Volendam Stuck in the Mud

[AmazedByCruising]

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Given that the original condition likely has the "human ballast" evenly spread over the length of the ship, your 140 metric tonnes gets way less effective, some folks adding a lot of benefit (if they are at the bow) and some no benefit at all (if they are at the stern already).  It may have resulted in a 10-15 cm change in draft at the bow, in the best case scenario.  However, moving 1000 mt of fuel from a forward tank (fixed point) to an aft tank (fixed point) (say 40 meters difference), that is 40,000 mt-mtr of trimming moment, and would result in a change of 61 cm at the bow.

 

Reading up a bit on the subject, I now realize how much calculation has gone into your numbers. Thank you again!

 

Still wondering, as the difference between 10cm and 61cm isn't that big, what would happen if the passengers were asked to go to the front and then to get as fast as possible from to the back instead of a simple "please visit MDR".  So the ship wouldn't only be tilted a bit but would be tilting until the water convinced it that it should return to 10-15cm, and the extra maybe even just enough to get lose. (I'm not asking for a ridiculous complicated calculation!) 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SilvertoGold said:

We were also asked to conserve water.  The Captain reported that about a third of pax did so.  Not sure what went into this accounting for how many complied, but he seemed happy with the number.

The engineers have a pretty good sense of how much water is used per person (a totally averaged figure, of course), just from watching the consumption over the years.  However much the consumption dropped would give a number for how many conserved, or everybody conserving a little.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Reading up a bit on the subject, I now realize how much calculation has gone into your numbers. Thank you again!

 

Still wondering, as the difference between 10cm and 61cm isn't that big, what would happen if the passengers were asked to go to the front and then to get as fast as possible from to the back instead of a simple "please visit MDR".  So the ship wouldn't only be tilted a bit but would be tilting until the water convinced it that it should return to 10-15cm, and the extra maybe even just enough to get lose. (I'm not asking for a ridiculous complicated calculation!) 

Sort of complicated.  Sending folks to the bow wouldn't do anything, since the bow is firmly planted in the mud, so moving weight forward wouldn't change the draft there any.  Yes, if everyone ran all the way aft, you could get some tipping moment, but not a lot.  I remember when a US Navy aircraft carrier went aground in San Francisco harbor a few years back (maybe more than a few, I'm getting older too), and the Captain had the entire crew on the flight deck running side to side to try to rock the ship.  Now, side to side gives less moment arm than fore to aft, but it still didn't do squat.  He had to wait for tides and tugs.

[Copper10-8]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Sort of complicated.  Sending folks to the bow wouldn't do anything, since the bow is firmly planted in the mud, so moving weight forward wouldn't change the draft there any.  Yes, if everyone ran all the way aft, you could get some tipping moment, but not a lot.  I remember when a US Navy aircraft carrier went aground in San Francisco harbor a few years back (maybe more than a few, I'm getting older too), and the Captain had the entire crew on the flight deck running side to side to try to rock the ship.  Now, side to side gives less moment arm than fore to aft, but it still didn't do squat.  He had to wait for tides and tugs.

 

Ever see that classic WWII movie "Das Boot" (The Boat) about the (fictitious) German sub U-96? Lots of running going on by her crew for ballast purposes 

[SeaDog-46]

Normal practise on subs in WWII - read "Iron Coffins" by German U-Boat Captain Herbert A. Werner.

He was XO on sub that laid mines in Chesapeake Bay.  Emigrated to US in 1957 & became a citizen.

[Sir PMP]

54 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sort of complicated.  Sending folks to the bow wouldn't do anything, since the bow is firmly planted in the mud, so moving weight forward wouldn't change the draft there any.  Yes, if everyone ran all the way aft, you could get some tipping moment, but not a lot.  I remember when a US Navy aircraft carrier went aground in San Francisco harbor a few years back (maybe more than a few, I'm getting older too), and the Captain had the entire crew on the flight deck running side to side to try to rock the ship.  Now, side to side gives less moment arm than fore to aft, but it still didn't do squat.  He had to wait for tides and tugs.

How about jumping up and down...

[rkacruiser]

2 hours ago, Copper10-8 said:

Ever see that classic WWII movie "Das Boot" (The Boat) about the (fictitious) German sub U-96?

 

That was the best WW II submarine movie that I have ever seen!

[mcrcruiser]

Great that the ship is underway once again 

[SilvertoGold]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The engineers have a pretty good sense of how much water is used per person (a totally averaged figure, of course), just from watching the consumption over the years.  However much the consumption dropped would give a number for how many conserved, or everybody conserving a little.

 

Thank you.  Would you consider 33% a good number?

[Wehwalt]

Google maps says we're 26 miles from the port in Manaus as the crow flies at 8:15 so I'm guessing it will be the predicted 11:15 before we are able to go ashore. We shall see.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Wehwalt

[Loreto]

We are on this cruise..stuff happens but we are having a great time.  So sorry to miss Boca D Valeria but glad we saw it a few years ago.

karen

[chengkp75]

12 hours ago, SilvertoGold said:

 

Thank you.  Would you consider 33% a good number?

Sure.  33% of pax saving maybe 33% of their water consumption.

[TiogaCruiser]

@ChengKP75 & (Copper, Seadog)& Co: 

Thanks for another fascinating thread.

[cruisequeen4ever]

Glad everyone is safe! 

[AmazedByCruising]

21 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sort of complicated.  Sending folks to the bow wouldn't do anything, since the bow is firmly planted in the mud, so moving weight forward wouldn't change the draft there any.  Yes, if everyone ran all the way aft, you could get some tipping moment, but not a lot.  I remember when a US Navy aircraft carrier went aground in San Francisco harbor a few years back (maybe more than a few, I'm getting older too), and the Captain had the entire crew on the flight deck running side to side to try to rock the ship.  Now, side to side gives less moment arm than fore to aft, but it still didn't do squat.  He had to wait for tides and tugs.

 

Maybe the Captain found an innovative way to get his crew to exercise  🙂  Must have been a fun event. 

 

If ships ground so often on the Amazon, and you need pilots and then even they don't know what would happen because the charts are wrong just weeks after being made, doesn't that cost millions? And if so, why aren't there for instance "scouting boats" a few miles ahead for an up to date situation?  One boat, one person sailing it, sending accurate levels of depth to the ship, the costs would seem nothing compared to a tanker being delayed substantially and maybe also needing tugs. For a cruise ship it could even be one of their own rescue boats with a sonar attached. 

 

 (I'm not mentioning even cheaper aquatic drones, for reasons  😁)

 

Or, to lower costs even more, the ships that do sail the Amazon anyway could send recent sonar data (provided they have sonar but they'd be paid for the precious data) to all the other ships. "Warning: point X was OK for us but it's 10ft deep now instead of the listed 30ft".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Maybe the Captain found an innovative way to get his crew to exercise  🙂  Must have been a fun event. 

 

If ships ground so often on the Amazon, and you need pilots and then even they don't know what would happen because the charts are wrong just weeks after being made, doesn't that cost millions? And if so, why aren't there for instance "scouting boats" a few miles ahead for an up to date situation?  One boat, one person sailing it, sending accurate levels of depth to the ship, the costs would seem nothing compared to a tanker being delayed substantially and maybe also needing tugs. For a cruise ship it could even be one of their own rescue boats with a sonar attached. 

 

 (I'm not mentioning even cheaper aquatic drones, for reasons  😁)

 

Or, to lower costs even more, the ships that do sail the Amazon anyway could send recent sonar data (provided they have sonar but they'd be paid for the precious data) to all the other ships. "Warning: point X was OK for us but it's 10ft deep now instead of the listed 30ft".

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're way over estimating the cost of a delay to a cargo ship, and it doesn't happen to every ship, every time, and there are quite a lot of traffic on the river.  Ship's don't record depth sounder information, so they couldn't "sell" it, and as I said, the channel shifts so much that charts are completely inaccurate.  As I said, we "sailed over an island" that had shifted out of the way, but was still marked on the charts.  And, long term groundings are not common, most are like this one, where with a little "gnawing", you can get free.

[Copper10-8]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Maybe the Captain found an innovative way to get his crew to exercise  🙂  Must have been a fun event. 

 

If ships ground so often on the Amazon, and you need pilots and then even they don't know what would happen because the charts are wrong just weeks after being made, doesn't that cost millions? And if so, why aren't there for instance "scouting boats" a few miles ahead for an up to date situation?  One boat, one person sailing it, sending accurate levels of depth to the ship, the costs would seem nothing compared to a tanker being delayed substantially and maybe also needing tugs. For a cruise ship it could even be one of their own rescue boats with a sonar attached. 

 

 (I'm not mentioning even cheaper aquatic drones, for reasons  😁)

 

Or, to lower costs even more, the ships that do sail the Amazon anyway could send recent sonar data (provided they have sonar but they'd be paid for the precious data) to all the other ships. "Warning: point X was OK for us but it's 10ft deep now instead of the listed 30ft".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TiogaCruiser]

22 minutes ago, Copper10-8 said:

 

 

Is that his depth finding device?

[Copper10-8]

22 minutes ago, TiogaCruiser said:

Is that his depth finding device?

 

If he sticks it far enough down into the mud, yes 

[lizinvan]

22 hours ago, Loreto said:

We are on this cruise..stuff happens but we are having a great time.  So sorry to miss Boca D Valeria but glad we saw it a few years ago.

karen

We are all making memories!  Karen!  Sorry I haven’t seen you since the Meet n Greet. Maybe a meal, tea or cocktails on a seaday?  We are 6150. Liz and Cam. Hope your husband is well.  Really disappointed over Boca da Valeria. Looks like we won’t make it up but there would apparently be a notice as to where to drop our school supplies so they will arrange to forward to the school 

[Wehwalt]

Here's the latest mail to my cabin. The first letter said "under pilot's advice", now it's "under the local pilot's control". I know nothing about maritime law and don't know if those are interchangeable or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_3403.HEIC

[colbe]

On 12/2/2019 at 2:12 AM, Loreto said:

We are on this cruise..stuff happens but we are having a great time.  So sorry to miss Boca D Valeria but glad we saw it a few years ago.

karen

We are also thoroughly enjoying this trip. We came for an adventure - and that is what we are having!  Glad to hear that you are also having a great time.

We simply move away when the complainers start up with their nonsense and claims for compensation. Life is too short to spend time listening to them.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Wehwalt said:

Here's the latest mail to my cabin. The first letter said "under pilot's advice", now it's "under the local pilot's control". I know nothing about maritime law and don't know if those are interchangeable or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_3403.HEIC 3.51 MB · 13 downloads

By law, the pilot is an adviser to the Captain on local conditions.  The Captain retains responsibility for whatever happens to the ship.  Typically, the pilot is given "the conn", meaning he has the authority to give maneuvering orders to the bridge crew (helm orders, speed changes, etc).  This is a routine thing, done every day onboard, when the Captain gives the conn to his bridge officers.  The Captain does retain the authority to remove the conn from an officer or pilot if he feels they are placing the ship in danger.  The pilot is not allowed to operate any equipment on the bridge, as he is not a company employee, even having to ask permission of the deck officer if he wants to change the range display on the radar, or the channel setting on a VHF radio.  So, yes, the two terms you quote are virtually the same.

[Wehwalt]

36 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

By law, the pilot is an adviser to the Captain on local conditions.  The Captain retains responsibility for whatever happens to the ship.  Typically, the pilot is given "the conn", meaning he has the authority to give maneuvering orders to the bridge crew (helm orders, speed changes, etc).  This is a routine thing, done every day onboard, when the Captain gives the conn to his bridge officers.  The Captain does retain the authority to remove the conn from an officer or pilot if he feels they are placing the ship in danger.  The pilot is not allowed to operate any equipment on the bridge, as he is not a company employee, even having to ask permission of the deck officer if he wants to change the range display on the radar, or the channel setting on a VHF radio.  So, yes, the two terms you quote are virtually the same.

Much obliged.

[AmazedByCruising]

I

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

You're way over estimating the cost of a delay to a cargo ship, and it doesn't happen to every ship, every time, and there are quite a lot of traffic on the river. 

 

OK, the impression I got from documentaries etc was that even a few hours lost for a really big ship means thousands and thousands of dollars. In January this year, MSC Zoe tried to save some time by taking a much more dangerous, but a bit shorter, route leaving 342 containers for Holland to deal with (including mess that simply cannot be cleaned like tiny plastic particles). While such huge ships won't be sailing on the Amazon, I guess HAL's financial department would like to avoid grounded ships as well for a nice sum. 

 

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Ship's don't record depth sounder information, so they couldn't "sell" it, and as I said, the channel shifts so much that charts are completely inaccurate.  As I said, we "sailed over an island" that had shifted out of the way, but was still marked on the charts.  

 

On 12/1/2019 at 11:27 PM, chengkp75 said:

And, long term groundings are not common, most are like this one, where with a little "gnawing", you can get free.

 

Maybe we are talking about a non-problem, but still. What's the use of having charts that show ample depth at point X where there isn't and have an island where there's no island? 

 

Isn't there some kind of Service Level Agreement with the pilots, including a decent penalty clause for when the ship gets substantially delayed or damaged? (Besides Panama Canal).  I mean, it's hard for HAL to insure against the costs of grounding (OBC, stressed Guest Relations, missed ports and excursions, Facebook and Twitter, inspections, fuel, and I must have missed most) as they hardly ever sail on the Amazon. It's much easier for the pilots to insure (and get paid for being insured) as they can show records for ship sizes, areas, seasons, whatever.