Jump to content


BFE Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by Gareth

  1. Yes, it turns out the new information isn’t new at all (it has been well established from the Rabe investigation that there is a hole in the side).  What is new is that the authorities appear to now be willing to concede it.

  2. I agree Port Said to Algericas will take 3 days.  That could get her there late on the 7th.  Refuelling maybe a good 8 hours.  Then the passage round to Santander shouldn't take much more than 24 hours.  Maybe 30.  Yes, Ok, putting that together, perhaps 9th (some time in the morning) is more likely for Santander.  Is a quick dry docking (for whatever purpose that is for) and berthing trials doable in a day?  Possibly.  Then Portsmouth on the 11th is just about feasible.  Tight, but feasible.  All depends what this dry docking is about.  If it’s for a full hull antifoul then forget it, but if they just need to give it a bit of a pressure wash and replace a few sacrificial anodes then fine!

  3. Dry docking?  Why do they need to do that?  (She’s brand new!).  Also....surprised she’ll fit the dry dock at Astander.   But I guess that must be an indication that reflagging will happen in Santander.  

    Presumably then, after the dry docking, the Stena crews can take the BF crews out for a spin in the bay (sorry, sea trials) to familiarise themselves with the ship, and then the BF crews can carry out the berthing trials at the BF berth in Santander before taking the ship to Portsmouth.

  4. Indeed.  And on the edge of the HRA.  Should be well on her way to the turn in towards the Gulf of Aden by tomorrow night.

    I’ve been wondering, Tony.  Could the handover to BF crew (and corresponding change of registry to the French ensign) be slated to happen during the call at Algericas?  I presume they will want to undertake berthing trials in Santander on the way past, and that berthing trials really need to be at the hands of the BF crews to be fully meaningful?

  5. 6 minutes ago, Danim24 said:

    Absolutely, any prudent marina would do the same. Local knowledge is always a bonus and helps speed up the decision-making process. I certainly know where not to beach the boats I work on, 'if' there is enough time to make that decision.

    Agreed.  My point was that I don’t think the clay beach just “happened” to be right next to where the holing happened (and the 7.4m depth was not what caused the holing).

    Regarding the idea of a collision with a buoy being the cause, for me the flaw in that theory is that it would have caused visible damage above the waterline.  But there was no sign of such damage in all the images we saw of her.  On the contrary, above the waterline she looked in pristine condition from all angles.

    • Like 1
  6. There is apparently no (significant) damage to the propellors, but the hull is breached in one compartment.  I don’t think it is yet known what she hit or where, but I am now of the view that it was not in the immediate vicinity of the beaching.  This beaching location was deliberately selected and steered to because of the soft nature of the sea bed there.

    • Like 3
  7. 33 minutes ago, Rattler43 said:

    The reason Liberation didn't work for the CI was that Condor replaced two vessels with one.

    One of the many!

    One vessel, only capable of operating one round trip per day.  4 daily sailings down to 1, removal of any choice of route and sailing time.  Early problems with reliability (which were partly solved by going down to the single daily sailing).

    She really was a spectacular lesson in how to destroy your own market with one shot to the foot.

    Now, take a shorter crossing, between two large ports with plenty of space that she can be confident of being able to operate to reliably, one that she can comfortably manage two daily round trips on, one that is very popular as a fast ferry service in the summer......those who’ve travelled on her wax lyrical about how pleasant she is to sail aboard.....enter a new lease of life?

    Remind me, where were those berthing trials again! 😁

    • Like 3
  8. 3 minutes ago, Rattler43 said:

    @Jim Do you think it might be an idea that now BF is a part owner of Condor the CI might deserve a slightly more prominent position on BFE rather than being being under  the "Other Ferry Operations" banner?

    In a sense, they already have their own little special section under “Channel Islands”.  But for the time being, they are still a separate operating entity to Brittany Ferries.  For me, the time to consider integrating them into the main BF forum is if/when Condor becomes integrated into the BF operation.  From what we’ve heard so far, there are no current plans to do that.

    • Thanks 1
  9. The above has got me wondering.  

    When the chart was posted, and I observed the 7.4m charted depth and Colin observed that the ship was well off-course outside the shipping channel, the assumption was that she must have struck something in the area of the 7.4m depth. I also mentioned that I thought that depth ought probably to have been enough clearance (but marginal).

    Well, now, I am wondering whether the  grounding might have been further out, and that the course steered to Jarso (putting her off-course out of the channel) may have been deliberate in aiming for the clay beach.  If the skipper made a decision much further out to beach the vessel, and he chose that spot because of the clay, then the passage across the 7.4m depth might have been intentional and safe in heading for that beaching spot.

    • Like 3
  10. Apparently, the place where the skipper beached Amorella was a clay bottom.  So the damage may have essentially been limited to the initial strike, and not be as bad as we thought it would be when we thought she was on a rocky reef.

    Also apparently, the breach was to just one compartment.

    I don’t know the area that well, but based on what I do know, it seems to me that the availability of a clay beach so close to hand in that area was very fortuitous!

    • Like 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Khaines said:

    Heard on a grapevine that she could serve the CI to replace Rapide.  As she costs too much to run.

    Yes, I can see why she would need to carry out berthing trials at Portsmouth for that. đŸ˜‰đŸ€Ł

  12. 8 minutes ago, David Williams said:

    Re Ed's hijacking of the thread

    To be fair, this thread went off-topic on about page 6.  Hardly surprising with next to no sailings to discuss updates in relation to, and in the circumstances no big deal.

    Having said that, on-topic posts are still allowed, on the rare occasions when there are any! 😀

    • Like 2
  13. 7 hours ago, BAI4 said:

    I don’t think that the HRA in question has any specific rules or regulations allowing AIS to be turned off. Anyone know for sure? 

    SOLAS Chapter V (Safety of Navigation) states that all vessels with AIS fitted (which passenger ships must) shall maintain its operation at all times.

    When I passed through in January, I wasn’t aware of any such extraordinary regs. That said, SOLAS not applying to navy ships - they turn there’s on and off like light switches ha! 

    Must have been a short-lived exemption then.  It was a decade ago, or more, that I was aware of it as a contingency, at the height of the time when vessels were being captured.  Probably before the sea marshal service was so well established and vessels pretty much had to run the gauntlet on their own.

    Sounds like we can expect Galicia’s AIS to be broadcasting throughout.

  14. The suggestion that it may force the national governments of the region to change their stances is potentially interesting.  Sadly, I don’t think it’s airing in the UK.   But I’m sure that, if anything of substance does come out of it, it won’t be long before it gets out.

  • Create New...