Next time you see a ship and think, he must have seen me....

[CalicoJack]

From the MAIB report on the grounding of the Ruyter.

Summary
At 2311 on 10 October 2017, The Netherlands registered general cargo vessel Ruyter ran aground on the north shore of Rathlin Island when the master, who was the watchkeeper left the bridge unattended. The bridge navigational watch alarm system, which could have alerted the chief officer to the fact that the bridge was unmanned, had been switched off. Consequently, no action was taken to correct a deviation from the ship’s planned track.

The master had been consuming alcohol prior to taking over the watch but the chief officer, who had previously warned the master against excessive consumption of alcohol, had been satisfied that the master was fit for watchkeeping duties.

 

[VicS]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b27c3c9ed915d2cd5d01be9/MAIBInvReport11_2018.pdf

 

[webcraft]

.
Amazing.

The ship must have been in the TSS when the bridge was abandoned, and the Rathlin TSS isn't even a straight line, it has a 45 degree bend half way along it.

Jail for a very long time for this guy, I hope.

EDIT - just read the report :

At 2105, Ruyter’s master set the autopilot to steer 145°. The ship then maintained this heading until about
2311, when it ran aground on the north shore of Rathlin Island.

So - didn't even register that there was a TSS there, just went straight across it.


- W

 

[VicS]

.
Amazing.
The ship must have been in the TSS when the bridge was abandoned, and the Rathlin TSS isn't even a straight line, it has a 45 degree bend half way along it.
Jail for a very long time for this guy, I hope.
EDIT - just read the report :
So - didn't even register that there was a TSS there, just went straight across it.

- W

Not according to the chart in the report. Planappears to have been to join the SE going lane at its northern end and follow it to the southern end

 

[JumbleDuck]

From the MAIB report on the grounding of the Ruyter.

Strangely reminiscent. From the MAIB report on the grounding of the Coastal Isle

Summary
At about 0240 the chief officer, who was on watch at the time, had dismissed the ordinary seaman who was on lookout duties; shortly afterwards he left the bridge himself. The bridge was unmanned from that time until the vessel grounded at 0443. The chief officer was
subsequently found in his cabin.

In that case witness reports claimed that the CO was found unconscious in his bed; the witnesses later changed their minds and decided that they had found him in his toilet, which conveniently agreed with his story. The CO had a Panamanian qualification which turn out to have been obtained by fraud, demonstrating that there actually is something worse than a normal Panamanian qualification.

 

[vyv_cox]

We had a close encounter with a ship north of Chios a few years ago. It appeared that we had not been seen although visibility was perfect. We stopped and the ship crossed ahead of us heading east. We watched it, realising that it was heading directly for a beach in Turkey. Suddenly, within a mile of land at a guess, it swerved violently about 90 degrees to the north. We have often suspected that there was nobody on watch.

 

[DownWest]

. The CO had a Panamanian qualification which turn out to have been obtained by fraud, demonstrating that there actually is something worse than a normal Panamanian qualification.

I used to have to 'revalidate' the safety certificate for our Panamanian registered Co yacht. Basicly, I just went up to Lisbon and crossed the Consulates hand with silver and walked out with a fresh one. Since I was looking after the boat, how safe it was, was up to me, as it was never inspected.

As an aside... The first time I visited the guy, he opened the door in his dressing gown and said he was rather ill. He certainly looked it. Next year, I asked the representative how his predecessor was. Bit of a blunder, as it was the same bloke... Obviously the illness was not quite a terminal as it had looked and he looked years younger when recovered. Slightly tricky conversation followed..

 

[JumbleDuck]

We had a close encounter with a ship north of Chios a few years ago. It appeared that we had not been seen although visibility was perfect. We stopped and the ship crossed ahead of us heading east. We watched it, realising that it was heading directly for a beach in Turkey. Suddenly, within a mile of land at a guess, it swerved violently about 90 degrees to the north. We have often suspected that there was nobody on watch.

My working hypothesis for all encounters with small to medium merchant vessels is that they are under the command (sic) of a single watchkeeper with no English and forged qualifications who is sprawled in an alcoholic stupor across the wrong chart.

 

[fergie_mac66]

3 years ago we saw a very large container ship coming up the ushant tss we had just xrossed, very late evening
At the dog leg it came out and slowly drifted to halt over 14 nm making a wobbly unstable course.We were watching ais track.

The thing was the ais info said it was not under command .
The french tss controllers did not appear to get any response from repeat info reqests over a couple of hrs!

 

[capnsensible]

Some may find these links of interest:

http://www.nationalmariners.us/images/R-408_MAIB_-_Fatigue_Study.pdf

http://www.libramar.net/news/bridge_watchkeeping_a_practical_guide/2017-08-20-3013

https://www.marineinsight.com/marin...ties-of-officer-on-watch-oow-on-ships-bridge/

Enjoy.

 

[prv]

Strangely reminiscent. From the MAIB report on the grounding of the Coastal Isle.

And at least half a dozen others.

The one with the Ukrainians having a drunken birthday party on the bridge and then crashing into Spain is notable in that seemingly every officer was paralytic simultaneously, not just one drunk or sleepy individual.

Pete

 

[Biggles Wader]

Leaving aside the alcohol bit consider this scenario. Cargo ship in port working cargo all day and deck officers required to supervise all that. Ship sails at about 20.00h and deck officers required for departure stand by. All done by about 22.30. One of those officers will be required as OOW at midnight for the 00.00 - 04.00 watch. If the ship had arrived that morning at say 06.00 he would have been up since 00.00 the previous night doing the same watch and the stand by for arrival. Suppose he falls asleep on watch at 03.00 after being up for over 27 hours and fails to make a course alteration. Ship goes up the beach.
Shouldnt be allowed should it?

 

[DownWest]

s
Shouldnt be allowed should it?[/QUO

You can't seperate booze from the incidents in question. Crew should not be up for such long hours, but drinking compounds the problem.
We have all been up for long hours on passage, but try not to shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

[chrishscorp]

The MAIB report linked to by Capn Sensible does make alarming reading, yes alcohol can be a factor but the main issue repeatedly reffered to as the root cause is tiredness, the watch shift pattern disrupted by loading unloading then back too sea with very little sleep having had to oversee the activity whilst alongside. We have max work hours and rest periods for truck drivers, I guess there just havent been enough loss of shipping/lives to warrant the insistance on double manning on bridges :ambivalence:

 

[Daydream believer]

A supply vessel gradually changed course in the dover strait 3 years ago and nearly ran us down. I am convinced that of we had not radioed him and told him to look where he was going he would have hit us. I think the vessel must have been on autopilot and the watch were probably chatting and not bothering to look where they were going. Missed us by about 75 yards after a sharp corrective turn to port

 

[Roberto]

Alcohol, hmm.
Along the west coast of Africa, where numberless Chinese Korean Japanese etc fishing fleets spend months on duty, after the local thunderstorms the nearby beaches are invaded by syringes.

 

[langstonelayabout]

My working hypothesis for all encounters with small to medium merchant vessels is that they are under the command (sic) of a single watchkeeper with no English and forged qualifications who is sprawled in an alcoholic stupor across the wrong chart.

Frighteningly popular I'm sure. My brother who trained as a Navigating Officer for P&O in the 70's always mentioned that most captains had a problem with the drink, irrespective of the company that they sailed for.

Look at it this way: It is the thing of the future. The autonomous ships that are being mooted won't have the ability to avoid you or even speak to you to avoid collision with your yacht in accordance with colregs. It'll be a return to 'might is right'.

 

[prv]

Look at it this way: It is the thing of the future. The autonomous ships that are being mooted won't have the ability to avoid you or even speak to you to avoid collision with your yacht in accordance with colregs. It'll be a return to 'might is right'.

Alternatively, the computer won't be drunk, asleep, doing company paperwork instead of looking out the window, or watching porn on what should be the radar display (last one was a fishing skipper rather than merchantman, but still).

They can avoid you according to the power ColRegs today provided you're visible on AIS or radar (and remember you're required by law to have an effective radar reflector). Visual detection and classification is apparently in progress, including to identify sails and apply those rules correctly (which is more than some human watchkeepers do).

Having a chat on the VHF to discuss your respective intentions is a bit further off, but the MCA says you're not supposed to do that anyway.

Personally I think the biggest obstacle to autonomous ships is who does the chipping and painting and keeps the machinery running. Watchkeeping's the easy bit.

Pete

 

[chrishscorp]

Look at it this way: It is the thing of the future. The autonomous ships that are being mooted won't have the ability to avoid you or even speak to you to avoid collision with your yacht in accordance with colregs. It'll be a return to 'might is right'.

I think they will need to sort out serious security issues first in terms of these ships being able to be run off course either to hijack its cargo or use it to cause economic or environmental disaters, through the hacking of the software or as has been mentioned in other threads on here by spoofing the GPS signal

 

[robertj]

Alternatively, the computer won't be drunk, asleep, doing company paperwork instead of looking out the window, or watching porn on what should be the radar display (last one was a fishing skipper rather than merchantman, but still).

They can avoid you according to the power ColRegs today provided you're visible on AIS or radar (and remember you're required by law to have an effective radar reflector). Visual detection and classification is apparently in progress, including to identify sails and apply those rules correctly (which is more than some human watchkeepers do).

Having a chat on the VHF to discuss your respective intentions is a bit further off, but the MCA says you're not supposed to do that anyway.

Personally I think the biggest obstacle to autonomous ships is who does the chipping and painting and keeps the machinery running. Watchkeeping's the easy bit.

Pete

Crossing the TSS I’ve radioed the ships in question via ais identification the directly calling them on the radio. Both times I tried dsc which was ignored but when I specifically called them on vhf both replied with their intentions.
On another occasion I was ignored and I altered course as they had right of way, I say right of way but if I didn’t alter course I would have be another MAIB statistic.