Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

  1. #1
    follow40 is offline gCaptain Crew
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    This is something that I feel should be updated under international regulation.

    I've been on a 300m LNG carrier that's needed to wait for a few days to unload of the coast of Korea whilst the port is readying for us to offload the cargo.

    Whilst drifting, the captain took the technically wrong decision to make us NUC for the several days were drifting off the coast, as being under normal navigational status would mean that we would have to give way to literally thousands of fishing boats. I do not believe his decision was right,

    But seeing as these tanker take about upto an hour for the engineers to get the engines going for maneuver, do people not think that there should be some kind of legal protection for them?


    Please see MGN 152 - Use of Not Under Command Signals.

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mgn152.pdf


    Last edited by follow40; May 20th, 2012 at 01:14 PM.
    Share on Facebook

  2. #2
    cappy208's Avatar
    cappy208 is offline Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,985
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 664 Times in 407 Posts

    Default

    This has already been figured out.

    I don't have the rules of the road handy; but, iirc the phrase regarding NUC is: "through some exceptional circumstance a vessel is unable to manuver she becomes NUC."

    Your master can NOT simply decide that he is NUC. It is a condition that is a result of a degradation of ability of the vessel to answer commands.
    Share on Facebook

  3. #3
    PMC
    PMC is offline Old Salt
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 23 Times in 14 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Many large vessels show NUC lights when drifting. Its not right according to the rules - but when was the last time you sounded a short blast when you made a turn to starboard.
    Share on Facebook

  4. #4
    follow40 is offline gCaptain Crew
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    I know this has already been figured out....MGN 152 blah... blah... blah...

    But I only question if the established rules should be changed.

    I don't even work on tankers anymore, but I only raise the question out of interest.
    Share on Facebook

  5. #5
    PMC
    PMC is offline Old Salt
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 23 Times in 14 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    It would be nice it AIS had an "drifting" status. It would also be nice if every ship had a person on the bridge who can speak english.
    Share on Facebook

  6. #6
    c.captain's Avatar
    c.captain is online now Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    anyplace other than Bayoo LaFlush!
    Posts
    4,589
    Thanks
    537
    Thanked 1,555 Times in 956 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Of course all of this is also true of vessels on DP but not conducting any work at the moment that would qualify them as RIATM. Most just put up the lights and just sit there when in all reality that they should take the lights down and be prepared to maneuver to avoid collision.

    Then how does being underway making 0.015kts effect the rules for maneuvering itself? I guess it is all based on the heading of your vessel in relation to other vessels in the area which might ultimately involve a risk of collision? If you just alter your heading to make the other vessel an overtaking one, then he is to keep out of the way ie. turn your ass to everybody.

    In the end, no power driven vessel can just shut down its plant and drift. The engines must be available at all times regardless if the vessel is making 15kts or 0.015kts.
    Share on Facebook

  7. #7
    rigdvr's Avatar
    rigdvr is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gautier MS
    Age
    36
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 152 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PMC
    Many large vessels show NUC lights when drifting. Its not right according to the rules - but when was the last time you sounded a short blast when you made a turn to starboard.
    I think the rules on that are may sound, not shall sound in Intl waters. Big difference in those two phrasings.

    Also c.captain, isn't there something about not being able to make a course change to turn a crossing situation into an overtaking? Or a meeting into a crossing. I'd have to get the book out but for some reason I recall that.

    I didn't think you could take engines offline, not having them available for maneuvering. NUC or not, think that's the last thing I would want on an LNG ship...
    Share on Facebook

  8. #8
    follow40 is offline gCaptain Crew
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by c.captain View Post
    Of course all of this is also true of vessels on DP but not conducting any work at the moment that would qualify them as RIATM. Most just put up the lights and just sit there when in all reality that they should take the lights down and be prepared to maneuver to avoid collision.

    Then how does being underway making 0.015kts effect the rules for maneuvering itself? I guess it is all based on the heading of your vessel in relation to other vessels in the area which might ultimately involve a risk of collision? If you just alter your heading to make the other vessel an overtaking one, then he is to keep out of the way ie. turn your ass to everybody.

    In the end, no power driven vessel can just shut down its plant and drift. The engines must be available at all times regardless if the vessel is making 15kts or 0.015kts.
    Its not the same as being in DP. Most ships in DP and not doing any operations can simply just drop out of it if needed. But the LNG carrier I was on we had at give at least 30mins notice to the engine room if we wanted to make any changes to speed... So if another ship was heading towards us then lost steering and couldnt alter heading we would have been in a spot of bother...
    Share on Facebook

  9. #9
    BMCSRetired's Avatar
    BMCSRetired is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    485
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 221 Times in 113 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Your Captain made a decision and if something bad happens, he will have to live with it good or bad, it is his call.

    On the Rules issue... I like the rules because they give us a simple framework to work within and do not cover EVERY situation specifically. That is why there is a specific time frame of apprenticeship before you become a Master and even then you are minimally qualified and experienced for that position. Time and experience are the only way to become a good Master. That is why we get paid the big bucks.

    So... as long as nobody gets hurt and nothing happens, your Captain is OK. If something happens, he will be held inescapably and ultimately responsible. Our jobs allow us a lot of leeway in doing things unlike on the beach which, as a control freak, is one of the reasons I work out here.
    Share on Facebook

  10. #10
    Kennebec Captain's Avatar
    Kennebec Captain is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    995
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked 444 Times in 255 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    The rules definitely need to be reviewed. I've had to drift for days at a time and it's a pain.

    It is not technically feasible with low speed diesel and unmanned engine room to keep the engine on standby for that long and the price of fuel is too high to be able to do donuts like we used to.

    I try to pick a spot out of traffic and far enough away that I wouldn't drift into it. We turn on all the deck lights and I instruct the mates to watch for traffic and call on the VHF etc if someone comes too close. Problem is you can cover a lot of ground at night, in a 20 kt wind we drift at about 2 kts plus any current.


    The root cause of problems is often poor planning at the terminal. Rather then give the ship a good estimated pilot time they want all the ships to stay ready on one hour standby. The terminal can easily shift cost, risk and inconvenience onto the ship

    K.C.
    Share on Facebook

  11. #11
    BMCSRetired's Avatar
    BMCSRetired is online now Old Salt
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Panama City Beach, FL
    Posts
    485
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 221 Times in 113 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kennebec Captain View Post
    The root cause of problems is often poor planning at the terminal. Rather then give the ship a good estimated pilot time they want all the ships to stay ready on one hour standby. The terminal can easily shift cost, risk and inconvenience onto the ship

    K.C.
    Gee KC, poor planning at the terminal and we have to eat it. I am shocked this occurs, shocked I say.

    I run into the same problem (though not on the size you are dealing with) here in Trinidad. What they used to do to me was call me in before the other boat left. I trusted these morons, heave anchor, run through a narrow channel and then sit (not on DP) in a crowded little harbor. After doing this for about 6 months, I told the client I would not move until the master on the vessel at the dock called me and stated he was starting his engines and moving. Only the do I start the mains and heave anchor.

    The client were not happy because they were losing 30 minutes of time at the dock but I told them it was a "Safety Issue" according to their manual which also states it is the Master's call and they backed down. My bosses are happy because I am using the client's operations manual to justify my actions and I am happy by passive aggressively sticking their procedures in their a**es and it is ALL about me being happy.

    Keep her safe K.C.!
    Share on Facebook

  12. #12
    Kennebec Captain's Avatar
    Kennebec Captain is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    995
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked 444 Times in 255 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by BMCSRetired View Post

    The client were not happy because they were losing 30 minutes of time at the dock but I told them it was a "Safety Issue" according to their manual which also states it is the Master's call and they backed down. My bosses are happy because I am using the client's operations manual to justify my actions and I am happy by passive aggressively sticking their procedures in their a**es and it is ALL about me being happy.
    Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody know but BMCSRetired.

    Yes, some ports this is a problem. On the East Coast of South/Central America starting in Mexico not so good, Columbia and Venezuela are bad, the situation gets better as you go south, Brazil is not too bad plus better weather and good anchorages. When you get to Argentina it's bad again, corrupt port officials . Europe, Japan, United States are good, Middle East is bad, not to mention the pirates, the terrorist and the Iranians wanting to shut down the Straits.

    K.C.

    Two things port control says you should take with a grain of salt - "the channel is clear" and "the pilot will be waiting at the breakwater"
    Last edited by Kennebec Captain; May 20th, 2012 at 05:27 AM. Reason: typo
    Share on Facebook

  13. #13
    Capt. Phoenix's Avatar
    Capt. Phoenix is offline Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,475
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 177 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rigdvr

    I think the rules on that are may sound, not shall sound in Intl waters. Big difference in those two phrasings.
    It says "shall". Also, there is an exception in inland rules allowing you to make arrangements by radio instead of blowing whistle signals for every vessel you pass within 1/2 mile of.


    Quote Originally Posted by rigdvr
    Also c.captain, isn't there something about not being able to make a course change to turn a crossing situation into an overtaking? Or a meeting into a crossing. I'd have to get the book out but for some reason I recall that.
    If you are the overtaking vessel any change in relationship between you and the other vessel such that it might appear that you are now crossing with the right of way does not eliminate your responsibility to stay out of the way if the overtaken vessel.
    Share on Facebook

  14. #14
    c.captain's Avatar
    c.captain is online now Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    anyplace other than Bayoo LaFlush!
    Posts
    4,589
    Thanks
    537
    Thanked 1,555 Times in 956 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    remember that we can do anything we want to do up until the point where "risk of collision exists" then the rules kick in so when a guy is just coming over the horizon turn your ass to him and bingo, he's the burdened vessel
    Share on Facebook

  15. #15
    Capt. Phoenix's Avatar
    Capt. Phoenix is offline Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,475
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 177 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c.captain
    remember that we can do anything we want to do up until the point where "risk of collision exists" then the rules kick in so when a guy is just coming over the horizon turn your ass to him and bingo, he's the burdened vessel

    Good point. Then again, if a tanker is drifting with its engine off it can't just turn.
    Share on Facebook

  16. #16
    follow40 is offline gCaptain Crew
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capt. Phoenix View Post
    Good point. Then again, if a tanker is drifting with its engine off it can't just turn.
    Exactly, takes a good few minutes to turn even with the engines lol. In the Yellow Sea off the coast off the Korea there are far far far to may other vessels to give way for... never seen so many targets swarming on a radar screen before... Going NUC is probably the best thing to do in the situation we were in... To many targets to alter for... and these tankers can be waiting offshore the port of discharge for weeks at a time as sometimes they wait for the price of LNG to increase before discharging to make a bit more profit.
    Share on Facebook

  17. #17
    Kennebec Captain's Avatar
    Kennebec Captain is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    995
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked 444 Times in 255 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    I think a drifting ship would be covered under rule 2 special circumstances. I think it is understood when you come across a ship with all its deck lights on and is DIW it is drifting and you should stay clear. If someone doesn't know enough to stay clear then you would be justified in flipping on the NUC lights as you can't get out of the way without an engine.

    Keep the NUC lights off while drifting as you are not broke down but switch them on if there is danger of collision because you are in fact not able to maneuver in time to stay clear. It's not 100% right but the rules need to be updated. Until then ad lib.

    K.C.

    As far as MGN 152 - it's their job to send out memos, its our job to sail ships.
    Share on Facebook

  18. #18
    c.captain's Avatar
    c.captain is online now Top Contributer
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    anyplace other than Bayoo LaFlush!
    Posts
    4,589
    Thanks
    537
    Thanked 1,555 Times in 956 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capt. Phoenix View Post
    Then again, if a tanker is drifting with its engine off it can't just turn.
    I don't get this point about engines being off. Any slow speed diesel can sit stopped but as long as lube & SW cooling pumps, scavenging blowers, etc are all running and there is start air in the receivers, the main can be brought up ahead or astern with no time at all. Are we talking about securing the plant as in FWE or just the plant on standby as in SBE? Being FWE & drifting is not only contrary to intent of the COLREGS but flies in the face of good seamanship. The engines should be available at anytime to maneuvering...PERIOD!

    If it's geared medium speed diesels you just clutch out and idle or shutdown but same as with slowspeed, just restart the engines on call from the bridge if the bridge can't start directly. Electric drive is an even bigger no brainer...the generators are running anyway regardless. It is only a matter of how many kW are available to the officer on the bridge.

    Why is this not the case when drifting and waiting for orders?
    Share on Facebook

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to c.captain For This Useful Post:

    Robert (May 21st, 2012)

  20. #19
    Kennebec Captain's Avatar
    Kennebec Captain is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    995
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked 444 Times in 255 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    Quote Originally Posted by c.captain View Post
    I don't get this point about engines being off. Any slow speed diesel can sit stopped but as long as lube & SW cooling pumps, scavenging blowers, etc are all running and there is start air in the receivers, the main can be brought up ahead or astern with no time at all. Are we talking about securing the plant as in FWE or just the plant on standby as in SBE? Being FWE & drifting is not only contrary to intent of the COLREGS but flies in the face of good seamanship. The engines should be available at anytime to maneuvering...PERIOD!
    We are talking about drifting with FWE and an unmanned engine room at night. It's a common practice. When you come across a big tanker not making way with all the deck lights on you go around it.

    When drifting for shorter periods of time close to the pilot station the practice is to leave the engine on SBE and to "roll over" the engine every half an hour by running at dead slow for a short time. The engine department prefers FWE over SBE, For the master it is the opposite.

    K.C.

    EDIT: How is it more unsafe then anchoring? Your ability to get out of the way is very limited at anchor and you are FWE. When you drift you can drift away from traffic. Plus you face the risk of dragging anchor. I've dragged close to the beach at FWE, that's no fun. I"d like to keep the engines on SBE on the hook too, that's not going to happen.
    Share on Facebook

  21. #20
    PMC
    PMC is offline Old Salt
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 23 Times in 14 Posts

    Default Re: Should a tanker drifting be considered NUC?

    The point of the original poster is that many large ships drift with their deck lights on and engines finished. That is a fact. And they show themselves as NUC.
    Share on Facebook

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2