gCaptain.com

This time the Cosco Busan’s departure is not a drill and we made sure to get video evidence of the fact!

The San Francisco Chronicle tells us;

The U.S. Coast Guard said temporary repairs to the 900-foot Cosco Busan had been completed and that the vessel and the crew were cleared to sail. The ship passed under the Golden Gate Bridge around 11:30 a.m.

Meanwhile, Caltrans officials announced that repairs on the Bay Bridge fender that the ship hit and shattered also have been completed.

The Coast Guard had been concerned about the Cosco Busan’s seaworthiness and the crew’s training in bridge management. The agency also wanted to ensure that U.S. legal interests would be protected, because several lawsuits have been filed against the ship’s owner, Regal Stone Ltd. of Hong Kong, as well as its insurer and the man piloting the ship when the accident happened, John Cota.

Regal Stone has posted a bond for the ship’s $79.5 million value with the federal government. The agreement on the security bond does not limit how much the government can seek in damages from the spill.

The ship also has a $300 million insurance policy, which is a requirement under California law, said Steve Edinger, assistant chief of the Department of Fish and Game’s law enforcement division.

“The Cosco Busan has left, and everything we needed from the vessel for our investigation we did obtain,” said Edinger, whose agency oversaw the cleanup efforts. “We are progressing the way we would normally expect in (any) oil spill.” Continue Reading…

(Coast Guard video by District Eleven Public Affairs)

 

 http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=205346&g2_serialNumber=2 [0:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Rear Admiral Craig E. Bone is not one to back down from criticism, his comments regarding questions we posed to the San Francisco Chronicle were strong and to the point. Perhaps it’s for this reason Admiral Thad Allen, a straight talker himself, appointed him to the high profile position early this summer. Taking a proactive stance to defense, Admiral Bone today responded to NJ.com’s criticism of the USCG’s response to the San Francisco Oil Spill with the following comments;

Your Nov. 16 editorial about the recent oil spill in San Francisco questioning the U. S. Coast Guard’s readiness did not mention several important facts and contained several misperceptions.

The motor vessel Cosco Busan’s striking of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco Bay and spilling 58,000 gallons of fuel was an avoidable disaster. The Coast Guard and NTSB are working to determine what went so tragically wrong on this modern ship with advanced equipment, and under the guidance and direction of a state licensed pilot and the command of a licensed master.

Ultimately the motor vessel Cosco Busan master is responsible for the safe operation of the vessel. Thousands of commercial oceangoing ships navigate safely in fog worldwide and in much more restricted waterways. The question for our investigators and the National Transportation Safety Board is why didn’t this one?
The response to the oil spill here was anything but weak and slow as your editorial asserted. Within 15 minutes Coast Guard pollution investigators were directed to the scene and they arrived through heavy fog 28 minutes later. Continue Reading—>

Member’s of the San Francisco Pilot Association have also expressed their views. In a release by the Associated Press, SF Pilot Eric Robinson Comments;

“An international standardization of bridge equipment like radars and electronic navigation equipment — to me, that would be the legislation I would like to see come out of this,” Robinson said during an interview as he set a course for Hawaii.

“I’ve seen at least a dozen different electronic charts and dozens of radar displays,” Robinson said. “Bridge markings, buoy markings, depth contour curves, what measurements the depths are in, whether they’re in fathoms, feet or meters — basically every aspect of the chart other than the outlay of the land could be different.”

Some pilots, frustrated by the varying systems, have begun carrying their own laptops loaded with familiar charting software onto the ships, he said. The laptops can be plugged into the ship’s navigation equipment.

This article is a must read for all mariners and can be found here: “Oil Spill Fuels Debate in Ship Industry”

Cosco Busan Reading List:

• Cosco Busan Arrested
• Cosco Busan getting giant steel Band-Aid
  
• Oil Spill Fuels Debate in Ship Industry
• SF ship pilots group reviewing practices
• Ex-San Francisco USCG commander retires
• Crews start work to remove damaged fender on Bay Bridge

Update:

• Oil spill ship pilot temporarily loses license, government threatens to confiscate vessel

Yesterday my comments were published on the front page of The San Francisco Chronicle in an article titled; “Hearing today at Presidio - tough queries for spill captain.”

Prior to being asked to comment the Chronicle’s lead maritime reporter contacted our friend Captain Kelly Sweeny who discussed industry wide problems with marine technology. The article states;

Sweeney said the AIS is “occasionally unreliable,” has blind spots such as when a ship is behind islands or structures, and is “antiquated” when compared with modern electronics.

Rewinding to my conversation with the reporters, the first question asked was; “Captain Sweeny believes the system used by San Francisco’s Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) is antiquated, do you agree?” After requesting further clarification I was asked why the pilot’s data on his Electronic Chart Display was trusted over VTS’s radar and AIS information.

My answer was “VTS’ AIS system is susceptible to the delay inherit in the VHF transmission of AIS data” BUT, to be honest my initial gut reaction was, “no AIS is not antiquated… it was fully implemented less then 3 years ago”, I quickly corrected myself. My second answer was quoted in the article and reads;

“The maritime industry is slow to act on electronic devices,” said Capt. John Konrad, who runs a Web site called gCaptain. “By the time they get approvals on electronics, they are obsolete.”

Why the quick change of opinion? It’s because I love AIS.

This technology, properly called Automatic Identification Systems, allows me to overlay important data on my radar displays. It also allows me to contact a ship with a zero cpa (collision course) with great ease. For example, prior to AIS I would have to say “Calling the vessel in position x.xx degrees N, x.xx degrees west on a course of 267 and speed of 6knots this is the xxx on channel 16″ where now I simply look up the ship’s name and say “This is the xxx calling yyy on channel 16″. Furthermore the AIS display gives me the vessels MMSI number which opens up new and creative ways to avoid collisions. Finally, my AIS digital read-out really saved the day (and my career?) when our radars, as the Cosco Busan’s Pilot John Cota said “conked out”.

That was not my only hesitation. San Francisco Pilots are some of the most respected individuals in our profession (a dream job for myself) and I only have positive things to say about my dealings with VTS. So could they be wrong in their choice of equipment? It seemed unlikely.

In defending VTS and the Coast Guard’s systems another respected expert, Rear Adm. Craig Bone - Coast Guard district commander, commented on questions raised by myself and others. In covering today’s hearing The Chronicle reports;

Bone said he could think of no excuse for the crash. He denied reports by maritime sources claiming the electronic systems the Coast Guard uses are out of date. The pilot equipment and onboard navigational equipment are some of the most advanced, he said.

“There is no basis in my mind for this to have ever occurred,” Bone said. “Something on that ship had to go terribly wrong. It was totally preventable.”

So the question becomes; “If AIS is a loved safety improvement endorsed by maritime experts worldwide why does Captain Kelly (and myself!) consider it antiquated?”

The reason is because we can do better! In the world of cutting edge technology solutions are available now that would have given Cota and VTS a much better chance of avoiding the incident. The problem, that I suspect is an industry wide tendency, is two fold. First we are so far behind the technology curve small improvements, like AIS, seem large and exciting. Second, most licensed captains are Luddites (my self included) who want to make sure a new system is reliable before implementing it aboard ships.

I come to this conclusion because, despite my writings on the need to improve shipboard technology (most notably HERE and HERE), I initially had the same reaction as Adm. Bone but quickly changed my mind. Why? Because Capt. Kelly is correct, our systems are antiquated and when new lifesaving improvements become available we must break away from the statement that has been rehearsed by ship captains for centuries; “Only history will tell if this is a good idea”. Exciting changes are happening worldwide and improvements in communications (the number one failure in all good incident chains) are leading the way. We must change with the times and embrace technology as the benefit is a reduction of incidents and a preservation of the environment and human life.

For more information on this topic visit our Archives.

Still agreeing with Admiral Bone? Take a look at technology used by Tampa Pilots or Maine Pilots, upcoming portable ECDIS units, the VTS tracking system in Valdez, well documented problems with AIS Ask yourself “Can I send an area specific sitor message via GMDSS” or “Why can my son video chat with a pen pal in China while I’m having trouble raising a vessel 1000 yards away… and closing?”

Captain John Konrad is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage currently working aboard an 835′ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Since graduating from SUNY Maritime College he has sailed 4 of the world’s oceans and reports from his ship via satellite.

National news sources are publishing a story about the VTS warning to the Cosco Busan’s pilot Jim Cota. In a story titled “Ship Got No Alert From Coast Guard” the New York Times writes:

The Coast Guard did not warn helmsmen of a cargo ship that spilled 58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay that the ship was poised to hit the Bay Bridge, investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board said. One board member, Debbie Hersman, said the Vessel Traffic Service of the Coast Guard asked the pilot of the ship, the Cosco Busan, about its course before the accident. “They all recognized and were concerned about the vessel’s position,” Ms. Hersman said. But the traffic workers told investigators they decided to limit communication so as not to distract the pilot from a difficult maneuver.

Now I promised you I wouldn’t correct minor mistakes made by the media so I’ll just offer a gCaptain tshirt to the person who catches the first error made by Carolyn Marshall in the linked article. I will, however, continue to report on major mistakes and I believe the misleading title is just that. Saying “Ship Got No Alert From Coast Guard” contradicts the article’s context which clearly states that VTS warned the pilot of an observed error in the vessel’s course. The San Francisco Chronicle goes in more depth writing;

“As we approached the bridge, I received a radio call from Vessel Traffic Service saying I was on a (southwesterly course that was wrong) and asking what my intentions were,” he said.

He said his instruments showed he was heading roughly northwest, a significant difference from what the Coast Guard was seeing on its instruments. Such a difference could indicate that something was wrong with the ship’s electronic navigating equipment.

Cota said the ship’s radar systems failed him, but the NTSB said Thursday that the ship had two completely independent radar systems, suggesting that it was unlikely that both would stop functioning at the same time. Continue Reading…

So what happened and was VTS’ concern for distracting the pilot valid? It is important to note VTS serves in an advisory role and, despite their physical location on shore, plays an important role in Bridge Resource Management ( BRM ). In a previous post we wrote:

(Bridge Resource Management) is a class all officers must take in both teamwork and processing the large amounts of data (lookout reports, radar, radio comms, gps charting, weather information….) that pours into the bridge.

With the error observed, ship notified and a response received VTS remained silent to give the pilot time to process the information and regain situational awareness. I’m just not sure why the media thinks the decision to “to limit communication so as not to distract the pilot from a difficult maneuver” is newsworthy.

The San Francisco Chronicle has published the Pilot’s Report on the Cosco Busan Incident. Here are the parts of interest to mariners;

Meadows said problems also cropped up in “bridge management,” the communication between the pilot, who had years of experience on the bay, and the ship’s officers, who had never navigated the bay in the Cosco Busan. All were supposed to work together and exchange information on how to successfully navigate the harbor.
“While some information was exchanged, perhaps it could be said it wasn’t a full transfer of information. It was enough for the pilot to work with the master and get the ship ready for sea,” Meadows said.

We have previously reported on bridge management also know as Bridge Team Management or BRM.

gCaptain’s BRM related articles;

• Cosco Busan - Bridge Resource Management
• Environmental Catastrophe Possible Averted - M/V Pasha Bulker
  
• Pasha Bulker Incident Report - Nearly Unbelievable
• What Went Wrong Aboard the MV Pasha Bulker? (Telstar Logistics)

The article continues;

The Cosco Busan’s radar “conked out” twice - first before departure and again as the ship was near the lighthouse on Yerba Buena Island.

Cota was forced to rely on an electronic chart display, showing the track of the vessel and its speed, plus charts of San Francisco Bay. Meadows said the pilot told him he was “not familiar” with the electronic system on the Cosco Busan. “They are all different,” Meadows said.

Cota asked Mao Cai Sun, the captain of the Cosco Busan, to point on the display to the center of the bridge span between the Delta and Echo towers on the western side of the Bay Bridge.

“The master pointed that out,” Meadows said. “In fact, several times during the trip. That’s what the pilot was heading for.”

…

“The pilot had to go along with what the master indicated on the electronic chart display was the center of the span,” Meadows said. “That turned out to be the tower instead.”

We have received email asking; Should the vessel have left without a working radar? and Did the second radar work? …unfortunately those are questions we can’t answer. You will have to wait until the NTSB investigation report is complete.

Read the full SF Chronicle article HERE.

Related Maritime Blog Posts;

Pilot Terror by Bob Couttie