SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Rocks in the SF Bay

7K views 35 replies 10 participants last post by  dabnis 
#1 · (Edited)
I thought it was amazing that the rocks the Cruise ship hit in Italy last week were not marked with a buoy, given the apparently common practice of Cruise ships strafing the coastline on the island. I thought, "that would never happen here" and consulted the NOAA SF Bay Chart.Chart 18650
As I suspected, Harding rock has a buoy and Blossom in defined by one very close. However Shag and Arch rocks have no buoys and are apparently in the Westbound traffic Lane! All these rocks show a MLW depth in the mid 30's. I've always heard that there is a fear that a tanker is going to rip itself open on these rocks, and that thought is often given to blowing them up (I think Blossom was already blown up once to bring it to it's current height). I realize that a Harbor Pilot SHOULD know were these rocks are and be able to avoid them (though remember.... the Pilot of the Cosco Busan forgot where the Bay Bridge was!). However, if I'm reading the chart correctly, with much less than 1/2 a Nautical Mile between the rocks, they are threading the needle Westbound between Shag and Arch, especially given the strong currents in that area. Buoys with radar reflectors would probably be a good Idea! Hope I'm missing something! Thoughts?
 
#2 ·
However, if I'm reading the chart correctly, with much less than 1/2 a Nautical Mile between the rocks, they are threading the needle Westbound between Shag and Arch, especially given the strong currents in that area. Buoys with radar reflectors would probably be a good Idea! Hope I'm missing something! Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

A good example as to why commercial traffic can't try to avoid a sailboat without a motor that has lost their wind.

Dabnis
 
#3 ·
A good example as to why commercial traffic can't try to avoid a sailboat without a motor that has lost their wind.
Dabnis
A little off topic, but hence, this rule:
(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
My rule: "He's working, I'm not. He shouldn't even have to think about me!"
Now...about those rocks.
 
#4 ·
Right, 30 feet is not a lot. I wonder what the one time cost to blow them apart would be compared to the initial and ongoing cost for bouys would be.
The other alternative would be to wait for a massive disaster and the do something about it?

Dabnis
 
#7 · (Edited)
Not sure if you are serious, but in case you are:
The picture you posted is the place where the ship was beached after the accident (the only thing the Capitan apparently did right!) to keep the ship from sinking. NOT the place it initially contacted the reef.
The initial damage is apparent on the other side of the hull which is now out of the water, complete with a huge boulder, embedded in the hull.
In depth (no pun intended!) discussion here:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...ated/82806-no-comments-skipper-concordia.html
Besides....as this unbelievable satellite view shows, even beached, the ship is not nearly as close to shore as your photo implies. Telephoto lenses can be very deceiving. Now..about those rocks in SF!
 

Attachments

#9 · (Edited)
Upon approach to the SF Bay, large ships are required to meet a pilot ship at the vicinity of the lightbucket or 'SF' buoy, about 16 nm from shore. A local pilot is then transported aboard and is responsible for piloting through the local waters. They must then stay in *very* clearly marked deep water channels while transiting the bay. However, this is not always foolproof, and not always because of dangers lurking beneath the surface. For example, apparently rocks were not the problem for this particular pilot.

I'd add that blowing up a few rocks in the SF Bay would be a ridiculous charade given that much of the bay is far too shallow to accomodate a large vessel. That is why there are deep water channels. It's like suggesting you cut down many of the trees close to the edge of a large throroughfare; the problem isn't the forest, it's keeping the cars on the road.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Upon approach to the SF Bay, large ships are required to meet a pilot ship at the vicinity of the lightbucket or 'SF' buoy, about 16 nm from shore. A local pilot is then transported aboard and is responsible for piloting through the local waters. They must then stay in *very* clearly marked deep water channels while transiting the bay. However, this is not always foolproof, and not always because of dangers lurking beneath the surface. For example, apparently rocks were not the problem for this particular pilot.
Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. However, If you are trying to reassure me, it's not working! I already cited the COSCO Busan incident. If Pilots can hit bridges, they can surly hit submerged rocks. Obviously, the bridge isn't going anywhere, though there are options with the rocks. As far as I can tell, the rocks in question ARE IN the "clearly marked channel". See the link in the OP.
I'd add that blowing up a few rocks in the SF Bay would be a ridiculous charade given that much of the bay is far too shallow to accommodate a large vessel. That is why there are deep water channels. It's like suggesting you cut down many of the trees close to the edge of a large throroughfare; the problem isn't the forest, it's keeping the cars on the road.
Again, look at the chart that is linked. It appears to me that two rocks are in the Westbound channel (Northwest of Alcatraz). As I also noted, some of the rocks have already been blown up to bring them to their current elevation. So somebody was concerned, and didn't think it was a "charade"! The question is, are they in the channel, and if so, is the MLW depth in the mid 30's deep enough? Or at least, should they be marked with Nav aids?
 
#11 ·
I've done a little research and it seems that the big ships don't draw as much water as I thought they did. The Concordia drew about 25 feet, and the cargo ships I found draw around 35. So, as long as it's not a low tide, they should be fine. Probably why the rocks were blasted to the mid 30's. 10 more feet off the top wouldn't hurt though!
 
#12 · (Edited)
35ft is a relatively shallow shipping channel.

Panamax vessels fully loaded draft close to 40ft. The Delaware shipping channel is being dredged an additional 5ft to produce 45ft at low tide for newer Panamax vessels.

The Very Large Crude Carriers and Ultra Large Crude Carriers draft even more, but are usually lightered in deep water to barges.

Just had a look at SF Bay charts the shipping lanes appear to be all in 60ft + water.
 
#13 · (Edited)
35ft is a relatively shallow shipping channel.
The rocks are in the mid 30's, not the channel.
Panamax vessels fully loaded draft close to 40ft. The Delaware shipping channel is being dredged an additional 5ft to produce 45ft at low tide for newer Panamax vessels.

The Very Large Crude Carriers and Ultra Large Crude Carriers draft even more, but are usually lightered in deep water to barges.
It's my impression and observation that the big tankers are not allowed in the SF Bay. Smaller (relitively) shuttle tankers receive the oil offshore. I see them sitting in the South Bay, waiting to unload in Richmond. I assume they would be empty going through the Westbound lane. However the COSCO was not a tanker. The fuel it spilled was it's own, which apparently is even worse than crude oil.

Just had a look at SF Bay charts the shipping lanes appear to be all in 60ft + water.
Thats true. Though, once again, it appears to me that the two rocks in question are also in the "Westbound San Francisco Traffic Lane" which is 60+, with the exception of the rocks. Thats a big exception if they are hit! Please correct me if I'm missing something. Otherwise, I hope they keep missing something!:)
 
#14 ·
Harding Rock, Shag Rocks and Arch Rock northwest of Alcatraz. They are charted with plenty of deep water around them. A pilot would have to be asleep to hit them.

Many shipping lanes have hazards and most are on the charts it is the responsibility of the pilot, captain or recreational boat skipper to be aware of charted hazards and plan a safe route.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Harding Rock, Shag Rocks and Arch Rock northwest of Alcatraz. They are charted with plenty of deep water around them. A pilot would have to be asleep to hit them.

Many shipping lanes have hazards and most are on the charts it is the responsibility of the pilot, captain or recreational boat skipper to be aware of charted hazards and plan a safe route.
I know they are charted. I provided the chart in my OP!
Funny you should mention sleep. The Pilot of the Cosco Busan suffered Sleep Apnia (sp?), and was on medication that wouldn't allow him to drive a car, much less a cargo ship (did prison time). Given human nature*, it seems prudent to eliminate submerged hazards, or at least mark them with nav aids when you can. It is certainly the "responsibility" of the Skipper to avoid them, however, the environment, wildlife and passengers pay the price when he is a bonehead! A surprising number, in command of huge ships have proved to be just that!
*In the Case of the Busan, The Pilot, Skipper, Vessel Control, Caltrans and the Coast Guard were all found at fault!
 
#15 ·
Harding Rock and Little Harding Rock are actually the bounderies of the shipping channel. Most of the shipping channels are 80 + feet deep. I'd add that while the rocks the italian captain hit were not marked with buoys, they were charted and there apparently was a well known tradition of cruise ships steaming closer than they should to land to provide the local village with a view of passing ships. Sounds like showboating to me. (all puns being what they are.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Harding Rock and Little Harding Rock are actually the boundaries of the shipping channel. Most of the shipping channels are 80 + feet deep. I'd add that while the rocks the Italian captain hit were not marked with buoys, they were charted and there apparently was a well known tradition of cruise ships steaming closer than they should to land to provide the local village with a view of passing ships. Sounds like showboating to me. (all puns being what they are.
Yes, and being on the boundary, Harding happens to be marked. Shag and Arch, being closer to the center of the channel (where the ships happen to be), are not. "Showboating" (seems absolutely ridiculous to me!) or not, big ships in frequent proxity to shallow rocks seems like a good argument for marking or blasting! If the only ships that use the channel draw 25 feet or less, then I understand. Otherwise, it seems to me like an accident waiting to happen!
 
#16 ·
I don’t know if it has been mentioned before, but Harding, Arch, Shag and Blossom were all on the surface up until the turn of the century (20th that is). The corps drilled and blasted them using the technology of the day which only got them down to their present 35 feet. They would love to “lower” them some more but anchoring a barge and drill over them given the currents isn’t very practical. Have no fear, the Panamax and supermax ships only go to Oakland so they pass on the San Francisco side of Alcatraz and Blossom. The Bay is over 90 feet deep there. The tankers that go to Richmond/Vallejo/Martinez are all of the smaller variety due to the shallowness of the facilities they go to. Likewise for the freighters that go up the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. If you want a thrill, encounter a freighter while going pass Middle Ground or the old entrance to Port Chicago!
 
#28 ·
L124C

If you want the rocks removed, you have a lot of work to do.

Funding will be an appropriations bill sponsored by congresspersons in districts effected by the navigation hazard, at least one senator, and other state and local political entities.

You will also need economic and environmental impact studies; what economic return will the rock removal produce?

And expect various groups to oppose the plan in court; questioning the economic value of the work or environmental issues.

The Army Corp will be starting the process of approval for removing a rock ledge in the Delaware shipping channel near Marcus Hook this year. Opposition groups will also be preparing court challenges.
 
#29 ·
L124C
If you want the rocks removed, you have a lot of work to do.

Funding will be an appropriations bill sponsored by congresspersons in districts effected by the navigation hazard, at least one senator, and other state and local political entities.
You will also need economic and environmental impact studies; what economic return will the rock removal produce?
And expect various groups to oppose the plan in court; questioning the economic value of the work or environmental issues.
Well said. Maybe they are waiting for a vessel to hit the rocks. No EIR required in advance of that event, and then it would probably be a lot easier to fast track the project! Again...reactive, not proactive!
 
#30 · (Edited)
Just saw another report on the Cosco Busan incident. I-Team reveals exclusive audio recordings of Cosco Busan oil spill | abc7news.com
The Coast Guard officers that responded were looking for oil to the North of the ship (toward the Golden Gate and ocean). Since the accident occurred on a flood tide, the oil went South of the leaking ship. I mean, I know hindsight is 20/20, but if you are in the frigging Coast Guard, you should be able to figure out that the oil is going to go with the tide! So, the CG initially didn't even know fuel was leaking until well over an hour after the incident. Even then they estimated that only 150 gallons of fuel leaked. In fact the leak consisted of over 53,000 Gallons of bunker fuel!
The Pilot made $450,000 that year, didn't even know where the bridge was in his own bay, and simply chuckles every time he talks about hitting it (listen to the audio tapes)! In response, they bought the Pilots new laptop chart plotters (as if the two radars, GPS and a paper chart shouldn't have been enough for a Harbor Pilot to navigate with!). BTW...The ship owner paid a Ten Million Dollar Fine and Forty Four Million in clean up fees. Who pays that in the long run?
So...do I have faith that the powers that be are making the right choices regarding the rocks, or that pilots will avoid them? In a word....No!
 
#31 ·
L124C,

Respectfully, you should think a little bit about the concept of navigation. Yes, sure, fine, blow up all the rocks, remove all the bridges, while you're at it, why not get rid of all the pesky shorelines out there, god forbid someone should run aground! Perhaps we can just melt all the polar ice-caps, ridding us of this dry-land problem once and for all. After all, wasn't WaterWorld with Kevin Costner awesome?

The point is, that even with the rocks and bridges *that are already clearly marked or outside of the shipping lanes* removed, there would still always be something for some incompetent pilot to run into. Accidents are accepted as a daily consequence of driving cars around. I'm not suggesting that every reasonable measure possible couldn't or shouldn't be taken to avoid accidents due to poor pilotage, but the idea that we should just blow up any possible obstruction, especially those outside of shipping channels is simply ludicrous. If you disagree, feel free to take your Zodiac and dynamite out and by all means, please report back on your excellent success. Tell the powers that be that you're more informed than they are and in a better position to make these judgements. I'm sure it'll be an interesting story to tell your cellmate.

Thanks,
h
 
#33 · (Edited)
The concept of navigation?

L124C,

Respectfully, you should think a little bit about the concept of navigation. Yes, sure, fine, blow up all the rocks, remove all the bridges, while you're at it, why not get rid of all the pesky shorelines out there, god forbid someone should run aground! Perhaps we can just melt all the polar ice-caps, ridding us of this dry-land problem once and for all. After all, wasn't WaterWorld with Kevin Costner awesome?

The point is, that even with the rocks and bridges *that are already clearly marked or outside of the shipping lanes* removed, there would still always be something for some incompetent pilot to run into. Accidents are accepted as a daily consequence of driving cars around. I'm not suggesting that every reasonable measure possible couldn't or shouldn't be taken to avoid accidents due to poor pilotage, but the idea that we should just blow up any possible obstruction, especially those outside of shipping channels is simply ludicrous. If you disagree, feel free to take your Zodiac and dynamite out and by all means, please report back on your excellent success. Tell the powers that be that you're more informed than they are and in a better position to make these judgements. I'm sure it'll be an interesting story to tell your cellmate.Thanks,
h
"Respectfully", that is probably the most condescending, ridiculous response I have ever read in this forum! You might want to "think a little bit" about what you are saying before responding! Remove bridges and shoreline? Blow up any possible obstruction? No one has suggested any such thing in this thread! I specifically identified two potential navigational hazards for discussion. I then provided an example of an accident that occurred involving a much more obvious obstacle, to support my concern. Lastly, I have suggested that IMO the two rocks in question ARE CLEARLY in a "shipping lane" and are not "marked". I provided a chart to support my opinion. No one has specifically disputed my interpretation of the chart. If my "concept of navigation" is incorrect on that specific point, please enlighten me. Otherwise, stop stating it is not true.
So please...."think a little bit" before responding. Realize that not responding when you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion is always an option. Sometimes less is more!
 
#32 ·
the logical objections about the rocks being marked are all true, and yet it does seem like a bad idea to have rocks so near the shipping lanes (or in them depending on how you read the chart, i am no expert or pilot).

what surprises me is that i thought we, as a country, were pretty handy with bunker-busters, mining, fracking, drilling, and general large scale blowing up of stuff. i know nothing is really as easy as it seems, especially underwater, but still...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top