Accident Report: Collision CMA CGM Florida & Chou Shan

[alistairuk]

Sadly, yet another example of using VHF radio instead of just doing what the rules require...

Summary:
MAIB Report on the investigation into the collision between the container vessel CMA CGM Florida and the bulk carrier Chou Shan in open water 140 miles east of Shanghai on 19 March 2013. At 0033 on 19 March 2013, CMA CGM Florida and Chou Shan collided in the East China Sea resulting in both vessels sustaining serious damage, and approximately 610 tonnes of heavy fuel oil being spilled from CMA CGM Florida. There were no injuries. CMA CGM Florida had left Yang Shan, China, the previous day and was heading towards Pusan, Korea. Chou Shan was heading from Qinhuangdao, China, towards the east coast of Australia.

The key safety issues identified were:

• VHF radio was inappropriately used by both vessels for collision avoidance to negotiate a manoeuvre that was contrary to the COLREGS.
• VHF radio communications were conducted in Mandarin and were not fully translated into English to enable the OOW on one vessel to understand what had been tacitly agreed.
• Standing orders on both vessels lacked specific metrics for when the master was to be called.
• Use of AIS priority and the multiple AIS target list encouraged the OOW on one vessel to focus on those vessels with the smallest CPA or range at the expense of maintaining a more strategic overview of the traffic situation.

Report can be downloaded from MAIB here; http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/..._chou_shan.cfm

[Lewisscott22]

We had a Captain come onboard for a week to discuss the event with all of our officers. The VDR was very stressful to listen to.

Now all of the officers have to learn all of these new terms such as Safe Passing Limit, Emergency Manoeuvring Limit all for coastal, pilotage, deep sea - it is a bit silly.

However in saying that, all officers were required to sit a COLREGS test. One failed and unfortunately he was sent home.

[GuinnessMan]

However in saying that, all officers were required to sit a COLREGS test. One failed and unfortunately he was sent home.

What rank were they?

[alistairuk]

Now all of the officers have to learn all of these new terms such as Safe Passing Limit, Emergency Manoeuvring Limit all for coastal, pilotage, deep sea - it is a bit silly.

I disagree and personally think its shameful that they don't know them? Ok, I accept "Safe Passing Limit" is an unusual term, however one assumes that a minimum CPA was specified by the master in his standing orders? Essentially the same thing except the company may have put a figure they feel appropriate in their SMS. (Unless I am miss-understanding the term)

As for "Emergency Manerouvering Limit"? I assume this is based upon the vessels manoeuvring characteristics - something all the watch officers should be able to recite - I cant imagine captain coming through to the bridge and randomly asking "whats the stopping distance at this speed" or "whats our turning circle" (we had one captain who enjoyed asking such questions of the cadets) and not being able to answer him - pretty sure his boot would of been up my arse pretty quickly!

One failed and unfortunately he was sent home.

Why unfortunately? If they don't know the rules they're a disaster waiting to happen.

[Lewisscott22]

What rank were they?

He was a 3rd officer, lots of experience though.

I disagree and personally think its shameful that they don't know them? Ok, I accept "Safe Passing Limit" is an unusual term, however one assumes that a minimum CPA was specified by the master in his standing orders? Essentially the same thing except the company may have put a figure they feel appropriate in their SMS. (Unless I am miss-understanding the term)

As for "Emergency Manerouvering Limit"? I assume this is based upon the vessels manoeuvring characteristics - something all the watch officers should be able to recite - I cant imagine captain coming through to the bridge and randomly asking "whats the stopping distance at this speed" or "whats our turning circle" (we had one captain who enjoyed asking such questions of the cadets) and not being able to answer him - pretty sure his boot would of been up my arse pretty quickly!

Why unfortunately? If they don't know the rules they're a disaster waiting to happen.

The officer was very close, he just wasn't producing the words from the colregs. For example, he stated that he would carry out a small alteration of course to avoid a collision (not the option I would have used, but his action would have maintained the minimum CPA). He was asked why, but he couldn't use those wonderful words "if the circumstances of the case admit". Of course, he "opened up the can of worms" and another load of questions came out regarding most of the steering an sailing rules. Long story short, he just forgot the rules.

Yes, a minimum CPA was specified by the Master, however I feel all of these new terms just complicate things. It should be X is the minimum CPA - if you cant achieve it call me. Instead we have some officers fiddling with the radar and looking at tables trying to determine whether or not they are 20 miles off the land so that the know when to apply the 2 NM SPL. If the company's SMS was followed regarding the Safe Passing Limits, the Captain would be on the bridge for a long time - especially China - maybe that should be the case.

Yes, it is based on the manoeuvring characteristics. In calculating this, it would be the vessels greatest transfer from the turning circle and multiplied by 3. It was used for stand on situations (specifically for a PDV on your own port side) stating that if your own vessel altered to port, when the other vessel was at the EML range - and the other vessel altered to starboard - there would still be a reasonable gap between the vessels. A diagram would've probably explain this better. However, the value is greatly flawed by assuming that the other vessel has the same manoeuvring characteristics.

[condeh]

It was used for stand on situations (specifically for a PDV on your own port side) stating that if your own vessel altered to port, when the other vessel was at the EML range - and the other vessel altered to starboard - there would still be a reasonable gap between the vessels.

Wat.

Is my post-nights brain being a bit slow, or is this advocating altering to port as a stand-on whilst in a close quarters situation. I knew they were cowboys, but this, wow.

IMO, the prescriptive X = CPA is a recipe for disaster, but I suppose in a situation where a large number (majority?) of OOWs are unable to navigate professionally, a paint-by-numbers approach is the least worst option.

Just remember kids, these two guys on the CMA had a Certificate of Competency issued by the MCA indicating that they are of equivalent competence to yourself, so at least you can be comforted that the bar for passing has been set so low...

[Pilot Chris]

I'm with Condeh on this one!

As for manoeuvring diagrams (and relying on them) I can say that in my daily job throwing very large ships around all day that most figures do not accurately portray their manoeuvring characterises especially on ships built in certain countries.

[alistairuk]

The officer was very close, he just wasn't producing the words from the colregs. For example, he stated that he would carry out a small alteration of course to avoid a collision (not the option I would have used, but his action would have maintained the minimum CPA). He was asked why, but he couldn't use those wonderful words "if the circumstances of the case admit". Of course, he "opened up the can of worms" and another load of questions came out regarding most of the steering an sailing rules. Long story short, he just forgot the rules.

Not to be nick picky - but since you're up for your Orals soon... what do the rules say about small alterations of course

Yes, a minimum CPA was specified by the Master, however I feel all of these new terms just complicate things. It should be X is the minimum CPA - if you cant achieve it call me. Instead we have some officers fiddling with the radar and looking at tables trying to determine whether or not they are 20 miles off the land so that the know when to apply the 2 NM SPL. If the company's SMS was followed regarding the Safe Passing Limits, the Captain would be on the bridge for a long time - especially China - maybe that should be the case.

Sorry, but seriously? You're essentially saying that your OOW's have no clue where they actually are or what's around them... One would of thought they should know how far off the land they are (or other hazards) - pretty basic seamanship. I accept that it's maybe not regular practice on cargo ships due to not generating as much waste as you probably don't have to constantly know when you're 4nm, 6nm & 12nm from baselines - pain in the ass navigating around greek / turkish islands - but still, it's not that difficult.

Yes, it is based on the manoeuvring characteristics. In calculating this, it would be the vessels greatest transfer from the turning circle and multiplied by 3. It was used for stand on situations (specifically for a PDV on your own port side) stating that if your own vessel altered to port, when the other vessel was at the EML range - and the other vessel altered to starboard - there would still be a reasonable gap between the vessels. A diagram would've probably explain this better. However, the value is greatly flawed by assuming that the other vessel has the same manoeuvring characteristics.

Perhaps you've miss understood as as condeh says above that's just stupid if they are essentially saying you should go to port if your the stand-on vessel. I would of thought it was more from the perspective of; "Your ship has a turning circle of 1000m and stopping distance of 1200m" thus as long as you're at least that far from the other ship - you should be able to not hit it.... The x3 thing clearly to add in safety margin - so essentially I would of thought they are saying "if your the stand on vessel and the other ship gets within X distance from you - you must take action; either stop or alter to starboard - going to port is suicidal (yes if the other ship continues to do f-all it will resolve the problem, but if they suddenly decide to comply with the rules... bang)

[Lewisscott22]

Wat.

Is my post-nights brain being a bit slow, or is this advocating altering to port as a stand-on whilst in a close quarters situation. I knew they were cowboys, but this, wow.

IMO, the prescriptive X = CPA is a recipe for disaster, but I suppose in a situation where a large number (majority?) of OOWs are unable to navigate professionally, a paint-by-numbers approach is the least worst option.

Just remember kids, these two guys on the CMA had a Certificate of Competency issued by the MCA indicating that they are of equivalent competence to yourself, so at least you can be comforted that the bar for passing has been set so low...

Like I said - a diagram may have explained it better. IF the circumstances of the case admit and you had no other choice then yes, an alteration to port was a suggested option. Such a situation as a stand on vessel with a crossing PDV from the port side and an overtaking vessel on your own starboard side ? his words, not mine. It was to be used in an emergency - hence emergency manoevring limit.

The EML was used for when the giveway vessel not taking action hits that range, that is when to take action and yes - alter to starboard or stop.

Not to be nick picky - but since you're up for your Orals soon... what do the rules say about small alterations of course

Sorry, but seriously? You're essentially saying that your OOW's have no clue where they actually are or what's around them... One would of thought they should know how far off the land they are (or other hazards) - pretty basic seamanship. I accept that it's maybe not regular practice on cargo ships due to not generating as much waste as you probably don't have to constantly know when you're 4nm, 6nm & 12nm from baselines - pain in the ass navigating around greek / turkish islands - but still, it's not that difficult.



Perhaps you've miss understood as as condeh says above that's just stupid if they are essentially saying you should go to port if your the stand-on vessel. I would of thought it was more from the perspective of; "Your ship has a turning circle of 1000m and stopping distance of 1200m" thus as long as you're at least that far from the other ship - you should be able to not hit it.... The x3 thing clearly to add in safety margin - so essentially I would of thought they are saying "if your the stand on vessel and the other ship gets within X distance from you - you must take action; either stop or alter to starboard - going to port is suicidal (yes if the other ship continues to do f-all it will resolve the problem, but if they suddenly decide to comply with the rules... bang)

Rule 8 b, a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided . I had this with my radar plotting exam today. It was not my answer, but he could of defended his position for that specific situation.

This was the situation. I feel I shouldn't mention it, but this was the case. The person evaluation the officer was on the bridge, asking the OOW ? during his watch may I add - what should the current SPL should be. The OOW stated his answer and it was questioned - he checked again. This was what I witnessed.

No, the EML was NOT suggesting an alteration to port for a vessel on your own port side, only if the circumstances of the case admit ? and these would be extreme circumstances. One should never get into that sort of situation.

Yes, the x 3 is to create a safety margin, but it is also assuming that the other vessel will alter with the same turn radius - I am not particularly fond of this. Yes, that is what they are saying. He went on to say if you were "boxed in" that you can alter to port - if the circumstances of the case admit.

Like I mentioned before, I am confused and frustrated regarding these new values and this may cause more damage than good. CMA CGM Florida was doing 23 knots in this sort of area ? no way is that a safe speed. I feel I should say more regarding certain matters, however due to certain circumstances, I cannot.