Oil on our doorstep

“Got an inbound ship approaching 25, 6.”

“Miss Susan I’m looking at um, I’m looking at everything. I’m fixing to start crossing the intersection bound from bolivar. How do I look to you on your lateral?”

"Well if ya keep on going I’m going to get you unless you’re doing about 7 or 8 knots. Cause right now I’m less than 3/4 of a mile from ya and you ain’t got to the channel yet. "

"All right, well yeah, I’m glad I called ya here. All right well try to see ya on the one then, unless you want to cut her back a bit. "

"Cap, I can s-, I can cut her back, I can put her on dead slow, but that still ain’t gonna stop cause I’m almost coming up a half mile on ya. "

So the ship never claimed to be at dead slow. Also sounds like the tug wasn’t making changes for one whistle until after this part on the convo is finished as he was requesting a speed change from the ship and that would change the crossing arrangement.

Yeah…

The ship pilot says “i [B][B]CAN[/B][/B] put her on dead slow, but that ain’t goin to stop it im almost coming up on a half a mile on ya” so no, the ship didn’t already have a dead slow bell on.

And he say’s better than a mile viz, and then no contact made until about 3/4 or so out. I am assuming that of course, but based on what it seems like the miss susan calling the “inbound ship @ whatever landmark.” Also despite the accident I am going out on a limb to say the guy on the towboat did have some degree of situational awareness as he knew there was a nbound tow as well as another inbound ship. I say that just as a point that I doubt anyone was asleep at the wheel etc; could work against them or with them, who knows.

Wouldn’t rule #9 apply here?

[QUOTE=steeltoesonplanes;134341]Topsail has a terrible take on this situation. This is not what they said. Listen to the recording. Do not read this.[/QUOTE]

I am happy that you raise the matter because whether using VHF in collision avoidance or translate Texan dialect can result in the same confusion …

Between what I think, what I mean to say, what I believe to say, what I actually said, what you want to hear, what you hear, what you understand, what you want to understand and what you really understand, there’s at least nine opportunities to disagree!

Mentally lured

The apparent simplicity in reaching passing agreement does not provide any cure against subsequent erroneous actions. The danger, which is hardly recognised by some colleagues, who encourage the wider use of VHF in collision avoidance, is over-reliance on information provided by another vessel. There is a crucial difference between anticipation of actions, understanding of intentions and actions as they finally carried out. When agreement has been reached on VHF some officers become mentally lured, i.e. they expect another vessel to execute her manoeuvring in accordance with[B] their [/B]understanding of developing situation. For example, when another vessel confirms her intention to alter course to starboard, one expects her to do it when he thinks it is proper time and place for her to maneuver and in a way he would have executed this maneuver. Then when something goes not as expected, the time is being lost in the first place for realization that agreed pattern as individually understood is not what actually takes place and only afterwards for agonized action.

My words that in majority of cases only manoeuvring as prescribed by the COLREGS would be sufficient and no any additional calls and agreements would be necessary were met without much sympathy. Although the use of VHF radio may be justified on occasion (Overtaking) in collision avoidance, the provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even where the language of communication is not a problem.

An obvious idea is to draw attention to the fact that establishing of VHF contact and reaching of passing agreement, does not bring as such any benefits for the purpose of collision avoidance when COLREGS and rules of good seamanship are forgotten or not followed.

Another danger lies in attempts to negotiate passing agreement to bypass the COLREGS. Although such bypassing is not strictly speaking prohibited, the use of VHF to propose and agree a course of action for collision avoidance that may not fully comply with the Collision Regulations, should normally be for reasons of due navigational prudence and not just convenience. In simple words such use should only be in situations where there is no other alternative.

Believe that many will agree that in any particular situation, conning officers shall realise that irrespective whether one uses VHF to come to passing agreement with another vessel or not, only actions undertaken in compliance with the COLREGS, and not VHF communications, can bring one’s vessel to safety out from collision course. VHF is certainly a helpful tool for the purpose of collision avoidance, but one to be used discreetly, with knowledge of its limitations and only when situation so orders.

Provisions of the Collision Regulations should remain uppermost.

Your wrong, Rule 9 & Rule 34. Collision happened inside line of demarcation and pilot stated he had 1nm of visibility.

Well he said he had at least a mile of visibility . But I definitely think it looks like a rule 9 situation. Either way they came to an agreement to pass on the 1, the summer wind then had an obligation to hold course and speed while miss Susan should’ve kept backing her engines and turning to starboard to pass astern of the Summer. Once it became apparent that it was unavoidable the summer should’ve put it hard over starboard and cut her throttle. That’s how I read it anyway. Not sure what actions either bridge took after it became obvious that they were definitely gonna touch.

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;134359]Well he said he had at least a mile of visibility . But I definitely think it looks like a rule 9 situation. Either way they came to an agreement to pass on the 1, the summer wind then had an obligation to hold course and speed while miss Susan should’ve kept backing her engines and turning to starboard to pass astern of the Summer. Once it became apparent that it was unavoidable the summer should’ve put it hard over starboard and cut her throttle. That’s how I read it anyway. Not sure what actions either bridge took after it became obvious that they were definitely gonna touch.[/QUOTE]

Both vessels may have been in extremis when the agreement was made. If that is the case the Summer Wind had no obligation to maintain course and speed.

It definitely looks like they talked to each other too late. I’d want I see what was done on the Summer’s bridge to take avoiding action.The record is only what about 3 minutes long. Comparative fault and the way the rules are written makes it both their fault, but I’d say that the Susan must be the majority at fault simply because she just thrust herself into a busy channel without ample time or room to stay clear of the vessels making their way along it.

[QUOTE=btm;134355]Your wrong, Rule 9 & Rule 34. Collision happened inside line of demarcation and pilot stated he had 1nm of visibility.[/QUOTE]

To perfect your inherent total omniscience, you should not overlook …

Rule 1 a) - R2 a) b) - R3 k) l) - R5 - R6 a) i ii iii b) i vi - R7 a) b) c) d) i ii - R8 a) b) c) d) f) i ii iii - R9 d) - R15 a) - R16 - R17 a) i ii b) c) d) - R34 a) d) - R39 b) and the case be, R19 b) c) d) i ii e) and R35 c) f) !!!

But to give narrow-minded effortless answers to complex problems have its advantages. The NTSB could make a substantial economy by releasing a 1 page accident report instead of a 75 one. :wink:

They could write the reports in Bayou speak instead of legal talk too. That way crews down in the gulf don’t misinterpret the reports.

'Oh, Ben, if you love me, BACK her! Quick, Ben! Oh, back the immortal SOUL out of her! ’

  • Mark Twain Life on the Mississippi

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;134364]They could write the reports in Bayou speak instead of legal talk too. That way crews down in the gulf don’t misinterpret the reports.[/QUOTE]

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I can’t imagine the number of accident reports that they would only have to change the particulars of the concern vessels along with the dialect … and it would be at the end just perfect !

The more things change, the more they stay the same !

It might seem narrow minded, but if you have ever been investigated by the NTSB, USCG, deposed by lawyers you will learn how simple your daily complex job is. They are interested in the rules, the law and how much rest you had before you went to work.

[QUOTE=btm;134368]It might seem narrow minded, but if you have ever been investigated by the NTSB, USCG, deposed by lawyers you will learn how simple your daily complex job is. They are interested in the rules, the law and how much rest you had before you went to work.[/QUOTE]

Don’t worry for me my dear friend, I am only a 35 years experience seaman with 20 years as pilot behind the scarf. What the Coast Guard or whatever want, is a scapegoat to hang to the spanker gaff. The big money show must go on …

A question I have for those with experience in that area is does a ship need to be making 12+ kts to make a safe passage? Extreme crosscurrents or something?

I bet safe speed comes into play, on one hand slower speed gives you a better (theoretically) chance to avoid a collision although I know stopping the ship is not realistic. Secondly, more time to identify, assess a situation, communicate etc.

[QUOTE=z-drive;134374]
I bet safe speed comes into play, on one hand slower speed gives you a better (theoretically) chance to avoid a collision although I know stopping the ship is not realistic. Secondly, more time to identify, assess a situation, communicate etc.[/QUOTE]

From what I’ve seen, it’s a constant line of vessel coming in, all making about that speed. Any slower and you risk getting run over. In my very limited experience on a tug and training vessel coming through the area, we always tried to haul ass and stay to the outside of the channel. It seems pretty normal. I believe the current can get pretty good too, around 1 to 2 knots if I’m not mistaken.

Why has no one brought up the VTS? The Susan damn sure knew ahead of time that there was an inbound ship. It’s the Houston ship channel, that’s normal operating speed for a ship and everyone knows it.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star;134377]From what I’ve seen, it’s a constant line of vessel coming in, all making about that speed. Any slower and you risk getting run over. In my very limited experience on a tug and training vessel coming through the area, we always tried to haul ass and stay to the outside of the channel. It seems pretty normal. I believe the current can get pretty good too, around 1 to 2 knots if I’m not mistaken.[/QUOTE]

Safe Speed … that’s a good question !

Initially it was to be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions taking into account …

  • the state of visibility,
  • the traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels,
  • the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance,
  • at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights,
  • the state of wind, sea and current and the proximity of navigational hazards,
  • the draught in relation to the available depth of water,
  • ice conditions,

Then a bit faster in the Radar era …

  • the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment,
  • any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use,
  • the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference,
  • the possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range,
  • the number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar,

In our time, no limit with the invincible DGPS WAAS ECDIS & AIS ARPA interface, except …

  • the draught and breadth in relation to the available depth, width of the channel and incoming traffic relative draught and breadth (Squat & Interaction),
  • tankers doing cargo alongside,
  • enforced speed leading to heavy fines to minimize damage to opulent shore properties.

… and not much more !

The bone is here …

2.2.4 The [U]liability[/U] element of an accident following compliance with VTS guidance is an important consideration which can only be decided on a case-by-case basis in accordance with national law. Consequently, a VTS authority should take into account the [U]legal implications [/U]in the event of a shipping accident where VTS operators may have failed to carry out their duty competently.

… and to enforce navigation-related instructions or sophisticated navigational advices like airports such as Safe Speed or Safe Traffic Distances, a VTS would require highly qualified VTS operators to minimize their liability.

1.1.1 In recent years, there has been a rapid expansion in vessel traffic services, which has led to a significant increase in the number of VTS operators required world-wide. The services offered by VTSs vary considerably, and range from simple broadcasts of meteorological and hydrological information, through exchange of information to sophisticated navigational advice and, in circumstances where the authority exists, navigation-related instruction.

1.1.2 Investigation of existing services reveals a wide variety of VTS operator entry requirements, [U]ranging from personnel with no nautical background to those with a Master’s and/or Pilot’s licence[/U]. There is an equally wide variation in the type and extent of training provided to VTS operators.

1.1.3 The various levels of knowledge and skill required of the operator, and the standard of training necessary to achieve these levels, have [U]never been fully defined [/U]on a world-wide basis. At present there are no internationally recognized qualifications for VTS operators, and the approach to recruitment and training varies widely from country to country.

[QUOTE=coldduck;134378]Why has no one brought up the VTS? The Susan damn sure knew ahead of time that there was an inbound ship. It’s the Houston ship channel, that’s normal operating speed for a ship and everyone knows it.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention that the Susan is equipped with some sort of ECS (probably rosepoint) with AIS.