# Let go the stern anchor!!



## John Campbell

I came across this interesting item in today's DAILY MAIL


'I was drunk': Passenger drops anchor of moving cruise ship in the middle of the CaribbeanBy Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:27 PM on 1st December 2010

Rick Ehlert, 44, went into a restricted area, put on work gloves and released the anchor of the 1,260-passenger ship in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, said the FBI
A drunk cruise ship passenger has been arrested after dropping the anchor on a moving liner.
Rick Ehlert, 44, went into a restricted area, put on work gloves and released the anchor of the 1,260-passenger ship in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, said the FBI.
For good measure he also threw a life buoy overboard as the liner made its way from Costa Maya on the Caribbean coast of Mexico to Tampa, Florida.
The sailing enthusiast is now in custody and faces charges of attempting to damage a vessel and endangering a ship's safe navigation.
If found guilty he could have to pay a $250,000 (£160,000) fine and be imprisoned for up to 20 years.
The FBI says that releasing the rear anchor could have punctured the 719ft ship and caused it to sink or be severely flooded.
According to investigators, Ehlert admitted the offence claiming he was drunk at the time. He also explained that the liner's anchor system was similar to that of his own 50ft boat.
As soon as it became clear what had happened the ship's captain made an announcement asking passengers for information.
When no one came forward, everyone was ordered on deck - and Ehlert was identified from CCTV footage of the incident.
The culprit was dressed in the same clothes that Ehlert had worn to a dinner just hours before.
After an inspection of the liner it was found not to be damaged and managed to continue its journey to Florida.

The MS Ryndam cruise ship can accommodate 1,260 passengers. After an inspection of the liner it was found not to be damaged and managed to continue its journey to Florida
The liner had left Costa Maya on the Caribbean coast of Mexico and was heading towards Tampa in Florida when Ehlert released the anchor




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-anchor-middle-Gulf-Mexico.html#ixzz16s8vRznM


----------



## Don Matheson

Dont see what he did wrong, he had the sense to throw out a lifebelt to stop the anchor drowning. A forward thinking fellow in my eyes.

Dont you think the FBI were just a tad over the top in thinking that by dropping the anchor he could have sunk the ship or cause severe flooding.
At least he had the good sense to wear gloves thus staying within H&S guidelines.

Don


----------



## Tmac1720

Maybe he thought it was the handbrake (Cloud) At least what he is rhymes with anchor (K)


----------



## James_C

You'd have thought that after the initial loud noise,sparks/paint flying and many tonnes of steel hurtling into the abyss he'd have realised that he perhaps hadn't pressed the right button to summon another G&T from the steward....
Never a dull moment on a passie boat is there?


----------



## Billieboy

Talking cargo, with wandering fingers, not quite my cup of tea.


----------



## John Cassels

Assuming there were connected , how did he manage to release both the
stopper bar and D. claw.

If the anchor wasn't clewed up , then surely the ship bears some responsibility ?.


----------



## oldbosun

*Let go the stern anchor*

What was the mate, bosun doing to let this happen?. 
Or don't they have claws on the anchor chain these days when the ship is at sea?
We never shoulda left it in their hands lads, they haven't got a clue.(Whaaa)


----------



## Sister Eleff

What makes it even worse is that he should have had some knowledge of the dangers, as he had a boat with a 'similar system on his 50ft boat'.


----------



## cueball44

It sure looks like he did it with intent because of his actions of putting the gloves on, and with him owning his own boat he would know the procedure when preparing to drop the anchor, removing the claws, unshipping it then releasing the brake, being drunk is no excuse, i think he should be made to sell his boat to pay the large fine he will be facing.'cueball44


----------



## Pat Kennedy

Well a devil's claw cannot be released while under tension. This man would have had to take the weight off it by heaving on the windlass or capstan, before he could slacken off the bottle screw.
So either the devil's claw was not in use, or there was power on to the windlass. Either way, that should set off alarm bells about the security of the anchor. 
Apparently no harm was done, but just imagine the carnage if some of the crew had been working in the chain locker.

Pat(Smoke)


----------



## James_C

Most likely there wasn't devils claws in use (haven't seen them for many a long year), and instead merely a chain/wire passed through the cable when the anchor is fully home, this then being secured - usually hand tight - with some kind of bottle screw arrangement, this being the most common arrangement on modern ships.
Ergo it's dead easy to drop the anchor - slack the securing wire, pull it through the cable, lift up the stopper bar and slack off on the brake.


----------



## Mike S

What is wrong with clutching the anchor winch in and loading the clutch before switching the power off as well as securing with a wire?
Seem to recall this was procedure when I was a nipper and on the tugs I worked. Only involves a second or two to release the clutch once the power is on.
If there is no power due to an emergency then I am sure a frightened sailor with a large hammer would suffice.......(EEK)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

*An Engineer speaks*

I must admit to being quite surprised they had a stern anchor at all!! I didn't think they were very common.

From memory the way the anchor was stowed - usually meant that you required power to prepare it for lowering. Clutched with weight on the stopper possibly???(Whaaa) - sumfing norticle anyway


----------



## Splinter

Power on, in gear, release brake, haul up to remove chain stopper, walk down from hause, brake on out of gear.

Ray.


----------



## Nick Balls

Just to remind people, Anchors should be able to dropped with no power on the windlass (For example in an emergency) Certainly should not be left clutched in ! Some of those devils claws don't have much of a bottle screw. I must admit also that chain stoppers can have a fair bit of weight on them. 
Classic case of not using the anchors was the Brear disaster, had they been dropped even if they failed to hold then the AHTS Star Sirius would have got a hook on the chain.


----------



## captain61

So nobody was watching the cctv at the time....

You never know he may get a job offer as a deck officer

Stephen


----------



## Billieboy

captain61 said:


> So nobody was watching the cctv at the time....
> 
> You never know he may get a job offer as a deck officer
> 
> Stephen


Done it a lot quicker and quieter than some bosuns I've sailed with. Some of them didn't know wether the capstans were setam or electric!


----------



## woodend

Obviously the ship did not obey Murphy's first law and take preventative measures: 'if it can happen, it will, at the most inopportune time and in the most inaccessible place'! The passenger will be for the high jump but the ship should also take more responsibility.


----------



## Jon Vincent

I was offered a masters job on one these cruise liners many years ago. I turned it down flat without even thinking about it. The wife had a fit when I could not explain why, guess what I know why now. Your deab right "Billieboy", walking cargo with fingers, perfect recipe for disaster.


----------



## Billieboy

Jon Vincent said:


> I was offered a masters job on one these cruise liners many years ago. I turned it down flat without even thinking about it. The wife had a fit when I could not explain why, guess what I know why now. Your deab right "Billieboy", walking cargo with fingers, perfect recipe for disaster.


Had the same sort of intuitive thought one day in '81. I was asked to visit a ship berthed about ten Km away from one I was visiting, by the Denholm Super, he said that a repair/run crew was needed to fix up some ballast lines on an OBO. I immediately said No for some inexplicable reason. 

Four or five weeks later the ship concerned was back in Rotterdam, discharging iron ore, there was an explosion and four of the UK five man riding squad were killed along with a galley boy or JOS. I've often wondered a) why did I say No so directly, and b) what would have happened if my crew were on board, as there would have been a new gang, to relieve the sea gang, and my standard safety rules would have been in operation.


----------



## John Cassels

Nick Balls said:


> Just to remind people, Anchors should be able to dropped with no power on the windlass (For example in an emergency) Certainly should not be left clutched in ! Some of those devils claws don't have much of a bottle screw. I must admit also that chain stoppers can have a fair bit of weight on them.
> Classic case of not using the anchors was the Brear disaster, had they been dropped even if they failed to hold then the AHTS Star Sirius would have got a hook on the chain.


Yea , we know that Nick and that was my point. He couldn't have
been that far gone to have released and removed the claw and bar
all on his lonesome. Would be interesting to find out if the anchor
was held only by the brake.


----------



## Glyn Howell

*Drunk Decides to let go Cruise Liners Anchor*

Did anyone see that choice snippet in the Daily Mirror which said that a drubk cruise passenger released the ship's anchor as it sailed across the Gulf of Mexico. The 44 year old is accused of endangering a ship's safe navigation. He could be fined £160,000 and jailed for up to 20 years. There was no mention of whether he brought the ship up all standing or indeed ripped the bow of.

Anyone else had this happen? Glyn Howell


----------



## James_C

I've merged the above post with the older thread.


----------



## chadburn

I have read somewhere when a Motor Yachtie was off Flamborough Head and heading for the Humber had problems making way with his two powerful Ford Sabre engine's, contemplating major engine o/h's and the cost of them only to find that his Anchor had slipped and was hanging the full length of the Cable.


----------



## Glyn Howell

*Drunk lets go anchor*

I should have known that that all the world had seen the article.
I was interested because when I had a short time in dredging with Westminster Dredging much the same thing happened. The crew members did not have to be merchant navy members, and one man who joined with me was a carpenter, and as we often had to do quick repairs I thought he was handy to have. I showed him the anchoring routine which he seemed to grasp, and off we went on the ebb tide out of the Thames to the Shipwash Bank. I asked him to go for'wd and prepare the anchor for dropping in 15 minutes but he decided to let go at full speed. I tell you, the results were quite interesting to me, looking out through the bridge window. The chief never recovered from an emergency full astern. Glyn


----------



## Mike S

Anchors ready to be let go at all times..............!?
OK of course when arriving and departing from port, coasting in calm weather I would accept the anchor secured with the stoppers and the brake. Stoppers off once in port limits.
However.............
Once heading deep sea the anchor has to be secured. 
Hauled up hard, brake on, stoppers on and bottle screwed hard home, stopper bars if fitted swung over, spurling pipes packed with sacking and cemented up and clutches in. The one thing we never wanted was the anchor moving never mind escaping in a good force 8 in the open ocean.
What would be the point of the anchor being ready to let go in mid ocean? For one thing if it ever did run out if it was more than 3 or 4 shackles out of the pipe the windlass would very likely not retrieve it.
The anchor in question was a stern anchor? If so then that should have been secured hard up and spurling pipes cemented unless it was to be used.
With respect the Brear disaster is not the same ball game. We are talking open ocean here. The manner in which the anchors were secured on Brear was not relevant, the point there was that they were never deployed.


----------



## Splinter

Mike S said:


> Anchors ready to be let go at all times..............!?
> OK of course when arriving and departing from port, coasting in calm weather I would accept the anchor secured with the stoppers and the brake. Stoppers off once in port limits.
> However.............
> Once heading deep sea the anchor has to be secured.
> Hauled up hard, brake on, stoppers on and bottle screwed hard home, stopper bars if fitted swung over, spurling pipes packed with sacking and cemented up and clutches in. The one thing we never wanted was the anchor moving never mind escaping in a good force 8 in the open ocean.
> .


 
Mike

This was the only routine I knew. but instead of rags I made boards which fitted around the cable and hung on hooks, then cemeted in, my previous post was about preparing to drop hook.

Ray


----------



## CAPTAIN JEREMY

It is probable, that the securing would have been a guillotine and securing wires. Sad to say, it might well have not been properly positioned. If the guillotine is not correctly aligned with the horizontal link, it wont necessarily stop the cable from moving (if it is actually free to move) and with the sudden movement of the cable the vertical link could bounce it off completely. 

Stream (or stern) stern anchors are not used much, although there is a greater tendency to fit them on passenger ships. By definition they are not for anchoring the ship, but instead are to prevent a ship swinging to wind or tide, whilst at anchor. As a result, they are lighter than the main anchors forward, and only have a relatively short length of cable, 3 or 4 shackles. 

There is also the risk of complacency, that as it is not used, no one really checks the lashings. However as previously stated, it should be ready for letting go without the need for power, and thus should not be left in gear. If someone had the will to let the anchor go, it is possible that they could do it.


----------



## Tony Crompton

Some Esso Tankers had stern anchors. I was led to believe that this was to avoid having to swing to the flow if having to anchor when sailing down the Mississippi from Baton Rouge. Certainly on a couple of ships that I remember they were attached to a large wire on a drum as part of the stern mooring arrangements, not to a chain.

Tony


----------



## Klaatu83

Satanic Mechanic said:


> I must admit to being quite surprised they had a stern anchor at all!! I didn't think they were very common.
> 
> From memory the way the anchor was stowed - usually meant that you required power to prepare it for lowering. Clutched with weight on the stopper possibly???(Whaaa) - sumfing norticle anyway


You are quite correct, there is a lot more to it than simply releasing the brake. On every ship I was on an anchor had to be "cleared away" before it could be dropped. Among other things, that entailed going below somewhere to turn on the power to the windlass (the circuit breaker was invariably placed at some remote location), so that you could heave up slightly on the chain in order to relieve the tension. That enabled releasing the lashings and raising the riding pawl, which would otherwise be difficult for an individual to accomplish against the weight of the anchor.

The circuit breaker for the anchor windlass was invariably located somewhere below decks. Only those who normally operated the windlass would know where it was, and anyone else would undoubtedly have difficulty finding it. I don't know for sure, but I always believed that it was designed that way deliberately in order to render it more difficult for anyone to meddle with the anchor. 

Anchors are always secured at sea. At least, they were on all the ships I was on. Dropping one is not, and should not be, a simple matter of loosening a brake.


----------



## John Cassels

All the last few posts are confirming my suspision that the anchor was never
secured in the first place - apart from being on the brake.


----------



## Pat Kennedy

True John, but its all speculation.
For all we know, the guy may have been an ex seaman who knew exactly what to do.
Pat


----------



## Boatman25

Never mind all this speculation he should not have done it in the first place, this is the problem with everything these days, everyone cannot do wrong and everybody else is an expert


----------



## Splinter

Boatman25 said:


> Never mind all this speculation he should not have done it in the first place, this is the problem with everything these days, everyone cannot do wrong and everybody else is an expert


I would say that if you've dropped and picked up hook umpteen times, you do become a bit of an expert, on how it's done.
As for one not being able to do wrong, that's another thing.

Ray.


----------



## Mike S

Looks like we both sailed on proper ships Ray! (Thumb)


----------



## lakercapt

Most of the "Lakers" have stern anchors.
Used it several times and on one ship it was in fact our spare anchor though the chain was of smaller dimensions.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

To anyone with experience of using a stern/stream anchor.....

Coming upsteam on the flood with no room to turn and you expect to be there for more than a day... Let go stern anchor first, move ahead, let go a bow anchor and then come back to lie between the two? Lets assume you are on a ship the size of RYNDAM... passenger ship, 55,000 grt, draught about 8m. Not expecting and strong winds, just tides, say 2 to 3 knots. Anchor is about 4/5th the size of the bow anchors. Cable probably the same both ends. Possible or not. 

I wonder why the RYNDAM and her sisters are even fitted with stern anchors. If it is just to hold the ship steady for tendering purposes etc why not use the stern thrusters.

Any upper limit on size of vessel that might be fitted with a stern anchor?

Stephen


----------



## kewl dude

Four Great Lakes ships with stern anchors.

http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/indianaharbor.htm

Quote: Built by Bay Shipbuilding Co., Sturgeon Bay, WI; this twin-screw self unloading bulk carrier was launched March 19, 1979 as the Indiana Harbor for the American Steamship Co., Buffalo, NY. She is powered by 4 GM V-20 cylinder 3500 horsepower diesel engines giving her a rated service speed of 14 knots. She is equipped with both bow and stern thrusters. The Indiana Harbor's 37 hatches feed into 7 holds where she is capable of carrying 78850 tons at her maximum mid-summer draft of 34 feet. Her stern-mounted self unloading equipment feeds a 250 foot discharge boom that can be swung 92 degrees to port or starboard. The Indiana Harbor was the ninth 1000 footer built for Great Lakes service. She was the eighth of ten vessels launched for the American Steamship Co. under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1970. Under this Act, U.S. shipping companies could modernize their fleets or build new vessels with guaranteed government financing and tax deferred benefits. She became the first U.S. flagged vessel on the Great Lakes to have a satellite communication system installed; the installation taking place Nov. 28, 1983. Unquote.

Greg Hayden


----------



## Klaatu83

kewl dude said:


> Four Great Lakes ships with stern anchors.
> 
> http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/indianaharbor.htm
> 
> Quote: Built by Bay Shipbuilding Co., Sturgeon Bay, WI; this twin-screw self unloading bulk carrier was launched March 19, 1979 as the Indiana Harbor for the American Steamship Co., Buffalo, NY. She is powered by 4 GM V-20 cylinder 3500 horsepower diesel engines giving her a rated service speed of 14 knots. She is equipped with both bow and stern thrusters. The Indiana Harbor's 37 hatches feed into 7 holds where she is capable of carrying 78850 tons at her maximum mid-summer draft of 34 feet. Her stern-mounted self unloading equipment feeds a 250 foot discharge boom that can be swung 92 degrees to port or starboard. The Indiana Harbor was the ninth 1000 footer built for Great Lakes service. She was the eighth of ten vessels launched for the American Steamship Co. under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1970. Under this Act, U.S. shipping companies could modernize their fleets or build new vessels with guaranteed government financing and tax deferred benefits. She became the first U.S. flagged vessel on the Great Lakes to have a satellite communication system installed; the installation taking place Nov. 28, 1983. Unquote.
> 
> Greg Hayden


Isn't the one on the upper left the famous, ill-fated, Edmund Fitzgerald? 

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to sail on the Great Lakes, and I understand they do some things a bit differently from those of us who work on oceans. Nevertheless, I'd find it hard to believe they'd go out on the "Lakes" without securing all their anchors properly. After all, they may be called "lakes", but in size they're more like fresh-water seas.


----------



## landoburns

cueball44 said:


> " being drunk is no excuse "
> cueball44


Judging by the number of drunk mates I've seen letting go, it certainly isn't..

(Pint)


----------



## lakercapt

A trick we used in the fall when there was a chance of icing was to heave the anchors almost up and leave it in gear.
If you did experience icing them you turned on the windlass and heaved the anchor home.
This broke the ice free and you then could use the anchor.


----------



## John Campbell

Here is the latest on this sad saga
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-ne...ime-ar-245583/


----------



## Ron Stringer

John Campbell said:


> Here is the latest on this sad saga
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-ne...ime-ar-245583/


Link he no shteam Sahib.


----------



## John Campbell

Ron Stringer said:


> Link he no shteam Sahib.


Atcha Sahib- shteam coming childi childi

Charges stand against man accused of dropping anchor
It could puncture the ship, causing it to flood or sink.The MS Ryndam is 719 feet long, with a capacity for 1,260 passengers and 580 crew members, according to the Holland America website.

TBO.com | August 11, 2011 12:00AM

Charges stand against man accused of dropping cruise ship anchor
It could puncture the ship, causing it to flood or sink.The MS Ryndam is 719 feet long, with a capacity for 1,260 passengers and 580 crew members, according to the Holland America website.

TBO.com | August 10, 2011 12:07PM

Attorney: Ship prank wasn't federal crime
What Rick Ehlert did aboard a cruise ship in November was stupid, his attorney says.Ehlert admits he got drunk aboard the MS Ryndam, broke into a control room and deployed the ship's anchor early in the morning, Daniel L. Castillo said.

TBO.com | July 22, 2011 12:00AM

Lawyer: Dropping cruise ship's anchor 'silly' but not a crime
It could puncture the ship, causing it to flood or sink.The MS Ryndam is 719 feet long, with a capacity for 1,260 passengers and 580 crew members, according to the Holland America website.

TBO.com | July 21, 2011 02:55PM

Pasco People
The cruise sailed from the Port of Tampa on Holland America Line MS Ryndam on Feb. 13 for seven days aboard the ship, with stops at the ports of Mahogany Bay, Honduras, Beliza City, Belize, and Costa Maya, Mexico, before returning home Feb. 20.

TBO.com | April 13, 2011 12:00AM


TBO.com | November 30, 2010 12:00AM

Passenger charged for releasing anchor of moving ship
The MS Ryndam is 719 feet long, with a capacity for 1,260 passengers and 580 crew members, according to the Holland America website.

TBO.com | November 29, 2010 06:24PM

JC


----------

