Play it again, Sam
Posted on | August 22, 2010 | 2 Comments
Many years ago, we were securely alongside in Melbourne, having our lunch, as it happened, when another vessel got slightly out of control when berthing and put a nasty dent in our side. After the shouting had died down (and we had finished lunch) I was despatched down the quay with a letter from the master in which he (quite properly) held the other vessel entirely to blame for the damage.
Half way down the quay I met the third mate of the other vessel coming in the opposite direction, clutching a missive holding us wholly responsible for getting in the way and preventing his ship from berthing. It was a necessary ritual, explained the master, and the lawyers would expect it.
Such an exercise has been repeated ad infinitum, down the years, whenever one ship has bumped into another. Indeed, when there have been spectacular collisions, the exchange has been often conducted in public with eminent lawyers representing each party loudly claiming to the newspapers, radio stations, indeed, anyone who would listen, that “the other vessel” bore all the blame for the terrible harm it had inflicted on the wholly innocent ship he represented.
We had a bit of this the other day with the regrettable bump off Mumbai, which left a containership imitating a submarine.
These days these furious protestations tend to lack the conviction of the past, which often saw shipping companies immediately promoting the master of their sunken ship on the grounds that it would demonstrate his innocence to the wider world.
But today, we have the much more convincing evidence of the Voyage Data Recorder , which ought to prove,
beyond peradventure, exactly what was going on in the two wheelhouses in the run-up to the collision.
A radar picture from each ship, played back, accompanied with all the other relevant information from engines and the (possibly anguished) voices of those involved will provide a far more conclusive story than that pieced together by the lawyers or investigators after the events from the individuals involved. Human recollection , so experts tell us, is often
flawed and not to be relied on without corroboration.
The VDR can also be invaluable in persuading one party in a collision that as their own ship’s conduct in the case left much to be desired and was pretty indefensible, it is both pointless and unnecessarily expensive to try and defend it.
And while there may have been some apprehensions about “spies in the cab” when the VDR came along, it is probably one piece of kit that has eminently justified itself.
Comments
2 Responses to “Play it again, Sam”
Leave a Reply
August 26th, 2010 @ 6:38 am
Thanks very much, I must say your site is excellent!
August 28th, 2010 @ 5:01 am
Great idea, yes, but not in Australia where, immediately following an incident, the VDR data is removed from the ship and held by the investigating authorities. Neither the owner, master, P&I Club or any other interested parties have access to it, thus preventing investigation other than that carried out by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Notwithstanding the habitual excellence of the ATSB they invariably suffer from short sightedness when dealing with in-port accident investigations; the role of port authorities systems, VTS, tugs, structure, etc., is rarely, if at all, considered. But even more curious, the investigators of the nation that generates over 10% of global shipping traffic is restricted by funding to 10 only investigations per year. (In fact, despite its restricted funding the Bureau achieves an average of about 13.5 investigations completed each year). Each State (there are six, and one “Territory”) carries out its own investigations – which means none at all so that no (or few) accidernts asre rcorded and less are analysed.
Hence Australia’s (self-trumpeted) standing as a “safe” nation in maritime terms when, in fact, statistically it would be shown to be nothing of the sort in proper investigations and statistical data was kept.
A data recorder is needed by central government as much, if not more, than by ships visting the nation.
As noted ad nauseum by transport ministers, “Australia is a shipper nation and not a shipping nation”.