Collision at sea case study!! Understanding and applying the Rules of the Road

Summary

In this video, the presenter analyzes a maritime collision case study between a bulk carrier and a container ship in open waters. The vessels failed to make timely and significant course alterations, resulting in a collision. The presenter explains key navigation rules and highlights the mistakes made by both ships, offering detailed insights into the scenario. Three crucial questions are discussed: the faults of each ship, what actions they should have taken, and their shared responsibility for the collision. The video emphasizes the importance of clear communication and adherence to maritime rules to prevent accidents at sea.

Takeaways

• 🚢 The video covers a case study involving a bulk carrier and a container ship approaching each other in open waters at full speed.
• ⚠️ The initial closest point of approach (CPA) was only 0.45 nautical miles, which should have signaled a need for major course alterations.
• ⛵ Both vessels made small course alterations at several points, which were insufficient and contributed to the collision.
• ❗ The vessels did not communicate their intentions clearly, either via VHF or by making obvious alterations, leading to confusion.
• 🧭 The case is analyzed as either a crossing or head-on situation, requiring the vessels to follow appropriate navigation rules.
• 🚨 In a crossing situation, the container ship (the give-way vessel) should have made a significant alteration to starboard early on.
• ⚓ The bulk carrier (the stand-on vessel) should have also altered its course when it became clear that the container ship was not taking proper action.
• 🤝 Both vessels were equally at fault for the collision due to insufficient communication and failure to take early, substantial action.
• 📝 The video emphasizes the importance of knowing and applying navigation rules, specifically rules 14, 15, 16, and 17 regarding crossing and head-on situations.
• 📣 The presenter concludes by announcing exclusive benefits for channel members, such as early access to videos and live chats.

Q & A

What was the primary scenario discussed in the video?

The scenario discussed involved a near-collision between a bulk carrier and a container ship in open waters. Both ships were approaching each other at full speed and collided due to a series of navigation errors and poor communication.

What were the initial courses and speeds of the two vessels involved?

The bulk carrier was steering a course of 310 degrees at a speed of 15 knots, while the container ship was steering 130 degrees at a speed of 23.7 knots.

What was the initial Closest Point of Approach (CPA) for the two vessels?

The initial CPA was about 0.45 nautical miles, which indicated a potential risk of collision given the ample sea room available in open waters.

What was the main mistake made by both ships at position number one?

The main mistake was that both ships failed to make a broad alteration to increase the CPA, despite being in open waters with enough sea room. They should have taken early and decisive actions to avoid a close-quarter situation.

How did the vessels respond at position number two and three?

At positions two and three, both vessels made only small alterations to their courses, which were not noticeable enough to effectively indicate their intentions or prevent the collision. The container ship altered six degrees to starboard, while the bulk carrier altered five degrees to port.

What critical action was taken too late by the vessels, leading to the collision?

When it was too late to prevent a collision, the container ship made a significant alteration of eighteen degrees to starboard, and the bulk carrier altered fifty degrees to port. These actions were too late to avoid the impact.

What were the three key questions the presenter posed about the collision?

The three key questions were: 1) What were the faults of each ship? 2) What should each ship have done? 3) By what percentage was each ship responsible for the collision?

How did the presenter assess the responsibility of each ship for the collision?

The presenter concluded that both ships were equally responsible for the collision. They both made poor decisions, failed to communicate effectively, and did not take appropriate action when it was required.

What should the give-way vessel (the container ship) have done to prevent the collision?

The container ship, being the give-way vessel, should have made a broad alteration to starboard early on, making its intentions clear to the bulk carrier and ensuring safe passage.

What should the stand-on vessel (the bulk carrier) have done if the container ship did not take appropriate action?

If the bulk carrier, as the stand-on vessel, noticed that the container ship was not taking appropriate action, it should have made a significant alteration to avoid the collision, possibly by turning to starboard to pass behind the container ship.