| The vessel departed from the terminal in the morning. The master, pilot, chief officer and helmsman were on the bridge. A proper pilot brief was not held as there was no specific plan and no discussion about risks regarding the departure. The vessel was facing downstream and departed under pilotage. One tug was available astern but was let go just after departure. However, another vessel was known to be proceeding upriver and approaching the area and it appears that the pilot decided to head further the south side of the river in order to pass the other vessel. By the time the pilot ordered port helm in order to head downriver, the vessel was caught in the flood tide and the bow started to swing to starboard. The standby tug could not assist, as it had been let go just after departure. The vessel increased power ahead but continued swinging to starboard, proceeding directly across the river at a speed of around 7 knots and heading for a vessel berthed at the terminal on the south bank. This high speed made the thrusters useless. At this point the master feared that the risk of collision was imminent, relieved the pilot and ordered full astern in order to reduce the speed and also take advantage of the transverse thrust effect of the right hand propeller to swing the bow further to starboard. At same time the anchor was dropped but it was too late. As a result of these actions the vessel’s bow cleared the berthed vessel by about 30 meters but the vessel made heavy contact with the berth at a speed of about 4 knots. Finding from the accident investigation by the flag state inspectors were: - The port state investigation found that the pilot had applied port helm too late to prevent the vessel’s bow from swinging to starboard once it entered the tidal stream. - This accident might have been prevented if the pilot had retained the option of using the tug for longer. - The master and pilot did not exchange detailed information. Had they discussed areas of the river transit that may have posed a risk, they might have decided to retain the use of the tug until the vessel was clear of the complex tidal flows.The investigation recommends the port authority to include in its procedures a requirement for vessels departing the terminal to retain the use of a tug until they have fully entered the stream, when a strong tidal counter-flow is present off the berth. | WHAT? Contact with Berth during Strong Flood Tide  1 WHY The vessel was south of the planned course line  2WHY There was inbound traffic so the pilot decided to position the vessel closer to shore 3WHY There was no specific plan and no discussion about risks regarding departure between the pilot and bridge team. A proper pilot brief wasn’t held. 4 WHY The bridge team disregarded company’s own departure procedures which required a pilot briefing which should address possible risks. 5 WHY The company wasn’ty avble to explain the importance of following approved procedures, MRM and company’s procedures on how to interact with pilot weren’t thorough enough. Consequences: extensive repairs to own vessel and quay, which also caused further loss of earnings. |
