| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Container ship enroute to Jeddah sinks |
| 2013-06-24 |
| Speculation of why and how aside, the photographs are interesting, especially from a naval warfare standpoint. MOL Comfort (ex APL Russia) sank due to yet unclear reasons, sailing from Singapore to Jeddah and after that to North Europe, leaving behind hundreds of drifting containers and a huge aftershock hitting liner sector and all of the maritime industry. This is the 1st case in liner sector, when modern ocean-going liner container vessel (built in Japan!) sank in the ocean after breaking in 2 parts, like a poorly built and managed bulk carrier or over aged coaster. Nothing like this ever occurred, and no one believed it was possible, even theoretically. It just could not happen, but still, here it is. At present stage, even the weirdest theories of the real cause of this accident can not be ignored, something like explosion or several explosions, or whatever else one may fantasize. Putting aside some exotic versions, most likely causes that come into mind are some basic design and building faults; serious disbalance of the loaded containers weight due to false cargo weight declarations and faulty cargo plan; faulty ballasting of the container ship. Most probably, if that's the case, the sinking was caused not by just one of the above-mentioned factors, but by their combination, and triggered by rough weather. If it is going to be found, that there were a few factors involved, then, the questions arise which require sound and unequivocal answers. Are there some basic faults rooted deep inside ocean-going container vessels design, building and management, or was the disaster the result of a combination of negative factors. If it's a combination of negative factors, what is the presumption of such a combination, is it negligibly small, or the odds of another incident are alarmingly high. We do not also have to forget another risk quite a number of experts are already worried over -- the risk of major fire on a giant ocean-going container vessel. One thing is clear, though. The liner sector, 1st of all majors, are going to do whatever it takes to hide unfavorable factors and especially, basic faults, if there are any. The awesome container transportation mechanism they created may not stand serious modifications, called by safety needs. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #16 They don't weigh the containers? In some places they do get weighed. Ports and shipping lines, however, are driven to get the ships turned around in the quickest amount of time. The metaphorical box of lead should really be two boxes of lead. Shippers don't want to pay for two boxes. The port wants the containers loaded and the shipping line wants the ship back underway. Still, it happened in the Arabian sea, so who really knows at this point. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-06-24 23:41 |
| #15 they don't dolly those containers up the gangplank. A dock crane should have a load gauge that could be compared to the listed tare weight |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-06-24 20:35 |
| #14 Edmund Fitzgerald comes to mind: riding the waves at bow and stern, cracked in the middle |
| Posted by: USN,ret 2013-06-24 20:06 |
| #13 +1 for hogging. The photos of the ship taken just as the crew abandoned to the lifeboat show large, long-period swells that fit perfectly with the ship's length for a hogging situation. India New Times News says 4,000 of the 4,500 containers had weapons for Syria. Dono whether to believe that or not, but they |
| Posted by: Rivrdog 2013-06-24 20:03 |
| #12 They don't weigh the containers? A box of feathers costs the same to ship as a box of lead labelled "feathers"? What could possibly go wrong? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-06-24 18:06 |
| #11 reading that gcaptain link, it appears that overloading of containers is rampant and they are not weighed before they are loaded. That may change. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-06-24 14:44 |
| #10 What it looks like based on the hull cracks and assuming no foul play, is what is called 'hogging'. Basically the interval of waves was such that the midsection was at the peak of the waves, while the bow and stern were in the troughs. Excessive weight toward the ends would exacerbate the action. What's concerning is that, if there was excessive container weight, it was either still within the ship's design specs (and this was just a freak accident) or the crew was so used to carrying, or ignored, the excessive weight's effect on the ship. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-06-24 14:30 |
| #9 ship was built in 2008 by Mitsubishi pictures suggest fairly heavy seas created enormous strain on the ship structure but surely Mitsubishi must have built to survive this kind of event which is not that unusual |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-06-24 14:13 |
| #8 How do you say "frogmen" in Russian? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-06-24 14:06 |
| #7 Latest theory is that the weight of ship's cargo containers is much greater than the containers' weight as stated on the shipment paperwork. It's a long-standing and all too-common problem. Still, the way the hull broke is interesting. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-06-24 13:40 |
| #6 limpet? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2013-06-24 10:37 |
| #5 Pink Submarine? |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2013-06-24 09:01 |
| #4 Nice ship you got there...be a shame if something were to happen to it. |
| Posted by: Spot 2013-06-24 07:56 |
| #3 Wonder if we'll see a sub/drone with a cutting edge conning tower anytime soon? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2013-06-24 06:59 |
| #2 Long duration harmonic waves also mentioned at gCaptain. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-06-24 04:59 |
| #1 The vessel was repor carrying weapons destined for the Syrian Rebels. This could make a good whodunnit on HLN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-06-24 00:54 |