McKee Sons grounding

Post a reply

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: McKee Sons grounding

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Randy S » July 15, 2011, 2:40 am

As a steamer, she had a pretty full compliment too - 3 wheelsmen, 1 bosun, 3 watchmen, 3 deckwatches, and 3 deckhands. (The forward cabins were very crowded.) Back aft . 2 gatemen, 2 conveyormen, and I believe that the ER had the usual staff of engineers along with 3 oilers and a day wiper. Galley consisted of Steward, 2nd Cook, Porter, & Dishwasher. Living in the after end was Loud due to an extremely noisy turbine, but everybody had their own room, where in the Forward end, there were 3-4 crew per room.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by hausen » July 14, 2011, 7:35 pm

Guest wrote: So the tug is pretty much just a removable propulsion plant then, with a galley and sleeping quarters?
Why didn't they just update the power plant in the McKee Sons itself?
To take advantage of a loophole in U.S. Coast Guard regulations, which essentially dictate that a tug pushing a barge is not required to have as large a crew or be subject to the level of inspection / scrutiny that a 'traditional' ship of the same size and purpose would be. This saves a considerable amount of operational cost of the vessel, especially in the labor department.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » July 14, 2011, 1:16 pm

Guest wrote:The tug and all navigation and piloting is controlled from the PH of the McKee Sons.
So the tug is pretty much just a removable propulsion plant then, with a galley and sleeping quarters?
Why didn't they just update the power plant in the McKee Sons itself?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Randy S » July 14, 2011, 2:55 am

When I crewed aboard the McKeeSons in 74, her Brain Box (Pilot House) was very nicely appointed.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Andy Morrison » July 13, 2011, 9:45 pm

Norskellunge wrote:Nice shot, Andy - if you don't mind my asking, what camera do you use?
Thanks, for this photo I used my Canon G12 compact. It's an awesome little camera.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » July 13, 2011, 8:24 pm

The tug and all navigation and piloting is controlled from the PH of the McKee Sons.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Norskellunge » July 13, 2011, 2:47 pm

Nice shot, Andy - if you don't mind my asking, what camera do you use?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » July 13, 2011, 1:36 pm

Do they control that boat from the old existing pilot house or the tugs pilot house?
Looks like the view from the tugs pilot house would be very poor to non existent
with the unloading gear sticking up the way it does.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Andy Morrison » July 13, 2011, 10:04 am

The McKee Sons made it's way back to the DTE dock in Trenton this morning. Let's hope it has a more uneventful exit this time.
Image

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Bob Chambers » December 27, 2010, 9:02 am

Manuerving a large ship in this area of the Trenton Channel is like threading a needle. Vessel must clear the swing bridge and cribs just north before making a 180 deg turn agianst wind and current before the channel ends with the mud bank.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by aarcr » December 26, 2010, 9:45 pm

Obviously an expensive problem. Is this something that will likely result in a suspension or firing of the captain or pilot?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » December 26, 2010, 9:27 pm

MichaelB wrote:Will the Coast Guard be doing an inspection at the Edison dock, or will they be doing the inspection elsewhere? Is there a local dry-dock available? And if they are doing the inspection, how will it be done? I can't imagine what it would be like diving into the river with water temps being as cold as they are to inspect the exterior of the hull.
Divers did the inspection, the McKee Sons is next bound for Sandusky to load coal again.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by MichaelB » December 26, 2010, 7:33 pm

Will the Coast Guard be doing an inspection at the Edison dock, or will they be doing the inspection elsewhere? Is there a local dry-dock available? And if they are doing the inspection, how will it be done? I can't imagine what it would be like diving into the river with water temps being as cold as they are to inspect the exterior of the hull.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by KenB » December 26, 2010, 7:28 pm

She loaded the coal in Sandusky, Ohio after coming from Cleveland, Ohio.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » December 26, 2010, 6:22 pm

The coast guard says she was coming from cleveland.where would she load coal at in cleveland?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Andy Morrison » December 26, 2010, 10:30 am

This is from yesterday. There were a couple kayakers checking them out and a steady stream of onlookers. I'm going to head back there in a bit this morning.
MckeeSons3742.jpg

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Guest » December 26, 2010, 9:11 am

I'm wondering if the McKee Sons (or any other tug-barge combo like the Joe Thompson) has ever delivered coal to this DTE plant before? Also, does anyone know if they had tugs with them at the time of grounding? ASC vessels always use two tugs to make this dock.

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by Slip » December 26, 2010, 9:01 am

Why are they attempting to pull the barge forward, rather than sideways?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by aarcr » December 26, 2010, 8:54 am

Does anyone have an idea what this might end up costing?

Re: McKee Sons grounding

by MichaelB » December 25, 2010, 12:49 pm

Jim B wrote:Having surveyed this area numerous times for the Corps of Engineers, I feel the big problem is the high berm of rock that exists along the downstream edge of the channel. There is only 6 to 8 feet of water (at Low Water Datum) over this rock ridge which prevents the tugs from pushing from the downstream side. These rock berms are found along the edge of all the channels in the lower Detroit River.
The south end of Grosse Ile can be quite rocky and can be fairly shallow in many areas. I used to sail down there when I was married, and a 6 foot keel was something to worry about if you got off course.

As a separate note, the Free Press does have some inaccuracies in the article. It's nice to see some Boatnerd fans and users offering commentaries in the older article and in the article posted today, using information and referencing Boatnerd, to correct some of the data. Kudos to those people.

Top