Thursday, March 29, 2012

Spring 2011 Champion’s Point of View

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by CAPT Pauline F. Cook, deputy director, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Transportation Systems Management Directorate.

Marine transportation systems management is a broad mission area within the Coast Guard. The headquarters Marine Transportation Systems Management Directorate covers 10 different and distinct programs. Some are principally managed at headquarters because they are either still developing, or they require extensive outreach with our international partners. For instance, “e-Navigation” is still evolving and is expected to be enforced as a body of international standards for all electronic navigational aids on ships internationally and on the shore.

Many of you may recognize some of the topics covered in the Spring 2011 issue pertaining to Captain of the Port authorities and waterways management—marine event permitting, AIS tracking and monitoring, marine debris removal, icebreaking (polar and domestic), and aids to navigation.

Other topics such as dredging operations, anchorage management, limited access areas, pier construction permits, port authority liaisons, traffic separation schemes, regulated navigation areas, bridge program authorities, Great Lakes pilotage, and waterways suitability assessments did not make it into this issue, but definitely fall under marine transportation systems management. More information can be found on the CGWeb portal.

As you can see from the sample list of topics above, the responsibilities are expansive. Please let us know if this information was beneficial to broadening your understanding of waterways and MTS management.

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2011/.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Spring 2011 Director’s Perspective

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Mr. Dana Goward, director, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Transportation Systems Management Directorate.

Lighthouses, pilotage, icebreaking, limited access areas, traffic separation schemes ... if it helps mariners get there, chances are the Marine Transportation Systems (MTS) Management Directorate at CG headquarters is either responsible for it or has a big piece of it. That the service has chosen to create our organization and highlight the programs reflects the importance the Coast Guard places on the MTS, a national asset that contributes more than $750 billion to the U.S. GDP each year.

In 2010, the Coast Guard devoted more than 4,000 people and $1.4 billion to ensuring the MTS functioned well. In this edition of Proceedings, readers will learn about the kinds of things those people did, and how a lot of that money was spent.

Coast Guard support of marine transportation is facing a number of challenges. These include:
  • Aging boats and ships that maintain visual aids to navigation across the nation. Some boat types are more than 35 years old, and some ship classes are over 45 years old.
  • The need to modernize marine navigation and realize the efficiencies and improvements of “information age” technologies.
  • Near-ubiquitous reliance on GPS for safe navigation and its vulnerabilities to interference and jamming.
  • Protecting our sovereign rights and fulfilling our responsibilities in our Arctic waters.
  • Outdated policy and guidance on a wide variety of aids to navigation and waterways management issues, and a diminishing base of experienced people.
  • A growing list of bridges designated as unreasonable obstructions to navigation.
  • The need to engage states, localities, other federal agencies, and maritime stakeholders on a wide variety of offshore renewable energy projects and other coastal/marine spatial planning issues.
Addressing all these challenges is an “all hands” effort. As the headquarters program managers, we will be doing our level best to advocate for the needs and interests of our Coast Guard and public constituents and provide the best policy guidance available. And, of course, we will communicate all of this as effectively as we can through a wide variety of media—such as this edition of Proceedings. Enjoy!

Full article is available at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/spring2011/.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Posthumous awards for two Coast Guard legends: Rear Admiral William M. Benkert and Captain Dominic A. Calicchio.

The Marine Inspection and Investigation School at the U.S. Coast Guard’s Training Center in Yorktown, Va., recently held a ceremony to honor two distinguished marine safety icons, Rear Admiral William M. Benkert and Captain Dominic A. Calicchio.

Coast Guard Vice Admiral Brian Salerno, Deputy Commandant for Operations, served as the ceremony speaker.

“If my signature looks like my hand was shaking when I signed the certificates awarding the Marine Safety Pin to Rear Admiral Benkert and Captain Calicchio, it probably was,” Vice Admiral Salerno said. “These are two icons of marine safety, and I have been in awe of them throughout my marine safety career.”

Rear Admiral Benkert’s son, Mr. Alan Benkert, and Captain Calicchio’s brother, Merchant Marine Captain Fred Calicchio, also attended the ceremony to honor their distinguished family member.

Rear Admiral Benkert graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in 1943 and served in the Pacific during World War II. His career spanned 38 years, during which he was entrusted with numerous afloat and ashore commands. The William M. Benkert Award for Environmental Excellence was established in his honor to recognize marine industry companies that have distinguished themselves in environmental stewardship.

Captain Dominic Calicchio entered the Merchant Marine in 1943 to support the war effort. He joined the Coast Guard in 1968 and quickly made a name for himself as a safety-conscious captain of the port and a tough, no-nonsense marine investigator. Robert Frump’s book Until the Sea Shall Free Them: Life, Death, and Survival in the Merchant Marine, tells the story of the Marine Electric sinking and highlights Captain Calicchio’s efforts to uncover the casualty’s cause.

As is appropriate for men of this stature, Rear Admiral Benkert’s and Captain Calicchio’s uniforms and artifacts are on display in the main entrance of Hamilton Hall at U.S. Coast Guard Training Center.


At the ceremony to honor their family members, Rear Admiral Benkert’s son, Mr. Alan Benkert, (left); and Captain Calicchio’s brother, Master Mariner Captain Fred Calicchio, (center); receive the accolade from U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral Brian Salerno.


Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Proceedings Spring 2012 online!



The current edition of Proceedings (Spring 2012 Combating Piracy) is available online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/.

This edition highlights the U.S. Coast Guard's commitment to work with the maritime industry to deter, disrupt, and suppress piracy through prevention measures, response procedures, and the prosecution of pirates in a court of justice.

Lost at Sea—PART 3

Lost at Sea—PART 3: A small fishing trawler’s sudden sinking and loss of its young crew leave questions unanswered.

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety and Security Council magazine by Ms. Daisy R. Khalifa, technical writer.

Lessons Learned
Investigators provided comments on the analysis of the casualty that underscored concerns about the deployment of lifesaving equipment. Without hard facts to support their opinions, investigators said they believed one or more of the following were factors in the failure of the life raft to separate from the sinking vessel:
  • the hydrostatic release unit, if one existed, did not work,
  • the painter was secured directly to the cradle, bypassing the weak link
  • the life raft became tangled up in fishing gear as the vessel sank, preventing it from inflating until it was too deep for the inflation systems to overcome hydrostatic pressure.
The fact that the life raft remained tethered to the vessel because of a design flaw resonated with the public and within the commercial fishing community, where a fair amount of speculation as to exactly what went wrong with the raft continues. Many in the industry took away from the casualty an important lesson learned with regard to checking weak links before getting underway on another fishing trip.

The vessel casualty in the Gulf of Maine in which the lives of two young men were taken came only one week after the tragic sinking and loss of four crewmembers on the F/V Lady of Grace in Nantucket Sound. Both casualties bore striking similarities, characterized by instability and rapid sinking in the rough January seas off the coast of New England.

For more information:

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Lost at Sea—PART 2

Lost at Sea—PART 2: A small fishing trawler’s sudden sinking and loss of its young crew leave questions unanswered.

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety and Security Council magazine by Ms. Daisy R. Khalifa, technical writer.

The Casualty
According to the Coast Guard investigation, the most likely cause of the casualty was capsizing due to water on deck or flooding due to a very rapid event that did not allow the crew time to respond or access lifesaving gear.

The ROV revealed no catastrophic damage to the vessel’s hull or superstructure. Two of the three freeing ports on the starboard side were closed; the port side was not visible. The ROV also provided images of the life raft, which was deployed but still attached to the cradle,  indicating that the painter may have fouled, that there was a failure of the weak link that should have freed the raft, or that the weak link was improperly installed.

Possible Causes: Collision, Flooding, Capsizing
Possible causes that were explored in the investigation included a ship strike or collision, flooding, and capsizing.

The notion that a ship strike or collision could have caused the vessel to sink was considered the most unlikely cause. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England compiled a list of deep-draft vessels potentially in the area of the fishing vessel, and they determined that there were no large vessels close enough to the small trawler within the specified time frame. The ROV footage indicated there was no visible damage to the vessel that would be consistent with a collision.

The Coast Guard investigation asserts that capsizing due to a rapid loss of stability was the most likely cause of the sinking.

The MSC analysis focused on degradation of stability from water on deck. Based on the computer model, only limited amounts of water were needed to negatively affect stability. The vessel’s course exposed it to a quartering sea, making it susceptible to shipping seas from the stern, and if any freeing ports were closed, water on deck would cause a free surface effect, causing the vessel to further lose stability.

In part 3 we will outline the recommendations and lessons learned.

For more information:

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Lost at Sea—PART 1

Lost at Sea—PART 1: A small fishing trawler’s sudden sinking and loss of its young crew leave questions unanswered.

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine by Ms. Daisy R. Khalifa, technical writer.

When a ship sinks far from shore and into the obscure depths of the sea in such a way that it cannot be salvaged, nor is there any trace of its ill-fated crew, the task of unraveling what might have happened to the vessel is all the more daunting and painful.

Such was the case in the Gulf of Maine when the F/V Lady Luck set out on a cold January night, in 2007Two young men manned the vessel, which had departed from Portland, Maine, and was scheduled to arrive two days later in its home port in Newburyport, Mass.

Both crewmembers separately called their fathers the evening of Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007, to tell them that the weather was rough, but that they would be arriving home Friday. Sadly, they were never heard from again. Shortly before 11:00 p.m. that night, the vessel vanished beneath the pounding seas about 12 miles off Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Timeline of Events
The master and deckhand had only marginal success with shrimping on their first day out in the early hours of Jan. 30, 2007. They cut their initial fishing trip short, returning late that morning to Portland Harbor to re-rig. They would set out the next day for some ground fishing in the Gulf of Maine.

By 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 31, the vessel was underway carrying an estimated 1,000 gallons of fuel and eight tons of ice aboard. Heading outbound that evening, the vessel passed the inbound F/V Jubilee and its master stated that the vessel’s port, starboard, and masthead lights were not energized. The Jubilee’s master he hailed the vessel twice by radio to alert the crew about the lights, but he did not receive a response and did not see the vessel energize its lights.

At 7:45 p.m., the master spoke with his father and said everything seemed fine, and at 9:30 p.m.—one hour before the vessel was believed to have sunk—the deckhand contacted his family, stating it was a little rough and that he would be home on Friday.

Search and Rescue
The investigation provides the vessel monitoring systems positions of the vessel from around 7 p.m. to its last known position. Four hours elapsed between the ship’s last known VMS position at 10 p.m. and the EPIRB first alert, which came at 2:01 a.m.

During the Coast Guard’s search and rescue effort, no distress calls were heard from the crew, there were no flares seen in the vicinity of the vessel, and the vessel’s life raft was never located. During the search and rescue operations, the Coast Guard located an oil slick and a small debris field.

At 9:04 a.m. on Feb. 2, a small boat from Coast Guard Cutter Seneca found the casualty vessel’s EPIRB. The EPIRB was found in the automatic position, indicating that neither the master nor deckhand manually activated it, but that it had self-deployed during the sinking. The search and rescue mission was suspended that same day.

Several weeks later, Coast Guard investigators and contractors using an ROV, found the vessel 12 miles offshore in approximately 530 feet of water..

In part II we will outline the subsequent Coast Guard investigation.

For more information:

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Winter 2011 Nautical Deck Answers Part—2

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Nautical Deck Queries Answers Part—2.

1. A vessel of not more than 65 feet in length must have a collision bulkhead if it carries more than_______.

A. 6 passengers
Incorrect answer.
B. 12 passengers
Incorrect answer.
C. 36 passengers
Incorrect answer.
D. 49 passengers
Correct answer. As per 46 CFR 179.210, a vessel of not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length
must have a collision bulkhead if it:

1) Carries more than 49 passengers;
2) Operates on exposed waters;
3) Is of more than 12.2 meters (40 feet) in length and operates on partially protected
waters; or
4) Is constructed of wood on or after March 11, 2001, and operates in cold water.


2. How many portable fire extinguishers are required to be located inside the machinery spaces of a small passenger vessel?

A. None are required.
Correct answer. None are required inside the machinery space. A minimum of one portable fire extinguisher is required, of CG class B-II, C-II, to be located just outside the machinery space exit. See 46 CFR 181.500, Table 181.500(a).
B. One B-I, C-I is required.
Incorrect answer.
C. One B-II, C-II is required.
Incorrect answer.
D. One B-II is required.
Incorrect answer.


3. Which statement is true concerning the placard entitled “Discharge of Oil Prohibited”?

A. It is required on all vessels.
Incorrect answer.
B. It may be located in a conspicuous place in the wheelhouse.
Incorrect answer.
C. It may be located at the bilge and ballast pump control station.
Correct answer. As per 33 CFR 155.450, a ship (except a ship of less than 26 feet in length) must have a placard of at least five by eight inches made of durable material fixed in a conspicuous place in each machinery space, or at the bilge and ballast pump control station, stating the following: “Discharge
of Oil Prohibited.”
D. All of the above.
Incorrect answer.


4. A cargo of canned foodstuffs is packed in cartons. Each carton is 36 cubic feet and weighs 380 pounds. What is the stowage factor of the cargo?

A. 9.5
Incorrect answer.
B. 62
Incorrect answer.
C. 212
Correct answer. The formula for stowage factor computation is cubic capacity divided by weight in long tons.
1 long ton is equal to 2240 lbs.
The weight of the cargo is given in pounds and must be converted to long tons.
380lbs / 2240lbs = .1696 long tons
Stowage factor = 36 cubic feet / .1696 long tons = 212.26.
D. 237
Incorrect answer.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Winter 2010-11 Nautical Deck Questions Part—1


Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Nautical Deck Queries Questions Part—1.

1. A vessel of not more than 65 feet in length must have a collision bulkhead if it carries more than_______.

A. 6 passengers
B. 12 passengers
C. 36 passengers
D. 49 passengers

2. How many portable fire extinguishers are required to be located inside the machinery spaces of a small passenger vessel?

A. None are required.
B. One B-I, C-I is required.
C. One B-II, C-II is required.
D. One B-II is required.

3. Which statement is true concerning the placard entitled “Discharge of Oil Prohibited”?

A. It is required on all vessels.
B. It may be located in a conspicuous place in the wheelhouse.
C. It may be located at the bilge and ballast pump control station.
D. All of the above.

4. A cargo of canned foodstuffs is packed in cartons. Each carton is 36 cubic feet and weighs 380 pounds. What is the stowage factor of the cargo?

A. 9.5
B. 62
C. 212
D. 237

Stay tuned to see the answers to these Nautical Deck Queries.

Subscribe online at http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/subscribe.asp

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Nautical Engineering Answers Part—2

Excerpt from U.S. Coast Guard Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council magazine. Nautical Engineering Queries Answers Part—2.

1. Coast Guard regulations (46 CFR) concerning shutoff valves located inside fuel oil tanks state that the valves __________.

A. shall be arranged for
Incorrect answer. See explanation for choice “D”. Valves installed in the inside of fuel tanks must be
arranged for remote control.
B. must be made of steel
Incorrect answer. 46 CFR 56.50-60(D)(2) states: “Valves for local control outside the tanks must be made
of steel, ductile cast ironASTMA395, or a ductile nonferrous alloy having a melting point above 1,700°F.”
C. must be power-operated
Incorrect answer. See explanation for choice “D”. Shutoff valves located inside the fuel tank are to be arranged for remote control only, and are not required to be power-operated.
D. may be made of cast iron
Correct answer. 46 CFR 56.50-60(d)(2) states: “If valves are installed on the inside of the tank, they may
be made of cast iron and arranged for remote control only.”


2. The distance between a generator and its load is 100 feet. What would be the approximate total voltage drop across a two-wire supply cable if the current was 5.5 amperes and the resistance of the wire was 2.525 ohms per 1,000 feet?

A. 0.5 volts
Incorrect answer.
B. 1.38 volts
Incorrect answer.
C. 1.90 volts
Incorrect answer.
D. 2.77 volts
Correct answer. Solution is as follows:

Resistance of wire per foot: 2.525 Ω ÷ 1000 feet = 0.002525 Ω / ft
Total resistance of 200 feet of wire: 200 ft (0.002525 Ω / ft) = 0.505 Ω
Voltage drop across wire cable: V = (I)(R) = 5.5 amperes(0.505 Ω) = 2.77 volts


3. In a closed feed and condensate system, the drain from the second-stage air ejector returns directly to the __________.

Note: A steam jet ejector is a type of air ejector used to remove air and other non-condensable gases from a condenser. The ejector has no moving parts, and receives the energy
to operate from pressurized steam that creates a “pumping action” as it passes through the ejector. Air ejectors are generally multi-stage, consisting of several
ejector elements arranged in series.

A. auxiliary condenser
Incorrect answer. In a two-stage air ejector unit, saturated non-condensable gases removed from the condenser are initially drawn into the suction chamber of the first-stage air ejector. The gases become entrained in the first-stage ejector steam jet, and the mixture is discharged into the shell of a heat exchanger called the intercondenser. Condensate discharged by the condensate pump passes through the intercondenser tubes and condenses the mixture in the shell. Water formed from the condensing mixture is returned to the condenser via a “U”-shaped loop seal.
B. loop seal
Incorrect answer. See explanation for choice “A.” To prevent air and other non-condensable gases from the
intercondenser being drawn back into the condenser, the intercondenser drain line is fitted with a water sealed “U”-shaped loop.
C. atmospheric drain tank
Correct answer. Gases remaining in the intercondenser shell are drawn into the suction chamber of the second-stage ejector and become entrained in a second jet of steam. The steam and gas mixture is then discharged into the shell of a heat exchanger called the aftercondenser. Condensate discharged by the condensate pump passes through the aftercondenser tubes and condenses the mixture in the shell. Water formed from the condensing mixture is under a slight positive pressure and drains by gravity to the atmospheric drain tank. Non-condensable gases are vented to the atmosphere.
D. de-aerating feed tank
Incorrect answer. The de-aerating feed tank’s operating pressure prevents its use as a direct return for the low-pressure drains of the air ejector.


4. Which of the turbocharging systems listed operates with the least average back pressure in the exhaust manifold?

Note: In a diesel engine, the two methods utilized for transmitting the energy in the exhaust gases to drive the turbocharger are the constant-pressure system and the pulse
system.

A. constant volume
Incorrect answer. Constant volume is the term used to describe combustion in a gasoline engine. Refer to the “OttoCycle” for spark-ignition engines.
B. constant-pressure
Incorrect answer. In the constant-pressure system, the exhaust gases from the individual cylinders are discharged into a large common manifold. Since the pressure in the manifold tends to be the average of the cylinder outputs, the turbocharger is provided with a fairly constant-pressure gas supply.
C. pulse-pressure
Correct answer. The pulse system permits operation of the turbocharger with the least average back pressure in the exhaust manifold. With the pulse system, the exhaust gases from each cylinder or group of cylinders are admitted directly to the gas turbine through a short exhaust pipe. As a result, the flow of gases to the turbocharger “pulsates.” The turbocharger is designed to utilize both the velocity and pressure energy in the pulsating gases
D. radial flow
Incorrect answer. Radial flow is the term used to describe the direction of gas flow in a turbocharger.