From the report:
Shortly before midnight, Stena Immaculate’s 2/O took over the anchor watch at the start of a 12-hour
duty period.At 0700, Solong’s master returned to the bridge and took over the watch as the lone watchkeeper.
Well, the Captain shouldn’t have been very tired if he was off the bridge from 2330 to 0700.
Also from the report:
but surely it is less important.
The presence/activity of the OOW on the bridge will/may be confirmed from BNWAS records via VDR or separately.
Agreed, BNWASn’t & VDR will reveal more facts.
But taking other “facts” from report, why run through the anchorage area ~10nm off coast when direct route to R’dam is 40nm off?
Duh! Lets re-cycle old routes to/from the Humber anchorage - saves having to plan a safe passage!
Note for context - 40nm is a lot of searoom in that region
I haven’t checked, but believe there are a lot of both OWFs and Gas fields in the area,
Could that be the reason for staying the routing?
FYI, I am interpreting…
BACKGROUND
" trade… between Rotterdam, Grangemouth and Hull…"
FACTUAL INFORMATION
" … followed a route the vessel had used in the past… "
There are many other reasons. One of them is " we have always done like that and nothing happened" . The habit of aping what others did is strong even among the captains.
On time chartered vessels there are other considerations relating to a) fuel consumption = cost b) requirement to conduct the voyage with outmost dispatch / shortest route etc, etc. Had many disputes with charterers and then with owners : Capt pls explain why??? .
Final note : One of the CP clauses irrespective of name of CP ( NYPE or BOXTIME) says clearly: in case the charterers are not satisfied with master/cheng performance /results they reserve the right to replace them and such request should not unreasonably be withheld by owners.
The key word is " reasonable" .To battle reasonable and prove it is time consuming and a challenge as owners do not want to loose the paying client and usually replace the maser/cheng by default without proper and fair examination of the charterers complaint /case.
This despite the existence of another CP clause in governing CP saying that : The master/owner is responsible for navigation.
The charterers modus operandi is like that : they request from You the explanation, if not happy they push You with default phrase " previous master did this or that - why you change it" if you still resist and hold your ground,they immediately contact the time charter broker with complaint , the broker forwards it with proper embellishment to owners/managers , where the legal department is thin , nautical dpt does not exist or is manned by yachtsmen or shrimpboat captain and they all need this 25 K usd daily rate . Simple as that.
New thread is starting to go that way again, with this SuperYachtNews nonsense!
The Solong departed Grangemouth by 2000. Why wasn’t the 2/mate relieved by the C/M at 0400? Due to the time expected to remain at anchor it seems odd that the Stena Immaculate was in 12 hour watches.
I’m surprised there were no Company rules about who could release information to the media. There could be some concern by one union over what has been released by another.
.
We don’t know that they were. Speculation on my part but one possibility is the watch schedule was temporally adjusted to stay in compliance with work/rest requirements.
According to the MAIB interim report, the Stena Immacumate’s 2/M took over from the Master at 2300 following the anchoring and the 2/M relieved the watch officer at 0000.
The report states that he started a 12-hour shift on the bridge?
Actually, it says he starts a 12 hour duty period. Does that mean on the bridge for 12 hours? It could just mean that he works from 00-12 every day, both on the bridge and on deck.
Looks like they have started port watch while still at anchor . But better ask tanker men. Looks like they have different rituals/customs.
Seems weird to me but may be it is their " normal"
On cont ships in port I run mates 6on/6off with chmate doing cargo. At sea 4on/8off 3m,2nd,ch/off. Plus some extra daily duties.
Never heard of 12 hrs watch at sea unless in emcy , then I take over. Example : replacing wire on haglund or mcgregor cranes with untrained crew may take 12-16 hrs with all crew on deck including mates ( but keeping their watch 4/8 schedule intact).
Staying on the bridge is convinient due to frequent comms with office who wants to know about the progress.
At sea I would never ever allow the mate to keep navigational watch longer then 6 hrs.
Because we were on a Transpacific voyage changing the wires on a Haglund crane we had more time and the office played no part in it.
I did the mate’s morning watch releasing him to supervise the wire change.
In explanation to others the luffing wire was about 365 metres long and weighed about 2.5 tonnes (from my imperfect memory).
There’s also the Scandinavian/Swedish watches. Sorry, can’t recall exactly which it is. I think they work a 12 hour block but the watches and OT are split up more.
“At 0700 hrs. Solong’s master returned to the bridge and took over the watch”
The odd time of watch change at 0700 hrs. MAY be because the report is using UK time (Zulu) while the ship was on CET time (Z+1)
It make sense that the master did the 08-12 watch, which is normal on some ships with only 2 mates. (Or the mates do 6 on/6 off watches)
Are you referring to the Watch-on-watch—the Swedish system : The Swedish watch system splits the crew in half, but uses an irregular schedule to balance the varying demands of different times of day. Beginning at 1900 hours (7:00 p.m.), the watches run on this schedule: five hours, four hours (mid watch), four hours, five hours, and six hours (afternoon watch). This system dogs itself automatically.
[/quote]
This is apparently a system used on yachts, not ship afaik.