Looking at the track the ship turned to starboard at the end of the first run and settled roughly on a course of 280° then turned to the desired? Course of 340° where upon the autopilot did what it was supposed to do and maintained a heading of 340° until she went up on the reef at 10 knots.
Under autopilot the ship is no different from any other. What were they trying to achieve with a heading of 340°? No one monitored the ship’s head while she was manoeuvring and she was heading towards the beach. Someone set the autopilot to that heading. All that was required was to adjust the course set on the autopilot. Someone will have more up to date experience than me but my recollection is you just turned the heading Control to the desired heading. ( someone did this to settle on 340°). Disengaging the autopilot was one three position switch. The rate of turn was simple to input.
It is an epic failure of seamanship.
I don’t know if this was still the Autopilot installed at the time, but here is the instruction manual for the one that was originally installed:
It is getting to be a few summers ago since I looked at it but it is all coming back. So the autopilot button would have been illuminated so all that was required was push helmsman and manual steering would be available.
First, for the bridge “team” …there obviously was confusion about whether or not they were in autopilot … or not. With Z-Drives (as was the case here), if you are in autopilot, you don’t need your hands on the sticks as the computer was driving, yes? By default, if you’re in auto pilot, then there would be no necessity to have an officer or helmsman standing there driving, whether she had a conventional wheel (in sea mode) or just sticks.
If you were steering in manual mode, there had to be an individual with his/her hands on the sticks, or at a wheel (if they had this equipped as most ships do for “at sea” mode).
So I’m trying to figure out how were they so confused about which mode they were in?
So lets conclude, by the basis of the report, they WERE in autopilot, the computer was indeed driving the ship, and so there was nobody standing at the position between the Z-drive controls manually steering the ship.
Fast forward to trying to make a course change. Now that effort fails as some individual (The OOW??) turns a dial or punches in a new number and the ship does not turn. Hmmmmmm …thats kinda scary.
For good measure, we notice the ship’s RPMs start to increase and they are speeding up, towards danger!?!?! “Ooo - weee, what’s going on here??”
Steering AND speed … both out of control.
We won’t know until sometime next year. But obviously a catastrophic level of failure with training and OOW certification in the NZRN. Sadly, my experience in working with the Kiwis is that their commercial - private sector transportation people have fully embraced a “safety culture” that I haven’t seen anywhere else. I’ve been hugely impressed by that commitment.
How the NZ Royal Navy folks lost their way has me dumbfounded.
In my early years, I started out working on small research boats and eventually, was employed as a Survey Technician aboard the NOAA ship OCEANOGRAPHER R-101. Yes, those who know will tell you, thats a long time ago. We were always in manual steering whenever we were within close proximity to shallows, reefs, and other obvious dangers.
Or, you were using smaller survey boats.
I get this ship had a different drive/propulsion system. Thats understood. In another forum, a Mate on a research ship vehemently declared that his experience was that his ship routinely steers through similar surveys in these same shallow water conditions … in autopilot. He questioned me like “Whats wrong with that?”
I would certainly hope THIS ACCIDENT would be held up as the classic example of why we have always been taught to NOT be in autopilot mode whenever you are operating close to shore, within pilotage waters, or near any other potentially dangerous underwater conditions.
This used to be defined as " … the ordinary practice of seamen … "
Or perhaps I’m wrong? Maybe that is the norm today? In that case … never mind 
.
I like your way of thinking and guess You must be …what?? 60+ ?? 
Affirmative.
Also, I watched the “Whats going on with shipping” video. Big glaring error by Sal, which I find unusual.
Seems he (and likely others) are tossing the terminology around for BOTH azimuth steering and azipod steering. Those are two completely different propulsion systems. As if the whole accident wasn’t confusing enough.
Azipods pull a ship through the water. Most new large cruise ships are equipped with azipod propulsion.
Azimuth steering systems push a ship through the water. Most new assist tugs and many work boats in the gulf and elsewhere in the oil and gas sector, have azimuth steering.
Sal’s video includes his in depth explanation about azipod propulsion. But everything I can find about the Kiwi Navy ship particulars including the Navy’s own documents, state the ship was equipped with azimuth propulsion.
I’m familiar with both. As a Pilot of 30 years, I handle large cruise ships with azipod propulsion routinely. I also work with ASD Tractor tugs every day that are equipped with azimuth propulsion. We also have various research ships, cable layers, and ocean going tugs that transit through our port, most fitted with azimuth propulsion.
They are distinctly different systems, behaving in different ways, with similar type controls, but must be used differently to get different results. I certainly hope through the investigation that everyone involved understands the difference. I don’t want to sound so anal … but given that the entire accident was caused by “confusion” by the bridge team about the steering and related autopilot system, lets NOT confuse people even further by using incorrect nomenclature for the propulsion system that the ship was equipped with.
But perhaps thats just me.
Not different enough to make a difference.
Have the motor in the pod.
Have the motor in the vessel.
Not always.
I have absolute " ZERO" practical & theoretical experience abt ships like the one in question , hence I could not detect any mistakes in Dr.Sal explanations regarding ops and use of sytems such ships are equipped with. I open my mouth only regarding ships like containers, bulkers and their operations. But thx for mentioning this point. One looks and listenes to a Gent who speaks confidently and eloquently , hence presumes the Author knows what He is talking about especialy when such statements are supported by consultations with experts in the field.
Cheers
In Seismic surveying vessels I have been master of vessels have been conventional twin screw or with azipods, the latter type of vessel were all DP2.
All were built in Norway and all had Robertson autopilots.
Prior to the alteration to 340° it almost looks like the vessel was in manual steering for the initial turn to starboard. The autopilot would be set to Helmsman by pushing button marked helm and controlling the heading by turning the control wheel and both azipods move as one. Turning on autopilot by pushing the auto button and set course by pushing down and turning the large knob on the autopilot panel until the desired heading is indicated. The is bar display then that indicates difference between ships head and set course. There is no difference to what any action an OOW would need to do on any ship to alter course. The azipods move as one to manoeuvre the ship just like an outboard motor boat with all the toys.
Surveying close to danger with 12 streamers extending 700 metres either side of the vessel and 8500 metres astern the ship was in autopilot with the nav function engaged.
Two people did nothing else but monitor the track with a tolerance of two to three metres. A guard vessel was ahead on the same line of advance to confirm soundings.
On the bridge I had the survey display and ECDIS side by side. In a turn the inner barrovane had to be moving through the water fast enough to keep tension on the array without exceeding the tension on the outer one hence a speed of about 4.5 knots and a rate of turn of 3° per minute, taking 1 hour to reverse course. The autopilot follows the tactical diameter programmed into the survey computer.
Learning to use azipods the best place is on a tug.
Our vessels are in pilotage waters for days at a time. Very narrow channels. Strong currents. They are on autopilot 95% of the time. The OOW is overseeing the autopilot all of the time. He adjusts the autopilot. That’s the OOW’s job.
I was looking at the graphic that @ombugge supplied of the likely autopilot in use on the Manawanui. It’s the same we have on our vessels. Extraordinarily simple to change course, whether in autopilot mode or in hand-steering. Honestly, it’s more difficult to sneeze than to change course in autopilot mode. So, it has nothing to do with the autopilot and everything to do with what the role of the OOW is.
Azipods or regular azimuthing thrusters?
Azipods. The motors were in the pods. The two vessels were almost identical machinery wise. One did seismic surveys the other electromagnetic survey.
In electromagnetic survey up to 250 receivers were laid on the bottom and the transmitter was towed astern. At the end of the survey each receiver was triggered with the vessel standing off. The receiver jettisoned its concrete weight and surfaced. Under DP the ship was manoeuvred where a specially equipped crane recovered it and the data downloaded.
Pulling or pushing?
Stern mounted?
Pulled. They were mounted in the standard position close to the stern. There were two tunnel thrusters and one azimuth thruster forward.
Do stern mounted pulling type thrusters handle any differently than pushing azimuthing thrusters?
I don’t think so.
Can you reveal the name (as new or present) or is that a “state secret”?
I didn’t think they would and I can’t see any reason that they would, but the claim was made earlier that they do so I wanted to check.
In view of the Manawanui findings so far, and the RN near loss of HMS Endurance (ex-MV Polar Circle), I trust manning-related lessons will be taken on board as USCG start preparing crews for the commercial ship “Aiviq”.
Coast Guard Inks Deal to Acquire ‘Aiviq’ As Vessel Arrives in Tampa Dry Dock to Begin Conversion
Azipod is a copyright protected name belonging to ABB:
Azipull is the name used by Kongsberg Maritime for their pulling thrusters
Wartsila have their Icepod thrusters:
All are azimuthing 360 degr. but serve different segments of the maritime industry.
Whether there is any major difference in the way these are acting when manoeuvring the vessel is a bit unclear.
This may help to explain how Azipods works and acts:
