# Cargo ship aground hours after rescue tug withdrawn



## DCMARINE (Dec 5, 2005)

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/highlands-islands/301092


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

I view that as a somewhat 'slanted' report. Whilst a tug might well be of use to refloat a vessel that someone has stuck on the putty, I can't see how it would prevent it from getting there in the first place. 

If the presence of a tug could prevent groundings, we could make our coasts safe simply hiring some tugs instead of wasting money on navaids, lighthouses and coastguards.


----------



## uisdean mor (Sep 4, 2008)

Ron Stringer said:


> I view that as a somewhat 'slanted' report. Whilst a tug might well be of use to refloat a vessel that someone has stuck on the putty, I can't see how it would prevent it from getting there in the first place.
> 
> If the presence of a tug could prevent groundings, we could make our coasts safe simply hiring some tugs instead of wasting money on navaids, lighthouses and coastguards.


I would tend to agree Ron. The withdrawal of the tug resource is coincidental to the grounding and not the cause of the grounding. Report states the very tip of North uist but in reality Flodday Mor is an island off North Uist. The person in charge in this case must have just missed Flodday Beag on his way into Flodday Mor AND if he had not seen it then he was on course to ram another island - Ronaigh . I do not think there are many tugs which can assist persistent rock dodging like this. Wonder what was on telly at the time??? hopefully not University Challenge but more likely Top gear. 
Rgds 
Uisdean


----------



## John Campbell (Aug 30, 2005)

what utter bilge is being spouted by councilors and sundry politicians about this incident . The withdrawal of the tug had nothing to do with it and its withdrawal will save a lot of money. 
JC


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

The withdrawal of the tugs from the West and North coasts of Scotland saved £30 million, small change for the likes of the treasury.
Anyone care to place a value on the affect of a laden MCC or VLCC coming ashore in the region?


----------



## John N MacDonald (Apr 1, 2008)

I have to agree Jim. Take a look at AIS almost any day and there's usually a crude carrier or one of Yeomans (coasters) in the Minch or to the west coast of the outer Hebrides. I know that human error can cause groundings but we need a tug just in case.


----------



## eriskay (Mar 26, 2006)

It is hard to reconcile what the ship was doing so close in to the shore with the attendant risks when she should have been a good four or five miles East of that point for a course down the Minch.

It is correct what has been said already, the presence of the tug is not going to prevent ships doing the unthinkable such as in this case - I am assuming she was under full command and having no 'technical difficulties' or weather conditions that could account for her being in there.

However, the withdrawal of the tug service from these waters in nothing short of a disgrace. Her value is being around when the unexpected occurs in waters that can be anything but friendly is obvious for the prevention of a marine tragedy, loss of life, potential pollution, etc., as Jim has pointed out. The so-called 'savings' are not justified in this case.

The article is, of course, the usual journalistic twaddle, alluding to this incident and the removal of the tug being interconnected. It will be interesting to hear what the explanation is for being in there in the first place when on a passage for Belfast.


----------



## uisdean mor (Sep 4, 2008)

A few mixed messages here - in general across the discussion so far - VLCC or whatever are banned from the inner Minch and can be prosecuted for using it - but they do use it. So who is policing the issue and why do we not hear more about it. A couple of years ago the debate was around ship safety outside the Minch and that it was somehow safer to come down the inner sound ??? I have not kept up to speed with the politics so do not offer any comment here. I agree we need the safety measure of a tug but several points for discussion a) who pays b) where is it stationed c) reckless/dangerous seamanship versus a disaster/unavoidable accident d) traffic management i.e. making dangerous cargo vessels use the outer route. 
Finally the last three serious "groundings" as far as I am aware were all poor seamanship - this one - the "nuclear" incident in Kyle - Aulison Point in Loch Sunart , forgot to turn right when they entered Sound of Mull because they were all watching telly. again vessel bound for Belfast - how can legislate for these incidents? 

Rgds 
Uisdean


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Uisdean,
Perhaps an unreported part of duties of the ETV's was that they actively escorted laden tankers and other 'risky' vessels both inside/outside the Minch and the Pentland Firth, so that they'd be onhand when needed. 
Not only that, but they were handy for minor matters of enforcement and also for survey work, negating the need to charter in additional vessels.
The North and West Coasts are the most vulnerable parts of the UK as very little commercial towage activity takes place there, therefore should a problem arise it may well be too late by the time a suitable tug arrives.

For anyone in any doubt, I would point to elsewhere in Europe and North Africa - most of our neighbours have or are in the process of building ETV's, well aware of their usefulness and necessity.
Of course as usual, the UK knows better than everyone else!
It'd be laughable if it wasn't so criminal.


----------



## seafoods (Dec 29, 2010)

James_C said:


> Uisdean,
> Perhaps an unreported part of duties of the ETV's was that they actively escorted laden tankers and other 'risky' vessels both inside/outside the Minch and the Pentland Firth, so that they'd be onhand when needed.
> Not only that, but they were handy for minor matters of enforcement and also for survey work, negating the need to charter in additional vessels.
> The North and West Coasts are the most vulnerable parts of the UK as very little commercial towage activity takes place there, therefore should a problem arise it may well be too late by the time a suitable tug arrives.
> ...


Completely agree, minimal savings but increased risk of serious incident maximised. Renegotiate the contracts by all means, so that after standing down from immediate 'rescue' duties any towage fees etc go to the charterers (MCA) rather than the owners of the ETV, as was previously the case. It was, perhaps, a bad contract but at least they were there if, and when, needed


----------



## DCMARINE (Dec 5, 2005)

James_C said:


> The withdrawal of the tugs from the West and North coasts of Scotland saved £30 million, small change for the likes of the treasury.
> Anyone care to place a value on the affect of a laden MCC or VLCC coming ashore in the region?


When I opened this Thread I was not for one minute suggesting that the tug would have prevented it. Having been involved in both the "Braer" and "Sea Empress" incidents I know the affect of laden tankers coming ashore in the region. The requirement for these tugs in the UK came about following the "Braer" grounding and nothing has changed to lessen their need today. If a laden tanker was to breakdown in the Minch it could at least anchor in reasonably sheltered waters until the arrival of a tug, however if a laden tanker was to breakdown west of the Hebrides on the Deepwater Route in severe prevailing Westerly weather it would not be able to anchor due to the depth of water and steep-to shoreline and would drift ashore in a short time (as in the case of the "Braer") before a tug could reach there from the East Coast. The Northern Isles have more tug coverage as there are likely to be anchor-handlers in the area but the Western Isles does not have the benefit of such coverage therefore if they are to remove one of the tugs it should be the Northern Isles one.
Donald Campbell


----------

