The collision between the fishing vessel

Homeland
and
the ro-ro passenger vessel
Scottish Viking
(5 August 2010)

Drew, Ernest and Hamad

(June 24, 2011)
 Overview

 COLREGS Rules
 Vessel signs
 Nature of the incident
 Collision overview
 Contributing factor to the collision
 COLREGS rules breached and ignored
 Corrective actions
 Navigational Watch-Keeping practice ignored
 Corrective measures
 Conclusion
 References
 COLREGS RULES

 Rule 2 – responsibility
 Rule 5 – lookout
 Rule 7 – Risk of collision
 Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision
 Rule 15 – Crossing situation
 Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel
 Rule 17 – Action by the stand-on vessel
 Rule 34 – Maneuvering and warning signals
 Power driven Vessel

 Power driven Vesselththt

Fishing Vessel
 Nature of the incident

 Italian registered ro-ro passenger ferry

Scottish Viking on 5 August 2010, collided
with the UK registered fishing vessel
Homeland about 4 miles off St Abb’s Head.
 Fishing vessel Homeland sank
 One crew member fatality (Daniel McNeil).
 Overview of the collision

 The collision between Homeland and Scottish Viking

occurred because those responsible for the watch on either
vessel had not taken sufficient action to determine that a risk
of collision existed. On board Homeland, the stand-on vessel,
this was primarily because an inadequate lookout was being
kept and the wheelhouse was not being manned
continuously. On board Scottish Viking, the give-way vessel,
the watch-keeper took insufficient action to determine that a
risk of collision did exist, and , when the collision was
imminent, did not take effective action to avoid the two
vessels colliding.
 Contributing factors

 Manning and qualifications

 Incompetence
 Lack of navigation policies
 Un-compliance of safety management
 Lack of precautionary thought
 Radar was set on short-range 1.5 miles and echo did
not appear on display on time.
 Misunderstanding of sign signals.
COLREGS rules breached/ ignored

 Rule 2 – responsibilities (requires master to be

primary responsible for the safe and effective
navigation of the vessel). However, Scottish
Viking master handed over control to the
second officer. According the ISM code, master
has the responsibility for verifying that specified
requirements are observed, and motivating the
crew in observation of company policies.
 COLREGS Rules breached

 Rule 5 – lookout (proper lookout was not

performed by Homeland vessel watchman (Daniel
who was distracted by the skipper in assisting in
mending a torn net on the aft deck) Daniel lack
watch-keeping proficiency and without appropriate
qualifications and limited experience) STCW 95
states that no other duties should be assigned to
the lookout. Need for early detection and
monitoring.
 COLREGS rules breached Cond.

 Rule 7 – risk of collision (Homeland’s

watchkeeper did not use all appropriate
available means to establish if there was a risk
of collision. They left the wheelhouse
unmanned and there was no indication to the
skipper of any potential risk of collision). Need
to use radar, undue reliance on AIS rather than
visual/ radar monitoring.
 COLREGS Rules breached

 Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision (The

second officer’s late recognition of the need
to take avoiding action prevented him from
taking early avoiding action in accordance
with Rule 8). Need for early action, the
need for precautionary thinking. If in doubt,
assume it exist and appropriate action.
COLREGS rules breached Cond.

 Rule 15 - Crossing situation (The Second officer

delayed his decision , thereby eliminating his options
of collision avoidance by reducing speed or altering
course to starboard , particularly after Achieve had
altered her course to port. His only remaining option
was then to alert course to port , albeit contrary to
the spirit of Rule 15.
 Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel (Action
needed to be taking by the give-way vessel to avoid
collision was to late)
 COLREGS Rules breached

 Rule 17 - Action by the stand-on vessel

(Rule 17(b) requires the stand on vessel to
“take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision”. Homeland skipper attempted to
comply with rule 17 (b) however, his actions
were too late to be effective.
 Rules breached

 Rule 34 – Manoeuvring and warning signals

( Recognising that action was required by
Homeland to avoid collision, the second
officer should have sound at least five short
and rapid blast on the whistle in accordance
Rule 34(b). Need for correct signals to
avoid misunderstanding of intentions.
Navigational Watch-keeping practice
breached

 According ISM Code in lines with the

company’s navigation policy, it require
the master to be the primarily
responsible for safe and effective
navigation of the vessel.
 It requires navigational polices
contained in the SMS to be strictly
followed.
Navigational Watch-Keeping practice
breached

 At sea, the closet point of approach

(CPA) of not less than one (1) shall be
maintained whenever possible.
 Thee primary means of plotting shall be
the efficient use of all automatic radar
plotting aids (ARPA)
 Corrective Measures

 The master should have been available to

ensure that the company’s navigational
policies are being followed.
 The policy of closest point of approach not
having less than 1 mile should have been
maintained.
 The automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA)
should have been used to avoid the collision.
 Conclusion

 Although Daniel had intermittently returned to the wheelhouse

to check the navigational situation, these checks were
insufficiently thorough to identify a risk of collision with
Scottish Viking.
 Daniel’s inability to maintain a proper lookout was
compromised by the skipper’s priority of requiring his
assistance with mending the torn net on the aft deck.
 Daniel might have lacked sufficient watch-keeping proficiency,
given his absence of qualifications and limited experience.
 Conclusion cond.

 Scottish Viking’s second officer did not use the radar to

fully appraise the situation or the risk of collision.
 Daniel had not understood or anticipated the developing
situation.
 Scottish Viking’s second officer, when navigating in
close proximity to fishing vessels, did not usually take
early avoiding action. His experience was that fishing
vessels often carried out erratic maneuvers and that
taking early avoiding action could result in
unnecessary close-quarter situations.
 Conclusion cond.

 Scottish Viking’s second officer showed a poor

attitude towards guidance and regulations. He lacked
precautionary thought and failed to appreciate the
hazard he was creating by intentionally navigating in
close proximity to other vessels.
 It is apparent that the Scottish Viking’s master did not
sufficiently motivate the second officer to follow the
company’s navigational procedures, or verify that
they were being compiled with.
 References

 http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Ho
meland_Scottish-Viking_Report.pdf, viewed June 16,
2011.