Case study: Stranding incident in way of striking of underwater wreck

What happened?

Vessel was proceeding to an anchorage at coordinates (“position”) provided by her agent. The position was different and in fact deviated from the planned passage. It was plotted on the vessel’s radar and a course was set towards it, i.e., a new passage plan. After about two hours sailing on the latter, the vessel reportedly shuddered and experienced a pitching motion, reduction in speed and her heading backed to port side. It was later found out that the vessel had stranded and struck an underwater wreck.

Why did it happen?

The vessel’s bridge team members (“BTM”) consisting of the master, chief officer and second officer were not aware of the wreck’s existence. In fact, when the passage plan was changed, the BTM did not review and adjust the existing one vis-à-vis the new information received. The BTM only cursorily checked on the ECDIS to confirm that the available water depth was sufficient for the remaining part of the passage to the new position. Although a temporary notice was enforced and included on the ECDIS display regarding the said wreck, the BTM did not review or acknowledge it. The investigation finding revealed that the vessel had struck the wreck as indicated on the said temporary notice.

The company had identified the following three root causes that had led to the above incident:

1.There was no objective evidence that a management of change process was followed by the BTM upon receiving the new anchor coordinates and the subsequent planning for adjusting and deviating from the original voyage plan.

2. The new co-ordinates were plotted on the vessel radar and there was no objective evidence that a detailed verification was made of the ECDIS chart and the newly intended track towards the anchoring position to confirm that the track was free of any obstructions or notices.

3. The BTM did not heed to the Temporary notice displayed on the Electronic Navigation Chart and was therefore not made aware of the significance of the notice and the danger to navigation that was reported within the contents of the notice. See Screengrab 5

Conclusion

There is a failure in the vessel’s Bridge Resource and Bridge Team Management (“BRM”). In fact, the BTM had not complied with the company’s SMS that incorporated the BRM and the elements (highlighted in bold) within the above root causes. Following that, MPA had taken action accordingly against the BTM.