Another Swedish maritime incident
Discussion
British ship and Danish ship collided. 2 missing, probably drowned :-(
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/13/...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/13/...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59633882
The news report into the collision in the Baltic Sea involving the Scot Line vessel Monday 13-12-2021 uses language in a sensationalist way which is prejudicial to the persons being reported on.
“ Prosecutors have begun an inquiry into alleged gross negligence at sea involving the UK-flagged Scot Carrier.
The coastguard was also investigating suspected drunkenness on board.”
Makes it sound like negligence and alcohol are involved, when it is standard procedure to breathalyse ship’s crew and Officers after an incident and if course negligent actions will be uncovered.
If you had a car accident that wasn’t your fault it is still likely you would be breathalysed. It would be unfair to suggest that you were suspected of drink driving.
This article is sensationalist and frankly typical of the low standard of journalism when it comes to any maritime matters.
I have started to just presume that they get everything else as wrong!
The news report into the collision in the Baltic Sea involving the Scot Line vessel Monday 13-12-2021 uses language in a sensationalist way which is prejudicial to the persons being reported on.
“ Prosecutors have begun an inquiry into alleged gross negligence at sea involving the UK-flagged Scot Carrier.
The coastguard was also investigating suspected drunkenness on board.”
Makes it sound like negligence and alcohol are involved, when it is standard procedure to breathalyse ship’s crew and Officers after an incident and if course negligent actions will be uncovered.
If you had a car accident that wasn’t your fault it is still likely you would be breathalysed. It would be unfair to suggest that you were suspected of drink driving.
This article is sensationalist and frankly typical of the low standard of journalism when it comes to any maritime matters.
I have started to just presume that they get everything else as wrong!
Stick Legs said:
This article is sensationalist and frankly typical of the low standard of journalism when it comes to any maritime matters.
The BBC gets subtle twists into many of its reports, whether deliberately or subconscious based on the journo's personal thoughts/predjudices. Today - 'Boris faces biggest revolt...' - why not just report the result when it's known? That would actually be news not conjecture.Maybe best to read the public statement from the UK ship owners I guess - https://www.scotline.co.uk/collision-scot-carrier-...
DavieBNL said:
Maybe best to read the public statement from the UK ship owners I guess - https://www.scotline.co.uk/collision-scot-carrier-...
That’s fantastic that they give such an accurate date and time for the build details in the first paragraph.DavieBNL said:
Maybe best to read the public statement from the UK ship owners I guess - https://www.scotline.co.uk/collision-scot-carrier-...
Sounds as if the Scot Carrier was oblivious to the incident. Scotline Holdings said:
Following the collision, it is understood that the EPIRB system (Emergency Position-indicating Radiobeacon) of the barge was activated and the Swedish authorities then contacted the ‘Scot Carrier’ for further information.
The 2nd Officer, who was on the bridge at the time requested the Master to come to the bridge of the ‘Scot Carrier’ where he reported contact with the Swedish Coastguard.
Once all crew members had been accounted for and an initial damage assessment completed, the Scot Carrier returned to the location of the incident and launched a rescue boat to participate in the search and rescue operation. It is understood that the time between the incident and the Scot Carrier altering course to the location of the incident was under 25 minutes.
Most masters would have wanted to be called before the collision, not afterwards when the EPIRB had rung the coastguard and then the coastguard had contacted the vessel wanting more info! The 2nd Officer, who was on the bridge at the time requested the Master to come to the bridge of the ‘Scot Carrier’ where he reported contact with the Swedish Coastguard.
Once all crew members had been accounted for and an initial damage assessment completed, the Scot Carrier returned to the location of the incident and launched a rescue boat to participate in the search and rescue operation. It is understood that the time between the incident and the Scot Carrier altering course to the location of the incident was under 25 minutes.
Condi said:
Most masters would have wanted to be called before the collision, not afterwards when the EPIRB had rung the coastguard and then the coastguard had contacted the vessel wanting more info!
I most definitely do.My own standing orders on the subject of when the Officer of the Watch is to call me:
"The Master should be called at any time that you are in doubt or require additional assistance.
I must also be called in the following circumstances without delay:
- If experiencing difficulty in maintaining course.
- If visibility drops below 1 mile.
- If the weather forecast contains new or urgent weather warning on our intended course.
- Unexpected landfall, late landfall, unexpected shoal areas.
- Steering, propulsion or major navigation aid failure.
- A change of orders.
- Difficulty in maintaining ETA.
- Distress signal sighted or heard by any means including radio.
- Excessive pounding or rolling of the vessel.
-The behaviour of another vessel gives you cause for concern, or another vessel fails to comply with the collision regulations.'
Most Master's standing orders for being called are pretty similar.
Ean218 said:
So which of those standing orders were not followed?
The second officer called for the Master as soon as the Coastguard contacted the ship. As he was oblivious to any collision he could not call him at that point.
He's failed to keep a look out as there's no way either radar set would have failed to detect the other ship; asleep, watching porn, ECDIS not set correctly, all have happened before.The second officer called for the Master as soon as the Coastguard contacted the ship. As he was oblivious to any collision he could not call him at that point.
Ean218 said:
As he was oblivious to any collision he could not call him at that point.
If you manage to crash into a 2000t hunk of metal so hard it capsizes and makes a reasonably significant bend in your own ship without noticing, then the point at which you contact your boss is somewhat unimportant. The point was that there was a significant failing somewhere with the officer on watch. Not only did he fail to notice the other ship before the collision, but then totally failed to notice the collision at all and only found out about it when contacted by a 3rd party.
hidetheelephants said:
He's failed to keep a look out as there's no way either radar set would have failed to detect the other ship; asleep, watching porn, ECDIS not set correctly, all have happened before.
This.I posted my standing orders purely to illustrate the fact that the Master is not always ‘driving’ but is still in command.
Frankly this scenario is worst nightmare territory as a Master.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff