Ryndam Anchor Drop Lands Man in Brig

[crusinbanjo]

He must be the victim.

 

His dad probably had a tattoo of an anchor on his arm. Then his dad must have deserted his family. All these years he has resented his dad for doing that. Upon seeing the anchor he couldn't control his rage and got rid of it.

 

It's not his fault. They should assign him to working at the shipyards until he works out his issues.

 

On a preventative note...his dad had a tattoo of the Eiffel tower on his other arm :eek:

 

although I know in my heart thtat you are right, or it could be George W Bush,s fault, not sure which is correct. In any case he can tell it to the judge and I hope they throw him in the brig and toss the key overboard.... ...idiot!

[Wisdom]

In jail instead of a ball and chain, they should try an anchor and chain :p

[billie5]

Stephen, about 10 years ago I think, there was a study of how to improve the safety of large tankers. One of the remarks in the report suggested the need to study possibilities of the stern anchor damaging the rudder and propellers. When I read that I was really surprised such an issue could arise. However, I do have a conjecture on what might be involved. (Please forgive me: this is a conjecture, which is just a long word for a guess!)

 

If the stern anchor is suddenly deployed when a ship is underway, its chain may very well snap. If the severance of the chain is sudden and well below the water line, the substantial length of remaining chain could presumable whip forward, with greater velocity than the vessel. Were that indeed possible, it could account for the unusual damage which has been referred to.

 

Hope this contributes to the discussion.

 

Bill

[Sunshine91]

While all of these postings devolve into a mashing of degree of drunkeness & where/when this idiot was served, one thing leaped out to me........

 

Rick Ehlert only SAID he was drunk at the time. Was he really? Who knows for sure, or was this just his quick thinking of a legal defense, I wonder?

 

According to the affidavit, the anchor was released about 5:30am Saturday while Ryndam was at sea. But Ehlert wasn't interviewed & taken into FBI custody until the next day in Tampa. More than 24 hours had passed between the anchor drop & his interview, so there was no point in testing his blood alcohol. Per the affidavit, Ehlert clearly recalled the detailed steps required to access the controlled area, put on work gloves & release the anchor. He also admitted to tossing the life buoy a half-hour after the anchor, which to me shows he was trying to cover up the earlier mis-deed.

 

JMO, but if someone was “so drunk” as to engage in this type of destructive behaviour, would he actually be able to perform the fine, detailed motor skills required of him? And, further, if he were “that drunk” would he be able to recall, in detail, everything that happened? My guess is no. Again, just my opinion. I don’t think he was intoxicated – it can’t be proven - but is merely using that as an excuse.

No, I'm not a defence attorney. But there is a bit of a party girl in my past. I know there's been a time or 2 that I can't quite recall everything that happened the night before. When "under the weather" I also didn't have the fine motor coordination to perform certain tasks, like......pouring the next drink or climbing stairs, let alone dropping an anchor. ;)

 

Oh, and btw, there’s also no evidence he actually was formally dressed. The affidavit merely states that the clothing he was wearing on Formal Night & was photographed in was found in his luggage. It is also the clothing he is seen wearing in the security video. There is no mention of whether or not it is formal wear. So there were 2 things that leaped out to me. :D

[TiogaCruiser]

Kroosn - thanks for the report.

 

I'm a bit unclear about the buoy...... Was it attached to the anchor or is it a separate matter? Is it "man- overboard" equipment?

[Cuizer2]

Kroosn - thanks for the report.

 

I'm a bit unclear about the buoy...... Was it attached to the anchor or is it a separate matter? Is it "man- overboard" equipment?

 

The buoy is separate from the anchor, and is used for "man-overboard". That was the reason for calling everyone to their muster stations, to see if anyone was missing.

[Topsham]

Stephen, about 10 years ago I think, there was a study of how to improve the safety of large tankers. One of the remarks in the report suggested the need to study possibilities of the stern anchor damaging the rudder and propellers. When I read that I was really surprised such an issue could arise. However, I do have a conjecture on what might be involved. (Please forgive me: this is a conjecture, which is just a long word for a guess!)

 

If the stern anchor is suddenly deployed when a ship is underway, its chain may very well snap. If the severance of the chain is sudden and well below the water line, the substantial length of remaining chain could presumable whip forward, with greater velocity than the vessel. Were that indeed possible, it could account for the unusual damage which has been referred to.

 

Hope this contributes to the discussion.

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

Over the years quite a large number of vessels were fitted with stern anchors. It largely depended on trade the vessels were to be used.

 

As for large tankers... as a safety measure, the idea was certainly reasonable. If the ship was disabled and drifting ashore one would think the stern anchor might just help. With the superships anchoring is a a matter of speed. The correct way to moor a large vessel is to walk the anchor until it is on the bottom... with the vessel stopped and then slowly come astern and pay out the desired amount of cable. If there is weight put on the cable from the ship moving too fast the cable will likely part. Of course once fully anchored the situation is different because it is teh weight and scope of the cable that actually holds the vessel.

 

Back to the beginning. A tanker drifting ashore will most likely be going too fast for the anchor and cable to hold.

 

Of course there is always a danger of damage from a stern anchor to rudder and propellers, but this would be if the vessel moved astern over the cable and anchor.

 

We still don't know if RYNDAM's anchor and cable was completely lost. The 'idiot' may have applied the breaks before he got to the end. If it did run out then there might have been considerable damage to the chain locker. The cable could part at any point along its length but most likely near the ship. Unlike a wire, a cable would unlikely wiplash to any extent and it would have to go against the flow of water under the stern and then hit twent feet or so forward to touch the rudders. At 20 knots... extremely unlikely.

 

Stephen

[Zambini]

First you post "NO WAY" then " Extremely unlikely", which we knew was the case.

 

First you state it's not a stern anchor, then you refer to the stern anchors yourself. Which we also knew was the case

 

That brings your knowledge into question.

 

Bill,

 

Over the years quite a large number of vessels were fitted with stern anchors. It largely depended on trade the vessels were to be used.

 

As for large tankers... as a safety measure, the idea was certainly reasonable. If the ship was disabled and drifting ashore one would think the stern anchor might just help. With the superships anchoring is a a matter of speed. The correct way to moor a large vessel is to walk the anchor until it is on the bottom... with the vessel stopped and then slowly come astern and pay out the desired amount of cable. If there is weight put on the cable from the ship moving too fast the cable will likely part. Of course once fully anchored the situation is different because it is teh weight and scope of the cable that actually holds the vessel.

 

Back to the beginning. A tanker drifting ashore will most likely be going too fast for the anchor and cable to hold.

 

Of course there is always a danger of damage from a stern anchor to rudder and propellers, but this would be if the vessel moved astern over the cable and anchor.

 

We still don't know if RYNDAM's anchor and cable was completely lost. The 'idiot' may have applied the breaks before he got to the end. If it did run out then there might have been considerable damage to the chain locker. The cable could part at any point along its length but most likely near the ship. Unlike a wire, a cable would unlikely wiplash to any extent and it would have to go against the flow of water under the stern and then hit twent feet or so forward to touch the rudders. At 20 knots... extremely unlikely.

 

Stephen

 

I'd imagine everyone in the after end of the ship heard that anchor and cable run out. It would have made a most unholy racket... just like when dropping a forward anchor at a tender port... but worse.

 

No way the anchor could cause damafe to rudders or propellers. Those important 'bits' are well forward of the extreme stern of the ship. If the rudders and props were liable to damage the ship would not be fitted with a stern anchor in the first place. Technically speaking it is not a 'stern' anchor. The correct term is 'stream' anchor.... used when anchoring in a fast flowing river where you can't turn the ship around to use the bow anchor.

 

Anchors are usually secured in such a manner that they cannot be accidentally lowered, but if someone knows exactly what to do.... then it is just a matter of a bit of effort.

 

Stephen

[sapper1]

As another poster seems to be intent on heaping ridicule on Stephen Card's seafaring expertise, I have attached this link that may be of interest to those who aren't familiar with his history.

http://www.vdleek.nl/Art/Card/Intro.html

[Toad]

There is so much on this board about the dangers of smoking, BUT, in this case, I think we need to look at the dangers of alcohol! Somehow, I cannot imagine someone under the influence of nicotine doing this kind of thing!

 

Let's all just agree this fellow is a danger to all and should be removed from society for a while until he can get help to deal with his addiction.

[secretadvisor]

Please tell why the stern anchors on these ship could not be used as a stream anchor? The the anchor and cable have the same dimensions as the bower anchors there is no reason why not.

 

Stephen

 

Hi Stephen,

 

The stern anchor on the Ryndam, and in fact all R and S class vessels, are considerably smaller then the bow anchors. They have around 1/5th less holding capacity, and wouldn't operationally be used as the sole holding anchor.

As an aside, even if the stern anchor were to be of sufficient holding power, it would be impractical to anchor using solely on it, simply due to the size of the vessel. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't be happy trying it and attempting to hold and control the vessels stern into a tidal stream would be incredibly challenging. I could see it happening on a 100m feeder ship/container vessel possibly. Wheras onto the bow anchor, then dropping the stern anchor and bringing yourself up against the two, would be absolutely fine.

[oratheeexplorer]

What surprises me is that something as important as the ability to drop anchor would be someplace that the general public would have access to.....

How did this guy get to this area? Is it that easy?

 

 

my thoughts exactly! scarry to think someone could just walk into that area to do that and nobody saw him!

[Topsham]

First you post "NO WAY" then " Extremely unlikely", which we knew was the case.

 

First you state it's not a stern anchor, then you refer to the stern anchors yourself. Which we also knew was the case

 

That brings your knowledge into question.

 

 

 

OK, so you get one extra mark for paying attention. I am trying to keep this as simnple as possible so everyone can understand.

 

No way and extremely unlikely are one and the same. If you want then I's say NO WAY.

 

For the last part, I'll not even respond to that.

[Topsham]

Hi Stephen,

 

The stern anchor on the Ryndam, and in fact all R and S class vessels, are considerably smaller then the bow anchors. They have around 1/5th less holding capacity, and wouldn't operationally be used as the sole holding anchor.

As an aside, even if the stern anchor were to be of sufficient holding power, it would be impractical to anchor using solely on it, simply due to the size of the vessel. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't be happy trying it and attempting to hold and control the vessels stern into a tidal stream would be incredibly challenging. I could see it happening on a 100m feeder ship/container vessel possibly. Wheras onto the bow anchor, then dropping the stern anchor and bringing yourself up against the two, would be absolutely fine.

 

 

 

Hi,

I think you are missing the point about stern or stream anchors. If you have to anchor a vessel in a place where the is no room to swing and you are going to be there for more than 12 hours then you had better be prepared for the stern anchor to hold the vessel against the stream. And if you are arriving on a flood then you would be letting go your stern or stream anchor first, pay out cable and then put out a bow anchor and then heave the ship back between the two. You might be lucky and end up in a spot where there are some good mooring buoys but not always.

 

Yes, it would depend on the size of the ship. RYNDAM is a large vessel but her tonnage is mostly above water. Below she probably displaces no more than a very medium size bulker and I've seen plenty of them moored on rivers using bow and stern anchors. An anchor with 1/5 less holding power would probably do just fine.... if you are not expecting a whole gale.

 

Why wouldn't you be able to control a ship like RYNDAM? More rudders and thrusters than you can shake a stick at! Single screw and single rudder and no thrusters. That would require a skill that I doubt you would on very many cruise ships today.

 

Stephen

[bepsf]

For the last part, I'll not even respond to that.

 

Save your strength, Stephen...

...it's about as effective as Kissinger's efforts discussing International Politics to the former Governor of Alaska.

;)

 

BTW - What are you doing next October?

Wanna join us on the Rome-Ft Lauderdale transatlantic aboard Noordam?

[dan40]

Is this thread about who has the biggest anchor? Or is it about some drunken dummy that should be in big trouble?

I've lost track.

[billie5]

Stephen,

I agree with your assessment that rudder-propeller damage would be extremely unlikely. Apparently not impossible, but it is silly for others to be arguing about linguistics, such as what "extremely" means!

 

To have enough forward momentum to swing up against the current would probably require a very solid and very sudden entrapment of the anchor, for example by the sudden lodging in, say, a steel shipwreck beneath the surface. As you already said, extremely unlikely. Of course, that does not mean a prosecutor will not bring it up in the idiot's trial, and well he should if it is even remotely possible.

 

Bill

[COLLEYBERRY]

OK, so you get one extra mark for paying attention. I am trying to keep this as simnple as possible so everyone can understand.

 

No way and extremely unlikely are one and the same. If you want then I's say NO WAY.

 

For the last part, I'll not even respond to that.

 

 

I know absolutely nothing about anchors... I mean nothing :).

But I do know a little something about painting...and I very much enjoyed viewing your art when we sailed the Eurodam .

Maybe the drunk Mr Moron was pretending to be a sea captain :rolleyes:

[Zambini]

OK, so you get one extra mark for paying attention. I am trying to keep this as simnple as possible so everyone can understand.

 

No way and extremely unlikely are one and the same. If you want then I's say NO WAY.

 

For the last part, I'll not even respond to that.

 

Well, apparently the authorities and myself are of the opinion that it could have, that's what he is being charged with.

 

Maybe you could offer your professional opinion in the poor sods defense?

 

Since you don't think it was possible, you could help the poor guy out?

[Cuizer2]

... but it is silly for others to be arguing about linguistics, such as what "extremely" means!

 

Bill

 

Why? I remember a President arguing about the meaning of the word "is".

[secretadvisor]

Stephen, I respect your seagoing knowledge as an ex-harbour master, and understand your view. But I'm simply explaining the specific operational and technical details pertaining to the Ryndam, and in fact the HAL fleet. We'll leave it as that, as has been mentioned, the thread is going a little awry. If you want to discuss further, feel free to PM me.

[Bill B]

I don’t think he was intoxicated – it can’t be proven - but is merely using that as an excuse.

Drunk or sober, I can't fathom (sorry ;)) why he would do these things.

[jtl513]

... feel free to PM me.

This board doesn't permit PMs.

[sapper1]

This board doesn't permit PMs.

Well that shoots my theory of what is eating at some posters.;):D:D

[smeyer418]

http://www.maritime-executive.com/ar...-years-prison/

 

maritime exec reports that he faces 20 years in Jail and a $250,000 fine(maximum of course). I am sure the guideline sentence(the guidelines are what judges used to HAVE to give for a violation- the US Supreme court has made them merely suggestions but most times the judges follow them)...is less- anything from probation to a maximum of a year or two and about a $10,000.

 

BTW I filed out a guideline sentence calculator and it works out roughly to 27-33 months(assuming he has no criminal history) and admits his guilt. and anywhere from a $6-60,000 fine....

 

If he fights it it could add a year or two to the sentence...

 

Don't yell at me whether you think this is to little or too much, I am just accurately reporting what the guideline would be.....