1. Answer the questions.

1. What was the course and speed of a laden deep-draught VLCC?

2. What was the passage plan?

3. Why did the VLCC alter her course?

4. What types of ships collided while on this course?

5. What was the reason of the collision?

6. What ship was responsible for this collision and why?

7. Was there any influence of sub-surface current? If there was, how did it affect the collision?

8. What were the consiquences of the collision for all vessels involved?

9. What are the root causes of the incident?

2. Decide if these sentences are true (t) or false (f). Correct the wrong ones.

1. A laden deep-draught VLCC, displaying the appropriate signals for a vessel constrained by her draught (CBD), was crossing a west –bound TSS lane from north to south, making about three knots over the ground._____________

2. The vessel did not alter her course to an almost easterly heading._______

3. While on this course, a collision situation developed with a tug and tow, crossing from her starboard bow, on a southerly heading.____________

4. The tug was not displaying signals to show that it was restricted in her ability to manoeuvre and failed to take early avoiding action._________

5. The tug drifted on to the vessels anchored and collided with one of them, causing hull damage.______________

3. Give definitions to the following terms in accordance with the COLREGs:

RAM, CBD, give-way vessel, TSS lane, VTS.

4. Analyze the situation given in the text and state your arguments due to the following points:

1) non-compliance with COLREGs by all ships involved. Complete the following table.

The type of the ship

The number/the name of the violated Rule

The incorrect actions undertaken by the ship

2) meteorological conditions as the cause of collision

3) ships actions in high traffic density.

5. Compose a claim on collision or a sea protest on behalf of the Master of a laden deep-draught VLCC.

6. Complete an incident report (see annex) covering the following items.

1. Description of the situation;

2. Direct, root causes of the incident;

3. Remedial actions and recommendations.

Case study -2. Collision during Berthing

Own vessel, a product tanker in ballast, was moving from anchorage to her designated berth. As she passed the breakwater inwards, a tug was made fast on the port quarter. She was to berth starboard side to, astern of anchor moored vessel. After she was swung in the turning basin, she headed towards her berth at about three knots. When approaching the berth, the master and the pilot stationed themselves on the starboard wing and manoeuvring control was transferred to the bridge wing unit. When the chief officer reported from the forecastle that the distance between own ship’s bow and the stern of other ship was about 100 metres, own vessel was still moving ahead at about three knots.

Realising that the speed was excessive, the master ordered slow astern, followed by full astern. However, this did not prevent the bow of own ship from making contact with the other vessel in the way of her accommodation block. Damage to own vessel consisted of indentation of the bulwark plates and a 800 mm long tear of the shell plating on the starboard bow.

Root cause/ contributory factors

1. Unsafe/excessive speed on final approach to the berth;

2. The passage plan and master/ pilot information exchange did not specify the speed of approach when approaching berth;

3. The astern movement on the main engine was ordered much too late;

4. The tug that was made fast was not used by the pilot to decelerate the ship’s forward motion;

5. Ship’s staff did not consider using the anchor, even though the forecastle station was manned;

6. The bow thruster and the Becker rudder were not effectively used in combination which could have avoided contact.

Corrective/preventative actions

1. Root cause analysis carried out and results explained to master;

2. Fleet instructions issued to all masters to discuss in detail with pilots the planned speeds when approaching berths, passing traffic and anchored ships. Same to be recorded in the master-pilot information exchange document;

3. During masters’ debriefing, the VDR playback will be reviewed to analyse the actions taken and discuss what could have been done to avoid the contact;

4. Masters to be given more simulator training;

5. Ship staff advised to fully 38ressurized themselves with the operation and characteristics of the Becker rudder, because this is very advantageous during berthing/unberthing, slow speed manoeuvres, and when navigating in restricted waters;

6. Fleet circular issued with specific advice that the bridge team and master must monitor the pilot’s actions closely and not hesitate to countermand pilot’s orders if necessary to ensure safety;

7. The incident shall be permanently included in senior officers’ pre-joining briefing;

8. On every vessel, deck officers to be given 38ressurized38ion training in emergency operation of the main engine by the chief engineer;

9. Marine superintendents shall discuss this incident with bridge team members and shall review the entries in the master/pilot information exchange form.