Ferry from Santo Domingo fire onboard

[jd426]

@ Tmnyc
finally someone who knows what he is talking about

There is NO way that Procedure was Followed and this accident Still happened, like it was some act of GOD..
This is not some Colossal Cruiseship.

If this were simply an accident , then this is the most UNSAFE PORT to Dock at I have ever heard of...
and that would make it even LESS Safe , than finding the actual Negligence and addressing it, so it never happens again.

 

[KateP]

No negligence? I call it "lack of due diligence". It is common practice to be completely moored before using ship's cranes, booms, ramps, etc. All lines are normally doubled up and secured- especially when moving heavy loads, or strong tidal currents/weather can be expected. In the video, lines appeared to be "singled-up" and not all secured. that's why the line(s) appeared to have parted. This was an avoidable incident.

Before lowering the door/ramp the command should have been: "Double up and secure" and upon securing the lines, the command "Secure the main engines"....the captain then can leave the bridge.

Another thing that caught my attention in the video that's facing towards the back of the ferry is a lot of smoke coming out from the chimney/smokestack (or whatever it's called on boats) whereas in other videos where it's sitting idle there's very little. I am not in any way knowledgeable on this subject but I would assume if the ferry was moored and the ramp was all the way down, the engines should have been on idle, no? So could it be that someone hit the gas by accident?

 

[Bryanell]

No negligence? I call it "lack of due diligence". It is common practice to be completely moored before using ship's cranes, booms, ramps, etc. All lines are normally doubled up and secured- especially when moving heavy loads, or strong tidal currents/weather can be expected. In the video, lines appeared to be "singled-up" and not all secured. that's why the line(s) appeared to have parted. This was an avoidable incident.

Before lowering the door/ramp the command should have been: "Double up and secure" and upon securing the lines, the command "Secure the main engines"....the captain then can leave the bridge.

The above is correct. All berthing, securing procedures of commercial vessels in DR ports are completed under supervision and direction of the port pilot, as was in this case too.

 

[bigbird]

...So could it be that someone hit the gas by accident?

Don't think so because there would have been streak marks from burning tire rubber. Just joking with you................... put the pedal to the metal ......

 

[Bryanell]

@JD426
All berthing and securing procedures of commercial vessels in DR ports, are under the supervision and direction of the port authorities and/or terminal management and the port pilot, as was this case. Whatever happened in this case occurred quite a while later as can clearly be seen in the various videos in the public domain which show the mooring lines parting. I would suggest that you take a closer look at the available material and/or wait for the reports of the Port State Control, the regulatory bodies, Flag State and Classification Society, and the competent maritime authorities.

 

[jd426]

I'm curious about something.. and I don't profess to be a Popeye the Sailor man or have my xx TON ton Capt lic or any such thing..
Although I do operate a small Fishing Vessel from time to time.

but WHY was this Ship still under power, after being secured and Tied off ? what possible reason would here be for the Engines or the Side Thrusters to be on ?

or are we seeing this incorrectly.

 

[jstarebel]

No negligence? I call it "lack of due diligence". It is common practice to be completely moored before using ship's cranes, booms, ramps, etc. All lines are normally doubled up and secured- especially when moving heavy loads, or strong tidal currents/weather can be expected. In the video, lines appeared to be "singled-up" and not all secured. that's why the line(s) appeared to have parted. This was an avoidable incident.

Before lowering the door/ramp the command should have been: "Double up and secure" and upon securing the lines, the command "Secure the main engines"....the captain then can leave the bridge.

Then I'd suggest that you get your hat on, grab up your gear and go show them how it's done since you have so much experience in these things. Speculating without having all of the facts is silly in these instances as many factors overall can contribute to a marine incident especially while moored up to a pier. Age of the lines, pier cleats, possible chaffing points or something on the cargo ramp that caused the bow line to snap, current stronger than normal and more. No way to just point your finger and say negligence without knowing all of the facts. This makes no sense. This isn't the same as parking a taxi ya know. I'm going to wait until Port Authority releases the final judgement on this myself. Speculation is futile. For instance, tell me please how you know the ship was under power and engaged when this happened?

 

[tmnyc]

KateP, the ship's stack (or funnel) exhaust may not be necessary from main propulsion engines. Boilers, Electric plant, generators sometimes share the same stack(s). Additionally, on many diesel-electric plants, the main propulsion engines also serve as additional generators that are put on the line as the electric loads increase.

Also, they may have lost shore power (doubt if ships that visit DR are on shore power) as the ship broke away from the quay and the standby generators went automatically online.

About hitting the gas...ships have EOTs (Engine Order Telegraph) "the bell" (command) has to be answered by both the bridge and engine room. The EOT order engineers in the engine room to power the vessel at a certain desired speed. On more modern ships the main control handle on the bridge acts as a direct throttle with no intervening engine room personnel, but even still unlikely. It takes a longer time to get "way on" (movement) and steerage on larger ships.

 

[jstarebel]

Thanks tmnyc. As you posted above, generators aboard are online all the time anyway so just because smoke is coming out of the stacks is no indication that the ships propulsion system was engaged.

 

[tmnyc]

No negligence? I call it "lack of due diligence". It is common practice to be completely moored before using ship's cranes, booms, ramps, etc. All lines are normally doubled up and secured- especially when moving heavy loads, or strong tidal currents/weather can be expected. In the video, lines appeared to be "singled-up" and not all secured. that's why the line(s) appeared to have parted. This was an avoidable incident.

Before lowering the door/ramp the command should have been: "Double up and secure" and upon securing the lines, the command "Secure the main engines"....the captain then can leave the bridge.[/IMG]

Then I'd suggest that you get your hat on, grab up your gear and go show them how it's done since you have so much experience in these things. Speculating without having all of the facts is silly in these instances as many factors overall can contribute to a marine incident especially while moored up to a pier. Age of the lines, pier cleats, possible chaffing points or something on the cargo ramp that caused the bow line to snap, current stronger than normal and more. No way to just point your finger and say negligence without knowing all of the facts. This makes no sense. This isn't the same as parking a taxi ya know. I'm going to wait until Port Authority releases the final judgement on this myself. Speculation is futile. For instance, tell me please how you know the ship was under power and engaged when this happened?

You have a zero idea what kind of acquaintance with, or exposure to the maritime community I have. I wrote my post pretty plainly and WITHOUT the amount of judgment/facts you said I passed. Where in my post do you see that I stated the ship was under propulsion (under power and engaged [sic])? Nautically speaking "Securing the main engines" is synonymous with turning off a car that is parked.

I said, lack of due diligence. I said lines appeared to be singled out. I said line(s) appeared to have parted. You do know the word "appear" implies opinion not fact?

Allow me to invite your attention to your points; "Age of the lines, pier cleats [sic], possible chaffing points or something on the cargo ramp that caused the bow line to snap [sic], current stronger than normal and more." reinforces, without a shadow of a doubt, the lines should have been doubled- if they weren't. One or two mooring lines parting should not be a single point of failure. I have never seen a vessel that was properly moored and monitored break away from its mooring except in cases of sabotage, hurricanes, typhoons.

Bottom line... I'm looking at the root cause-lines parting -why? probably inadequately moored. This was not an act of God or freak accident. So I suggest you grab your hat- and don't go away mad, just sail away.

 

[Bryanell]

Well you guys can go on speculating until the cows come home or until the official accident investigation report is finally made public, if indeed it ever will be. This kind of incident involving only property damage usually ends up being settled quietly between the parties involved. All I can tell you is that a lot of people will end up with egg on their faces, and hardly any will be able to say "told you so".

 

[jstarebel]

You have a zero idea what kind of acquaintance with, or exposure to the maritime community I have. I wrote my post pretty plainly and WITHOUT the amount of judgment/facts you said I passed. Where in my post do you see that I stated the ship was under propulsion (under power and engaged [sic])? Nautically speaking "Securing the main engines" is synonymous with turning off a car that is parked.

I said, lack of due diligence. I said lines appeared to be singled out. I said line(s) appeared to have parted. You do know the word "appear" implies opinion not fact?

Allow me to invite your attention to your points; "Age of the lines, pier cleats [sic], possible chaffing points or something on the cargo ramp that caused the bow line to snap [sic], current stronger than normal and more." reinforces, without a shadow of a doubt, the lines should have been doubled- if they weren't. One or two mooring lines parting should not be a single point of failure. I have never seen a vessel that was properly moored and monitored break away from its mooring except in cases of sabotage, hurricanes, typhoons.

Bottom line... I'm looking at the root cause-lines parting -why? probably inadequately moored. This was not an act of God or freak accident. So I suggest you grab your hat- and don't go away mad, just sail away.

Ya know, you're talking about a commercial vessel and not a war ship. It's already been determined that the mooring was completed well before the incident took place which pretty much takes the crew and port authority out of the equation which was why I posed my question in the first place to which Bryanell so graciously and professionally answered. This leaves dock personnel or equipment failure. Continue speculating all you would like but the truth is that you have no idea as to why this occurred. However, I do appreciate your knowledgeable post describing the multiple safeties in place and why it's highly doubtful that the ships Captain or crew played a role in the mishap. I wish you would have joined into the conversation earlier on.

 

[sanpedrogringo]

Any updates? Is the ferry running again?

 

[JD Jones]

Any updates? Is the ferry running again?

Yes, started a few days ago

 

[stretch]

Has anyone actually taken this ferry recently? We're thinking of taking it because flights are crazy expensive in January. My question is whether it takes you to San Juan or Mayagüez? The .ferriesdelcaribe.com website says Mayagüez, but other companies that sell ferry tickets (for an extra charge) say San Juan. Apparently if it takes you to Mayagüez you need to find transportation for the two-hour trip to San Juan. 

 

[bigbird]

Has anyone actually taken this ferry recently? ............

The .ferriesdelcaribe.com website says Mayagüez, but other companies that sell ferry tickets (for an extra charge) say San Juan. Apparently if it takes you to Mayagüez you need to find transportation for the two-hour trip to San Juan. 

Below screenshot from the ferriesdelcaribe.com link you posted.

For a hot second i thought this might be a nice two night getaway. Take the ferry to San Juan just to spend the day........but then i remember the hurricane and probably not much if anything going on in San Juan........ oh well..

 

[windeguy]

It is probably best to wait a few years if staying in PR is your reason to take that cruise.