Thai Navy says Sukhothai underwent full repairs before being recommissioned

[snoop1130 35896]

Wikipedia

 

The HTMS Sukhothai underwent a full process of repairs before being recommissioned, according to a statement from the Royal Thai Navy. Nation Thailand reports that the Navy has rebuffed a social media claim that the ill-fated vessel was not sea-worthy. The Facebook post alleges that the Sukhothai’s steel hull had eroded by about 25% in 13 different areas.

 

In response to the claim, the Royal Thai Naval says the ship was fully repaired and met all required standards before being recommissioned into the fleet on January 28, 2021. HTMS Sukhothai capsized then sank in stormy seas about 3 kilometres off the coast of Prachuap Khiri Khan on December 18.

 

The ship was carrying 105 crew, 76 of whom were rescued. Another 24 crew members died and 5 remain missing. No further bodies have been recovered since December 29 and the search operation has now moved further south, from Chumphon to the islands and islets around Surat Thani.

 

In response to the Facebook claims about the condition of the vessel’s hull, Vice Admiral Sutthisak Bunnag says the post does not give the full picture.

 

He says the ship underwent maintenance at the Mahidol Adulyadej dry dock between July 12 and September 3, 2021. During that process, the 13 eroded spots on the hull were identified and work carried out to repair them.

 

Source: https://phuket-go.com/phuket-news/national-news/thai-navy-says-sukhothai-underwent-full-repairs-before-being-recommissioned/

 

-- © Copyright Phuket GO 2023-01-06

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Monthly car subscription with first-class insurance, 24x7 assistance and more in one price - click here to find out more!

[internationalism 8285]

that's put in bad light commander of this ship, who had newly refurbished boat and sunk in just mild storm.

She sunk 30km from shore, not 3km, as this article states.

 

Looks, like he was underqualified or neglected his duties.

Instead of engaging in taking care of his boat and crew, properly training them, he was specialising on fb in selling protective talismans.

That post is from 2.12.22, but there are many more similar posts. https://www.facebook.com/pichitchai.kittyman/posts/pfbid02Mku4kbn7baPUWGKvqSmmTNEXNVnQ3gesbtKwHroWvuA5wwVUVDqP85GHWSsiR9jgl

November https://www.facebook.com/pichitchai.kittyman/posts/pfbid0272mPqXzkpZGSByRH3KxvLazuhoBG6L16oGQGKKUj8csE3YteLWNLZfayM5nTPzadl

Edited January 6 by internationalism

[Soikhaonoiken 3379]

Of course it was admiral,  but we all know what Thai standards are.....

[mikebell 22176]

The boat was perfectly sea-worthy just lacking 50 lifejackets.

[Antoni Uni 4]

3 hours ago, Soikhaonoiken said:

Of course it was admiral,  but we all know what Thai standards are.....

 

3 hours ago, Soikhaonoiken said:

Of course it was admiral,  but we all know what Thai standards are.....

😡

[Antoni Uni 4]

11 minutes ago, mikebell said:

The boat was perfectly sea-worthy just lacking 50 lifejackets.

😭

[hotchilli 59426]

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

In response to the claim, the Royal Thai Naval says the ship was fully repaired and met all required standards before being recommissioned into the fleet on January 28, 2021. HTMS Sukhothai capsized then sank in stormy seas about 3 kilometres off the coast of Prachuap Khiri Khan on December 18.

Whose standards?

[Partenavia 292]

Without an independent investigation, I doubt whether we will ever find out what caused this vessel to sink, and it certainly wasn't as a result of moderate weather, although that was a contributing factor.

 

Incompetence, and lack of responsibility will result in this story quietly dying a death, with no one being held responsible. Unfortunately Thai style. 

[actonion 2482]

And we all know about Thai maintenance,  or lack of...

[crazykopite 6399]

That maybe so but did it have sea trials Immediately after the upgrades and was it issued with a sea worthy certification there are many unanswered questions which will remain unanswered unless a full independent enquiry with no government interference is authorised 

[crazykopite 6399]

Just now, actonion said:

And we all know about Thai maintenance,  or lack of...

Agree you only have to look at the ferries that go between the islands and main land they are rust buckets not so long ago I was stuck on one of them for over an hour because the doors to allow passengers and vehicles to disembark were ceased up in the end the ferry had to go back out to sea turn around in order to get the doors on the stern to open it was farcical I missed my hospital appointment 

[Photoguy21 2200]

Cellotape to use as a repair material was not sufficient I assume

[Grusa 1723]

"underwent a full process of repairs before being recommissioned,"

 

notice the patch of epoxy putty on the bow. They might have painted it!

[herfiehandbag 13899]

I am no expert ( and I do realise that is not the most auspicious way to start a post dealing with technical matters) but looking at that photograph the ship does seem to have a very low freeboard, particularly at the sharp end. She also seems to be carrying quite a lot of heavy equipment high up - I wonder how much was the original design and how much has been subsequently fitted in various upgrades.

 

Also, how many did she have on board - 105 or so? Where did they put them all?

Edited January 7 by herfiehandbag

[jacko45k 42306]

3 hours ago, crazykopite said:

in the end the ferry had to go back out to sea turn around in order to get the doors on the stern to open it was farcical I missed my hospital appointment 

All  the vehicles would have been facing the wrong way!

[Elkski 2841]

I saw some rescue video where it looked like it had hull damage, I think on the starboard side midships forward. 

[NanLaew 28390]

16 minutes ago, Elkski said:

I saw some rescue video where it looked like it had hull damage, I think on the starboard side midships forward. 

That may be the thermal imaging screen grabs (monochrome) that show different temperatures of the steel plate and the ribs in between.

 

Early reports from rescued crew members suggested a hull breach on the port side, for'ard which would explain why see rolled onto her port side before sinking.

[billd766 38285]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

I am no expert ( and I do realise that is not the most auspicious way to start a post dealing with technical matters) but looking at that photograph the ship does seem to have a very low freeboard, particularly at the sharp end. She also seems to be carrying quite a lot of heavy equipment high up - I wonder how much was the original design and how much has been subsequently fitted in various upgrades.

 

Also, how many did she have on board - 105 or so? Where did they put them all?

quote "Also, how many did she have on board - 105 or so? Where did they put them all?"

 

There were just about enough life jackets for the original crew but they picked up extra passengers en route that weren't planned for.

 

As for where they were put, it would have been in the crew mess decks and for sleeping they would have used hot racking.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_racking

 

Hot racking (also known as hot bunking or hot bedding) is the sanctioned practice within military organizations of assigning more than one crew member to a bed or "rack" to reduce berthing (sleeping) space.[1]

 

[Callmeishmael 748]

I strongly suspect that the reason she sank was that proper procedures were not followed.  If I was investigating this sinking I would look at two things first:

1.  How often were the fuel tanks cleaned?  Diesel, particularly Bio-diesel is hydrophilic (will absorb water) and this provides a very good environment for micro-organisms.  If the fuel tanks are not drained and cleaned every year or so, a slimy layer of dead micro-organisms will coat the sides and bottom of the tanks. In rough weather, this slime will break free and can clog the fuel filters, stopping the engine.  Since one of the main engines and the generators all failed at about the same time, this lack of maintenance could have caused the sinking.

 

2.  The topside doors are all water-tight and should be closed when the vessel is underway.  However, Thailand is really hot I wouldn't be surprised if some of the doors were habitually propped open to get more fresh air down below.  The seas were rough enough that large amounts of water could have unexpectedly come cascading down into the engine room and other critical areas.

[connda 29531]

Therefore the sinking was due to human error and lack of following SOP while underway - like keeping water-tight doors firmly lagged. 

"Engine room flooded."   Someone FUBARed in a massive way and the Captain of the ship is directly responsible as well as his executive officers. 

My wife said that Thai news indicated that they ship was carrying an excess of crew members, sort of like they were having a big party.  So - have a big party, fail to follow standard operating procedures - then sink the ship.  These ships are built to have water-tight compartmentalization.  Unless the hull was breached - massively - the ship just doesn't roll-over and sink.

"But but but - there was a big storm!!!  Ship lose power.  Blah blah blah.  Excuses excuses excuses."

I've been on a ship in 25 foot seas and in major storms in the USN.  Bunk!  Ship don't just flood and sink. 
They'll blame the entire fiasco on a few of the lowest ranking seaman.  Watch!  Guaranteed.

 

Edited January 7 by connda

[connda 29531]

50 minutes ago, Elkski said:

I saw some rescue video where it looked like it had hull damage, I think on the starboard side midships forward. 

I've seen some grainy pictures that look like the hull had a rip in it.  But how.  It's "crickets" as far as the government goes.  Did they run it into a coral reef?  Still incompetent in a major way.

[Rimmer 15472]

An unattributed post has been removed

[connda 29531]

10 hours ago, Soikhaonoiken said:

Of course it was admiral,  but we all know what Thai standards are.....

My step-son was in the Thai military. 
/sarcasm on
Outstanding institution! 
/sarcasm off

[Robin 1325]

At lest a picture of the ship.  I count 3 life rafts visible on the port side, and presumably the same on stb. side.  Each ife rafte should take at least 25 people, so plenty of capacity for even those with no life jackets.  Standard abandon ship procedure is to launch and inflate life raft and then board from the ship, thus avoiding any crew getting into the water.  Life jackets are an additional safety measure, should not be needed.  All life rafts should have 'hydrostatic releases, so launch automatically when/if the vessel sinks.

My questions , based on 25yrs in offshore industry, would be:-

Were all the crew trained in basic offshore survival procedures, and how recently? (Normally training every 3yrs. and assessed by an independent examiner.

Was a basic 'emergency/ abandon ship drill carried out after the vessel left port?  Normally standard procedure, particularly with a number of new crew/passengers 

Captain is responsible for enforcing all these rules.

 

It is beginning to look as if the RT navy can only defend Thailand in calm weather