A Ride the Duck DUKW in Seattle, similar to the amphibious vessel which sank in the Delaware
Distress calls and warnings by the master of the Ride the Duck DUKW that his vessel was disabled were not responded to by the tug Caribbean Sea which was handling a barge which collided with the DUKW and sank it, says a preliminary report from the US National Transportation Safety Board.
Says the accident report: “On Wednesday, July 7, 2010, the empty 250-foot-long sludge barge The Resource, being towed alongside the 78.9-foot-long towing vessel M/V Caribbean Sea, allided with the anchored 33-foot amphibious small passenger vessel DUKW 34 in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The DUKW 34, operated by Ride the Ducks, carried 35 passengers and 2 crewmembers. On board the Caribbean Sea were 5 crewmembers. As a result of the allision, the DUKW 34 sank in about 55 feet of water. Two passengers were fatally injured, and 10 passengers suffered minor injuries. No one on the Caribbean Sea was injured.
In September 2007, after broadcasting several audio podcasts and blog posts on the subject we realised that confined space/enclose space casualties were disturbingly common and seemed to be a major issue that wasn’t going away. We wanted to do something, however modest, to help address the situation. We discussed the issue with IDESS Interactive Technologies, which shared our concerns, and we agreed to collaborate in the production of three animated versions of MAC podcasts of which the first was to The Case Of The Silent Assassin, based on the Sapphire incident investigated by Ron Strathdee of the Isle Of Man registry.
Step Change in Safety has revised its Lifting and Mechanical Handling Guidelines.
These guidelines define the responsibilities, training, competencies and assessment of those involved in lifting and mechanical handling operations. They set out a structured approach to the planning of safe lifting.
Australian seaman dies from injuries Sydney Morning Herald – Sydney,Australia
The cruise ship was moored in Napier and its 70 to 80 passengers were ashore at the time of the accident. Maritime New Zealand and the Transport Accident
Cargo ship capsizes in Red Sea Radio Netherlands – Netherlands
A cargo ship has sunk in the Red Sea off the coast of Egypt. The bodies of three crewmembers have been recovered, but 17 are still missing.
Missing drilling unit found near site of tanker Dallas Morning News – Dallas,TX,USA … remotely operated underwater vehicle retraced the tank ship’s course to investigate and found the ENSCO 74 near where the ship was before the accident.
Palma port admits fault for MSC accident TTG live – UK
MSC denied that the accident was due to faults on the ship and lodged an official complaint with the local port authorities, which have now confirmed their
Man arrested after Cork ferry accident RTE.ie – Ireland
Navy divers working with the Department of the Marine vessel Celtic Voyager are searching for the car, which has not yet been located, contrary to earlier
Salvage operations underway to rescue trawler
Weekend Post – Port Elizabeth,South Africa
The distress call after the collision was received at about 9.12pm last night. … Marine and Coastal Management vessel, the Lillian Ngoyi brought in 26
One lesson from a recent IMCA safety alert: RTFM – Read The Flipping Manual or you might end up taking it on the chin.
According to the safety alert, during a major refit of a vessel-based work-class remotely
operated vehicle ,ROV, spread an ROV pilot technician received an injury to the chin which needed a total of six stitches.
He was servicing the manipulator and had restrained the compensator spring and removed the bladder assembly. The perspex spring housing showed signs of contamination and it was decided to dismantle it further for cleaning.
The compensator spring housing was not user serviceable according to the Schilling maintenance manual. In attempting to remove the spring, the stored energy in the spring was instantly released in an uncontrolled manner and the process the ROV technician sustained an impact injury to the chin.
“Following investigation the following conclusions were drawn:
? This was a high potential incident as the consequences of the uncontrolled energy release could have been much worse;
? The instructions and warnings clearly stated in the manual were not followed;
? Components with stored energy (mechanical and/or electrical) should always be treated with respect.
The company has recommended the following actions:
? The removal of the compensator spring on these compensators is not a user serviceable task and units should be returned to the manufacturer’s approved agents for servicing;
? Ensure sufficient spares are available on each ROV spread.”
As part of an abandon ship exercise there was an emergency launch of the FRC. When recovering the FRC the davit winch did not seem to have full power. Just as the FRC was a deck level it started to fall. The davit driver was unable to hold the FRC, and it suddenly fell approximately 3 metres and landed in the water. The FRC crew member injured his leg.
Following x-ray it is confirmed that both bones in leg are broken and will require surgery.
Injured Person likely to be off work for 6/8 weeks.
Mechanical failure in the winch motor caused the FRC to fall. In this situation there is no brake that may stop the winch wire from running out.
The motor is being investigated by the supplier to look for causes of failure. The maintenance of the motor was up to date and the maintenance and certification of the FRC/Davit system is up to date.
It was agreed between the investigation parties that his incident occurred due to a technical failure in the winch motor. The winch motor has been removed and sent to the davit supplier for further investigation.
• The Master has decided that no Crew members will be on board the FRC when conducting emergency launching exercises
• Improvement to the davit system is required to avoid misunderstandings during operations
• Training in the use of the davit – at present only one Officer is trained for the davit operation – more persons to undergo training.
MAIB’s report on the Figaro incident in December 2007 in which an accidental activation of the ship’s CO2 smothering system led to the vessel losing propulsion and electrical power in rough weather, sending it drifting toward Wolf Rock off the southern English coast, reads almost like an adventure story full of derring-do and not a little personal courage and is well worth the read.
All the same, it shouldn’t have happened. Says MAIB: “The investigation identified that the maintenance instructions for the CO2 system were contradictory and vulnerable to misinterpretation. The crew of Figaro were unfamiliar with the equipment and were unable to recognise the problem that occurred during the routine test, or realise the risk posed by leaving the system in an unstable condition. The incident also highlighted some areas where ETV procedures could be improved to help maintain the successful reputation that this service has gained.”Continue reading »
Often regarded as a safer alternative to traditional evacuation by lifeboat for passenger ships, the Marin-Ark system, manufactured by RFD Ltd. of Belfast, involves dropping a chute from the ship with a liferaft built-in and passengers or crew sliding down into the waiting liferaft. One fatality is recorded in a chute-type escape system, when the casualty was jammed in a ‘piked’ position with the chute and suffocated but the system has been regarded as generally reliable.
On 1st February this year one of the Marin-Ark systems installed between decks on the Pride Of Canterbury was given an annual test as part of a joint European inspection. As the carriage mounted on hydraulic rams moved outboard to lower the chute and liferaft it caught on the outer doors, which had only partially opened. The carriage continued to move forward and upwards, twisted, broke deck plates loose and sheared the hydraulic rams off their mountings.
However, the liferafts were still tipped off the carriage, landed in the water and inflated as normal. It wasn’t possible to check how securely the chutes were attached and it was considered too dangerous to use them.
The second system was initiated but again fouled on the outer doors. The carriage was still able to move into the correct position and the rafts and chutes deployed normally. When the liferafts were being bowsed-in against the ship, however, the aluminium-clad stainless steel bowsing wires parted under tension.
Investigation showed that, even though the equipment was designed for the maritime environment, the hinges of the outer doors, which were mounted outside the ship, were fouled by salt and corrosion which prevented them from opening. This went unnoticed because there were no instructions to test or maintain the door hinges and the only time they were in use was during the annual inspection.
Similarly, the aluminium channels through which the stainless steel bowsing wires travelled were choked by corrosion, which prevented them moving freely.
Says the report: “The manufacturers inspected all other vessels fitted with similar equipment, and satisfied themselves that the equipment would function if required. They undertook a detailed technical investigation into the incidents and, in consultation with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, developed modifications to prevent similar faults from occurring in the future. The system was subsequently demonstrated on board Pride of Canterbury and the sister ship Pride of Kent, and found to work correctly.”
So, just because equipment is designed or intended to be virtually maintenance free and suitable for the marine environment, it pays not to take them for granted, and not to wait until an inspection to find out they don’t work as required.