Eliminating the risk of container stack collapse - solutions and unseaworthiness -


An opinion article by Captain Glenn Mathias, Australian Maritime Consultancy


The World Shipping Council (WSC) claims that its member companies operate about three quarters of the world’s global containership capacity. In their Containers Lost at Sea 2020 – Update, they reported that the 3-year, 2017-2019, average annual loss of containers overboard was 779 units – a number adjusted upwards to include non-member companies. (The WSC has maintained such statistics since 2011). However, while the statistics end in 2019, the container vessel One Apus lost 1816 containers overboard in November 2020 and the Maersk Essen lost about 750 containers in January 2021.


When containers fall off a vessel, those that do not sink immediately pose a risk to small craft such as fishing vessels, whose hulls would not withstand the force of contact with a container’s side rails or worse, its corner castings. And of course, contact with a recreational or charter boat could be tragic. The risks associated with containers washing ashore and damaging coastal works including jetties; their contents, including dangerous goods, strewn along coastlines and tourist beaches; their effects on the food chain, marine fauna and flora are a discussion for another day. Comfort can be drawn from the fact that no crew injuries from flying projectiles and dangerous liquids ejected from collapsed and/or damaged containers, have been reported - yet.


The principal factors contributing to container stack collapses are two known defects: first, containers loaded contrary to the Container Securing Manual (CSM), such as heavy containers over lighter ones; and container stacks exceeding permissible weight limits; secondly, container stacks not secured as block units. While investigative reports include the defect associated with the CSM, the writer has not seen, (but acknowledges there could be), reports that refer to container stacks not being secured as block units. (Other contributory factors such as loose and/or degraded container securings and the commercial pressures on masters to navigate through the storm rather than around it to maintain schedules, could be overcome by shipowners exercising


104 | The Report • September 2022 • Issue 101


due diligence). But, while ever the two known defects exist, the risk of container stack collapses remains.


This article proposes solutions to eliminate the risk of container stack collapses first, by ensuring that container loading plans comply with the CSM, through computerised loading programs with fail-safe mechanisms; secondly, by making the Designated Person Ashore (DPA) responsible for oversighting container loading plans; and thirdly, by ensuring that container stacks are secured as block units. The article also proposes research for a safer container securing system; considers the seaworthiness of vessels at the commencement of their voyages with the two known defects; and the issue of cost to rectify the defects.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128