View non-flash version
sers parting due to no catenary is also incorrect. The AT/B?s I design have at least 1000? of emergency hawser aboard. It is pure scare-tactics to con- tend that if an AT/B barge got away we?d have a repeat of the North Cape disaster. Rubbish. The North Cape was a single hull barge ? all AT/B petroleum and chemical barges are double hull and the North Cape got away from a towing tug, in horrible weather they should not have been out in ? not an AT/B. Whatever would befall an AT/B barge aground would also happen to a ship aground. And look at the largest spills since the 90?s. How many were from AT/B?s ? how many from tankers? MANY more tanker accidents with signi cant spills. It is more likely that a ship will lose steering (see recent experience) or propulsion (see recent problems with fuel switchover in ships) than a tug losing a properly sized towing haw- ser while holding station offshore. So by the author?s reasoning, we should see tankers as the real ?quandary?. He cites ship accidents as the reason why one has to further regulate or by im- plication, bad ? thedemonstrably safer AT/B. AT/B motions? ?Poor Souls? and pendulum movement? Has the author ever even ridden an AT/B? I have. There are YouTube videos that can be watched. The motion is not horrible even in extreme seas ? and we design these boats for a signi cant height sea spectrum exceeding 7M. It also not universally true that AT/ B?s have a crew of only 7. Several of the ones we have designed have 10 to 14 aboard. All of our AT/B tugs are capable of berthing a minimum of 10. There is also a major problem with this statement written by the author: ?Industry consensus says these ?ships? (when connected) are constructed to www.marinelink.com MN 63MN March2013 Layout 50-65.indd 63MN March2013 Layout 50-65.indd 633/4/2013 3:54:38 PM3/4/2013 3:54:38 PM
