EXPERTS CLAIM THAT THE 2 JANUARY ACCIDENT ON THE MSC ZOE WAS CAUSED BY A LASHING FAILURE RATHER THAN A VESSEL DESIGN FAULT. CREDIT: WIKIPEDIA COMMONS.
Naval architects and marine experts have told FreightWaves that the most likely cause of the container losses suffered by the MSC Zoe earlier this month were a failure in the lashing process.
According to one source, the accelerations and rolling motions of a vessel in a storm mean that the most vulnerable areas of the ship, in terms of cargo container losses, are at the front and rear of the vessel.
Photographs taken at the time of the accident showed that most of the 280 or so containers lost from the MSC Zoe were from the central cargo holds of the vessel, and that, said both sources, indicates that the lashings were insufficient to hold the cargo in the storm.
Asked by FreightWaves if there had been further updates on the causes of the accident, an MSC spokeswoman said, “The exact causes of this incident are still being analysed.”
Meanwhile, MSC issued a further statement on the discharge of cargo that has taken place in Bremerhaven: only one container bound for Bremerhaven was damaged; all cargo heading to destinations beyond Bremerhaven, but through the port, have been unloaded; cargo loaded in Sines, Portugal, bound for Tanjung Pelepas, in Malaysia was unloaded in Bremerhaven and will be loaded onto a connecting vessel.
The search for missing cargo and local clean-up operations are continuing. All cargo owners have been contacted, said the vessel operator.
If, in fact, lashing deficiencies were the root cause of these losses, there are only two potentials: 1). The lashing plan within the mandatory Cargo Securing Manual (CSM) that the C/V MSC ZOE was obliged to carry wasn't followed; or 2). The CSM was deficient.
Did the mates sign off on the lashing ?
All of the major liner services have an ironclad policy, which requires the relevant ship's officer to confirm and acknowledge that cargo securing has been conducted in conformance with the CSM.
When the shipping companies decided to make Mega Ships someone forgot to design a lashing plan. They are going 9 high on deck now and only lashing the second and third height containers you're definitely going to lose containers out at sea.
IMO-registered ships must, according to the SOLAS Convention, each have a current and valid CSM (which, on container vessels, will include a comprehensive lashing plan). It may be the case wherein the Class societies that originate these CSMs must rethink their calculations.
The self releasing IBCs may be partly to blame for stowage instability.
Perhaps. I have no knowledge as to what IBCs MSC was using aboard C/V MSC ZOE.
nor do I. It was a general statement based upon my observations as a crane operator.
Longshore Safety Facebook
Much as #ITFDockers suspected lashing would be cited as an issue in the MSC Zoe container spill. There is a lot of debate going on about the cargo securing manual and automated systems in determining a sound lashing plan for the intended voyage. What has not been speculated about was the containers weights and stowage. They are a lot of factors at play including the sheer size of the vessel. One thing is sure, vessel and terminal operators better make sure shore side lashing gangs are given the time and resources to safely and securely complete lashing prior to departure. We hear from affiliates that lashing gangs are often hurried off of the vessel because pilots are on board. In the marine world, when corners are cut disaster is not far behind.