Shocked to realise that it is 35 years since the infamous tragedy, caused by sailing with the bow door open. Hard to believe it is so long ago that 193 lives were lost to such monumental stupidity
Mike
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 06, 2022, 02:52:18 AM
Shocked to realise that it is 35 years since the infamous tragedy, caused by sailing with the bow door open. Hard to believe it is so long ago that 193 lives were lost to such monumental stupidity
Mike
But it did inspire the "shut that door" Larry Grayson jokes.
I think the bow door incident was found to be less to do with momumental stupidity & more to do with poor operational planning around the passing of door closure orders.
It was just sheer luck that other similar incidents hadn't occured.
The deputy coxswain, the man responsible for the physical act of closing the door was, according to the enquiry, asleep in his cabin at the relevant time. The enquiry also found a failure of his superiors to ensure proper procedures, allowing such a thing to happen. If that isn't monumental stupidity, I don't know what else to call it. OK, it's also gross negligence
Mike
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 06, 2022, 08:31:58 AM
The deputy coxswain, the man responsible for the physical act of closing the door was, according to the enquiry, asleep in his cabin at the relevant time. The enquiry also found a failure of his superiors to ensure proper procedures, allowing such a thing to happen. If that isn't monumental stupidity, I don't know what else to call it. OK, it's also gross negligence
Mike
That's what I mean, there was no failsafe chain of command to ensure that an order from the bridge was actually carried out.
We take the Mikey at health and safety but some procedures clearly are essential. I imagine these days there would be circuitry to indicate status in the bridge and probably some sort of fail safe to be prevent a recurrence. Of course my imagination may be wrong.
Quote from: klondike on March 06, 2022, 10:21:47 AM
We take the Mikey at health and safety but some procedures clearly are essential. I imagine these days there would be circuitry to indicate status in the bridge and probably some sort of fail safe to be prevent a recurrence. Of course my imagination may be wrong.
Well there certainly should have been, even the crew on the bridge of the Titanic knew whether or not the bulkhead doors were open or closed.
Oooh, not a good example.
Lol :grin:
Speaking just from memory but I think they said at the time it was normal to start off without the doors necessarily being closed. They needed shutting before it got into open waters though.
Quote from: klondike on March 06, 2022, 11:19:17 AM
Speaking just from memory but I think they said at the time it was normal to start off without the doors necessarily being closed. They needed shutting before it got into open waters though.
That's my understanding too.
I think they justified it on the grounds of saving a bit of time once the last vehicle was aboard & the final checks were done as the ship was leaving the jetty & sailing through the harbour.
I remember that happening and had been on that ferry a couple of times from Zeebrugge.
You were lucky
Mike
A famous case in law that collapsed. Blair introduced the 2005 Corporate Manslaughter bill and a reworked Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill a year later in an attempt at clarification.
I was involved and in particular with the instance or not of 'recklessness', a value which the revised Statute addressed in closer detail. A case of who directed, or influenced who, to leave those front doors open.
At the 'Battle of Jutland' many British ships were blown up because the Navy flagrantly disregarded safety measures (leaving open fire control portals) to increase the rate of fire power. At the time this was a 'custom of process' and had been there since 'Nelson's' times.
Thereafter things changed significantly, but too late for 1,000's of sailors from 1916. However the days of the Heavy rifled Battleships were entering their last days too.
Sadly, there's no perception without contrast ...
I never could understand the concept of a modus operandi which possibly allowed setting off with a bloody great hole at the front of a ship
Mike
The big hole is quite a way above the water line. They don't sink while the cars are going on or off do they? Nor apparently at low speed in the harbour area. It was obviously done to reduce turn around time and so maximise profit. By how much I really don't know but I can't see it being by a huge margin and I don't know if it is now outlawed. Doubtless google would though.
The vessel isn't moving when cars are arriving or leaving. No bow wave, which is what sank her
Sadly it took the sinking of the Ferry Estonia in '94, this time costing 850 lives, before new International 'Safety Measures' were introduced globally. For the UK at least the fact that insurers refused cover, without strict adherence to their terms 'de facto' altered real time conditions as soon as the revelations over 'open doors' etc of the court case became known.
As always money was the reason for the shortcuts, sooner or later many 'customs' are revealed for reckless behaviour, with human life as the tally man for historical reference. Many turned their backs to these and other daredevil truncations, both before and even after the trial stalled.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 06, 2022, 06:19:13 PM
The vessel isn't moving when cars are arriving or leaving. No bow wave, which is what sank her
Which is why I specified
at low speed in the harbour area not leading to a capsize.
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 06, 2022, 06:19:13 PM
The vessel isn't moving when cars are arriving or leaving. No bow wave, which is what sank her
According to the report when water entered she was already doing 18.9 knots, which would have created the bow wave. She capsized within 4 minutes of leaving the outer mole in shallow water - and the pictures at the time of the rescue operation show her lying on her side with hardly any waves of any magnitude - it was her own speed which sank her.
Incidentally, I wrongly said closing the doors was the duty of the deputy Coxswain - it was actually the assistant boatswain. The report confirmed that the state of the doors could not be seen from the bridge and there were no indicators on the bridge to show their state - which I find astonishing.
Mike
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 07, 2022, 05:25:47 AM
According to the report when water entered she was already doing 18.9 knots, which would have created the bow wave. She capsized within 4 minutes of leaving the outer mole in shallow water - and the pictures at the time of the rescue operation show her lying on her side with hardly any waves of any magnitude - it was her own speed which sank her.
Incidentally, I wrongly said closing the doors was the duty of the deputy Coxswain - it was actually the assistant boatswain. The report confirmed that the state of the doors could not be seen from the bridge and there were no indicators on the bridge to show their state - which I find astonishing.
Mike
Yes that may be so, but a ship doesn't travel at 18.9 knots in the harbour which is why the doors should have been closed before it left the harbour & which is why it didn't sink in the harbour.
According to the enquiry it was only 4 minutes beyond the outer mole, so as you say, not in the harbour - but I don't think that anyone was claiming that it was. Thankfully the water was very shallow. I am not familiar with the layout of Zeebrugge harbour, but it must surely have taken some time for a vessel of that size to accelerate to 18.9 knots
Mike
Quote from: Michael Rolls on March 07, 2022, 09:22:33 AM
According to the enquiry it was only 4 minutes beyond the outer mole, so as you say, not in the harbour - but I don't think that anyone was claiming that it was. Thankfully the water was very shallow. I am not familiar with the layout of Zeebrugge harbour, but it must surely have taken some time for a vessel of that size to accelerate to 18.9 knots
Mike
Which is why the doors, which were ok to be open in the harbour, should have been closed before it left the harbour, not 4 minutes after it left the harbour.
4 minutes is ample time for it to have reached 18.9 knots from harbour speed as it wasn't from a standing start.
we are agreed
Mike
Of course, having a policy of not closing the bow doors before casting off was always a stupid idea.
absolutely
mike