Northern BC Oil Tanker Ban

Knee jerk reaction to the grounded tug?

https://gcaptain.com/canada-impleme...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Gcaptain+(gCaptain.com)

Not a knee-jerk reaction. This ban dates back nearly a year ago, long before the current problem.

Canada Prime Minister Moves to Deliver on Northern B.C. Oil Tanker Ban Promise – gCaptain

And the 'discussion' is older yet.

Knee jerk reaction by excited locals who make noise for 'a solution' that both wouldn't have eliminated the cause of current incident, and wouldn't prevent same from happening again.

I'll go out on a limb here and state: "When mariners work 6 hours on/ 6 hours off for weeks they become sleep deprived." This happened one hour AFTER watch change.

How much would you bet that this is NEVER mentioned by the USCG as a factor? I know TC will be leading the investigation. But the manning is an issue. Both hours worked and single person watches in wheelhouse.

cappy208 said:

How much would you bet that this is NEVER mentioned by the USCG as a factor?

Click to expand...

Chuckle! It will never be mentioned by USCG, because...the incident occurred in Canada.

Jim

JDCAVE said:

Chuckle! It will never be mentioned by USCG, because...the incident occurred in Canada.

Jim

Click to expand...

If you assume their won't be repercussions in the US think again. This was a US flag commercial tug and a USCG Inspected Barge. As I noted earlier TC will be in the lead for the 'local' investigation. But Uncle Sams Confused Group will certainly be looking at (among other things): Watch standing (as is covered by the proposed Canadian law) crew fatigue and above all why the ATB connection failed after 3 days. There is a debated (between industry and outside groups) point of watchstanding issues on tugs and license /tonnage qualifications.

As was pointed out by a recent auditor: the IMO is only now realizing that 'unlimited tonnage' vessels are being pushed around by limited tonnage masters. This is not allowed in most other 'developed' countries. Barges over 1600 tons are considered 'unlimited tonnage'. Tugs under 100 tons can be operated by small licenses. I operate a 249 ton tug. But the barge I connect to is 5580 tons. A previous one was 198/ 9980! Afaik the US is the only country with this 'license loophole'.

The US towing industry has LOTS of clout in congress.

Wow, that is a bad loophole. I just assumed the license rating needed to match the entire combined load.

So I'm allegedly qualified to run that rig? That's really scary - for me and everyone around.

Just to give you an idea of how convoluted the us laws are.... and hard to follow. The Nathan e Stewart (as the Ludwig E) was originally 98 gross tons. But the International tonnage was around 175. But the panama canal tonnage was around 350. When she was converted to an ATB they bumped up the tonnage numbers a bit. All these numbers are a naval architects dream. How to get around tonnage limitations, avoid manning issues ( the smaller the tonnage the less manning) and the less safety gear and training you must have.

Have you ever been aboard any ferries with doors or passageways with 'bolted on' door frames? They are called 'tonnage doors'. Their only function is to make the boat mathemagically under a tonnage threshold. Ergo, lesser safety equipment and crew licensure required.

Thanks for the clarification Cappy, and I defer to your experience in this matter. What is the IMO? I presume you don't mean "In My Opinion" in this instance. Also, what is meant by ATB connection?

The Nathan E. Stuart is/was 98 gross tons???!!!! That's one damned big Tug. Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors, to be sure!

International Maritime Organization Articulated Tug Barge connection: relatively new, industry changing methods of hydraulically 'pinning' a tug into the notch of a barge.

When there are (unplanned) disconnections they are being hidden, kept secret and not shared. It's like drug lawsuits that come up keep drug companies honest for faults. And allow the public to at least look for symptoms and issues.
We don't even know what to look for because everything's being kept a secret. Manufacturers don't want any 'bad info' leaking out about possible defects or operator errors with their equipment. Would be bad for sales!


And to make clear. (I love acronyms). Transporte Canada is the USCG equivalent north of the border.

I am not under any illusion that Canada doesn't have jurisdiction with this incident. Just that lying just below the surface are several pertinent issues that are being glossed over, massaged and BS'd to death by Industry and the CG.

And I goofed. The tonnage of the NES is 116gt gross tons, Approximately 250 T ton and 302 ITC International tonnage calculation. Go figure. You can figure out which tonnage number the us requires to operate it.

I think the Nathan Stewart may have had a JAK (pneumatic ) coupling system? Many of the KSEA?Kirby vessels did. Jak systems are easier to retrofit on an existing hull, which the NES was .
The tug I run has tonnage doors galore. Us 198 ton, ITC 852. Built in 1977. Some of the tonnage laws and admeasure has been tightened up somewhat but still crazy loopholes.

In measures with a little bit less wiggle room, the Nathan E Stewart is 95' long, and 32' beam.

Admeasures have less to do withLOA and more to do with how the boat is setup. The old single screw boats that I used to run were all over 200 GRT due to the engine room configuration.
One company I worked for bought an ex CG ice breaking tug of 400 plus GRT and with a written check to a naval architect, moving some spaces around got it under 100 tons.