Jump to content

Featured Posts

Posted (edited)

I heard the fog was very bad this morning.... be interesting to get the info on what happened as i presume both would have radar?

Edited by robtheplod
Posted

Several of the local lifeboats are out:

 

"Now, the RNLI says teams from Cleethorpes have been stood down, while Bridlington, Mablethorpe and Skegness crews continue to support rescue efforts."

1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

I heard the fog was very bad this morning.... be interesting to get the info on what happened as i presume both would have radar?

The "Stena Immaculate" was at anchor.

  • Greenie 1
Posted (edited)

A few more details on the vessels involved:

 

"the Stena Immaculate is a 183 metre-long (600 feet) US-flagged oil and chemical tanker. The tanker had departed from a Greek port in the Aegean Sea and was destined for Hull, the site says. The ship was constructed in 2017, according to the website Martime Optima, and weighs nearly 50,000 tonnes.

 

 

It is managed by US logistics firm Crowley and owned by Sweden's Stena Sphere which is controlled by the billionaire Olsson family.

This type of complex arrangement is quite typical in the global shipping industry. However, unusually, this is one of just ten oil tankers enlisted in a US government programme which is designed to supply the armed forces with fuel during times of armed conflict or national emergency. It means they can be called upon by the US military at short notice but there's no indication that it was being used for these purposes when this accident happened."

 

 

"The Solong is a Portuguese-flagged container vessel. It was built in 2005, according to Marine Optima, and has capacity to carry 9,500 tonnes of cargo. It was destined for Rotterdam, according to the Marine Traffic site. It measures 140.6 metres (461 feet) long."

 

It has just been reported that 20 casualties have been recovered and brought ashore to Grimsby. 

 

There are more as yet unaccounted for.

 

ETA: Number brought ashore has now risen to 32.

 

 

Edited by Naughty Cal
Posted
26 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

However, unusually, this is one of just ten oil tankers enlisted in a US government programme which is designed to supply the armed forces with fuel during times of armed conflict or national emergency. It means they can be called upon by the US military at short notice but there's no indication that it was being used for these purposes when this accident happened."

 

Maybe it was floating about in the North Sea following Norways refusal to refuel US ships in the 'bunker harbours'

Apparently a US sub went in for fuel, was refused and it had to 'limp out' to try and find another source.

  • Greenie 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe it was floating about in the North Sea following Norways refusal to refuel US ships in the 'bunker harbours'

Apparently a US sub went in for fuel, was refused and it had to 'limp out' to try and find another source.

According to the news it was carrying jet A-1 fuel.

  • Greenie 1
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Apparently a US sub went in for fuel, was refused and it had to 'limp out' to try and find another source.

 

Probably because they were all out of Plutonium! 

 

I’m sure the US Navy retired it’s last diesel sub many years ago. 

Edited by booke23
  • Greenie 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, robtheplod said:

Read the Solong was on autopilot?   so possibly nobody on either ship controlling things?

Stena Immaculate was at anchor waiting to enter the Humber. Solong was proceeding to Rotterdam, passing the Humber entrance on a voyage from Scotland. Solong was doing 16 knots at the time of the collision with no speed reduction or no apparent course alteration prior to the collision. It is possible that she was on autopilot but not yet confirmed in any reports I have seen. 
Edited 
Howard

 

Edited by howardang
Correcting destination of Solong
Posted
1 hour ago, Mike Hurley said:

According to the news it was carrying jet A-1 fuel.

And the BBC is suggesting it was destined for US armed forces bases in the UK.

Posted
12 minutes ago, howardang said:

Stena Immaculate was at anchor waiting to enter the Humber. Solong was proceeding to the Humber on a voyage from Scotland. Solong was doing 16 knots at the time of the collision with no speed reduction or no apparent course alteration prior to the collision. It is possible that she was on autopilot but not yet confirmed in any reports I have seen. 

Howard

 

From Sky:

 

David McFarlane, director Maritime Risk and Safety Consultants, told Sky News it can take up to an hour to raise an anchor - meaning the tanker might not have had time to get out of the way.

It comes as Mr Boyers said the container ship may have been on autopilot at the time of the crash.

"Autopilot just steers a course, they don't deviate, there's no bend in the sea," he added.

Posted

The past track of the container ship shows it using that same course over a few trips and the heading didn't deviate after they hit the North Sea suggesting autopilot was turned on.  However on this trip there happened to be a tanker anchored in the way.

 

Whoever was on watch doesn't seem to have been watching.

  • Greenie 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, IanM said:

The past track of the container ship shows it using that same course over a few trips and the heading didn't deviate after they hit the North Sea suggesting autopilot was turned on.  However on this trip there happened to be a tanker anchored in the way.

 

Whoever was on watch doesn't seem to have been watching.

with ship autopilot is it just a simple speed/direction with no input from radar? - for some reason i thought the 'auto' bit would mean its a bit like collision avoidance in cars albeit on a much grander scale!  

Posted
3 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

with ship autopilot is it just a simple speed/direction with no input from radar? - for some reason i thought the 'auto' bit would mean its a bit like collision avoidance in cars albeit on a much grander scale!  

 

Certainly on my autopilot you set course and speed and thats it. It'll keep going until it hits something (land ?) or until it is disengaged.

Posted
2 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

with ship autopilot is it just a simple speed/direction with no input from radar? - for some reason i thought the 'auto' bit would mean its a bit like collision avoidance in cars albeit on a much grander scale!  

 

I think the auto bit just corrects for wind/current after you tell it you want to go from point A to point B.

Posted

AIS usually has a collision alarm so presumably people in charge of large ships tend to turn the alarm off due to it being a bit of a nuisance and play with their phones instead. 

 

 

 

 

I bet the MAIB report will be like "The geyser who was meant to be watching and listening was sitting back with his feet up watching facebook shorts on his Samsung flip about ship crashes and other worthless, pointless but curiously cerebrally engaging video content. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

with ship autopilot is it just a simple speed/direction with no input from radar? - for some reason i thought the 'auto' bit would mean its a bit like collision avoidance in cars albeit on a much grander scale!  

Autopilots maintain a steady course only and changes in course are usually done by rotation of a control knob.  Any course alterations and speed changes are carried out by the OOW (Officer of the watch). Speed is usually controlled separately either by bridge control of the engine(s) or sometimes by the engine room telgraph.

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, robtheplod said:

"Autopilot just steers a course, they don't deviate, there's no bend in the sea," he added.

Not another flatearther :D 

 

 

1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

Could this be deliberate?  It seems really odd that no corrective action was taken.....

 

I look forward to all the conspiracy theories about a hacked autopilot, via a state-sponsored group, taking out the US fuel supply.

Posted
1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

Could this be deliberate?  It seems really odd that no corrective action was taken.....

Much more likely a failure to keep a good lookout by the bridge watch. 
 

Howard

  • Greenie 3

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   1 member

×
×
  • 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.