so it might be an on purpose accident
Tanker & ship collide in North Sea
- Thread starter Magpie
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
Anchorages are designated places outside ports. Specifically for ships waiting to enter a port.
So, A) why was a ship anchored outside a designated area(s) or B) why was a cargo ship steaming through a designated anchorage.
These areas are clearly marked on charts... sea lanes for travel... anchorages for waiting ships.
Ships don't anchor is sea lanes! Or they aren't supposed to!
So, A) why was a ship anchored outside a designated area(s) or B) why was a cargo ship steaming through a designated anchorage.
These areas are clearly marked on charts... sea lanes for travel... anchorages for waiting ships.
Ships don't anchor is sea lanes! Or they aren't supposed to!
Yup. there we go.
Just saw it on my local news. It stated that one crew member has just been detained/arrested for manslaughter. One can not be detained/arrested for manslaughter without the death of someone.
The oil tanker was allegedly going 16 knots. That's probably a good clip for a humongous ship like that, but it's less that 20 statute miles per hour. The same as that very slow barely-crawling-along speed we drive in school zones. And we manage to see little two foot tall munchkins and easily avoid driving over them.
How in the heck can anyone fail to notice a giant container ship in front of them? You simply can't miss seeing that, even from miles away. This is like the United States unexpectedly crashing into Africa. They're both so big and slow moving that you just can't imagine it ever happening.
How in the heck can anyone fail to notice a giant container ship in front of them? You simply can't miss seeing that, even from miles away. This is like the United States unexpectedly crashing into Africa. They're both so big and slow moving that you just can't imagine it ever happening.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 19,001
Tanker was anchored. The cargo ship was going 16 knots, which was it's normal speed.
Maybe I got the two ships backwards - which one was anchored and which one was steaming ahead. That doesn't matter for my point to be valid though - they were both huge ships and neither would have an excuse for not seeing the other, changing course, and avoiding a collision. These ships are large enough that they should be visible to the naked human eye from miles away. Unless the seas were completely fogged over and navigation and collision detection systems were non-functional. If that were the case, I would expect a ship to go dead stop until conditions were safe and equipment was functional for them to proceed. Especially since this was reportedly a high traffic area.
It isn't being ruled out but it's unlikely as the course has to entered into the charting system and there was no way of knowing the tanker would be where it was.
The ship was anchored where it was suppose to be and there were other ships anchored there as well. The container ship should have slowed down as it maneuvered through the anchorage.
Unless it's proven there were machinal issues I think we will find incompetence and automation to be the culprit. The container ship had a crew of 18. Half the crew will be off duty and sleeping while the other half is on duty. So no more than 9 people are on duty at any given time. 3 for the engine room, 3 for the galley, and 3 on the bridge. Isn't automation wonderful.
You would have to shut off the autopilot and take over the helm plus trying to maneuver a ship of any size is a big operation. Ships also do not have breaks. Big pieces of equipment do not stop or change course very fast. Ask the Titanic that one.
I do think the container ship had gone through that area many times without many ships being anchored there so never planned on having to go through the anchorage much slower than 16 knots. This time was the screw up. The captain at least will probably face jail time.
I've also heard rumors that the container ship was running late which is maybe why it was running at full speed especially through the anchorage. Just a rumor so we'll have to wait and see.
The tanker was anchored so the tanker was dead in the water. There is no way in creation the tanker could have fired up it's engines and raised anchor to move. Besides the rules of the road as it were is for the container ship to give way to the anchored ship.
I wonder what the stopping distance is for a heavy tonnage boat such as was involved?
I wasn't talking about the anchored ship picking up and moving. I was talking about the other one - the one under propulsion - looking ahead at where it was going and avoiding the stationary ship anchored directly in its path. Ships may not be able to turn on a dime, but given the handful of miles away they probably where when the anchored ship should have became visible, I'd expect they could have altered their course by a hundred yards or so and avoided a collision.
Any where from five miles for a light ship to fifty miles for a really big ship like an aircraft carrier. Weight and speed is the major factor. Think of just how long it takes a train to stop at 20 MPH.
I have a friend with 38 foot sailing yacht that weights about 22 tons and that can take 2-3 miles to stop.
Probably a good reason not to be traipsing around at cruising speed in a parking lot. With evidently nobody looking ahead at where they're going.
I see a clear attack on US military fuel supplies. Just over a week ago a Norwegian Fuel supplier announces it’s cutting off military aircraft fuel supply to the US in that country. All because the US stopped the blank check to Ukraine. (it was promptly overruled by that nations Defense Minister)
Now, a week later… a US ship with fuel for military aircraft, sitting at anchor is rammed by a Portuguese ship named the “So Long”… at full speed.
I don’t need a tinfoil hat to see through this… But in case you do...
Now, a week later… a US ship with fuel for military aircraft, sitting at anchor is rammed by a Portuguese ship named the “So Long”… at full speed.
I don’t need a tinfoil hat to see through this… But in case you do...
Any where from five miles for a light ship to fifty miles for a really big ship like an aircraft carrier. Weight and speed is the major factor. Think of just how long it takes a train to stop at 20 MPH.
I have a friend with 38 foot sailing yacht that weights about 22 tons and that can take 2-
We don't know if they had trouble with the automation, or if bridge watch was in the head, or the bridge watch just wasn't paying attention. But even if the radar had pickup the anchored ship at 16 knots the container ship is not going to be able to change course that fast. As I understand it the radar doesn't pickup anything until about 5 miles out. Not much time to shut down the automation, provide course correction, and reconfigure the diesel engine. realize these are big diesel engines that are low speed diesels connect directly to the propeller shaft. Even at full reverse the ship traveling at 16 knots will take miles to slow down.
I watched a video of a Great Lakes freighter do an emergency stop for the Coast Guard and I think it was like a half hour or so to come to a complete stop and the ship traveled at least another 3-5 miles in the process. You simply do not stop these behemoths or turn them that fast to avoid a collision or an allision.
I really think that is more on track than what ever the official sources will say. the NWO doesn't like when there money etc laundering systems get de funded.
My news flash of the day said this wreak will do environmental harm. Gee, go figure.
The tanker was anchored and unable to move. It takes too long to warm, then start the engines, then pull the anchor. The freighter was traveling at excessive speed for the location and weather, and without proper lookouts. Reportedly there was only an officer on watch. There should have been two or three people in the wheelhouse and at least one lookout on the bow. If you are not looking you will not see anything. There was a designated anchoring area. There was also an overflow area where ships anchored when the anchorage was full, this should have been known by a ship that traveled this area repeatedly. The officer on watch should have had pilotage for that area. It appears that the freighter crew was negligent but I’m unwilling to totally toss out the designed attack theory till I get more info.
The radar on a small powerboat should reach out 6 or seven miles. My radar, at 30’ above the water could reach 12 or 15 miles. Big ships, with stronger and higher radars should reach out further. They probably had the alarm turned off and nobody on radar watch. The big ships set their gain down low so as to not pickup sea clutter, they don’t pick up small boats because of that. Sailboats usually carry a radar reflector near the top of their mast so the large ships see them. The higher the radar the further it can pick up a target. The higher the target, the sooner it will be seen by another radar. This has to do with the horizon.
It's strange how liberals/eco nazis seem to care nothing about environmental damage when it doesn't fit their narrative.
They are burning buildings in riots, start fires that turn into forest fires, support solar and wind even though the manufacture of those is horribly bad for the environment - far worse than the "savings" the wind mills and solar panels provide.
They are burning buildings in riots, start fires that turn into forest fires, support solar and wind even though the manufacture of those is horribly bad for the environment - far worse than the "savings" the wind mills and solar panels provide.
News out of Australia is saying that the captain of the container ship has been arrested is being charged with negligence and manslaughter. One crew member from the container ship has been declared dead.
