Bourbon Dolphin capsizes

Dear Guillermo

Thank you for the update. I worry when I read "It was likely that some of the new requirements may be fairly extensive in their application". I hope we don't go from nothing to something that is very complicated or onerous that is even harder for those on board to comprehend and reduces the likelihood that it will be properly applied. The challenge is to find the right balance somewhere in between that provides a reasonable model of the risk and a reasonably conservative solution.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Regards
Mori

 

Hi Guillermo,

A prohibition on tandem anchor handling might sound good but it will mean lots of changes and I would say much heavier vessels for the deep water work. Will they all need A-frames or some other technique for getting the anchor on and off the deck while they have the chain stretched out, or will they have to overboard the anchor while alongside the rig, a technique mentioned previously by Nigel.
It will be interesting to see what develops from all this.

Murdo

 

Tanden anchor handling has been done for many years, I feel that a prohibition on it may result in more accidents as one vessel will be carrying the entire load and that vessel may not be up to the task, on paper maybe but at sea maybe not.
I have commented in the past that stability data onboard many of the AHTS that I have worked has been less than complete(and in some cases has errors), and on older boats can be so out of date as to be dangerous, new gear fitted and not taken into account, change in tank configuration.... I'll stop there.

 

At a guess (my opinion only, from experience) what will happen is that more required calculations etc will be produced to be done by the same sized crew in the same time with the rig screaming - faster, faster cap'n or we'll get someone who can; thus more will be missed therefore when the next accident comes instead of probably blaming the poor hard pressed master and crew we definately can blame them! The ship owner will not give them more crew because he can't, not enough money, accommodation on the boat nor in fact trained men to do the job!

So it'll be back to the same old game -we'll chance it and stretch it and chance it until somethingfinally gives, we kill somebody and it's back to the start again!

Is the North Sea any safer since Piper Alpha - at first yes but now, I doubt it (and yes that was a bad night believe me! thank God the weather was good otherwise it might have been worse)

 

I have not worked in the North Sea.
Though in SEA I have said "NO" and have had it respected and did not get offhired or sacked, I have found saying No and/or giving the reasons often results in more information coming forward, and with the extra info I have in some cases been able to change the No to a Yes, but not in all cases, sure the charterer gets a bit pissed but if everyone on all the vessels working that platform / rig are singing the same song, you will soon have the rig / platform listening and not making threats.

Often you do get put in a position when you cannot say No as the job is underway, it is that time when your knowledge and skills become very valuable and may mean life or death, I think in the case of the BD an error chain arose and no one realised it and it turned out the worst way possible (people died) and I agree Walrus, people are afraid to say No and this leads to people not being able to stop the job.

Cannot see a way this could work but perhaps management by a Statutory Body overseeing contract cancellation and officer employment might be the way things have to go to force safety onto the industry?

Being a pessimist I can only see the job of the Master and officers getting harder

 

That may work, probably the only thing that would, but I can't see it really, as we all know 'money talks' goverments will listen to those that fund them directly rather than those that fund them indirectly (taxes)

Unfortunately I can only agree with you there, as I guess most other ships officers (of all disciplines) will; glad I'm out of it for that reason! Mind you I'd still go back, but doubt if my ancient bones would handle anchor handling any more - even with Karm Forks and other wonders of science! (now Pelican hooks were .............er...............not fun..........that's for sure)

 

I really wonder what they will do if/when they prohibit tandem anchor handling. Tandem operations is generally used when working to relieve the weight enough to be able to either deck an anchor or overboard an anchor. How, exactly, do they expect to be able to connect an anchor line running over a pipeline? What will they do after everything goes wrong (as happens once in a while) and you end up with the entire rig chain hanging off the stern of one vessel. This has happened a few times in my career when rig winches have a runaway. Are you expected to try and just deal with it on a single vessel with the tremendous forces involved? The use of another vessel reduces the load and makes the work being done on deck much safer (much less of a chance for things breaking or slipping).

When a vessel is properly j-locked on the chain there is no just slipping off. I have j-locked dozens of times working in water up to 5000 feet. There has never been a time when I felt that the tandem operation was a cause for concern. After the chain is J-locked you suck the wire up high enough to ensure that you are locked on (we often bring it up to right below the stern roller). This makes the vessel with the J-lock act like a giant surface buoy. You can imagine how much safer it is for the vessel working the anchor and chain, etc. when they only have a short section of chain weight to deal with. An interesting side note is that the positioning of the vessel J-locking is usually very easy. Just knock the engines out of gear and use the thrusters to keep the vessel pointed along the system line. The vessel with the anchor does the position keeping up and down the line.

In all seriousness they really should take the entire group of people writing all of these rules and go watch some actual anchor work being done around the world. Come to the Gulf of Mexico and watch some deep water operations being done with smaller anchor vessel and you can see what works and what doesn't very quickly. I believe that one of the biggest problems is the reliance on the vessels and regulations to keep everyone safe and get the job done.

I wonder if this prohibition on tandem operations also includes stern-to-stern transfers?

I hope they don’t go too overboard on the new regulations. This usually does a lot to limit options to the point of making the job much more difficult and sometimes more dangerous.

When the regulations start; common sense usually starts to end.
--Chuck

 

Chuck,
Not all people involved in the writing of rules are bureaucrats without hands-on experience. As a matter of fact qualified professionals use to be consulted for such processes. As an example have a look at page 9 of the attached document about Risk Assessment for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units Move Operations. This Assessment is being carried by The Marine Safety Forum (MSF) Steering Group formed following the marine casualty involving the Bourbon Dolphin.

Cheers.

 

I hope that I am not sounding too terribly negative - I just find that the problem with any large committee trying to design anything - regulations, rules, vessels, or simple procedures usually ends up a compromise at best.

The following pretty much sums up most of my experiences with anything designed by committee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

I truly hope that the regulations they come up with are concise, workable, necessary, and do a lot to improve the safety of anchor operations.
--Chuck

 

Guillermo further your attached file the first thing that caught my attention was the statement that stage 1 is carried out in the office! From expereince you cannot carry anything out but a simple Generic Assessment from an office - a proper Risk Assessment must be carried out by Competent people on Site! The competent person invariably is the supervisor or the actual guy who is doing the job, he and only he can understand what is going on at that time and in that place - it is immpossible to look at a chart of the North Sea / Atlantic / anywhere else and be able to give anything other than a Generic Assessment without further knowledge! With that in mind I kinda lost interest in the rest of the document possibly seeing it for what I think it is - a 'snow' job! True a lot of those guys may have had some experience (in some cases a lot) in the job in hand but as they will be the first to tell you (was they allowed to speak) what you see in the business ain't always what you get - I kind off get the feeling Chucks fears may be well found, sad I know but unfortunately probably right! I wish the poor guys on the boats all the luck in the world there are times when they'll need it!

(incidentally one of the jobs indicated on the committee got me into my present line of work - same company too!)

 

I like the fact that the draft risk assesment (without any meat - just the framework) is already 28 pages long. Add this to the 50+ pages we have for a typical procedure and then we have reading for days!

The sad fact is that risk assessments are great if they are taken seriously, but they have become so burdensome, that most people I know just flip to the back page and whip a signature on it.

I like the effort being made to make anchor handling safer. I believe that there will always be jobs where boats are asked to do more than is safe. Then it comes down to experience and the backing from your company to be able to refuse any job that you are not comfortable with. I am thankful that I work for a company that has always backed me up in the decisions made in the field. I have never felt pressured into doing anything I felt as unsafe.

You can have the best written risk assessment ever created and still have a potential tragedy if a Captain is pressured into doing something outside their comfort level. I don't see how anything can be written on a sheet of paper to change this - this has to be an attitude that comes from the office and is embraced by the captain and crew.
--Chuck

 

Roger that, Chuck.

Cheers.

 

Amen to that Chuck - concur completely

 

Hi Guys

Been away for a bit, first a few weeks off Angola and then 3 days leave before starting a new building course over in Norway/Denmarck.
Just spent a day looking at the modified stability programme which now includes limits for anchor handling based on the Norwegian Maritime Authorities recommendations.
Basically these are that during anchor handling, the following limits apply:
The maximum heel of the vessel must not exceed any of the following values:
a) Heel corresponding to a GZ value of 50 percent of GZ max.
b) Heel value at which the deck edge is immersed.
c) Heel of 15 degrees

If maximum GZ is at an angle over 30, then the GZ value at 30 is used for Criteria (a)

The vessel is exposed to two heeling moments:
1. (Load on NMA AHTS Stern Roller) * (dist from CL to outer limit of stern roller)
and
2. (Horizontal Force on Towing Wire) * (vertical dist from propeller to working
deck) * sin(angle from CL)

Our updated stability programme works on the operator inputting a value on the stern roller equal to the vertical weight of the system, i.e. with the vessel stopped, and the suspended weight on the roller is for example 60 tonnes, then 60 tonnes is entered.
Based on this the program produces a graph, the graph will indicate a maximum limit curve. The axis of the graph are
Winch Tension
Angle of mooring system off the vessel centre line, so if for example the vessels heading is say 20 degrees from the bearing of the rig from the vessel, and the winch tension was 150tonnes, the graph can be entered to see the expected angle of heel.
The benefit of the program is that it can be used for planning the operation.
If the vessel knows the weight of the system it is expected to share, and the limits of heel allowed (and the skipper need not adhere to the limit line, if the weather is bad, he can elect a smaller limit), then from that information the maximum allowable angle off the centre line can be found.
As all this can be printed off and is date and timed stamped, it’s a useful bit of paper to dump in the lap of the Company Man, before the operation commences, and tell them that’s your working limitations.

The Norwegian recommendations are not yet mandatory, but it is expected that they will be adopted by IMO, and they will be used by most operators in the North Sea before they come into force.
To my mind, this is a good approach, as the input on the system is operator selected, and not set by some arbitrary figure such as max bollard pull or winch pull

By the way, my new boat is being built at the Aker yard in Brattvaag in Norway, as VS472 design, and has seriously been hit with the ugly stick, whatever happened to pretty boats??

All the best
Nigel

PS have attached a screen dump of the stability program showing the above mentioned graph. The load computer is hooked up to the tank sounding system for live updating.

 

An AHT built in / around 1976 had the winch stall load included in stability calcs for anchor handling and in the notes was a requirement to ensure stability calculations included the winch stall load when calculating conditions for anchor handling operations. Perhaps the Dutch and Germans had the right idea back then.

Good to see the new software able to calculate more than just basic situations