Chronicle photo by Michael Macor
After visits from California powerbrokers Arnold Schwarzenegger and Diane Feinstein yesterday the head of the US Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen, joined the inspection team.
Here news of his visit courtesy of the San Diego Tribune;
“They talk about the fog of war. I think we had the fog of navigation going on this day,”
Allen said he himself didn’t learn the full extent of the spill until around 9 p.m. the night it happened last Wednesday, around the same time as most everybody else.
“We know that a good deal of marine accidents and casualties are human error,” he said. Coast Guard officials investigating the incident said Saturday that they had ruled out mechanical error.
“You don’t turn 900-foot vessels on a dime and given the visibility at the time I think it would be difficult to assess whether or not the bridge itself was visible,” he said, adding that would be part of the investigation, along with the vessel’s speed, communications among the crew and other issues.
So what happened that day? Who knows… we do not expect an official investigation to be completed anytime soon (think the normal 6+ months!). We are, however, willing to write down a few questions we hope some intrepid reporters with access to Admiral Allen do ask.
Questions for investigators;
We have reviewed a few big incidents in the short life of gCaptain including the grounding of the Pasha Bulker on an Australian Beach and the grounding of the Alaska Cruise ship “Empress of the North” in waters close to Juenu Alaska. In both of those situations a breakdown in communications took place.
What is the level of English competency of the captain and mate on watch?
Did the assist tug notify the pilot of the problem?
Did the master, mate (Jr. officer), anchor watch, or helmsman notice the error?
Were any problems or concerns relayed to the pilot during the pre-voyage master-pilot conference or was critical information left out of the exchange?
The bridge of a merchant ship is full of electronic aids to navigation. These devices can help investigators determine the cause of an incident IF they are looked at in a timely fashion.
What does the course recorder, a device that records heading directly from the gyro compass, say and does it collaborate the pilot’s timeline of events?
Did the Cosco Busan have an ECDIS (an electronic chart display) or did it rely solely on paper plotting? If the answer is no, what was the interval between fixes? Was all the equipment properly set-up? Was parallel indexing used?
In the AIS plots (if they are determined accurate) we see strong use of right rudder at the time it should have been apparent they missed the turn.
Could the pilot have completed a 360 degree turn away from the bridge and make a second attempt at the correct angle?
In conclusion, investigators should shy away from providing quick answers despite media protests and avoid singling out an individual in this incident. An incident might occur because the helmsmen failed to take a required training course a year back or due to a improperly installed antenna 6 years back or a policy decision 15 years previous. Most likely it was caused by all of the above and 100 additional errors that combine to form what marine incident investigators call an error chain. Remove one error in the chain and the allusion would not have occurred.
Related Post
Enjoy this story? Subscribe
Add New Comment
Viewing 9 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Once in the bay, the approach to the Delta-Echo span is fairly straightforward in clear weather, according to several pilots.
But Cota was in dense fog. He had to rely on his electronic devices and the bridge team. (from SGGate)
Finally a site that is factual and one that does not wish to burn the Pilot at the stake!
It is clear from the ais video that somewhere the ship started heading almost parallel with the bridge. Why?
The paper says he relied on his electronic equipment.
Nowadays many pilots come aboard with their own AIS and GPS enabled laptops. Is that what they are refering to? They do not say the ships radar etc. Many of these laptops I have seen are quite good. Just wondering?
My bet is on BRM and the communication issue or lack of. Next time you order your pan fried dumplings order a Turkey club to go with and see what you get. And many of these good restauranturs have been here awhile and it's not their second (port) job in the US.
Give yourself 3/4 mile to maneuver and when you relize the quatermaster went port 20 instead of starboard...
Not familiar with the Bay Br.but could he have passed under one of the other two spans?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Gary A. Hill, Oakland CA
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Also, I have noted questions arising that allude to the fact that the helmsman was not paying attention to the Radar and other bridge equipment. The helmsman ONLY watches the course repeater when steering. Not the radar, ECDIS, AIS, ect..
Now as an American Merchant Seaman, I'm not sure how they do BTM on foreign flagged vessels, but U.S. ships generally have it set up where the Captain has the Conn, Chief Mate handles Nav/Collision Avoidance and 3rd Mate handles Admin (bell book, ect) with the 2nd mate on the bow as Bow Communications with the Bos'n to handle the anchors if needed and another A.B. as Lookout.
On the bridge, the Pilot gives the recommended course and speed commands.
So, the question arises, were these commands clearly understood by all the members of the BTM?
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Ever hear of "any port in a storm"?Still think he could have made it but than again a round turn would have been prudent. Than again there was an inbound ship. Than again...
My theory on pilots, they start out having plan A.
That works for awhile but than quickly you need and act accordingly that you are in a position ti implement plan B.
After a few more years they get the experience for plan C.
By the time they gt to plan C it is time to retire.
Deep down I know you did the best you could Capt. Cota.
The rest of us armchair mariners are now (hopefully) listening and learning and not looking for a pound of flesh.
The investigation will only help us advance to " plan C". And than we retire at the top of our game.
Be careful and safe out there fellas and ladies and remember what pushes us to do something questionably unsafe may not be worth it in the long run.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Still think he may have been able to pass under the B\C abutments.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
We are actually working on this with our friends at vesseltrax.com
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
1) Thank God this is one case where the Master is not being burnt at the stake - theoretically, the Pilot advises the Master, practically the Master depends on the Pilot for his superior knowledge of the port, currents, tides, and the fact that often reality differs from what is given in the Sailing directions, charted depths of chars and Pilot volumes .
2) Secondly, let us stop using this as a bashing place for other nationalities - it is a time for seafarers to support each other or at least allow things to be treated fair.
This incident has the potential of being an Exxon Valdez.. let us not make a Hazelwood of this Master
3) Sorry if I sound rude, but anyone who has not commanded a 370 mtr long container vessel has little right to speak
4) A good possibility that ECDIS data (esp. the Course over ground indication and heading ) was misinterpreted. I think the pilot mistook the COG for the heading of the vessel - no other reason why he should head parallel to the bridge. (I assume the AIS data on which we are basing opinions is the "vsl heading")
Please see my message n http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecdis/ for further info on this.
5) I am amused y the take of TV reporters on the drug and alcohol test being administered late - esp for those who were off bridge... Scandalous!!
6) A good possibility of BTM not working. Someone (most probably the container operator who subtly puts commercial pressures) is upset that the vessel has been delayed due to fog. An American pilot who feels he is superior to the Chinese master (not a misguided assumption if the above opinions voiced by other people are anything to go by), (PS - why did the pilot not bring the navigation lap top which SF bay plots mostly have?? actually almost every pilot in developed and many developing countries carry it along!)
7) A factual error - the racon midway of D and E supports would not have shown up on the ECDIS unless the ECDIS had a radar interface (not a part of IMO res 817 - a lack of the standard itself?)
I welcome other opinions... esp. those which disagree
- Anshuman Naik
Master Mariner on ocean going container ships, VLCCs and Car carriers
Add New Comment
Trackbacks