Singapore Accident

hard to believe what i saw happen, was the Ship being overtaken blind, , all he needed to do was reduce speed, must be complete idiots in charge.

From what I have seen of it, Both ships were at fault.
The Overtaking ship has to keep clear of the ship being overtaken, But the ship being overtaken was obviously not keeping a safe Nav. watch , he should have got out of the way in plenty of time.
That situation is covered in Rule Two , Rule Seven and also the overtaking Rule, 13
But if no one is on watch as happens regularly, then Rules do not apply as there is no one to apply them.
Just criminal negligence.
I remember a case no too long ago of a Greek Ferry, no one on the bridge, they had all gone down below to watch football on TV. It hit the land and sank, I think people may have died.
I despair
Brian

with respect to collisions at sea, a few days ago i posted an request on the appeal site, hopeing to tap into the knowledge of either Brian, keith or john to asertain if there was a web site from the BoT or simular agency that would give a full account and findings of an inquirey into a collision. what I'm looking for is an account and disposition of the incident between the HUDSON FIRTH and a RMS ship at the end of june 1957 in the channel in thick fog during daylight. any help would be appriciated.
regards, stan

Try this file at Kew

• 
  
  • MV Canopic O.N.186452 and SS Hudson Firth O.N.183158: near Norfolk coast 17 Sept 1963
    
    Ministry of Transport: Marine Department: Registered Files: Marine Safety (MS Series). Casualties. Collisions. MV Canopic O.N.186452 and SS Hudson Firth O.N.183158: near Norfolk coast 17 Sept 1963.
    
    
    • Collection:Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies
    • Date range:01 January 1963 - 31 December 1965
    • Reference:BT 239/476
    • Subjects:Transport management
      

I too looked for information on your request Stan when you posted it.However I could only find the same reference as Rob. Is it possible that you are mistaken with the dates of the incident. Unfortunately the records at the National Archives for this incident are only available by visiting them at Kew as they have not been digitised and hence are not downloadable.

Do they still publish the Lioyds list and the Journal of Commerce in the UK. Have tried to get up on computer without success. This would of old had the full story in either publications of the recent collission in the Singapore straits. Cheers John Sabourn

This brings back the same old story of they are not trained the same these days even with all the elf and safety regulations and they don't carry enough crew to support a full watch

Does anyone else see that every time they save a few pennies on crew it costs a few thousand extra dollars in repairs and losses

I cant see how this could have happened without at least 2 complete morons in charge it was flat calm good visibility and daylight even if they were blind the dog barking should have given some warning


Its not as if they need to do much the radar these days even has course and speed data on screen and can tell you if you are on collision course or have they done away with them since i last saw one 25 years ago (cant remember which ship was southland or welly star both built in the 60s but upgraded as per regulations ) its not some new fangled super tech thing

Just hope nobody got hurt in this but both skippers should be losing tickets over it and the rest of the bridge crew there are enough risks in the job without incompetent ar***oles running things

Could have been the problem in this case as may have been in his blind spot. This is why some of these youngsters and not so young still will not use their eyes, go out on the wing of the bridge and look aound. If this was a case of not the steering gear going haywire, then I agree there should be cancellation of at least certificates. There again they may be Panamanian so will just go to another flag of convenience if necessary. If it was also lack of people on the Bridge this should be made public to make people including Insurers aware of the great risks this can cause. I will not go into any detail but one incident I was involved in, I made as much noise as possible, it must have been heard as the manning was increased by 4 seamen, and is still the same today. Cheers John Sabourn

The onlyreference I have on file(source now lost or not recorded) is a collision in 1957 between the Hudson Firth and the Royal Mail Lines LOCH RYAN (1) ,off Start Point,Devon in 1957.
Hudson Firth later had a new bow fitted in Hull drydock.


With reference to the even later incident in 1963 re Hudson Firth v.Canopic, in May 1964 the Master of each vessel was ordered to pay £525 each towards the costs of the Formal Inquiry(you can have that bit of trivia for free though!)

Gulliver

Loch Ryan was a 9,904 GRT heavy lift cargo liner which was built by Furness Shipbuilding Ltd, Haverton Hill-on-Tees in 1943 as Empire Chieftain for the Ministry of War Transport (MoWT). In 1946 she was sold to Royal Mail Lines and renamed Loch Ryan. She served until 1960, when she was sold to Argonaut Shipping & Trading Co Ltd and was renamed Fair Ryan, being scrapped later that year.
The ship was built by Furness Shipbuilding Ltd, Haverton Hill-on-Tees,[1] as yard number 354.[2] She was launched on 20 May 1943, and completed in October 1943.[1]
The ship was 475 feet 5 inches (144.91 m) long, with a beam of 64 feet 4 inches (19.61 m) and a depth of 40 feet 0 inches (12.19 m). She had a GRT of 9,904 and a NRT of 7,155.[3]
The ship was propelled by two steam turbines, double reduction geared, driving a screw propeller. The turbines were made by Richardsons, Westgarth & Co Ltd, Hartlepool.[3]


But absolutely nothing about a collision , I still suggest Kew would have the record if there was an enquiry , but both ships carried on in service for a number of years , would there be an official Inquiry if there was no loss of life