Rena's Captains comments...?

[Guest]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article ... d=10837006

 

Very interesting comments.

 

Especially about NZ having / needing Mantatory Shipping lanes.

 

A nice excuse for poor navigation by their shipping lines top captain

 

But maybe He is right?

[rigger 47]

There were early hopes the vessel could be towed off the reef, but Balomaga said that by then he had been relieved of his command.

 

 

"At that time, even though we thought we could still do something about it, we were not allowed to."

 

With three holds flooded no way - the ship would have sunk if pulled off - if it was possible.

 

 

Balomaga said he hoped lessons could be learned from the disaster, and agreed New Zealand should have mandatory shipping lanes.

 

My personal opinion is no to mandatory shipping lanes, a couple of reasons:

- Officers on board ships need to comply with navigational standards as they should be trained too under the STCW Convention

- Cost to NZ to run the shipping lanes (might recoup some from fines??)

- A rule like "A sailing vessel must not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a mandatory shipping lane" might be introduced.

 

I would rather see recommended routes marked on charts - many charts in other parts of the world have these. Also the lazy navigating officers will use them as the courses are normally marked. A problem may be collisions as the lazy ones will blindly follow the tracks and keep a poor lookout.

[Guest]

There were early hopes the vessel could be towed off the reef, but Balomaga said that by then he had been relieved of his command.

 

 

"At that time, even though we thought we could still do something about it, we were not allowed to."

 

With three holds flooded no way - the ship would have sunk if pulled off - if it was possible.

 

 

Balomaga said he hoped lessons could be learned from the disaster, and agreed New Zealand should have mandatory shipping lanes.

 

My personal opinion is no to mandatory shipping lanes, a couple of reasons:

- Officers on board ships need to comply with navigational standards as they should be trained too under the STCW Convention

- Cost to NZ to run the shipping lanes (might recoup some from fines??)

- A rule like "A sailing vessel must not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a mandatory shipping lane" might be introduced.

 

I would rather see recommended routes marked on charts - many charts in other parts of the world have these. Also the lazy navigating officers will use them as the courses are normally marked. A problem may be collisions as the lazy ones will blindly follow the tracks and keep a poor lookout.

Totally agree rigger and the number of grounding confirms your thoughts.

 

But how do we controlled these Overseas captains and navigation officers who are very casual about the navigation side of their job.

 

A 15 minute warning was ignored! And probably due to intoxication as I understand it.

[rigger 47]

The bottom line is you can't control them without shipping lanes. Might just have to bite the bullet and pay for a traffic scheme. The quality of ships officers isn't going to get any better. First ships could register with a flag of convenience, then class societies do 'radar' inspections of ships, then the crews could get qualifications from just about anywhere and now we are seeing masters and officers with either poor training or low professional standards.

 

Traffic schemes could have a few side benefits too, of maintaining a watch on a bit more sea area and forcing the govt to spend some money of some maritime enforcement assets.

 

You will struggle to control them with shipping lanes - rogue ships happen in TSSs in other parts of the world - had a super tanker turn across my bow - only reason no collision was my actions - clearance less than 50metres - he was the overtaking vessel - the TSS controllers could do nothing as the situation developed so quickly. Unlit ship proceeding down lane in wrong direction. AIS faults causing further confusion.....

If you think condensing the shipping around NZ coast into lanes will reduce the risk of groundings you may be right - but you will increase the risks of collisions at certain points - re Josephine Maersk vs tanker collision - had an interesting chat with one of the masters involved.

 

Re quality of officers - May get worse may improve - In 2002 all Panama issued tickets disappeared alone with a lot of other FOC tickets - they now issue endorsements on tickets issued by countries on the white list - and not so long ago the Philippine Govt closed a large number of schools due to failure to meet the required standards.

 

Inspections - have you ever been on a FOC vessel inspected by a Singapore port state inspector?

[rigger 47]

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/medi ... 21002a.asp

 

2 October 2012

 

The New Zealand Government and Daina Shipping Company (owner of the MV Rena) have reached a comprehensive financial settlement in respect of matters arising from the ship's grounding on 5 October 2011.

 

Keith Manch, Director of Maritime New Zealand, confirmed that Daina Shipping Company will pay $27.6 million to settle the claims of the Crown and public bodies including Maritime NZ, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Environmental Protection Agency, the Minister of Local Government (signing as the territorial authority for Motiti island), and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

 

"This was a very complex negotiation given the range of issues and parties involved, and represents a good outcome for New Zealanders," said Mr Manch. "As with any settlement it is about finding a solution that both sides can live with, and I would like to acknowledge the constructive approach taken by Daina Shipping Company and their continuing commitment to meet their obligations under New Zealand law."

 

The settlement also recognises that Daina Shipping Company and The Swedish Club (the Rena's insurers) are currently investigating the environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of different options for dealing with the wreck. In the event that they decide to apply for, are granted, and use a resource consent to leave part of the wreck in place, Daina Shipping Company will make an additional payment of $10.4 million to the Crown, reflecting their reduced salvage costs.

 

Konstantinos Zacharatos, on behalf of Daina Shipping Company, said: "We have always sought to work closely with the New Zealand authorities to address all aspects of this serious incident. This settlement is a vital step forward in our progressive resolution of all the issues, and I want to thank the New Zealand authorities for all of their work that has gone into achieving this outcome."

[Bogan 8]

Any talk about shipping lanes in relation to this grounding is ridiculous.

 

He hit a known, charted reef cutting the corner into Tauranga. It's specifically listed in the Notice to Mariners coastal shipping routes subsection as a hazard in approaching Tauranga:

 

From the East Keep at least 5 nautical miles to the north of Volkner Rocks, thence 3 nautical

miles to the north of Astrolabe Reef (which breaks in all swell conditions and in fair

weather appears like a boat) and thence to the Pilot Station.

[Grinna 2]

Correct Bogan. Talk of shipping lanes in response to the Rena grounding is just a knee-jerk reaction by officials who think that sort of thing makes them look like they're doing something useful. If Rena didn't follow standard procedures, why would you expect her to have followed a shipping lane (had one existed)?

 

Just from the way its written, it sounds to me like the journalist asked the Rena captain if he thought dedicated shipping lanes was a good idea rather than the captain coming up with the idea by himself as a method to stop this from ever happening.

[wheels 543]

I suggest the Cpt is just trying to give an excuse back in his home country, maybe to find further employment. Our courts made it clear that he and his watch keeper were in the wrong.

[Guest]

There were early hopes the vessel could be towed off the reef, but Balomaga said that by then he had been relieved of his command.

 

 

"At that time, even though we thought we could still do something about it, we were not allowed to."

 

With three holds flooded no way - the ship would have sunk if pulled off - if it was possible.

 

 

Balomaga said he hoped lessons could be learned from the disaster, and agreed New Zealand should have mandatory shipping lanes.

 

My personal opinion is no to mandatory shipping lanes, a couple of reasons:

- Officers on board ships need to comply with navigational standards as they should be trained too under the STCW Convention

- Cost to NZ to run the shipping lanes (might recoup some from fines??)

- A rule like "A sailing vessel must not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a mandatory shipping lane" might be introduced.

 

I would rather see recommended routes marked on charts - many charts in other parts of the world have these. Also the lazy navigating officers will use them as the courses are normally marked. A problem may be collisions as the lazy ones will blindly follow the tracks and keep a poor lookout.

Totally agree rigger and the number of grounding confirms your thoughts.

 

But how do we controlled these Overseas captains and navigation officers who are very casual about the navigation side of their job.

 

A 15 minute warning was ignored! And probably due to intoxication as I understand it.

It,s not only the the overseas Captains and navigation officers, its the NZ Govt and Marinetime NZ

 

 

Reasons,

 

In pilotage waters, a pilot can plug a laptop computer, loaded with his own navigation program, directly into the ship' s AIS system which it should have. In this way, the pilot can monitor the position and movement of all other vessels in the area independent of the ship' s installed navigation systems.

 

What was the Tauranga pilot doing when all commercial ships are supposed to have AIS. A pilot vessel is a commercial ship and smart arses I know they are probably under 300 tons but one would think the thing NZ pilot vessels would first and foremost is to have a AIS system. And also what about the shore station at every port, Probably asleep. This accident could have been avoided as soon as they changed course. The Tech is there and should have been used. Both Pilot and shore station should have been on the radios blasting them to change course - issued non mayday calls or mayday calls to get there attention and to alert. After all is not there job to monitor and control all ships into there ports. Especially with such a hazard and danger to non locals.

 

 

Second Tauranga has become a busy port and the reef should have had at least a radar reflector mark - at most a top sector light. A radar reflector would have shown like the ....... Balls as a target on the radar screen. Even if intoxciated sight of a big bleep on a radar screen are never missed or in all probablity would not have been missed.

 

No need for shipping lanes with AIS they track all commercial shipping, speed, name and course.

 

 

Third::

 

In coastal waters, shoreside authorities may establish automated AIS stations to monitor the movement of vessels through the area. These stations may simply monitor AIS transmissions from passing ships, or may actively poll vessels via the AIS channels, requesting data such as identification, destination, ETA, type of cargo and other information. Coast stations can also use the AIS channels for shore-to-ship transmissions, to send information on tides, notices to mariners and local weather forecasts, reminders and impending dangers. Multiple AIS coast stations and repeaters may be tied together into Wide Area Networks (WAN) for extended coverage.

 

Fourth:::

 

Even the dumbest or pissed Captain or Navigator looks at the radar screen before changing course and after the course change has taken place.

 

Fifth::

 

Port in Tauranga and the port authorities and the harbour master and the pilot vessel must take the greatest % on blame for this. Additionally the citzens in Tauranga if another happens are 100% to blame for not protesting and demanding what I have stated. Tauranga is full with sailors and marine personal. Its not rocket science is it not.

 

Seventh::

 

 

[Guest]

Nice OC.

 

I find it very strange that by the time the royal blah blah review is done in this Rena cock up there could be another ship in this rock.

 

In fact one nearly did a week ago.

 

And what has POT ( port of tauranga) learnt so far...

 

Let put a light and or reflector on this rock ?... No!

 

Let boy a safe channel?... no!

 

Let do nothing and cross our fingers... YES!

 

What a team they are at POT.

[rigger 47]

It,s not only the the overseas Captains and navigation officers, its the NZ Govt and Marinetime NZ

 

 

Reasons,

 

In pilotage waters(Rena was not in pilotage waters), a pilot can plug a laptop computer, loaded with his own navigation program, directly into the ship' s AIS system which it should have. In this way, the pilot can monitor the position and movement of all other vessels in the area independent of the ship' s installed navigation systems. (There are systems that can operate independent of the ship system - have their own AIS receiver built in.)

 

 

What was the Tauranga pilot (pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water) doing when all commercial ships are supposed to have AIS. A pilot vessel is a commercial ship and smart arses I know they are probably under 300 tons but one would think the thing NZ pilot vessels would first and foremost is to have a AIS system (if you take a look at Marinetraffc.com you would see the Tauranga pilot vessels do have AIS as well as most other ports pilot vessels) . And also what about the shore station at every port, Probably asleep. This accident could have been avoided as soon as they changed course. The Tech is there and should have been used. Both Pilot and shore station should have been on the radios blasting them to change course - issued non mayday calls or mayday calls to get there attention and to alert. After all is not there job to monitor and control all ships into there ports (it is not their job to monitor vessels outside of their port, but from personal experience at another port they often do – they can be difficult conversations as they refuse to follow your suggestions) . Especially with such a hazard and danger to non locals.

 

 

Second Tauranga has become a busy port and the reef should have had at least a radar reflector mark - at most a top sector light (probably need replacing after every second or third storm - though a Virtual AtoN could be of value as is done in Fiordland) . A radar reflector would have shown like the ....... Balls as a target on the radar screen. Even if intoxciated sight of a big bleep on a radar screen are never missed or in all probablity would not have been missed.

 

No need for shipping lanes with AIS they track all commercial shipping, speed, name and course.

(if you follow the Asian Lily around you would think she is a hovercraft as she seems able to travel over Rangitoto on the odd occasion not to mention berthing on quay street sometimes )

 

Third::

 

In coastal waters, shoreside authorities may establish automated AIS stations to monitor the movement of vessels through the area. These stations may simply monitor AIS transmissions from passing ships, or may actively poll vessels via the AIS channels, requesting data such as identification, destination, ETA, type of cargo and other information (this is information that is presently available (as long as the OOW has updated the system) without needing to 'poll') . Coast stations can also use the AIS channels for shore-to-ship transmissions, to send information on tides, notices to mariners and local weather forecasts, reminders and impending dangers. Multiple AIS coast stations and repeaters may be tied together into Wide Area Networks (WAN) for extended coverage.

 

Fourth:::

 

Even the dumbest or pissed Captain or Navigator looks at the radar screen before changing course and after the course change has taken place.

(but often people do not - they blindly follow a course - look at how many GPS assisted groundings there have been in good conditions)

 

Fifth::

 

Port in Tauranga and the port authorities and the harbour master and the pilot vessel must take the greatest % on blame for this (how can vessel that is not required until the vessel is an hour or so closer be held to blame - that is like holding a police officer to blame of not arriving on the crime scene before the crime has taken place) . Additionally the citzens in Tauranga if another happens are 100% to blame for not protesting and demanding what I have stated. Tauranga is full with sailors and marine personal. Its not rocket science is it not.

 

Seventh::

 

 

 

 

On occasion AIS units fail or fault - I have personally notified dozens of vessel officers that their AIS units have a fault or are not transmitting.

 

I agree solutions need to be found - but have you looked at the schedule that the vessel was on?

I think more focus needs to be paid to maning levels and hours of rest on ships working in NZ waters / world wide - often officers are fatigued and as you may well know that when fatigued people are more prone to making bad decisions. Having worked for one very large company where officers worked 6hours on / 6hours off for months at a time I know how serious the fatigue issue is, and those work hours were inside what was technically allowed.

[Guest]

Sounds like a job for a strong union

[Guest]

(Rena was not in pilotage waters)

(pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water)

 

 

Are you sure. The paper reports I read stated the Rena altered course just after speaking to the pilot vessel on radio which was reported at the time in position in the pilot waiting area outside the entrance to Mt Manganui. The pilot vessel gave its GPS co ordinances to the rena vessel for the Ron de Vue and it would be natural for a in experience navigator to alter his course and head for the pilot vessel if he did not look at any charts, which he should have but did not.

 

The report stated that the Rena altered course after receiving the pilot vessels radio communication. Thats is probably why they change course so early.

 

That is my recollection on the events and the port control office has full view from their position to the reef.

 

Whats more you have confirmed the pilot vessel has AIS so must have seen them change course.

 

(but often people do not - they blindly follow a course - look at how many GPS assisted groundings there have been in good conditions)

 

Thats mainly recreational boaters not Commercial operated vessels - is it not you are referring to.

 

I look forward to your reply with respect.

[Guest]

(Rena was not in pilotage waters)

(pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water)

 

 

Are you sure. The paper reports I read stated the Rena altered course just after speaking to the pilot vessel on radio which was reported at the time in position in the pilot waiting area outside the entrance to Mt Manganui. The pilot vessel gave its GPS co ordinances to the rena vessel for the Ron de Vue and it would be natural for a in experience navigator to alter his course and head for the pilot vessel if he did not look at any charts, which he should have but did not.

 

The report stated that the Rena altered course after receiving the pilot vessels radio communication. Thats is probably why they change course so early.

 

That is my recollection on the events and the port control office has full view from their position to the reef.

 

Whats more you have confirmed the pilot vessel has AIS so must have seen them change course.

 

(but often people do not - they blindly follow a course - look at how many GPS assisted groundings there have been in good conditions)

 

Thats mainly recreational boaters not Commercial operated vessels - is it not you are referring to.

 

I look forward to your reply with respect.

 

God! I hope this does not go to the NF.

 

OC that is my recollection too.

 

Popcorn ready.

[rigger 47]

(Rena was not in pilotage waters)

(pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water)

 

 

 

Are you sure. The paper reports ( papers get it wrong often ) I read stated the Rena altered course just after speaking to the pilot vessel on radio which was reported at the time in position in the pilot waiting area outside the entrance to Mt Manganui. The pilot vessel gave its GPS co ordinances to the rena vessel for the Ron de Vue and it would be natural for a in experience navigator to alter his course and head for the pilot vessel if he did not look at any charts, which he should have but did not.

 

The report stated that the Rena altered course after receiving the pilot vessels radio communication. Thats is probably why they change course so early.

 

( not the pilot vessel but port radio, and it did alter several times according to the report )

2.2.11.

At 0015, Tauranga Harbour Control called the Rena on VHF radio to discuss the vessel’s estimated time of arrival and pilot boarding time. The Rena told Tauranga Harbour Control that its estimated time of arrival at the pilot station was 0300. Tauranga Harbour Control advised the Rena that 0300 was the end of the time window for pilotage, and also requested the Rena to make best speed for the pilot station.

2.2.12.

Tauranga Harbour Radio called the Rena again at 0059 to confirm its estimated time of arrival at 0300 and ask for the Rena’s arrival draft.

2.2.13.

Figure 2 shows the Rena’s gyro heading and ground track and the difference between the 2. This data was taken from the automatic identification system and includes any error from that system. For clarity the data scatter was “smoothed” by taking an average over several data points. The bottom axis shows the time of day beginning at 0043 on 5 October 2011 and ending at around 0215 the same day. The vessel’s gyro heading and ground track are read from the left-hand axis, which shows the gyro heading as recorded by the automatic identification system. The difference between the gyro heading and the ground track of the vessel is read from the right-hand axis. Some points in the narrative have been superimposed on the data for reference.

2.2.14.

At about 0101 the course was altered to the south by about one degree as seen in Figure 2. Between 0120 and 0150 the gyro heading and ground track altered a further 10 degrees to the south, resulting in a gyro heading of about 255 degrees at about 0150.

 

 

 

That is my recollection on the events and the port control office has full view from their position to the reef.

(not by line of sight from the office..... )

 

Whats more you have confirmed the pilot vessel has AIS so must have seen them change course.

( the pilot vessel would not “see” the ship at that range from inside the harbour – my memory tells me the pilot boat was in harbour, but I could be wrong - I'm not a computer )

 

(but often people do not - they blindly follow a course - look at how many GPS assisted groundings there have been in good conditions)

 

Thats mainly recreational boaters not Commercial operated vessels - is it not you are referring to. ( and sadly a number of commercial operators )

 

I look forward to your reply with respect.

( I am still waiting for a response from you in another thread - of course I am waiting with respect )

[rigger 47]

Talking to guys that build and fit markers - yes it is a dumb idea for the person paying the bill as they believe that (unless you park something the size of a ship there) a beacon would get destroyed reasonably quickly.

 

 

One option maybe a virtual AtoN

[Guest]

(Rena was not in pilotage waters)

(pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water)

 

 

 

Are you sure. The paper reports ( papers get it wrong often )[ I agree but does not automatically mean they got it wrong re this time That would be an assumption] I read stated the Rena altered course just after speaking to the pilot vessel on radio which was reported at the time in position in the pilot waiting area outside the entrance to Mt Manganui. The pilot vessel gave its GPS co ordinances to the rena vessel for the Ron de Vue and it would be natural for a in experience navigator to alter his course and head for the pilot vessel if he did not look at any charts, which he should have but did not.

 

The report stated that the Rena altered course after receiving the pilot vessels radio communication. Thats is probably why they change course so early.

 

( not the pilot vessel but port radio, and it did alter several times according to the report )

 

[Would in not be better not to talk to a vessel until they have cleared the reef or only if they are in danger?]

 

 

 

2.2.11.

At 0015, Tauranga Harbour Control called the Rena on VHF radio to discuss the vessel’s estimated time of arrival and pilot boarding time. The Rena told Tauranga Harbour Control that its estimated time of arrival at the pilot station was 0300. Tauranga Harbour Control advised the Rena that 0300 was the end of the time window for pilotage, and also requested the Rena to make best speed for the pilot station.

2.2.12.

Tauranga Harbour Radio called the Rena again at 0059 to confirm its estimated time of arrival at 0300 and ask for the Rena’s arrival draft.

2.2.13.

Figure 2 shows the Rena’s gyro heading and ground track and the difference between the 2. This data was taken from the automatic identification system and includes any error from that system. For clarity the data scatter was “smoothed” by taking an average over several data points. The bottom axis shows the time of day beginning at 0043 on 5 October 2011 and ending at around 0215 the same day. The vessel’s gyro heading and ground track are read from the left-hand axis, which shows the gyro heading as recorded by the automatic identification system. The difference between the gyro heading and the ground track of the vessel is read from the right-hand axis. Some points in the narrative have been superimposed on the data for reference.

2.2.14.

At about 0101 the course was altered to the south by about one degree as seen in Figure 2. Between 0120 and 0150 the gyro heading and ground track altered a further 10 degrees to the south, resulting in a gyro heading of about 255 degrees at about 0150.

 

 

 

[if that is correct - quoted from official system records no doubt. ]

I stand corrected then.

 

 

That is my recollection on the events and the port control office has full view from their position to the reef.

(not by line of sight from the office..... )

 

He would on his system would he not?

Click this

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/defaul ... dmmsi=878#

 

Whats more you have confirmed the pilot vessel has AIS so must have seen them change course.

( the pilot vessel would not “see” the ship at that range from inside the harbour – my memory tells me the pilot boat was in harbour, but I could be wrong - I'm not a computer )

(Rena was not in pilotage waters)

(pilot vessel was at berth - next job was not for an hour or two so not required on the water)

 

Previously you definately implied the pilot vessel was not in port and not at pilot escorting station. This is now a weaker statement and would appear to contradict your first statement.

 

(( the pilot vessel would not “see” the ship at that range from inside the harbour – my memory tells me the pilot boat was in harbour, but I could be wrong - I'm not a computer )

 

I was trying to illustrate the pilot vessel has AIS, which you have confirmed, so he, I would have thought rather than play cards untill the vessel was in engagement range, observe on the AIS system, as a matter on course - protecting the foreshore, harbour from protential pollution disasters by keeping a watchful eye on approaching vessels, particularly this vessels with all it's problems it had with the Australian authorities and bluff. Plus it could not qualify as a 4 star vessel as far as meeting shipping and manning regulations. A well documented fact.

 

He would on the ais system from inside the port as well - again

 

He is the view that can be seen:

 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/defaul ... dmmsi=878#

 

((but often people do not - they blindly follow a course - look at how many GPS assisted groundings there have been in good conditions)

 

Thats mainly recreational boaters not Commercial operated vessels - is it not you are referring to. ( and sadly a number of commercial operators )

[attachment=0]kowloon bay 4.jpg[/attachment]

 

I look forward to your reply with respect.

( I am still waiting for a response from you in another thread - of course I am waiting with respect )

[Guest]

Talking to guys that build and fit markers - yes it is a dumb idea for the person paying the bill as they believe that (unless you park something the size of a ship there) a beacon would get destroyed reasonably quickly.

 

 

One option maybe a virtual AtoN

 

 

How. Surely they can have a pole at each start on the reef that would be storm resistant. Not a dumb Idea at all with a light, solar charger and reflector.

[Guest]

OC and JP, a serious question should you are brave enough to break your rules and actually answer one for a change.

 

How much money are you willing to pay to help try and stop a 1 in 3 maybe 400 year event?

[Guest]

OC and JP, a serious question should you are brave enough to break your rules and actually answer one for a change.

 

How much money are you willing to pay to help try and stop a 1 in 3 maybe 400 year event?

 

 

 

Wrong thread. KM

 

Start a new thread with appropriate title.