Your Mom

Containers at sea

Recommended Posts

View - scroll back six posts. Flooding a container doesn't do anything. That's why no shipping company will bother to install these stupid things.

 

An empty, un-insulated container that goes overboard and floods would become negatively buoyant. Unless steel is less dense than water ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point duster

but I also think that studies like this suggest that many of them they do actually sink - eventually

 

So the sooner we can make that happen - then all the better. - ie waterlogging the cargo is going to reduce it's buoyancy sooner

 

Along with tying them on better / newer methods

 

Article link leblow - 2014 - by a US govt - Office of Marine Sanctuaries

 

"The physics of taller stacks require new innovations to adequately secure them.

While transport capacity per ship grew from 4,000 to 15,000 TEU over a period of only 15 years, design principles and securing methods remained largely unchanged (MARIN 2009)."

 

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea

 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Me thinks the boats should have forward looking sonar to avoid such things!

What would be the power source for such a sonar on a sailboat with limited power supply? How far ahead would the sonar have to look at 20+ knots? What happens to the boat, rig, and sails if a sharp round up to windward or crash jibe to leeward is made to avoid a container?

 

Probably far less than hitting it at 20+ knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stabilized Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) for night nav could be an asset but would there be enough temperature contrast to actually see it?

And, of course, if the container is awash, it will be invisible.

"I think we're going to need a bigger boat."

Nope - the containers will very quickly have the same temp as the water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe any technology solution on a fast moving yacht can ever safely avoid floating containers or other large and static UFOs. Even if you had a solution that worked, banging the helm over automatically at 25 knots boat speed to avoid a UFO without regard to point of sail, course or sea state is very likely to result in an "unseamanlike" outcome. In fact I would describe it as dead dangerous. It's not like a boat is a self-driving car on a flat road where you can slam the brakes on ...

 

I don't disagree, but until you run some numbers it isn't possible to say. Flat out lets say a boat is doing100ms-1. Container dead ahead. You need change course say 10 meters at the container in order to miss. At 100 meters detection - one second to impact you need to steer about 6 degrees. It will take most of that one second to effect the course change so you really need more like 12 degrees. That isn't a terribly nice thought, but it isn't totally insane. If you can get the detection out to 200 or 300 metres you get a much better outcome. Maybe only 2 degrees of course change. But whether detection at this distance is viable is another matter. Needs numbers.

 

You do know that 100m/s is 200 knots - not really a sailboat speed.

 

Before you start doing math you need to make sure you start out with some reasonable parameters. And afterwards you need to evaluate if the result you come to is even in the zip code.

 

In your little math example you are off the rocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point duster

but I also think that studies like this suggest that many of them they do actually sink - eventually

 

So the sooner we can make that happen - then all the better. - ie waterlogging the cargo is going to reduce it's buoyancy sooner

 

Along with tying them on better / newer methods

 

Article link leblow - 2014 - by a US govt - Office of Marine Sanctuaries

 

"The physics of taller stacks require new innovations to adequately secure them.

While transport capacity per ship grew from 4,000 to 15,000 TEU over a period of only 15 years, design principles and securing methods remained largely unchanged (MARIN 2009)."

 

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea

 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get your point duster

but I also think that studies like this suggest that many of them they do actually sink - eventually

 

So the sooner we can make that happen - then all the better. - ie waterlogging the cargo is going to reduce it's buoyancy sooner

 

Along with tying them on better / newer methods

 

Article link leblow - 2014 - by a US govt - Office of Marine Sanctuaries

 

"The physics of taller stacks require new innovations to adequately secure them.

While transport capacity per ship grew from 4,000 to 15,000 TEU over a period of only 15 years, design principles and securing methods remained largely unchanged (MARIN 2009)."

 

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea

 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

 

They won't do that because it will increase the vessels Gross Tonnage. All sorts of charges to the ship's owner are calculated on the Gross Tonnage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

That would be interesting with already around 15m draft and over 5m of freeboard that idea would take total hull depth from say 20m to nearly 50m high? What is going to laterally support all that ...magic? It would be a blown up version of a 1940's cargo ship. Loading/unloading containers from that maze would take months. Crazy ideas just adds to the cost of everything Jo average buys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocean View,



You say "but I also think that studies like this suggest that many of them they do actually sink - eventually"



What studies?


Chrisian,


You say "Actually quite a few", Name them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we know that quite a few fall off

 

like i said above, if they didn't sink, they'd be washing up on beaches all over the world.., covered with barnacles after floating around for a few years...

 

hatteras would have them washing up regularly

 

it hardly ever happens

 

mostly, they wash up when they fall off pretty close to the beach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that 100m/s is 200 knots - not really a sailboat speed.

 

You did note that you are perhaps a little late in pointing out the error. Perhaps read a bit further in a thread before going off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get your point duster

but I also think that studies like this suggest that many of them they do actually sink - eventually

 

So the sooner we can make that happen - then all the better. - ie waterlogging the cargo is going to reduce it's buoyancy sooner

 

Along with tying them on better / newer methods

 

Article link leblow - 2014 - by a US govt - Office of Marine Sanctuaries

 

"The physics of taller stacks require new innovations to adequately secure them.

While transport capacity per ship grew from 4,000 to 15,000 TEU over a period of only 15 years, design principles and securing methods remained largely unchanged (MARIN 2009)."

 

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea

 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

They tried hatchless ships with full length cell guides. No chance of containers falling overboard on them, whopping great pumps to deal with rainsqualls and the odd bit of spray that reaches where the deck used to be.

 

One big problem they found with this was the increase discharge and loading times due to having to go right up over the cell guides on each lift.

 

Technically there is no real reason that cell guides couldn't be used on the outboard stacks, as they sit over the deck, rather than the hatch. But this would have the same issues of load time.

 

I am pretty convinced whales, logs, fishing gear and drifting abandoned yachts are far more dangerous at sea than drifting containers.

 

If a stack does go overboard it's likely going to still be twistlocked together. Generally the top containers are empty and your normal wood floored container leaks like a sieve, so even with bouyant cargo in the lower boxes the whole connected stack may well sink due to the steel weight of the flooded empties. This might explain why the things are almost never seen at sea. And never seem to wash up on beaches, like logs and drifting yachts do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty convinced whales, logs, fishing gear and drifting abandoned yachts are far more dangerous at sea than drifting containers. .

+1000. .. add cows to that list..hit one off Salvador Brazil..near misses include an abandoned unlite oil rig in Asia. Sailing world seems to be going blame pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

That would be interesting with already around 15m draft and over 5m of freeboard that idea would take total hull depth from say 20m to nearly 50m high? What is going to laterally support all that ...magic? It would be a blown up version of a 1940's cargo ship. Loading/unloading containers from that maze would take months. Crazy ideas just adds to the cost of everything Jo average buys.

 

 

The fact that it increases the cost of shipping does not matter because the cost falls where it belongs .. the shipping industry and their customers .. not being subsidized by unfortunate individuals who happen to smack into containers that happen to be floating about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

That would be interesting with already around 15m draft and over 5m of freeboard that idea would take total hull depth from say 20m to nearly 50m high? What is going to laterally support all that ...magic? It would be a blown up version of a 1940's cargo ship. Loading/unloading containers from that maze would take months. Crazy ideas just adds to the cost of everything Jo average buys.

The fact that it increases the cost of shipping does not matter because the cost falls where it belongs .. the shipping industry and their customers .. not being subsidized by unfortunate individuals who happen to smack into containers that happen to be floating about.

Terry I'm in more fear of your boat and other recreational boats adrift along with other shit. I have seen more offshore floating cows than containers...only seen one floating cow.. and I hit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

That would be interesting with already around 15m draft and over 5m of freeboard that idea would take total hull depth from say 20m to nearly 50m high? What is going to laterally support all that ...magic? It would be a blown up version of a 1940's cargo ship. Loading/unloading containers from that maze would take months. Crazy ideas just adds to the cost of everything Jo average buys.

The fact that it increases the cost of shipping does not matter because the cost falls where it belongs .. the shipping industry and their customers .. not being subsidized by unfortunate individuals who happen to smack into containers that happen to be floating about.

Terry I'm in more fear of your boat and other recreational boats adrift along with other shit. I have seen more offshore floating cows than containers...only seen one floating cow.. and I hit it.

 

 

There are some things we can control and other things we can't control .. containers can be controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Containerized Shipping Industry and the Phenomenon of Containers Lost at Sea

 

http://sanctuaries.n...tcontainers.pdf

 

As posted before this is an interesting link. It discusses the complete uncertainty about the numbers of containers actually lost, and shows that the containers lost from the ship sank pretty quickly.

 

Also the shipping company got fined 3 million dollars or so due to the loss of the 15 containers in a marine park area.

 

You can bet the P&I clubs are doing their best to make sure not to many containers are lost. I do think the fines for ships losing boxes should be pretty steep, and the lashing gangs should also be held accountable, these new big box boats are too big for the minimal crew to effectively inspect the lashings on the upper stacks. It was hard enough on our much smaller box boats.

 

This marine park issue has some interesting ramifications for the common dickhead yachty who fails to check or replace the rigging properly and ditches the rig over a marine park... Then expects a ship to rescue their sorry unseamanlike asses, while they winge about how unlucky they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen a floating container. Never hit one. Never seen or heard of one washed up on shore. Never met anyone who has seen or hit a container or seen one on shore.

 

Now if you want to talk about sunfish . . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polar that link comes back to this thread

Sorry Jack, I was being lazy and cut and pasted it from an earlier thread rather than quoting the whole damn post. Must have stuffed something up... or I can just blame this itty bitty bloody phone and my big dumb fingers.

 

Try this

 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/lostcontainers.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

All they need to do is to increase the free board of container ships and require all containers to be kept below the gunnel ..

 

There is no reason that the individuals should be paying for the costs which arise when shipping failures impact upon them.

That would be interesting with already around 15m draft and over 5m of freeboard that idea would take total hull depth from say 20m to nearly 50m high? What is going to laterally support all that ...magic? It would be a blown up version of a 1940's cargo ship. Loading/unloading containers from that maze would take months. Crazy ideas just adds to the cost of everything Jo average buys.

The fact that it increases the cost of shipping does not matter because the cost falls where it belongs .. the shipping industry and their customers .. not being subsidized by unfortunate individuals who happen to smack into containers that happen to be floating about.

Terry I'm in more fear of your boat and other recreational boats adrift along with other shit. I have seen more offshore floating cows than containers...only seen one floating cow.. and I hit it.

 

 

i'm with jack on this one

 

there are many things that can go wrong out there.., and some of them can kill you.., but containers are not on the list of things that i am concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the numbers aren't as high as we think.

 

Industry figures suggest around 546 per year - plus catastrophic events - which can skew the numbers up to 5,578 in one year when a complete ship was lost. (Broke in half and sank)

 

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf

 

The broken ship and pics of the containers floating after they came off the ship can be found here.

 

http://gcaptain.com/mol-comfort-incident-photos/

 

Reports by the indian coast guard mentions

"There is no fear that they might reach the coast, they will sink midway. ICG is keeping a close watch," he said. -

We have asked the fishermen and people living in the coastal belt not to touch any container, if it floats onto shore," Captain VH Ingle, a port official of Maharashtra government, told PTI. .

 

Obviously they were confident they will sink ....... or were they...

 

http://www.mangaloretoday.com/headlines/Coast-Guard-on-alert-for-floating-containers-off-Goa-coast.html

 

 

How many yachts hit floating containers - hard to tell

 

but some indications can be found here - but who knows if it was always a container they hit ......

 

http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/sailing-skills/how-big-a-risk-are-shipping-containers-32722

 

 

But - if you're in mid pacific and you hit something in the night and you sank - who'd ever know what you actually hit .....

 

I've almost hit sunfish once - and I've never seen a container - So maybe it's not worth worrying about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry more about throw-away plastic ending up on the high seas and joining together to form fuckin floating islands growing palm trees and supporting Gilligan, Ginger and Co than I worry about containers....then there is Terry's boat to look out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they are called UFO's its hard to establish what to do? Not sure what the answer is but perhaps one day we will have some type of radar technology that might help? And Jack what's the problem with Terry's boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry more about throw-away plastic ending up on the high seas and joining together to form fuckin floating islands growing palm trees and supporting Gilligan, Ginger and Co than I worry about containers....then there is Terry's boat to look out for.

 

Interesting documentary about his on TV last night -

 

Lots of of it sinks, lots of it break down into very small particles and the floating islands are a minute percentage of total plastic content that enters the sea each year.

 

quotes from the show:

"We quantified and estimated that 8 million metric tonnes of plastic entered the ocean (in one year)." Environmental Engineer

Scientists say vast amounts of our discarded plastic is ending up in the ocean.

"There's so much plastic going in and we have no idea where it is." Oceanographer

Lots of it sinks.

It's worth the time to watch it.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/02/27/4624878.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry more about throw-away plastic ending up on the high seas and joining together to form fuckin floating islands growing palm trees and supporting Gilligan, Ginger and Co than I worry about containers....then there is Terry's boat to look out for.

 

At least you will know who the other party is when you smack into Terry's boat which leaves you a lot better off than when you smack into a container .. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've almost hit sunfish once - and I've never seen a container .

Only well insured maxis hit sunfish. And only cruising boats hit containers. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, quick summary:

  • 0:13 to 0:40 - Some rambling about severe structural damage from impacts (plural) during the Vendee Globe. No verified sightings and, by my recollection, only one yacht suffered severe structural damage. This is pure hyperbole and not based on any facts.
  • 0:40 to 0:60 - Discussed the methodology used: "we spoke to some people".
  • 1:02 - A Mod70 hit a container
  • 1:08 - A professional crew sighted a container
  • 1:13 - Conclusion stated "So there are reliable sightings", no one disputes this of course. But only two are cited and neither includes a name, place or time.
  • 1:17 to 2:02 - Clearly states that there are "what appear to be container collisions". Cites two examples of people who were sure they must have hit a container but for which there is no conclusive evidence.
  • 2:05 - States unequivocally that "The number of containers floating at sea is one of the hardest questions to answer"
  • 2:05 to 3:00 - Incoherent rambling about statistics
  • 3:01 to 3:08 - "The number that's likely to be out there officially is around 540. It could be 2000. It could be several thousand. It's unlikely to be as high as 10000". I'm not making this up, that's a quote. In other words, the conclusion is that nothing is known.
  • 3:25 - "How long they float for is basically unknown." - Further conclusion that nothing is known.
  • 3:30 - "Potentially, they are likely to sink quite quickly" - More conclusive inconclusiveness.
  • 3:40 - 3:46 Incoherent rambling about how containers are weak and when fully loaded and falling from great heights "Especially if they're loaded that impact is likely to destroy them, they're likely to sink relatively rapidly" - More gibberish that says exactly nothing.
  • 3:50 - However, they've definitely been known to have been floating several months after they have been known to have been lost. - No source cited, no incidence rates, just unsubstantiated blabbering
  • 4:00 Refrigerated containers with insulation and cargo containers with seals will obviously float for much longer. Seems to defy everything said at 3:40.
  • 4:05 - "So potentially, yes, they could float for very long time" - As opposed to what was said at 3:40
  • 4:22 - [depending on what's inside" "could potentially float indefinitely" - Again, complete opposition.
  • 4:49 - States that the shipping industry has made fewer larger ships when what's actually meant is that the industry is making more larger ships and fewer of them
  • 5:50 - Incoherent rambling that concludes with the mind blowing statement that "the potential for 10s of thousands of containers to be lost is very high" - This is complete rubbish. The potential for even a single container to be lost is very, very low! Were the potential even moderately high, the entire industry would collapse. There are, after all, some 200 million containers shipped by sea each year. If 1,000 were lost each year, that would amount to only 1 in 20000 or 0.0005%. This is high? The industry works because the potential for a container to reach its destination is 99.9995 or better.
  • 6:30 to 7:15 - Cites a loss by Maersk in 2014 of "about 514 or 517" in the Bay of Biscay. French government required Maersk to find the containers and a side scanning sonar "quickly located 500 or so" containers on the sea bed. Then goes on to state that "what that proves" is that containers can be found. Of course, what it really proves is nothing as there's no definite number lost and no definite number located - if we take "or so" to be ±5%, then 475-525 were located, which means perhaps 30 are still floating! More blabbering and making unsubstantiated claims.
  • 7:40 - Rambling about devices that can sink empty containers if they're submerged long enough. Interesting, because empty containers aren't submerged.
  • 7:53 - Finally a conclusion couched in weasel words. "The chance of actually hitting a container in a yacht at sea seems vanishingly small. It's not zero. There is the chance of one. But every insurance company we spoke to none of them could report a incident of a yacht meeting a container going across their books. The ARC, the world cruising club organizers, they - you know - 10s of thousands of miles over several decades of rallies and they had no confirmed reports of any yacht encountering a shipping container. Likewise the Clipper Yacht Race they - you know - sail waters where there are potentially a lot of shipping and apart from being diverted from a known incident they have never encountered one. I think the message we came away looking at this the changes of stumbling across a container in open ocean are incredibly rare. The other myth which we discovered is not true is that containers cannot lurk under the surface. They can float just a couple of inches above but they cannot actually lurk beneath the surface of the water so the hidden threat is maybe not as bad as we thought"

This constitutes a good wrap up? Only if the conclusion is that:

  • No one knows anything about the rate of container loss
  • No one knows anything about the fate of containers lost at sea
  • The understanding of statistics is disappearing rapidly from western civilization
  • Investigative journalism is a lost art, at least at YachtingWorld

This is pretty pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a bit underwhelming. One could probably have done just as good a job by summarising this thread and it predecessors.

 

And they missed an important point. When Maersk went looking for the missing containers, they found almost all of them with side looking sonar - underwater. This supplies a very useful datapoint on the number that can be expected sink and how quickly. Answer - most of them.

 

Containers are not loaded onto the ship randomly, or just in the most easy order for access as the ship drops off cargo. High value containers are loaded below deck. This tends to mean that containers that are filled with styrofoam packed electronics are not in a position where they can fall into the sea. Next, reefers are loaded in a cluster in the middle of the ship, as they all require powering from the ship's generators. Again, this means they are in a position where they are much less likely to be lost overboard. Reefers and goods packed in styrofoam are two of the offending kinds of containers that are likely to float, and float for a long time.

 

However one sort of container does not get mentioned. The empty one. Not every container on a ship will have cargo in it. Reefers might only actually carry a load in one direction. I suspect many more full containers leave China than return full. Empty ones are low value, don't need power, and are light. Perfect for placing at the ends of the ship, where they are in prime location to be lost. An empty reefer might take years to break up or wash ashore somewhere. And with no contents, no high value cargo lost, so not so much impact insurance wise. Indeed empty any container, even a reefer, might not be worth claiming. So they sit under the radar of the insurance companies. But we don't actually know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, as I said a pretty good summery of the issue... A load of waffle, a few unsubstantiated reports. A bunch of wildly varying figures bandied about, and finally after a dose of commonsense and a bit more research the truth that the chances of hitting a container at sea is in fact vanishingly small. She probably should have added that the chances of being hit by a meteor at sea is also vanishingly small to give it some context. Both are possible. I have seen far more meteors than drifting containers. But I am not going to lose any sleep at sea worrying about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wrote:

But we don't actually know.

 

That's just not true. The evidence says that there is no container problem. Why do people remain wed to the contrary?

Sorry, that looked like it was a one sentence summary of the whole post, it wasn't intended to be - it was only in reference to the question of whether lost empty containers are insurance claims. We (OK I) don't know, and I haven't seen any information from scouting through some of the marine container insurance information, whether a lost empty container gets claimed, or is too cheap to bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine hit a container in a 125 foot motor yacht off the west coast about 10 years ago. Container had about 4 inches of freeboard and took out the starboard running gear (bent strut, shaft and prop). Yacht was steel so no damage to the hull other than gouges and paint loss.  They limped into port on the port engine and had three weeks of yard work to fix the starboard drive train (also had to realign the engine as impact had messed that up as well) and new bottom paint.

That's the only confirmed case I know of a yacht hitting a shipping container.  I've heard many more cases of yachts hitting other boat, whales, logs, etc.

Read a story years ago of a fishing boat sunk by a cow falling out of the sky so ya never know what will happen!

ARTICLE

  Cow falls from sky, sinks boat
   
 

In 1997, the crew of a Japanese fishing boat was pulled from the Sea of Japan after clinging to the boat's wreckage for several hours.  They were immediately arrested, however, after authorities interrogated them about the boat's fate.  To a man, they claimed a cow had fallen from the sky, apparently coming from nowhere, and struck the boat amidships, resulting in a huge hole and its rapid sinking.

The crew remained in prison for several weeks until Japanese authorities were contacted by several highly embarrassed Russian air force officials.  It turned out that the crew of a Russian cargo plane had stolen a cow that wandered near their Siberian airfield and forced it onto their plane before they took off for a flight home.  Once airborne, the cow apparently panicked and starting rampaging through the cargo hold, causing the crew also to panic because it was affecting the plane's stability.  They solved the problem by shoving the cow out of the hold while crossing the Sea of Japan at 30,000 feet.

Unfortunately, following Rules 5 (Look-out), and 7 (Risk of collision) won't keep you out of trouble when the danger is airborne! 

Source: Australian Financial Review, 16 May 2000

Related Category:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In over 50 years of sailing offshore, I've seen a floating container exactly once, about 20 years ago. About a third of the way to Hawaii, floating with about a meter of one corner exposed and some metal wreckage that looked like part of the tie down system poking up. We were in near calm conditions and actually sailed over to it to get a better look. If it was dark and you were surfing, it would have been like a can opener.

I found this exchange from the May Seahorse interview with Marcel van Triest very interesting and equally frightening as the threat of lost containers:

SH: And other obstacles…

MVT: With Idec I occasionally gave them positions of oceanographic buoys – which they had no idea were out there. These are not on any chart and after I sent an image of one to Francis, he said, ‘This is really dangerous, they are like small icebergs!’ He was off Brazil at the time and said, ‘No doubt some small sailing boats have been lost in the name of science…’

SH: Fascinating – and frightening.

MVT: So if you hit one of these steel buoys when you are doing 35kt you have an issue. If you look at the number of buoys floating around the world at a set depth, say at 1km down for a week then down to 2km then to the surface, it’s scary… there are over 100 of this type alone. I sent a screen shot to Idec of all the oceanic observations carried out in December from this kind of buoy, and it is a pretty dense pattern around the world. And these are not accounted for, they are drift buoys and just pop up at random. If you hit one with your foiling monohull, that is a UFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yachting World had a go at updating the info, today tweeting a link to their article dated May 17 2017

Good review of the available info, but their result?

Quote

Our verdict

It is hard not to be sceptical of industry claims that just 500-odd containers routinely fall into the sea every year when such vast numbers are moving around the world every day. If container losses are reportable, why does every industry body we asked refer to the same, three-year-old survey – is there really no more current data?

What, possibly, could this billion-dollar industry have to hide? We approached market leaders Maersk and the WSC, but received no response. Any doubts are exacerbated when a race like the Vendée Globe gives the impression our oceans are littered with obstacles.

But if container losses rank in the tens of thousands each year, why are there so few recorded incidents or verified sightings? Most tellingly of all, none of the marine insurance companies we spoke to could recall handling a claim for a yacht that had hit a container.

Containers are out there, they can float, but the likelihood of colliding with one is vanishingly small.

That’s not to say improvements cannot and should not be made. There has never been greater focus on marine environmental issues, with countries as varied as Rwanda and India passing legislation banning types of plastic packaging to protect ocean life, so it seems nonsensical that shipping lines can routinely drop hundreds, if not thousands, of containers into the sea with little or no consequence.

Without financial liability for losses, there is no incentive for shipping lines to invest in new technology. And it is technology – whether that be robust container tracking, or forward-facing sonars on yachts, or some other solution – which will ultimately make collision avoidance more than a matter of chance.

Read more at http://www.yachtingworld.com/news/could-a-floating-shipping-container-sink-your-yacht-is-the-danger-to-sailors-real-or-imagined-107508#QOf4v8hriFaxkOoX.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not really adding much to the argument, but a reasonably balanced view IMHO. The missing piece that still bothers me is insurance claims for lost containers. If you are shipping something in a container, and the container doesn't arrive at the other end, you are going to be a mite peeved. And if the items in the container have any value you are almost certainly going to be claiming. But I have no idea of the lay of the land when it comes to insuring individual containers. I suspect it is a seperate area of marine insurance from insuring boats. But somewhere there are numbers at least for losses of containers with valuable contents. The owners of the containers and their contents will notice. Shipping companies and the industry in general can't cover that up.

However, and I noted this earlier in this thread, there is movement of empty containers as well. And these get stacked at the ends of the boat, and/or up high. So there is probably an increased risk for an empty container to be lost. Moreover, really valuable cargo tends to go inside the hull, and reefers go in the middle of the ship, where there is access to power and they can be easily observed. So there is a bias towards less valuable cargo going towards the higher risk areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last few seconds show a container sinking. Cred SailWorld tweet

from the YT page:

Quote

Accident 19 march 2018 KARACHI: Traffic at the South Asia Port Terminal Limited (SAPT) was suspended after two ships reportedly collided at the Karachi port here on Monday. According to information obtained from sources, a collision of Hapeg-Lloyd's ship Tolten with Hamburg Bay resulted in the offboarding of at least 21 containers. The administration of the deep port, however, managed to avert possible damage to the cranes installed at the berth through a timely operation. Operations at the SAPT, which were suspended after the accident, will resume after the containers are removed from the sea through a special operation by the Karachi Port Trust.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one sank - but 5 - 7 others, even with large amounts of visible damage, were happily floating away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those downunder off the Nth NSW coast should keep a beady eye out for more than 80 shipping containers that have just taken tumble from a ship. Between them and whales this time of year could be like playing dodgems.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-01/83-shipping-containers-tumble-from-cargo-ship-off-nsw-coast/9825950

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such fun with Noumea starting on Sunday & boat speeds of around 20 predicted in this area.  HMMM might pay to go another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlit Drydock Sections Floating South of Bermuda

16474280_DrydockSightings.jpg.5b2e496cee833f08937186e154a18040.jpg

A group of Bermuda government officials and concerned yachting professionals are warning about recent sightings of at least two large sections of an unlit dry dock reportedly floating off Bermuda.

The sections are believed to belong to a drydock formerly belonging to the former Avondale Shipyard.

The group recording three separate sightings in May, the most on recent occurring 26 May 2018

1630906472_Floatingdrydocksection.jpg.6b0c3fbe837bdc40a39d0b2c39a48ea9.jpg

http://gcaptain.com/concerned-sailors-warn-of-unlit-drydock-sections-floating-around-bermuda/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-b36fe9aa17-153166225&mc_cid=b36fe9aa17&mc_eid=d3e7c2a1b9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2018 at 4:53 PM, LB 15 said:

They should also ban logs. And whales.

Yep, let's start a lobbyist group. 

We'll call it GetDown!  :Ppl for sinking logs & whales. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2018 at 8:52 AM, QBF said:

Unlit Drydock Sections Floating South of Bermuda

 

We passed one of these on the way back north from the BVIs. We had our radar off during the day but spun it up to see what the footprint was. Luckily they show up quite well. Definitely a little weird to see it floating hundreds of miles from land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have still only found two of the eighty three that fell off the ship off Newcastle.

Beware if sailing north from Sydney

Share this post


Link to post
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