200514 Shelter from the Storm
Shelter from the Storm
MARS Report 200514
Two of my last contracts were spent on tankers frequently visiting a port in Canada. There is a TSS and compulsory pilotage in the approaches. Recently, a product tanker under my command, was on the ballast voyage from the USA to this port when we encountered one of those North Atlantic storms with 36 feet waves and winds of 60-80 knots. Both the sea and the wind were from SW. My vessel, on arrival at the Pilot Boarding Ground, was ordered by VTS to keep her position around 40 miles away from the entrance because the pilot could not board the vessel in such weather conditions and no vessel was allowed inside without pilot. Anyone who has ever been to this area will agree with me that a pilot is hardly needed during the passage through the bay which is wide and deep enough even for ULCCs. But rules are to be obeyed and I have no intention of breaking them.
It is difficult for me to understand why I could not use the bay for shelter and had to struggle against huge waves and hurricane winds in the open seas instead of getting protection from shore line against the storm. Nowadays, vessels (at least those recent ones which I have been on) have computer controlled engines and, when the sea and wind forces are exceeded, the computer reduces power on the engine load as it considers necessary. As a result, my tanker was only able to keep slow ahead against that weather, drifting astern to the shore and was actually hardly controllable by the rudder. Twice I tried to sail away as ordered, putting the wind astern to gain some speed and then turning into the wind. Both manoeuvres led to extreme angles of rolling - up to 40-45 degrees but the vessel was unable to come on to the new course because the speed dropped to 1-2 knots dramatically quickly during the manoeuvre. Finally I told VTS that I had to proceed inside the bay whether they like it or not because otherwise they would shortly have an uncontrollable tanker close to the coast and I proceeded inside without a pilot. Inside the bay, although the wind was almost the same strength there were much smaller waves and the engine was able to maintain up to Full Manoeuvring Speed thus making the tanker perfectly controlable. I did not drop anchor but kept on steaming up and down the TSS all the day until the wind and sea became calmer and the pilot was able to board the vessel.
Therefore I can see only two choices, both disadvantageous, one is to take storm ballast into cargo tanks of SBT tanker with no facilities ashore to discharge it. The second is do what one has to do to … which is a task with many unknowns.
Should vessels be allowed to enter a compulsory pilotage area to shelter from a severe storm? I would pleased to hear the views of other Masters and of Port Authorities. RB
Readers' Feedback
1
Having been involved in the maritime industry for more than 63 years, I've seen a dramatic change in the personnel in charge of ports and harbors throughout the world. Our ports and harbors have been and are subject to port state politicians and their political appointees to run such ports and harbors. In so doing we are now faced with bureaucrats who take cover behind the Port State laws as written rather than making the necessary decisions to reduce risks to the environments and the population in general.
This also applies to pilots. Where for years pilots were recruited from the ranks of active master mariners with ship handling experience under all conditions one encountered at sea. They are now recruited from any and all sources.
What the world needs is an international treaty to designate ports of refuge in which, particularly where tankers are concerned, the outflow of oil could be contained and minimized. We Master Mariners understand the need for this. Certainly, in the event of heavy weather and when the pilot services are suspended, the Master should be given the authority to enter the port after taking into account the prevailing conditions and his experience and ship handling ability. This is particularly necessary where the vessel remaining in open sea constitutes a genuine risk.
2
YES, a ship should always seek shelter and disobey rules, if so required or justified. It is always the captain who is responsible. The master can get the sack when he does not obey the recommendation of Ocean Routes but seeks a safer passage. He must make this judgement which could avoid becoming a semi-submarine. It is better to be sacked in a safe haven than jailed because of a disaster. It is, and always will remain, the Master's judgement and choice.
When working in the North Sea Oil Fields, I have been in a Sound in the Shetlands so often without pilot. Pilotage was not compulsory in 1977-1979. We went to the Sound only for shelter and no other reasons.
We arrived at the roads of a South American port on a breakbulk cargo vessel at 23:00. The pilot told me through his walkie talkie, that he would pilot our vessel in at daybreak. I considered the proven reliability of the ECDIS, the brand new vessel with brand new radars and also the variable pitch propeller. I considered the competent and motivated crew. And I considered the crew could rest for the night ahead of us. I did not take any decision beforehand. We approached the harbour entrance very slowly. Always being able to turn around and seek an anchorage. When close-in, I could see the harbour and oversee the situation. Two berths were available and a lot of buoys to lead me to one of them. So the decision was easy. We moved in without the pilot and berthed the vessel by ourselves. Enough propulsion facilities and a famous well-known rudder to move around and put one man on the shore to catch our own lines. Teamwork and team spirit on that ship.
The Pilot came on board very quickly to ask me whether I was crazy. He smelt of alcohol. I answered that I am always crazy and he was drunk on duty. We were given a fine and I accused the pilot of drinking while on duty and not permitting a decent rest to a crew, who would sleep a few hours more in the morning. The Charterer was happy as we could start with the cargo handling operations first thing in the morning. It could have been the other way around. Yes, the captain gets a lot of hassle.
I went in for shelter behind Cape Finisterre three times with a coaster, due to the weather conditions which are well-known by almost any seaman. In these days (1992) we were allowed to do so without being jailed. Nowadays, even with a seaworthy tugboat of 28 metres length, you are supposed to be at over 30 miles offshore whatever the weather. A sad state of affairs. You can enter and leave some ports in Spain without a pilot. But do not get closer than 30 miles to Cabo Finisterre !!! You will have to face sanctions. There is no choice but to obey or being jailed upon arrival in port. That is the State of Affairs. Entering a port in the very early morning and leaving a port in the afternoon is tiresome for the whole crew. I have dropped the anchor in a quiet place in order to get some sleep for all of us on board.
3
Readers' Feedback on a response to Shelter from the Storm (May 2005).
I rarely get worked up enough to actually put pen to paper but I was amazed the above report was published without editorial comment. It seems totally irresponsible to not comment upon a masters feedback advocating entering port without prior experience, full bridge team preparation and local advice when a pilot was available in daylight. In the event of saving life or avoiding major pollution or other reducing the risks of immediate and catastrophic event there would be some circumstances when a master needs to break the rules (or rather uphold more important ones) but to give a night in the "pit" for the crew or earn brownie points from the charterer then I think he has made a correct admission of being crazy and should be identified as such in a section of a professional body journal aimed at increasing safety and professional standards.