I wonder if the giant ferry of sulpicio lines that sank, the M/V Princess of the Stars is a RO-RO ferry(?? ?)

The sunk Sulpicio line Ferry is pretty big with the following specs:
Gross Tons (GRT) 23,824.17
Net Tons (NRT) 16,040.19
Length Over All (LOA) 181.00
Breadth 29.40
Draft 6.78
Passenger Capacity 1,992.00

I wonder if this Sulpicio Line ferry adhered to SOLAS 90 or greater specs that are in force in Europe for RO-ROs. The spectacular and tragic RO-RO ferry sinkings in Europe led to new rules for safety for RO-ROs known as simplistically as SOLAS 90 or greater.

Going back in history, there have been disturbing accidents involving different types of RO-RO ships in the past not only in the Philippines but around the world, one of the worst RO-RO sinkings being the sudden and catastrophic capsizing of the passenger/car ferry Herald of Free Enterprise in March 1987 and the even more tragic loss of the Estonia in September 1994 causing the loss of hundreds of lives.

The majority of deaths from RO-RO sinkings were due to flooding on the RO-RO car deck. Official investigations have shown that RO-RO ships become quickly unstable when they take on water, and the capsizing issue becomes even more acute in sea routes with high sea states. In particular, the huge open car deck of RO-ROs, absence of watertight subdivision above the bulkhead and the presence of doors near the waterline make them vulnerable to sudden capsizing when they take on too much water.

New legislation has been put into place aimed at improving the safety of RO-RO vessels, notably SOLAS ’90, (IMO-1974 SOLAS Convention, as amended, 1997) as the new global standard for all existing RO-RO ferries.

If this is not possible due to money constraints, then non-compliant RO-ROs should only travel on sea routes with low sea states or the RO-RO can serve Mindanao during typhoon season and Luzon/visayas during the summer season.

The other way is to fix non-compliant RO-ROs through technical modifications to make them SOLAS 90 compliant such as: bow/stern door reinforcement, sponsons, cross-flooding drainage, Longitudinal/transverse bulkheads,modification of internal tanks, extended side-casings, etc.

yup, its a roro (roll-on/roll-off).

most, if not all, of the new ferries are roro. All of the WGA SuperFerries are roro.

They are not front loading roro's like you see at the smaller ports though.

RO-ROs in the country are all second hand vessels mostly from Japan that are at least 20 years old. Compliance to European standards mean commissioning brand new ships or purchasing Euro-standard second hand ships, which could be beyond the means of the local passenger ship companies.

I've been a passenger in some of them and they are quite reliable and they serve the country well in the provinces. The Coast Guard as well as the Companys need to implement rigid standards and compliance. Also, one accident like this creates tidal waves of news and accusations and follow on institutions. Its a shame that accidents like this is the vehicle for changes.... Remember the 5 Ps (Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance). The problem is compounded when the Phils has limited rescue resources as well as poor communications links for reaction purposes. Thats been the inherent problem for a long time and fell on deaf ears. It's all about agency's doing their job.

The ship was actually able to communicate its predicament well before the typhoon hit full force, problem is the PAF, PN and PCG just dont have the assets needed for rescue ops in foul weather.

There was a similar incident of a luxury liner that was dead in the water due to huge waves off the coast of South Africa but all the passengers were rescued before the ship capsized - by South African long-range all-weather rescue helicopters.

We are constantly ravaged by typhoons but our rescue helicopters are relatively puny Huey choppers.

The Eagle class patrol craft were a set of steel ships smaller than destroyers but having a greater operational radius than the wooden-hulled, 110-foot (34 m) submarine chasers developed in 1917. The submarine chasers' range of about 900 miles (1,400 km) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h) restricted their operations to off-shore antisubmarine work and denied them an open-ocean escort capability; their high consumption of gasoline and limited fuel storage were handicaps the Eagle class sought to remedy.

They were originally commissioned 'USS Eagle Boat No.1' (or 2,3..etc.) but this was changed to PE-1 (or 2,4.. etc) in 1920. They never officially saw combat in WW1, but some were used during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.[1] PE-19, 27, 32, 38, 48 and 55-57 survived to be used in WWII.[2]

Attention turned to building steel patrol vessels. In their construction, it was necessary to eliminate the established shipbuilding facilities as possible sources of construction as they were totally engaged in the building of destroyers, larger warships, and merchant shipping. Accordingly, a design was developed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair which was sufficiently simplified to permit speedy construction by less experienced shipyards.

Philippine RO-RO's :banana: