Jump to content

Manoeuvering in a narrow channel!!!


Richard T

Featured Posts

Did anyone else watch the BBC programme last night Why Ships Crash? https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0013p1f/why-ships-crash

It was primarily about how the Evergiven got stuck in the Suez canal last year. But for the size difference it explained very well problems that can be experienced by narrowboats in a silted up canal or in tunnels.

I wouldn't have liked to try and keep a 300m long ship in a narrow channel with a gale force cross wind!!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was about to post it here myself, it was an interesting programme (but annoying background music!).

The discussion about the respective roles of Master and Pilot was particularly interesting, if somewhat alarming.  I've been watching quite a few aviation videos recently, where there is often a strong focus on the importance of crew resource management (including "the captain is not always right"), and on the proper relationship between the pilot and air traffic control. The Maritime industry seems to be a way behind this (also for example the plethora of national jurisdictions involved - ownership, control, registration, crew, insurance etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't take my boat out in a strong wind because I know I can't hold it against the forces of Mother Nature, of course I don't have bow thrusters.

Having been in a difficult situation, berthing a big yacht with a tiny engine, and a lot of windage, I have some sympathy.

The cargo boat should be designed to cope with the situation (cross-wind in a  gale is not an unexpected event), or the master trained to cope, one or the other failed. As to the pilot v captain, well the captain knew his boat, and let his boat go aground........ Bad News

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

Well, I don't take my boat out in a strong wind because I know I can't hold it against the forces of Mother Nature, of course I don't have bow thrusters.

Having been in a difficult situation, berthing a big yacht with a tiny engine, and a lot of windage, I have some sympathy.

The cargo boat should be designed to cope with the situation (cross-wind in a  gale is not an unexpected event), or the master trained to cope, one or the other failed. As to the pilot v captain, well the captain knew his boat, and let his boat go aground........ Bad News

 

With hindsight, Ever Given should have cancelled that particular transit, or the canal authority should have cancelled it. Even before she entered the canal she was having difficulty and had to "go around", rejoining the convoy further back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The commentary was real rubbish. “The captain gunned the throttle “ as if he’s driving a car. The fact that the pilots were handing over just before the event was brushed over in the desire to blame the captain. The increase in speed would have been at the request of the pilot and it’s very unusual for his instructions to be refused. You do not have a choice in taking a pilot for a passage through the suez and frankly you have no idea of their competence and as it proved there’s very little room for error especially with a high ship like the Ever Given.

I have been through the canal a few times admittedly on smaller ships although the canal was narrower then and the only thing the pilots were concerned about was the whisky and Marlboro cigarettes they expected. I did a couple of tricks on the wheel and a 500ft tanker was hard to keep on track and can’t imagine how difficult it is on a 200000 tonner 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

The commentary was real rubbish. “The captain gunned the throttle “ as if he’s driving a car. The fact that the pilots were handing over just before the event was brushed over in the desire to blame the captain. The increase in speed would have been at the request of the pilot and it’s very unusual for his instructions to be refused. You do not have a choice in taking a pilot for a passage through the suez and frankly you have no idea of their competence and as it proved there’s very little room for error especially with a high ship like the Ever Given.

I have been through the canal a few times admittedly on smaller ships although the canal was narrower then and the only thing the pilots were concerned about was the whisky and Marlboro cigarettes they expected. I did a couple of tricks on the wheel and a 500ft tanker was hard to keep on track and can’t imagine how difficult it is on a 200000 tonner 

 

Thanks - very interesting. I rather suspect the programme will have to be done again once the various investigations have concluded and published their reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could have been a really interesting factual programme but sadly it showed how dumbed down the BBC has become....even the title of 'when Ships crash" or whatever it was summed it up.....if thats the standard for documentaries now then its no wonder the Licence fee should be scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2022 at 19:51, Bee said:

Hmph. If I had been steering I would have asked for the fenders to be deployed. Amateurs.

But, there's a lock at the end of the canal isn't there? You can't have your fenders down!! Have you learned nothing reading this forum!!?

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2022 at 20:00, frangar said:

It could have been a really interesting factual programme but sadly it showed how dumbed down the BBC has become....even the title of 'when Ships crash" or whatever it was summed it up.....if thats the standard for documentaries now then its no wonder the Licence fee should be scrapped.

 

I disagree. I thought it was a really interesting factual programme and wasn't dumbed down. I also don't agree with your statement that the licence fee should be scrapped. It should be modified so that people who can afford it pay more and people on low incomes pay less rather than a flat fee, but I think public service broadcasting free from commercial advertising is something we need to protect. The BBC make world class TV and radio programmes. 

 

On 19/01/2022 at 14:21, LadyG said:

Well, I don't take my boat out in a strong wind because I know I can't hold it against the forces of Mother Nature, of course I don't have bow thrusters.

 

 

Bow thrusters don't help in strong winds or when a vessel is moving at any speed.

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fixed a boiler for a bloke who was a ship bod and he said he'd done the Suez 57 times, I think it was. He said ships in the Suez behave exactly the same as narrowboats in a canal, diving for the bank if going too fast! 

 

He also said the master of the Ever Given would have been huge pressure to keep up with the speed of the convoy of ships all going the same way to avoid the ship behind catching up, and that the mandatory pilots assigned are often total incompetents whose only interest is in the boxes of cigarettes they expect to be given. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

I disagree. I thought it was a really interesting factual programme and wasn't dumbed down. I also don't agree with your statement that the licence fee should be scrapped. It should be modified so that people who can afford it pay more and people on low incomes pay less rather than a flat fee, but I think public service broadcasting free from commercial advertising is something we need to protect. The BBC make world class TV and radio programmes. 

 

 

Bow thrusters don't help in strong winds or when a vessel is moving at any speed.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the likes of Tommorows World in its heyday and when Top Gear was a serious motoring program presented by the likes of Raymond Baxter & William Wollard not to mention programmes like Horizon plus the OU stuff on a Saturday morning which I loved as a kid. I’m afraid even Channel 5 and Yesterday now make better documentaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frangar said:

I’m afraid even Channel 5 and Yesterday now make better documentaries. 

 

Whilst  agree I very much doubt they actually make any documentaries or even have the ability to do so.   I am sure that they just buy in, like much of the BBC's output. The thing I am not sure about is how much control those two exert if they commission a series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Whilst  agree I very much doubt they actually make any documentaries or even have the ability to do so.   I am sure that they just buy in, like much of the BBC's output. The thing I am not sure about is how much control those two exert if they commission a series.

Yesterday certainly commission their own documentaries as I believe channel 5 do which are then made by independent production companies. The BBC also use independent prod co’s now as well however their commissioning editors seem to be either a lot less fussy about the end product or know much less about the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frangar said:

Perhaps you are too young to remember the likes of Tommorows World in its heyday and when Top Gear was a serious motoring program presented by the likes of Raymond Baxter & William Wollard

 

I'm pretty sure Raymond Baxter & William Wollard only ever presented TW, never Top Gear.

 

RB was my hero when I was a brat. I LURVED the way he explained technical things properly with no dumbing down. 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm pretty sure Raymond Baxter & William Wollard only ever presented TW, never Top Gear.

 

RB was my hero when I was a brat. I LURVED the way he explained technical things properly with no dumbing down. 

 

12 Top Gear presenters you might have forgotten about - from Angela Rippon to Kate Humble (bt.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm pretty sure Raymond Baxter & William Wollard only ever presented TW, never Top Gear.

 

RB was my hero when I was a brat. I LURVED the way he explained technical things properly with no dumbing down. 

 

I didn’t make that too clear..RB did Tomorrow’s World and WW did Top Gear..(and Tomorrows World!)….loved both as a kid. Proper adult telly with none of the hysteria or so called celebrity worship you have now. 

Edited by frangar
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, frangar said:

Perhaps you are too young to remember the likes of Tommorows World in its heyday and when Top Gear was a serious motoring program presented by the likes of Raymond Baxter & William Wollard not to mention programmes like Horizon plus the OU stuff on a Saturday morning which I loved as a kid. I’m afraid even Channel 5 and Yesterday now make better documentaries. 

To an extent, the younger generation are fortunate. The image of Raymond Baxter presenting an item on TW dressed in string vest and pants is still burned on my memory 🥺.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2022 at 16:40, blackrose said:

 

I disagree. I thought it was a really interesting factual programme and wasn't dumbed down. I also don't agree with your statement that the licence fee should be scrapped. It should be modified so that people who can afford it pay more and people on low incomes pay less rather than a flat fee, but I think public service broadcasting free from commercial advertising is something we need to protect. The BBC make world class TV and radio programmes. 

 

 

Bow thrusters don't help in strong winds or when a vessel is moving at any speed.

The license fee should definitely be scrapped.  Australia and New Zealand for example which followed the BBC model (ABC and NZBC respectively) scrapped TV license fees decades ago.   The licenses may have made sense in the early days of TV when only a relatively few, relatively wealthy people owed television sets.  Having the few pay for a service the majority had no access to had some logic.  But once nearly everyone owned a TV the logic was gone and the fees became an anachronism.   Fees are inefficient to collect and enforce and are regressive (at a fixed annual fee the costs proportionately fall more heavily on those of lower incomes)  so it became much preferred to collect the costs of public broadcasting from general taxation.  There are no additional collection and enforcement costs this way and those who can afford to pay more do so through the higher taxes they pay.

Edited by Jimbo44
Correcting a typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jimbo44 said:

The license fee should definitely be scrapped.  Australia and New Zealand for example which followed the BBC model (ABC and NZBC respectively) scrapped TV license fees decades ago.   The licenses may have made sense in the early days of TV when only a relatively few, relatively wealthy people owed television sets.  Having the few pay for a service the majority had no access to had some logic.  But once nearly everyone owned a TV the logic was gone and the fees became an anachronism.   Fees are inefficient to collect and enforce and are regressive (at a fixed annual fee the costs proportionately fall more heavily on those of lower incomes)  so it became much preferred to collect the costs of public broadcasting from general taxation.  There are no additional collection and enforcement costs this way and those who can afford to pay more do so through the higher taxes they pay.

I tend to agree. For many years this debate has, I think, muddled up three questions:

  • whether it is sensible to tax television ownership (the "fee" has been classified by the Office for National Statistics as a tax for many years).  This is similar to debates on taxing booze, fags, sugar, diesel, income, housing etc etc.  One could for example tax smartphones, or giga-bytes of data consumed, rather than TVs.  
     
  • the arrangements for setting the tax-funded budget of the BBC over a number of years, in a transparent way and that protects their independence from Government as much as possible.  The current arrangements involve occasional and quite concentrated debate between govt and BBC, rather than regular political pressure. (There is a brilliant Yes Minister episode on this point).  Fixing this number at £159 x the number of licence holders is a bit quaint, but the latter at least is not something Govt can directly control.
     
  • whether the BBC should have paid advertising (or, a more general Question, what commercial income should they generate to supplement their income from the taxpayer). 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jimbo44 said:

The license fee should definitely be scrapped.

 

That's patent rubbish.

 

How else do you think CRT should charge boats to use the canals?

 

 

Oh hang on, sorry, I thought I was on a canal forum. 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.