NTSB makes Important Recommendations for Houston Ship Channel Safety

Our Houston maritime accident attorneys recently noted the upcoming Board Meeting of the U.S. NTSB to make a maritime accident report regarding the collision of the tanker ship Elka Apollon with the container ship MSC Nederland. The NTSB has released its findings in the collision and we have included relevant excerpts below.

The NTSB’s conclusions and recommendations regarding the maritime accident have important safety implications for the busy Port of Houston and the Houston Ship Channel in which the collision occurred.

In case you are unfamiliar with the maritime accident, the Houston maritime accident attorneys at Denena & Points present a brief summary. In the morning on October 29, 2011, Greek-flagged tanker ship Elka Apollon was outbound in the Houston Ship Channel heading for Freeport, Texas. Panamanian-flagged container ship MSC Nederland was inbound on the Bayport Ship Channel to the Bayport Container Terminal.

Pilots of the two vessels agreed to pass each other at the Bayport flare, just south of the intersection of the two channels. A tug with a barge, the Mr. Earl, happened to be in the vicinity at the point the vessels met.

During their maneuvers at the intersection point, the Elka Apollon was caught by the Houston Ship Channel’s bank effect. The bank effect pulled the Elka Apollon across the centerline of the channel, where it struck the Nederland’s port side. Our Houston maritime accident attorneys mention that no fatalities resulted from the Houston Ship Channel collision, but millions of dollars in property damages did result.

The NTSB’s conclusions regarding the collision of the tanker ship Elka Apollon with the container ship MSC Nederland:

• The following were not factors in this accident: weather and environmental conditions, visibility, aids to navigation, vessel propulsion and steering systems, and use of alcohol or illegal drugs.
• The combination of the narrow waterway, bank effects at the Bayport flare, traffic density, and vessel speed increased the challenges for the pilot on the Elka Apollon in a waterway with a limited margin for error. (Our Houston maritime accident attorneys point out that the Houston Ship Channel is narrow, but heavily trafficked, which reduces the margins for piloting errors for each vessel.)
• The pilot on the Elka Apollon and the captain of the Mr. Earl should have exercised prudent seamanship by communicating with each other about their intentions and taking early and sufficient action to avoid their subsequent close-quarters situation.
• The conning pilot on the Elka Apollon did not appropriately respond to the varying hydrodynamic forces (bank effects) affecting the vessel during its transit of the Bayport flare, resulting in the pilot’s inability to alter the Elka Apollon’s course sufficiently to avoid the collision with the MSC Nederland.
• Given the presence of the Elka Apollon, a deep-draft tanker, the captain of the towboat Mr. Earl should not have turned into the Houston Ship Channel barge lane as the Elka Apollon was passing.
• The timing of the rudder commands of the pilot of the Elka Apollon suggest that the close-quarters situation that later developed with the Mr. Earl was not a factor in the collision with the MSC Nederland.
• The actions of the pilot navigating the MSC Nederland were appropriate and effective in reducing the amount of damage sustained by both vessels.
• The response to the accident by U.S. Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, including the Vessel Traffic Service, was timely and appropriate.
• A U.S. Coast Guard policy to mitigate traffic congestion in precautionary areas of the Houston Ship Channel would enhance safety.
• Because precautionary areas are not currently identified on Houston Ship Channel navigation charts, mariners may be unaware of the existence and location of these areas.

The NTSB has ascribed the cause of the collision of the tanker ship Elka Apollon with the container ship MSC Nederland to the inappropriate response of the pilot of the Elka Apollon to changes in bank effect forces as the vessel transited the Bayport flare. Our Houston maritime accident attorneys note that the pilot’s inappropriate responses caused the tanker ship Elka Apollon to inevitably veer across the centerline of the Houston Ship Channel and into the MSC Nederland’s port side.

The NTSB also concluded that the combination of the narrow ship channel waterway, the bank effects at the Bayport flare, and traffic density at the time of the collision increased the challenges of navigating in a waterway with a limited margin for error and helped cause the maritime accident.

The Houston maritime accident attorneys are pleased to note that the review of the maritime accident in the Houston Ship Channel has led the NTSB to make some important and much-needed safety recommendations for the congested shipping area.

The NTSB recommends that the U.S. Coast Guard develop and implement a policy to ensure an adequate separation between the many vessels operating in the Bayport Channel and the Bolivar Roads Precautionary Areas (two areas particularly prone to accidents in the ship channel) and any other similarly configured precautionary areas in the Houston Ship Channel. The NTSB also recommends that the Coast Guard graphically delineate precautionary areas on appropriate Houston Ship Channel nautical charts so that they are readily identifiable to mariners and vessels have a better chance of avoiding maritime accidents.

The Houston maritime accident attorneys at Denena & Points are dedicated to the goal of helping to prevent Houston Ship Channel accidents and to aiding those seamen who suffer injuries from the periodic collisions and other accidents that occur there. Injured seamen can contact us toll free by phone or using our convenient online contact features to schedule a free legal consultation regarding injuries they have suffered on the job.

The hope of the Houston maritime accident attorneys at Denena & Points is that NTSB’s recommendations might lead to increased safety for all who use the congested Houston Ship Channel. If you are unfamiliar with the term “bank effect” that played such an important role in the collision of the tanker ship Elka Apollon with the container ship MSC Nederland, click here to read our FAQ.

The Interplay of the Jones Act, Eagle Ford Shale and Domestic Shipping

The Houston Jones Act attorneys at Denena & Points note that just recently the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran an interesting article examining the interplay of the Act’s provisions and domestic economic activity. (The Wall Street Journal, John Bussey, 9/13/12.) The WSJ article came down heavily in favor of bringing in foreign ships and crews to handle domestic economic activity.
The thrust of the article follows a long tradition in recent decades of giving over all domestic economic activity to foreign interests. The basic argument is that at some level foreign providers are always cheaper. (They aren’t.)

But even if you accept that argument, to whom do the benefits of the cost savings flow? Any monetary benefits seem to always stay firmly in the pockets of a top few executives and other interests. Our Houston Jones Act attorneys notice that they do not seem to flow down to you or me.

For example, one of the points made in the WSJ article was that the U.S. Gulf area could serve as a hub for the shipment of much new oil to the Northeast, most of it from the Eagle Ford Shale development in Texas, but for a lack of U.S. Jones Act ships. For those who might not know, the Jones Act (aka The Merchant Marine Act of 1920), requires that cargo hauled between U.S. ports must move on U.S.-owned vessels that are operated by a U.S. crew.

Our Houston Jones Act attorneys will ignore for the moment, as the WSJ article did, the danger presented by having hordes of additional foreign ships plying the 3,000-mile long U.S. Intracoastal Waterway, the shore of which is generously dotted with refineries, chemical plants, and storage tanks for combustible substances. The WSJ article states that oil shippers are relying heavily on rail transport to move domestic oil to the Northeast.

Let’s look for a moment at the locations of the two major U.S. oil sources: The Bakken shale in land-locked North Dakota and Montana, and the Eagle Ford Shale in equally land-locked West and South Texas, bordering on Mexico. It would require trucks or rail to haul this oil to ships on the various coasts before a vessel could port the stuff up the Northeast.

One comment in the WSJ article estimates that foreign ships could move oil from the Gulf to the Northeast for $1.20/barrel rather than $4.00/barrel. It doesn’t mention the cost to transport the oil to the Gulf first from its land-locked sources. Perhaps it’s actually cheaper to keep the domestic product on rails from the two shale developments rather than first taking it to the Gulf for movement by vessel.

In any case, our Houston Jones Act attorneys expect that the savings estimate doesn’t present the full story. And as mentioned above, I don’t expect any of the shipping cost savings would be flowing to you or me. Domestic gasoline prices remain high regardless. A large amount of that price consists of various taxes. Gas prices have skyrocketed even as domestic production has increased. And the prices have stayed at their high levels, while oil companies reap unprecedented profits.

One bright note in the WSJ article was a mention of the newly commissioned U.S.-built tanker the American Phoenix. The Phoenix had just taken a shipment of Eagle Ford Shale oil from Corpus Christi, TX to New Jersey. The Phoenix is a symbol of renewal. Let’s hope that the felicitous name of the tanker might herald a renewal in U.S. manufacturing, domestic trade, and economic activity to benefit all of us who live here in America.

Our Houston Jones Act attorneys believe in the Jones Act and the job and injury protections that it provides to U.S. seamen. We’ve dedicated our professional lives to helping injured victims in need of protection and financial relief for their undeserved injuries. Contact us for a free and confidential legal consultation if you’ve been injured in maritime activity and you need help obtaining the financial recovery that you deserve.

Dangers of man overboard accident fatalities in the maritime industry

Galveston maritime accident lawyers: Man overboard (MOB) accidents have been identified as the leading cause of marine fatalities. MOB accidents are a clear and present danger to all who work aboard vessels and offshore rigs. Roughly one third of all fatalities in the oil & gas offshore industry worldwide result from MOB accidents.

Some of the causes behind these fatal MOB accidents include supply boat accidents, crane failures, helicopter ditching, and other marine accidents. Equipment failure, lack of proper worker training, inadequate safety precautions, and lack of routine maintenance could all contribute to a fatal MOB accident.

An MOB accident occurs where a person falls from a boat, ship, or helicopter into the water and requires rescue. Trip and falls, slipping on deck, unstable cranes or working platforms, catching on nets, lines, or ropes, sudden changes of direction due to high seas, high winds, working at heights, fatigue, and unexpected machine movements could be responsible for causing an MOB accident.

Our Galveston maritime accident lawyers point out that a worker that’s fallen overboard could be exposed to the fatal risks of hypothermia, deep water and drowning, dangerous propellers and other moving machine parts, sharks, jellyfish, and traumatic injuries caused by the fall and impact with water. Depending on a person’s trajectory, hitting a water surface could have the same impact as hitting a hard and solid floor.

Shock, dehydration, trauma injuries, water intake, blood loss, and paralysis could all result from an MOB accident. In cold-water environments, hypothermia resulting in death can result within minutes of the MOB fall. Many of the victims of the Titanic disaster in the early 20th century are thought to have died of hypothermia from the cold water of the North Atlantic in spring.

MOB accidents can incur massive costs in addition to any loss of life. Search and rescue operations, accident investigations, damage to company reputations, legal costs, and rising insurance premiums after an accident all make such events particularly costly. Our Galveston maritime accident lawyers mention that the family of a worker lost to an MOB accident faces the loss of a primary breadwinner, funeral expenses, and ongoing emotional pain as a result of the accident.

A single, average MOB accident could cost around $1 million to the employer. Search and rescue agencies and the family of the victim suffer additional cots, which are not always paid by insurance or workers’ compensation.

Employers need to have systems in place to alert them immediately to an MOB accident. Then they need to have procedures and equipment to help them locate the man overboard as quickly as possible. Where a victim can suffer hypothermia and death within a matter of minutes, time is of the essence.

The Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act can offer some benefit to workers and their families after a needless MOB accident. Where procedures and equipment were inadequate to help a man overboard, an employer’s vessel might be deemed unseaworthy and victims might be entitled to additional civil damages because of the work environment hazards.

Learn the elements you need to prove to win your financial compensation claims after an MOB accident at sea. Contact the experienced Galveston maritime accident lawyers at Denena & Points for a free and confidential legal consultation. We could explain the legal options you might have available for making a financial recovery, as well as help you pinpoint all the negligent parties linked to your accident.

Call or email us today for your free case evaluation. The timely information provided by our Galveston maritime accident lawyers could be your key to making informed decisions to benefit you and your family following a disastrous MOB accident at sea.

Controversy over Jones Act, designed to protect rights of U.S. workers

Right now in Hawaii, Alaska, and other U.S. areas not among the contiguous 48 states, there exists ongoing controversy over the Jones Act. Our Gulf Coast Jones Act attorneys point out that the Jones Act was enacted in 1929 to give U.S. maritime industry workers protections from injury, job loss, and other factors for which state workers’ compensation schemes and various federal worker rights laws were being enacted to protect land-based workers.

Various legislators and businessmen want to repeal the part of the Jones Act that provides that ships moving between U.S. domestic ports be U.S. flagged, U.S. crewed, and U.S. built. These interests, including Matthew DiGeronimo, a U.S. Republican hopeful for Hawaii, want foreign ships importing and exporting goods to these U.S. ports. They say that businessmen will enjoy lower shipping costs and that Hawaiian consumers, for instance, will enjoy a lower cost to buy goods.

Our Gulf Coast Jones Act attorneys are not as certain that Hawaiians will also enjoy the lower incomes they have to spend on those goods when shipbuilding and crewing jobs are lost. But we can’t argue with the proposition that U.S. seamen will suffer far fewer work injuries aboard the vessels they serve if they no longer have maritime employment aboard such vessels. Hard to suffer a work-related injury if you’re out of work, after all.

The Gulf Coast Jones Act attorneys at Denena & Points remind you that a primary purpose of the Jones Act was to protect U.S. seamen’s rights. We believe that might include the right to work aboard U.S. vessels for a decent wage, with adequate expectation of recompense in the event that they are injured.

The Jones Act provides that an injured seaman has the right to maintenance and cure from his employer if he received injuries in the course of his employment. The Act also provides that seaman the right to sue under a negligence cause of action if the vessel was unseaworthy (presented the seaman with unsafe working conditions).

The current economic environment has allowed employers to chip away at many worker rights and protections until there is almost nothing left in many cases. U.S. maritime workers injured in the course of service to their vessels deserve adequate financial compensation for their harm. Contact our experienced Gulf Coast Jones Act attorneys if you have questions about your work injury and what you should do to obtain fair compensation and cure. We offer a free and confidential initial case evaluation consultation. Call or email us today.

Dealing with the harsh realities of Houston cargo vessel accidents

Our Houston Jones Act attorneys point out that the Port of Houston is one of the busiest ports in the entire world, and handles the largest amount of foreign shipping tonnage of any U.S. port. In fact, the Texas Gulf Coast boasts many of the nation’s busiest ports, including Galveston, Texas City, Corpus Christi, and Beaumont. The modern Port of Houston (not the city’s original port site) was the first in the nation to be built with matching federal and local funds. Our Port boasts many firsts. But while we hope the Port of Houston avoids being first in shipboard cargo accidents, the sheer magnitude of the Port’s shipping activity means that steady streams of accidents are bound to occur.

Our Houston Jones Act attorneys realize that accidents might occur from falling cargo containers, spilling cargo, during loading or unloading, or even from falls into cargo bays. The results of those accidents can range from severe injury to permanent disability and even to fatal injury.

When you or a loved one suffers an injury accident related to ship’s cargo, you might suddenly be faced with many urgent questions that you had never before considered:

• Who will pay for the medical bills?
• What will you and your family do when an injured worker can no longer work?
• Is the employer obligated to pay for your injuries or your family member’s wrongful death?
• What kind of benefits can you receive?
• Where can you go to get a full financial compensation for your losses?

If the cargo accident affected a worker employed aboard a sea-going vessel, the injury is likely covered under the Jones Act. The Jones Act mandates that the employer provide maintenance and cure for the injured worker. Our Houston Jones Act attorneys note that surviving family members of a worker killed in a cargo accident might also be eligible for death benefits. And unlike many laws that provide relief to injured workers and their families, the Jones Act also offers you the opportunity to sue the employer for negligence if the vessel was not seaworthy and presented hazardous working conditions.

But the Jones Act, like other intricate maritime and admiralty laws, can seem opaque and difficult to understand. The various laws governing maritime workers interact in a complex way, and you need to be certain of filing deadlines, types of relief you could obtain, and where to go to seek just compensation for the harm you’ve suffered.

Contact the experienced Houston Jones Act attorneys at Denena & Points for a free and confidential consultation about your accident when you need help. We could answer your questions, explain your rights and legal options, and help you understand the steps to take to achieve a full financial recovery for you and your family in the event of a devastating accident. Call today: 877-307-9500 toll free, or use our convenient online contact features to schedule your free case evaluation consultation.

Maritime industry proposal asks IMO to require weighing of all cargo

Each year, maritime industry workers and others receive needless injuries, some of them fatal, because cargo containers exceed their declared weights. Overloaded containers might cause lifting cables to snap and drop their cargo, dock cranes to topple, cargo container stacks to shift and fall aboard ship, ground-based shipping trucks to tip over, and overburdened roadways or bridges to give way. Damaged docks, port infrastructure, trucks, and equipment result, along with crushed limbs and other costly injuries as well as fatalities.

Current regulations under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention require a shipper (the party that loads its goods into a container) to provide an accurate container weight declaration. But the current regulation is not enforced, and there is no legal requirement to weight individual cargo containers, so many shippers ignore the regulation. As a result, many cargo containers exceed their declared weights.

Maritime industry bodies and governments faced with mounting concerns and costs from accidents and injuries caused by overloaded or misdeclared cargo containers have united to create a proposal designed to close the gap between regulations and enforcement. The proposal has been sent to the IMO (International Maritime Organization), the global body charged with overseeing and implementing standardized safety regulations for maritime operations worldwide.

The proposal to the IMO supports a legal requirement that the shipper not only provide an accurate cargo container weight declaration, but that the ship on which the container loads and the port facility possess a weight verification certificate obtained by weighing the individual container. Weighing each container and producing a separate weight certificate for each will no doubt add greatly to the time and effort of shipping. So we expect shippers will respond with a strong degree of protest against what they might characterize as an unduly burdensome requirement.

The World Shipping Council, the International Association of Ports and Harbors, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (which represents almost 5 million workers), the International Chamber of Shipping, the United States, The Netherlands, and Denmark stand among the parties sponsoring the safety regulation. The IMO Subcommittee on Dangerous Goods Solid Cargos and Containers will address the proposal in its next meeting, which occurs in September.

We hope that the proposal represents a strong stride forward in cargo container shipping safety, a step that will benefit shipboard and port workers alike. In the meantime, if you’re the victim of a maritime industry accident caused by misdeclared cargo weights, contact our experienced Galveston injury lawyers for a free and confidential legal consultation. We have more than 12 years of dedicated practice helping injured workers successfully recover for the harm they’ve suffered. We could help you too.

(Source: Marine Log News, 6/20/2012)

Shipmaster receives prison sentence for alcohol-related shipwreck

Galveston maritime accident lawyers note that in early March, Miroslaw Pozniak, master of the cargo ship Union Moon, made a series of bad piloting decisions that led his cargo ship to collide with an inbound ferryboat, Stena Feronia, just outside of Belfast Harbor. Almost 100 people were on board the ferry at the time of the collision. 6 people were aboard the merchant ship.

The two diverse ships had been nearing the location of the Fairway buoy that marks the start of the main channel into the Harbor. Shipmaster Pozniak should have sent his ship to starboard and an eastward heading. Instead, he suddenly altered course to the port side and plowed his ship into the port side of the ferry.

Both ships were heavily damaged in the Harbor collision incident. Our Galveston maritime accident lawyers emphasize that fortunately no one was lost in the ships’ wreck, but such a disaster could easily have ended in multiple fatalities.

Reportedly, Pozniak’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was four times more than the legal limit. So it’s really no wonder he couldn’t distinguish port from starboard. It’s a wonder he could attempt to direct the ship’s course at all.

His elevated blood alcohol content presented the court hearing his case with a clear violation of the 2003 Railways and Transport Act. Pozniak was also charged with causing the severe damage to his own ship and to the ferry, and with failing to keep a proper lookout. We wonder: with a BAC four times the legal limit, can one keep any sort of lookout at all? Or does everything simply spin and resolve into a murky haze? (Our Galveston maritime accident lawyers are not intending to try it to find out.) Pozniak ruined and effectively ended his 30-year career when he crashed his cargo ship into the ferry. He also faces a year in prison for his crime.

Officials of the court and of Britain’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) expressed some concern that alcohol abuse continues to generate numbers of potentially deadly maritime accidents. Part of the intent behind the prison sentence is to emphasize the strong importance to maritime safety of carefully following applicable regulations, not just with regards to alcohol, but also with regard to charting a course and sticking to prescribed shipping routes.

Let’s hope that Pozniak’s prison sentence puts a curb on alcohol consumption among other ship’s pilots. Around the world each year, news media generally report more than one deadly ferry disaster, and multiple merchant marine accidents. And whether you’re a seaman injured in the accident, an injured ferry passenger, or a grieving family member of someone lost to the collision, holding negligent parties accountable for the accident and obtaining fair financial compensation to help you through the harm you suffered is often much more challenging and complex than for a land-based accident. Jurisdictional issues can complicate your quest for justice. And seemingly applicable laws might not apply to the specific facts of your case at all.

If you’re facing the aftermath of a maritime accident near the Texas coastline, you probably need the help of an experienced Galveston maritime accident lawyer to get you started on the correct path to financial recovery for your injuries. Feel free to contact our dedicated Galveston maritime accident lawyers at Denena & Points for a complimentary initial legal consultation/case evaluation regarding your accident. We can be reached toll free at 877-307-9500 or you can use our online contact forms to schedule your free consultation. Let us help; we’re here to effectively counsel you through your various options to a successful financial recovery.