COLLISION OF MUMBAI, msc SHIPS

[Captain Ted]

Unfortunately this is not a first and will be for sure not a last. As long the IMO waters  down the STCW 95, that virtually anyone can become sooner or later officer on a bridge of a seagoing vessel those accidents will keep happening.
The worst ever invented and "forced" onto ships are the ECDIS, eletronic charts navigation, a lot of collisioons happening just because of the ECDIS. Of course
now the IMO is in progress to make stringent regulations and recommends more training to nautical officers.  Perhaps IMO should have insisted on first training and then force ECDIS onto the very same nautical officers which are now blamed for inadequate use of the very same.  I was one of the few who said from the beginning that ECDIS will be a big collision creator, and that,s exactly what happens now all over the world.
All what I can say, as long, peoples with no knowledge of practical shipping are in the position to make laws and regualtions and peoples who really work on the ships are "never" consulted whatsoever those accidents will keep happening. I am now 25 years master of a vessel, and NEVER any authority/IMO/surveyor etc ever asked anything in the direction "what you think ot this", in other words, ashore in the regulatory offices of governments overseeing the shipping industry is no interest whatsoever to involve peoples from the practical field of sailing because that would expose how low the real knowledge ashore is whats really going on in the international shipping business and expose those very same people who make the regulation how incompetent they really are.

[Dmitry Rostopshin]

Hi CaptainTed, just interesting, can you explain how ECDIS itself can cause collision?

[Captain Ted]

HI SEAPILOT

Yep..will be interesting to see what the "experts" say.
How is the old saying,, the more land the more dumb :-)

[Captain Ted]

good day dmitry

ECDIS itself can not cause a accident,,as well as a radar can not cause it or a compass etcetc

but putting high tech gadgets on the vessels, for which crews are not trained causes the accidents. It sholud be put aboard once crews are trained for it and not put it aboard and then lament that crews using it and then wondering how
crews rely on it solely.  It is not a bad navigation tool in itself, but it is as we can daily see and hear in the untrained hands a very dangerous tool.
Keep in mind, that ECDIS was placed aboard to safe money, i.e. no more paper charts once two ECDIS systems are aboard and not to create more safety. The contrary happened, navigation became through it more unsafe.
Of course it was pushed onto ships for the "more safety" reason,,but that only if crews are trained for it,, which exactly was,what not happened.
Don,t forget that 90 % of officers on a bridge today coming from countries where the training procedures and schools are rather inadquate.

[Dmitry Rostopshin]

In my opinion you mixed reasons and consequences. Not ECDIS cause low level of personnels training, but low level of training requires more automatization of the vessel controls. I work in the similar field - development of VTS/VTMIS system and i can say most of the improvement is coming not from the industry but from the customers. I meet with many VTS Supervisor / Harbour masters (including people from european ports) and many of them were talking that personnel qualification is degrading in time, so "we need more complicated computer system with high level of automatic, desicion support bla-bla-bla". It seems to me this will again decrease level of personnel and so on. It's like a circle and i have no idea how to break it. I think there is a more-less the same picture on-board...

[Captain Ted]

good day dmitry

thats exactly what I say, you talk with VTs/Harbour masters,, but not with the peoples who have to work daily with it. The ECDIS of a VTS /Harbour master is stationary,, on the ships everything is moving. That the level on competency is decreasing, that is/was wanted, because starting in 80,s the shipping companies virtually stopped the training system because plenty of good skilled officers were avalaible special from Poland and after the Berlin wall fell from the whole former east block,,more or less.  Now it hits back, no qualified peoples anymore, and the result was,,lower the standards of training.  Ever since that happens, the peoples in regulatory positions try to catch up with more electronic on vessels, but to untrained peoples just that is the biggest problem. In ECDIS I for one consider the "TRIAL' application as the worst over all other. I personally watched how a officer put it in trial, and did not realize that a vessel which we just overtook was suddenly after the planned course change ahead of us again,,, that officer had no idea anymore what was going on, without intervention he would made a collison or at least a very close call. This happens on a daily basis. Of course electroncis were also placed on ships to take more crew off the ships. The problem is nowadays,,that there is that much electronic that actually there should be more peoples and not less.  A whish-thinking of course,, but nontheless reality.

[Dmitry Rostopshin]

I see the way out in the formalization of the all processes, like in aviation. Pilots have CRM (Crew Resourse Management) and checklist/operating procedures for everything. Same should be in marine work from all sides. This is not ideal solution but it works as we can see.

[Bob Scott]

The mis-use of new technology causing causing collisions is nothing new. Since the introduction of VHF radio there have been many instances of two captains or pilots agreeing over the air to (for instance) pass on the 'wrong' side for convenience resulting in a collision when, it turns out later, one of them misunderstood part of the exchange. Had they stuck by the traditional 'rules of the road', no accident would have occurred

[Captain Ted]

hi dimitry

I disagree to a big part. It is just this tick-list mentality that made it possible to water down STCW 95. We have a bridge team amangement system now,,also when it is too big parts impractical as can be.
We have also passage planning. Problem is ,before moving for example from anchorage to the pilot station they want us now to make a bridge team meeting and discuss the entire process and make a written plan.
Ever been at the panama canal, where you get as low as 30 min notice to get the ship moving, and if not passage is missed.
I would like to see that company/charterer who tells the Capt when he reports they lost just day /days hire and say,, good Capt,, more important is that you
discussed then the when you should be under way the passage plan to be underway. Other,,who is bridge team management,,all officer ?  which means I have to wake them all when acting is set to be quick ?   what then about rest times ?   which are now so very important.  can I tell an officer,,screw the sleeping times,,we have to move ?
As I stated before,,as long regulations for and on ships are done by peoples mainly long years out or never even sailed and without input on the practical possibility what they make into regulation we will keep mayhem on the bridges.
I anchored now after transit of the canal at Cristobal,, dropped anchor 3 cables away from another ship, with turning around on the anchor distance was to the other ships 1.6 cables, wind was calm,, inner anchorage,, and the OOW on the other ship called me I was too close,,, !!!!!!!!
that much for qualification and education in the maritime industry.  
In the german nautical schools, 4 years (8 semester) of which 2 are at sea the rest are in school,,they discussing now to cut the practical down to one semester !!!,,,  we need not more theoretical knowledge on bridges but practical skills as base as looking forward out of a window !!!!  ECDIS is exactly that what prevents that,, ECDIS is the "manna from heaven" for most young officers, what is not in the ECDIS does not exist for them !!!

brgds
capt ted