Another tanker collision in South China Sea

Maritime News Marine Incidents
21

There’s two different points being made here.

The is a legal (based on Rule 2, good seamanship) presumption of fault against a vessel underway when it strikes a vessel not underway. This is also true, to a lesser extent, when a vessel moving strikes a vessel not moving. This is the point you’re making.

The professor was not commenting on this presumption of fault.

Instead his point was an answer to a different question. The question he apparently was asked was if it was possible that AIS spoofing could have been a factor in the collision.

Regardless if whether the AIS was or was not a factor it would almost certainly would not overturn the presumption of fault on the part of the moving vessel. This is a point the professor did not address.

22

Tell me Captain what legal minds have You consulted here to concoct such a convoluted answer,what reminds me of some complicated justifications of decisions made in Admirality Courts ?

If not, then then I take my hat off in awe of the meanders of your mind worthy of his Lordships skull cavities.

Have examined the article yet again and can not see the Professor was asked a question .
" How did it happen? " is a general question asked by the author of the article and we do not know exactly what was asked and how, hence yours seem to me a speculation aimed to prove your point.

Therefore , since mine

seems to have generated your objection then I am rephrasing it as follows:
IMHO any suggestion that AIS spoofing may have contributed to Ceres I colliding with the Hafnia Nile is a nonsense.

And i base my opinion on my own practical and theoretical experiences prior the advent of ARPA and AIS, when plotting and continuous radar and visual observation of targets was a daily bread.

However if You have a contrary opinion and are on the same page with m/a Professor then be so kind to elaborate as I am very willing to learn.
Cheers

23

I agree that I don’t know what question the prof was asked, I edited my post.

AIS spoofing, in general, increases the risk of collision. I don’t see this as being controversial.

24

The ones that you don’t see, but are still at anchor in the same area.

25

We need some more actual facts, so far …
-Ceres bow and Hafnia Nile port side collided,
-with enough force to cause a massive fire,
-yet Ceres 1 was allegedly “anchored”,
-Ceres 1 AIS was off,
-Ceres 1 records show it’s a p.o.s. floating wreck.
If someone had dumped a pile of scrap on I-95 in the dark…

26

It’s based on Rule 2. There’s a presumption of bad seamanship if a vessel underway strikes another vessel that is anchored or moored.

1 Like
27

See The Oregon, 158 U.S, 186.

1 Like
28

It strikes me as plausible that spoofing of the AIS could contribute to a collision

I posted about relying entirely on AIS for collision avoidance here.

We used AIS for collision avoidance till I managed to tune the 10 cm up better and got so we could match up AIS with a radar return, then when the rain let up a bit to get the ARRA vectors going again.

29

:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Like your perseverance Captain but equaly i like mine :wink:

Hence it strikes me as plausible, that using any navigational equipment in a way it was not designed /regulated for -shortly not as per instruction can and will contribute sooner or later to some kind of accident.

Lets look at the name : AIS = AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM . Nothing more and nothing else.

Is it then " automatic identification and anticollision system" ?

Find me a publication produced by nautical experts , maritime think tanks and similar t,hat advocates the use of AIS for anticolision purposes the same way as ARPA and manual plotting is used or other old fashioned methodes and I will buy You a beer.

This issue -the use of AIS has been discussed here ad nauseam and I also dropped some pdfs here ( Nautical institute for example) that specifically did not encourage the use of AIS for the purposes it was not designed for- meaning for identification, which inhances situational awarenes and helps/assists in faster identification process .

The article paints Ceres I as a bad boy for known purposes , that needless to say are USA sanctions inspired . The crew from the 3rd world ( which world is that and are they not refered to as " savages" by some ??) and tipical blah blah blah.

Hafnia is Danish - a good boy , so by implication must be very savvy , professional and cool in all respects - the problem is, i have two schoolmates there working as masters and their ships are also manned by the so called 3rd world and east european mix. But they have strict manning and vetting procedures meaning there is a presumption their crew are professional.

If so then i may speculate that in that particular instance they got some black sheep on the bridge, who may be , instead of proper use of all the goodies available on the bridge for safe navigation was busy with sth else like the guy on M/V Ullyse who was busy with his mobile communication and social gossip.

Summarising if you are not using the left side mirror and get hit by a car from behind while turning left w/o checking what is behind , what is the contribution of the side mirror to the accident except the obvious that it was not used for intended purposes.

Resolution A.1106(29).pdf (802.4 KB)

Oh. Have forgoten to add that the more we talk abt it the more professorial You seem to appear :wink:

1 Like
30

Colregs #2, plus #5, #8, #15, #17 etc all in play.

Hafnia Nile was street legal, by all accounts.
But Ceres 1 last survey 2017, class withdrawn ~2019/2020, last PSC 2019.
I wonder if much of their stuff still worked, (lights?) and who was driving!

Lets just wait for the playbacks and facts.

32

Sounds like Johnny Dollar may have resurrected himself under a new moniker.

1 Like
33

A more apt analogy is a vehicle parked in the breakdown lane of a busy highway. The state police often say it’s not a matter of if the parked car gets hit, but when.

Two main factors determine how long before a parked car gets struck: the number of cars passing per hour and the distance the car is parked from the travel lane.

Similarly, the risk of a ship anchored in or near a busy sea-lane being struck is also a matter of probability.

To decrease the risk of being struck, a ship anchored near a busy sea-lane can take active measures. These measures include anchor lights, deck lights, a flare-up light, and maintaining a wheelhouse watch to warn approaching ships via VHF, among others.

To say that, in this case, a spoofed AIS could not possibly have been a factor in a collision is to claim that the AIS in no way reduces the risk of being struck.