# Republica di Genova capsized



## Koen

Container ship capsizes in port of Antwerp during cargo loading; No injuries reported.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/08/europe/EU-GEN-Belgium-Capsized-Container-Ship.php


----------



## Thamesphil

More photos here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imcbrokers/sets/72157594576884608/show/


----------



## Bearsie

Looks like a mess!
One statement translates into: she started to lean and they took standard preventive measures but the "self healing" systems failed...
What in the world is a "self healing" system ??? Do they mean self righting computerised ballast controls?
Awesome series of foto's here:
http://www.fishki.net/comment.php?id=18559


----------



## Cisco

Modern roros have a heeling system...probably better described as an antiheeling system. Big Port and starboard wing tanks connected by a *big* pipe and a *big* valve so that a lot of water can be moved quickly from side to side. Imagine a couple of 60 ton double stacked mafi trailers getting hauled straight out of the outer lanes on one side...needs a lot of water moved pretty quick to keep her upright. Couple that with the shore wallahs ( aka the truck drivers in suits ) wanting a swag of cargo out of the main deck before going upstairs .... and putting the ship's stability into a less than optimum condition. Then have the valve stick for whatever reason......lots of water running from high side to low side.....ooooooops


----------



## Bearsie

Hi Cisco. Thanks for explaining that a bit better.
here a quote from a friend of mine who is connected to the shipping industry in Antwerp: *"Rumours indeed are that the ballast system of the ship was malfunctioning. The ship had already some stability problems when it reached the Port of Antwerp. No official statement though".*

So this is all computerised? No more captain yelling at the chief: "gimme some ballast in #5!" ?
These incidents of "ship flipping" in harbors seem to be on the increase ...
An expensive sport when compared to cow flipping


----------



## Cisco

Gday Bearsie,
Computerised? Pretty basic at heart.....tiltometer hooked up to an on/off thisway/thatway switch on a pump. My last 18 years were spent on roros and we had our moments with this sort of kit.... 

The rest of the ballast is usually manually controlled from a cargo office near the back door and on my last ship we also had a ballast board on the bridge...but that is all press button stuff, nothing fancy.



If she arrived tender and they took cargo out of the main deck first ( often have to do this to gain access the ramp to the upper deck) then she was an accident waiting to happen....

Cheers
Cisco


----------



## Bearsie

Hi Cisco.
Now that makes sense, since the weight in the lower deck would be sort of part of the "ballast" .... So one would have to be very careful what to remove where and when? One slight error....


----------



## texasrv

One report says that the vessel started listing the night before and despite efforts it eventually capsised. The problem developed over time and that is why they has time to take people off and no-one was killed. Certainly sounds like a mechanical problem. Notice that the vessels hull is freshly painted. been in dry dock recently?


----------



## UmbornePirate

*Ballast Transfer Systems*



Cisco said:


> Modern roros have a heeling system...probably better described as an antiheeling system. Big Port and starboard wing tanks connected by a *big* pipe and a *big* valve so that a lot of water can be moved quickly from side to side. Imagine a couple of 60 ton double stacked mafi trailers getting hauled straight out of the outer lanes on one side...needs a lot of water moved pretty quick to keep her upright. Couple that with the shore wallahs ( aka the truck drivers in suits ) wanting a swag of cargo out of the main deck before going upstairs .... and putting the ship's stability into a less than optimum condition. Then have the valve stick for whatever reason......lots of water running from high side to low side.....ooooooops


Hi Cisco

Are some transfer sytems really as simple as this or did you simplify your system decription for the sake of your very clear explanation of the basic principles? Since anti-heeling ballast transfers are generally from the low side to the high side, any ballast control system that in failure mode could allow an uncontrolled flow of water from high side to low side must always be very bad news. Therefore surely any design should ensure that a simple failure of a single component would not create a situation where this could happen.

As a quick for instance, if there are two "big pipes" connecting the bottom of each wing ballast tank to an anti-siphon trap at the top of the opposite tank there is no gravity path to open up in the event of valve failure. Obviously slightly more expensive than the single pipe but surely essential in such a safety critical area. 

If such cheap and simple systems as you describe do exist then I share your later sentiment that they are an accident waiting to happen.

All the best

Pirate


----------



## Cisco

Simplified for the sake of description but on all the RoRos I have been on the water could run back...high side to low side.... if given the chance. Your idea sounds good but I have never seen such a thing.


----------



## Ian

It never happened in the 50-60s. why is it going on now, so much incompitance and so much lack of training.


----------



## Cisco

That's a bit rough!

Old roros didn't have this kit. First ones I sailed on in the 70's were still a 'send a chit down to the engineers' job. Also old roros weren't as big and didn't carry the big lumps of cargo that many do these days..I'm talking here of ships handling up to four 20 foot boxes on mafi trailers, not car ferries.

Some 80's built roros I was on had the heeling systems with a couple of 'this way - that way' switches operated by the duty mate but even there the valve could play up - usually after the system had been shut down at sailing time..

Don't blame the people running the ships, have a go at the people designing and building the equipment. Not for nothing did everyone one call Norcontrol 'Nocontrol'.


----------



## Bearsie

wa002f0328 said:


> It never happened in the 50-60s. why is it going on now, so much incompitance and so much lack of training.


Many reasons. 1st reason is that we tend to forget the "screw ups" of the 50's and 60's, them were the good old times after all ! People will always push limits, be that designers, owners or operators. And once in a while pushing limits catches up with you... Nothing new there.
Training and competence are most likely comparable to the good old days, no worse, no better.
Seems there is already a discussion going on on how to make these heel tanks fool proof. Although I am not sure that the designers are checking SN every morning and take heed...


And so it goes


----------



## randcmackenzie

Hello gents,
In discussing heeling tanks running from high side to low side or vice versa, inadvertent or not, it should be noted that there is no change in stability, as the mean kg (Keel to Centre of Gravity)of the tanks remains the same.

Therefore the capsize must have been due to lack of stability caused by incorrect cargo operations - too much weight on deck, not enough in the holds - it has been happening since the introduction of ro-ros. I well remember seeing a capsized 'package freighter' in montreal in 1965 where our pilot's comment was 'Steel plate on deck, top hats in the hold'.


----------



## Bearsie

randcmackenzie said:


> Hello gents,
> In discussing heeling tanks running from high side to low side or vice versa, inadvertent or not, it should be noted that there is no change in stability, as the mean kg (Keel to Centre of Gravity)of the tanks remains the same.
> 
> Therefore the capsize must have been due to lack of stability caused by incorrect cargo operations - too much weight on deck, not enough in the holds - it has been happening since the introduction of ro-ros. I well remember seeing a capsized 'package freighter' in montreal in 1965 where our pilot's comment was 'Steel plate on deck, top hats in the hold'.


While that makes sense to a point and we did tip over a coaster with a deck load of lumber in Leningrad due to lack of ballast, but we recovered, lucky for us the lines kept us from rolling all the way. I am not sure I agree a hundred percent. The ballast on the wrong side of the ship will certainly introduce heeling? and if there is already too much weight on that side effect stability to the point of capsizing?

In that vein here is an article about a Jumboship accident in Albany, NY-USA in 2004, when reading it slowly one becomes a bit suspicious of the heeling tanks...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200407/ai_n16065376


----------



## Cisco

Point taken from randc.....one little problem does not make a capsize..but combine heeling tank problems with a tender ship.....more tender than in her seagoing state....with unlashed cargo...with sill immersion....

I recall a big swedish ro ro...new ship...at anchor off Famagusta in the late 70's iirc...took several days to roll over but roll over she eventually did.


----------



## UmbornePirate

*Salvage Contract Awarded*

I see Smits have been awarded the Salvage Contract

Pirate


----------



## Hawkeye

Hi



Cisco said:


> Point taken from randc.....one little problem does not make a capsize..but combine heeling tank problems with a tender ship.....more tender than in her seagoing state....with unlashed cargo...with sill immersion....
> 
> I recall a big swedish ro ro...new ship...at anchor off Famagusta in the late 70's iirc...took several days to roll over but roll over she eventually did.


Would this be the Zenobia, a sister ship to the two large freighters purchased by Sealink and converted into passenger ships, then named Fantasia & Fiesta.

Regards
Karl


----------



## UmbornePirate

*ZENOBIA details*



Cisco said:


> ...... I recall a big swedish ro ro...new ship...at anchor off Famagusta in the late 70's iirc...took several days to roll over but roll over she eventually did.


Cisco

Your memory serves you well. The following report tells it clearly.



Der Norske Veritas said:


> The Zenobia capsized in rough weather off Cyprus on 7 June 1980. It was an 8900 GRT Swedish Ro-Ro passenger ferry, built in 1979. It was sailing from Koper (Yugoslavia) to Tartous (Syria), with a cargo of trucks and trailers, 121 passengers/drivers and 30 crew. It had been ballasted incorrectly, giving low stability with GM of 0.9m. During a storm on 2 June, the autopilot failed while an officer was demonstrating its use, leaving the rudder hard to starboard, causing a 10deg port list. The cargo of 3000 tonnes shifted due to poor lashing, causing a 40deg list. 150 people evacuated by lifeboat, while the master remained on board.
> 
> The vessel was towed into sheltered water, and the list was reduced to 4deg by pumping water out and ballasting the starboard tanks, allowing the cargo to be discharged. After 16 hours, the vessel again listed to port due to failure of the stabilising tank control. It took in water through an open pilot door and capsized after 2 hours. No lives were lost.
> 
> Ref : Hooke, N. (1989) : "Modern Shipping Disasters", Lloyds of London Press, London.
> Boyce, J. et al (1980) : "Ro-Ro Ships and their Market Role", Fairplay, London.
> Lloyds List, 3-8 June 1980.


The emphasis is mine, I agree with you that there could be be similarities in this latest incident.

Pirate


----------



## UmbornePirate

*Abnormally tender*

I have had a few bumpy trips in the North Sea but not in a Ro-Ro. There is a interesting account written by a long term passenger on the Repubblica di Genova of a rough ride between Amsterdam & Hamburg. See the passenger's diary entries for Nov 12 and Nov 13 2006 here. 

To my mind this is a description of a voyage with abnormally tender stability, or is it often like this?

All the best

Pirate


----------



## UmbornePirate

*One year on*

Just over a year since she capsized in Antwerp docks, the ex Republica di Genova is back at sea as a "dead ship", under tow of the tug Salvigilant and on AIS. They are en route to Korea for repair and overhaul before returning to trade as the Daewoo Frontier. They are making 8 knots and enter the Dover TSS later tonight.

Pirate


----------



## billmaca

like the Riverdance at Blackpool this one does'nt seem to have a lot of ship bellow the water


----------



## pat

Saw the Daewood Frontier being towed passed Vlissingen enroute to Korea yesterday afternoon and thought she must be the Grimaldi Genova that capsized about a year ago in Antwerp so she will be back in service again after Korea so will see her again pass by on her way to and from Antwerp in due course.


----------

