
El Faro Sinking – full report [pdf] - mojomark
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Oct/01/2001820187/-1/-1/0/FINAL%20PDF%20ROI%2024%20SEP%2017.PDF
======
cjensen
Reading that, at first it's just "oh that doesn't sound good" and then later
it's "oh that's bad", then "omg that's horrifying". All in very polite
language.

So the ship was not properly maintained, never did drills, did not verify
maintenance that was done to life rafts, the "load limits" were not updated
when major modifications were made, it had improper sealing against water, it
was loaded very poorly with insufficient oversight, there were insufficient
tie-downs for cargo, entire rows of cars were tied to a single chain instead
of individual tie-downs, it routinely ran with too-little oil, the captain
assumed weather prediction is perfect and plotted an aggressive course
extremely close to the hurricane, the captain went to sleep during the
critical hours the ship approached the storm and blew off course change
suggestions, captain failed to get up in a timely manner, failed to recognize
they were in an "oh hell no" proximity to the hurricane, failed to realize
they were taking on water until too late, steered almost into the Cat3 eye
while trying to fix stuff, did a turn which caused the oil to slide to the
side of the tank and turn off the engine, still optimistically thought they'd
get it together instead of calling for help, and generally ditzed around until
it was too late to abandon ship.

The company which owns this ship needs to die.

Also, there was some fine smell of corruption. Coast Guard did a surprise
inspection and found serious issues on a sister ship. They got called by their
home base to stop that. The CG then flagged the type of issue on the ship and
noted that the rest of the similar components needed to be checked. The
Certification Agency performed the inspections and said "no it was just the
one that was bad." Then the GC does another inspection a few months later and
finds that every one of the components was rusted through.

------
javiramos
El Faro is a vivid example of how the Jones Act chokes competitiveness in the
domestic shipping market. El Faro was 40 years old at the time of sinking -
the global average container ship age is ~11 years. El Faro would've not met
modern shipbuilding standards. Domestic shippers are not incentivized to
modernize their ships. The Jones Act shipping industry is sustained on
corruption, lobbying, and special interests.

The Jones Act makes me very mad.

~~~
jordanb
El Faro wasn't unseaworthy because it was old. There are plenty of old
seaworthy vessels at sea today and there are also newer coffin ships. In fact,
flags of convenience and competition between international Classification
societies has driven _down_ standards in shipbuilding. There's a long,
exhaustive PDF on the subject, written by a veteran of the oil shipping
industry, available here[0]

Without the Jones Act the American merchant marine would not exist. It would
be entirely driven out by third world shipping. Nobody who tries to maintain a
first world workforce can compete. For Neoliberals that would be a great
victory. Replacing American merchant sailors with Chinese or Filipinos on the
Mississippi or the Great Lakes would be a great boon for them because it would
undoubtedly reduce costs.

Personally I don't buy it. Bottom dollar prices are not always the most
important thing. Most countries place restrictions on operations by foreign
shippers between internal ports (look up cabotage).

Keeping a semblance of an American merchant marine in place is still
important, if for no other reason because the military often needs to rely on
commercial shipping. American merchant men are consummate professionals who
uphold the best standards of seamanship (I know this from personal experience)
and they deserve respect. And Americans have the right to demand that the
government protect nation's middle class and working class from being crushed
by hyperglobalization.

[0]
[http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf](http://www.c4tx.org/ctx/pub/tromedy2.pdf)

~~~
ocschwar
Filipinos on the Mississipi?

I don't buy it. They would still have to pay Illinois prices for food and
coffee every time they docked. They could only take so much of a pay cut.

Not that there isn't a place for the Jones Act. But it really needs, at
minimum, to have an exemption for Puerto Rico and the USVI

~~~
jordanb
Some people from PR who argue against the Jones Act claim that ships in the
trans-Atlantic trade used to call on PR on their way to Florida. But that was
back in the age of sail and coal-fired steam when ships sailed south to catch
the trades across the Atlantic. Foreign ships can easily call at PR now, they
just have to call at BVI, Cuba or the Bahamas between PR and Florida. But they
don't because ships now follow great circles and PR is too far south.

Shipping to islands is expensive. I have a friend who comes from Bermuda.
FedEx flies a 727 to that island and the locals say that they buy that
airplane every time it lands. Shipping to Bermuda very expensive and the Jones
Act is hardly to blame. Shipping from China to the USA is cheaper than to
Australia even though Australia is closer. Again, Jones Act can not be to
blame, being off the main routes is.

PR's horrible economic troubles are caused by loss of industry and loss of
jobs, not by expensive shipping. In fact, PR has a maritime industry that
would be ruined without the Jones Act. PR has been hit hardest by the
globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, which left PR when it found even
cheaper labor abroad.

~~~
javiramos
Yeah - foreign ships are not the issue.

Only about a third of the trade comes from foreign ships. Most of the inbound
cargo to PR comes directly from U.S. (and mostly U.S. products) thus requiring
Jones Act ships. PR is also net exporter (about 50% value add to imported
goods) and its largest market is the U.S. (again thus requiring Jones Act
ships). So foreign imports/exports are NOT the crux of the issue here.

~~~
jordanb
Why don't foreign shippers set up a route from Florida to the Bahamas to
Puerto Rico? This would be perfectly legal under the Jones Act. Or alternately
Florida - BVI - PR. If they can't make that work because of the slight
additional cost of a stop in Nassau then I don't really buy the idea that PR
is getting hosed by the Jones act.

Sure the Jones act is protecting "only" 60,000 American jobs. And everyone
would benefit a little from cheaper shipping. That's the exact same argument
neoliberals made when textiles and furniture and everything else beat a path
to Asia and left behind rusting factories and opiod-popping towns. I mean,
sure, lots of devastation in the rust belt and New England but hey, we all get
cheaper underwear!

The problem is that 60,000 jobs here 60,000 jobs there starts to add up across
industries until you get stagnant wages, collapsing labor participation rates,
collapsing labor share of income, fraying social net, the worst economic
inequality in the history of this country, an ever growing group of hopeless,
despondent (or angry) people, eventually, even, Donald J Trump as President of
the United States.

~~~
javiramos
Well, tell that to the thousands of small businesses in Hawaii, PR etc. that
can't export, and therefore can't compete because sea shipping prices are too
high.

A vivid example is Hawaii. Hawaii produces excellent cattle and livestock -
plenty of sun and great weather. It is cheaper to fly cattle to the U.S. than
it is to transport it in a Jones Act trade ship. There is a weekly Boeing 747
from HNL to LAX to transport cows to the mainland U.S. market. Imagine how
much more competitive the Hawaiian livestock industry could be if sea shipping
rates were competitive.

As Americans, it is our choice if we want to stimulate and connect our
territories to our vast mainland market or if we want to protect special
interests, lobbying, and corruption that supports the Jones Act trade.

~~~
jordanb
As I said above shipping is always high to islands. You can say the same thing
(small business hurt by shipping) in Bermuda or Tahiti or Antigua, in all
these cases the cost of shipping has nothing to do with the Jones Act.

If Jones Act shippers were fleecing PR, then it would be very profitable for
foreign shippers to set up a route from Florida to PR via the Bahamas. This
would be 100% legal under the Jones Act and the fact that they haven't
demonstrates that it isn't very profitable to try to undercut the current
shippers.

The same for Hawaii, all foreign ships have to do is stop in Ensenada and then
they can go to San Diego or Longbeach and it'd be 100% legal under the Jones
Act. Foreign-flagged cruise ships are already doing exactly this.

Also live animals nearly always travel long distances by air. Putting them on
a boat for a long sea voyage means you have to make provisions to feed and
care for them, which eliminates any potential cost savings.

------
frankharv
I think this trade mag does a good job covering this.

The Captain was a stateroom Captain and it shows.

[http://gcaptain.com/coast-guard-releases-el-faro-
investigati...](http://gcaptain.com/coast-guard-releases-el-faro-
investigation-report-summary-conclusions-recommendations/)

------
AlexMuir
Jeff Wise wrote a good story on this
[http://www.mensjournal.com/features/articles/the-last-
voyage...](http://www.mensjournal.com/features/articles/the-last-voyage-of-
the-ss-el-faro-w495797)

~~~
wahern
Another good article is [https://newengland.com/yankee-
magazine/living/profiles/el-fa...](https://newengland.com/yankee-
magazine/living/profiles/el-faro/) which goes into more detail about the crew
and the shipping company.

~~~
secstate
Sigh ... they've worked really hard over the past 10 years to remove the
definite article from Maine Maritime Academy, and then _bam_ Yankee Magazine
goes and uses it all throughout this otherwise fantastic article.

~~~
weberc2
Which definite article?

~~~
notl4wy3r
(There is only one, at least in English. The word "the".)

------
Overtonwindow
The El Faro is a good example of how a rigid chain of command can be
disastrous. I'm reminded of Malcolm Gladwell's analysis of "cockpit culture"
and deference caused an airliner to run out of fuel and crash.[0] In the case
of the El Faro, perhaps not deferring to the Captain could have saved the
ship.

[0].
[https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/malcolm...](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/malcolm-
gladwells-cockpit-culture-theory-everywhere-after-asiana-crash/313442/)

~~~
aaron695
Sounds like a Gladwell story, probably not true -

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-asia...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-asiana-
flight-214-crash-korean-airlines-culture-outliers/)

------
secstate
I feel like this is all the same absurd realities as with Flight M370.

A vessel carrying 33 lives into the path of a hurricane was relying on hourly
EMAILS from a for-profit weather aggregation service? What the hell? Why
wouldn't you have up to the minute satellite transmissions of developing
whether on every ship that leaves port?

It seems the world is poorer, and people greedier, than can possibly be
imagined.

~~~
notl4wy3r
The thing that shocks me is how easily it all could have been prevented by
laying a slightly more conservative course a few days before. Just a reminder
of how an early course correction has so much more effect than heroic efforts
later on. It's amazing how many places this is true: shipping, retirement
plans, and orbital dynamics to pick just a few examples.

~~~
WillPostForFood
It's even worse than that, they had a chance to turn out of it just 6 hours
before they sank.

