NTSB Issues Preliminary Report on Mexican Navy Tall Ship Collision with Brooklyn Bridge

To be more specific, the helm is not in the chart house. It’s on the open conning deck forward of the chart house. There are engine telegraphs there too but it seems the engine was controlled inside the chart house.

So orders for the helm went by another route - I guess by direct verbal command from the captain calling down from the deck above.

Another helm is located on the open poop deck right aft for emergency steering.

It is typical for sailing ships to position the helm so the helmsman can see and steer by the sails rather than compass.

6 Likes

Interesting that, despite an overarching IMO code, national regulations differ. Most European countries don’t have any “preliminary” category in the ATSB sense, but only the “interim” category. The pertinent law e.g. in Germany:

Act to Improve Maritime Safety through the Investigation of Maritime Accidents and Other Incidents (Maritime Safety Investigation Act - SUG)
Section 28 Publication of the Investigation Report
(1) The Federal Agency shall publish the final investigation report no later than twelve months after the maritime accident. If, in the event of a very serious maritime accident or a serious maritime accident falling within the scope of Directive 2009/18/EC, it is not possible for the Federal Agency to prepare the final investigation report within the period specified in sentence 1, the Federal Agency shall publish an interim investigation report within this period.

1 Like

The Office of Marine Safety typically investigates 30 to 40 marine accidents per year meeting the above criteria, and we do so with a staff of only 21 people, including investigators, writers, support staff and supervisors/managers. (Scheffer)

Capt. James Scheffer is the strategic adviser for the National Transportation Safety Board’s Office of Marine Safety.

1 Like

Good pick up Float. I suspected that they were fairly thin on the ground. That is not a lot of people relative to the annual incident exposure.

Time that I cut them a bit of slack.

The Australian system works extremely well although we don’t have the same exposure and no doubt, knowing the extent of our bureaucracy, we have the numbers to achieve timely outcomes.

2 Likes

IDK but a third possibility is that the command was relayed inside to the one crewmember that was actually inputting the commands but also to other crewmembers who could hear the commands but whose duties were to monitor / correct errors.

Another less plausible possibility is that the system for “inputting” (an unusual term in this context) is split in some way. I was once given a tour of a wheelhouse of a small ship with CPP that had separate controls for pitch and rpm.

Uuuups !! talking to myself is too bad. Message is addressed to Alias @Jughead

As promised i am reverting with my Picasso stuff as pictures are worth a 1000 words ( in my case 10 000 :wink: )



I am not making any judgements into quality and or validity of the initial report . I am only confronting the report while saying in my earlier post # 6 that :

And that is all I am prepared and willing at this stage to say about this report.Nothing more and nothing less .

So my question and my inerest is focused on replaying ACURATELY the contents of the report against the known architecture of said ship , what can be obtained from the web and what I do remember having spent 8 months on a similar class of sailing ship.

Ship with almost same architecture of the main deck and qurter deck ,containing open bridge and a house, refered to as closed bridge containing chart room and all electronic aids to navigation as well as the controls of the ship mechanical propulsion. The steering wheel was on the open bridge as well as gyro repeaters, magnetic compass, peloruses and others.

On S/S Gift of Pomerania there was NO OTHER BRIDGE BELOW " the open conning deck " .The vl’s " enclosed navigation bridge " was on the same deck/level as " open conning deck" here . And as per my eyes examining many photos of Cuatehamoc, it seems evident and clear where is " enclosed navigation bridge " .

Regret to observe that for some participants here , it is not that clear.

Glossary for the drawing:

  1. MP - master/pilot most likely possition during undocking

  2. Control B- enclosed navigation bridge containing all the toys.

  3. Control E- ECR or local station near the main engine where m/e electro mechanic/electronic or verbal commands are executed .

  4. R - human relay stn.

  5. Arrows- represent the direction of traffic /communication verbal and electromachanic/electronic

  6. other symbols are selfexplanatoory.

  7. Orange color - represents version 1 . Remarks below.

  8. Blue color - represents version 2 . Remarks below

  9. Red color - represents version 3 which is not mentioned in the report and is hypotetical, although as per my experience and logic most obvious to follow and shortest .

In case of doubts regarding the drawing pls do not hesitate to ask for additional explanation.

As per Your professional experience and to the best of your knowledge please advise what version seems to be valid/most probable and best reflecting the description of actions contained in the report.

My own remarks:
I reject version " orange" as probable as i have never seen docking /undocking operations of a tall ship from the equivalent of the monkey deck which is the deck above Control B. Likewise there are no instruments there, that are present on conning deck and required for such ops and navigation.

My likely choice is version " blue " but it generates some questions .

  1. what could be the reason Admirante have decided for such a " convoluted " communication path ? Was it the noise ( loud music) . ?

Instead of straightworward direct AND SHORTEST path RED , such option seems to me bizarre if not puzzling. It simply does not make sense.

  1. Has the docking pilot agreed during PMX for such communication acrobatics ? Has it been tested prior movements??

  2. Could it be ( my post # 6) , the Admirante was hiding something and bypassed under conning deck the Control B - for example his remote CPP/ME controlling devices were completely whacked , hence the choice to communicate by the word of mouth with Control E -see the blue version with question mark.

  3. Was the pilot aware about the situation. ??

The underlined in red text from the initial report is , it seems to me puzzling and the report looks like : one item on the list ticked off.

Your comment and advise will be very much appreciated. I do not care abt the pitch or other stuff . I simply want to synchronise the text with the qurterdeck leyout as evidenced by pictures from my earlier post and some additional here.

Conning deck area:

Airal view of Cuat.

Cheers

1 Like

I simply think you may have missed that there are two open conning decks. The report is specific that the pilot and captain were on the deck above the enclosed bridge ie where you have drawn “MP” in orange.

The path of engine orders is the orange one. Helm orders went via a different path not specified so far.

The area depicted “below” in blue is officers accommodation and wardroom (I’ve had many beers in there).

The master and pilot simply positioned themselves on the highest point with all-round visibility ie on the top of the enclosed bridge. That position seemed to be preferred for its visibility but may not have had any instruments or controls.

Conning from the deck below eg adjacent to the helm (blue “MP”) reduces the all-round visibility especially when undocking and going astern (mizzen mast, enclosed bridge etc). The boats in davits restrict visibility either side from the helm position.

Visibility forward is always restricted by masts and rigging and this is overcome by the OOW constantly walking back and forth to view via whatever path is unrestricted.

Regarding noise, the loud music is standard for this ship and used with such regularity that it cannot be regarded as a contributing factor as they would have control measures in place eg people stationed as relay for orders, and a deck broadcast sound system.

I contend that the system of passing orders was a standard practise and well understood by all involved and had been fine tuned over many years. I don’t see this relay system having any problem with the sort of orders routinely being passed. It may have cracked under the pressure of non-standard commands/requests back and forth as the engine didn’t do what was ordered.

Hope that helps.

4 Likes

Sir.

Here is the pictorial summary of your verdict.
Your final verdict is VERSION ORANGE.




One of the participants of this forum who is on my " hostiles " list , claimed the validity and overall sense and idea of training cadets on this type of ships , saying it is useless and makes no sense. From the context of his performance here i think he is a US pilot .

One of the items of training is to train obedience , respect to higher authority , respect of command , respect to officers and finaly respect towards those whith greater and longer experience practical & theoretical in their field.

So my answer to yours is:

YES SIR.!!!

and I click my Prussian heels so loud and with such passion that You will hear the sound in Australia. Just listen carefully.

But know this .

I am a stubborn old dog and today , latest tomorrow I am going to visit the old DAR -my birthplace as navigator. Then I will call the other old dogs from my pack and convey what I have read here on this forum .

If they confirm your verdict i will be DEAD DRUNK today and you may find me on the beach at Gdynia in this condition. :winking_face_with_tongue:

And on monday , hangover allowing , weather and safety permitting I will visit Maritime Academy -the " old DAR" owners and meet there with former commanders of new DAR and discuss with my calss mates the Australian version and methodology of commanding tall ships during docking and undocking as far as visibility from the conning place is concerned .

If they confirm version ORANGE i will have another pretext to get stoned in excellent company . :winking_face_with_tongue:

On the issue of visibility …well we have surely different practical experiences . Wonder what the pilots here have to say about the visibility issues in this particular case.

Cheers and many thanks for your input and patience and most of all your precious time.

ADDED 05.07.25 1014 ZULU.

Ok Sir

I have found it. It is yet again the proof that practical experiences catch & discover more then the amateur’s eye . Wow.!!!

The sad part of my discovery is that I will not be dead drunk on the beach . :winking_face_with_tongue:

Video clip from Dr.Sal . Dr. Sal THANKS FOR THE TIP :wink: !!!

SCREEN CAPTURE from the video .

Other issues remain :winking_face_with_tongue:

Wonderfull to find I was wrong as it is a wonderful learning experience and I saved a lot of money not buying single malts for the old dogs pack .

Cheers and have a wonderful weekend.

3 Likes

The relative reliability of the voice relay compared to a hand-held radio in this case would depend upon whether or not the pilot and captain had easily viewed indication of propeller pitch / RPM from their position

Good day again.

Looks one does not need to make the trips to downtown and examine the museum ship and spend money for social lubricant to make the old dogs gang happy.

What is internet for ?? :wink:

Have found on utube one clip showing the commander shouting orders into the mike and then it hit me we got a powerful public address system that would wake up even the paraohs mummy. And loudspeakers were everywhere so we did not learn the telephone game.

And there was no 2nd open conning deck in use above the enclosed bridge house.
All navigation and docking and undockig was done from the open conning bridge in front of the enclosed bridge house.
The main steering wheel and emcy on the poop deck has been doubled because there was no electromechanical /hydraulic power steering so sometimes 4 people or more had to steer.

Here are two links :

  1. Walk around 360 view of SS Dar Pomorza
  1. General link to the National Museum

Rem : I do not know why but both links are working well only on my Firefox browser and do not work on Chrome and Edge.

Ad.1 It was a bit tricky at first but once one get used to it the walk around is easy. Best place your mouse pointer on the white circle and once anchored there place your poniter anywhere and with left click pressed turn around.

Got one screen shot showing the platform on stb side where the Pilot or Commaner was standing during docking /undocking.

The layout of main deck towards the stern and quarter deck is very similar to Catehamoc.

Walking around enclosed bridge house You will see why i rejected version ORANGE in my post above.

Because of visibility issues on old DAR , the design of new DAR which replaced the old one in 1982 was much different as can be found on the web.


Cheers

Added: 080725 1114 zulu

3 Likes

Ah, memories of visiting Dar Pomorza, and later Dar Mlodzeizy, (and even Kruzenstern) while doing Tall Ships/STA races in 74/75/84.

1 Like

I was in Tall Ships/STA race in 1978. Missed 1976 Bicentennial trip to USA .

Visited all ships participating . We swapped some ( few) crew with Krusenstern sometimes and I was among them ( 5-7 days). When the swap was finished we were lined up in front of the Commander, who gave us some certificates and thank you speech and he stopped in front of me saying in Russian :

You do not appear to be a good material for a seaman/officer but a perfect mold for the con artist like Capone .
I was in heaven :wink:

4 Likes

All my STA stuff was on 55-footers whose names started with HMSTY - i.e.RN. For the StLawrence trip to the start (Québec-Sydney (NS)), a couple of “sail-trainees” put their hands up and were ready to swap. When we found who was going to Kruzenstern, he had to withdraw - bit of a fuss!
[His day job was back-aftie on a bomber - i.e. nuclear propulsion on SSBN!]

Thanks. A very interesting 360 tour of the ship. Very easy to move about with touch screen. She still looks in seagoing condition.

I can see the conning deck and extensions both sides and understand she was conned from there for docking etc.

3 Likes

This is from the report:

“At departure, the ship’s captain and both pilots were on the open conning deck directly above the vessel’s enclosed navigation bridge.”

This thread has used different terms than the report for the “navigation bridge” and the “conning deck”. If I have it right in this thread “conning deck” might refer an area ahead of the navigation bridge and the term “monkey deck” in this thread refers to what the report is calling the “conning deck” and the terms “open bridge” and “closed bridge” have also been used. It’s confusing.

One of the main themes here is the importance of clear communication, why not just use the same terms as used in the report?

It may be confusing for those who have not been on similar type of ship. I thought the drawing woukd clarify what was meant but seems I was wrong.

To be precise " the equivalent of monkey deck" was used .I dont think I had to explain what it is and where it is on merchant ships.

Seems to me, asking a question is a big problem as You seem to be focused on my interpretation of the report rather then on the report.

Somehow Alias @Jughead had no problem with this and almost immediately figured , where I was wrong and later on found out why. ( Habit of past experience on similar type of ship) , which rejected !!! the idea of somebody climbing up on top of enclosed nav bridge to con this ship from this particular position, which i find strange .Can I have such an opinion?? Do I have to ask your permission to have an opinion??

The visibility issue is debatable . But it seems to me, each time You conned your ship , then You climbed on the monkey deck . It is fine with me.

For those with past and present experience on this type of a tall ship the NTSB initial report is confusing and a clear example of word salad and strange if not deliberate use of vague terms , avoiding details like times of some commands and/or events , hence it should not be used in my opinion as a benchmark for correct vocabulary.

May be if they used glossary of terms for starters, then it would be less confusing.

Conning deck ? what the hell is this? . Why not using conning possition. Conning deck could describe the ussual , customary place from which the ships is conned. Never seen such description in the blue prints . But is monkey deck a conning place? Is bridge toilet a conning place? - could be . Is forcastle a conning place ? Is bowsprit or a yard a conning place?

What is NTSB practical experience in investigation of tall ship accidents?? Some here also claim they have shortages of experienced staf.

Sure thing .
But beauty is in the eyes of the beholder , so may be for starters lets establish if we are looking at the same thing and see the same thing. I have made the drawing to demonstarte clearly what I see , plastered painstakingly the place with pictures/films what I see and understand, links to visual material explainimg why I see it the way I see it. You are still confused?? Wow.

What have You done?? - Your default position = disagreed. I respect your position .

How about visibility from the conning place??. Alias @Jughead says ( and He is an authority here), that visibility was better from M.P. pilot conning possition during undocking of this ship.

Pilots, shrimpboat captains, tugboat captains, sailing/motor boat captains , rig masters some shipping enthusiasts here, Historians, academy and hosepipers, divers even -you name it , may have different opinion. What is wrong about it ???

I disagree but it can be debated later , as well as pilot actions , tugboat actions . There are many things here that rise eyebrows including the NTSB report , you seem to be very happy and satisfied with. Sorry some are not and what is wrong about it. ??

Finally is your last, a manifestation of your professionalism as a navigator or a manifestation of your authority here as a Supermoderator conveying in straightforward and very " polite " terms , that one user here is creating too much confusion ,causing mental torture to more gifted others, who seem to be offended and unhappy by his way of thinking and/or reasoning as they were in the case of “debunking Dr.Sal”

2 Likes

Following the issue of " confussion " once again I would like to appreciate and recognise the hightened state of some particapants scrutiny applied to mine or other comments.

I do not mind as I do not claim to "know everything " or to “experience everything” or to be " attending the best training institutions in the whole world or be BEST trained & BEST everything " as some extremely patriotic dudes here claim ad noseam.

I may be totally wrong in interpreting events and do not mind criticism or dissenting opinions.

However it is not the first time I have noticed the said scrutiny is somewhat SELECTIVE and does not apply to all comments as it obviously should.

Here is an example ( one of many) of the opinion that should be challenged instead of silently tolerated and /or accepted.

QUOTE

As an investigator, critical questions would be:
a) Was the CPP actually tested ahead and astern before departure? and
b) Was the pitch cycled ahead and astern three times in the test?

This is why finding out if the captain cycled the propulsion from forward to astern before departure is key to the investigation as far as culpability, IMO. Preferably he would have cycled it three times as part of the test.

In hindsight if he had cycled the propulsion three times he or the chief would have noticed the valve had been closed.

A test of three cycles is a good way to go if you are maneuvering in a tight location, or with high winds, if there is no reason not to.
END QUOTE.

All foreign flag vsls on arriving USA are under extreme scrutiny of local PSC/USCG.
The throughness fo such scrutiny and local rules can only be compared with Australian.

There are number of guidelines the owners/operators/ masters MUST be familiar with in order to prepare for smooth arrival/stay/departure from USA offered by such entities like O’Brien, American P&I Club, shipping agents - to name a few and of course from the all powerfull CFR title 33 vol.1,2,3

Wonder why CFR does not require running all below tests 3 or may be 10 times!!! ???

According to the twisted logic of the quoted above author comments, one can conclude it could be beneficial for USA navigable waters/ports/facilities and safety of it’s citizens.

§ 164.25 Tests before entering or getting
underway.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section no person

may cause a vessel to enter into or get
underway on the navigable waters of
the United States unless no more than
12 hours before entering or getting underway,
the following equipment has
been tested:

(1) Primary and secondary steering
gear. The test procedure includes a visual
inspection of the steering gear and
its connecting linkage, and, where applicable,
the operation of the following:

(i) Each remote steering gear control
system.

(ii) Each steering position located on
the navigating bridge.

(iii) The main steering gear from the
alternative power supply, if installed.

(iv) Each rudder angle indicator in
relation to the actual position of the
rudder.

(v) Each remote steering gear control
system power failure alarm.

(vi) Each remote steering gear power
unit failure alarm.

(vii) The full movement of the rudder
to the required capabilities of the
steering gear.

(2) All internal vessel control communications
and vessel control alarms.

(3) Standby or emergency generator,
for as long as necessary to show proper
functioning, including steady state
temperature and pressure readings.

(4) Storage batteries for emergency
lighting and power systems in vessel
control and propulsion machinery
spaces.

(5) Main propulsion machinery, ahead
and astern.

(b) Vessels navigating on the Great
Lakes and their connecting and tributary
waters, having once completed the
test requirements of this subpart, are
considered to remain in compliance
until arriving at the next port of call
on the Great Lakes.

(c) Vessels entering the Great Lakes
from the St. Lawrence Seaway are considered
to be in compliance with this
sub-part if the required tests are conducted
preparatory to or during the
passage of the St. Lawrence Seaway or
within one hour of passing Wolfe Island.

(d) No vessel may enter, or be operated
on the navigable waters of the
United States unless the emergency
steering drill described below has been
conducted within 48 hours prior to
entry and logged in the vessel logbook,

It is highly unlikely that Armada con Admirante in command of this lovely ship were unaware of such requirements
let elone forgot to do it and make appropriate entries into log books.

In addition :

§ 164.35 Equipment: All vessels.

(4) For each vessel with a controllable
pitch propeller, a table of control
settings for a representative range of
speeds.

(m) If fitted with controllable pitch
propellers, an indicator readable from
the centerline conning position showing
the pitch and operational mode of
such propellers, except when operating
on the Great Lakes and their connecting
and tributary waters.

Have been visited by USCG on multiple occasions and I am wondering why they did not pay the visit for the purpose of inspecting the vsl compliance with littoral state regulations or if they did I am sure any defficiencies would be noted and recorded regarding for example " All internal vessel control communications" .Telphones, emcy telephones, public address systems , VHF/UHF is a 21st century basic standard.

On “investigator” issue below I think explains

QUOTE:
There are a number of personal and social attributes and skills required of an investigator that are beneficial during the investigation process including: integrity and IMPARTIALITY in the recording of facts; logic and perseverance in pursuing enquiries,…
It cannot be assumed that an experienced mariner will already have the necessary skills to make a good investigator.

…Proper identification of causal and contributory factors requires timely and methodical investigation, going far beyond the immediate evidence and looking for underlying conditions, which may be remote from the site of the marine casualty or incident.

It is these underlying conditions that may cause future marine casualties and marine incidents. Marine safety investigations should therefore be seen as a means of identifying not only immediate causal
factors but also failures that may be present in the whole chain of responsibility.
END QUOTE -SOURCE : MAIIF MANUAL. Further reading of chapter 4.1- Analisys is recommended.

The visibility issue and the choice of conning position will be tortured in my next.

Cheers.

1 Like

If the captain was standing at the side rail on the conning deck he could have been only 3 or 4 meters from the crewmember relying on the deck below who in turn may have been about the same distance to where the commands were “inputted”.

Not ideal but the crew may have found it to be reliable .

The rationale behind that system might have to avoid the use of the hand-held UHF radios (assuming they were used) while they were in use to communicate with the deck during unmooring / tug operations.

That might explain the oddity wrt only the details of the path of the astern commands being described in detail as that part of the operation would have been finished at that point.

Because the ship was a Mexican Naval Vessel I can cast my mind back to my time in the navy. During berthing or unberthing the commanding officer (generally) was on the bridge wing and gave the manoeuvring orders to the navigating officer who passed them direct to the wheelhouse using a wired microphone.
One CO I sailed with was an exceptional shiphandler and always positioned himself on the monkey island on the centre line. We had a long cable for the microphone. If you had asked him how far the ship side was off the fenders he could give it to the inch.
The OOW in the bridge was responsible to see that what was ordered was in fact being complied with.
The only time I sailed on a vessel with a band playing was an aircraft carrier and the music was almost inaudible.

image
image

Looks to me there are plenty Navy Boys here who converted conning towers into conning decks on merchant and other vessels.

Lets see what Maestro Bowditch has to say about conning decks and even AI agent got spooked and is silent on conning decks advising to see wiki who insists on using conning towers instead.

Shall I runn same check on CFR 33 /1,2.3 ??

An old habit is strong with You my Master :wink:

uuups Looks I need a back up file

2025 07 08 23 52 31 NAVY BOYS ARE HERE AND IN NTSB

2 Likes