Channel ferry aground on wreck

A quick look at my electronic chart and the wrecks show up on a resolution that almost shows both sides of the channel on a 17" screen!

That's 8nm top to bottom of screen, 20nm East to West!
If they were using a resolution less than this it wouldn't have shown the south sand head cardinal!!

The next scale which shows no real detail is over 16nm from top to bottom of the screen, any idiot could have easily changed the resolution or worked out how to.

For a commercial vessel they seem to have got off pretty lightly.
 
I was told that it was the junior officer on the bridge, just coming on watch in the middle of the ship's 'turn' and not having been party to any navigation leading up to it, who remarked to the other bridge officers something to the effect of "Have you seen that?" 'THAT' as it turned out was part of a wreck, showing ABOVE water, which they ran over, thus pulling the propellor off, snapping the shaft (looked about 2' or more diameter when I saw it!), back up the propellor tunnel for 6-8 feet!

Repairs ran into £millions, work done in France - first it was dry docked in Falmouth, where I saw it.
 
As described, there is an air of familiarity about the incident. I mean, the monotony of chugging back and forth within very fixed parameters. When something out of the ordinary strikes, like dock closure, reactions are less than satisfactory and assumptions are made rather than diagnostics.

We should have sympathy with fellow sailors, but these are pros with all the gear and loads of power. I know there is a habit of skippers on these ferries giving instructions and skurrying off, but you would think that an out of the ordinary scene like this demanded his full attention. No?

PWG
 
One would have thought so.

Probably down to complacency, but then again we all know that Ferries think theres one rule for them & another for the rest.
I avoid them like the plague.
 
Paper versus electronic.

'Paper' charts in this context means Admiralty charts. Yet Admiralty charts are all available in electronic form. I have used them on my laptop, and they are by far and away the best electronic charts available.

I don't use them now, and one of the reasons is the cumbersome and bureaucratic procedure you have to go through to buy them.

I believe that the Hydrographic Office is trying to make itself more commercially viable - well, here is one obvious move. Make buying digital Admiralty charts as straightforward as Navionics or whoever else. That will bring in money, and make life safer for those of us who use electronic charts. However, having the sort of Civil Service mentality that they do, I doubt this will happen.

An opportunity missed.
 
"The wreck would not have been displayed on the ferry's electronic chart because of the settings in use at the time of the incident. "

***************************************************

This is the critical comment.....not paper versus electronic!!!!

I noticed on several recent ship visits that when the plotters are set to certain scales they DO NOT SHOW all details just like my Standard Horizon. There are optimum scales where everything is shown however if the plotter is set at other than optimum some detail is lost. My plotter tells me if I am on optimum or not.

Seems the plotter on this occasion was on a setting where maybe only basic outlines were displayed and not full chart detail. This is a training error and not anything to do with electronic versus paper.

It seems that some chart systems only show full detail on certain displayed scales where others do on all scales.
 
A suggestion for commercial plotters

How about a scale linked to ships speed or change of course?

As you slow down the resolution would ramp up accordingly? if you start manouvering it highlights more features? This would be an easy soft function to implement with an upgrade on existing units.
 
Re: A suggestion for commercial plotters

The bit from the MAIB report that stands out to me :

[ QUOTE ]
The bridge team...included Master, Cheif Officer, helmsman and lookout

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the whole bridge team became involved in discussions about ...ventiliation on the car deck

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez... WTF was the Master doing letting helm and lookout become involved in that? To me, that is a discussion for Chief Officer / Chief Engineer and engineering team with a simple report back to the Master.
There's enough for us to do on the bridge without becoming chief cook and bottle washers.
 
Who believes the electronic chart setup story?

They were navigating in a narrow corridor of irregular shape surrounded by shallows and having to keep out of the way of other ferries doing the same. It is difficult to believe the chart was not set at a resolution that would have highlighted that small shallow contour.

My guess is the fools wandered north of the safe zone in error, then realized they had lost steerageway for the umpteenth time, powered up and put in an urgent turn. They miscalculated the slippage mid turn as they presented their starboard side to the weather.

After the crunch they concocted a story that blamed the technology.
 
Re: A suggestion for commercial plotters

[ QUOTE ]
How about a scale linked to ships speed or change of course?

As you slow down the resolution would ramp up accordingly? if you start manouvering it highlights more features? This would be an easy soft function to implement with an upgrade on existing units.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scale thing is a reasonable idea - my car satnav does this now but can be overridden manually.

The layers showing (or that should be showing) aren't necessarily dependent on speed.eg 20kts through the Straits would probably warrant more detail on the charts than say 5 knots across the Bay of Biscay.

The problem is if you turn too many layers on then you can get an information overload and still miss an important feature as it is then lost in the 'clutter'.

W.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Who believes the electronic chart setup story?

They were navigating in a narrow corridor of irregular shape surrounded by shallows and having to keep out of the way of other ferries doing the same. It is difficult to believe the chart was not set at a resolution that would have highlighted that small shallow contour.

My guess is the fools wandered north of the safe zone in error, then realized they had lost steerageway for the umpteenth time, powered up and put in an urgent turn. They miscalculated the slippage mid turn as they presented their starboard side to the weather.

After the crunch they concocted a story that blamed the technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lovely conspiracy theory, but the black box records all nav data and conversations held on the bridge and P&O will remove it immediately upon arrival (plus can't be tampered with). Also, each officer will be covering his/her own back so will give all details honestly (or be found out quickly if not).

It's the classic tale of too much going on on the bridge, the old man interfering with the con and the company not doing enough to ensure all angles are covered. Although interestingly, I know from experience another branch of P&O had all their ferries draw up contingency passage plans for bad weather routes and anchorages.
These things never seem to get implemented until the horse has bolted...
 
Re: A suggestion for commercial plotters

Yes, but isn't one of the critical failures here that of insufficient planning (both before going into the holding area and through being distracted while in that area)? This planning will require all the necessary detail and must be done before any part of the manoeuvre commences. Bringing up the detail when the manoeuvre starts sounds like a recipe for an "Oh! Look what we're about to hit!" situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top