Bourbon Dolphin capsizes

May I point out that the BD was very much so over her head to be doing what she was doing There must of been buzzers and whistles going of after the first anchor chain drop by the HV (Hummm must of been turned off) Look at the final Picture she definitely has more than .26 and obviously she has a load on. All these calculations are great if you use them but in this incident the skipper based his trust in his knowledge and his vessel! based on the numbers that I have seen the there was not enough force by itself to Pull the Bourbon Dolphin over there is more to this puzzle The righting moment is at 15 to 20 degrees directly to beam now if the cable never went over the cap you are expecting me to believe that the 330t was going to pull her down by the stern 1/4 ? or she was that unstable that it was never recorded or talked about it before suddenly she capsizes?

acearch72 Humm it must be nice to have that wonderful youth enthusiasm I too was like you and did everything just like the book says and after constantly have all my work end up in the trash.This is just like when we were in High school auto class with the perfect painted floor and nice tools lights only to go out in the real world when I became my own master I had more important things to do unfortunately today in this competitive world you need to be a marketer and salesman a board director a boss and babysitter never mind the Skipper and helmsman and the mates that were considered to be the best could not figure out how to be on time for a shift never mind calculate anything I am not saying that all mates were like that but a surprising large amount were
Yes Safe Walurs is from a less computerized time and did even less by today's standards (Calculations wise ) he like many others went by feel not a number but ironically they did more tows and accomplished more than we ever will by computer how cause sometimes it is just go old fashion know how(and incidentally I would sail with Walrus in a minute) prime example when the they floated the cranes into San Fransisco the computer models said it could not be done because the load stability computer said it could not remain stable when the barge was flooded so the rail was within inches the old salty dog that floated her told the deck hands to rear fill ballast and she floated fine if we had to rely on the simulations and load computers they would still be waiting to get in
My point is that there is alot more to working these vessels than the calculations that may of been on or off, there was something on that deck, there was more to Highlands actions and there was definitely more from the rig because when you have that many competent people giving their best calculations and something still going wrong there is a missing link

I did just have a thought thou did the rig anchor chain ever get released from the BD or is she still attached ?

Laursen

 

Photos

Chuk,

If you use the "reply" button lower left of each post, or the "go advanced" button instead of "quick reply", you can then use the small paper clip icon above the text box (to the right of the font selector) or use the "manage attachments" button located below the text box, in the additional options section.

Lookinf forward to seeing your ship!

 

I don't see how people have come tothe conclusion that they were "way over their head" on this job. 3500' water depth jobs are common place in the GOM and it is not uncommon to work much deeper water. The vessel had the winch and the engine power.

 

You raise some good points, Laursen. I truly hope the investigating board goes everywhere to discover the truth. It seems clear that the disaster was the result of many factors, mutiple inputs that added up on this one day in the worst possible way. I am convinced, like you, that the investigation, if thorough, will reveal more factors. There is much unexplained.

By definition, computer models are not and can not be perfect, since they depend on inputs from people. To be perfect, the model would have to have all possible variables in all possible circumstances factored in, and all those possible inputs would have to be calculated in all possible combinations ... my point is that if there are even a few variables not known out of all the billions of combinations ... then the model has limits.

That doesn't mean computerized design and modeling is not of overwhelming importance, but it does mean that we can't assume it covers every possible circumstance. As important as ever is the experience and training of the crew who operate the ship. Probably even more important now. Onboard systems give much more information, but it all comes down to the skill and experience of the men who are using that information to operate the ship. The best designed ship in the hands of an unskilled master = problems.

To your last question, there was a report from Smit Salvage on April 16, that the connection to the rig was severed in preparation for towing. Later, of course, she sank.

 

Re: flooding the wrong ballast tank -- seems similar to the unfortunately common failure mode in twin-engine aircraft where the pilot(s), in the press of an in-flight emergency involving one failed engine, shut down the the good engine by mistake.

 

Yes, of course. But you were not severely heeled, which is how BD was.
I know the case of a FV which tangled the port side trawl door in the bottom and when trying to get free of it by short bursts of power, the vessel began to flood by the stern and severely tilt to port. In a desperate manoeuvre the captain applied full power and turned all wheel to port to try to bring the nose into the wind. That capsized instantly the vessel. 4 crew died by then.
Nice photos of your zone's vessels. Thanks.

I acted at court for the FV case upwards mentioned. I heartly wish and hope you'll never see yourself in such a situation. Neither you nor any of the captains and NAs in these forums!

 

Reduced safety margins when structuring may even be beneficial to safety, allowing to save materials in high CG positions, avoiding excessive weights which may impose big and undesirable inertias, etc, etc. Please understand this in its context, as I'm not defending to bring safety factors to undue figures!
Cheers.

 

I have been doing this for well over 30 years. I simply do the job that I am paid to do and trained to do. I take it as a compliment that you feel I still have youthful enthusiasm.

 

The answer that you recieved on the upper storage reels is absolutely correct. The cable that is on these reels is not considered deck cargo, but variable loads. Same for cable on the main deck winch. Deck cargo is carried on the cargo deck. The additional weight section is provided so that it is easier to account for weights like these that are variable and sometimes not existant.. Many times there is no cable on these reels. Many times you have different size cables for different jobs. For certain jobs you may need an ROV. Others you do not. The manual must be flexible to handle these different instances. If these weights were included in the initial lightship, your manual would continually be incorrect as the stability is based on lightship displacement and KG. If this was not allowed, you would have to reincline the vessel for each job and have the manual re-approved.

On deck cargo, the statement in the manual about deck cargo is generally included based on what the designer chose to use as the deck cargo model. The calculations are done with uniformly distributed weight and height. You analogy of the bouy is accurate, however the booklet will likely, for a vessel such as you master, say that the vessel can carry a maximum deck cargo of say, 1000ltns with a height no greater than 6ft. So the real stability limiter here is the 1000ltns of weight at a [uniformly considered] CG of 3ft. Obviously your 14ft diameter bouy has a CG of 7ft and is greater in height than the 6ft your manual says, however the resultant moment created by the 15ltn bouy is so much less that it is inconsequential and there is no way that your or any other captain could be charged with wrong doing in a situation such as this.

I would point out that there are MANY unique loadings that must be handled in the GOM. In general, for heavier loadouts such as templates and risers, the stability is not such an issue as is deck strength. Even though the vessel can carry say 1000ltns of deck cargo, and the cargo deck strength may be rated for 1000#/ft2 loading, the oil companies invariabily want to put this 70ltn template on a footprint about 2ft square. It is much more of an issue, in my opinion, than stability, since these loads are generally not even close to the maximum deck capacity of these vessels for stability. Designers and operators must take extreme caution in these situations because unlike stability, which must be checked prior to each voyage, there is no requirement to check deck strength of loadouts.

 

mm, the metal fab is not as nice as the Euro /Scandinavian boats) but that was always the case when I was on em too way back in early 70,s

 

Hi again Im probably out in left field with this but here goes anyway. would it not be easy enough to send an ROV to the botom and check the ship on the bottom. also if the ship still has a piece of the anchor chain atatched to its towing winch could it not be atached to a lifting crane or barge and brought to the surface . I realize that the winch on the dolphin would have to be locked up or atached to the ship so it would not slip back . and could the chain be strong enough to lif the ship off the bottom. I know this would be alot of money but it might solve everythig thats been questioned and make sure it does not happen again. Dont wory about hurting my feelings and telling me what is wrong with this .Im just curious to know if it coold be done or has ever been done .I know that its very deep but that would only mean more chain.

 

That observation by several people seems to have been based on the fact that she did get into trouble, i.e was unable to maintain position with the load, (post-game analysis, I know, but the observations seem to be accurate) and, perhaps more significantly, on the testimony by BD's alternate captain that she was assessed at the planning meetings as not suited for the primary tug role and was initially assigned the assist vessel role.

 

Hi brydee,

Your first comment is correct, and I'm sure there will be an inspection of the wreck by ROV as part of the official investigation.

I'm not a salvage expert, but I would guess that the main challenges facing any attempt to raise the vessel would be to select and position the appropriate barge or ship to do the lifting, and to support the hull during the lift. A basic principle of all rigging is to use multiple attachment or support points, for safety and control.

I believe lifting the hull is technically feasible. The question is cost vs the value of a recovery, not so much the salvage value, but the knowledge to be gained.

 

Well fellahs as a 'worthless' old mate I feel that there is (or was) definately something wrong with the whole setup! Probably a combination of errors which "normally" would not happen, unfortunately they did and a lot of people died because of it! Whilst not condeming or cordoning any of these activities (luckily not my job!) I just hope that the board does solve some of the problems so that it does not happen again - but I fear market forces may prevent this!! Again it shouldn't but it will!

So with this in mind I'll leave you guys to argue it out! (I'll be watching and may occasionally butt in)

 

Safewalrus,

I totally agree with you that it was a combination of things that caused this accident. I also doubt that we will ever know what that combination of this were.

As for the future, here is what I think will happen to make it better. Absolutely NOTHING. Think about it. What can be done?

The BD was a state of the art vessel. It had all the bells and whistles. Autostability, double pins/jaws, high DP performance, tension readouts in the bridge for tow winch, quick release for tow winch, automated ballast transfer system, and more. And guess what? Not one of those things that I mentioned above is REQUIRED by anyone's regulations. They were there because the boat owner decided to put them, even though not necessarily required.

Also with respect to the regulations. The BD met all regulations. Do we think that the authorities are going to scrap regs that have been by in large succesful for many years because of an accident that did not occur definitively due to the vessel not meeting one of the current regulations?

I would think that the most that will be seen is a requirement that tow winch quick releases be mandatory for towing vessels, it is not now at least under ABS rules for class, and maybe an over the side heel requirement possibly. Other than that, I would expect little to happen.

Not that it maybe shouldn't, but I would be surprized to see big changes come about. My take at least.