of the maths 'O' level in my day.
As far as computers are concerned, surely they're an aid and not a substitute?
Tony H
-
Computers are everywhere these days from washing machines to cars to medical scanners to aircraft and probably 'civilisation as we know it' would grind to a halt without them. They take over the activity that we cannot do or cannot be bothered to do (not always the same thing) and generally make life less complicated.
As far as collisions in open water are concerned, "radar assisted collisions" are certainly not unknown - often not because the radar was malfunctioning but because the operator was ill-trained or misusing the set. I have investigated a number of marine incidents including those involving fire, collision, injuries and fatalities. There have been times when you are left scratching your head and asking yourself, "How could anybody be that daft?" - but they were....
The archives of the MAIB and Classification Societies are highly revealing. One of my (true) favourites appeared in an American Bureau of Shipping report of some years ago. It concerned a ship on which the Engine Room telegraph went U/S shortly before entering port. It was hastily arranged that a Junior Engineer would stand by the ER telephone and pass the engine movements from the Bridge to the 2/Eng on the throttles. Because of the usual ER noise, it was agreed that a pat on the 2/E's head would indicate an ahead movement with one pat meaning Dead Slow Ahead, two pats meaning Slow Ahead up to four pats meaning Full Ahead. Astern movements were indicated by a similar system of taps but this time on the 2/E's backside. It all worked very well until the first-trip Apprentice took over on the telephone. "Full Astern" came the order on the 'phone and the Apprentice moved to give the 2/E four pats. Unfortunately, he was in awe of the 2/E and too embarrassed to pat him on the backside - thus he compromised by patting the 2/E on the back of the head....... I imagine that Apprentice is still in hiding somewhere with a vengeance-bent 2/E still looking for him.
Barry M
-
Brilliant! geat laugh. I too get an interest from reading the reports. It is amazing how daft people can be. My son has seen some amazing near misses in the Solent by small pleasure craft trying to dodge or make the big stuff move out of the way.
Daryl
-
Superb!,
Thanks Barry for bringing a touch of 'lightness' to the thread.
Tony H
-
First reports from the enquiry here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6590249.stm
Added by Forum admin...
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/bbc_logo.gif)
"Capsize inquiry hears of problems
The inquiry was hearing from the ship's survivors
The moments before an oil rig support vessel capsized off Shetland, with the loss of eight lives, have been described at an inquiry in Norway.
Witness told of problems in the run-up to the Bourbon Dolphin capsizing.
First mate Geir Syversen said an anchor handling operation with another ship eventually saw the anchor chain drag over the side of the Bourbon Dolphin.
The boat soon started to capsize and the boat turned over. Only three bodies were found afterwards.
The Bourbon Dolphin capsized 85 miles west of the Shetland coast on 12 April and sank three days later.
Five attempts
The three crew members confirmed dead are chief officer Bjarte Grimstad, 37, second officer Kjetil Rune Våge, 31, and 44-year-old captain Oddne Arve Remøy.
His son David Remøy, 14, is still missing, along with chief engineer Frank Nygård, 42, second engineer Ronny Emblem, 25, electrician Søren Kroer, 27, and 54-year-old bosun Tor Karl Sandø.
The inquiry in Alesund, Norway, heard the Bourbon Dolphin had been involved in an anchor handling operation with another ship, the Highland Valour, at the time of the incident.
David Remøy and his father Oddne Arve Remøy both died
Mr Syversen, the only survivor who was on the bridge during the accident, told the inquiry it took the Highland Valour five attempts to move the anchor.
On the final attempt the anchor chain, he said, dragged over the side of the Bourbon Dolphin.
The Highland Valour was told to go more north west.
The captain then came on the bridge and took a VHF radio and called on the Highland Valour: "Do you know the difference between north west and south east?"
Lost connection
A call from the chief engineer said the vessel had to reduce its thruster, because it was overheating.
Below deck, work started on filling tanks on the starboard side of the boat to keep it more steady.
The Highland Valour then lost the connection again.
The Bourbon Dolphin then tried to release the inner pin. This saw the chain run free and catch the outer tow pin.
The first mate said the boat then started to capsize. The cargo deck started to disappear below the water. The two main engines also stopped.
The hearing was told that the emergency release system was triggered but did not seem to work as intended. The boat then turned over.
The inquiry continues. "
-
I have read this with great interest.
We are changing from Mooring and salvage vessels to Anchor Handlers in the next few years.
We too work heavy moorings and chain.
As to the enquiries, those that read the MAIB Reports are quite satisfied that they do a good impartial job and do fully investigate the causes.
The first reaction to this enquiry is just what we were expecting, the chain and anchor had to have a "Girding" action to pull her over, but didn't know there was another tug involved or any mechanical malfunction, but we did suspect it.
Anyone that goes to sea will have the greatest sympathy for the families of the crew members and know just what consternation this tragic accident has had on the industry where these vessels had a good safety record, especially around our shores.
Bob
-
I to have read this report with interest, I found nothing about the proceeding on the Norwegian Maritime Directorate web site. I hope more of the enquiry is realeased as well as an English version of the report.
Daryl
-
It's becoming clearer but beware of reports fromthe media written by people who would not recognise an anchor chain from a binnacle.
It would appear that the Highland Valour was helping to support the weight of the chain, presumably via a J-hook chain chaser and the chain was jumping off.
Barry M
-
Barry,
The assumption that we had made was it had to be the weight of the chain that Girded her.
With the rig in deep water then the Anchor Chain had to be a considerable length, therefore weight.
Once ths weight came on the ships side it wouls easily list her.
The problem we had was how the chain gor off the working deck.
Bob
-
Bob,
Trying to make sense of the reports as translated from Norwegian by non-mariner journalists is difficult but it seems that the chain was being held in place via the hydraulic towing pins rather than the Shark Jaws. (Probably because of the sea state and thus the imposed loads on the jaws??) One of the pins is described as being retracted allowing the chain to veer to the ship's side. (Why retract it?)
The "thruster" is described as overheating. Was this the bow tunnel thruster or the bow azimuth thruster - or because the main props are sometimes described as "thrusters", was it one of the four main engines? Whichever, the cause could have been that the cooling water intake was out of the water and drawing air.
The A/H winch emergency release which would have put the winch into free run and allowed the weight to come off the vessel (quickly enough?) failed to function.
The main engines failed. For their own protection, marine diesels are designed to trip out when the list becomes excessive. From memory (and I think I'm right) the trips are set for angles in excess of 40 degrees from the vertical
Would the horns on the bulwarks designed to prevent girting, have been effective once the list became excessive?
The input of the Highland Valour had not been revealed before now.
This is enough speculation on my part but some things are becomimg a lot clearer.
Barry M
-
does this mean the chain was too heavy for the ship? so making the ship too small for the job or am i missing something.
-
I wouldn't think the design of the ship comes in to question just yet. No matter what the design, if you hang enough weight to one side, ANYTHING will fall over. It seems to be pointing to equipment or human failure in that in the sudden emergency, the anchor chain couldn't or wasn't released from the ship..... but what do I know. :-\
-
Martno1fan,
Sorry to disappoint you and your favourite theory but the answers to your questions are No, No and Yes. Bigger rigs than this have been anchored up by far smaller and much more basically equipped vessels than the B Dolphin. 50 tons bollard pull and 2,000 bhp was once considered adequate and chain handling involved lassoos and pelican hooks. It was an extremely hairy business.
A basic primer on anchor-handling:-
A rig carries its chain in lockers located in the corner columns. (Wire-moored units have storage reels on deck.) Moorings can vary from two to three on each column. The chain runs upwards from the lockers, over a powered winch on the top of the column, down the outside of the column via fairleads to a point near the column base and then out to the location of the anchor.
In shallow water (most of the North Sea) when mooring up, a crane on the rig passes the anchor via a pennant wire to the AHT which may carry it slung over the stern roller or may take it on deck. (The latter is usually the case if the mooring pattern includes seabed pipelines.) The AHT then moves out to the required location with the rig anchor winch paying out the chain under power until the pre-determined point for the anchor where it is released. The anchor location is often marked by a buoy.
In deep water such as this time, it is not possible for the rig to control the weight of the chain on its winch. Bear in mind that the rig chain was (I believe) 4". That is not chain with links 4" long but chain made from 4" diameter steel bar bent to shape and weighing about 150 kg/metre. It would be normal for the AHT to remove the rig anchor on its deck from the chain and feed the latter into its onboard chain storage lockers provided for this purpose. The BD had four with a capacity of 540 cub.m.. The AHT would then move away and the rig pay out more chain until at a predetermined point the rig would stop paying out and apply its winch brakes. The AHT would continue moving away while paying out rig chain from its lockers until the anchor position was reached. At this point, it would reattach the rig anchor to the rig chain (while the latter was secured in the Shark Jaws) before allowing it to go over the stern roller and then be lowered to the seabed. For long, deep-water moorings, (or mooring patterns crossing pipelines) it would be normal for another AHT to assist by sharing some of the weight of the chain while it was being deployed. This would be via a J-hook lowered over the stern roller until it caught on the chain. . Thus the rig anchor chain would be supported by the rig, the AHT laying the mooring and the second AHT somewhere between the two.
It would appear that this time the second AHT was having trouble staying connected by its J-hook to the chain and thus considerable fluctuations of load were being imposed on the B Dolphin. While these loads were over the stern roller, this would not endanger the vessel although it would be causing some anxiety. What does appear to have happened was that somehow the chain was able to move to the side and girt the vessel. Why this happened is the thrust of the inquiry. Remember " Give me a fulcrum and I'll move the world." It wouldn't have mattered if the B Dolphin was twice or three times her size, once girted with that weight of chain and with her winch emergency release u/s, she had no chance.
By the by, crudely speaking, towing pins are like twin posts that are recessed into the deck when not in use, ahead of the stern roller. Hydraulics raise them above deck and allow wire/chain to be coralled between them and stop it moving to the side. They may be independently raised or lowered.
Shark Jaws are also raised or lowered from flush with the deck and may also be closed or opened to grip wire or chain and prevent it moving in any direction. B Dolphin had two sets.
The towing pins would have been in use to keep the chain over the stern roller as the AHT moved away from the rig. The Shark Jaws would have been used to keep the chain steady while the rig anchor was being reconnected.
Barry M
-
thnx for the reply but maybe its time for a new design just a thought !!.
-
thnx for the reply but maybe its time for a new design just a thought !!.
Wouldn't it be better to wait for the outcome of the enquiry before jumping to conclusions - or do you already have something on the drawing board which will solve the problem?
Thanks for the description Barry, I found it very interesting.
-
thnx for the reply but maybe its time for a new design just a thought !!.
The North Sea is one of the worst (if not the worst) operational areas in the world for oil operations and the first AHT, many of them Gulf of Mexico boats, struggled to cope. The B Dolphin was one of a class of vessels produced by Ulstein who have a second-to-none reputation for producing North Sea tonnage and the NS AHT in general has been evolving over 40 years. I daresay that further improvements may be made but I suspect these will be fairly limited. To suggest that building ever larger vessels (do your research on 1960's vessels versus today's) is - what's the word I'm looking for? - naive??
-
its not naive its common sense to me the bigger the ship the less likely to pull over and to use such ships in such a way to me is folly surely a flat bottomed hull (platform) would be more stable than a ship!!.just a thought but makes sense to me. remember ship designers once said the titanic was unsinkable!!.
-
apology accepted (my names martin too ),seriously though i apologise if ive offended anyone don,t get me wrong i as much as anyone feel for the families of the dead and maybe i should have zipped it instead of voicing my opinions on certain things.wrong time wrong place so i also apologise ,lets hope the truth comes out .
Martin,
It may be folly to you but you're not a mariner nor a naval architect nor in any position to criticise vessel design. Remember your own advice as above.
Barry M
-
Hi All
Thanks BarryM for shedding some light on a grey area of sad news. It helps one understand what duties the tugs do out in the North Sea Environment.
Our thoughts go with the families who have lost their loved ones.
John
-
ship designers once said the titanic was unsinkable!!.
Sorry, you got that wrong too - it's an often quoted myth.
-
ship designers once said the titanic was unsinkable!!.
Sorry, you got that wrong too - it's an often quoted myth.
yea right it must be correct cos you said so.the only myth is that small ships can stay afloat when over loaded !!.
-
martno1fan
It is easy to see who is blinkered here.
Barry obviously knows what he is quoting.
I have just come ashore from a Mooring Vessel that regularly handles old Admiralty Square Link Chain which is much bigger and therefore heavier than Rig Mooring Chain.
It is a real shame that your conspiracy theory gets in the way of FACTS.
This Enquiry is crucial to the safety of mariners operating this type of vessel, if there is any doubt there will be an outcry from experienced mariners used to working in this field.
OUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT.
In this type of accident it is usually the Engineering staff that get killed as they get trapped in the Engine Room.
I am one of those.
At first your comments were amusing and show just how ignorant of the maritime world you are.
Now they are just tiresome.
Try to look at this in a reasonable light, if YOUR life depended on how these vessels operate, would YOU let a substandard enquiry report on this accident. I or my peers certainy wont.
Don't you realise we are discussing this accident on a daily basis.
Bob
-
no offence to you or anyone meant here but i still think you need bigger boats for the job.
-
Martin,
When I said you were "naive" that was to test if you understood irony. You failed that test too.
Barry M
-
Martin,
When I said you were "naive" that was to test if you understood irony. You failed that test too.
Barry M
dohh ::) is that your attempt at humour ?,you failed ;D ;)
-
[/quote]
dohh ::) is that your attempt at humour ?,you failed ;D ;)
[/quote]
No. You failed that test too.
-
Thanks Barry/ shipmate60 for your wonderful descriptions, very interesting and helpful for understanding the process they attempted.
Daryl
-
This has just popped up on the Norwegian Maritime Dept web site.
www.sjofartsdir.no/en/News_-_press_releases/Investigating_committee_appointed/
Its in English and looks like we might have a long wait to find out their conclusions.
Daryl
-
I feel it is better to wait for the outcome of the investigation than to continue and speculate on what and why this tragic occurrence happened.
Richard, thinking of those lost and affected by this incident.
-
Having been on a vessel that sunk we waited nearly a year for the MAIB reportto come out (MFV Radiant) so have been through an inquiry as there was a fatality thes things are there to try and stop similar incidents happening again as almost happened with the FRV Scotia almost capsizing with water enttering the engine room through goooseneck air vents that were to low the problem with us was we were practically anchored to the seabed with our nets ,doors ,clump and 1500 metres of 3" towing wire it is not a nice thing to happen which goes to show the sea is the most unforgiving workplace in the world and accidents do happen and thats what has happened
-
I don't think that putting prejudice before facts constitutes "sceptical". I just hope you never get called for jury service.
Colin, I think you are correct....but please do not go down the route I originally took: and lose your temper. There are many erudite and learned responses on this site. If you don't know what the hell you are talking about then shut up and listen (not aimed at you Colin).
I have been VERY impressed by some of the answers/theories given by "those who know" and have been less than impressed by a few respondents whose nautical knowledge/experience seems to be akin to driving a pedallo.
Be of good cheer, and keep putting me in my place! Cheers. BY.
-
Fascinating thread :o
Really makes you think about what kind of operations happen in the North Sea on a daily basis.
I keep looking at BarryMs' post on "basic anchor-handling" and thinking "Bloody hell and he calls that "basic!" Imagine doing that in bad weather, it sounds terrifying- all that heavy noisy machinery, chains and wires that could snap, a heaving deck and a deadly environment.... I don't know what they pay those men on those ships but its not enough.
-
I don't know what they pay those men on those ships but its not enough.
I dont know about now but 9 years ago it was NOT ENOUGH that's why I noe work inshore and on a dredger though that leaves something to think about
Richard,
-
Fascinating thread :o
Really makes you think about what kind of operations happen in the North Sea on a daily basis.
I keep looking at BarryMs' post on "basic anchor-handling" and thinking "Bloody hell and he calls that "basic!" Imagine doing that in bad weather, it sounds terrifying- all that heavy noisy machinery, chains and wires that could snap, a heaving deck and a deadly environment.... I don't know what they pay those men on those ships but its not enough.
It's safer now than it was but still an unforgiving business that permits few mistakes without inflicting heavy penalties. It calls to mind the old saying about aviation - "There are old pilots and bold pilots but very few old, bold pilots".
I have never seen it but recall a description of a deck load of chain that got loose. It's sometimes the case for various reasons, that rig chain is flaked out on an anchor-handler's deck if the chain lockers are unavailable or too-small. Thus imagine row after row of 3" or 4" chain, laid out, up and down the deck, covering perhaps 600 sq.m. "At first all we heard was a slow 'tick - tick - tick' as the links started to move apart and knock against each other and one end went over the stern; very, very slowly this started to speed up 'tick/tick/tick'; then it became a buzz and then a roar as the whole lot thundered off the deck and overside." On that occasion nobody was near but what would have happened if anybody was crossing the chain at the time to check the lashings? doesn't need much imagination.....
Barry M
-
As an ex-seaman I would like to ask a question or two. Nothing controversial.
All trades have there own name for things, but can you explain what "shark-jaws" are, and a "J" hook? Imay know them by another name..but who knows. I think I have got the principle of the use of hydraulic "tow-pins"..but the idea of "inner" and "outer" has bemused me. Educate please.
As far as the character who suggested that ships should be "flat bottomed" is concerned I suggest that he goes and has a look at any modern vessel in a dry dock (or a graving dock) and he will find that ships are flat bottomed (give or take a foot or so....they are not the round hulled ships of yester-year).
Please keep this site going as it is genuinely interesting/educational on the one hand and shows how bigotted/ignorant some others can be.
-
Bryan,
"Shark Jaws" or "Karm Forks" - similar items for the same job of gripping chain or wire pennants. Imagine a large pair of pliers, with the gripping end able to be raised above deck level or retracted flush with it. The jaws are opened or closed remotely from the Bridge by hydraulics. Usually fitted for'd of the towing pins which in turn are for'd of the stern roller.
"J-hook" or "chain chaser" - just a very large steel hook like a crane hook abut 1.5m high which can be lowered to the seabed (or under a chain being worked by another vessel) and pulled until it hooks onto rig chain or wire and permits the latter to be lifted/supported. Sometimes a grapnel of similar size is used to find chain on the bottom and this has a fluke design which, once the chain is hooked, prevents it running through the grapnel.
"Towing pins" - Just the same hydraulically raised/lowered pins that you'll find on any tug to limit transverse movement of a wire or chain. Sometimes, fitted in double sets (inner and outer) depending on the limit to be placed on transverse movement. Thus the inner set maybe twelve inches apart and the outer set maybe six feet apart.
"Stern roller" - large roller, free to turn, installed at the join of main deck and transom; the top of the roller just slightly proud of main deck level. These days extends almost the full beam at stern. Allows wires, anchors etc., to pass over stern without shredding the steelwork. ( They cut up wrecks with chains don't they.)
Does that help?
-
Yes and no. The "J" hook I can understand from my cable-ship days (somewhat surprised that such a "low-tech" bit of kit is still thought the best!), but I would really have to see these huge "pliers" in use to appreciate them. Thanks for trying and I shall nod off tonight dreaming of hydraulic sharks. Ta. BY.
-
Bryan,
Try http://www.karmoy-winch.no/anchorhandling.htm
or http://www.ulsteingroup.com/kunder/ulstein/cms.nsf/pages/reflista.htm
or http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/about/news_centre/news/2006/newsitem11.htm
or http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/downloads/article/id10_safer_deck.pdf
or http://www.smithberger.com/sharkjaw.htm
or http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/PRINTMMIII/MMIIIoff1a.html
or http://bourbon-online.com/Offshore
or http://www.ulsteingroup.com/kunder/ulstein/cms.nsf/pages/shipbuilding.htm?open&qnfl=flash#shipbuilding/frontpage/shipbuilding.itm
If the Borbon Orca doesn't swivel your eyeballs, nothing will!
Barry M
-
Have anyone read the preliminary report and witness statements on the Bourbon site.... not sure if it an appropriate word but 'fascinating!'. :-\
http://bourbon-online.com/media/corporate/xs_9376_bourbon_offshore.pdf (http://bourbon-online.com/media/corporate/xs_9376_bourbon_offshore.pdf)
-
"Grim" is another word.
-
Update in Ships Monthly October 2007. The insurers have decided against trying to raise the vessel which is lying at 1,100 metres in an area exposed to difficult wave, wind and current conditions which is considered to make salvage extremely difficult if not impossible. In the meantime the Norwegian Government has appointed a new Royal Commission to investigate the accident.