LOWLANDS CAMELLIA - IMO 9304289
| |||
 | |||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
More Of This Ship |  |
 © Arki Wagner |
 © Frans Sanderse |
 © Frans Sanderse |
 |
 |
| More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer |
Photo Comments (31)
Comments sorting method : |
maritimeauthor on Apr 25, 2013 02:39 (24 days ago) | |
| She's simply too lightly ballasted, be it intentionally or incidentally. The same happened with the bulker Aztec Maiden on January 19, 2012 off the Dutch west coast. Her ballast tanks were filled for only 30% at 8 Beaufort, much too little. She dropped anchor but it went scraping the seabed and her main engine also stopped. The result was she was grounded 200 meters from the shore, but was refloated 2 days later. On this photo the sea seems rather quiet but the swell can do this with a too lightly ballasted ship making a turn. |
|
|
|
helaku on Jan 17, 2013 13:44 (4 months ago) | |
| i think waves around the ship point to some clues. maybe it's just some freak wave caused some excessive rolling or something |
|
|
|
Emmesstee on Jan 14, 2013 11:19 (4 months ago) | |
| Brilliant action shot but it's a shame that the poster of this image doesn't seem to have come back with any explanation. He has said "inbound to Newcastle" - from fairly frequent experience into and out of Newcastle NSW in bulk carriers of this size, I would suggest that the vessel has come up from the anchorage and is turning to port to enter the breakwaters and has been rolled by the ever-prevailing SE'ly swell which crosses the harbour entrance. |
|
|
|
Valeri Roussinov on Dec 01, 2012 15:10 (5 months ago) | |
| Well, seems they saw the photographer in front and turn to avoid collision :-)) |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 10, 2012 14:51 (8 months ago) | |
| Just to clarify, the below debate is ref. Captain Dmitriy comment for the effect of a bulker ship 'hard' TURNING at sea. |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 10, 2012 14:38 (8 months ago) | |
|
Captain
Plain physics and only physics! A man can not neglect the physics facts/postulates and be beyond them (physics postulates are something on what we can not influence at all). The physics had their effect in this case, at least at the minimum of 0,1% or more, but, in any case they were present there. |
|
|
|
Lakhtikov Dmitriy on Sep 10, 2012 14:00 (8 months ago) | |
| :) No chance jadran, this is not a car. If You may try once. You could expect ship to list when turning only those with low stability, like navy or container vessels, but not with bulk. |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 10, 2012 12:35 (8 months ago) | |
|
Hello Captain Dmitriy!
All well said, but still the ship's TURN (by the physics mean of facts: mass dynamics of the whole ship in the turning process + rudder dynamics effect during a 'hard' turn) contributes a little, little... but anyhow it is present with its 'little effect' in the same-time combination of causes for the seen ship's list. |
|
|
|
Lakhtikov Dmitriy on Sep 10, 2012 10:06 (8 months ago) | |
|
As a bulker captain at the moment i am not able to fill TST separately from DBT as they are connected to each other on many of bulk vessels. I am pretty sure that CAMILLA has dropped TST to reduce time of deballasting, what kind of cargo she was going to load? Regarding GM are right, but when i said that i only wanted to say about GM margin on such "self-propelled barges".
For jadran: that is swell only, such vessel almost does not react on turning, You need high heeling moment, which You cannot reach using rudder. |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 10, 2012 09:59 (8 months ago) | |
|
Anyhow, it seems from this photo, that she is on her minimum 'shallow' draft because more than a half of her bulb (measured at the bulb's center) is seen above waterline.
I unfortunately am not able to know, in which way she is ballasted and how much ballast she carries in this case! I suppose a minimum of ballast, at the least. |
|
|
|
Captain Ted on Sep 10, 2012 09:36 (8 months ago) | |
|
Dmitriy
I doubt that she is de-ballsted for the sole reason that the port is sure not draft re-restricted for BALLAST ships, As bulker-capt If I wanted to decrease my rolling I would keep the TST,s full and take DB,s out, which decreases the GM, but if you have 5 m GM or 3.80 m,,for the hard rolling it does not really matter. |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 10, 2012 08:44 (8 months ago) | |
|
Yes, yes!...therefore in conclusion to everybody & everything hereunder said, this 'unusual big' listing effect is caused by a combination of: the 'hard' turn to PS - the de-ballasted ship's condition - the prevailing stern swell that arrived to the ship's stern.
This is my final opinion... can it be reconfirmed also by you, other commentators of this page? |
|
|
|
Patalavaca on Sep 10, 2012 07:46 (8 months ago) | |
|
Thanks for your interesting comments Dmitriy.
'TST' = top side water ballast tanks, I guess? Regards, Rick |
|
|
|
Lakhtikov Dmitriy on Sep 10, 2012 06:58 (8 months ago) | |
| There is nothing strange in this picture. Normal GM for bulk carrier in ballast is always over 5 meters, and here seems to be TST have been already emptied, increasing GM. What could happened with such exessive stability on long heavy ocean swell knows only bulk carriers crew. One thing could force master to sail with that condition is to keep required directio i.g. entering port. For Oldkayaker: she is not under limits, she is over. |
|
|
|
seaway7228 on Sep 10, 2012 01:41 (8 months ago) | |
| I suppose someone had to pick up a few items off the deck after this roll. |
|
|
|
Tony Conroy on Sep 09, 2012 23:59 (8 months ago) | |
|
Yes Rick, when the conditions are right, quite often you'll see light ships wallowing in the swell as they enter the port of Newcastle.
Thanks to BR Reef for this very good example. |
|
|
|
Patalavaca on Sep 09, 2012 22:26 (8 months ago) | |
|
Jó estét Magyar...I think Reef will be happy that he has provoked such comments!
Viszlát, Rick |
|
|
|
Patalavaca on Sep 09, 2012 22:09 (8 months ago) | |
|
Superb photo Br-Reef; clearly she is light ship & prone to rolling in this condition.
I have applied a bit of lateral thinking to show where she was at this moment in time....so bear with me.. I believe Richard Matterson has the correct answer - and he should know if he lives there?! Jadran also seems to be correct, regarding the vessel turning to port, and this is my assumption too. Observations: 1) There is no visible wake directly *astern* of the vessel 2) Enlarging the photo to maximum size shows a fair swell running. 4) The photo is timed as taken at 1434 hrs. 09/09/2012. 3) There is a 10 hour time difference between Newcastle and GMT/UTC. 4) Allowing a *very* minor time difference between the photographers camera and the UTC/GMT time shown on AIS records indicates that:- At 0426 hrs. UTC/GMT (1426 local time) 'Lowlands Camellia', travelling at 9.5 knots, commences a slight turn to port, from 302 degrees to 289 degrees. At 0429 hrs. UTC/GMT (1429 local time) 'Lowlands Camellia', travelling at 10.4 knots, commenced a tighter turn to port; from 289 degrees to 236 degrees on her final port approach. So, just a few minutes after commencing this latter 53 degree turn, she is perhaps still 'recovering' from it, bouncing off the swells and Reef's shot shows her wallowing on a 'rebound/recovery' roll. That's my best calculation :-) Regards, and thanks for the fun! Rick |
|
|
|
pieter melissen on Sep 09, 2012 21:30 (8 months ago) | |
| Oldkayaker, just imagine somebody standing in front of a toilet at this moment... |
|
|
|
Oldkayaker on Sep 09, 2012 20:58 (8 months ago) | |
| Wow, that is quite a bit of listing to port. Apparently this captain understands his ship's bouyancy limits. |
|
|
|
Richard Matterson on Sep 09, 2012 20:37 (8 months ago) | |
|
Great photo. As teh caption states she is entering NEwcastle - presumably to load coal so she will have completely de-ballasted before entering harbour.
To enter Newcastle from the anchorage involves an approximate 90 degree turn to Port which generally puts you beam on to the prevailing swell. |
|
|
|
David Meare on Sep 09, 2012 20:06 (8 months ago) | |
| LOL. My first thought on seeing this photo earlier today was that she was beached and a casualty that had been mis-categorised. I'm pleased to see that she has evoked some discussion on the topic. |
|
|
|
Captain Ted on Sep 09, 2012 20:05 (8 months ago) | |
|
Pieter,,there certainly is. Special when
1) stern sea and swell, like here, high and long stern swell 2) veseel is loaded by the head, i.e. draft fwd more than aft 3) down stream a river like the Mississippi |
|
|
|
Captain Ted on Sep 09, 2012 19:40 (8 months ago) | |
|
Jadran,,that,s the water which gets pushed away from the vessel during rolling, not a wake from turning on top of that if a ship , bulker or not, heels over like that during
turning then she most probably has a problem with ballast tanks and such. ven in my container time (2500 TEU) leaning over more than 5 degrees in hard turns on a a river or so, would be a lot and the stability already rather low,,like a GM of 0.70 or lower |
|
|
|
pieter melissen on Sep 09, 2012 19:31 (8 months ago) | |
| is there something like understeer in shipping? |
|
|
|
holedrille on Sep 09, 2012 19:27 (8 months ago) | |
|
From the appearance of the wake, what little you can see of it, she is turning hard to port. So you would expect a resultant list to starboard. So it isn't the turn , and must be wave conditions. Yet the sea does not look very rough.
Mystery Holedriller |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 09, 2012 17:18 (8 months ago) | |
|
Captain Ted, there is a white trace after her stern, PS, that makes it seem the ship is in process of turning. Maybe only an optical illusion, and if so, I am mistaken in my conclusions.
You, as a long term Captain of bulkers, have the experience of wave effects therefore I can well accept your explanation. Thank you/Jadran |
|
|
|
Captain Ted on Sep 09, 2012 16:48 (8 months ago) | |
| Looks more that she runs on a swell/surf coming in from her aft stb quarter which makes almost all ships roll rather hard where 20 degrees to each side is normal |
|
|
|
jadran on Sep 09, 2012 16:12 (8 months ago) | |
|
Is this a full turning emergency manoeuvre at full speed on open sea, but for what reason to do so!?
The ship on this photo also looks very fresh painted & in marvelous condition, like a newbuilding. But she is today already 6 years old and the capture date of this photo is only September 09,2012 i.e. today?? Anyhow, this very interesting photo associates me of a new built ship and its first "Sea trials prior to delivery to the Owners" including the test "Emergency full turn at Full speed". |
|
|
;){kind=link}