North Sea tanker collision

[Indigo Soup]

Man arrested, the Solong's captain, is being reported as a Russian national. That'll get the conspiracy merchants going. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30mj5gq9d5o

The conspiracy merchants were already going before the news, they're merely shifting up a gear now.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I saw "Whisky Galore" at Christmas and now wonder if the story about the ship from Grangemouth to Rotterdam conveying "sodium cyanide" was a ruse by HM Customs & Excise to deter any potential salvage attempts. After all, what else of value produced in Scotland is sold in The Netherlands?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Man arrested, the Solong's captain, is being reported as a Russian national. That'll get the conspiracy merchants going.

A Russian drives a tanker into a ship full of US military aviation fuel, without any plausible explanation.

I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to think that's a bit suss.

In other news, the US have decided to start supplying Ukraine with weaponry again...

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the subject of the captains arrest. I have a vague recollection that this is standard procedure in cases of marine accident/injury/collision ?.
Of course arrest does not indicate guilt or even that a crime has been committed - I am not an expert but I think it is standard procedure especially if interviewing under caution.

 

[Stathern Jc]

A Russian drives a tanker into a ship full of US military aviation fuel, without any plausible explanation.

I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to think that's a bit suss.

Although we hear that several of the crew of the Solong are Russian, we don't yet know who was on the bridge at the time.
But it would attract interest if it turns out that there was only one person on the bridge, and that happens to be the one person who hasn't been accounted for and won't be available to assist the enquiry.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Although we hear that several of the crew of the Solong are Russian, we don't yet know who was on the bridge at the time.
But it would attract interest if it turns out that there was only one person on the bridge, and that happens to be the one person who hasn't been accounted for and won't be available to assist the enquiry.

I had been wondering that when it was clear there was someone missing.
But its quite likely very sad regarding the missing person so I was not in a mood to say.
But I weaken.

Conjecture alert :-

Could be the missing person was meant to be on the bridge but was taken ill or fell over the side.
Could be the missing person does not want to be found.
Could be the missing person is safe and well somewhere further North having done their deed !.
Could be the missing person was up the front of the cargo ship and never stood a chance of survival.
Could be the missing person bravely fought the fire and lost.

Less conjecture maybe :-

A lot could have happened in the time after the autopilot was set and the actual collision.
Nobody seems to have noticed the warnings that I suspect the radar etc would have been producing - that is the only certainty ?.

It seems reasonable to expect that the Captain should ensure someone was on the bridge.
So the captain will be interviewed on the basis of being in charge.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Would it be fair to say that the fact that the Captain was Russian might not be a surprise because, well, quite a lot of seafarers are Russian? I'm sure that's true, for a variety of reasons.

 

[styles]

Man arrested, the Solong's captain, is being reported as a Russian national. That'll get the conspiracy merchants going. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30mj5gq9d5o

I'm all for calling out conspiracy theories, but I don't think this is quite tin foil hat territory.

Russia has been sabotaging critical national infrastructure, energy supplies, cables, etc including from civilian vessels; they've been evading sanctions using CIS countries, indirect shipping routes, falsifying export documentation, shadow fleets, and so on. They're fighting a war where their opposition includes the Americans.

Anchored tankers don't come out of nowhere on a radar, and they're hardly difficult to spot with the naked eye either.

The tanker was carrying aviation fuel for the US military. The captain of the cargo ship which hit it was Russian.

While I'd be hesitant to jump to the conclusion that it's deliberate sabotage, I don't think it's a wild line of investigation. It may even have been unsanctioned sabotage.

 

[Ediswan]

A Russian drives a tanker into a ship full of US military aviation fuel, without any plausible explanation.

I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to think that's a bit suss.

My mind went to the stereotype of "Russian captain, drunk on watch". That has happened before (as in caused an accident and been detected).

Solong followed exactly the same course as on previous occasions. A conspiracy would require the US tanker crew to have deliberately anchored in Solong's way, allowing for swinging due to current and wind. Seems unlikely.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Solong followed exactly the same course as on previous occasions. A conspiracy would require the US tanker crew to have deliberately anchored in Solong's way

The tanker full of US military fuel had been anchored there for 12 hours before it was hit by the Solong.

There's "not paying attention" and then there's whatever the crew of the Solong did.

 

[Killingworth]

My mind went to the stereotype of "Russian captain, drunk on watch". That has happened before (as in caused an accident and been detected).

Solong followed exactly the same course as on previous occasions. A conspiracy would require the US tanker crew to have deliberately anchored in Solong's way, allowing for swinging due to current and wind. Seems unlikely.

Any master marine should be keeping lookout both by eye and radar anywhere. Similarly any such master should be aware of anchorages normally used by vessels awaiting berths in east coast ports, especially off the Humber. This vessel wasn't a stranger to the east coast.

It seems to have proceeded as effectively as a torpedo or Exocet missile to strike amidships. No apparent attempt to slow down or change course. Equipment failure or careless programming the captain still has a lot to explain, assuming it wasn't deliberate.

 

[DarloRich]

lets be honest:

this is most likely a case of repetitive bad practice that has become customary. The Solong is said to have made multiple recent passes over the same spot. Surely, they are most likely to have had the autopilot on, not kept a proper lookout and been absent from the bridge at the critical moment, perhaps having a crafty kip.

 

[Ediswan]

Any master marine should be keeping lookout both by eye and radar anywhere.

These days, AIS as welll (automatic identification system). Public data has already demonstrated the AIS transmitters were working on both vessels.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Not to mention the Panamanian tanker Texaco Caribbean disaster at Folkestone in 1971

 

[Peter Sarf]

Any master marine should be keeping lookout both by eye and radar anywhere. Similarly any such master should be aware of anchorages normally used by vessels awaiting berths in east coast ports, especially off the Humber. This vessel wasn't a stranger to the east coast.

It seems to have proceeded as effectively as a torpedo or Exocet missile to strike amidships. No apparent attempt to slow down or change course. Equipment failure or careless programming the captain still has a lot to explain, assuming it wasn't deliberate.

The container ship had used exactly the same course before so that suggests a bad habit to me if where the tanker was is a normal mooring position. I have heard that the tanker was in an overflow mooring position - the normal mooring area is nearer the coast and was full. So I can believe sloppiness on the part of whoever set the autopilot on repeated trips.

The radar and AIS I guess could have indicated a looming collision BUT only if someone was there to take note of the information. I did read that the radar should have picked up the tanker about 24 miles away. Now the speed was 16-17 Knotts which is almost 20mph. So the cargo ship would have had the tanker on ts radar for about 1 hour 15 minutes.

By the way the tanker would have needed an hour to raise anchor, get engine(s) started and move. But did the moored tanker still have to have a lookout ?. Was any warning given to the Container ship (not that it would have been heeded I imagine) ?.

I gather normal procedure would have been for a change of course to be actioned 4 miles before an obstruction. So with the container ship travelling at 20mph the moored tanker would have been alarmed only 12 minutes before possible impact even if crew on if it were supposed to be looking.

I would say there was not much presence on the bridge of the container ship and the fact that the container ship had used exactly the same path many times before suggests not deliberate. To amplify - the container ship did not alter course towards the tanker, indeed it failed to show any signs of control for well over 25 miles of its fatal course.

Could be Vodka.
But I think most likely sloppiness with a surprisingly bad choice of ship to overlook !.

 

[Ediswan]

But did the moored tanker still have to have a lookout ?.

Yes, an 'anchor watch' is required, which includes a constant lookout.

Was any warning given to the Container ship (not that it would have been heeded I imagine) ?.

I have not been able to find any informed discussion of events on the bridge of the tanker. It is operated by the US government. They may prefer it that way.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I would say there was not much presence on the bridge of the container ship and the fact that the container ship had used exactly the same path many times before suggests not deliberate. To amplify - the container ship did not alter course towards the tanker, indeed it failed to show any signs of control for well over 25 miles of its fatal course.

Indeed, given the difficulty of aiming at a ship swinging at anchor, and the inaccuracies bound to creep in over several hours of sailing, the STENA IMMACULATE was probably no more at risk of being hit than any other ship in that general direction, and rather less at risk than the coastline of Norfolk.

I have not been able to find any informed discussion of events on the bridge of the tanker. It is operated by the US government. They may prefer it that way.

More likely the ship's owners have directed their employees not to talk to the press. The US Government doesn't directly own or operate the ship, it just has a contractual framework that guarantees access to tankers for military purposes.

 

[dcbwhaley]

The tanker was carrying aviation fuel for the US military. The captain of the cargo ship which hit it was Russian.

While I'd be hesitant to jump to the conclusion that it's deliberate sabotage, I don't think it's a wild line of investigation. It may even have been unsanctioned sabotage.

But the USA and Russian presidents are best buddies now.

 

[edwin_m]

This video includes screenshots of the tracks of the Solong on this and many previous voyages. It confirms what others have said above, that this track has been followed on many previous occasions, and also that there was no course adjustment on the approach which would probably have been made if the intention was to collide (or, apparently, "allide").

 

[mpthomson]

If one was ever asked for an article to illustrate what is speculation, that would be a strong contender.

It may be speculation (noting that it's from someone who will know what they're talking about) but there have been many instances exactly as he describes over the years. In these cases there's either been noone on the bridge with the vessel on autopilot or whoever was on the bridge with autopilot on was asleep, drunk or both. It's the Occam's Razor theory for instances like this. It's also very telling that the captain of the Solong has been arrested.

 

[Killingworth]

It may be speculation (noting that it's from someone who will know what they're talking about) but there have been many instances exactly as he describes over the years. In these cases there's either been noone on the bridge with the vessel on autopilot or whoever was on the bridge with autopilot on was asleep, drunk or both. It's the Occam's Razor theory for instances like this. It's also very telling that the captain of the Solong has been arrested.

However it's totally unsurprising that the master of a vessel that has T-boned an anchored vessel in daylight should carry the responsibility whether on the bridge or not.

Obviously we'll have to wait to hear exactly how this happened. It may, or may not, be telling what were the duties of the missing crew member.

 

[AndrewE]

However it's totally unsurprising that the master of a vessel that has T-boned an anchored vessel in daylight should carry the responsibility whether on the bridge or not.

I think the Master of the ship has the absolute legal responsibility in any and all circumstances. Delegation should be only to competent crew and supervision applied as necessary.
(e.g. a Master shouldn't leave a ship even in port without a suitably qualified officer being put in charge - if then: maybe the master has to send an underling ashore if there is no-one on board qualified to take over if he doesn't return.)

 

[Towers]

I sometimes enjoy reading the odd MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) report - all of which, as with their railway equivalent from the RAIB, are publically available - and the issue of poor watchkeeping is a frequent feature. As utterly reckless as it is, it’s easy to see how poor working habits and non-compliance can become commonplace in that sort of tedious, unsupervised working environment. That doesn’t absolve anyone of their obligations of course, but it’s quite evident that there is a sizeable issue within the industry. Ultimately it rests with a vessel’s Master to ensure that appropriate protocols are followed, which doubtless explains why the captain of the Solong has been detained, regardless of whether or not he actually directly crashed his ship.

As for the tanker, it may simply not have been possible to get the vessel mobilised in time to move clear, but I would imagine strenuous efforts to make radio contact or otherwise alert the incoming container ship would have been made, but quite possibly with little chance of success. It’ll certainly make for interesting reading.

 

[Elwyn]

As for the tanker, it may simply not have been possible to get the vessel mobilised in time to move clear, but I would imagine strenuous efforts to make radio contact or otherwise alert the incoming container ship would have been made, but quite possibly with little chance of success. It’ll certainly make for interesting reading.

From speaking to a ship’s engineer I understand that it would take about an hour to get the tanker moving from a "cold start.". It runs on heavy fuel oil which needs to be warmed up first before the engines can be fired up. And then raising the anchor itself may take 15 minutes. Nowhere near enough time to move the vessel.

 

[Towers]

From speaking to a ship’s engineer I understand that it would take about an hour to get the tanker moving from a "cold start.". It runs on heavy fuel oil which needs to be warmed up first before the engines can be fired up. And then raising the anchor itself may take 15 minutes. Nowhere near enough time to move the vessel.

I suspected that might be the case, not exactly a ‘turn key’ situation!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I sometimes enjoy reading the odd MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) report - all of which, as with their railway equivalent from the RAIB, are publically available - and the issue of poor watchkeeping is a frequent feature. As utterly reckless as it is, it’s easy to see how poor working habits and non-compliance can become commonplace in that sort of tedious, unsupervised working environment. That doesn’t absolve anyone of their obligations of course, but it’s quite evident that there is a sizeable issue within the industry. Ultimately it rests with a vessel’s Master to ensure that appropriate protocols are followed, which doubtless explains why the captain of the Solong has been detained, regardless of whether or not he actually directly crashed his ship.

As for the tanker, it may simply not have been possible to get the vessel mobilised in time to move clear, but I would imagine strenuous efforts to make radio contact or otherwise alert the incoming container ship would have been made, but quite possibly with little chance of success. It’ll certainly make for interesting reading.

Takes bout an hour to get an anchored ship underway (anchor up and cold engine started).

From speaking to a ship’s engineer I understand that it would take about an hour to get the tanker moving from a "cold start.". It runs on heavy fuel oil which needs to be warmed up first before the engines can be fired up. And then raising the anchor itself may take 15 minutes. Nowhere near enough time to move the vessel.

That is my understanding.

Furthermore the tanker crew would not have raised the alarm until the cargo ship was about 12 minutes away. It is normal I believe to only change course about four miles from an obstruction (4 miles at 20mph is 12 minutes).

 

[edwin_m]

I sometimes enjoy reading the odd MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) report - all of which, as with their railway equivalent from the RAIB, are publically available - and the issue of poor watchkeeping is a frequent feature. As utterly reckless as it is, it’s easy to see how poor working habits and non-compliance can become commonplace in that sort of tedious, unsupervised working environment. That doesn’t absolve anyone of their obligations of course, but it’s quite evident that there is a sizeable issue within the industry.

I read these too, and while there are concerns expressed from time to time about safety in the rail industry, comparing them with RAIB reports suggests it's nothing like the sort of stuff that goes on at sea.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I sometimes enjoy reading the odd MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) report - all of which, as with their railway equivalent from the RAIB, are publically available - and the issue of poor watchkeeping is a frequent feature. As utterly reckless as it is, it’s easy to see how poor working habits and non-compliance can become commonplace in that sort of tedious, unsupervised working environment. That doesn’t absolve anyone of their obligations of course, but it’s quite evident that there is a sizeable issue within the industry. Ultimately it rests with a vessel’s Master to ensure that appropriate protocols are followed, which doubtless explains why the captain of the Solong has been detained, regardless of whether or not he actually directly crashed his ship.

Precisely so. I get MAIB reports directly into my inbox at work: the findings are invariably some combination of poor watchkeeping, poor crew training, poor maintenance, and poor procedures.

I read these too, and while there are concerns expressed from time to time about safety in the rail industry, comparing them with RAIB reports suggests it's nothing like the sort of stuff that goes on at sea.

It should be remembered that the top three priorities of a shipping company are (1) minimising cost, (2) not spending any more money than necessary, and (3) reducing expenditure. This usually involves employing as few crew as possible on the lowest wages possible, and working them inhumanly hard.

It's fairly normal for a ship to be registered in one country, classified in a second country, owned by a company registered in a third country, with crew from a fourth country and officers from a fifth country. The primary reasons for selecting countries one through five being the size of the bill.

 

[edwin_m]

It should be remembered that the top three priorities of a shipping company are (1) minimising cost, (2) not spending any more money than necessary, and (3) reducing expenditure. This usually involves employing as few crew as possible on the lowest wages possible, and working them inhumanly hard.

There are very many possibilities for corners to be cut when ships can be flagged in whatever country offers the laxest regulation, crewed from wherever has the lowest wages, and left to their own devices most of the time. Some of this might also be true of aviation, but there are many more passengers involved and accidents generally get a lot more press.

 

[Indigo Soup]

There are very many possibilities for corners to be cut when ships can be flagged in whatever country offers the laxest regulation, crewed from wherever has the lowest wages, and left to their own devices most of the time.

At this point the maritime industry has gotten so good at cutting corners that what remains is a circle of ever-shrinking size.

Port State Control is probably the most effective lever available, but it's a pretty limited one. And most people don't give maritime traffic a first thought, much less a second one, unless there's some obvious disaster. Even the collision under discussion here had largely dropped off the news even before the fires were extinguished.

Some of this might also be true of aviation, but there are many more passengers involved and accidents generally get a lot more press.

Aviation benefits from having seen the nonsense that the maritime industry had got up to in the years since Noah was a lad, and the authorities deciding they wouldn't put up with it. There's still some of it around, but it's much more tightly regulated.