Greenpeace ship damages reef in Tubbataha

[El Orans]

What a waste.

 

[garyfotodiver]

I agree with Greenpeace actions in some cases and disagree with them in others. In this case I do wonder how the vessel was operating simply from the inaccurate charts and not using other navigational tools that might have prevented this?

I agree with DrBill. What's the draft on that vessel, water clarity, weather conditions, etc.

Can't anybody SEE?

 

[archman]

Their nav chart was current as of this August, which is pretty dang recent. I doubt there were any updates from the Phillipine government, anyhow. I surmise that there are, now.

Rainbow Warrior II's over 150 feet long. It's hard to operate a boat that size in coral reef areas, as other large research vessels (that have also grounded) can attest. Reefs can pop up on depth sounders with little/no warning, turbid water or night conditions negates lookouts, marker buoys often aren't present, blah blah...

From the news release, I don't see anything that indicates the vessel's crew acted negligiently.

 

[Tom Winters]

All those years they missed reefs and nobody said. "Hey Greenpeace - great navigating!" They clobber one reef and even the baby seal killers are going, "Nanner, nanner, nanner..." I guess life is like that sometimes.

 

[archman]

Having run aground myself in ecologically sensitive areas, and followed similar "exploits" by other researchers and co-workers, I don't see cases like this as particularly exceptional. They're not common, they were usually difficult to prevent, and we were all very sorry afterwards.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

I have to agree with some other posters. I sure don't agree with everything Greenpeace does, but they also have made some important contributions. Unfortunately, they are sometimes their own worst enemies.

This was clearly an accident and most importantly, they admitted the error. That speaks volumes to me.

Actually, a friend of mine is one of the founders of Greenpeace, although he broke with them a long time ago over their philosophy and tactics.

Jeff

 

[jeffkruse2000]

I support the Sea Shepherd. They broke away from Greenpeace a long time ago.

 

[WarmWaterDiver]

Good points - if navigation is done solely by charts, how are charts ever developed and / or updated - only as the result of collisions? What about soundings, a watch at the bow, etc. especially in a known area of reefs?

 

[drbill]

Wouldn't side scan sonar pick up the reef in enough time to avoid contact? I know I've been on long runs in private vessels and eco-cruise ships of this size and there were careful procedures to avoid contact, especially at night.

 

[archman]

Wouldn't side scan sonar pick up the reef in enough time to avoid contact? I know I've been on long runs in private vessels and eco-cruise ships of this size and there were careful procedures to avoid contact, especially at night.

That's pretty fancy gear. I've never been on a research ship that mounted side-scan, except for towed arrays. Well okay, I've been on one ship that had it, but she's new built. You don't really need the thing, unless you expect to come into close proximity with submerged objects.

Rainbow Warrior II's a motor schooner, not very maneuverable even among ships in her own size-class. Even if she had side-scan capability, it's likely that she'd have to be creeping at bare steerageway in order to stop quick. I doubt there's any sort of thrusters mounted on her, like gussed-up ships carry.

The reef she hit was over a mile away, according to the faulty chart. So I assume the crew was well aware of their ship's capabilities, and kept well clear of any navigational hazards. If the chart was correct, they wouldn't have hit the reef, nor even come close.

If they never have any intention of closely approaching reefs, the side-scan is nice to have but not essential gear. Like a lot of reef-monitoring operators (i.e. chartered fishing boats), I assume Rainbow Warrior II deploys small craft to study sites, keeping the mothership in deeper water, safe from harm.