Why Weren't Two Anchors Enough?

[@TheMotlias]

Ship master: "We have an emergency, we need a pilot" VTS: hmmm, I don't have you booked in for an emergency request for a pilot, but I can pencil you in for an emergency tomorrow at 06:00, next time please book your emergencys further ahead of time.

[@temkin9298]

🤡

[@greenerell484]

haha

[@RobertStewart-i3m]

Yeah....my jaw just dropped. Worse, a friggin fly flew in. Darn amusing though.

[@leoniebradford4410]

Ya know, I was thinking much the same along these lines!

[@vaakdemandante8772]

having said all that, isn't it a tad bit irresponsible of the vast majority of the captains to NOT book the emergencies in advance? I mean, if and when those emergencies happen they are sure going to need that slot anyways, so they may as well book it in advance, am I wrong? And Im not even a captain myself, sheesh.

[@mbvoelker8448]

It's interesting how, whereas Aviation accidents and incidents often happen so quickly that people cannot respond adequately, Maritime accidents may unfold slowly, but the forces involved are so great that adequate response is incredibly difficult once things have started cascading in the wrong direction.

[@bertbaker7067]

Well said

[@seanworkman431]

Rules don't matter when life is at stake but the lack of vigilance by all concerned was cumulative. The captain and crew knew they could not manouvere the ship with anchors down but failed to give VTS a two finger salute and avoid a collision.

[@stevenneiman1554]

It also seems from a lot of these like part of the issue is often a misjudgement earlier which leaves people with bad information, and people either trusting the information when they shouldn't or second-guessing when they shouldn't.

[@Krahazik]

In aviation on a deceleration of an emergency is issued, the rules state that the pilot may break any rule they need to to get the plane and passengers on the ground as safely as possible under the circumstances.

[@MGSLurmey]

​@@KrahazikAs it should be. The culture is also such that all hands assist the stricken aircraft immediately. Any and every resource is dedicated to getting them to the ground safely precisely because aviation accidents happen so quickly and are absolutely disasterous.

[@JamesOKeefe-US]

Me watching intently as an IT manager who has only been on a cruise ship twice and couldn't tell a dinghy from a Destroyer ... "If you ever find yourself in this situation.." Got it!

[@nvelsen1975]

"couldn't tell a dinghy from a Destroyer" You sound more than qualified to lead Russia's 2nd pacific squadron then. 😉

[@claudiodiaz9752]

I'm graduated as a data analyst, and worked as a network admin before getting my current job as a contractor / service engineer. Now I have been to and traveled with literally hundreds of ships. You can get jobs on all kinds of fields in shipping, so you never know.

[@willythemailboy2]

@@nvelsen1975 Depends. How far can he throw a pair of binoculars?

[@maxstr]

Naval terminology fascinates me. Especially weird words like "boatswain" which seems to be pronounced differently on each ship

[@isawadelapradera6490]

Fear not, for in my numberless travels I figured the perfect trick to differentiate them: You have to wait to see if it destroys something. Easy.

[@slaterstimson]

Seems to me the parties most at fault are VTS for giving orders that we’re not only actively unhelpful, but also wrong, and the pilot who originally set the anchor points and left in a hurry without verifying that the ship was actually stable. So basically the local authorities. I wonder if they’ll actually admit any culpability or try to scapegoat the crew of the ship?

[@blindtraveler844]

agreed !! they dropped the ball then demanded everyone else catch it but then as everyone started reaching out they said no no you cant use your hands XD like seriously this is obviously their fault thru and thru

[@geennaam2712]

At the end the pilot is not responsible, the master has to verify and stays the one responsible in almost any situation. The pilot is there only to give advice.

[@donovanulrich348]

​@@geennaam2712😅 the pilot is there cuz locals require it No captain or owner wants to hire a outside party So the liability of the ship in port is between the pilots and owner. The captain has no liability in port 😂 🤔 unless they willingly sail the ship into another The city and port don't want liability, so they are trying to make the owner liable

[@raincoast9010]

You can bet they will try to lay blame with someone else.

[@JarrodFrates]

At least part of the matter was settled out of court and the case filed by Cornerstone Chemical was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it can't be refilled) in October 2022. See Eastern District of Louisiana, case 2:20-cv-01411.

[@sillysad3198]

the authority's guilt is the largest here. they gave AN ORDER which was opposite of helping. bureaucratic motivation dominated over situational in the authority!!!

[@AgiHammerthief]

especially if they legally didn’t have the authority to give such an order.

[@vinny142]

"the authority's guilt is the largest here. they gave AN ORDER which was opposite of helping." No. Obviously the whole thing started by the crew and pilot not dropping the anchor properly and not checking wether the ship was secure. The autority wasn't contacted until the ship was way out of control and it really does not matter what they said; the captain is god on the ship, he can do whatever he feels is needed to keep his ship safe. Ofcourse as the video says: the authority cannot give orders and as I said: the captain doesn't have to listen to orders than endanger his ship. Also: the authority gets calls every day from stupid captains who want to move without a pilot so obviously the first thing they will say is "wait for a pilot". They probably never even realised what was going on. If you really watch the video then you'll see that there are at least five points in the sequence of events where everybody involved simply *assumed* that the anchors where ok, even though the ship was doing things that it could not do if the anchors where ok. It is assnine to blame one party, because nobody did their job properly.

[@dxb338]

@@vinny142 "the authority gets calls every day from stupid captains who want to move without a pilot so obviously the first thing they will say is "wait for a pilot". They probably never even realised what was going on." If thats the case why did they tell them they can maneuver with engines (to avoid collision) but that they may not raise anchor until there is a pilot?

[@Stealth86651]

@@dxb338 Maybe it's possible this is a somewhat common problem there with the current, so the authority had a rough idea of what was happening, just not the severity? Just a guess though, no real idea.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

The problem is, if captain ignored VTS, if it did not work, all the quilt would be on him. It is probably a rational decision to follow VTS, perhaps from insurance point of view also

[@MrGoesBoom]

Why on earth did it take so long to get pilots to the ship(s)? You would think there'd always be one available just in case of emergencies...like what happened here

[@joshuacheung6518]

*insert gif of crabs cackling with a clawful of money*

[@macmedic892]

Why did it take so long? Maybe because the pilot association just for this area alone is responsible for ≈150 miles of river? It takes time to get a pilot and boat to the location.

[@jamesmurney1374]

Logistics is a main issue, just getting there takes time. Also have a pilot standing by, at whatever location takes manpower away from other activities.

[@freakazoid985]

Could have been another emergency for all we know!

[@sillysad3198]

i have a better question: why the port authority has no concept of EMERGENCY whatsoever.

[@northerncaptain855]

I’ve anchored 100’s of times in the Mississippi River on very large ships. In high water, high current conditions the anchorages are extremely challenging. The use of two anchors helps keep the ship from slewing out into the busy channel or onto the river bank. I don’t remember ever anchoring with a single anchor in the Mississippi River. When the fog rolls in and visibility drops to zero no one wants large ships slewing out into the path of river traffic. The engine on standby when anchored in high river or close quarters was my standard practice.

[@Pilotsf]

I would think that it would have been better to anchor with a single anchor taking the strain, and then drop the second anchor under foot at short stay. As the ship starts to "sail" back and forth on the anchor taking the strain, the anchor under foot steadies the ship and constrains the side to side movement.

[@martingrimmitt3992]

This is interesting, thanks for sharing this info. I don’t know why but I’d always assumed ships generally have the facility to lower a stern anchor and that this would help reduce the slewing out and therefore the “walking” effect seen in this video

[@Pilotsf]

Very few merchant vessels carry a stern anchor. I doubt that a stern anchor would have been of much use in this case as all the strain would have been on the bower anchors with the current. I've utilized a second anchor underfoot on occasion as it settles the ship down and she doesn't "sail" out on her anchor chain. When the ship "comes about" when she reaches the end of her swing and turns towards another tack in the opposite direction, tremendous strain is placed on the ground tackle which can cause the anchor to drag. I've utilized it during the passage of a typhoon in Tokyo Bay, and also with very strong current in San Francisco Bay. The problem comes when the wind or current shift direction which can cause the anchors chains to cross and become fouled which must be avoided.

[@bryanachee7133]

@@Pilotsf the bottom is soft mud and the anchors move around a good bit. you want a spread on the anchors if you drop one close to the ship it would be easier to get them crossed especially when/if it starts dragging. nobody is anchoring a loaded ship of any size in the river in 5kts current on one anchor either. Once the river hits 14ft stage in New Orleans things start going a bit crazy and dragging anchors is common. The common VTS radio call is to "use your engines to hold position but don't heave anchor." Usually a pilot is close by, coming from another ship or one can be rushed out.

[@MGSLurmey]

​@@bryanachee7133Why are they directed to not heave anchor if the anchor directly reduces the effectiveness of the engines? Surely the ships have enough propulsion to more than counteract the river current so why not solely use that to hold position when the anchor isn't doing it?

[@zaptor1514]

Nomadic lived up to her name, Nomadic. It sums it up perfectly.

[@MarianneExJohnson]

Fascinating! I had an anchoring mishap myself recently, when the yacht I was on was at anchor in a place with a strong tidal current and a stiff breeze. This combination caused the boat to turn from being right behind the anchor to having it abeam, and as the boat turned, the anchor line got caught on the keel. We were able to resolve the issue with no damage, but it was a tense moment and a good lesson.

[@spiercephotography]

What an interesting video! Bravo to the Nomanic Milde actually for minimizing damage to the Atlantic Venus once she knew she was out of control. Authorities in this case always try to blame the ship, but in this case I too believe it was due to VTS not responding as they should and that initial pilot. Of course Nomadic's crew do take some blame for not noticing the drift and/or responding earlier/ignoring it when something was wrong. Very similar almost to Ever Given's situation in the $uez Canal. it was the pilot that was fault (and you'll never convince me otherwise) since he was giving orders on the ship.

[@fastfiddler1625]

In aviation, we call it the Swiss cheese model. There's lots of holes in each layer, but it only takes one set to make it all the way through. An accident, incident, or mishap is almost always the result of many missed opportunities to stop the error chain. The aviation industry has put a lot of effort into creating sources to break that chain. Going to have to say, a lot of these maritime accidents seem to be the result in part of the strict hierarchy of leadership where it's one person at each point of failure. We call it Crew Resource Management. And it's a methodology of allowing the captain or person in command to maintain overall authority and responsibility, while knocking down the godlike pedestal of command to allow teamwork to happen. So the chief screwed up and didn't catch it or deem it necessary to take action... So I guess they have the only eyes capable of detecting a problem and taking corrective action?? It just feels like between this and Exxon for example, these are mistakes that shouldn't have been just one person's to make.

[@macmedic892]

As a local, I’m wondering when the Mississippi River turned blue, and where all these hills came from.

[@PsRohrbaugh]

Probably because they crashed into a chemical factory 😂

[@p00piter]

Why wouldn’t the Mississippi River be blue? Doesn’t it run right along the pyramids of Egypt? It’s like right next to the Pacific Ocean

[@nahx6205]

@@p00piter the Mississippi is right next to the pacific ocean?????

[@p00piter]

@@nahx6205 yeah, it runs through Africa

[@Darkhunter190able]

​@@p00piteryou're thinking of the Nile my friend. The Mississippi runs through the United States and empties into the Atlantic

[@Roytulin]

It seems to me that 3 points of local operational conditions are in conflict with each other and require policy revision. 1, that the master remains in command while a pilot is on board (I believe this to be the case); 2, that local regulations require a pilot to conduct manoeuvres except in an emergency; and 3, there is not always immediate availability of pilots. Points 1 and 2 confuse the command dynamics in the local area, requiring the master to be responsible for the pilot’s actions while being restricted from intervening. Points 2 and 3 prevents crews from taking any action to stop emerging issues until either a pilot arrives after a long wait or the issue becomes an emergency and the master be aware they now can intervene. It seems to me that these are inherently unsafe operational conditions.

[@csjrogerson2377]

Nice try. You have correctly identified the 3 primary criteria, but you have incorrectly determined their conflicts. The Master is ALWAYS in charge. (1&2) This does not confuse the dynamic with the Pilot as the Master is NOT prevented from intervening. Indeed the Master can instruct the Pilot as to what he can and cant do and even sack the pilot, but he must request another. I have done that once with a pilot in the Suez Canal. (2&3) In this case 2 is considered an emergency and the pilot requirement does not apply. The Master cannot be prevented from taking emergency action to safeguard his ship. It would be a debatable point as to whether VTS could have prevented the Master from weighing anchor. I would have ignored VTS if I could not stem the current with anchors down. Because you have mis-interpreted the conflicts your conclusion was incorrect.

[@x--.]

@@csjrogerson2377 Nope. Clearly the Master did not believe they had authority to disobey VTS and/ignore the Pilot requirement. Doesn't matter what the regs say, it matters how they're enforced & actually observed. If your interpretation were correct, there'd be no accident and no accident video. Maybe you're a corporate lawyer? They love rules where the corporate office is in de facto command right up until the point where something goes wrong and they can scapegoat the master.

[@oyuyuy]

@@x--. Are you seriously arguing that 'beliefs' matter more than laws... in LEGAL MATTERS!? 🤣

[@norml.hugh-mann]

​@@x--.Someone's lack of understanding of the law is no excuse for not following it.

[@Roytulin]

@@csjrogerson2377 I accept your explanation for 1&2. However, the conflict pointed out for 2&3 does not refer to the situation in the video when an emergency was underway, it refers to any potential emerging issues which are not emergencies while a vessel is in the area and a pilot is required but not yet available. Restrictions from tackling an emerging issue allows it to progress into an emergency, which is principally unsafe regardless of how well the emergency can or may be resolved.

[@ethribin4188]

Blame is for owners and lawyers. For crew, support staff and vessles, learning from the event is the priority.

[@robkinney1974]

It's important to keep plotting your drag and swing circles. Used to have to do it at anchor when I was the duty QM in the navy.

[@Wingedarc]

"If you ever find yourself in that situation" I am not sure I am ever going to be in that situation, living over 100 miles in land but it is good to know these things! Your videos are so adictive to watch, another interesting watch, Awesome work!

[@robinboyles73]

You should do more of these man. I feel like you could corner the ship accident stories very well with the actual data and physics.

[@JoshuaBenitezNewOrleans]

I’m from New Orleans! I remember this. Actually the bend by Mississippi River causes shit loads of accidents by anvil standards. She’s not an easy channel to navigate

[@kenbrown2808]

this is in contrast to the new Carissa wreck, where despite being told to maintain engine readiness, the captain shut down the engines once the anchors were placed.

[@tatianaes3354]

*SO MUCH criminal negligence and incompetence in every step.* Just like in every incident like this as the chap said.

[@metalhead6604]

I dont even care about ships, but your videos are really cool!

[@thekinginyellow1744]

The point of having pilots is to have an expert in local conditions to make the best decision for the navigation/positioning of the vessel. I put this 100% on the original pilot

[@TERRYBIGGENDEN]

What an excellent and thorough presentation. People can learn a lot from this.

[@MrDavidSLewis]

I know that anchorage. Would think the pilot was at some fault; would think the anchor watchstander carries a good heap, too. And the master should have known VTS doesn’t trump saving the ship from danger.

[@keiyakins]

if you ignore VTS your insurance will refuse to pay. Of course, if you don't, they will refuse to pay because you didn't do everything you could to prevent damage...

[@XMysticHerox]

@@keiyakins When your ship is about to crash insurance should really not be the first thing on your mind. Or at all actually.

[@Halinspark]

​@@keiyakinsInsurance payouts should be reliant on official investigation results and not 3rd party bureucracy.

[@anassorbestiak]

This wasso interesting! Please do more accidents coverage, i love hearing about all the things we learn from aviation accidents, and manouvering a ship sounds at least as complex!

[@tylerharry6319]

"These investigations are not done to assign blame, theyre simply done to share the lessons learned..." Yeah, tell that to the various insurance companies and the multiple people that were 100% fired that day lol

[@pizzaivlife]

the problem is firing people who did not mean to cause harm but made a mistake and/or followed an incorrect procedure is pointless as you got rid of someone who is both experienced, and you just paid for the mistake of, and now will not gain from them learning their lesson. All this is on top of it not actually fixing the problem- no one went out there that day intending to crash a ship

[@brandenjames2408]

Indeed, these systems are always built to share lesson but are always used instead to assign blame

[@fluffly3606]

Even so the policy should help to keep the investigation itself neutral even if how the information is used is not

[@Valentijnzz]

Thanks for another video! looking forward to another one. Have a nice weekend

[@bertbaker7067]

Love your channel, please keep it up

[@nigelsilva7719]

Wow, VTS seems like the biggest culprit here. Granted the situation should have been discovered sooner, but they basically ordered the crew to stop when they had no authority to do so.

[@norml.hugh-mann]

Nope

[@jannegrey]

@@norml.hugh-mann Yup?

[@destrygriffith3972]

Also, why would you just sit there when you can perfectly well see that another vessel is about to come in contact with you? You can let out anchor, you can thrust, you can do all kinds of things I'm sure to help prevent the interaction. Yes, you can't heave on your own anchors and completely remove yourself once the situation is that bad. But you can almost certainly do SOMETHING.

[@ssu7653]

Not doing anything means they are not liable for any damages. Would you like to be liable for the damages this coused? What if letting out anchor chain made the 2nd vessel hit the terminal instead? They just went from 500k in damages paid by someone elses, to paying the 11million damages (or their insurance, that would increase the insurance cost for the whole fleet)

[@feynthefallen]

Well, someone should probably have reminded them that it's called anchor watch because you are supposed to watch the anchors. Otherwise it would be called an anchor justassumeeverythingisfine. Apparently it's not enough to keep your engines on standby, you have to have your brain in gear too. About trying to conform to regulations and orders, there's one word you should never forget when receiving an order: "Unable". Say it, and one of two things will happen: Either the person on the other end will stupidly insist you do what you cannot, then he can and should be ignored. Or they will put their head in gear and help you figure out a solution.

[@holy3979]

The avaiation industry actually had a term for for a series of small failures and breaches of protocal. They call it the swish cheese model.

[@dadamaroo6326]

I love your presentation of the challenges and considerations involved in the world of big ships. Do you offer commentary on the operations of individual ports? Or perhaps, offer series' on the challenges of individual crossings/ports/waterways?

[@stephanieparker1250]

You can almost hear the colorful language being thrown around on both ships.

[@elcastorgrande]

Is it not the overriding rule that the master of the vessel is empowered to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent injury to persons or property, whatever a pilot or harbormaster may suggest or demand?

[@northerncaptain855]

Yes, with the exception of the Panama Canal where the Pilot has statutory control of the vessel’s navigation.

[@sillysad3198]

try it and get sued

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Genuinely sounds like a joke in a sketch comedy show, that they called for distress and were asked to make a formal booking

[@Dr.Graaff]

The same situation was in Korea years ago. Ship A was dragging anchor and hit ship B. After investigating ship B was guilty. Because on ship A they did everything they could to avoid collision, but on B they did nothing and were just waiting.

[@HunterHogan]

One recurring factor: decision-makers separated themselves from some of the necessary information but didn't delegate the decision-making. Example: VTS made the decision(s) to not raise anchor, to require a pilot, and to require the ship to schedule their own pilot. While the decision-maker, VTS, had a lot of information about the waterway, port, local people and more, their information was incomplete because they weren't on the ship. Despite being separated from this necessary information, (it appears) they didn't 1) collect more information, 2) share the relevant information they possessed, or 3) delegate (some or all) decision-making to the ship, who had the necessary information. Similarly, this may have been a factor when the large tractor tug approached. _If_ the events unfolded with the _mood_ described in this video, then the pilot was the decision-maker. He/she had planned the roles and actions of each of the players. But because this was a nonstandard operation with elevated risk, information _and_ decision-making should have been widely shared. *HOW TO USE THIS* in emergency situations: If you (believe you) are a decision-maker, then you must ensure you are collecting necessary information or delegate (some or all) decision-making to someone who has the necessary information. Collecting necessary information has at least two parts: collect the necessary information and ask other people what they think the "necessary information" is. If you (believe you) are not the decision-maker, but you have necessary information the decision-makers don't have, you should make the information COMMONly known. (To _communicate_ means to make information _common_ with other people.) Instead of trying to communicate with only the decision-makers, choose a slightly different goal: make the necessary information commonly known. Because 1) decision-makers sometimes don't want to collect more information, 2) as the situation changes, who is making decisions might change, and 3) you might be unaware of some of the decision-makers. You shouldn't spam useless information, however, so try to limit the communication to necessary information. And, so that you can know what information is necessary, you should try to understand the situation. Finally, it _might_ be wise for you to make a decision even though you (believe you) are not a decision-maker. The following things should influence whether you assume the power to make a decision: 1) a large disparity of necessary information that you are near but from which the decision-maker is separated; 2) elevated risk; and [a couple of other things, but I'm suddenly tired and must end, sorry.]

[@mfaizsyahmi]

That's okay, take a break. Do come back to finish your comment though. It's very useful information.

[@christalbot210]

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to determine if a piece of information IS useful. THAT detail might also be with the decision-makers. 😕

[@pendlera2959]

This is a fantastic comment! It gave me some insight into a problem I had this week, in fact. Thank you for taking the time to write it out.

[@HunterHogan]

@@christalbot210 Yes, it "can be difficult to determine" which information is necessary. In my original comment, I explicitly wrote about how to determine which information is necessary, twice. Plus, I'm describing an abstract idea to use as an _ad hoc_ procedure in an emergency: you should assume everything will be difficult.

[@XMysticHerox]

The decision making is delegated though. VTS does not hold authority over the ship in an emergency. The captain was entirely empowered to save the vessel. It's just like in aviation really.

[@oskarliljaorsundsbroskolan8900]

Amazing production value as usual, well done!

[@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug]

Everything up to the "do not raise anchor" order was understandable, though somewhat sloppy; but it should be pretty obvious to everyone that you do not need to wait for a pilot in an emergency to raise anchors, engage the engine and stop the drift. That's such an incredibly stupid "order" and equally stupid to obey it.

[@yhubtfufvcfyfc]

Some automated anchor dragging alarms seem like an obvious systematic improvement to me. Why wasn't such a system in use?

[@joshuacheung6518]

Money probably

[@Merennulli]

I have an ignorant landlubber question - how do you detect the anchor is dragging?

[@WilhelmSchicklegrube]

@@MerennulliBest way would probably be a GPS monitor if you change position (which is what the Nomadic did but probably too large of an area). When I anchor a smaller boat I take a couple land waypoints and if their orientation to the other changes the boat has moved

[@Merennulli]

@@WilhelmSchicklegrubeThanks. I was thinking of the problem too narrowly and didn't think of GPS.

[@anderspedersen7488]

In a modern merchant vessel, you: 1. Keep one or both radars running, while you on each screen activate 2 of what’s called an EBL (Electronic Bearing Line) on the screen. The EBL is a straight line running from your vessel to a conspicous, fixed point on the radars screen. If the EBLs move away from their conspicous points (the 2 points being different points from the other), the vessel is dragging anchor. 2. You have your ECDIS (electronic chart) show intervals of vessel’s past position(s). If the vessels drags anchor, over time you will se a pattern of past positions showing the vessel moving away from the position of the anchor (you marked the position of the anchor in the chart when you dropped anchor). 3. You activate the anchor watch mode in the ECDIS and the electronic chart will give alarm if the vessel moves far enough to exceed set limits. The limit is always a circle around the vessel, as the vessel can be expected to swing freely around the anchor as a result of changing directions of wind and tide. Size of circle is according to the size of the vessel and the chosen lenght of the anchor chain.

[@ethandye8764]

ok, the part where the propeller just decides to go forward instead is pretty funny

[@bombaya85]

Would love to see your take on the KNM Helge Ingstad frigate incident that occurred in 2018

[@christopherserio5772]

I work on the mississippi river and actually ran the pilots to these ships in this incident, if anyone is curious i could answer questions. The river is run a certain way and can be very different from other places especially high river.

[@thibaultmol]

It seems the recommendation algorithm has blessed your video!

[@1984Phalanx]

I'm honestly surprised it wasn't worse.

[@carlsoll]

Wooow this was really cool! Thanks Casual Navigation 😄

[@MCGreen13]

Who paid the damages? That’d be interesting to know

[@mohitreddy]

I really hope you can make this a series, similar to aircraft investigations. This production quality is not easily sustainable but I really believe there is an untapped market for videos like this.

[@bieituns]

Hes from the maritime industry, he has no background in aviation.

[@warmstrong5612]

During an emergency the ones 'on site' have the better grasp of the situation and should therefore be allowed a greater degree of autonomy. VTS should've informed them they were sending a Pilot and that's it.

[@RealCadde]

Even if this is a case study where lessons are to be learned. I am pretty sure there is still blame to be dished out. First blame is on the chief officer for disregarding the findings made due to lack of familiarity with it. "I don't know what i am seeing so everything is probably fine" That's a very dangerous mindset to have. If something seems off, chances are everything is very very wrong and it's not just going to sort itself out. Figure out why it seems wrong and fix it before it's too late. Because one small wrong can escalate into an uncontrollable situation really really fast if another small thing goes wrong later. And second blame and the cause of the whole "accident" was VTS basically telling the ship that it wasn't allowed to rescue itself and just sit there waiting for a pilot that would never come. Imagine you fall on the train tracks at a train station and security tells you to stay there because you are not allowed on the tracks and they need an authorized person that can't get there to get you off. Meanwhile the announcement speakers tells you of a train that is about to pass the station on those tracks... Any sane person would climb off the tracks onto the platform or otherwise get out of harms way but security basically tells you that you are under arrest and shall not move because RULES. Entirely avoidable even when you consider the reason for the chain of events that transpired. It was all because of lack of action by the chief officer and the authoritarian nature of VTS in an emergency. In aviation, aircraft that declare an emergency are given priority over all others and don't need to follow instructions by the tower or ATC. They can use information and directions by either entity but they are actually free to just say "i am landing on runway 31 NOW and that's that" without having to worry about what rules they would otherwise have broken under normal circumstances. The same really should apply of maritime operations. I am declaring an emergency and it's YOUR job to assist me in resolving this in a safe manner. Not tell me to wait until the emergency is a literal shipwreck. A pilot should have been dispatched IMMEDIATELY and focus should have been put on avoiding ship to ship contact at any cost to "the rules" being broken.

[@j_taylor]

Oh, it's certainly possible to assign blame. In fact, that's what the average person rushes directly towards, out of fear that someone else will blame them first, or simply to make sure "justice is served." The problem is this puts the different actors in conflict and is a strong disincentive to learn objectively. When people conceal important data, lie to protect their interests, deny or obscure events, and avoid accepting how their actions contributed to the outcome, that directly works against learning necessary lessons and makes everything less safe.

[@Speedster04_BRA]

So Casual Navigation uploads a video on my birthday that talks about incompetent authorities…

[@nickcook2775]

To quote Adam Driver, “MORE!”

[@sayethwe8683]

when human error is large, there's almost always a way to adjust the underlying systems to prevent similar future mistakes.

[@stevesellers-wilkinson7376]

With all the geeky science stuff I watch on KZbin, how come I've only just discovered this channel? It's amazing! I've already wasted an hour and a half of Sunday morning! (Although, 'wasted' is probably the wrong word!)

[@General12th]

Hi Casnav! I know for sure I would never make any sort of mistake in any circumstance ever.

[@leeslampie]

Could you please make a video on harbour pilots, what they do and why they're still so important even for experienced captains and despite of all available modern technology.

[@AflacMan13]

In the Military, we call it "Complacency and Incompetence". In Aviation it's called "Get-There-Itis". In Shipping, what's it called?

[@benjaminostrom9124]

free sailors basicly ''sailors'' who has brought their first maxi 58 boat and sailing about with no regards to the rules

[@Bari_Khan_CEng_CMarEng]

The issue is liability and blame. And the manner in which vessels are commercially operated/chartered. Master's struggle to put their jobs on the line to take positive decisions, which in hindsight is the right thing to do once the incident occurred, but if it was done proactively to avert an incident then the Master will get it in the neck from the back office/shore management who all weren't there to see it, nor understand it, nor appreciate it, and majority of people have got been in that situation nor with that level of responsibility. I feel these incidents are 'normal' for the marine industry. The industry is run so lean that simple losses of time can attract nutters to literally lose it, and aggressive commercial operators to claim damages. It's a brutal game.

[@3irmaos.]

Talk about the abandoned ship in Rio de Janeiro that hit the bridge Rio Niterói

[@stephenbritton9297]

VTS was in the wrong, foreign crew, not familiar with US rules, and maybe even english, did not challenge them. In hindsight, the vessel was at least in extremis, if not emergency, upon the master's arrival back on the bridge. A PAN-PAN, or MAYDAY call at that point would have been appropriate, and would have at least gotten everyone's attention, but also more than likely gotten assistance to them sooner. But, sometimes, when its you, you either don't think of that or are afraid to say it. In both aviation and maritime environment, early emergency notification is often a missed opportunity.

[@andre-jm8jn]

Fantastic video!

[@rajmahal8870]

i work as a deck crew in cargo ships (bulk carrier) that regularly load cargo and anchor at the misissipi river. in my view, the party to blame here is: 1. Master and his officers for not doing a proper anchor watch and not heaving anchor to save the ship 2. Pilot who drop anchor did not made sure that the both anchors were holding 3 VTS for giving stupid orders

[@quillmaurer6563]

6:51 Damage includes the loss of anchors on both ships - couldn't the anchors easily be recovered from the riverbed? Clearly seems like a situation of legal process over common sense. This is discussed in aviation a fair bit, pilots are reminded frequently during training that they, not air traffic control, fly the plane, the pilot is ultimately responsible for safety, air traffic control makes mistakes, and in an emergency the pilot should do whatever necessary to save themselves and their plane. Similarly pilots are taught to question higher-ranking pilots when they think mistakes are being made. Thus an aviation pilot in this situation would have said "Screw you, anchors up, we're out of here!" But this attitude is written in blood as they say, this hasn't always been the policy and numerous accidents have taught the aviation industry, and codified into regulation, "Save your ass even if you have to disregard authority." Don't know how it is in the maritime realm, I imagine things are a bit more complicated with larger crews and longer chains of command. But even so, even if the crew legally had the authority to ignore these "orders," I still don't think they should be blamed for doing what they were told, the VTS should be held accountable for failing to provide aid while ordering (whether or not the had the authority) the crew to not take matters into their own hands.

[@ThomasHendrix-ir1om]

is a person who grew up on the Mississippi River the river has a tendency to have multiple coins going every direction imaginable it is also made up of loose and moving sand on the base and bottom of the Mississippi . as for letting out all other ships and could change 90% of the weight would be to dig into the ground but with the constant dredging done on the Mississippi the sand has a tendency to move multiple times so which means the ships anchors could not dig in deep enough to get a foothold into the ground also if it had a stun anchor it might have been able to being a better position .

[@nurmaybooba]

Fascinating. I always learn new things since I am just an observer of ships in my bay.

[@Vinemaple]

Quite a fascinating little casualty... not the kind of thing you hear about every day!

[@MattH-wg7ou]

Is there not some maritime equivalent of "Declaring an Emergency" in aviation where help will drop what they're doing and come assist to prevent a collision or spill?

[@deviduttpandey9120]

We faced similar situations in our river although the vessel is only 120 meter long but i assure you anchor dragging is a very frightening situation. And only the captain of both vessels can avert this situation by giving up the anchor and start maneuvering by their own engine because if you wait for pilot or tug it is already delayed because you are not on ground it will take minimum 45 min to reach any external help

[@vj.joseph]

Extra anchors at middle part and at the rear can be installed for ships too. It can save millions in damage costs, if something like this happens.

[@SeaScoutDan]

2:00 Pilot said to keep engines on standby due to expecte weather and current. Directions that should have been given . . . If it looks like you start dragging anchor, put the engine in forward to take some load off the anchor Crew was like put engines is standby, got it.

[@SeaScoutDan]

In the international and inland rules of the road. Rule 2 ". . . which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid danger". Basically, the goal is to not break stuff.

[@tonyestibeiro1181]

Thank you

[@GuagoFruit]

Why does it always seem like some of the most careless operators get control of these ships. Of course we're just highlighting accidents, but they still seem relatively preventable if someone properly cared and knew what they were doing.

[@freshrockpapa-e7799]

well that's the problem probably, that people don't care, get lazy, and mess up expecting nothing unusual will happen

[@XMysticHerox]

Because otherwise there is no accident. Good example of selection bias. As for they seem easily preventable . Yes probably but it's always a quetion of cost vs benefit. The swiss cheese model works well to prevent accidents but it is always a trade off of how many layers you can afford and need. The reality is that the maritime industry is comparatively low risk and this is a rare accident. Is it technically possible for every sizeable port to have standby pilots and an emergency center similar to what airports have? Sure. Is that worth it? Probably not. And unlike in aviation fatalities in such instances are very rare.

[@Xtremekreations]

fantastic video and story!

[@kr4ftt]

@10:58 I though it was a plug for a sponsor ad, felt like an idiot after and was genuinely surprised xD

[@abdulwahabali6553]

The master has an overriding responsibility to keep his crew and ship safe from harm. The VTS may issue an order not to heave on the anchors, but who's in charge onboard? It's easy to spot blame but truly in an emergency, the best amongst us react slowly.

[@hermitoldguy6312]

I know nothing about ships or boats - all I do is watch films and videos. All they had to do was order slow ahead, to take weight off the anchors, and steer the ship. Mentour pilot says "aviate, navigate, communicate" First, and above all else, FLY THE DAMN PLANE!. Second, LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING! Third call for help.

[@ssu7653]

With current and anchors pulling the bow left and right, it is alot harder to steer than your car. Think of it more like heavy crosswinds from both sides when landing a small plane. It can litteraly move you side to side, but at least your still heading forward not turning

[@XMysticHerox]

The big difference between aviation and marine navigation is that there is a *lot* of inertia involved with these massive cargo ships. You can't just slow down last second or quickly steer the ship like you usually can with an airplane. At that point it is likely far too late.

[@BigHatSupremacist]

"If you ever find yourself in that situation in future." Aye, I'll keep that in mind next time I crash my ship.

[@melodicgrog]

They did really good on her anchor watches. They just watched and watched.

[@aidanpysher2764]

New drinking game: take a shot everytime Atlantic Venus is mentioned.

[@mikefochtman7164]

Not a professional or anything, but seems that with a steady current in the river, two closely spaced anchors would be the proper thing. With the current, seems the swinging circle is going to be less just by virtue of the current. And with a known current, holding power should have been the priority. And VTS telling them to not raise anchor, apparently they didn't realize the seriousness of the situation, unlike the bridge crew. Perhaps the bridge crew didn't make it clear just how serious the situation was?

[@RVR121]

Just a series of people not being attentive and all other failures from almost every level after that. Despite what happened it could have been much worse when working with machines this big slap dashing a job is the worst thing that can be done.

[@lavan1892]

And this is why Navy vessels always have enough crew on board to operate fully. Crazy to think they leave a ship without enough staff to respond to emergencies like this, but even with such a big loss like this one they probably still save money by not having a proper crew onboard to make it worthwhile..

[@northerncaptain855]

The ship had its full crew on board, the Mississippi River Pilots are a separate organization with a State Charter to provide required piloting services. Think of them as highly skilled, extraordinarily well paid advisors that a foreign ship is required to employ. The orders from the Vessel Traffic Control not to pick up their anchors was certainly a causal factor. The delay of the Watch Officers in recognizing that thee ship was dragging anchor another causal factor.

[@nb3627]

Best option- Never Take command 😂 Be a chief officer and avoid heart attack or a anxiety attack.

[@greenerell484]

well 11:28 if this was a aviation accident I would believe you, but when it comes to maritime accidents blame if a big factor

[@fritzlandmann4546]

It's depend on the eyes of the viewer.

[@RyanK-100]

"Something looks odd. Oh, well, not my job." This is the cause of this shit show. I hope a lot of people lost their jobs.

[@GarageSupra]

With so many points of failure ignored it almost feels like it could have been a insurance job

[@P4hko]

Or it's because one point of failure don't make a accident and several is needed and by Murphy's law it's deemed to happen at some point by just the share numbers of ships out there.

[@freshrockpapa-e7799]

@@P4hko exactly. we only know about these multiple point disasters because of (the opposite of) survivorship bias

[@XMysticHerox]

Selection bias my friend. You can apply this logic for basically every single accident ever.

[@dziban303]

The hills in the background lol. The biggest hills here are like 20 feet shove sea level and man-made. Usually the river levees are the highest points visible.

[@joshbobst1629]

I feel like the pilot and the master left their posts way too soon. When I anchor my 36 foot sailboat, I wait a few hours before I leave the boat, to make sure it's going to stay put.

[@HyperSarcasticAvocado]

I am surprised they don't have a tool that shows them the anchor drop spots, chain length and position just like this animation did.

[@GTFrostbite]

Things you can say about ships but not your spouse: damn, she's dragging Two Anchors

[@madbalkanrabbit898]

Crew on the bow not checking the anchor before going back, crew on the bridge not checking is everything ok, .... Pilot can't see everything. Communication is of utmost importance always.

[@tomhermens7698]

Captain was in charge and should have moved without the pilot. They have radar on board but that was ignored by the deck. Where was the master. What a botch.

[@londonalicante]

Seems like the crew of Nomadic Milde could have done more to save her but chose instead to wait for a pilot / follow orders from VTS so they didn't end up taking all the blame.

[@fregattenkapitan]

All you people assigning guilt and fault are seriously misunderstanding why we have accident investigations and reporting

[@sillysad3198]

this case is very clear. VTS blatantly neglected all of their duties, and actively turned a problem into a disaster

[@fregattenkapitan]

@@sillysad3198 so? That's what courts are for, not ntsb like reporting. You are just doubling down on misusing reporting

[@sillysad3198]

@@fregattenkapitan i am simply highlighting the idiocy of your comment. nothing else.

[@fregattenkapitan]

"The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for a marine casualty; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, “[NTSB] investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties . . . and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person.” Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 831.4. Assignment of fault or legal liability is not relevant to the NTSB’s statutory mission to improve transportation safety by conducting investigations and issuing safety recommendations. In addition, statutory language prohibits the admission into evidence or use of any part of an NTSB report related to an accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. Title 49 United States Code, Section 1154(b)."@@sillysad3198

[@fregattenkapitan]

this is literally the end of the report

[@asdsdjfasdjxajiosdqw8791]

Woefully inadequate safety regulation, adherence of existing regulations and monitoring of regulations, as well as terrible training for everyone involved. In other words, a regular day in America.

[@-00N000N]

The bridge crew is the people in horror movies.

[@JoeKyser]

As a captain my first thought is I am trying to tug anchor to gain control. If ones dragging thats an easy fix but you need to be aware and apply it. There were so many failures its not funny

[@raincoast9010]

Thanks.