German captain involved in crane
mishap is ‘not a criminal’
By : JONAS LYBORG
As a professional, I followed with interest the investigation and trial of the tragic accident at the Port of Mobile, where
the ZIM Mexico III ship collided with a crane, which collapsed, and an electrician was killed. This was a very tragic
accident, but still an accident.

And what was the outcome? Settlement of damages to the crane is ongoing with the port. The family who suffered
such tragic loss has settled out of court, even though money cannot compensate for the loss of a family member. And
we all suffer with the family.
So what remains? Obviously, we must have somebody to blame, so a federal prosecutor went after the captain of the
ZIM Mexico III. He is being treated like the worst criminal we have seen.
The only word that can describe what is going on is “injustice.” Or perhaps this is some sort of prosecutorial revenge.
The prosecutor has managed to send the 59-year-old captain, Wolfgang Schroder, to jail together with criminals such
as sex offenders, pedophiles, killers, robbers, etc. Will this bring the deceased electrician back? Of course not.
So how is it possible that an accident can develop into such injustice? What happened, and who is this terrible
“criminal”? Unfortunately, the information in the news media and on the Internet has created a picture that is far from
accurate.
The vessel was departing from the port in Mobile as normal. The main engine (which drives the propeller) was used;
and the shaft generator, which supplies power for all consumption, was connected. The speed of the main engine is
controlled by a device (a governor) that controls and eliminates variations in revolution (speed). The bow thruster was
running and power was supplied via the shaft generator.
Due to a sudden variation of the main engine, the bow thruster lost power and failed, reducing the turning speed and
causing the vessel to hit the gantry crane.
A tugboat had not been used and had not been ordered. Who can order tugboats? The captain can. The pilot can also
order tugboats if he wants to, and so can the shipping agent. This is the standard procedure in all ports.
In addition to this, a special port or port area can have a requirement that all vessels must be assisted by tugboats.
So why did the captain not order tug-boats? Because he did not suspect any problems. Would he have ordered
tugboats if he had known that the bow thruster was not working? Of course. Would he have ordered tugboats if he
had suspected that there was something wrong with the bow thruster or that something might fail? Of course.
Would the pilot have required tugboats if the bow thruster was not working? Yes. Would the pilot have required
tugboats if he had suspected that the bow thruster would fail? Yes. So would the shipping agent.
So why no tugboats? Because neither the captain nor anybody else suspect any problems with the bow thruster. The
media have reported that there were some problems with the bow thruster last year. Maybe so, but here is another
important thing.
A ship is like a small village. Electricity, drinking water, food, repairs, etc., all are supplied by the equipment and
people onboard. Electricity is produced by a shaft generator or separate auxiliary engines, water is produced on board,
security controls are done on board, food is prepared on board and all sorts of repairs are done on board.
All this is accomplished by the crew, which consists of a workforce of navigational and technical experts as well as
handy-men under the leadership of a captain.
If there were problems with the bow thruster five or six months earlier, who investigated and repaired the problems?
The crew. And the bow thruster worked after that. The crew is qualified enough for all this work, and is definitely
qualified enough to say, when appropriate, “This is too complicated for us and we need to call in a specialist.”
Another point of discussion is the fact that vessels are maneuvered, without bow thrusters, on a daily basis all over the
world. Experienced pilots and captains are arriving, departing and turning vessels in various locations using only their
main engine and propeller in combination with the rudder.

I am sure that this was also desperately tried by the pilot and captain at the time of the accident in Mobile. However,
when you are in the middle of a serious situation, your immediate, split-second decision or delayed decision can
change everything. Later you will face the “Monday morning quarterbacking” in a calm, detached environment.
In this case, the quarterbacking was done by a non-maritime prosecutor, and it forever has changed the life of a
foreigner, a German captain.
Maritime officers and engineers spend many years in training on board vessels as well as in shipyards, electrical
workshops and schools before being allowed to finally work on board as officers or engineers. This is followed by
several years at sea before they might be promoted to captain or chief engineer, which are the two highest positions
onboard.
Capt. Schroder started his career when he was 16 or 17 years old and has spent his whole adult life at sea, including
many years as a captain with the same company. He has taken vessels in and out of ports thousands of times. He has
taken vessels in and out of Mobile many times without any problems.
How many vessels are coming to and leaving Mobile or other ports in the Gulf area every year? How many are coming
and leaving without the assistance of tugboats? Thousands.
So what is so special with this accident? Who is responsible? Who should pay for repairs of damages to the Port of
Mobile and compensation to the family?
All vessels must have insurance. If an accident happens, the insurance will have to pay — which, most of the time,
leads to an increase in the ship’s insurance premiums. In this case, a settlement has already been arranged and the
insurance premiums will most likely reflect that later on.
Meanwhile, should this accident lead us to continue on a path of revenge and injustice?
After the accident happened, an investigation was done by the U.S. Coast Guard. The vessel was thereafter allowed to
continue sailing between the Caribbean and U.S. ports without any problems.
However, in April, when the vessel was in Houston two months after the accident, the captain was asked to come
ashore for clarification and additional questioning. He was then immediately arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. He
was shortly thereafter transferred, as a prisoner, to Mobile.
Thanks to his lawyers and a bond of $500,000, he was released from jail. Bond was provided by the German ship
owner, which fully supports its captain. The captain surrendered his passport to police.
After the verdict, he was re-arrested and taken to jail, where he awaits sentencing.
International maritime law and regulations recommend that a vessel’s “flag state” deal with relevant punishment and
consequences. In this case, that should be Antigua or Germany. I do not understand why we do not follow these
international agreements in this case.
A German captain should be tried in a German court and an American captain in an American court.
Other points to consider:
–Why did several jury members seem to be very upset and disturbed by the verdict? Did they not agree with it?
–Thorough information on how many seconds the injured electrician might have suffered before he died was
presented in the trial. What did it have to do with the accident?
What good did it do? If somebody were killed by strangling or drowning, then it might be relevant in court, but not in
this case.

–The prosecutor created a picture of the captain as a person with “worldwide” contacts, a major flight risk, families in
several places, etc., all in order to destroy a professional captain and foreigner who was involved in an accident.
Nothing of this is or was relevant.
–In 2001, the USS Greenville — an American vessel — killed nine Japanese people. The investigation afterward
showed that the commander of the Greenville was trying to show off for some visitors onboard and operated the
submarine recklessly.
He killed nine people and sank a fishing vessel. He was found to have acted with “gross negligence.”
The final penalty, issued by an American court, was only an official “reprimand” and partial loss of salary (however,
with retention of his pension and retirement). This, for killing nine Japanese.
A captain is always responsible for his vessel and crew. No questions about that. In the case of the ZIM Mexico III,
an accident happened and the vessel’s owner, captain and relevant insurance companies will have to bear the full
responsibility. And they have done so.
Is Capt. Schroder a criminal? No.
In fact, several years ago he was awarded a medal by the king of Belgium for bringing his vessel to provide assistance
and support when the vessel Herald of Free Enterprise sank in 1987 in the English Channel. His ship was first on
the scene, and his prompt actions and decisions saved numerous lives.
I do hope that the family of the deceased electrician can forgive him and understand the suffering he and his family
are now going through due to a prosecutor’s attempt to make a technical accident into “criminal neglect.”

If you know what this is about, it’s pretty silly! No wonder no one ever wants the responsibility of becoming a captain anymore. The only thing they do is hunt you with claims and things like this. Rewards for anything good and even the normal salary are pretty low compared to the punishments you get.
Typically US after all. They’re a bunch of sissies not knowing anything about shipping and only protecting themselves. Rumsfeld killed 1,000’s of people and he doesn’t even get punished. This captain just did his job. If someone onboard would have died, would that have caused him to get jailed too? Probably not as the people onboard are no US citizens.

CALL FOR ACTION ON FATIGUE STUDY
UK officers’ union Nautilus, the union for maritime professionals, has called for “urgent and radical action” to combat
fatigue at sea following the publication of a major research report into the scale of the problem.
The six-year study was co-sponsored by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency and the Health & Safety Executive, with
support from the Union and the Seafarers’ International Research Centre at Cardiff University.
The 86-page report concludes that excessive working hours are a significant problem for the shipping industry –
posing serious safety hazards, and dangers to the health and wellbeing of seafarers. Key findings include: • Almost
50% of seafarers taking part in the study reported working weeks of 85 hours or more • Around half said their working
hours had increased over the past 10 years, despite new regulations intended to combat fatigue • Almost 50% of
seafarers taking part in the study consider their working hours present a danger to their personal safety • Some 37%
said their working hours sometimes posed a danger to the safe operations of their ship • One-in-four seafarers said
they had fallen asleep while on watch The report recommends a range of measures to address the problem, including
a review of the way in which working hours are recorded, better fatigue management training, an industry standard
for measuring fatigue, and an auditing tool to assess the significance of various risk factors.
Nautilus UK general secretary Brian Orrell says: “This proves conclusively the serious nature of the problem and the
massive scale to which it is suffered by seafarers.”

Russia Scraps 145 Out Of 197
Decommissioned Nuclear Submarines

Russia has dismantled 145 out of 197 decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear submarines, the head of the Federal Agency
for Nuclear Power said Tuesday.
Russia has signed cooperation agreements on the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines with the United
States, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Norway. The disposal program will cost an overall $2 billion, toward which
Russia had allocated $850 million as of 2005.

“We have a joint nuclear submarine dismantlement program that involves a number of countries, including EU
members,” Sergei Kiriyenko said. “Out of 195 nuclear submarines decommissioned from the Russian Navy, we have
dismantled 145″.

“The disposal of another 17 is under way, and we are preparing to scrap 32 more in the future,” he said.
During the dismantling process, spent nuclear fuel is removed from the submarine’s reactors and sent to storage, the
hull is cut into three sections, and the bow and stern are removed and destroyed. The reactor section is sealed and
transferred to storage.
“We will scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010,” the nuclear chief said.

TinWing, there really are Bulk containers around. Those are standard containers in size but have a strengthened body and a hatch near the bottom (equally long as the container, some 30cm high). They are mainly used for trains but can also be placed on ships, much like the pressurized tanks that are put into a containerframe for use onboard ships.

Bulk is however not expensive enough to be placed in containers. And container ships have MAJOR disadvantages for the transportation of cheap goods. For example an empty container weighs 2tons, that means that for example the Emma Maersk, sometimes carries 22,000ts of useless weight, even if the containers are empty.

A bulkcarrier on the other hand doesn’t suffer from these disadvantages as it’s basically “full” of cargo.

Another problem with bulk in containers is that, for example iron ore, gives a major issue in stability and it would complicate the container ship stability calculation in a big way. Strength is of course also an issue, if the number of such containers is limited the shear forces and bending moments (pretty weak spot for container vessels) might become a problem. (it actually already does on bulkcarriers, in ’90’s there were a LOT of sunk bulkers due to collapse of the ship’s structure).

As for the “earlier”, containerasition was pretty fast. You have to take in account all the factors involved, the development of trucks, ships, cranes etc. Those were all not really developped when the beginning of containerisation started (with a conversion of a T2 tanker if I remember correctly).

One major issue about container ships and that’s what most people don’t know, is the GT /tax issue. A ship’s port taxation and pilot fees are calculated on its gross tonnage. That tonnage is an internal volume of the ship (well it was, nowadays it’s a just some type of measure but not at all the internal volume). Practically a tanker carries cargo in its holds only. A container vessel however carries volume inside the hull, but, stacks (more and more) cargo on the deck. Those volumes are no internal volumes and hence not taken in account for taxes. So practically it has only half of its cargo volume to pay for in taxation. That is also why they want to keep stacking those containers higher and higher nowadays. Pretty complicated, but smart. Now it’s just a matter of time before they adapt the taxation of course. Luckily changes never come fast in shipping.

Thanks, the perspective got me confused. I had the same thought, but thinking that the sides towards the deep draft channel were flat and not sloped. That made me confused about the possible draft they could reach. This indeed makes sense.

Here’s some more shipbuilding news from Sweden:

KOCKUMS DEVELOPING SUBMARINE
FOR UN OPERATIONS
SSG-GOTEBORG. German-owned Kockums in Malmo and Karlskrona is developing a research program together with
the Swedish Defence Material Agency (FMV) – submarine A26 – which will be specially adapted for UN operations
around the world. The submarines will be equipped with stealth technology and will be employed in intelligence
operations. The Swedish Defence needs two new submarines to replace the Sodermanland and the Ostergotland.
Work on the submarine project A26 will proceed until next March, when the Swedish government and the
Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish armed forces will decide whether a formal order will be placed with Kockums or
whether the project will continue with another cooperation partner. An order for two submarines would be worth about
SEK 3 billion.
“We hope and believe that we will win the order. It would mean a lot for Kockums and Swedish submarine research”,
says Kockums´ Senior Vice President PR & Communications, Kjell Gothe.

Guess it’ll take a while. Not sure wether it is Boikiy or Sovershenny… Second time I see Sovershenny appear as the name of the third Stereguchiy and to be honest I rather believe Sovershenny than Boikiy as for now all Stereguchiys have a name starting with an “S” in which Boikiy doesn’t fit…

Construction of the project “Sovershenny” which was laid down this summer at Amur Shipyard
24.11.2006 00:07

In 2007 military shipbuilding will get the allocations of over 13 billion RUB, of which, however, less than a quarter will be spent on surface programs. Last week the head ship of the series “Stereguschy” has left Severnaya Verf for trial. The corvette which has been under construction since 2001, was planned for delivery in the end of 2006, but in fact the basic part of its tests is planned for 2007. According to the ship builders, the first ship has turned out “golden”: the ship was under construction not three-four years as it was originally supposed, but six years. The design was repeatedly corrected, therefore its cost has increased about from 1,8 billion RUB up to almost 5 billion RUB.

We decided to include this report in the survey to remain complete and fair, although we do not agree with the authors of this source, which is famous for following the principle “good news – bad news”. At different ceremonies different top designers of the shipyards repeatedly noted that it is common practice in Russia and abroad to build the head ship longer (5 years is a normal period) then the rest of the series.

The problems with the first project 20380 corvette are explained by the emphasis of the state arms program on submarine shipbuilding. At the meeting of the Maritime Collegium this June it was said that construction of these corvettes the Baltic fleet of the Russian Navy in 2007 will need 5,5 billion RUB, however in 2007 only 700 million RUB was allocated for the three ships. Because of this the construction plans were corrected: the second 203080 laid down in May, 2003, will be delivered not in 2007 but in 2011, the third — in 2012, and “Stoiky” laid down by SV last week — only in 2014. Our comment: This looks like play upon facts. Much of it is assumptions.

One more same corvette named “Sovershenny” laid down on June, 30th this year at the Amur Shipyard, is planned for delivery after 2010. The source claims that financing is irregular, thus it is fraught with delays of the deleievries. Noteworthy, the source does not give quotations, even anonymous. Phrases like “neither confirmed, nor declined” cannot be a proof.

AFAIK, they deleted it from the Burkes in favor of the SeaRAM. The latter wasn’t a success and so the Phalanx 1B will later be retrofitted to these Burkes. It’s just a matter of time.
Tor-M1 was also credited with free fall bomb defence.

Doesn’t the Stryker vehicle have a GAU-8 or something similar for air defence along with Stingers?

Radar, I haven’t missed that major point at all. Why do you think I mentioned the decrease in helicopters in European Navies. Larger types of helicopters don’t make up for the numbers. You need a lot of bearings to rapidly pinpoint a submarine. Active sonobuoys make up a part of that decrease, but not all of it as you only have a limited number of them. Numbers are the most important part of ASW hunting, that is also why the Russian built so many hydrofoil boats equipped with dipping sonars. That was not because they wanted a 600-ship Navy… With their defensive strategy and problem with the heavy and bulky Kamov helicopters the small boats could do the job pretty well inshore.

Sfer and Lawrence could you maybe start a topic about DDX and CGX and discuss the matter over there? That makes it easier to follow! THanks in advance

Finland makes good ships, but if you really want a good minehunter, then it is advised to take a ship from a foreign supplyer that has more experience with this. Or, just ask their advice or design and indeed build it in Finland. The problem with military orders is of course that they aren’t continuous. The Finnish Navy can’t afford to buy one ship every two or three years. That has been the major problem for most Western Navies. Ships last long nowadays, 20 years isn’t that much of an exception, that also means they aren’t replaced that regularily.
Golle, I’ll send you some pics of the Double Eagle and Seafox from VERY close by.