SFist: Oil Spill Update: Is this the Path of the Cosco Busan?

Jimbrowski

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:58:30 -0800

Interesting, that the electronics may have been inaccurate (hopefully not actually off). I've sailed as a mate on containerships for APL and Maersk in and out of the bay for the last five years, and currently work on ship-assist tug boats. If the electronics were not accurate, a local expert would have noticed the discrepency before leaving the ship channel in Oakland. A gps with electronic chart display can give inaccurate data, but a radar is a simple device that can only tell you range and bearing for navigational purposes. There is a RACON transmitter on the center of the "Delta-Echo" span, the deep water span of the bridge that is very hard to miss. Something interesting I noticed from the boating SF video is that the assist tug does not seem to go alongside the ship on the port side to assess the damage at any point. The AIS data might not be accurate enough to show that, but one would think that would be a priority. And it doesn't appear that the tug is tethered to the ship at the time of impact. And lastly: The Rules of the Road state that assumptions shall not be made based on 'scanty information', especially scanty RADAR information. If VTS says the ship is about to hit the bridge and the ship's equipment is showing something else, it's time to stop and figure out where you are.

suckafree

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:27:42 -0800

the story goes that the coast guard asked him why he was on a bearing to hit that abutment and he said he was headed for the c-span. if you look at the animation, and the bridge itself, he had to be drunk or high to admit headed for the c-span, a much bigger abutment to run into. watching his speeds very closely on this animation, it seems like he was going awful fast in zero visiblity too. he even speeds up after hitting the bridge and burning off speed. this guy was an ass clown and needs to go jail for a long time, just like hazelwood.

Kay

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:49:53 -0800

The official press release from the coast guard states that the pilot and crew were tested for drug and alcohol within the necessary 1 and 2 hour time limits of the incident, but that indeed is not the case. The coast guard is getting flack for not responding to the incident with appropriate clean-up equipment (because they took the pilot's word for how much fuel had spilled instead of figuring it out themselves), so they're scrambling to cover their asses.

jwb

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:28:54 -0800

It doesn't matter what the ship's instruments said. VTS Yerba Buena has a powerful, fixed radar system. They know exactly where your vessel is and where's it's headed. If VTS radios you and says you are going to ram fixed object, you steer the other way and call for emergency tugboat assistance. My father worked VTS on Puget Sound for a while and idiots were always running their vessels into bars and beaches, normally right after they'd told the Coast Guard "I've been sailing these waters since ***CRRRRUNNNNCCCCHHHHHH***" The only thing that's different in this case is that the bar pilot is supposed to know better.

sangfroid826

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:35:33 -0800

That's some good journalism there, SFist.

suckafree

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:54:43 -0800

interesting stuff and a good find. the latest story in the chron with the captain's lawyer trying to defend his actions are quite interesting as well. the coast guard radio'd captain cota as he was headed right for the bridge and asked what his intentions were since he was on course to ram it. he says he replied that he was not, and was on course to go under the c-span. seems like he's going with a defense that it was the ships fault since the electronics were off. i can't wait for the tests to prove whether or not he's being honest. the other day a story said he went straight in for drug and alcohol testing right after. i thought it was 24 hours later? what's the truth?