Interim MAIB Report Salong/Immaculate

The OOW / Watchkeeper has other duties, which may prevent them keeping a proper lookout at all times - especially at night or in poor visibility when (say) a good scan every couple of minutes isn't sufficient.

A dedicated lookout is a separate member of the crew assigned purely to keep an eye (and ear, in fog) on what might be out there. They're also handy for keeping the OOW awake in the early hours - something that is regularly pointed out in accident reports where a lone watchkeeper fell asleep and woke up parked aground on something unexpected like the Farne Islands.

It'll be interesting to see what comment they make on Stena Immaculate here - a proper lookout at anchor is somewhat ill-defined at the moment.
 
They appear to be not counting the OOW as a "dedicated lookout". On the Solong as a vessel under way this would contravene the rules as we used to apply them(in the 1970s)where there should be an OOW plus a quartermaster/lookout on the bridge. At anchor my recollection is that there was always an OOW on the bridge but not a dedicated lookout. The OOW would check the position regularly to ensure the ship was not dragging and summon assistance if required.
 
Wansworth said:
I am shocked that large vessels can cruise around with only one man on watch……what about illness ,accident,tiredness…..Is such manning legal?
Click to expand...
The short answer is sometimes it's legal, sometimes it's not legal, and sometimes it's not clear. At night it should be two people for sure, but during daylight STCW Code Chapter VIII (the bit covering standards of watchkeeping) says the following:

The officer in charge of the navigational watch may be the sole lookout in daylight provided that, on each such occasion:

  • .1 the situation has been carefully assessed and it has been established without doubt that it is safe to do so;
  • .2 full account has been taken of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
    –state of weather;
    –visibility;
    –traffic density ;
    –proximity of dangers to navigation; and
    –the attention necessary when navigating in or near traffic separation schemes; and
  • .3 assistance is immediately available to be summoned to the bridge when any change in the situation so requires.


Illness and/or fatigue obviously falls under "other factors".
 
On the ridge at 0700 there was only the Capitain although itwas still dark,although he should have been alert having been off watch.Thanks for your info
 
Wansworth said:
On the ridge at 0700 there was only the Capitain although itwas still dark,although he should have been alert having been off watch.Thanks for your info
Click to expand...
Sunrise was something like half six, so no problems on that front - it was daylight and had been for a while. It's the other stuff in that little list above they'll be looking at when considering if a lookout was necessary.
 
I did a long voyage on a Stena vessel last year, and they posted a dedicated watch keeper whose sole job was looking out on the bridge wings, underway. When at anchor they did not do this but the bridge was permanently manned, as expected, monitoring systems e.g. radars, alarm panels et cetera, as well as looking out.
 
DreadShips said:
Sunrise was something like half six, so no problems on that front - it was daylight and had been for a while. It's the other stuff in that little list above they'll be looking at when considering if a lookout was necessary.
Click to expand...

Visibility was stated as “patchy” and quoted between 0.25 to 2 miles. That suggests a more diligent watch should have been maintained, especially on radar. It is curious how a ship dead ahead on radar was not detected, assuming radar was operational. I wonder if the Stena vessel was assumed to be crossing at right angles based on the AIS image overlay showing the vessel graphic and not realising it was at anchor.
 
RunAgroundHard said:
I did a long voyage on a Stena vessel last year, and they posted a dedicated watch keeper whose sole job was looking out on the bridge wings, underway. When at anchor they did not do this but the bridge was permanently manned, as expected, monitoring systems e.g. radars, alarm panels et cetera, as well as looking out.
Click to expand...
The surprising thing for me was not that Solong wasn’t keeping a proper lookout (collisions at sea would be almost zero if everyone did what they are supposed to) but that Stenna Immaculate seemed to be unaware of the pending problem until impact - I had assumed that vessels with millions of pounds of highly dangerous cargo, especially cargo owned by the US Military, would have a constant watch for “pirates” / “terrorists”.
 
RunAgroundHard said:
Visibility was stated as “patchy” and quoted between 0.25 to 2 miles. That suggests a more diligent watch should have been maintained, especially on radar. It is curious how a ship dead ahead on radar was not detected, assuming radar was operational. I wonder if the Stena vessel was assumed to be crossing at right angles based on the AIS image overlay showing the vessel graphic and not realising it was at anchor.
Click to expand...
I'm not for a moment suggesting that the watch was sufficient (there's millions of pounds of evidence parked in Aberdeen right now that suggests it wasn't!) - it was in response to a question about the legal situation, which isn't clear cut in all circumstances.

Interesting point about the AIS overlay, although as it was swinging slowly at anchor there'd be very little trail showing its position over the next few minutes?

(the anchorage might not be shown on charts, but it's pretty frequently used - there's half a dozen ships at anchor in the area right now, not including those with Immaculate)
 
Surely the AIS would give CPA? Anchored ship swinging or not, some very important and useful info was on the screen of BOTH vessels.

If, of course, anyone was watching!

It would appear that First Mate and I are far more dilligent in our watchkeeping and lookout than professional seamen! We would have been aware of all the anchored ships through AIS and Radar if the vis was poor.
 
rotrax said:
Surely the AIS would give CPA? Anchored ship swinging or not, some very important and useful info was on the screen of BOTH vessels.

If, of course, anyone was watching!

It would appear that First Mate and I are far more dilligent in our watchkeeping and lookout than professional seamen! We would have been aware of all the anchored ships through AIS and Radar if the vis was poor.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - any AIS would surely have shown a CPA of only a few metres. I assume on a commercial ship the AIS is integrated into the ECDIS system, so should also have alarms raised even if nobody looking at screen.
The generic issue I believe with ECDIS is have so many spurious alarms can get into routine cancel mode (not suggesting necessarily happened here - see MIAB report on ship which had a “rapid uncheduled deceleration” on Eilean Trodday a couple years back.
 
Snowgoose-1 said:
Apparently, the anchorage is not shown on the chart . The report does state that other ships were anchored.
Click to expand...

DreadShips said:
. . .
(the anchorage might not be shown on charts, but it's pretty frequently used - there's half a dozen ships at anchor in the area right now, not including those with Immaculate)
Click to expand...

A ship, fishing vessel, leisure craft or other vessel is not limited to designated or chart indicated anchorages. It may anchor where it likes, apart from specifically prohibited channels or if restricted by harbour regulations etc, and even in those one might find a vessel anchored by force of circumstance.

In this case it was reported that the Stena Immaculate was specifically instructed by VTS to anchor in that location, as was presumably the case for the other vessels anchored nearby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

jlavery
Electric winches - sobering reading
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
4K
seeSimon
S

Share this page

Top