the collision between the fishing vessel homeland and the ro-ro passenger vessel scottish viking (5...

The collision between the fishing vessel Homeland

and

the ro-ro passenger vesselScottish Viking

(5 August 2010)

Drew, Ernest and Hamad(June 24, 2011)

COLREGS Rules Vessel signs Nature of the incident Collision overview Contributing factor to the collision COLREGS rules breached and ignored Corrective actions Navigational Watch-Keeping practice ignored Corrective measures Conclusion References

Overview

Rule 2 – responsibility Rule 5 – lookout Rule 7 – Risk of collision Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision Rule 15 – Crossing situation Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel Rule 17 – Action by the stand-on vessel Rule 34 – Maneuvering and warning

signals

COLREGS RULES

Power driven Vesselththt

Power driven Vessel

Fishing VesselFishing Vessel

Italian registered ro-ro passenger ferry Scottish Viking on 5 August 2010, collided with the UK registered fishing vessel Homeland about 4 miles off St Abb’s Head.

Fishing vessel Homeland sank One crew member fatality (Daniel McNeil).

Nature of the incident

Overview of the collision

The collision between Homeland and Scottish Viking occurred because those responsible for the watch on either vessel had not taken sufficient action to determine that a risk of collision existed. On board Homeland, the stand-on vessel, this was primarily because an inadequate lookout was being kept and the wheelhouse was not being manned continuously. On board Scottish Viking, the give-way vessel, the watch-keeper took insufficient action to determine that a risk of collision did exist, and , when the collision was imminent, did not take effective action to avoid the two vessels colliding.

Manning and qualifications Incompetence Lack of navigation policies Un-compliance of safety management Lack of precautionary thought Radar was set on short-range 1.5 miles and

echo did not appear on display on time. Misunderstanding of sign signals.

Contributing factors

Rule 2 – responsibilities (requires master to be primary responsible for the safe and effective navigation of the vessel). However, Scottish Viking master handed over control to the second officer. According the ISM code, master has the responsibility for verifying that specified requirements are observed, and motivating the crew in observation of company policies.

COLREGS rules breached/ ignored

COLREGS Rules breached

Rule 5 – lookout (proper lookout was not performed by Homeland vessel watchman (Daniel who was distracted by the skipper in assisting in mending a torn net on the aft deck) Daniel lack watch-keeping proficiency and without appropriate qualifications and limited experience) STCW 95 states that no other duties should be assigned to the lookout. Need for early detection and monitoring.

Rule 7 – risk of collision (Homeland’s watchkeeper did not use all appropriate available means to establish if there was a risk of collision. They left the wheelhouse unmanned and there was no indication to the skipper of any potential risk of collision). Need to use radar, undue reliance on AIS rather than visual/ radar monitoring.

COLREGS rules breached Cond.

COLREGS Rules breached

Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision (The second officer’s late recognition of the need to take avoiding action prevented him from taking early avoiding action in accordance with Rule 8). Need for early action, the need for precautionary thinking. If in doubt, assume it exist and appropriate action.

Rule 15 - Crossing situation (The Second officer delayed his decision , thereby eliminating his options of collision avoidance by reducing speed or altering course to starboard , particularly after Achieve had altered her course to port. His only remaining option was then to alert course to port , albeit contrary to the spirit of Rule 15.

Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel (Action needed to be taking by the give-way vessel to avoid collision was to late)

COLREGS rules breached Cond.

Rule 17 - Action by the stand-on vessel (Rule 17(b) requires the stand on vessel to “take such action as will best aid to avoid collision”. Homeland skipper attempted to comply with rule 17 (b) however, his actions were too late to be effective.

COLREGS Rules breached

Rule 34 – Manoeuvring and warning signals ( Recognising that action was required by Homeland to avoid collision, the second officer should have sound at least five short and rapid blast on the whistle in accordance Rule 34(b). Need for correct signals to avoid misunderstanding of intentions.

Rules breached

According ISM Code in lines with the company’s navigation policy, it require the master to be the primarily responsible for safe and effective navigation of the vessel.

It requires navigational polices contained in the SMS to be strictly followed.

Navigational Watch-keeping practice breached

Navigational Watch-Keeping practice breached

At sea, the closet point of approach (CPA) of not less than one (1) shall be maintained whenever possible.

Thee primary means of plotting shall be the efficient use of all automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA)

The master should have been available to ensure that the company’s navigational policies are being followed.

The policy of closest point of approach not having less than 1 mile should have been maintained.

The automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA) should have been used to avoid the collision.

Corrective Measures

Although Daniel had intermittently returned to the wheelhouse to check the navigational situation, these checks were insufficiently thorough to identify a risk of collision with Scottish Viking.

Daniel’s inability to maintain a proper lookout was compromised by the skipper’s priority of requiring his assistance with mending the torn net on the aft deck.

Daniel might have lacked sufficient watch-keeping proficiency, given his absence of qualifications and limited experience.

Conclusion

Scottish Viking’s second officer did not use the radar to fully appraise the situation or the risk of collision.

Daniel had not understood or anticipated the developing situation.

Scottish Viking’s second officer, when navigating in close proximity to fishing vessels, did not usually take early avoiding action. His experience was that fishing vessels often carried out erratic maneuvers and that taking early avoiding action could result in unnecessary close-quarter situations.

Conclusion cond.

Scottish Viking’s second officer showed a poor attitude towards guidance and regulations. He lacked precautionary thought and failed to appreciate the hazard he was creating by intentionally navigating in close proximity to other vessels.

It is apparent that the Scottish Viking’s master did not sufficiently motivate the second officer to follow the company’s navigational procedures, or verify that they were being compiled with.

Conclusion cond.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Homeland_Scottish-Viking_Report.pdf, viewed June 16, 2011.

References