I guess for me, the assist boat is there to handle the expected assist portion-- to give the propulsion capability that my vessel or barge doesn’t have, but more importantly, to help mitigate the inevitable foul-ups. I learned this lesson a few years back when I was mate for a captain who opted out of an assist to get our small-to-medium sized direct reversible ship off of a dock. It should have been a piece of cake to spring off the dock and execute a 180 turn in the channel and depart. The main engine was controlled from the engine room and there was a communication failure where instead of a backing bell, the skipper got an ahead bell. He rang up half astern, got half ahead. Next thing you know, we T-boned the dock ahead of us and punched a big hole in the bow. Wouldn’t have happened if he had opted for an assist.
Different kind of failure here, but if the assist boat had quit pushing on the quarter on departure, then slid forward and put a line up, the captain or pilot could have confidently hit the e-stop and quit backing into disaster instead of having no options but trying to fix a mechanical problem in very short order or getting the cadets to drop anchor. Lessons to be learned from this one for sure.
Another oddity here: They didn’t rig a white tarp on the starboard bow for the push that they got from the assist boat, but did rig one on the starboard quarter. They didn’t plan on needing the bump on the bow? Everything was going to go perfectly and it was only going to need some rudder and throttle? I guess I just drive boats in constant fear of things going wrong. So sad that this cost lives and injuries.
Can You be so kind & elaborate on that please.
No.
Certainly Spo. I offer this commentary as a retired Pilot.
280m northward from the berth was a bridge which did not have adequate clearance and therefore represented a potential risk of allision. We had young crew members aloft for the departure allied with both a flood tide and wind directional towards the bridge.
The profession of Pilotage is twofold……to identify and manage risk plus employing extensive training to enable yourself to get out of the s.it. When we train on the simulator we face many manufactured failures.
This vessel had no bow thruster, an omni-directional main engine, a single RH CPP propeller, a single rudder, windage plus an 1800hp twin screw conventional tug.
The solution is to place your assets where they will be of most assistance in the event of an arising incident.
The tug should have been positioned on a headline from the outset. This would have allowed it to take the bow to port once clear of the berth in addition to controlling ANY eventuality which may have caused it to close the bridge such as a jammed CPP.
This is judgemental but it is also an honest answer borne out of extensive experience.
I trust that this is helpful.
Don’t wish to contradict anyone here but from a purely shiphandeling point of view I would have preferred to depart on a a flood tide. As 3M says earlier this appears to be the norm.
I had not thought about the bowsprit fouling the dock so that explains the tarpaulin on the starboard quarter.
When the vessel comes astern the tide will hit the aft part of the ship and initiate a port swing. This is why I believe a flood tide departure is standard. Thanks for local knowledge 3M.
Sal makes a good point about the ship being a Navy ship and these are notoriously difficult to get your point over as a Pilot. They spend many hours thinking and planning manoeuvres and are very reluctant to deviate from their plan.
The fact that a tarpaulin was not rigged on the starboard bow indicates to me that they were fully confident that the ship would make the swing under its own power without tug assistance.
Sal also questions if it was a docking pilot or channel pilot on board. A docking pilot I would imagine would be more assertive in questioning the plan.
As Aus points out we ( docking pilots) do tend to think towards any machinery failures so would be more likely to make a tug fast.
Not trying to second guess anyone here as it was a tragic accident.
I have been on a swinging ship with the engine jammed astern and it is not a good place to be, thankfully the issue was resolved in time and just a few more grey hairs found yours truly.
Just a couple of more points.
A sail training ship such as this is very light so even a small (powered) tug would have been perfectly adequate in fact even preferable to a more powerful unit due to point 2
How strong were the bollards on the ship? Would a larger tug or even the one allocated have exceeded the SWL.
All from a purely shiphandeling point of view
Ausmariner has given the best description of what should have been done. Fact is accidents are best prevented by avoiding them. Once the train of error is moving it’s very hard to stop it.
While I was training, I was riding with a senior pilot who was doing a job with one tug and no line. It went sideways on him, and after he asked me “So, what did you learn?” I said “order 2 tugs next time?” And he says, “Well, at least put a line up on the one you have.”
A line up would have made his life much easier that day…and I’ve never forgotten his advice.
I see now how the current can be used to rotate a boat pulling out to aim down the river. I am assuming that the vast majority of the time the vessels that do this can fit under the bridge and don’t have half the crew up the mast, so maybe this was a bit of a special case.
I am also assuming that the engine would not jam astern, but then you know what they say about assume
New3M
Good advice.
Our Safety Operating Procedures categorically stated that all attending tugs must be made fast at all times. We had escort tugs from the berth to entrance and vice versa.
Where would you have made the tug fast?
Genuine question
The only useful place I can think of is port shoulder.
Assuming the tug ( that word again) works over the bow it could swing the ship and maybe have enough power to overpower the ships engine when it all goes toes up.
Then you couldn’t make it fast until after it clears the berth and still doesn’t mitigate against the bowsprit fouling the quay.
Hello 244,
As a Pilot, my principle concern would be the young people lashed in harnesses aloft and secondly the proximity of the bridge. Therefore, I need to be capable and prepared to control sternway be it via main engine failure or any other failure.
This vessel is a light displacement, 5m draft, 86m sail training vessel. I would make the tug fast right forward as close to the centreline as possible. I would employ the rudder and main engine to lift the stern off and work the tug abaft the beam to check headway and lift the bow. Once the bow was clear of the berth, I would re-position the tug two points on the port bow to induce bow to port and some headway.
Yes Aus I can see that working provided there’s was enough room forward for a tug to make fast, maybe 3M can give an opinion.
I really have no idea as I have never docked an STS only ever piloted one on passage.
Never docked a warship either, again only on passage but I do know they are a pain
This is how they did in the times of sail. The “Hero” towing the “Pamir” out of Sydney. My father commenced his seagoing career on the “Pamir”.
Wow 
I suppose, ( not assume ) they have C/L or near to towing points as they were towed in by the old steam tugs
You have to be extremely judicious with tug power……they are very light.
And with small bollards I suppose.
Had to watch the spell checker on that one 