# Collision Houston Ship Channel



## willincity (Jul 11, 2007)

A collision involving the boxship Monte Alegre and the product tanker Chembulk Houston closed the Houston Ship Channel for about two hours yesterday in the afternoon.
Fresh from the internet:
http://www.vesselfinder.com/news/30...ct-tanker-collide-in-the-Houston-Ship-Channel

Monte Alegre (IMO 9348065) built in 2008 and is registered in Germany. The 5,568-TEU vessel is managed by COLUMBUS SHIPMANAGEMENT GMBH. 

Chembulk Houston (IMO 9285469) built in 2003 and is registered in Singapore. Manager of the 16,922-DWT tanker is CHEMBULK MANAGEMENT LLC.


----------



## ben27 (Dec 27, 2012)

good day willincity.sm.today.00:04.re:collision houston ship channel.thank you for the shiping news.looking at the chanel its hard to see how they collided with all that room to navigate in.be interesting what they say at the hearing.regards ben27


----------



## Supergoods (Nov 25, 2007)

Heard on the local TV news last night:

"Collision between an Oil Tanker and a Container Tanker"

Ian


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

I'm surprised the container tanker wasn't loaded with at least half a million CC of crude fuel oil in barrels.


----------



## Day Sailor (Nov 9, 2014)

How many London bus fulls is that?


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

At least enough to cover 10 micro hectares of football pitch.


----------



## Ian Harrod (Oct 11, 2005)

How many Sydney harbourfuls is that?


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

All very odd.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Is that metric or imperial harbourfuls?


----------



## Supergoods (Nov 25, 2007)

Now that our Learned Friend and former Pilot has joined us, perhaps a return to the incident itself:

The channel is 530 feet wide
There had been 4 days of fog closures, so traffic was heavy.
Monte Alegre was overtaking Chembulk Houston
I speculate some suction interaction between the two vessels, unless there was either an equipment failure or, to use a modern term, a brain fart on board one of the vessels.

Ian


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

#10

"I speculate......"

So you do!


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Ah, smokoe's over is it?

I observe/suggest that the apparent speeds of the two are difficult to judge as the AIS transmissions seem not to be synchronised (of course they are not but I would have thought closer together than that).

The course keeping of the smaller vessel looks erratic.


----------



## Barrie Youde (May 29, 2006)

The first oddity is that it appears to be a case where the overtaking rule would clearly apply.

The second oddity is that the cir***stances suggest that all those on the bridge of each ship would have been at full alert and vigilance; with full knowledge of the relevant rules.

It is obvious that there is much more to it than we yet know.


----------



## Day Sailor (Nov 9, 2014)

As if one collision in a week wasn't enough, Conti Peridot and Carla Maersk have now had a bump. What is going on down there?


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

Varley said:


> At least enough to cover 10 micro hectares of football pitch.


Or a spill the size of Wales.


----------



## Ian Brown (Jun 25, 2008)

Are they still using that hair raising method of vessels meeting end on and then both altering to stbd when a few ship lengths apart then reversing the helm when passing?
It always seemed a very risky procedure and gave me a few bum clenching moments.


----------



## willincity (Jul 11, 2007)

Ian Brown said:


> Are they still using that hair raising method of vessels meeting end on and then both altering to stbd when a few ship lengths apart then reversing the helm when passing?
> It always seemed a very risky procedure and gave me a few bum clenching moments.


Texas Chicken
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...nel-congested-by-u-dot-s-dot-oil-and-gas-boom

and 2 examples on this 10 mins clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku8kjVQYKE4


----------



## John Dryden (Sep 26, 2009)

Gets mentioned often on SN but it costs you nothing to to get on the bridge wing to have a look then go back to the window and still have a look.


----------



## randcmackenzie (Aug 31, 2005)

Barrie Youde said:


> The first oddity is that it appears to be a case where the overtaking rule would clearly apply.
> 
> The second oddity is that the cir***stances suggest that all those on the bridge of each ship would have been at full alert and vigilance; with full knowledge of the relevant rules.
> 
> It is obvious that there is much more to it than we yet know.


A third oddity is why a competent master would permit a pilot to attempt overtaking in dense fog and in a narrow channel.

What miniscule time advantage was to be gained?


----------

