The collision between "Elbe no. 5" and m/v "Astrosprinter"

[Poignard]

This collision occurred a few months ago and there was a lot of speculation here regarding the cause of the collision.

Can anyone tell me :

Has the official enquiry into the incident produced its report yet?

Is the 'Elbe no:5" to be restored?

 

[Kukri]

This collision occurred a few months ago and there was a lot of speculation here regarding the cause of the collision.

Can anyone tell me :

Has the official enquiry into the incident produced its report yet?

Is the 'Elbe no:5" to be restored?

Yes I can;

1. Not yet. The German enquiries are excellent (I had a ship involved in a fatal collision on the Elbe in 2006) and thorough.

2. Yes; work is already under way. She is owned (as she should be) by the Hamburg Maritime Foundation and compared to rebuilding the PEKING, rebuilding ELBE V is not such a big job.

 

[Poignard]

Thank you, Kukri.

 

[tidclacy]

Having looked at the video it seems the Elbe no 5, although on starboard tack, should have realised long before the order to put he tiller down to port that the Astrosprinter would not have been able to get out of her way. She should have bourne away port. Not knowing depths etc this was possibly not available to her. Will await the enquiry.

 

[LittleSister]

Having looked at the video it seems the Elbe no 5, although on starboard tack, should have realised long before the order to put he tiller down to port that the Astrosprinter would not have been able to get out of her way. She should have bourne away port. Not knowing depths etc this was possibly not available to her.

I agree that from the video it appears that the Elbe No. 5 left it far too late before taking avoiding action, but my understanding from the video and other threads was that the order was to turn to port, but was misinterpreted as tiller to port (or ordered tiller to starboard, and misinterpreted as turn to starboard, I forget which).

Even had there been inadequate depth to port, they would have been better off aground rather than colliding.

As you say, we await the enquiry.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I agree that from the video it appears that the Elbe No. 5 left it far too late before taking avoiding action, but my understanding from the video and other threads was that the order was to turn to port, but was misinterpreted as tiller to port (or ordered tiller to starboard, and misinterpreted as turn to starboard, I forget which).

The risks of which confusion were well-established on 14th April 1912 ...

 

[dancrane]

Has the official enquiry into the incident produced its report yet?

Almost 18 months to the day since you asked, if there has been a report, I have missed it. I'd like to know too.

 

[dombuckley]

The risks of which confusion were well-established on 14th April 1912 ...

No they weren't. First Officer Murdoch gave the correct order, and Helmsman Hichens made the correct helm response. The change from "helm orders" to "wheel orders" came after the 1932 Merchant Shipping Act and was in no way influenced by the Titanic disaster, in which the helm arrangement played no part.

 

[Gary Fox]

I agree that from the video it appears that the Elbe No. 5 left it far too late before taking avoiding action, but my understanding from the video and other threads was that the order was to turn to port, but was misinterpreted as tiller to port (or ordered tiller to starboard, and misinterpreted as turn to starboard, I forget which).

Even had there been inadequate depth to port, they would have been better off aground rather than colliding.

As you say, we await the enquiry.

That's right. The 'enquiry' is almost redundant really, and the boat has already been repaired. The skipper should lose his ticket IMO. All he needed to shout was, 'Alter course to port!'
(I would love to know how to say that in German, and what he actually said to the young helm at the time.)
It's trivially easy to avoid needless confusion about which way to move the tiller. We just talk about which way we want the boat to go. It was all sorted as dombuckley says in 1932 anyway....on pain of a £50 fine for the master!

 

[AntarcticPilot]

No they weren't. First Officer Murdoch gave the correct order, and Helmsman Hichens made the correct helm response. The change from "helm orders" to "wheel orders" came after the 1932 Merchant Shipping Act and was in no way influenced by the Titanic disaster, in which the helm arrangement played no part.

In fact, the correct execution of the helm order might well have been what sank her - a head-on collision wouldn't have breached so many of the watertight bulkheads, and she might well have survived, though of course many people would have been killed or injured by the shock. But the helm order meant that Titanic grazed the iceberg along one side, breaching more compartments than her design could handle. A head-on collision would have destroyed the bow, but would probably only have breached 2-3 of the watertight compartments, which was survivable. As it was something like 7 compartments were breached, and that was beyond her design limits.

 

[dancrane]

the boat has already been repaired.

Thanks for that, I hadn't found a word about her since the collision. Here's a Classic Sailboats page about her from last year:

No.5 ELBE returns to Hamburg on its own keel - Classic Sailboats

 

[Poignard]

The Investigation Report dated 2 June 2021 can be downloaded from here:

(Investigation reports - Investigation Report 211/19 File&v=1)

 

[Jodel]

What a strange report. On page 17 we are told that the Captain ordered "Hard to Port" and the navigation officer pushed the tiller to port causing the boat to turn "hard to starboard'. Nowhere in the remaining 98 pages can I see any further analysis of this. In the final analysis there is no mention.

He turned right instead of left. WHY?

115 pages of checking that the paperwork is in order seem to be more important!

 

[R.Ems]

It's been asked by others above, but the huge question is still hanging: why did he not maintain his course, and pass the ship green to green?
There was no need to alter to pass in front of the ship. In fact it guaranteed multiplying the risk of collision by orders of magnitude...
The Elbe No.5 skipper was 100% to blame... and the repairs should be taken out of his wages!

 

[R.Ems]

.....115 pages of checking that the paperwork is in order seem to be more important!

Because, Germany!

 

[Kukri]

I strongly disagree with posts #13,14 and 15 above.

I’ve read the English text of the report twice now; once when it was published and again just now in the light of the comments above.

It’s very similar in form to an MAIB report. I don’t find anything unusual about it. Like an MAIB report it sets out to find and record all relevant facts, and not to apportion blame. It does not attribute fault, but does record all pertinent data.

It clearly records that the last helm order was interpreted in the opposite sense, but it also spends a good deal of time looking into what led up to that, which in my opinion is right and proper. The “Elbe 5” was on the wrong side of the fairway and had damage to both her headsails, which were quite old. The report records that the staysail dated back to her American ownership ie it wa over 20 years old and the inner jib was made in 2007. She had been under sail and the engines were being started to get better control of the vessel.

The report does examine the question of whether the decision to restore tiller steering - taken by SMH in 2005 - was prudent, and it concludes - quite an interesting idea - that safety must take precedence over historical authenticity and - I like this bit - an hydraulic system could be fitted to add power to the tiller and hidden under deck just like other modern systems such as the engines. It also recommends that SMH consider installing water tight bulkheads.

I think it’s an excellent report and I think an MAIB report would have been very similar indeed.

 

[LittleSister]

I think we assume that the helm order was given in the post 1932 sense. A custom on board the “Elbe 5” of giving helm orders in the pre-1932 sense would be illegal.

The helm was put the wrong way “in the agony of the moment.”

This is a recognised defence in English law in collision cases.

But is not mentioned in the report?

Given how slowly the Elbe No. 5 would turn, and how 'un- instantaneous' pushing the tiller across would have been, it surprises me that the error was not picked up before it was completed.

 

[Kukri]

I think we assume that the helm order was given in the post 1932 sense. A custom on board the “Elbe 5” of giving helm orders in the pre-1932 sense would be illegal.

The helm was put the wrong way “in the agony of the moment.”

This is a recognised defence in English law in collision cases.

 

[LittleSister]

Like an MAIB report it sets out to find and record all relevant facts, and not to apportion blame.

But that's what we are here for!

 

[LittleSister]

Time warp alert!

My post #17 is a response to Kukri's post #18.