Nautical Word of the Day - Allision

November 8th, 2007 · 15 Comments

In covering the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge incident I have noticed most (but not all) of the news articles have made a small error in terminology. In describing the incident where the Cosco Busan hit the Bay Bridge many prominent news organizations referred to event as a collision when in fact it was an allision.

For clarification: A vessel collides with another moving vessel…. A vessel allides with a fixed object (unless it is submerged) and is presumed at fault.

Marine Dictionary - Allision

For those interested in learning more about the incident here are some good links;

For future articles stay tuned with our Maritime News Discoverer’s Upcoming Links

Here is a photo of the environmental damage;

Kurt Rogers / San Francisco Chronicle

Update:

We received an excellent email on the subject from fellow SUNY Maritime alumni John A. Tylawsky;

Allision is a violent striking (such as in a collision) with a fixed object.
This is in contrast with “vessel contact” with a fixed object such as would
be made with bridge fenders in the ordinary course of say a tug and barge
passing under a bridge.

Bridge owners would prefer to classify all vessel/bridge interactions as
“allisions” when fender systems have not been maintained and simply fall
apart upon incidental contact, or were never properly designed.

The right of navigation generally supercedes the right of the bridge to
obstruct the waterway. Bridge fenders are intended to protect the vessel,
not the bridge. Congress allowed the bridge to be constructed with the
provision that navigation would not be interfered with.

Under the “Oregon Rule” the burden of proof is on the moving vessel to prove
that the allision was the stationary object’s fault. This might be shown,
for example, if the fender was encroaching upon the navigation channel
either from damage, or in some cases because it was not built or repaired
according to the permit.

John A. Tylawsky, P.E.
Consulting Marine Engineer
Board Certified Forensic Engineer
www.marinesafetycenter.com

Thanks John for the clear explanation.

Related Articles:

Enjoy this story? Subscribe

Categories: Container Ship · Incidents · MARPOL Incidents · San Francisco · marpol

Tags: · allision, bar_pilots, bridge_incident, collision, Container Ship, cosco_busan, Incidents, marex, marpol, MARPOL Incidents, oil_spill, San Francisco, san_francisco_bay, san_francisco_bay_bridge, ship

15 responses so far ↓

1 MSouth // Nov 9, 2007 at 6:58 am

Good word. I noticed it yesterday in your report on the incident and looked it up.
2 Richard Rodriguez // Nov 9, 2007 at 11:10 am

Thanks Mr. Rogers:

Allision - that’s a big word. Can you say that?
3 San Francisco Bay Oil Spill Response, Some Facts that Can Not Be Ignored | MarineBuzz.com // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:40 am

[…] 900 foot container ship M/V Cosco Busan Allides With San Francisco Bay […]
4 gCaptain.com; For Mariners | By Mariners - MyBlogLog // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm

[…] boats, gCaptain, jobs, maritime, maritime employment, maritime jobs, shipping industry, ships Nautical Word of the Day - Allision - 2 days ago In covering the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge incident I have noticed most (but not […]
5 Tim // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:03 am

Allision is a good word, not used in it’s correct context very often! Not to be confused with Allusion!
6 Kurt's Weblog: November 2007 Archives // Nov 12, 2007 at 12:38 am

[…] Nautical Word of the Day - Allision [gcaptain.com] […]
7 Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision | gCaptain.com // Nov 12, 2007 at 10:43 pm

[…] in both media reports and political commentary related to the the container ship Cosco Busan that allided with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge. We first reported on the confusion between the words […]
8 Fred Fry International: Maritime Monday 84 // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:42 am

[…] (FYI: Not the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge.)gCaptain also covers the COSCO BUSAN incident in “Nautical Word of the Day - Allision” and even has animation of the vessel’s movement in “Follow the path of the Cosco Busan”Maritime […]
9 Telstar Logistics: Sea // Nov 15, 2007 at 8:24 am

[…] here’s the summary: Konrad pointed out that the accident was, formally speaking, an allision, NOT a collision. He then posed a series of questions intended to clarify the circumstances that prompted the Cosco […]
10 Chinese Sub and the Carrier Group | gCaptain.com // Nov 15, 2007 at 11:30 pm

[…] we have been preoccupied with the Bay Bridge Allision readers of our Maritime News Discoverer know of this troubling news from the pacific; When the U.S. […]
11 fergus moran // Nov 17, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Here is a thought to ponder on if you like :

With regard to fuel, when refering to volumes - whether bunkering, daily consumption, heating, transfering or tank capacity of same - ship’s officers normally and consistently speak in tonnes … not gallons. Consider the spillage figure of 140 as provided to the USCG by one of the vessel’s complement : had this been (correctly) interpreted as tonnes the approximate corresponding gallons would be the product of gallons per barrel times barrels per ton i.e. 56 x 7.2 x 140 resulting in a rough estimate of 56,000 gals.
12 John // Nov 17, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Fergus, good catch but don’t forget the temperature!
13 Cosco Busan - Google Earth Tracking | gCaptain.com // Dec 9, 2007 at 8:38 pm

[…] little history…. Shortly after the ship allided with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge we pointed you to the amazing website BoatingSF.com. Run by […]
14 Jerry Mendes // Dec 31, 2007 at 3:59 pm

I’m not a mariner, nor am I familiar with “rules of the road” for ships, boats, and other seagoing craft. Nor am I familiar with the responsibility of the ship’s Master or the authorities who build bridge piers in the midst of navigable waters.

I am but a simple, but well-informed, citizen of the San Francisco Bay Area.

While Mr. Tylawski may well be correct in stating Maritime Law as it relates to a ship hitting a bridge pier (or it’s fendering system) — his words strike me as classroom theory, not reality in the present instance of a 900 foot ship hitting the fendering system of the Bay Bridge.

The bridge and it’s piers have been in their present locations since 1936 (actually earlier, during the construction) and local Maritime rules-of-the-road have long since been established to guide mariners safely between the piers without hitting any fixed objects. And, the fendering system was recently upgraded and completely rebuilt by the State of California Department of Transportation and it’s contractor. There’s been no mention of the fendering system having been previously damaged and being in the well-defined shipping channel — because it wasn’t previously damaged, and wasn’t in the channel.

So, while Mr. Tylawski’s words may be a correct statement of maritime law and common practice, it’s misleading to me and members of the public to hear (read) his dissertation, without reference to the actual event of the Cosco Busan hitting the fixed object.

It might have been more helpful to those of us in the public — who could easily find this site through a search — if he had said that he was describing a theoretical circumstance, and his words actually had no real relevance to the Cosco Busan incident. He leaves me with the impression that it is his opinion that there is some doubt about whether the bridge owner or the ship’s owner is legally responsible for the allision.

I’m sure he had no intention of leaving that impression. But I’m curious why he would describe this aspect of maritime law in a thread relating to the Cosco Busan, without being entirely clear that his statement wasn’t meant to describe his views of what happened in this accident.

Jerry Mendes
San Francisco, California
15 Collision At Sea - Time Lapse Video | gCaptain.com // Jul 8, 2008 at 10:05 am

[…] (Technically an Allision) April, 1979 | the CAHABA, Capt. Jimmy Wilkerson, was dropping 2 of his 4 barges thru the east span […]

gCaptain.com

A Blog About Ships