Jump to content

My Song fell off a cargo?!


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Client supplied cradles are subject to P&M approval. However that doesn't necessarily mean responsibility automatically transfers in part or full from client to P&M. Contract will spell this out with any waivers etc.

And there's often a significant disconnect between home office and whomever is serving as the person in charge/loading master. 

Sometimes the loading master is so busy he might be stuck on the bridge with paper and VHF for the entire duration of the load and perhaps he incorrectly assumed deck gang foreman would notice something or customer supplied equipment was actually intended for the purpose. 

Bad situation for regular working ppl all around. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 705
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A couple of things to bear in mind before any of the haters start throwing more shit around; 1. Plenty of talented and committed people have put a lot of work into building and maintaining this b

These toys employ a lot of us, directly or indirectly. When billionaires decide to spend their money in a way that puts it into the yachting industry we should embrace it and not bitch. Would you pref

[Interviewer:] Welcome, thank you for joining us in what must be a trying time. [Peters & May Spokesman:] It’s a great pleasure, thank you. [Interviewer:] This ship that was involved in

Posted Images

Interesting read from the P&M brochure

Cradling

Peters & May has the highest quality and safest cradles in the industry and we work with the best suppliers to plan and patent new designs. The foundation for our reputation as the industry leader comes from the quality of our loading team and our service levels. Our cradle systems not only support the yacht but protect her against the pressures felt during a long ocean voyage. You can rest assure that your yacht will be suitably cradled and protected for her journey. The cradle is perhaps the most important element of the transportation. It needs to retain a low centre of gravity, be structurally sound, and support the yacht along the length of the keel in as many places as possible.

 

Lashings

Peters & May creates bespoke lashing plans for each yacht considering the yachts size, weight and load location on the vessel. To reduce possible damage to cleats the pressure is taken between two cleats and athwartship lashing to ensure the yacht is well secured in its cradle. We only use soft lashings close to the yacht to reduce possibility of damage to cleats, bulwarks and fairleads. Soft felt sections are also placed under all areas of the lashings that are in contact with surfaces to prevent abrasions

 

https://www.petersandmay.com/media/2408/superyacht-transport-brochure.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read all that stuff after that first CEO statement blaming the cradle, and harshly called him on it.

And I have argued that it was not primarily the cradle but the lashing. Anyway, it will be hard to proof it was the cradle's shortcoming, but that the lashing was faulty is there for everyone to see.

P&M is on the hook in any case!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

...unless the boat's owner or representative took responsibility ("This is the way we insist it be done and yes we will sign your release of liability and take complete responsibility for any damages").

It's just hard for me to imagine the CEO of a shipping company coming out that publicly & directly w/o researching the existence of any waivers etc. He might have been misinformed:?

"A full investigation into the cause of the incident has been launched, however the primary assessment is that the yacht’s cradle (owned and provided by the yacht, warrantied by the yacht for sea transport and assembled by the yacht’s crew) collapsed during the voyage from Palma to Genoa and subsequently resulted in the loss of MY SONG overboard. I will add that this is the initial assessment and is subject to confirmation in due course."

We'll see!

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Plus a boat. 

I see you have no respect for poor Pier, pretty disgraceful.

Even without boat you can still have dinner with the Aga Khan's daughter, half Scottish Zahra.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

 

Zonker, that may all be true, but I am surprised that you fail to recognize that the lashing was just wrong and irresponsible. Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

P&M stated it is a client supplied cradle, unknown if responsibilty for design & construction transfered. Cradle  and lashing layout is a single structure. As executed they were not in unison so both elements responsible for failure. Pretty hard to see P&M off the hook when responsible for the latter and approved use of the former.

Jack, 

I agree with what you are saying. The fact that P&M state that in writing that they must inspect any owner supplied cradles and they must supply paperwork with it as well means that P&M will end up paying the major part if not all of the insurance claim in my view. 

 

Its going to be the value of the boat the  lawyers will end up fighting over. 

 

Pulpit

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Zonker, that may all be true, but I am surprised that you fail to recognize that the lashing was just wrong and irresponsible. Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect.

 

Fiji,

If P&M had any concerns about the cradle when loading the boat they still could of added a few braces on the cradle if needed. The simple thing is the photos that most of us have seen show the boat wasn’t lashed correctly to start with. 

 

Pulpit

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pulpit said:

The fact that P&M state that in writing that they must inspect any owner supplied cradles 

"Inspect" is NOT the same as "Approve".

And I agree the lashings were too few in number and not far enough outboard. I said so way back when the first picture of it on the ship with lashing in place.

23 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle, bad lashing would have the opposite effect

That's a real maybe. Lashings that are mostly stretchy fabric are not as stiff as steel cradles. So the cradle might fail well before a strong lashing takes additional forces (other than initial pre-tensioning).

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Yacht owner: we gots us a cradle

P&M: okay dokey. Is it safe for use at sea?

YO: Of course. safe as houses. Chance in a million of it failing etc.

P&M: well if you say so...

If the cradle fails, the lashings go slack of course, so things go rapidly pear shaped.  The 3 other engineers that I showed it to all shuddered that that section with no diagonal bracing - the point where it failed. If the lashings went first, and I don't know was responsible for them, then it's another story. But I bet it was the cradle first.

 

Would it be ok if my cradle is constructed from cardboard or some other paper based derivative?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I have seen it mentioned since arrival in Palma. But at P&M website a further update on 3 June says...

 

"Whilst the investigations into the cause of the loss are still on going, it has recently transpired during the investigations that the cradle provided by the yacht owners had undergone an undisclosed and apparently uncertified modification prior to shipment. This modification appears to have resulted in the failure of the yacht’s cradle."

 

So the cradle used didn't match the design that was supposedly certified for transport use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

That's a real maybe. Lashings that are mostly stretchy fabric are not as stiff as steel cradles. So the cradle might fail well before a strong lashing takes additional forces (other than initial pre-tensioning).

Yep factor of safety down to zip (unless spectra, very doubtful) and bolted connections only wouldn't help. The icing may have still peeled off the cake even if properly lashed.

1 hour ago, Zonker said:

"Inspect" is NOT the same as "Approve".

Even approval a lawyer's gift from heaven.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MasterRobin said:

the cradle provided by the yacht owners had undergone an undisclosed and apparently uncertified modification prior to shipment. This modification appears to have resulted in the failure of the yacht’s cradle."

So the cradle used didn't match the design that was supposedly certified for transport use.

Bingo the get out jail free card for whoever provided transport insurance. As the owner appears the source of this misleading disclosure for insurance, then this is going to get really expensive for them. Lawyers start your engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Bingo the get out jail free card for whoever provided transport insurance. As the owner appears the source of this misleading disclosure for insurance, then this is going to get really expensive for them. Lawyers start your engines.

Yep this is gonna get expensive, especially if the cradle  turns out out to be different, Lawyers and engineers the lot.

It will be hard I think to prove the actual failure sequence unless on board cameras perhaps captured the action and these days there are often onboard cameras.

I am inclined to agree with Zonker, likely the cradle first , loosening the straps at which point the whole thing became a rapidly spiralling shit show.

Another aspect of this is the amount of Insurance  premiums PLLP pays for his vessel and his various businesses I am sure he pays big bucks through a broker who will not be taking kindly to anything done by insurers to sneak out from under this in terms of an obligation to their valued client.

Have seen cases like this simply disappear with confidential agreements in place and everyone more or less happy with the outcome and not another word mentioned.

Insurers generally hate long drawn out proceedings with negative impacts to their business or earnings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Insurers generally hate long drawn out proceedings with negative impacts to their business or earnings.

Any settlement at the end of the day will be guided not by broker or even principle transport insurer (can be owners or P&M organised) but by impact on the individual reinsurance syndicate(s) carrying the can and where as a grouping marine syndicates these days are hurting badly with many either getting out or seeking big premium increases. 

If My Songs boat captain is a contractor (not an employee) and or there is a management entity responsible for My Songs day to day management/expenses and their fingerprints are over the absence of proper cradle certification disclosure and any transport execution in lieu of P&M, they will be looking at their Professional Indemnity Policy(s) very closely where it says Max Sum Insured, exclusions and what they have or have not disclosed as a "special event".

The mess the boat is in will pale in comparison to the mess it creates onshore in various offices.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

it won't be hard to prove failure.  A good FE model will show the weak spots as long as there is a photo of the structure, or verified attachment from witnesses when initially secured, and specs of the attachments.

Piece of cake.  Given the cost, I'm sure legal proceedings will involve paying a good forensic structural engineer $150-200k or so to develop FEA and get to the bottom of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question will be what caused the failure. I am sure that P&M as well as those involved in the program will have checked and provided supporting documents to demonstrate that the cradle etc was all up to the job provided all secondary support etc was in place. If a strap or tie down point failed that then compromised the set up are you still blaming the cradle? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chimp too said:

The question will be what caused the failure. I am sure that P&M as well as those involved in the program will have checked and provided supporting documents to demonstrate that the cradle etc was all up to the job provided all secondary support etc was in place. If a strap or tie down point failed that then compromised the set up are you still blaming the cradle? 

The failure of one strap should not affect the cradle holding a 140" (how many tons?) boat. So yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Set said:

why in the world would the yacht supply her own cradle when Peters & May normally supply them it sounds like? This was the yachts first voyage on a cradle wasnt it? Why would they even have one on hand? 

Common for big boats to have their own yard cradle for work, out of water storage etc.

So let's make a wild guess. It was a bit of a rush decision to transport not go on its own keel. Not enough lead time for P&M to organise a transport specific cradle. Modification to increase height of yard cradle was because yard cradle usually sat over a "keel pit" to accommodate lifting keel at full drop. So to convert it for transport they simply added in a section of new steel work to get extra height and hey presto.

Or alternatively no yard "keel pit" and this yard cradle originally came from something modified in exactly the same manner to get that extra height.

In both cases modification worked fine as it didn't require sitting on terra firma, the lateral restraint bracing provides in that new section of steel, but necessary for transport on a ship and associated motion.

That bracing to the modification was missing, so one and significant contributing factor to it going over the side.

Calenders are the cause of most offshore incidents.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bgytr said:

structural engineer $150-200k or so to develop FE

That would be a pretty rich payday for some engineer. We would do this work for ~20-30K if it didn't involve court appearance. PM me if interested :lol:

Makes sense that the new section of cradle without diagonal cross braces was a quick insert section. And not properly designed obviously.

Didn't know some yards had "keel pits". I've only ever seen big boats like this on their own cradles with the keel hanging down to the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Parma said:

The failure of one strap should not affect the cradle holding a 140" (how many tons?) boat. So yes.

The failure of one might cause overloading of another, which might then let go and then the problem cascades. No shipping cradle, or yard cradle modified for shipping is going to be adequate to do its job without tie downs. It all depends on finding the weakest link and then the next weakest link etc to the point where this happens. Not going to be as simple as a weak cradle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

The failure of one might cause overloading of another, which might then let go and then the problem cascades. No shipping cradle, or yard cradle modified for shipping is going to be adequate to do its job without tie downs. It all depends on finding the weakest link and then the next weakest link etc to the point where this happens. Not going to be as simple as a weak cradle.

The factor of safety in the design of this type of system should allow for a strap breaking.

If the entire system can fail due to the failure one tie down causing a cascade failure through the system that is not an adequate design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same goes for the cradle. What if the deck structure of the cargo failed under a higher load than your average 60 footer? Just a slight deflection would suddenly untension a whole bunch of tie downs at once. 

Just because the cradle failed doesn’t mean the cause was a cradle failure. That is all I am trying to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:50 AM, Fiji Bitter said:

 Good lasing would have overcome diagonal weakness of the cradle,.

 

No they wouldn't, not on a boat that tall sat on a ship surrounded by other boats and nothing.  That cradle was a crock of shit no matter what knitting you added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

The same goes for the cradle. What if the deck structure of the cargo failed under a higher load than your average 60 footer? Just a slight deflection would suddenly untension a whole bunch of tie downs at once. 

Just because the cradle failed doesn’t mean the cause was a cradle failure. That is all I am trying to say.

 

Needs to be lots more tie-downs then the photos showed,  But I really think the main cause is that it was shipped on a cradle meant to be used in the boat yard where it is stationary, not on a rolling ships deck in storm, even a more modest one.  Clearly they must have to engineer and build to a higher standard with a much wider stance for shipping on an open deck?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile...

Off to new adventures with the ship.

I wonder what it was carrying this time?

https://www.seanews.com.tr/danish-controlled-vessel-fires-upon-pirates/55405/

Danish controlled vessel fires upon pirates

The Danish controlled vessel Brattingsborg was yesterday attacked by pirates in the Indian Ocean, but managed to escape as the pirates was met by counter fire from armed guards hired by Dannebrog Rederi A/S.

nordana.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do tend to agree with the comments on the unsuitability of the cradle.

When we shipped out Cookson 50 from Hobart via Melbourne to HK she was on a low cradle with rig & keel off and the cradle built by Salter Marine in Hobart appears as substantial, if not more so than the one in question. I have no problem giving them a bit of publicity as they did an excellent job.

The boat, partly because she was low on the cradle, also had diagonal strapping as a significant angle (approx. 45 degrees).

In the attached picture, although sadly not very clear, you can make out the diagonal welded members connecting the bed of the cradle (which is massive) to the relatively short uprights. I don't recall seeing any diagonal members on the My Song cradle.

Additionally the boat was loaded on the container ship athwartships and not fore and aft meaning any rolling (which these ships tend to suffer from with a greater amplitude and motion than pitching) would be transmitted longitudinally along the cradle rather than across - AND SHE WAS LOW. She was also protected to (her) port and starboard by walls of containers. In the second photo she is 'hovering' over the cradle and you can still just see the cradle diagonals and she has just had her rudder fitted for the tow to the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club boatyard which again did excellent work on her. 

Not saying that the My Song guys did anything wrong but our girl appeared to have been on a much more solid footing for her trans-ocean trip.

SS

 

UBox - Cookson loading onto Ferry -04.jpg

Full side view.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had P&M ship Misty to Hong Kong from the UK and they were a pleasure to work with.  In the photo you actually see arms welded to the cradle for added support upon their recommendation. 

C11CA47C-0317-48B4-B06D-FAA180811A75.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, George Hackett said:

I had P&M ship Misty to Hong Kong from the UK and they were a pleasure to work with.  In the photo you actually see arms welded to the cradle for added support upon their recommendation. 

C11CA47C-0317-48B4-B06D-FAA180811A75.jpeg

 

 

That is exactly what I have been saying, and I have no personal experience with this, just common sense.  That cradle has a wider stance to handle the loads of a boat on a ships rolling deck.  My Song's cradle looks no wider than that of a boat yard cradle for storage that is not moving in a boat yard...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Width is/can be a difficult call. Shipping cost, on a container ship, is partly calculated on the number of containers you displace. I had on cradle designed that, because of and extra 300mm was going to take up an extra row of containers. It was already overkill so the size was dropped to fit. Not saying this is an excuse for what happened, just that you don’t get to just splay out as far as you feel is nice. Unless you wish to pay of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Width is/can be a difficult call. Shipping cost, on a container ship, is partly calculated on the number of containers you displace. I had on cradle designed that, because of and extra 300mm was going to take up an extra row of containers. It was already overkill so the size was dropped to fit. Not saying this is an excuse for what happened, just that you don’t get to just splay out as far as you feel is nice. Unless you wish to pay of course. 

When lateral restraint is restricted say when using a container ships, strapping doesn't even get a look in if keel is insitu. Steel bracing is used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chimp too said:

No shipping cradle, or yard cradle modified for shipping is going to be adequate to do its job without tie downs. I

Looking at that cradle before it was modified to give it extra height if used as a yard cradle, my guess is it started life as a "shipping cradle" designed to take into account onboard space for tie down layout using straps was restricted. Why they simply didn't extend the existing design as built for shipping to get extra height is nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

When lateral restraint is restricted say when using a container ships, strapping doesn't even get a look in if keel is insitu. Steel bracing is used.

Always worked on the theory of toe the boat to the cradle and the cradle to the ship. Weld, wire, strops etc., but never over the boat. Just asking for grief, especially if it needs moving in the way. Of course never involved in a beast like My Song, so maybe different rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Some of you guys just need to open your eyes.

Spot the similarities and differences!

Pretty rare you get that much deck space at your disposal, but yep a truck load of proper lateral and fore/aft restraint to get away with using their yard cradle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Always worked on the theory of toe the boat to the cradle and the cradle to the ship. Weld, wire, strops etc., but never over the boat. Just asking for grief, especially if it needs moving in the way. Of course never involved in a beast like My Song, so maybe different rules. 

The dead load of vessel negates the need to get too hung up about the vessel/cradle vertical connection. Lateral restraint using strops going over the boat satisfies that purpose but more importantly raises their effective height and takes lateral load out of the cradle providing strap base dimension is also commensurate. Your dead right though, the core principal is from masthead to cradle base being treated as "one homogeneous structure".

The best way to think of it is like "transmission tower" construction. For instance you can use smaller overall dimensions and less metal in the tower and add lots of wire guys for lateral support. Thats cheaper but takes up a lot of ground space. Alternatively take away the wire guys and add dimension and metal to the tower and cost but use less ground space.

This was a hybrid where the bottom section of the tower was heavy but middle section and most vulnerable was light and while there were guys at height, the only real work they could effectively do was holding things together vertically as there was no ground space to provide lateral/fore aft restraint. So the end result was the middle section of the "tower" literally got bent out of shape and broke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

When we shipped out Cookson 50 from Hobart via Melbourne to HK she was on a low cradle with rig & keel off and the cradle built by Salter Marine in Hobart appears as substantial, if not more so than the one in question. I have no problem giving them a bit of publicity as they did an excellent job.

Shang I recall you guys doing the 75th this year and still have that cradle made by Salters I hope?

8 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

Not saying that the My Song guys did anything wrong but our girl appeared to have been on a much more solid footing for her trans-ocean trip.

SS

Mate at your most diplomatic best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JohnMB said:

The factor of safety in the design of this type of system should allow for a strap breaking.

If the entire system can fail due to the failure one tie down causing a cascade failure through the system that is not an adequate design.

Correct but I would be more worried about "why" the fucker broke in the first place by something other than it being defective.

16 hours ago, Chimp too said:

The same goes for the cradle. What if the deck structure of the cargo failed under a higher load than your average 60 footer? Just a slight deflection would suddenly untension a whole bunch of tie downs at once. 

Just because the cradle failed doesn’t mean the cause was a cradle failure. That is all I am trying to say.

All structures made by man are designed and expected to move or deflect including the Pyramids with only the quantum depending on what they are, the design, the environment and the materials and methods used.

For tall building structures even counter measures like "dampers" are used where potential max deflection is measured in feet. While some think "dampeners" are to stop tall slender buildings fall down in an extreme event, their prime function is actually to reduce deflection to a manageable day to day level as even a small amount causes humans to get sea sick.

Chimp to your deck deflection concerns.

Firstly for any structure designed to deflect and with a quantum which appears scary, any vessel is top of that list relative to size, particularly length where they may be bridging more than one wave train. A ship is really just a horizontal building but with no fixed base. Think tankers. Think just sitting in a 60' + carbon race boat in a shit sea state and a lot of breeze and thinking where are those strange noises are coming from and surely it is an optical illusion the cabin top/gunwhale down below looks like it is being bent out of shape?

Secondly the deck footprint something like My Song takes up on a cargo ship, that deck deflection is all occuring in the same plane. The cradle and any tie downs will not experience any difference in deck deflection. It would be no different than on land. If bizarrely there was, which would equate to being on the wrong ship, you would be better off with flexible strap tie downs/bracing not rigid steel, the method of choice.

With the above "dampener" structural observation in mind if only they had hoisted the fattest prick they hated to the top mast with a bit of slack on the halyard for the deck top delivery, My Song maybe could have survived?

Maybe that will come out in the various pending court cases? :-)

 

3614901-man-working-attached-on-the-top-af-a-sailboat-mast.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

you missed my point. Not talking about normal deflection as designed for, I am talking about a cargo ship with a deck designed to carry boats with loadings that are generally far lower than that cause by this beast. Maybe the deck wasn’t designed to support a 100 ton yacht in a big Med sea state. And maybe the deck of the ship deformed rather than deflected (sorry, my incorrect use of term). Or maybe when other boats were unloaded in Palma the loadmaster has to move or change the bracing and didn’t put it back right.

just saying that there is a hell of a lot more to this than just the cradle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

No different than 99% of SA's more controversial threads, a place where dead horses get a longer lease on life.

Or a prolonged stay in purgatory

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Some of you guys just need to open your eyes.

Spot the similarities and differences!

001.thumb.jpg.6dcafa7bf81d92ae78d4a8bff35d55af.jpg

rig up and keel on, smaller lighter boat though. Cradle seems even less substantial than My Songs. Placed on the centerline, tie down straps go wider and there are more of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chimp too said:

you missed my point. Not talking about normal deflection as designed for, I am talking about a cargo ship with a deck designed to carry boats with loadings that are generally far lower than that cause by this beast.

It is a fit purpose ship and carrys bigger deck loads than My Song.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Set said:

rig up and keel on, smaller lighter boat though. Cradle seems even less substantial than My Songs. Placed on the centerline, tie down straps go wider and there are more of them.

Well observed, you have good eyes!

Smaller and lighter indeed, and not quite worth a 30-40 million either.

Almost looks like the PBO owns the ship too, all so nicely painted and color coordinated. Bloody nice canter really, can anyone read the name or knows what it is???

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 1:35 AM, See Level said:

Meanwhile...

Off to new adventures with the ship.

I wonder what it was carrying this time?

https://www.seanews.com.tr/danish-controlled-vessel-fires-upon-pirates/55405/

Danish controlled vessel fires upon pirates

The Danish controlled vessel Brattingsborg was yesterday attacked by pirates in the Indian Ocean, but managed to escape as the pirates was met by counter fire from armed guards hired by Dannebrog Rederi A/S.

nordana.png

I wonder if transport insurance covers projectile hole repairs from would be pirates?

- Stumbling

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, shanghaisailor said:

I do tend to agree with the comments on the unsuitability of the cradle.

When we shipped out Cookson 50 from Hobart via Melbourne to HK she was on a low cradle with rig & keel off and the cradle built by Salter Marine in Hobart appears as substantial, if not more so than the one in question. I have no problem giving them a bit of publicity as they did an excellent job.

The boat, partly because she was low on the cradle, also had diagonal strapping as a significant angle (approx. 45 degrees).

In the attached picture, although sadly not very clear, you can make out the diagonal welded members connecting the bed of the cradle (which is massive) to the relatively short uprights. I don't recall seeing any diagonal members on the My Song cradle.

Additionally the boat was loaded on the container ship athwartships and not fore and aft meaning any rolling (which these ships tend to suffer from with a greater amplitude and motion than pitching) would be transmitted longitudinally along the cradle rather than across - AND SHE WAS LOW. She was also protected to (her) port and starboard by walls of containers. In the second photo she is 'hovering' over the cradle and you can still just see the cradle diagonals and she has just had her rudder fitted for the tow to the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club boatyard which again did excellent work on her. 

Not saying that the My Song guys did anything wrong but our girl appeared to have been on a much more solid footing for her trans-ocean trip.

SS

 

 

 

yeah, but your boat , is a tiny bit, smaller..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 11:24 PM, Zonker said:

It's pretty common practice to empty all tanks as much as possible when shipping to reduce loads on the boat and cradle. Just leave enough fuel aboard 10% of less.

It was a write off even before you saw the hull damage. 

New rig needed.

Scrap all interior electronics/electrical anything

Maybe not scrap the engine.

Scrap all Interior woodwork 

mysong130_16cb_00571-e1556864548816.jpg

What is left is the hull shell and keel. And now that is fucked too...

 

Well it’s going to end up in a hole in the ground.  <_<

we really need to start thinking about the amount of composite boats that are coming to the end of their service life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Weatherman said:

Owner says "beyond repair" but what if the insurers say "No, we can fix it"? Can the insurer say "We're willing to fix it over the next 7 years or give you the estimated cost to repair now, your option"

Never seen an insurance company agreeing to pay w/o trying not to pay first. Especially not at these numbers. Not with an owner supplied cradle, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Baltic kept the hull and deck plugs and/or molds for My Song.  If so, that would radically shorten build time for a replacement.  Anyone know?

And yes, Baltic can do more than one at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mad said:

Well it’s going to end up in a hole in the ground.  <_<

we really need to start thinking about the amount of composite boats that are coming to the end of their service life. 

Mad all they need to do is shred and or pellatise it.

Roads already being constructed with recycled plastics from bags to printer toner cartridges, where it is mixed with normal or recycled aggregates (crushed concrete), hot bitumen added, mix melts plastics, then laid as one would with regular asphalt concrete.

As berthing/storage costs rise working lifespans will drop and when landfill costs/prohibitions rise, then that should make this form of recycling plastic boats the standard. Sailing on it one day, driving on it the next...in an electric car of course :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Weatherman said:

Thanks for posting.

This was at the bottom (apologies if it has already been posted, if it has, I missed it):

Quote

Peters & May chief executive David Holley's statement in full:

"We would not normally comment on cargo incidents but given the high-profile nature of this yacht and the media interest we feel that we need to formally give some clarification. There are several individuals passing judgement on what may or may not have happened and we will attempt to offer some clarity, albeit at an early stage of the investigation. Our reputation is second to none and we will not have it tarnished by unqualified individuals passing judgement without facts in hand. I will add that I am disappointed that confidential photographs were leaked to the media.

We were informed of the loss of a yacht from the deck of the MV Brattinsborg at approximately 0400hr LT on 26th May 2019. The yacht is sailing yacht MY SONG. Upon receipt of the news Peters & May instructed the captain of the MV Brattinsborg to attempt salvage whilst 3rd party salvors were appointed.

The vessel maintained visual contact with MY SONG until the air and sea search was initiated. As of 0900hr BST on 28th May 2019 the salvage attempts are still ongoing. To ensure the safety of the remaining yachts, Peters & May have instructed the carrying vessel to continue her planned voyage to Genoa. No other yachts have been affected by this incident.

A full investigation into the cause of the incident has been launched, however the primary assessment is that the yacht’s cradle (owned and provided by the yacht, warrantied by the yacht for sea transport and assembled by the yacht’s crew) collapsed during the voyage from Palma to Genoa and subsequently resulted in the loss of MY SONG overboard. I will add that this is the initial assessment and is subject to confirmation in due course.

As a leading yacht transporter for the past 40 years we take great pride in what we do and go above and beyond all standard operating procedures to ensure safe transit of all yachts carried by us. We have procedures in place to respond to this kind of incident, although we hope that they are never required.

This incident is more than regrettable, however the transport of yachts on cargo vessels continues to be one of the safest and most cost-effective solutions when carried out by a reputable company such as Peters & May.

More information will be made available in due course but in the meantime, I request that everyone respects the sensitivity of this issue to all parties concerned."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

yeah, but your boat , is a tiny bit, smaller..

Duh - so observant! Thank you for stating the blatantly obvious whilst omitting the more important facts - Are you a politician by any chance?

Or were you just trying to be smart? Failed!

Not only was she smaller......

1/The cradle was properly fabricated as a shipping cradle

2/ The cradle was clearly up to the task as she had a road & ferry trip from Hobart to Melbourne before being loaded on the ship for Hong Kong.

3/ The tiedowns were at a sufficient angle to prevent fore and aft movement of the boat on the cradle.

4/ the cradle itself had the uprights fitted with 45 degree steel cross bracing. (fore and aft and cross bracing)

5/ She was shipped rig down

6/ She was shipped keel off (not as simple as it looks - she is a canting keel boat)

7/ She was shipped athwartships on the container ship with bow-stern lined up with the rolling motion which quite frequently has both a potential higher amplitude and greater frequency than the pitching motion of a ship.

8/ She was protected either side by a wall of containers

9/ The ship was WAY bigger than she was especially when compared to the My Song/ship size ratio.

10/ Most importantly of all she got there safely.

Anything else you missed? 

Many years gone by I towed my Merlin Rocket down the M6 at 70MPH - not a single worry or  any damage and we could lift the combi trailer/launching trolley by ourselves - it is all relative.

Size doesn't matter as long as the size/weight/strength ratio is commensurate with the expected (or unexpected) loadings (not just weight but leverage, shocks and other factors) along with the correct securing and positioning on and to the transporting vessel or vehicle

Don't try to be smart by not only stating the obvious but the obvious that has no real bearing on the situation.

SS

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Mad all they need to do is shred and or pellatise it.

Roads already being constructed with recycled plastics from bags to printer toner cartridges, where it is mixed with normal or recycled aggregates (crushed concrete), hot bitumen added, mix melts plastics, then laid as one would with regular asphalt concrete.

As berthing/storage costs rise working lifespans will drop and when landfill costs/prohibitions rise, then that should make this form of recycling plastic boats the standard. Sailing on it one day, driving on it the next...in an electric car of course :-)

Sounds like a good solution, I bet the facilities don’t exist on the island though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 12:55 PM, bgytr said:

it won't be hard to prove failure.  A good FE model will show the weak spots as long as there is a photo of the structure, or verified attachment from witnesses when initially secured, and specs of the attachments.

Piece of cake.  Given the cost, I'm sure legal proceedings will involve paying a good forensic structural engineer $150-200k or so to develop FEA and get to the bottom of it.

We don't need no stinky FE model to establish that an unbraced structure will clatter at the first horizontal load!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panoramix said:

We don't need no stinky FE model to establish that an unbraced structure will clatter at the first horizontal load!

And we don't need no stinky structural engineer to establish that an unbraced structure will not clatter at the first horizontal load if it is lashed properly!  ;)

Let's call it a draw (tie) between cradle and lashing, and a red card for everybody else involved in this sorry saga.

Maybe we need VAR technology to decide who is the biggest loser...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Let's call it a draw (tie) between cradle and lashing, and a red card for everybody else involved in this sorry saga.

Red card for everybody who keeps seperating cradle and lashing in the failure blame game. For the cradle solution adopted it was a "homogeneous structure" that required "both" to work and work well. However for the actual installation "Mr Lateral/Bracing Lashing" didn't show up to work, so Mr Cradle went I'm out of here too.

Therefore no one element failed, it was a simple case of only half the staff arrived for work or in otherwords it was only "half-built." Not in P&M's favour is regardless of any client responsibility/waivers etc, even poor blind Freddy could see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Panoramix said:

We don't need no stinky FE model to establish that an unbraced structure will clatter at the first horizontal load!

ya gotta have some analysis to prove a court case

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

And we don't need no stinky structural engineer to establish that an unbraced structure will not clatter at the first horizontal load if it is lashed properly!  ;)

Let's call it a draw (tie) between cradle and lashing, and a red card for everybody else involved in this sorry saga.

Maybe we need VAR technology to decide who is the biggest loser...

 

 

If you lash it properly then technically it is braced. A poor man bracing but still bracing. Nevertheless on big budget programs like this one, you have to wonder why you would want to save a few thousands for something so critical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bgytr said:

ya gotta have some analysis to prove a court case

Yes but a 150k-200k USD FE model for a cradle? May be I am cheap, but that would be my fee to engineer a 15million building (Calcs + drawings + specs)!

Sadly you might be right and in the "real world" the fancy FE model is probably needed to impress the judge or even the control engineer. When that's the case, the judges and the experts are under an illusion and this is one of my biggest gripe... Too many people feel that they need to rely on computer software to engineer stuff but they don't realise that computers will spout out  garbage if you input garbage. IMHO an educated engineer (or even technician) is your best bet against such cockups! The computer is a valid tool, it's a fancy calculator that saves you lot of time and let you analyse stuff very precisely when you need to but it doesn't replace (yet?) intelligent thinking nor knowledge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Yes but a 150k-200k USD FE model for a cradle? May be I am cheap, but that would be my fee to engineer a 15million building (Calcs + drawings + specs)!

Sadly you might be right and in the "real world" the fancy FE model is probably needed to impress the judge or even the control engineer. When that's the case, the judges and the experts are under an illusion and this is one of my biggest gripe... Too many people feel that they need to rely on computer software to engineer stuff but they don't realise that computers will spout out  garbage if you input garbage. IMHO an educated engineer (or even technician) is your best bet against such cockups! The computer is a valid tool, it's a fancy calculator that saves you lot of time and let you analyse stuff very precisely when you need to but it doesn't replace (yet?) intelligent thinking nor knowledge.

The Fem itself (mesh) is a piece of cake.  working out all the dynamics of the load cases and boundary conditions, and the information chase, wrestling with private entities trying to locate all the info that feeds into the mesh is what will consume 80 to 90 pct of the time.  Especially in a liability environment, nobody will cooperate and it will be pulling teeth to get all the correct info together to run the model properly.  150 to 200 k is maybe a little in the high side, but I wouldn't touch it for less.  Wouldn't be worth the risk of getting stonewalled by the parties and running out of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 6:51 AM, shanghaisailor said:

Duh - so observant! Thank you for stating the blatantly obvious whilst omitting the more important facts - Are you a politician by any chance?

(edited for brevity)

Don't try to be smart by not only stating the obvious but the obvious that has no real bearing on the situation.

SS

My goodness!

You need to switch lubricants

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 5:34 PM, Parma said:

Owner says "beyond repair" but what if the insurers say "No, we can fix it"? Can the insurer say "We're willing to fix it over the next 7 years or give you the estimated cost to repair now, your option"

Never seen an insurance company agreeing to pay w/o trying not to pay first. Especially not at these numbers. Not with an owner supplied cradle, either.

 

owner:  fine,   i want a equivalent, loaner boat in the mean-time..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

 

owner:  fine,   i want a equivalent, loaner boat in the mean-time..  

insurer: "that is not a part of your policy"

I mean, I don't know whether it is or not and in fact I don't know most of the key facts surrounding this whole debacle but insurers generally like to hold their costs down and can be quite evasive in doing so.

Been there, done that, it can be quite a battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the owner and insurance company settle for an agreed value, rather less than replacement value I'd expect (perhaps half), might not the owner then file a negligence case against the shipping contractor to try to recover some or all of the balance?  I've met PLLP, and he seems to be a gentleman, but you never really know.  I do know some owners who would look hard at this.  This possible threat, together with a possible suit from the insurer may explain some of P&M's management's attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

So if the owner and insurance company settle for an agreed value, rather less than replacement value I'd expect (perhaps half), might not the owner then file a negligence case against the shipping contractor to try to recover some or all of the balance? ..

No. You don't settle on value method it is stated up front in your policy and the basis to your premium. It is owners insurer that chases negligent parties to recover/reduce its loss, not the owner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, P_Wop said:

So if the owner and insurance company settle for an agreed value, rather less than replacement value I'd expect (perhaps half), might not the owner then file a negligence case against the shipping contractor to try to recover some or all of the balance?  I've met PLLP, and he seems to be a gentleman, but you never really know.  I do know some owners who would look hard at this.  This possible threat, together with a possible suit from the insurer may explain some of P&M's management's attitude.

I can’t see any owner settling for 50 cents on the dollar on a loss like this! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

No. You don't settle on value method it is stated up front in your policy and the basis to your premium. It is is owners insurer that chases negligent parties to recover/reduce its loss, not the owner.

Exactly, this is firmly in the hands of the insurance companies fighting it out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

working out all the dynamics of the load cases and boundary conditions

For load cases, you just use the  internationally accepted IMO code for deck cargoes. Specifies accelerations in all directions, based on cargo location, ship size, etc. 

For boundary conditions - you assume the cradle is welded to the deck (if it was) or not (if it was not). Assume lashings are fixed at deck end :) 

I already said it's more of 25K job (having done a cradle recently for a USN tugs shipped to Japan). Of course if we have to testify as expert witnesses the cost jumps :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

No. You don't settle on value method it is stated up front in your policy and the basis to your premium. It is owners insurer that chases negligent parties to recover/reduce its loss, not the owner.

OK, thanks.  I'm now better informed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

    I almost did a project with a NA firm up in Bristol that claimed to have 'catamaran experience' and had a photo of a large 150' sailing cat on their webpage. I recognized the boat and was encouraged so inquired just what their role on that build was. They explained that they had done the loading plan and cradle design for the big aluminum cat to get strapped down to a rather small barge in order to haul it by tug aways down the river at out to the 12 mile territorial waters. I knew that the cat project had gotten mired at the original builder with all sorts of court cases and was to be completed and interior down in England. When I saw this photo my first thought was they could not be serious about getting it to Southhampton from Mass but that was before I was told about the 'voyage to nowhere'. 

09467_092909CNST-1799.jpg

 

     The whole purpose was to have the sale take place out of any country which might incur taxes or duties. As it turned out the weather got pretty sporty and the engineers (as well as brokers present) got pretty nervous so the papers were passed around for signatures and they hightailed it back into safe harbor and the cat eventually was shipped over on one of the Dockwise vessels.

    Bonus points for first person to identify the cat and builder!

Link to post
Share on other sites