El Faro Sinking

Wxx3 said:

Cappy & Salty Dawg, thank you for sharing in a very candid way.

But most read what you say, but don't hear what you're saying.


1. it's clear that the commercial pressures exerted upon merchant mariners can not be understood by most. Owners and USGC have their own:

Click to expand...

I'm glad some see this, but most boaters think they know what our job is and they know what's best. I'm done trying to explain pleasure is not the same as work and if you haven't been there you'll never know. I'm done trying to help the Monday Morning QBs learn a little something, it's not worth my time when the experts have their mind made up.

sunchaser said:

Spy, psneeld, Sailor of Fortune etc are the real TF seagoing experts to listen to on matters such as this with the rest of us just gum flappers keeping the internet hopping.

Click to expand...

Sorry Tom, but I consider myself a gum flapper as well. Yes, I went to NY Maritime, and Yes, I was in the USN, both surface and sub surface, but there are plenty of people on this site with more sea time than me (although maybe not at test depth on the shi%%er)! I will remain silent on this thread.

psneeld said:

I believe the Marine Electric incident was also the event that mandated the USCG to upgrade its rescue swimmer program.

Click to expand...

Yes, yet it was. Seems like that sinking led to quite a few positive changes.

Later,
Dan

Being close to big storms may be more routine that most of us think. Look at Mexico this am, Here is Patricia, a 200 mph cat 5 hurricane. These three ships are running NW out of the port just as the storm comes in. They cut it close for me, but for them it may be normal. I hope the storm dosn't follow them!

I rode out a Cat 1 hurricane on a USCG cutter back in '82 (I think it was 82).


We ran before it from just off Cancun middle of the Gulf of Mexico.


During night 3, I believe, we started the tow of a disabled sailboat. Passed it off the next day to another 210 foot cutter who put to sea for the storm.


Running before the storm became the only option as the acting CO didn't want to turn beam to with the helo strapped on deck.


He and I discussed the possibility we might have to jettison the helo if the storm intensified.


So yes, shipping and hurricanes do mix.


Keeping in mind they mix not too well and certainly options should be left open, but as a profession versus tying a few more lines on and calling your insurance company isn't always in the cards for the pro mariner.

Actually as a young soldier working at Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne MOTBY, i recall the collision of the ESSO BRUSSELS and the SEA WITCH. It was in 1973 just under theVERAZANNO BRIDGE. We watched the fire ball form the terminal.. I am still working in the marine indusrty as a civilian and wish to express my sympathy to the family of the lost vessel.

psneeld said:

Running before the storm became the only option as the acting CO didn't want to turn beam to with the helo strapped on deck.

.

Click to expand...

That was not the only option, however, in this case. There were two others. One was not starting the trip. One was following the coast down past Miami.

My sympathies with the families of those lost as well.

Just an update for those not following the investigation.

They are searching for the ship in an area 10 nm. x 15 nm. First they searched using a Towed Pinger Locator and had no luck. Now they're searching using side scan sonar. There are 13 search tracks to be covered, one per day. They have now completed the searches of 3 of those tracks (actually should be 4 about now but the 4th not yet reported) and all three have been negative.

Meanwhile a lot more questions and information surfacing regarding the ship and the company. However, no more statements in that regard by the NTSB. Most of the information coming either from ex-employees and families of those aboard and while it all seems to be consistent, it hasn't been verified by the NTSB.

Was it

Wee too Low, who noticed the error?

Marin said:

Cappy--- Very interesting post, thank you. A similar situation to "error trapping" exists in aviation, although I have yet to hear that term used here (which doesn't mean it isn't, just that I haven't heard it).

The big challenge, particularly for the people here involved in training our customers, is recognizing the chain to begin with. The recent crash of the Asiana 777 at SFO is a classic case of a chain of events or an error chain. Breaking the chain at any one of several points during the descent would have avoided the accident. The problem was, nobody recognized there was an error chain.

Well, that's not strictly true. Apparently one of the four people on the flight deck did realize at one point what was happening but was stymied by his culture from bringing it to the attention of the captain.

Breaking an error chain can certainly change an outcome. But only if the chain is recognized by someone in a position to break it or is willing to act on someone else's recognition of the chain. In aviation, at least, therein lies the problem, particularly in cultures where taking action to break a chain when it's recognized, particularly in the case of a subordinate flight crew member, is very, very difficult to do.

Click to expand...

BandB said:

That was not the only option, however, in this case. There were two others. One was not starting the trip. One was following the coast down past Miami.

My sympathies with the families of those lost as well.

Click to expand...

Wasn't talking about that case...but at some point before the engine failure and well into the storm....running before it may have been their only option too.

With a list, taking on water and possibly shifted cargo....we don't know what their options were AFTER sailing the planned route....maybe never will. Upon departure..I am not sure anyone has clealy shown bad risk management based on my readings. 2 engines and unclear forecast?????

Wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway...I was pointing out that pros wind up in or near storms a lot more than you would think because the ships and crews are designed to take a lot more than toy boat sailors are.

As has been posted...most here don't really know...even though I was lumped in with some others...like Northern Spy fessed up to...and now I will...

Much of my ship/storm experience is from the point of view of rescue from above...not actually riding it out. But I have ridden many a storm and hurricane/hurricane like fringe ( over a year in Arctic/Antarctic waters)...but not nearly as much as some of the salty dogs here.

Never been an officer on a ship, but was a steam plant engineer for several years- My take on the ship was that it did not have two engines, but two boilers feeding turbines on a single shaft. So really just one engine. Steam plants take a good bit of attention compared to diesel: Boiler water level and condensor hotwell level must be controlled, and if not it can trip the burners, trip the turbine admission valves or ventilate the condensate pumps. Get into wild seas and these levels slosh. The levels are automatically controlled, but the controls are finicky. There is a large list of things that if gone slightly whack will kill the plant. And that includes turbine generators, so plant not only goes stop, but dark as well. Mad scramble to get a diesel gen on line and meanwhile ship goes beam-to the seas and all hell breaks loose.

No expert on the El Faro plant, though, just a generalist.

psneeld said:

With a list, taking on water and possibly shifted cargo....we don't know what their options were AFTER sailing the planned route....maybe never will. Upon departure..I am not sure anyone has clealy shown bad risk management based on my readings. 2 engines and unclear forecast?????

Wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway...I was pointing out that pros wind up in or near storms a lot more than you would think because the ships and crews are designed to take a lot more than toy boat sailors are.

Click to expand...

Yes, some boats are designed to take a lot more. This ship was known not to be in top condition. Unclear forecast? Hurricane warning at the time they departed. The forecast was CAT 3 for the area they were headed toward at least 5 hours before they reported trouble. Now, what we don't know is how long they waited to report trouble after first having it.

I posted today just to update on the search for the ship, not to rehash the subject on which you and I clearly have differences of opinion. No luck on locating the ship yet, no ping from it (although battery dead by now), and obviously no black box recovered. NTSB did just update for today and 4th of search line ongoing with negative results so far.

Ships move, hurricanes move...just leaving port with one somewhere near the path doesn't mean constant bearing, decreasing range.

Steering near one and running the eye are different things for ships of that size....heck even for the "little ships" I was on...half the size....

Haven't reconstructed a hourly timeline...but I think while warnings may have been issued...the projected path, intensity and the turn northward was very much still uncertain...until....arrival at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ski...sorry...you are correct as I should have said both boilers, not engines.

Give it up Psneeld. You and other marine professionals here are up against a member that has a friend that owns a shipping company with 200+ boats.

mahal said:

Give it up Psneeld. You and other marine professionals here are up against a member that has a friend that owns a shipping company with 200+ boats.

Click to expand...

Thanks...just in my nature...especially when it's something that was that much of my past....

mahal said:

Give it up Psneeld. You and other marine professionals here are up against a member that has a friend that owns a shipping company with 200+ boats.

Click to expand...

You know....it's one thing to disagree. But I don't appreciate for one moment you or any of the others acting like I'm not entitled to my opinion. I posted today just to update the situation but we had to go back into this. I don't give a d... if you disagree with my opinion. But I have as much right to it as anyone here and I doubt seriously anyone had reviewed this situation more than I have. I've only really expressed one opinion and I'll stand by it. The ship had options and had I owned the company I would not have allowed that ship on that day to head in the direction it did. Now, I'm not going to sit here quietly for smarta... insults simply because my background is different than others. Those in the industry may or may not be making wise decisions. Just because it's your industry does not guarantee your decision being the best. Just because you're not in the industry does not invalidate your opinion. Enough. Why can't you all discuss an issue without feeling the necessity to insult or put down others. As to this situation I'm not arguing it anymore. Wait until the NTSB and the courts resolve it. I didn't bring it up today. I thought some members might be interested in an update of the search for the ship.

As to PSNEELD, I respect his opinion on this subject and recognize his experience. Doesn't mean I have to agree with him on the subject.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion as everyone here.

All I am doing is pointing out that commercial shipping and running those vessels is from a completely different viewpoint than running a recreational vessel.

I find your posts on things relating to general business and insurance and contracting very precise.

How much time at sea do you have on ships of a commercial nature?

BandB- don't get too defensive.. Someone lobs a turd into the conversation like Mahal, that does not render the most of it useless. Other than that one comment, I think the discussion has been quite constructive.

And thanks for the updates..

psneeld said:

How much time at sea do you have on ships of a commercial nature?

Click to expand...

Zero. You know the answer to that. I've never professed to, but don't think that by itself invalidates an opinion. I had an opinion on Costa Concordia and have never spent time on cruise ships and one on Bounty and I've never sailed on a boat of it's type. I use to hire people regularly from outside my industry, sometimes far outside, but they often brought fresh ideas and challenged our traditional ways of doing things. I'm not a believer in doing things "the way we've always done them."

As to my opinions here, I didn't invent the timeline. I took it from NTSB reports. I have also read all the comments of those who have spoken who have been on El Faro and those who have worked for TOTE. I'd not overly relied on some that might be skewed by their situations. My real questioning isn't aimed at the Captain but the company and in some ways an industry even that puts people in position of choosing a risky option that ultimately leads to death, even if many consider that option a reasonable risk. This also has nothing to do with those who undertake risks to save lives at sea.

At this point I don't expect much more information for a considerable period of time. Some of it will perhaps be new and some may contradict what we've heard. Right now we're not hearing from unbiased sources as we're hearing from the company and from the lawyers suing the company on behalf of the families of those who lost their lives.

Now, today's tragedy was 224 lives lost in the Russian plane crash. At this point I have no opinion on that, other than a horrible tragedy.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, even dumb ones that have no factual base to it!

Looks like they found her on the fifth pass. 4500meters deep.

How much time at sea do you have on ships of a commercial nature?

Click to expand...

I would have to ask the same question!

Unlimited shipyard periods, unlimited cash to do shipyard repairs and replenishments and unlimited crew appointments is VERY different than the commercial world.

The government (military) expectation is NOT tantamount to the commercial world. The reasons we put to sea during hurricane conditions is totally different than military.


Two of my compatriots were weatherbound in Miami. One was anchored off Tampa. NONE of them felt obliged to get underway into Juaquin. As a matter of fact these three Captains held their ground and then got underway after the El Faro sunk.

Sounds like someone (who had a complement of 5 mechanics aboard) to repair the mechanicals of the ship put more precedent on making a 'schedule' than a safe passage.

The age, the past reports, the cumulative info suggest something else.

They have now located what they believe to be the wreckage.

Wreckage of Cargo Ship Believed to be El Faro Located in More Than 15,000 Feet of Water
10/31/2015

​A search team on board the USNS Apache has found the wreckage of a vessel that they believe to be the cargo ship El Faro, which went missing on Oct. 1 during Hurricane Joaquin. The vessel was located at a depth of about 15,000 feet in the vicinity of the last known position.

Sophisticated sonar equipment towed from Apache first detected what are believed to be images of the vessel using Orion, a side-scanning sonar system, at about 1:36 pm ET on October 31 during the fifth of 13 planned search line surveys.

To confirm the finding, specialists on Apache will use CURV 21, a deep ocean remotely operated vehicle, to survey and confirm the identity of the wreckage. This survey could begin as early as Sunday, November 1.

The target identified by Orion is consistent with a 790-foot cargo ship, which from sonar images appears to be in an upright position and in one piece.

At the time of departure, Hurricane Joaquin was still a tropical storm, but meteorologists at the National Hurricane Center forecast that it would likely become a hurricane by the morning of October 1, on a southwest trajectory toward the Bahamas.[6] The vessel's charted course took it within 175 nmi (320 km; 200 mi) of the storm, where seas in excess of 10 ft (3.0 m) were likely.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_El_Faro

Still haven't done the timeline, but this is close to what I thought.

And no....not all government ships have unlimited yard periods and budgets. and yes...some of the Icebreakers I sailed on were from WWII. Old and on their last legs. One had a main electric motor burn up on the way...we continues for 3 more months and got within 400 miles of the North Pole on one shaft and returned home. Mission complete.

Operational Risk management is about managing risks to complete a mission or determine there are just to many unmanageable ones to start/continue. Usually is never says don't start, just monitor and manage...which is where this event somehow went astray and without more info......and my experiences in disaster at sea...I really have no opinion on why or why not the El faro sailed, other than how the heck do others?

15000' is a lot of water......

sunchaser said:

The Bolivian flagged cargo ship Minouche was near Haiti when Joaquin came through. It too sank, reportedly due to cargo shifting. All on board were saved.

Does anyone know when and if El Faro called CG for help? Is there a time line between when cargo shifted and mayday sent out?

Click to expand...

I did a double take when I read "Bolivian flagged cargo ship" had to check with Google sure enough they offer flag of convenience, and apparently the fleet is growing.

Well, they have Lago Titicaca...... guess that counts as waterfront, right?

Used to work with Bolivian Navy. Chile took away their coastline in 1904. But, each succeeding Bolivian president since is going to get it back. So the Bolivian Navy stands ready go to sea. I assume their Admiralty offices are as well.

Actually, they field a credible riverine force - good, tough little guys

El Faro Located 15,000 Down

U.S. Navy finds wreckage believed to be missing cargo ship El Faro - CNN.com

They have updated to confirm that it is the El Faro that they have located, whereas their previous report said they believed it was the ship.