Korean Ferry Sinks

General maritime and engineering discussion occurs on this board. Feel free to post newsbits, comments, ask questions about maritime matters and post your opinions.
User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:32 am

300 missing.
Here are some photos from BBC.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27032144

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:31 am

such a very sad story. I watched a interview with a British N.architect who theorizes that the ship gashed herself across several compartments. Time will tell.

A terrible time for the familes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606509/Pictured-The-moment-angry-relatives-passengers-lost-ferry-disaster-throw-water-bottle-South-Korean-prime-minister.html

User avatar
Big Pete
Engineering Mentor
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:18 pm
Currently located: Solihull, England

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby Big Pete » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:19 pm

Some of the survivors are describing noises etc that sound like something tearing a hole in the bottom of the ship. Uncharted rock/ wreck or the ship off course, collision with another ship, floating wreckage?? ( Discounting a North Korean attack).
I assume she will have been built to a "Two Compartment" Standard of survivability and three were breached. I see she was Japanese built, quite old, but from the pictures it looks as if she was fresh out of dry dock, no fouling on the Hull at all. There appeared to be air trapped forward keeping the bows up so it should be possible to put an ROV or Divers, down and get a good photographic survey of the damage. The bow up position also suggests that the damage was Aft, probably including the machinery spaces, so they would have had few options open to them, after the damage. Possibly they were trying to alter course away from a hazard, and having missed it with the bow, swung the stern into it?
I see the Captain and Officers have been arrested, the trend is continuing, arrest first, ask questions later.
I have seen pictures purporting to be the Captain abandoning ship with lots of other people still visible on Deck. Not the old British tradition of going down with the ship, but that was a different age, it doesn't say anything in our contracts or SOLAS that we have to do that! I have always understood that once the order to abandon ship was given, it was everybody for themselves, including the Captain, Officers and crew.
With hindsight the passengers should have been mustered on deck ready for evacuation, but it was cold and the crew were probably trying to avoid panic, possibly afraid of worsening the stability problem if there were large numbers of passengers milling about the upper decks. If you have lived and worked on a ship. and called it home for years, emotionally it is very hard to appreciate how quickly it can become a death-trap, despite the long distant theoretical training.

I think it is now inevitable that new Rules for Passenger Ships and Ferries will be brought out, requiring a full double Hull, up to the Freeboard deck, probably a higher Freeboard and at least 2 separate, independent Engine Rooms, with all essential equipment duplicated in each, and, although not relevant in this case, more powerful Emergency generators and switchboards, with far more fuel storage than previously required, possibly having two Emergency Generators, forward and aft, Port & Starboard and on different Decks to minimise the chances of both being put out of action. Possibly one next to the Bridge to ensure power for all communication and Navigation equipment and one near to the Galley, A/C plant and sewage vacuum pumps to power them.
Supply Boats have been built with full, double Hulls for many years and they are as tough as old boots. Even on large ships it should be possible to utilize this space for Fuel, Lubes, Fresh Water, Ballast, Bilge Water, Sludge, waste Oil, Sewage & grey Water storage & treatment plants. Possibly the spaces above the Load Water Line could be used for non essential machinery, such as Evaporators, R.O. plant, purifiers, incinerators and waste treatment plant, workshops, stores etc, subject to a suitable arrangement for the Water tight doors, for access, to ensure they can not be left open.
Has anyone else any practical ideas on how to stop this happening again?

BP
It is always better to ask a stupid question than to do a stupid thing.

jimmys
Officer of the Watch
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:09 am
Currently located: Glasgow Scotland

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby jimmys » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:17 am

I doubt if this will be a two compartment ship more likely one. Minimum freeboard with a long flat car deck. Any water in the car deck must drain through approx. 12 inch scuppers. If she is taking water on to the car deck, for the water to lie even on the car deck she needs to have no list and no trim and that is unlikely and water always runs downhill. For this type of accident I think the car deck has been breached. As the list and trim increases it comes up the scuppers.
The margin line is only four inches once a wave or two and it is gone.
I think she has lifeboats and rafts for over 900. It is not as though they are putting them into the water there is out of water support and dry shod evacuation it is not as though they are drifting away in the water with a life jacket on.
The Master not in command of the vessel again and an unexperienced Third Mate conning the vessel no wonder there are arrests with the amount of dead children.
The first ro ro with two compartment standard in UK was built in the Clyde in 1996.

User avatar
JollyJack
Fleet Engineer
Posts: 1176
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:57 am
Currently located: Eastern Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JollyJack » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:36 pm

I thought single deck ro=ros were out after the Estonia
Discourage incest, ban country "music".

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:44 am

I pulled this info from another forum and haven't substantiated it but it is interesting and the source is usually accurate. The Sewol operated in Japan for 18 years (from 1994). The ship was brought in from Japan on October 2012 and extra passenger cabins were added on the third, fourth and fifth decks, increasing the passenger capacity by 181, and increasing the weight of the ship by 239 tons. The construction passed regulatory tests. Sewol again passed a vessel safety inspection by the South Korean Coast Guard on 19 February 2014.

Now add the containers of unknown weight on the forward deck, fast currents, inexperienced persons on the bridge......

My question is, why do we see so many ferries going down?( 100 since 2002 according to GCaptain) Is it the passengers loss that makes it interesting to the media so it seems there are more incidents then in the rest of shipping? Or is the design of the ships? Or the lack of experienced crew, or the crew number against the amount of passengers?

When the MV Explorer went down in the Antarctic after striking probably multi year, the passengers were onboard 90 minutes before the ship was abandoned, however there were only 91 passengers. Circumstances much easier to control.

P&I are expecting a 140 million hit on this loss.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:14 am


jimmys
Officer of the Watch
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:09 am
Currently located: Glasgow Scotland

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby jimmys » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:29 am

Yes JK they seem to have come to my conclusion. Problem on the car deck. They don't half love the old free surface effect, must be a nautical or something akin.
After the ro ro accidents I was testing car decks in the UK., We used the car deck drencher system to put water on the car deck, the ship was theoretically upright and zero trim but any competent engineer can tell you the readings were rubbish. The water run downhill. very few surfaces on a ship are flat. The water gathered at one scupper, it was a nice big round one, a naval architect told me the better the vortex at the scupper the more water run down the scupper. I told him it would be better to be made square and have no vortex. This is what you have to deal with.
Five minutes and you were in trouble six inches of water and you could feel the change in the ship, continue and she is finished. By the way these tests took place in dock. I would not be on one at sea doing this.
One of these ferries I carried out this test in a UK port and flooded the engine control room, we blacked out. I was not amused at the quality of maintenance of the steelwork.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:12 pm

We had a big yarn about this today at work.
It actually centered around the amount of info and decisions a Captain would have to make in a very short period of time in an incident of this nature. On one hand the needs of the ship, on the other the crew and passengers.

A co-worker pointed me to that article, it actually says something that makes sense, not like the sensationalists that should work for National Inquirer-"who to blame, who to blame??" Shipping companies must just love the Captains being held up as scapegoats instead of the management of the ship.

rodrigger
Tanktop Cleaner
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby rodrigger » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:35 pm

from this tragic incident it is apparent a timely evacuation could have saved a lot of life. Giving all the power in the hands of one person "master" should come with limitation?. IMO should bring changes and make provisions in this respect that if the crew feel that a ships master gross incompetence at a crucial time can lead to a disaster . Other top ranking officials on the ship should have the ability to remove the old man and make on the spot collective decision to save the passengers . It is obvious the old man did not have his head screwed right and caused such a massive loss of life. I am sure on that korean ferry there were crew members who could have given a safer order than the old man.

User avatar
Big Pete
Engineering Mentor
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:18 pm
Currently located: Solihull, England

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby Big Pete » Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:58 am

If the other Officers take command of the ship, from the Legally appointed Captain, that is " Mutiny on the High Seas".

The Captain is the most highly qualified and experienced person on board, who can claim to be better placed to evaluate the situation and make a decision than him? ( apart from the Chief Engineer, but lets no be partisan about this)

Possibly the blame lies in the Culture on board where the Captain expects and was expected to make all the decisions on his own, rather than jointly with his Officers. This is a known problem with hierarchical Societies and attempts have been made to address this in the aviation industry. The other Officers just act as passive observers to the situation.

BP
It is always better to ask a stupid question than to do a stupid thing.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:42 am

I would prefer to wait for official investigation of the cause of the accident before jumping on the "incompetant Master" bandwagon.

rodrigger
Tanktop Cleaner
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby rodrigger » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:12 pm

this master declared himself as being a passenger when asked by rescue crew. Telling the passengers to stay put in their cabins while the ship kept listing and eventually sank . This is gross incompetence.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby JK » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:01 am

It is interesting the amount of outrage over this accident (as there should be), yet ferries in the Philippines sink yearly with hardly a ripple in the news.
100s of people, including children, dead in circumstances that are similar. Who is incompetent then if this happens all over the world. Class, Regulatory, shipping companies?

These are, unsubstantiated as of yet, (news) facts:
Moon Ki-han, a vice president at Union Transport Co., which loaded the Sewol's cargo, said it was carrying an estimated 3,608 tons of cargo. That is far more than what the coast guard said Capt. Lee Joon-seok reported in paperwork submitted to the Korea Shipping Association: 150 cars and 657 tons of other cargo. Motor vehicles typically weigh about a ton each.
Lawmaker Kim Yung-rok of the New Politics Alliance for Democracy, an opposition party, said he has documents from the Korean Register of Shipping that show the Sewol was carrying more than three and a half times more cargo than regulators allowed. His office released only a portion of the documents to The Associated Press on Thursday.
Kim said a register inspector, examining the ship as it was being modified to carry more passengers, found that its center of gravity had been raised 51 centimetres, and its cargo limit would have to be reduced by more than half, from 2,437 tons to 987 tons. The modifications were made in late 2012 and early 2013.

The article goes on to say:

Officials with South Korea's maritime ministry and coast guard each said they were not even aware of the Sewol's cargo capacity, saying it was the shipping association's job to oversee it. The shipping association is private and is partly funded by the industry it regulates.

Even the report by the inspector reflects "a problem in the system," said Lee Gwee Bok, president of Incheon Port Development Association and a former captain. He said the Sewol never should have been cleared for operation because the register should have known the shipowner would never meet the conditions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-kore ... -1.2620154

In another article:
Kim talked to Park at a Mokpo detention facility. He said she told him she ordered a helmsman to make a 5-degree turn that was part of the ship's normal course, but the steering gear turned too far and the helmsman could not turn it back. Tracking data show that the ship made a 45-degree turn, and that it turned about 180 degrees over about three minutes just before it began to sink April 16.


and
Kim said he suspects a problem in the steering gear was behind the ship's sinking, together with freight that was reportedly secured too loosely. He cited reports that the ship's turn led some freight to shift to one side, making the vessel unbalanced.
He said that if the freight had been loaded on the ship tightly enough, the vessel would not have capsized even if the steering gear didn't work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-kore ... -1.2618933

Kim is a Maritime Professor who taught the 3rd mate

The emerging stories are seeming to back up our conjectures.

I like this part:
Officials with South Korea's maritime ministry and coast guard each said they were not even aware of the Sewol's cargo capacity, saying it was the shipping association's job to oversee it. The shipping association is private and is partly funded by the industry it regulates.
3rd party oversight it is not. The inmates are running the show.

jimmys
Officer of the Watch
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:09 am
Currently located: Glasgow Scotland

Re: Korean Ferry Sinks

Postby jimmys » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:05 am

There are no Captains on Merchant Navy ships only ships Masters and all commands by a Ships Master are not lawful commands. This vessel is what in the UK we call a 11A (two a). A class 11A does not go on long or short international voyages it only coasts around Korea. There are separate rules for the construction of this type of ship, it is not a deep sea ship.
The safe manning document lays out the qualifications required and it is unlikely a deep sea Class 1 deck would be required. Coasting qualifications are all that's needed.
The requirements for any vessel at sea to be in class as a 11A, the load line must be intact. The car deck in this type of ship is the bulkhead or freeboard deck. If the engine is not serviceable and water is on the car deck, it is evident the load line is not intact. It has ceased to be a class 11A. It is a hulk.
Evidence of overloading is a disaster, these ships have minimum freeboard.
I have inspected a lot of these type of ships and a lot of dispensations around , now called exemptions. Any Examiner of Masters and Mates can give one.


Return to “Crew Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests