Friday, June 27, 2008

The Exploits of Roz Savage

I was not going to blog about Roz Savage again.

My opinions of her venture are well known to her, her main sponsor, the United States Coast Guard and the NOAA SAR-SAT Office.

However, after having her latest blog called to my attention, noting the PS by Rita Savage (her mother), I once again will weigh in.

While I (and most other marine professionals) understand the need to challenge the sea for whatever cause one wishes to undertake, the one thing that all professional mariners have.. is a great understanding of, and the utmost respect for, the power of Mother Nature, the Sea and their own limitations -- things that, apparently, Ms Savage either plainly disregards, doesn't respect, or simply doesn't understand.

Ignorance.. and ego.. are not bliss at sea.

All blue water mariners have seen both the beauty of the sea, as well as its awesome power when the sea turns ugly. All blue water mariners prepare both mentally and physically for their voyages and safety is always their utmost priority.

When people like Roz Savage decide to take on a challenge, team work, common sense and safety, all need to be prime directives. This is true especially when one is rowing a 22 foot row boat across an ocean or two. Unfortunately, none of these things are happening with Ms Savage's Pacific voyage.

There is no doubt that anyone who rows across the Atlantic or Pacific can be a inspiration to us all. However in Ms Savage's case, the book to be written should more appropriately reflect on how not to row across the Pacific. Should you take the time to read through her blog, you might also see that she's undermined her own voyage with her haste. Leaving unprepared is not inspiration -- not when her voyage could turn into desperation.

Roz Savage is well known to the United States Coast Guard. So well known that they now have a very special track on her, since they already rescued her last year. The distress call at that time was not made by her.. would probably never have been made by her, as she refused to even acknowledge the fact that she was in trouble. Instead, it was made by someone who read her blog and understood the problems she was having.

Now... in her latest blog , Day 32: Welcome To My World Part 4 - Food. There is a PS by Rita Savage her mom --

"PS from Rita. I have had quite a number of people keen to help Roz in her present situation without a working water maker. Enquiries are being made to yachtsmen to see if anyone would be willing to take her some water about two weeks from now. I do hope that we get a response. However, we need to stress that the situation is not so critical that it needs intervention. Roz does have a professional support team who are constantly in touch with her and each other. Please do not be tempted to take any unilateral action as you would create further problems for Roz and restrict the support team's options. Roz also asks that no large ships should be asked to respond to her inquiry about a re-supply of water. Please use the contact details on this website if you have any suggestions that might be helpful. Thank you for your interest in Roz's venture."

This is a sad commentary. As I noted once before there is no professional support team guiding Ms. Savage. It is more a very loose participation from some of her sponsors who have donated equipment and services to her. There is no chase boat ready to go at moments' notice to render assistance. There is no medical team in place to watch Ms. Savage as she rows. Savage's blog is full of entries that any medical professional could/would/should be concerned with.

The problems that Ms. Savage is now experiencing are not new and instead of being worked out, or replacements sent to her, these problems have gotten worse. No professional support team would ever have allowed these problems to escalate to the stage they have. That is especially true now, as there is a request for a yacht in a couple of weeks to render assistance for fresh water. Yet, Savage does not want a ship to stop.

A few weeks ago Savage reached out to another professional mariner for the same assistance when she was stranded 160nm off the coast of Point Conception, California and her water-maker was first having problems. One has to ask, where was this professional team of hers that is in constant communications with her, back then? Why allow the water filtration unit to come to a screeching halt now, when it could easily have been replaced back then, when she was close to the California coast?

The fact that she has no professional support is obvious. So, again, there is a request for assistance -- in a couple of weeks from now. Well, looks like Savage just might be looking at a potential developing Tropical Depression in the next week or so. If one of these systems develop and intercepts her course, Ms. Savage will have all the water she can handle.

East Pacific Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook

Click for AtlanticClick for Central Pacific Place your mouse cursor over areas of interest for more information

The fact is that Savage is not keeping safety as her prime directive and I believe that this loose nit team of hers is not being kept abreast of all the details. Savage has a history of not being honest. For example.... Not wanting the United States Coast Guard to have the 15 digit hexadecminal code to her EPIRB. Which to the best of my knowledge is not properly deployed in case of an emergency.

This EPIRB was also outdated as far as contact information. It was another professional mariner who was able to obtain the hexcode, after being told not to give it to the United States Coast Guard by one of Ms. Savages so-called professional support team members, that the contact data was updated. This so0called team member also agreed with Savage not to cut loose her tangled sea anchor in sea states of 8 and 9, because it would be the equivalent to polluting the sea and having a chase boat would also present "political Green problems" for Ms. Savage.

If this is the sign of a professional support team member and/or her team as a whole then stupidity reins free. The warning by Rita Savage, "Please do not be tempted to take any unilateral action as you would create further problems for Roz and restrict the support team's options". Is nothing more than bull-sheet-rock. "Would create further problems for Roz and restrict the support team's options"? Really? You mean like launch a rescue operations ending her daughters voyage? Like the last time? Restrict the support team options? What physcobabble is that? If statements like these do not raise red flags then someone is color blind.

No Rita this unilateral action was done before and your daughter was rescued, even though she refused to see the danger herself and it appears that Roz took offense to those who know better and have concerns for her safety. So if your daughter does not care for her own safety nor the safety of her potential rescuers and wants to row into the after life, its on your request.....

I am now totally convinced that this venture by Savage has very little to do with saving the ocean's or the enviroment and has more to do with her personal fame and fortune at the expense of the environment she claims to want to save........

Fair Winds Roz Savage.... the other type of winds will not be any fun....... by the way, don't whistle while you row.......


Launch of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite

The NASA-French space agency Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite launched aboard a Delta II rocket from Space Launch Complex 2 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., at 12:46 a.m. PDT. Photo credit: United Launch Alliance Full image and caption

PASADENA, Calif. -- A new NASA-French space agency oceanography satellite launched today from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on a globe-circling voyage to continue charting sea level, a vital indicator of global climate change. The mission will return a vast amount of new data that will improve weather, climate and ocean forecasts.

With a thunderous roar and fiery glow, the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite arced through the blackness of an early central coastal California morning at 12:46 a.m. PDT, climbing into space atop a Delta II rocket. Fifty-five minutes later, OSTM/Jason 2 separated from the rocket's second stage, and then unfurled its twin sets of solar arrays. Ground controllers successfully acquired the spacecraft's signals. Initial telemetry reports show it to be in excellent health.

"Sea-level measurements from space have come of age," said Michael Freilich, director of the Earth Science Division in NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. "Precision measurements from this mission will improve our knowledge of global and regional sea-level changes and enable more accurate weather, ocean and climate forecasts."

Measurements of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography, reveal the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell scientists how much of the sun's energy is stored by the ocean. Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key to understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at least three years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the two agencies on Jason 1 in 2001.

separation of spacecraft from launch vehicle

The OSTM/Jason-2 spacecraft separates from the Delta II rocket's second stage, as seen on NASA TV.

Larger view
The mission culminates more than three decades of research by NASA and CNES in this field. This expertise will be passed on to the world's weather and environmental forecasting agencies, which will be responsible for collecting the data. The involvement of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) as mission partners on OSTM/Jason 2 helps establish this proven research capability as a valuable tool for use in everyday applications.

OSTM/Jason 2's five primary instruments are improved versions of those flying on Jason 1. These technological advances will allow scientists to monitor conditions in ocean coastal regions -- home to about half of Earth's population. Compared with Jason 1 measurements, OSTM/Jason 2 will have substantially increased accuracy and provide data to within 25 kilometers (15 miles) of coastlines, nearly 50 percent closer to shore than in the past. Such improvements will be welcome news for all those making their living on the sea, from sailors and fishermen to workers in offshore industries. NOAA will use the improved data to better predict hurricane intensity, which is directly affected by the amount of heat stored in the upper ocean.

OSTM/Jason 2 entered orbit about 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles) below Jason 1. The new spacecraft will gradually use its thrusters to raise itself into the same 1,336-kilometer (830-mile) orbital altitude as Jason 1 and position itself to follow Jason 1's ground track, orbiting about 60 seconds behind Jason 1. The two spacecraft will fly in formation, making nearly simultaneous measurements for about six months to allow scientists to precisely calibrate OSTM/Jason 2's instruments.

Once cross-calibration is complete, Jason 1 will alter course, adjusting its orbit so that its ground tracks fall midway between those of OSTM/Jason 2. Together, the two spacecraft will double global data coverage. This tandem mission will improve our knowledge of tides in coastal and shallow seas and internal tides in the open ocean, while improving our understanding of ocean currents and eddies.

CNES is providing the OSTM/Jason 2 spacecraft. NASA and CNES jointly are providing the primary payload instruments. NASA's Launch Services Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida was responsible for launch management and countdown operations for the Delta II. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington.

To learn more about OSTM/Jason 2, visit: .

FEMA chief to resign after hurricane season
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 03, 2008

ORLANDO — This will be R. David Paulison's last hurricane season as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, he told reporters Wednesday.

But Paulison isn't leaving anytime soon, he said during the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando. He said he plans to stick around at least until the season ends Nov. 30, and if possible will remain until President Bush departs the White House on Jan. 20.

"The only two people who can make me leave are my wife and the president," said Paulison, a former Miami-Dade County fire chief who took FEMA's helm following the agency's disastrously slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. "Right now, I have no intention to leave."

Paulison and his team may be best remembered for beginning to rescue FEMA's reputation from the air of incompetence that surrounded it after Katrina, Florida emergency management chief Craig Fugate said.

"They took something that this country had absolutely no confidence in, the public had no confidence in, and they started bringing it back," Fugate said. "Dave leaves FEMA obviously better than he found it, when he chooses to leave."

Paulison had held various federal emergency-response posts for four years when he was tapped to replace then-FEMA Administrator Michael Brown, whose handling of Katrina had earned him the much-mocked presidential compliment "heck of a job."

Paulison has a lifetime's experience managing crises, and he recruited other state and local emergency responders to prominent posts in FEMA, Fugate said. In contrast, Brown was a former commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association and had little experience handling emergencies before coming to FEMA.

Manhattan, Illinois Tornado

Waterspout spotted on the North Carolina Outer Banks

There were two waterspout sightings this afternoon on the Outer Banks, according to the National Weather Service.

The reports – one near the Wright Memorial Bridge and another near milepost 5 in Kitty Hawk – were likely the same spout, according to meteorologist Hal Austin, who works out of the service’s Morehead City office.

“They could capsize a boat,” Austin said of the danger posed by waterspouts, which appear as tornadoes over the water.

Austin said weather conditions in northeastern North Carolina are expected to be nicer after this evening, becoming hot and dry for the remainder of the week.


New distress beacons mandatory
Minister's Office
25 Jun. 2008

Elite new distress beacons will be made mandatory to help search and rescue operations save lives on the seas, Ports and Waterways Minister Joe Tripodi said today.

Mr Tripodi said new laws come into effect on July 1 that require all vessels eight metres or longer to be fitted with a new 406MHz digital distress beacon, also known as an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB).

“With the new digital beacons, rescue services can be alerted within seconds of your location, your vessel details and emergency contacts,” Mr Tripodi said.

“The old analogue system takes up to 90 minutes just to transmit a signal and in some cases it was 5 hours before rescue services were alerted.

“The new system can determine the location of a vessel in distress within a 5km radius compared to a 20km radius under the analogue system.

“Accuracy is increased to within 120metres if the beacon is fitted with a GPS.

“406 beacons are the direction of the future. They will help keep boaters safe on our waterways.”

From February 1, 2009, the analogue 121.5MHz signal will no longer be picked up by the international satellite system.

To comply with the new requirement, 406 MHz beacons must also be registered with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and carry a registration sticker.

“Each 406 MHz beacon – registered to an individual person and their craft - carries a unique identification code, transmitted when the beacon is activated,” Mr Tripodi said.

“The unique code provides vital information about the registered boat and its owner – ensuring a faster and more effective search and rescue response appropriate to the vessel size. The analogue beacon provided only a position to rescuers.

One hundred and forty one distress beacons were activated between January and March this year.

One hundred and eight of those signals were inadvertent, malicious or the source could not be located, which wastes precious rescue resources.

In the 1998 Sydney Hobart Yacht Race, six sailors died, 55 people were rescued, five vessels sank and 66 boats retired from the race when multiple storms merged and hurricane force winds and waves descended on the fleet.

“Most the yachts were fitted with 121 beacons. If this new technology was available it could have helped with the rescue response,” Mr Tripodi said.

“The advances in technology are outstanding and boaters should take advantage of this,” Mr Tripodi said, “While the changes become law for larger vessels, recreational boaters should also consider making the switch.”

Operators of commercial vessels (Class A, B or C) working in offshore waters must also make the switch to 406 MHz distress beacons under these new rules.

“Boaters must switch to using 406 MHz distress beacons ahead of February next year for safety’s sake.”

Skippers of vessels 8m or larger are required by law to carry a distress beacon – as well as other safety equipment such as a combination of distress flares - when operating two nautical miles or more from the coast.

It is also recommended skippers of smaller vessels heading offshore also carry a distress beacon.

“As an additional safety measure, any skipper going offshore should use their marine radio to alert the volunteer marine radio network with details of the expected journey, and then log off on return,” Mr Tripodi said.

New beacon requirements are the result of an amendment to the Boating (Safety Equipment) Regulation – NSW, under the Maritime Services Act.

Mr Tripodi said NSW Maritime Boating Officers randomly check safety equipment, including distress beacons on vessels. Last year, more than 41,000 checks were conducted on NSW waters.

(Robin's Note: The Aussies are having their problems with the change over to the 406. Aussie law states that any boat sailing over 3 miles offshore, and all boats nornally travel futher than that just to get past the Great Barrier Reef, must have a EPIRB on board. While the Aussies seem to have this under control. There is also a requirement that anyone traveling in the Outback must also have a PLB. Now that change over to the 406 seems to be slow in coming and what I am told stalled due to Aussie politics....)

Phillippine Shipping is a Martiime Disaster

ONE BRIGHT clear afternoon in 1986, the ship M.V. Doña Josefina sailed from Isabel, Leyte carrying more than 200 passengers. Fifteen minutes later, the ship inexplicably started to list, and, to the horror of the passengers, sink.

The cause of the tragedy: the ship's cargo officer stored too much cargo in the ship's stern, or rear. The fatal imbalance led to the death of 150 people.

One December evening in 1987, a tanker filled with gasoline, oil and other combustible products floated perilously near a ship overloaded with 4,000 passengers. The lookout was missing from the tanker's deck. Minutes later, a collision occurred, and then explosions. The result was the Doña Paz tragedy.

Culled from reports of the Philippine Coast Guard, these major maritime disasters underscore how dangerously ill-trained many of the country's seamen are in steering through major waterways.

The lack of competent seamen, the dilapidated state of many vessels, and the absence of minimal safety navigational aids are the main causes of tragedies in Philippine seas.

These problems continue year after year because of a regulatory environment that keeps passenger and cargo rates artificially low and gives little concern to safety standards.

As government moves to free rates and routes, the shipping industry expects safety standards to improve. But still, many are stressing the need for a vigilant regulator that will ensure minimum standards are met. Many fear that greedy ship owners may take the opportunity to charge more without improving service or safety.

The shipping industry is the most frequently used inter-island transportation of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. Third class passage on a domestic liner costs less than a quarter of the cheapest airfare, making ships the only affordable means of transport for many.

More than 80 percent of maritime accidents are due to human error committed by ship officers, according to PCG Commodore Carlos Agustin.

Whether by misreading the ship's radar or failing to issue evacuation orders, ship's officers have caused accidents and the loss of lives.

Poorly trained seamen seep through the system because of a testing and registration system that is rife with corruption.

For years, the shipping industry expressed skepticism over the large percentage of students-80 to 90 percent-who passed marine engineer and seamen exams administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

Last year, their suspicions were indirectly confirmed. After the PRC computerized the testing process in July 1992, the number of examinees who passed plunged to barely 20 percent. "This is probably the best thing that happened to the shipping industry," according to Capt. Victor Basco, former Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) administrator and today, a shipping company official.

The low rate of passing reflects on the country's shipping schools. A Norwegian study noted many schools are substandard and lack crucial equipment. And if there are good schools, such as the Philippine Merchant Marine School, almost 100 percent of its graduates choose to work abroad.

The reason: Overseas ships pay their crew as much as 500 percent more than domestic vessels, according to Capt. Herby Escutin of the Maritime Safety Office.

Industry sources estimate that the highest captain's pay in the domestic liner industry is about P20,000 a month. For smaller liners, it can be as low as P6,000. The crew's salary is much lower. Given such pay scales, only few of the competent mariners are enticed to work locally.

But when companies pay their crews well, safety records invariably look up. Basco cites the record of a company that hauls oil products for Shell Philippines. It pays its captain an unheard of sum P35,000 monthly, and charges its clients accordingly. He says the company, so far, has had a sterling safety record.

Hiring competent crew and paying well is just one part of the story. Ship owners also need to enforce more bridge discipline among its crew officers to avoid accidents.

"They shouldn't be singing, entertaining women and playing the guitar while on bridge watch," says Agustin. "The shipping companies are very, very remiss in bridge discipline and organization."

The seaworthiness of vessels is another issue that affects safety at sea. The average age of vessels in this country is between 20 and 27 years old.

Local shipping companies are unable to buy new ships because of the costs involved. One of the most recent acquisitions of William Lines this year was a second hand, 20-year-old vessel from Japan. The cost: $13.8 million or about P300 million.

In itself, age does not necessarily mean that a ship is unsafe for as long as it complies with certain maintenance standards, says Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) administrator Paciencio Balbon, Jr. But few vessels in the country can afford to do so.

Filipino safety experts dream of requiring all vessels to be classed by reputable international and local classification societies to ensure seaworthiness, but government officials doubt whether this is feasible.

"We would if we could," says Balbon. "But if we did that, probably two-thirds of the ships would not sail."

Similarly, Agustin asks: "Can we really afford to impose strict safety rules? I don't think we can. If we do that, we will stop the operation of almost all ships. If we stop their operations, the industry will be filled with colorum (illegal) vessels."

Balbon says, "The real culprit here is economics." He explains that little investments have been made by ship owners in hiring the best crew and buying the best ships and maintaining them because passenger and cargo rates have remained so low.

"Even if you give them brand new ships, if they don't earn enough money to maintain them, these ships will deteriorate in five years," he says.

Unattractive returns also appears to be behind the perennial problem of overloading and poor service in the industry.

Overloading is a major safety issue mainly because ships are required to have a number of life rafts and life jackets that correspond exactly to the official passenger and crew capacity of the ship.

But a U.S. Agency for International Development study noted that shipping companies try to compensate for the low rates set by government by overloading with more passengers than allowed.

Third class passage from Manila to Cebu costs about P403 per person. This includes meals, which passengers say consists of scraps of tasteless viands and rice shoveled from large vats.

To make more money, some shipping companies have been known to hold back the sale of tickets during peak season, leading passengers to resort to scalpers, Marina officials say.

But passengers too have been known to be impervious to dangers of overloading. "It is very hard to regulate where there are many violators," says Agustin. In many cases, he says, the Coast Guard inspectors are insulted by angry passengers and threatened by police chiefs and town mayors when they try to prevent an overloaded ship from sailing.

Balbon says that government's moves to deregulate rates, seek cheap financing for shipping companies and help the industry obtain tax incentives from Congress can improve the safety outlook in the industry over the long term.

Many stress, however, the necessity of ensuring strict monitoring of safety standards in the face of deregulation.

Beyond the problem of economics, a culture of neglect and indifference to safety appears to be present in many areas of the industry. Shipping executives say some companies skimp on steel during vessel overhaul, replace parts only when they break down, and leave problems uncorrected if they can get away with it.

The USAID briefly considered the idea of recommending that third class passenger rates be raised during the peak season to allow companies to earn more. But the idea was shelved because the consultants thought the ship owners would merely use it as an excuse to increase fares without improving service or safety.

Punitive damages may not exceed compensatory damages

The US Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages that had been assessed against Exxon Shipping Company as a result of the 1989 EXXON VALDEZ oil spill from $2.5 billion to about $500 million. The opinion is lengthy (61 pages) and complex, with one concurring opinion and three opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. One Justice (Alito) did not participate because he holds Exxon stock. The Court was equally divided on whether maritime law provides for corporate liability for punitive damages based on the acts of managerial agents (in this case, Captain Hazelwood, the master). Thus, the opinion of the Ninth Circuit allowing for such liability is undisturbed. The Court determined that federal law, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as it existed in 1989 did not preempt punitive damage awards in marine pollution cases. This portion of the opinion may well have been decided differently if the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) had been applicable to EXXON VALDEZ spill.

Finally, the Court examined in detail the issue of whether the punitive damage award against Exxon (originally $5 billion) was excessive as a matter of maritime common law. Because there have been so few examples of such awards under maritime law, the Court also looked to land-based law for guidance. While it recognized that punitive damages are aimed at retribution and deterring harmful conduct, it found that the unpredictability of high punitive damage awards is in tension with their function because of the implication of unfairness that an eccentrically high punitive verdict carries.

The Court ruled that a penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity and should threaten defendants with a fair probability of suffering in like degree for like damage. The Court then examined various methodologies for determining an appropriate level of punitive damages. After discarding several methods as unworkable, the Court ruled that a 1:1 ratio between compensatory damages and the upper limit of punitive damages was appropriate. Since the lower courts had set the compensatory damages in this case at $507.5 million, the Supreme Court ruled that the same amount should be maximum punitive damages award in this case. The case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit for appropriate action consistent with the opinion. Note: In the amicus curiae brief filed by Chet Hooper of this firm on behalf of the International Chamber of Shipping, the Baltic and International Maritime Council, the Chamber of Shipping of America, Teekay Corporation, and the Bahamas Shipowners Association, he contended that general maritime law does not support the award of punitive damages for vicarious liability (an issue on which this Court was unable to reach consensus) and stated that the Court should (as they have done here) establish clear standards for the award of punitive damages in areas of general maritime law not governed by treaties or statutes.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred, but noted that, in his opinion, the Due Process Clause provides no substantive protection against “excessive” or “unreasonable” awards of punitive damages. Justice Stevens concurred with the initial parts of the Court’s opinion, but felt that any limits on punitive damage awards should be left for Congress to decide. Justice Ginsberg filed a separate opinion, concurring with Justice Stevens. Justice Breyer filed a separate opinion largely concurring with the ruling of the Court, but taking the position that an exception to the 1:1 ratio should be allowed in exception circumstances. He did state, though, that the 1:1 ratio was warranted in the Exxon case. The Court has put off until another day any ruling on whether maritime law allows for vicarious liability. Unfortunately, this leaves the federal court courts divided on this important issue. Overall, though, the broad uncertainty that previously existed with regard to punitive damage awards has been clarified. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, No. 07-219 (June 25, 2008).Marine Safety Investigation Report - FinalIndependent investigation into the cargo hold fire on board the Chinese registered bulk carrier Jin Hui on 25 January 2008.

Marine Safety Investigation Report - Final

Independent investigation into the cargo hold fire on board the Chinese registered bulk carrier Jin Hui on 25 January 2008

At 1230 on 9 February 2008, the Chinese registered bulk carrier Jin Hui berthed in Geelong, Australia. The ship's master had previously informed Australian authorities that there had been a fire in the ship's number three cargo hold. As a result, the emergency services were on standby when the ship arrived in Geelong.

When the number three cargo hold was opened, it was apparent that only two small areas of the cargo (palm kernel expeller) had been affected. These small areas of cargo were still smouldering so they were sprayed with water and then discharged onto the wharf.

At 1530, the local fire authority declared the fire extinguished. The ship's normal cargo discharge was then allowed to begin.

Download complete report [PDF 348 KB]

Messing About In Ships Podcast

Have a wonderful and safe weekend!