Warning for negligence of first principles
It is a sad fact that virtually every new advance in navigation has brought with it a number of accidents which have been contributed to by inappropriate use of the new equipment, usually because of the neglect of first principles.
The term “radar assisted collision” became well-known in the early days of commercial radar and in more recent years, the facility of inter-ship VHF, automated radar plotting aids and sophisticated integrated navigation systems involving computers have all contributed to expensive mistakes, often because of either complacency or inadequate training in the new equipment, which have permitted bad habits to form!
The emergence of the Automated Identification System is, without doubt, a great advance, but here too, there is some evidence that its availability to provide useful information on the “other ship” can, like other equipment, lead to complacency. It is also a fact that while it may be a mandatory fixture aboard larger vessels, there are many small leisure and fishing craft which are not so fitted.
A fatal accident in the North Sea last year, recently the subject of a report by the UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch, provides a salutary warning on the over reliance on AIS as a primary source of information on the conduct of other ships.
In this incident, a large ferry ran down a small fishing boat, causing the death of one of the fishermen. And while the fishing skipper had contributed to the accident by failing to keep an adequate lookout, working on deck with the lost hand as the two ships approached, the failure of the ferry bridge team raised the concern about the use of AIS.
While the ferry was modern, fast and well-equipped, the officer of the watch had got into the habit of using the AIS, rather than the ARPA to determine the collision risks of vessels in the vicinity. There was no plotting of the fishing boat, which had been seen visually, no bearings taken and when the risk of collision was determined and the ferry altered course, it was too close to clear the small craft.
The MAIB felt sufficiently concerned about this over-reliance on AIS that the report makes it clear that there is a real risk that if there is too great a focus upon this admittedly useful device to the exclusion of the radar, ARPA and visual references, there will be ingrained a sort of mental view that only targets with AIS information attached will be worth interrogating and other targets will be ignored. The fishing boat did not have an AIS fitted and for this reason appeared not to register with the officer of the watch as worthy of his close attention.
The accident also underlines a wider malaise that suggests that while modern ships are well-equipped, there is a sort of inherent laziness revealed by the fact that watchkeepers are failing to use the full range of equipment available, checking one source of information against another.
This has been the case in a number of recent groundings, where a watch officer has concentrated upon radar distances or electronic navigational data and failed to verify the position of the ship by other means. In some respect “taking the easiest way” is a very human failing, but can lead to disastrous consequences.
Source: BIMCO,Watchkeeper
