Should we really be surprised about Sheng Neng 1 grounding?
Posted on | April 15, 2010 | 3 Comments
HOW on earth did the experienced bridge team aboard the big coal carrier Sheng Neng 1 manage to put the ship ashore on the Douglas Shoal on the Great Barrier Reef? It was a passage that was about twelve miles wide and in a ship that was equipped to every modern standard, there seems to be no reason at all for such a navigational lapse.
“No accident at sea is so incredible as to be impossible”, says Clay in his earlier blog on the subject, but first indications are that the ship failed to make it to the open sea, because an exhausted officer omitted to make a change of course. It has been suggested that he was desperately short of sleep, having been the vessel’s cargo officer during the ship’s loading, and that the old “human element” kicked in at the worst possible time.
Should we be even slightly surprised at such an explanation, which is certainly not “incredible”? The late Captain Richard Cahill, of USL and Sea-Land was one of my heroes, and it is to one of his books I invariably turn when “inexplicable” accidents occur. In his celebrated “Strandings and their Causes” he tells the grim tale of the VLCC Esso Cambria, which in 1970 went hard aground on a shoal patch in the Gulf, fully laden with crude from Mena to Milford Haven.
Exhausted people have been putting ships ashore since St Paul’s Captain failed to make it past Malta, but the Esso Cambria was memorable because it exposed the frailties of the human body to cope with utter fatigue. The Mate of the ship, who was the watchkeeper at the time of the calamity, had been pitchforked into action the instant he joined the ship after a long flight from the UK, all sorts of things had gone wrong during the loading, and there was no doubt, from his behaviour, that he was exhausted.
His treatment, subsequent to the accident, was particularly harsh, so much so that the Hon. Company of Master Mariners felt bound to publicly castigate the oil company for summarily dismissing their officer, who also had his Master’s Certificate suspended. But it was also notable that Captain Cahill, in his analysis of the incident, selected it as one that he could group in a number of groundings in which “inadequate manning” played a significant role. This was, indeed, the chapter heading. It is a significant categorisation.
35 years have passed since this regrettable accident, but one wonders just how much we have managed to learn from the huge number of incidents in which fatigue has played a significant role. You might suggest that we have regulations on hours of rest, and there is no way that somebody who has managed just 2.5 hours of disturbed rest during the previous 37 hours (as it is reported) is legally fit to be in charge of a watch.
But let us consider the cruel real world, with chief officers unable to relax for a second during the loading of a big bulk carrier, the terminal anxious to get the ship off the berth the instant the last drop has dribbled off the belt, and the charterers (seething with impatience while the ship was waiting for a berth) loudly demanding the best possible speed on the voyage.
Of course, the ship’s organisation ought to be adjusted to cope with such contingencies, and a master must bear some responsibility for a possible failure in “fatigue management”, but if there are not enough people aboard with the relevant experience, what is the master to do? He could demand to go to anchor, to ensure that his watchkeepers were properly rested, but just imagine the screams and threats. Very much like the attitude which prevailed when the Esso Cambria graunched up on the reef, all those years ago. What a lot we have learned!
Comments
3 Responses to “Should we really be surprised about Sheng Neng 1 grounding?”
Leave a Reply
April 22nd, 2010 @ 12:16 am
Very good!
The ship’s operators (the crew) ultimately have to bear the whole pressure of the system upon them — with not enough safeguards. And when it all goes wrong, only crewmembers get jailed.
It is deplorable that the maritime industry still treats seafarers as machines — or worse still.
April 22nd, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
A great article. Really though WHO is looking after the Seafarer? What legal precident could a master sight & be backup with when demanding that he is going to anchor because his crew is exhausted. He wouldnt last another day at sea, that is the unfortunate truth of the matter.
May 4th, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
This has been doing the rounds already, but in the context of this blog, a quick reminder.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1815699/ship_accident_off_coast_of_australia/