Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Ship loses 83 containers in rough sea

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Ship loses 83 containers in rough sea

Old 3rd Jun 2018, 08:02
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 50
Posts: 1,687
USN or RN?
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 08:29
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 525
Re: aircraft carrier! So could it be said that some large ship losses could just as easily be from container collisions as rogue waves, etc.?
How many ships disappear each year?
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 08:45
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 1,195
Most container losses are caused by Parametric rolling (Google it), which is a design "feature" of container ships. Not commenting on subject case however, as I may have some professional involvement.
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 08:53
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 20
Posts: 79
I often wonder at the risks submariners face from large underwater objects. Doesn't bear thinking about.
bugged on the right is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 09:03
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by bugged on the right View Post
I often wonder at the risks submariners face from large underwater objects. Doesn't bear thinking about.
Containers either float, often very low in the water, or sink, so probably aren't that much of a risk to a submerged submarine. Also, when submerged, and not in a hostile environment, a submarine will pretty much always have active sonar on, looking ahead to the sides and below. The chances are a submarine would be better able to detect a semi-floating container than a surface vessel, as anything with an air space in it tends to give a good sonar return, especially at higher frequencies. Surface ships, especially fishing boats, are probably a bigger hazard for submarines, and for any fishing boat whose gear they snag.
VP959 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 10:06
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,410
Sir Beardy ended one his transatlantic escapdes when his boat hit Debris....................... this supposedly from debris from an air crash but same idea applies.
racedo is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 10:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 66
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Longtail View Post
The container companies need a strict reporting and checking system together with BIG penalties to be levied on them for any loss overboard , just as MARPOL has done for oil/garbage discharge.
I’m pretty sure they will then come up with a system to prevent it.


Looking at the "squashed can" appearance of some of the containers still aboard the subject vessel, it is not hard to imagine that some responsibility may lay outside the shipping companies.
The integrity of a stack of containers might well be compromised by failure, under sea conditions, of one or more corroded containers.
Many of these containers are loaded with customs seals on them and no assessment for physical integrity is carried out on the part of the carrier.

maybe that aspect needs looking at too.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 12:48
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 369
A friend cut up two containers and fixed them together to build the basis for a home office/workshop at the end of his garden, using one side as a workshop and the other as a combined office and design area (he makes custom furniture). What amazed me was how thin the steel is that they are made from. When he cut holes in the sides for doorways and windows, practically all the stiffness in the containers went, and he had to weld in a load of box section steel to get it back. Looking at them, it seems they are well designed in terms of being stiff longitudinally, in terms of resisting bending, and pretty strong vertically, to take the load when in tall stacks, but they have very little stiffness against side loads, so when a tall stack is subjected to any appreciable roll I can easily see how the lower containers in the stack could just cripple and fold up, causing the whole stack to collapse.

Looking at images of containers stacked on these big ships it looks like they brace the lower levels of tall stacks with diagonal steel cables, presumably to try and stiffen them up against side loads, but there doesn't seem to be much, if anything, holding the upper containers together to their next door neighbours, they seem to just rely on the latches on the base. That may have something to do with the need to maintain a fair degree of flexibility, though, as I've heard that these big ships twist and bend a fair bit in a heavy sea.
VP959 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 12:56
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Living In The Past
Age: 71
Posts: 284
For the more musically minded, have a listen to "Fell off the Back of a Boat" by Vin Garbutt (it's on Spotify) about what happened to a container off Redcar.
Eric T Cartman is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 13:29
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,502
Very Large Container Ships need to be loaded to main deck level with containers, full or empty, to maintain the hull's integrity when seaborne.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 13:33
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,581
I am told, but cannot verify it, that Navy Heli pilots lost a few helis off the decks. Some deliberately so, some accidentally. Would be interesting to hear the full stories.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 13:51
  #32 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
You call that sea "rough"?

I've had girlfriends rougher than that!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 13:59
  #33 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
Fit every container with a depth charge, so that it sinks itself on immersion in sea water?
An interesting idea, but on closer inspection it does contain what might best be described as a contradiction.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 14:37
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by vapilot2004 View Post
Most containers sink rather quickly. Shipments containing lightweight items packed in styrofoam (electronics) or watertight reefer units, on the other hand, can float for a very long time.



Part of the equation includes the angle and speed of impact, but I would imagine a very large steel-hulled vessel could survive such a collision with creases or dents, but no holes punched clean through her.

On a glass-hulled sailing yacht, while a hole in the side would certainly ruin the fun, and possibly sink her, the next biggest problem caused by a container collision would be the loss of the rudder, unless you have the gear to rig an effective drogue and have the supplies to last the leg extension.



I'm sure I am not alone in wanting to hear more, SL.
Daytime sailing in 80ft catamaran at 16 knots in a quartering sea in Biscay. Starboard hull hit a container which was “floating” about 2ft under water. Huge impact, but the hull rode over the top of it. Impact puncture about two metres long, but the composite didn’t split fully open, just “oozed” water in. Bilge pumps able to cope, just. Starboard rudder ripped off, but in a watertight compartments, which flooded.

Had it not been a catamaran, or had it a deeper draft, this would have been catastrophic, as the collision would not have been a glancing blow, but a full force impact. Crews asleep in impact area.

Not one I want to repeat, but what can you do? Often you can’t see them until you hit them.
Squeegee Longtail is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 19:18
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,391
Originally Posted by Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! View Post
An interesting idea, but on closer inspection it does contain what might best be described as a contradiction.
You'd have to set the depth to around 3' and fit them to the bottoms of the containers.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 19:39
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 74
Posts: 785
In response to VP959's post #28 above, no, you don't want any flexibility at all in how the container stacks are secured. They should be rigid, an integral part of the ship. On a properly manned vessel the crew will monitor the stacks daily or as required for the weather conditions.

The way the ship is ballasted greatly influences the stresses on deck-stowed containers. A ship that's "stiff", i.e. heavily ballasted and wanting to remain upright regardless of the swell/waves, will toss about quite violently and its method of disgorging upper tier containers could be compared to Wild West bucking bronco exhibitions.

Squeegee Longtail weren't you lucky! In years of sailing I've never seen a floating box nor heard of one from others! Sure it's time I stopped altogether!
broadreach is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 20:07
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,502
For some of the container ships I have seen crossing the South China Sea 83 containers isn't even half a layer.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 20:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oil Capital of Central Scotland
Age: 51
Posts: 415
Quote:Fit every container with a depth charge, so that it sinks itself on immersion in sea water? - An interesting idea,
So ........., we fit every single container in the world with a self triggered explosive charge and then send them out to transport any kind of goods around the globe by road sea and air whilst containing flammable / explosive / toxic / nuclear materials?

Interesting...........

I'd like to read the safety case proposition for that one.
Donkey497 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 20:28
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
Panamax vessels - 5,000 - 20ft equivalent units (TEU)
New Panamax- 13,000 TEU

(That's 36,855 LD3s for a Panamax and 95,824 LD3s for a New Panamax.)

Last edited by meadowrun; 3rd Jun 2018 at 20:44.
meadowrun is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2018, 20:29
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,391
Originally Posted by Donkey497 View Post
I'd like to read the safety case proposition for that one.
Nah, it'll be fine. So long as it doesn't rain on a container port.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.