Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

The Port Authority has excellent reason to be tight-fisted with authorizations for large vessels to attempt to pass under the bridge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Bridge_disaster

View on HN

No it doesn't, if the AAD is right.

> The AAD has previously said Nuyina “fits within the physical limitations set out by TasPorts for transiting under the Tasman Bridge”.

If the ship fits the limitations set by the Port Authority and is denied anyway, then that is not excellent reason, it's bureaucratic overreach. The fact that people died in the past ignores that there are several new safety precautions in place since then.

It sounds like "it fits the big size, but lots of approval and training is needed" and the second part is not complete.

The question is if it can ever become complete, or if it's simply a no-go.

This is just dishonest. They're not denying the ship because of any of the physical requirements - they're denying it because the crew hasn't completed the necessary training to safely transit the harbor.

> TasPorts had previously indicated Nuyina may be able to pass under the bridge, but only after successful completing of training courses and simulation exercises at the Australian Maritime College.

> The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) has confirmed that approval has not been granted and the ship must instead travel to Burnie this summer, on the island state’s north-west coast, to receive fuel. This must occur before every voyage to Antarctica.

It had conditional approval to transit the bridge last year but then ended up being sent to Singapore for maintenance work before they had finished. They were performing more trials earlier this year but apparently still haven't completed everything and are needed in Antarctica so are shifting their plans.

What would be involved in helicoptering in a trained crew to drive the boat under the bridge?

They'd also need to be trained on piloting the ship. There aren't many of those ships.

I'm not a ship/boat person, but isn't that the job of harbor pilots? They have training on some specific dangerous/technical passages/ports and are taken to a ship, pilot the ship through the passage or into a berth, then leave and go on their way?

I've never heard of the pilots around Port Newark needing ship-specific training, even for giants like tankers or container ships. Maybe this is somehow different in Australia?

I can't speak to it, but I do know that icebreakers aren't in the same maritime class (I forget the specific term here?) as those other ships. There just might not be somebody who checks both boxes.

I used to be an officer of the deck on navy ships. From liking at the bridge and knowing the history, it looks like a very narrow and technical route under the bridge, and probably slow and prone to wind. At slow speeds, it’s difficult to get steerage due to less water over the control planes, so without auxiliary thrusters it’s hard to control. That means you need both familiarity with the local conditions and also with the ship and its dynamics. Going a few hundred kilometers is a day or less and it’s easier and safer, so it’s the best choice when there isn’t a compelling reason other than saving a bit of time once in a while. Maybe next time they’ll choose to do the training and certification, but this time they didn’t.

I think this article tries to make it sound like a huge deal, but no one really cares in reality.

> [Pilots] have training on some specific dangerous/technical passages/ports and are taken to a ship, pilot the ship through the passage or into a berth, then leave and go on their way?

My understanding is that Pilots never steer the vessel itself, rather they act as navigational experts that can be consulted in real time by the staff on the bridge.

Most harbors already use pilots to handle the 'last mile' of docking the ship -- part of the trials & certifications are ensuring that this one-off custom ship will handle in the various conditions in a way that the pilots will be able to control.

E.g. If something goes wrong on a windy day and they need a tug - how many tugs of what size will be needed to control it prevent damage to the harbor?

The vast majority of ships of this size are in very well understood classes, so the one-off nature of this one necessitates some special testing and consideration.

https://tasports.com.au/news/rsv-nuyina-to-commence-harbour-...

What would be involved is extensive training - precisely the sort that is currently lacking. Basically, they were already trying to helicopter in folks. The difficulty is that it's rather challenging.

They need folk who are intimately familiar with the local water- and weather conditions - aka pilots. On top of that, they need folk who can precision-steer the vessel. This is hard due to tides, current, wind, waves. Moreover, the vessel is too big to stop or turn on a dime. Hence the need for training.

Nowhere in the quoted second paragraph is there indication that the crew did not receive training.

Just that permission was not granted, with no reason given in the article.

There are two conditions to transit the bridge -- the size of the vessel must conform (which it does) and the crew and vessel must be certified to have completed the training. They were working on completing it earlier this summer (https://tasports.com.au/news/rsv-nuyina-sea-trials) and then just recently announced they don't have permission. You're allowed to read between the lines there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com