arosa-english船舶搁浅事故调查报告

合集下载

211018828_一起严重搁浅事故的教训

211018828_一起严重搁浅事故的教训

航海技术一起严重搁浅事故的教训邬志伟 朱 峰 张 珂 陆悦铭(上海港引航站,上海 200080)摘 要:一般发生的船舶海损事故原因不外乎人的不安全因素、物的不安全状态、作业环境不良和管理的缺陷,这些因素中,多数事故是由于人的“三违”现象造成的,物的不安全状态和作业环境不良发生的机率相对小一些。

本文通过发生在美国的一起超大型集装箱船严重搁浅事故及调查报告介绍,认为只要杜绝人的“三违”现象,这起事故是完全可以避免的。

同时对引航安全提出了具体的建议,从理论上杜绝类似事故的发生。

关键词:船舶;引航;搁浅;调查报告;“三违”现象;建议0 引 言2022年3月13日,美国东部时间18:12(以下时间相同),一艘由台湾省长荣海运(Evergreen Marine Corp.)经营的超大型集装箱船“长程”(Ever Forward)轮,由一名持证的美国马里兰州引航协会引航员(因涉及个人隐私,调查报告中用“引航员1”)从马里兰州巴尔的摩(Baltimore)港离泊出港,计划开往弗吉尼亚州诺福克(Norfolk)港。

20:18,该船在克雷吉尔航道(Craighill Channel)外的16号灯浮标附近搁浅。

图1是船讯网中“长程”轮搁浅的截图。

图1 船讯网中“长程”轮搁浅截图“长程”轮2020年9月28日交付,IMO编号9850551,在中国香港特区注册,船长334 m,船宽48.4 m,总吨位117 340,主机功率38 000 kW,设计船速24.1 kn,可装载约1.2万只标准集装箱,入级劳氏船级社。

事发当晚的天气能见度约为16 km,轻微的南风,气温5℃。

搁浅前,该船几乎满载,吃水12.95 m,航速13 kn,航向161°;船货载重超过13万 t,其中重油1 169 t、低硫油1 020 t。

由于搁浅水域平均水深仅仅只有7.3 m,该船深陷在海底的淤泥中,损失的船舶浮力特别大,因此属于严重的搁浅事故。

轮搁浅事故调查报告-广西海事局

轮搁浅事故调查报告-广西海事局

钦州“3.19”“仁建XX”轮搁浅事故调查报告钦州海事局2016年5月目录一、事故及调查概况二、事故船舶、船员等概况三、事故水域天气、海况和通航环境情况四、事故经过五、救助简要情况六、事故造成损失情况七、事故基本事实认定八、事故原因分析九、事故结论及责任判定十、安全管理建议MAIR100400201606钦州“3.19”“仁建XX”轮搁浅事故调查报告一、事故及调查概况(一)事故简况2016年3月19日0000时,从海口开往钦州港,运载集装箱14722吨的XX籍多用途船“仁建XX”轮(以下简称R轮)从钦州港东航道进港,约0137时搁浅于20-1#标东侧约160米处(21°37.746′N,108°40.345′E),至3月28日1931时脱浅。

此次事故造成R轮停航9.75天,直接经济损失约3168000元,事故未造成人员伤亡及海域污染,事故等级为一般等级事故。

(二)事故调查情况事故发生后,钦州海事局立即成立了事故调查组迅速开展调查取证工作。

调查组通过询问、现场勘查、调取AIS 航行轨迹等方式,获得船舶证书复印件等书证材料52份,水上交通事故报告书2份,水上交通事故现场勘查记录1份,询问笔录8份,音、影像资料3份。

二、事故船舶、船员等概况(一)船舶概况船名仁建XX船旗国中国船舶类型多用途船航区近海总吨19296净吨10805 总长(M)179.90船宽(M)27.60型深(M)14.20船体材料钢质主机功率(KW)6480主机数量 1建成日期2013年09月27日参考载货量27606T (二)航行设备配备情况名称A级AISGPS导航仪标准磁罗经电罗经测深仪电子海图系统雷达舵角指示器甚高频无线电装置中高频无线电装置数量 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 (三)船舶检验情况R轮持有中国船级社签发的海上船舶检验证书,《海上货船适航证书》有效期至2018年9月26日;持有中国船级社签发的国内航行船舶入级证书,有效期至2018年9月26日。

以案为鉴|新加坡海峡5.11两船相继搁浅事故浅析

以案为鉴|新加坡海峡5.11两船相继搁浅事故浅析

以案为鉴|新加坡海峡5.11两船相继搁浅事故浅析2020年5月11日凌晨,在新加坡海峡Batu Berhanti灯塔浅滩,6分钟内连续发生两起船舶搁浅事故。

时至今日,事故已经整整发生一个月,大型集装箱船“SHAHRAZ”轮仍在搁浅中。

6月7日中午小型油船“BERHAYA”轮并靠“SHAHRAZ”轮,据经验推测,“SHAHRAZ”轮卸油的可能性很大。

如果“SHAHRAZ”轮开始卸油,基于现有的资料判断,“SHAHRAZ”轮面临全损的可能性极大。

本文是基于不充分的AIS资料、网络报道、视频和照片,仅仅作为一种推测性分析,供广大航海人员参考,希望减少类似事故的发生。

本文的所有时间均为新加坡当地时间。

具体的事故经过和原因,需要等待港口国、船舶所属公司、船旗国、船级社、保险公司,根据VDR数据、其他内部数据、外部数据、船员调查、VTS数据、涉及船舶调查及其他相关调查的事故报告公布。

01关于事故的报导集装箱船“SHAHRAZ”轮和散装货船“SAMUDRA SAKTI I”轮,于当地时间5月11日凌晨,在圣约翰岛以南的新加坡海峡搁浅。

两船在东行航道向东航行,“SHAHRAZ”轮在前,“SAMUDRA SAKTI I”轮在后。

“SHAHRAZ”轮为了避让拖船“TB CANAYA”轮向右转向,“SHAHRAZ”轮也向右转向,两船相继发生搁浅。

“SHAHRAZ”轮搁浅在分道通航南侧Batu Berhanti的偏北位置,船中位于浅点最高处,“SAMUDRA SAKTI I”轮搁浅在Batu Berhanti的偏南的位置。

最初媒体报导两船相撞之后搁浅,通过咨询新加坡引航员和本文资料分析,两船并未发生碰撞。

视频1.事故相关视频02新加坡海峡概况新加坡海峡位于新加坡以南、印尼寥内群岛以北,西通马六甲海峡主段,东连南中国海,每年有超过8万艘次的船舶通过新加坡海峡。

新加坡海峡全长约70海里,宽度和水深不等,多岛屿和浅滩,港口和锚地密集,船舶流量大,各个船舶定线制警戒区中横穿的船舶较多,交通环境复杂、船舶间会遇频繁以及态势复杂,船舶交通事故的发生概率较大。

2005 年 4月 8日 J轮搁浅事故调查报告 为保护当事人的合 …

2005 年 4月 8日 J轮搁浅事故调查报告 为保护当事人的合 …

说明:为保护当事人的合法权益,报告中隐去了事故当事船舶、船公司、所有人或经营人的详细资料。

报告不得作为民事纠纷、刑事或行政诉讼的依据。

正式的报告以调查结束后送达给当事人的书面报告为准。

2005年4月8日J轮搁浅事故调查报告2005年4月8日2215时,J轮装载3200吨汽油靠泊东角头油库码头过程中搁浅,于次日1130时,利用涨潮并在拖轮的拖带下拖浅。

我处接报后,对事故进行了调查。

兹将调查情况报告如下:一、当事船舶概况船籍港:温州船舶种类:油船船舶材料:钢质建造日期:20040720建造地点:浙江乐清船舶尺度(总长/型宽/型深):89.08/13.5/6.4M总吨:2194净吨:1228载重吨:3510主机种类/数目/功率:内燃机/1/1500推进器种类/数目:螺旋桨/1船舶适合适航期:2005年7月19日二、船舶配员情况船舶最低配员证书要求该轮配备船长、大副、二副各一名,轮机长、大管轮、三管轮各一名,值班水手三名,值班机工三名,一名专职或两名兼职的GMDSS通用操作员。

该轮实际配员满足上述配员要求,GMDSS通用操作员由船长和大副兼任。

三、事故过程J轮第七航次由天津装载汽油3200吨开来蛇口,拟靠卸东角头油库。

于2005年4月8日抵达液货锚地抛锚等待靠泊指令,锚位22゜28.′43N,113゜51.′6E。

傍晚时分,船舶接到码头指令,要求2200时靠泊。

2030时,该轮开始备车,2035时,报深圳交管中心并征得同意后,起锚开往码头。

船长贺×是第一次航靠东角头油库,事前有进行航线计划如下:起锚后取航向126゜至22゜28.′0N,113゜52.′1E,尔后取航向154゜至22゜28.′0N,113゜52.′1E,接着取航向167゜至22゜26′′0N,113゜52.′95E,再取航向125゜0.′8到22゜25.53′N,113゜53′.68E,然后取向041゜至22゜28.′N,113゜56′E,最后以000゜接近目标泊位。

船舶事故触礁调查报告

船舶事故触礁调查报告

船舶事故触礁调查报告1. 引言本报告为对船舶事故触礁进行的调查及分析。

事故发生在(时间)(地点),导致(船名)船体触及海底礁石,造成了诸多损失。

本报告旨在分析事故发生的原因,并提出相关建议以防止类似事故再次发生。

2. 事故概述2.1 事故背景简要介绍事故发生的背景信息,包括船名、船龄、船员情况等。

2.2 事故经过详细描述事故发生的经过,包括船只接近礁石的路径、船只触礁的情况、事故期间的天气状况等。

2.3 事故影响列举事故造成的损失,包括船体受损情况、货物损失、环境影响等。

3. 事故分析3.1 人为原因分析对乘务人员的行为、操作及决策进行分析,包括船只行进速度、航线选择、导航误差等方面。

3.2 技术原因分析对船只设备、导航系统、通讯设备等技术方面的问题进行分析,包括设备故障、系统失效等情况。

3.3 天气条件分析对事故发生时的天气状况进行分析,包括风力、浪高、能见度等因素如何影响船只操纵能力。

4. 结论通过对事故的分析,得出以下结论:4.1 事故的主要原因是……(归纳人为、技术、天气等因素)4.2 相关责任方应对事故负起责任,并采取措施以防止类似事故再次发生。

5. 建议根据分析结果,提出以下建议:5.1 强化船员培训,提高其对导航系统及设备操作的熟悉程度。

5.2 加强与气象部门的合作,确保船只在恶劣天气下采取相应措施,如调整航速及航线等。

5.3 定期检查船只设备并及时修复或更换不符合标准的部件。

6. 总结本报告对船舶事故触礁进行了详细的调查和分析。

通过确认事故的原因,并提出相关建议,有助于预防类似事故的再次发生。

最终目标是提升船舶安全水平,保障人员生命财产安全以及维护海洋环境的稳定。

海难事故情况汇报

海难事故情况汇报

海难事故情况汇报近期发生了一起海难事故,造成了严重的人员伤亡和财产损失。

事故发生后,我们立即展开了救援和调查工作,以下是事故情况的汇报:事故发生于上周五晚上,一艘载有200名乘客和船员的客轮在航行途中遭遇了强烈的风暴和大浪袭击,导致船体受损严重,随后发生了倾覆事故。

事故发生地点位于离岸约30公里的海域,救援工作面临了极大的困难。

在事故发生后,我们立即启动了救援预案,调派了多艘救生艇和直升机前往事故现场展开救援行动。

同时,我们也与当地海事部门和救援机构紧密合作,共同协调救援工作。

经过紧张的救援,我们成功营救了大部分乘客和船员,并将他们送往医院接受治疗。

经过初步调查,事故的原因主要是天气恶劣导致船只失稳,加之船体结构疲劳,最终导致了倾覆事故的发生。

同时,我们也发现了一些安全管理方面的问题,包括船舶维护不到位、人员疏于安全意识等。

我们将会对事故进行深入调查,找出事故的根本原因,并采取有效措施避免类似事故再次发生。

在事故中,共有30名乘客和船员不幸遇难,另有50人受伤。

我们对遇难者表示深切的哀悼,并将全力协助家属处理后续事宜。

同时,我们也将为受伤人员提供全面的医疗援助和心理疏导,帮助他们尽快恢复身体和心理健康。

事故导致了船只的全损,造成了巨大的财产损失。

我们将全力配合保险公司进行理赔工作,确保受损船只和相关财产得到合理的赔偿。

同时,我们也将对船只进行全面检修和维护,确保船只安全可靠地重新投入使用。

最后,我要感谢所有参与救援和调查工作的人员,你们的勇敢和专业使得救援工作取得了成功。

我也要向遇难者表示深切的哀悼,向受伤者和家属表示诚挚的慰问。

我们将从事故中吸取教训,加强安全管理,确保类似事故不再发生。

以上就是对海难事故情况的汇报,希望大家能够理解和支持我们的工作。

我们将继续努力,全力做好善后工作,确保事故处理工作的顺利进行。

感谢大家的关注和支持。

英国海上事故调查局发布了一份对於某货船在英国东部海...

英国海上事故调查局发布了一份对於某货船在英国东部海...

英國海上事故調查局發佈了一份對於某貨船在英國東部海岸砂壩擱淺事故的調查報告。

該輪的電子海圖顯示與資訊系統是其主要的航行工具,但是該輪的駕駛員無人接受過使用該種系統的培訓。

擱淺發生時在船上的駕駛員當中,大副和二副均未受過操作電子海圖顯示與資訊系統的培訓,但他們在其他船上都用過這種設備。

船長從未使用過這種設備,也未接受過這種設備或任何其他電子助航設備的操作培訓。

結果,這種系統具備的本來可以避免該次事故發生的許多功能未被使用。

類似因素也是最近在英國水域發生的諸多擱淺事故的起因。

值班時,二副在為船舶掛靠格裏姆斯比期間將要進行的保安和安全管理檢查準備材料。

他還做好了自引航員登輪地至預定靠泊泊位的航線計劃。

值班駕駛員倚賴於電子海圖顯示與資訊系統的警報來提醒船舶將要轉向或者偏離預定航線超過185米的情形。

對於船舶航行的監控實際上是由電子海圖顯示與資訊系統來執行的,因為當時值班駕駛員將大部份值班時間用於為即將來到的檢查作準備和製作航線計劃。

駕駛員假定只要船舶在航線上就會安全無虞。

因此,他幾乎不關注船舶的航向;在船舶距離South Haisbro 的方位標誌及Mid Haisbro 的右舷錐形浮標約1海浬駛過時,忽視了這些標誌的重要意義;在轉向前沒有檢查新的航向;考慮到潮水的高度,在船舶擱淺前未察看可能在船頭可以直接看到的漩渦;也沒有確保回聲測深儀已打開。

這些行動是一名值班駕駛員的基本職責,其毫無疑問會使駕駛員有足夠的時間發現船舶前方的水深不足從而成功採取規避措施。

電子海圖顯示與資訊系統對於航線計劃而言可能是一種無價的資產。

但是,存在著值班駕駛員對於其顯示的資訊越發信賴而毫不置疑的危險。

正如該案所揭示,此種信賴可能是錯誤的。

無論是否有電子助航設備,值班駕駛員仍須保持警惕,持續監控船位,以防範航行中出現的危險。

619號公告—1/09—電子海圖顯示與資訊系統的使用—全球 2009年1月16日星期五擱淺發生時,船長正在其居住艙內,他感覺到了船舶振動的變化,然後呼叫二副,要求後者檢查水深。

案例分析(某轮搁浅沉没事故)

案例分析(某轮搁浅沉没事故)

一、大纲要求:检验应考人员对典型事故案例的报告、调查、取证、分析、性质认定、责任划分与处理、整改措施与总结的熟悉程度。

二、重点、难点:1、掌握典型安全生产事故的调查、分析和处理方法;2、掌握事故调查、分析、处理、提出整改和预防措施等方面的有关知识。

三、内容讲解:案例27 某轮搁浅沉没事故某年某月某日21:30时许,某省某集团有限公司所有、某县海运公司经营的某轮,在该县港海域搁浅沉没,船上12名船员,1人获救,9人死亡,2人下落不明,直接经济损失约270多万元。

一、事故情况及经过1.某轮船舶概况该船舶总长71 m,型宽11 m,型深3. 55 m,总吨776 t,净吨435 t,载重1200t,钢质货船,横骨架式结构,l货舱,限5级风以下航行。

救生设备:某型气胀式救生筏2只。

某轮原是一艘1 000t级长江非动力驳船,后改建为自航货船,再后来改建成集装箱舱船,再又改装为通舱散货船。

2救生筏概况某轮所配两只救生筏,由某救生设备厂制造,为单浮胎渔用简易筏(目前该型式救生筏已为淘汰产品),该救生筏使用说明书中注明:可供海洋捕捞的渔业船舶作救生配备之用。

据该厂介绍,该型式救生筏只能用于近海渔业捕捞船,绝对不能用于其他船上。

某轮所配两只救生筏最后一次打开检验日期是某年某月某日,由某市气胀式救生筏检修站检验。

3.事故发生时的自然条件(1) 某气象台天气预报:事故前一天有雨,东转东南风6级,下午转北转东北风6~7级逐渐增强到7—8级,中到大浪转巨浪。

当日有雨,北到西北风7~8级,次日转6—7级,巨浪转大浪。

(2)该县气象局合德地区测站(离海港约20 km)天气实况记录(地面气象观测资料):事故前一天23:40时至当日20:00时,阴有雨,雨量中等,降水量27.7 mm,最低温度5.4℃,东到东南风4级,最大8级;当日20:00时至次日15:30,降水量8.3 mm,最低温度4.1℃,东南风3级,下午转西北风4级,最大8级(注:沿海风力比内陆风力一般大1—2级)。

船舶事故调查报告

船舶事故调查报告

船舶事故调查报告船舶事故调查报告摘要:本文对一起船舶事故进行了详细的调查和分析。

事故发生在某海域,一艘货船与一艘渔船发生碰撞,造成人员伤亡和财产损失。

通过对现场勘察、船舶黑匣子数据的分析以及相关证人证言的收集,我们得出了事故原因和责任的结论。

本报告旨在提供给相关部门和船舶管理者以及船员,以便他们能够从事故中吸取教训,采取措施预防类似事故的再次发生。

一、事故背景事故发生在某海域,当时天气条件良好,能见度较好。

货船是一艘载重量约为5000吨的大型船舶,负责运输大宗货物。

渔船是一艘小型渔船,主要用于捕捞作业。

两艘船在事故发生前,都按照规定的航行路线行驶。

二、事故经过根据事故现场勘察和相关证人证言,我们得知事故发生时,货船正按照航行计划,以适当的速度和航向行驶。

而渔船则在货船的右舷附近进行捕捞作业。

由于两船之间的距离过近,货船未能及时发现渔船。

在事故发生前,货船的雷达系统正常工作,但由于渔船较小,雷达系统并未显示出渔船的存在。

渔船也未能及时发现货船的接近,导致两船发生碰撞。

三、事故原因分析1. 人为因素在事故中,人为因素是主要的原因之一。

货船的船员未能及时发现渔船,并未采取避让措施。

渔船的船员也未能及时察觉货船的接近,并未采取适当的行动避免碰撞。

这表明船员的观察和判断能力存在一定问题。

2. 通讯问题事故发生时,货船和渔船之间未能进行有效的通讯。

如果双方能够通过无线电或其他通讯方式互相告知自己的位置和航行意图,或许能够避免碰撞的发生。

3. 规则遵守根据相关规定,货船应当保持一定的安全距离,并采取避让措施。

而渔船则应当避开航行中的大型船只。

然而,在这起事故中,两船未能遵守相关规则,导致碰撞的发生。

四、事故责任根据调查结果,我们认为事故的主要责任在于货船的船员。

他们未能及时发现渔船的存在,并未采取适当的行动避免碰撞。

渔船的船员也负有一定的责任,因为他们未能及时察觉货船的接近。

五、预防措施1. 强化船员培训船员应接受更加全面和严格的培训,提高他们的观察和判断能力。

2011-05-11-12-07-06-5781关于“深能1”轮搁浅事故的情况通报_

2011-05-11-12-07-06-5781关于“深能1”轮搁浅事故的情况通报_

交通运输部明传电报签批:徐祖远 等级: 交海明电〔2010〕0932关于“深能1”轮搁浅事故的情况通报各省、自治区、直辖市交通运输厅,上海市港口管理局,各直属海事局、救助局,中远、中海、中外运长航、招商、中交集团:2010年4月3日1705时许,深圳市能源运输有限公司所属、天津基马克斯国际船舶管理有限公司管理的中国籍散货船“深能1”轮在从澳大利亚格拉斯通港装载68,052吨煤开往中国鲅鱼圈途中误入澳大利亚大堡礁国家公园禁航区,在概位23°06′ .0S/151°39 ′ .6E处搁浅,该起事故造成该轮底部不同程度受损,无人员伤亡,部分燃油泄露,部分珊瑚礁受损。

事故发生后,中国海事局向澳大利亚派出海上事故安全调查官,履行船旗国海事调查的责任和义务,现将有关情况予以通报,望各有关单位引起高度重视,结合《国务院关于进一步加强企业安全生产工作的通知》(国发〔2010〕23号),加强企业安全管理,认真排查航运企业存在的事故隐患,确保安全生产。

一、事故调查分析(一)船舶驾驶人员存在的不安全行为。

“深能1”轮大副在接班后,未能认真核实船舶航速、风流速度和方向以及风流对船舶航速、航向的影响,虽然查看了画在海图上的新航线,但并没有核对船舶到该转向点的准确距离和准确时间。

并且航行半小时后,仍未核实上述情况以及船舶所处位置,做好转向准备工作。

最终导致船舶驶过转向点,搁浅在道格拉斯浅滩上。

(二)影响上述不安全行为的因素。

1.临时改变航行计划、更改航线,而没有分析更改航线对航行安全的影响。

通常情况下,二副制定航行计划,设定航线后,需要请示船长同意。

船长要认真研究航行计划,对航经水域附近的浅礁、浅点、狭水道、通航密集区等做出标注,并提醒驾驶人员注意。

本次事故前,二副对航线进行了更改,但船长未对新航线可能造成航行安全方面的后果,即新航线直接对着浅礁航行可能发生搁浅事故进行分析,提请驾驶员以引起足够重视。

2.大副接班后未认真核算到达新转向点的时间和距离。

船舶沉没事故报告

船舶沉没事故报告

船舶沉没事故报告引言本报告旨在对一起船舶沉没事故进行全面的调查和分析。

该事故发生于2022年5月15日,在南海海域,涉及一艘名为“海翼号”的货船。

我们将在本报告中详细介绍事故的经过、原因和应对措施,以及事故给相关方面带来的影响。

事故经过1. 事故发生时间和地点船舶沉没事故发生于2022年5月15日,时间约为下午3点,地点位于南海海域。

2. 事发船舶信息事故涉及的船舶为“海翼号”货船。

该货船是一艘中型货船,船龄约为10年。

船舶载重量为5000吨,主要用于跨洋运输。

3. 事故经过据事故目击者回忆,当天下午3点左右,天气状况良好。

突然间,一道巨大的浪潮袭击了“海翼号”货船,造成船体摇晃剧烈。

船员迅速开始应对紧急情况,并向海事监管机构求助。

然而,由于浪潮的猛烈程度超出预料,船舶受到严重损坏,开始倾斜并迅速下沉。

船员们紧急启动了逃生计划,但由于时间紧迫和紧急情况下的混乱,只有部分船员成功逃生,其中包括船长和部分乘客。

不幸的是,还有一些船员被困在船舶内,无法及时脱离。

在救援人员抵达现场时,船舶已经完全沉没。

救援人员展开全力搜救行动,但截至目前,仍有数名船员下落不明。

事故原因通过对事故现场的调查和相关证人的供词,我们得出了以下初步结论,认为船舶沉没事故的原因为:1. 强烈浪潮事故发生时,南海海域突然出现了一道强烈的浪潮,给船舶造成了剧烈的冲击。

该浪潮可能是由于天气突变和地理因素导致的。

2. 船舶结构问题“海翼号”货船在经历了多年的使用后,船体结构已经出现了一些老化和损坏。

这使得船舶在遭受强烈冲击时更加脆弱,无法抵御外部压力。

3. 不当的应对措施在浪潮袭击船舶时,船员们迅速采取了应急措施。

然而,在紧急情况下,混乱和恐慌可能导致了一些不当的决策,进一步加剧了事故的严重程度。

应对措施1. 救援行动一旦接到求救信号,海事监管机构立即组织了救援行动。

救援人员乘坐直升机和救生艇前往现场,并全力搜救受困的船员。

然而,船舶沉没所导致的水域混浊和恶劣天气条件给搜救工作带来了一定的困难。

某轮搁浅事故调查

某轮搁浅事故调查
天津 3 0 0 4 5 0 ) ( 中国航 海 图书 出版社


要 :近 5 年 来 ,中国沿海港 口建设 飞速发展 ,沿 海各港 口 、港 区变化 巨大 ,为 了进
步 满足 用户 全 面 了解我 国沿海 港 口发 展 情 况 , 中 国航 海 图书 出版社 与 中 国港 口协会 合作 编 关键 词 : 《 中 国沿海港 口图集 》 目的 设 计 特 点 编制 出版 头 泊位 3 1 8 6 2个 ,仅万 吨级 以上 泊位就 有 1 8 8 6 个。
该区 域水 深为 0 m;
“ A”轮船 舶检 验 证书齐 全 有效 ,其 中 《 海 上 货 船 适 航证 书 》 核定 准 予航 行 近海 航 区 ( 航线) , 作 化 学 品液 货 船 用 ;最近 一 次 安检 共 查 出缺 陷 2 O
项 ,全部 为开 航前 纠 正 。
该水域 事 发 当天只 有 “ A”轮 1 条 船舶 的 出港
某轮搁 浅事故调查
王维 印
喻启胜
毕 学 军
某 轮搁浅事故调查
王维印 喻 启胜
( 大沽 口海事局
毕 学军
天津 3 0 0 4 5 7 )

要: 文章通过一起船舶搁浅事故的调查 实践 , 希望为今后调查人 员编写海事调查报
事故 调 查 报 告 编 写 工 泊位 与主航 道 连接 水域 和航 标布 设情 况 。 ” A” 轮 配有 电子海 图, 事发 时大港 港 区 电子海 图未更 新 , 未
航向 0 0 6 。,驾驶 员未 发现 船 舶偏 离港 池及 连接 水 域 存在 搁 浅风 险 。 1 2 0 6时搁 浅 , 当时 航 向是 0 8 0 。。 搁 浅 部位 是舯 前 部 , 搁 浅地 点在大 港 区 1 0 . 1 2 液 体 化 工 泊位 与 主 航道 连 接水 域 A 5 浮 标 西 北侧 3 8 。

船舶搁浅事故分析报告模板

船舶搁浅事故分析报告模板

船舶搁浅事故分析报告模板
概述
本报告旨在对船舶搁浅事故进行分析和总结,以便进一步改进航行安全管理和
减少类似事故的发生。

该事故发生于XX年XX月XX日在XX区域,涉及XX船舶。

事故经过
事故发生时,该船舶正在进行XX任务,由于XX原因导致船舶失去控制,最
终搁浅于XX地点。

船舶损坏严重,但未造成人员受伤或生命危险。

事故原因分析
经过初步分析,该事故的原因主要如下:
1.设备故障:XX设备发生故障,导致船舶无法控制方向。

2.人为疏忽:船员在操作中存在XX疏忽,未及时发现设备故障并进行
处理。

以上原因均为该事故发生的直接原因,但我们也需要深入探究背后的根本原因。

首先,设备故障的发生可能是由于船舶维护保养不当造成的。

其次,操作中的
疏忽可能与船员培训不足有关。

对策与建议
针对以上分析,我们提出以下建议:
1.加强船舶维护保养工作,定期进行检查和维修,确保设备的正常运转。

2.加强船员培训,特别是操作技能和危机应对能力的培训,提高船员的
整体素质。

3.在任务执行前,进行全面的风险评估,确保任务的可行性及安全性。

以上建议应该有助于提升船舶的安全性和减少类似事故的发生。

总结
船舶搁浅事故对航行安全带来了一定的威胁,但也提醒我们需要不断改进和完
善管理,加强设备保养和船员培训,提高安全意识和应变能力,从而保障航行的安全和稳定。

船舶搁浅风险评估报告模板

船舶搁浅风险评估报告模板

船舶搁浅风险评估报告模板背景船舶搁浅是指船舶在航行过程中因为各种原因(例如天气条件、导航和机械故障等)而不能前进或离开险境的现象。

船舶搁浅可能造成的损失以及由此带来的经济和环境后果都是极其严重的。

因此,必须评估这种事件的风险,并制定相关措施来控制和减少搁浅事件的发生。

目的本文档旨在提供一个船舶搁浅风险评估报告的模板,以帮助有关方面进行风险评估和控制。

确定搁浅风险在确定船舶搁浅风险时,需要考虑以下因素:1.船舶的特性和安全记录;2.航线和航行条件;3.天气和海洋环境;4.经验水平和训练程度等船员因素;5.设备和机械问题;以及6.船舶和海港规章制度。

评估风险为了评估船舶搁浅风险,可以使用以下流程:1.确定可能导致搁浅的原因,例如天气、船舶故障等。

2.评估每个风险因素发生的可能性和严重性。

3.计算每个因素的风险值。

4.将每个因素的风险值相加,以获得总体风险值。

5.根据总体风险值,确定搁浅事件的概率和影响程度。

6.基于风险评估结果,为减少风险制定控制措施。

控制措施为减少船舶搁浅风险,可以采取以下控制措施:1.加强航行安全员的培训和实践经验。

2.提高船舶的维护保养水平。

3.加强船舶设备和机械的监管和维护。

4.实施严格的航行路线和航行条件规定。

5.加强天气和海洋环境的监测和预警。

6.建立有效的搁浅事件应急响应机制。

结论船舶搁浅是一种严重的事故,可能造成巨大的经济和环境损失。

为了减少这种风险,需要进行风险评估,并制定相应的控制措施。

本文提供一个评估船舶搁浅风险和制定相应控制措施的框架,以帮助相关方面更好地管理和控制这种风险。

海事搁浅事故案例分析反思

海事搁浅事故案例分析反思

海事搁浅事故案例分析反思分析:1、航行过失船舶驾管人员的航行过失主要有:航线设计不够合理,航线周围或转向点附近有浅滩或岛礁;海图和航海图书资料引用错误或更新不及时,没有使用合适比例尺的海图;电子海图显示方式、安全水深、安全等深线及其他危险警报设置不合理;驾驶台值班配员不足及人员疲劳,特别是6/6码头轮班制后的第一个航行班,极易造成驾驶员疲劳;船舶进行避让,尤其是避让渔区时严重偏航,驾驶员集中精力操船而忽略了船位的偏离;船舶富余水深安全余量不足,忽略船体下沉和大潮汛的影响。

2、恶劣天气船舶在恶劣天气下航行或锚泊,易受狂风、大浪、长涌、强流、低能见度等不利因素影响,从而导致船舶操纵受限或渐渐失控,进而搁浅。

3、机械故障船舶主机、辅机、舵机等重要设备在船体受损、保养不当和误操作等情况下都可能发生故障,并导致船舶失控,进而搁浅。

4、意外走锚锚地附近港口泄洪、大潮汛、锚设备故障等原因都可能导致船舶意外走锚而使得船舶趋向搁浅危险。

同时上述驾管船舶过失和驾驶员对恶劣天气应对不足也是造成船舶意外走锚的原因。

由于在船舶发生搁浅事故时,无法立即判定船体搁浅位置,因此,船长切勿盲目用车、舵和侧推器企图自行脱险,这种做法极易造成船体、侧推器、螺旋桨和舵的进一步损伤,还可能导致溢油和环境损害等二次事故。

船舶遭遇搁浅后,船长应根据应急计划要求,尽快将搁浅船位、搁浅前对地航速、开航六面吃水以及搁浅后六面吃水、船舶油水分布、货物情况、船体破损和舱室进水情况、天气和海况等信息向公司和就近的港口当局报告。

并迅速收集整理好船舶证书、图纸和稳性资料,为后续制定脱浅方案做好准备。

通常,在一两个潮汐日不能借助自身压排水和涨潮自行脱浅的情况下,应安排水下探摸,核查船舶的搁浅部位以及船体的受损情况,并根据浮力损失法或重量增加法进行拖轮协助脱浅或者过驳减载脱浅。

搁浅事故会导致船体受损,将产生船舶修理费用以及相关船级检验费用;协助脱浅而产生的拖轮费用和救助费用或过驳减载而产生减载及转运费用。

船舶搁浅事故与应急措施

船舶搁浅事故与应急措施

船舶搁浅事故与应急措施编者序应急救援知识是知识综合文库收集整理编辑而成,下载后,能够帮助各位解决实际问题。

文档下载后可定制修改,请根据实际需要进行调整和使用,谢谢!前言下载提示:应急救援一般是指针对突发、具有破坏力的紧急事件采取预防、预备、响应和恢复的活动与计划。

根据紧急事件的不同类型,分为卫生应急、交通应急、消防应急、地震应急、厂矿应急、家庭应急等领域的应急救援。

Download tips:Emergency rescue generally refers to activities and plans for prevention, preparation, response and recovery of sudden and destructive emergencies.一、船舶搁浅事故的危害船舶搁浅、触礁所造成的危害是极其严重的。

如1978年3月6日,利比里亚超大型油轮AMOCOCADIZ在法国布里塔里海域因舵机损坏导致船舶触礁,船体断裂,溢出原油22万吨,污染法国沿岸250公里,直接经济损失3亿美元,间接损失不可估量;1999年11月24日,烟台烟大汽车轮渡股份有限公司的“大舜”号客轮在航行途中由于船舱起火,导致船舶搁浅倾覆,造成全船300多人仅生还20多人的特大海难事故,给我国海上客运业带来巨大经济损失,对社会产生了重大影响。

二、船舶造成搁浅的原因经过主管机关调查发现,船舶搁浅的主要原因并不复杂,主要表现为以下几个方面:(1)由于船长、驾驶员、引水员或其他船员的航行疏忽而发生船舶搁浅。

(2)由于风浪、流的影响把船推向海岸造成船舶搁浅。

(3)在有限的水域中为避免与他船发生碰撞而造成船舶搁浅。

(4)为了防止船舶自身的沉没而故意造成船舶搁浅。

三、船舶搁浅后的应急处理1.船舶搁浅后船长的应急处理(1)分析船舶搁浅状况在许多情况下,船舶搁浅之后处于极其不稳定的状态。

因此,船舶搁浅后,首先要保持镇静,稳定船员的情绪,船长应想方设法尽快调查清楚船舶搁浅位置及周围的地理环境,具体调查项目如下:1)船舶搁浅状况:①船舶搁浅前后吃水及吃水差。

船舶事故调查报告

船舶事故调查报告

船舶事故调查报告一、事故概述事故发生时间,一艘名为船名的船舶在事故发生地点发生了一起严重的事故。

该船的船舶类型为船舶类型,总吨位为总吨位,主要从事船舶主要用途运输。

二、船舶及船员情况1、船舶信息该船于建造时间建造,船龄为船龄,最近一次的维修保养时间为最近维修保养时间。

船舶的设备状况在事故前被认为处于正常运行状态,但经过后续检查发现存在一些潜在的安全隐患。

2、船员情况船上共有船员船员人数名,包括船长、大副、轮机长等主要职务。

船员的资质和培训记录显示均符合相关规定要求,但在应急处理能力方面存在一定的不足。

三、事故经过事故发生时间,船舶在正常航行中突然遭遇了恶劣天气情况或其他意外因素。

起初,船员们按照应急预案进行操作,但由于具体原因,导致船舶失去控制,偏离了原定航线。

随后,船舶与碰撞物体或其他导致事故的直接对象发生了碰撞,造成了船体的严重损坏。

事故发生后,船员们立即启动了求救信号,并采取了一系列自救措施。

四、事故原因分析1、人为因素船员在面对突发情况时,判断和决策出现失误,未能及时采取最有效的应对措施。

船员之间的沟通协作不够顺畅,导致操作指令传达不清晰,影响了应急处理的效率。

2、环境因素恶劣的天气条件给船舶的航行带来了极大的困难,增加了事故发生的风险。

3、船舶设备因素部分关键设备在关键时刻出现故障,未能发挥应有的作用。

船舶的维护保养工作可能存在不到位的情况,导致一些潜在的问题未能及时发现和解决。

五、事故损失情况1、人员伤亡本次事故造成了伤亡人数人死亡,受伤人数人受伤。

受伤人员已被及时送往附近医院进行救治。

2、船舶损坏船体遭受了严重的撞击和破损,部分舱室进水,船舶的动力系统、导航系统等关键设备也受到了不同程度的损坏。

3、货物损失船上运载的货物货物类型及数量遭受了损失,估计经济损失达到具体金额。

六、应急救援情况在接到求救信号后,当地的海事部门、救援队伍以及周边船只迅速响应,展开了紧张有序的救援行动。

经过救援时间的努力,成功营救了获救人数名船员,并控制了事故的进一步恶化。

船舶搁浅事故报告

船舶搁浅事故报告

船舶搁浅事故报告报告人:船长事故时间:2021年5月12日上午10点事故地点:南海附近海域概述:因遭遇强烈海风和浪涌,船只在行驶中突遇突发状况,造成船舶搁浅。

经过全体船员的协同努力,成功将船只拖上海岸,没有造成人员伤亡和渔船污染。

现将事故情况进行简要报告。

事件经过:当天上午10点左右,船只航行至南海附近海域时,海风和浪涌突然增强。

由于多次经验判断海况可行,船员没有考虑可能遭遇突发气象情况。

但不幸的是,突然增强的海风和浪涌给船只带来了严重挑战,船只无法正常前行。

船长第一时间命令全体船员进行救援,并启动船只的应急系统。

经过紧急的应对措施,船只成功避开了暴风圈,但船只已经受到了不同程度的损伤。

此时,船长在判断海况后,决定通过将船只搁浅确保全体船员的安全。

接下来,船舶搁浅在少量漂浮物的支撑下顺利停在了海岸。

全体船员当即展开抢险救援,查看设备故障和损坏程度,排除隐患并拟定下一步工作方案。

经过几小时的紧张抢险和修复工作,船只成功脱险,并正常驶回母港。

事故影响:该事件在短时间内没有造成人员伤亡和污染情况,但船只的损坏程度较为严重,需要进行进一步的修复工作。

与此同时,因为该船只在海域搁浅,可能对周边渔船和海洋生态造成一定影响,逐步排除和修复相关影响已成为我们下一步的工作重点。

总结:船舶搁浅是一种常见的事故类型,在面对出现意外情况时,船员应该紧急启动应急系统,及时做出行驶方向调整,保障全体人员安全。

船长和全体船员在该事件中展现出了高超的技能和应对能力,为船只的成功脱险奠定了基础,有效避免了事件进一步扩大。

我们将以此次事故为基础,加强船员的培训和应急管理体系建设,并在今后的航行过程中注重气象风险的考虑,全力防范和控制事故风险,确保航行安全。

相关主题
  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Report on the investigation ofthe grounding and total loss ofthe United Kingdom-registered fishing vesselArosa (M321)on Doonguddle rockoff the west coast of Irelandwith the loss of 12 crew members3 October 2000Marine Accident Investigation BranchFirst Floor, Carlton HouseCarlton PlaceSouthamptonUnited KingdomSO15 2DZReport No 41/2001December 2001Extract fromThe Merchant Shipping(Accident Reporting and Investigation)Regulations 1999The fundamental purpose of investigating an accident under these Regulations is to determine its circumstances and the cause with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and the avoidance of accidents in the future. It is not the purpose to apportion liability, nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve the fundamental purpose, to apportion blame.CONTENTSPageGLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSSYNOPSIS1SECTION 1 - FACTUAL INFORMATION31.1 Particulars of Arosa and accident3 1.2 Arosa41.2.1 The vessel and background41.2.2 The crew51.2.3 Details of vessel survey61.2.4 Navigational equipment and practices7 1.3 Narrative101.3.1 Events leading up to the grounding101.3.2 Events after the grounding12 1.4 Environmental conditions15 1.5 Keeping a safe navigational watch on fishing vessels18 1.6 Musters and drills19 1.7 Fishermen’s safety training20SECTION 2 - ANALYSIS212.1 Aim21 2.2 The reasons for apparently seeking shelter21 2.3 The approach to the Irish Coast22 2.4 The grounding232.4.1 The approach to Skerd Rocks232.4.2 Possible reasons for the grounding26 2.5 The abandonment of Arosa30 SECTION 3 - CONCLUSIONS313.1 Findings31 3.2 Possible contributory causes32 SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS34 Annex 1GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS°C degrees CelsiusCOSPAS/SARSAT Search and rescue satellite systemEPIRB Emergency position indicating radio beacon EPSHOMÉtablissement Principal du Service Hydrographique etOcéangraphique de la MarineETA Estimated time of arrivalgt gross tonnagekW kilowattMAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodMCA Maritime and Coastguard AgencyUK United KingdomUTC Universal co-ordinated timeVHF Very high frequencySYNOPSISAt about 0400 (UTC) on 3 October 2000, the UnitedKingdom-registered, but Spanish owned and operated,fishing vessel Arosa ran aground on Doonguddle rock,which is off the west coast of Ireland and about 10 milesnorth of the north entrance to Galway Bay. The vesselwas lost, and all but one of the 13 crew members losttheir lives. The Irish Department of the Marine andNatural Resources informed the MAIB of the accident at0840 that day. Captain P Kavanagh carried out theinvestigation.The fishing vessel had stopped fishing at about 1846 on2 October 2000 and had begun a passage towards thenearest point of land on the Irish coast. The weather forecast for the area in which she was fishing, was for winds to increase up to a possible storm force 10. The patrón de pesca (skipper) apparently decided to head for shelter in Galway Bay. Arosa did not make a direct course to the entrance of Galway Bay but was offset to the north, which put the strong winds and rough seas further abaft the beam. This eased the motion of the vessel for the crew members, who were asleep in their cabins. Later on during the passage, the patrón de costa (mate) took over the navigational watch.A deckhand was still awake in his bunk when he heard a loud bang, which he dismissed as a large wave hitting the side of the vessel. However, shortly afterwards he felt the vessel striking rocks and heard the patrón de costa shouting in the accommodation alleyway that the vessel was taking in water, and that everyone should go on deck. The deckhand went on deck and was joined by most of the crew. They launched the two liferafts, but the crew members were unable to board them because of the heavy seas which washed most of the crew, including the deckhand, off the vessel. However, the deckhand managed to find a handhold on a rock, and pulled himself up and out of the waves.Arosa had broadcast a distress message giving her position, that she was taking in water and requesting a helicopter. Valentia Radio received the broadcast, and a helicopter from Shannon was dispatched. The survivor was picked up shortly after the helicopter arrived on scene, and the patrón de pesca about 20 minutes later. However, the latter was unconscious and, despite the aircrew carrying out resuscitation techniques, he later died. Four bodies were found that day and a further one the next day, leaving six men still missing.It has not been possible to determine the direct causes of the accident as the two people with knowledge of the navigation both lost their lives.The report has no recommendations to make.12Photograph 1ArosaSECTION 1 - FACTUAL INFORMATION1.1PARTICULARS OF AROSA AND ACCIDENTVessel detailsRegistered owner:Arosa LimitedPort of registry:Milford HavenFlag:United KingdomType:Side trawlerBuilt:1974 in Santander, SpainClassification society:Bureau VeritasConstruction:SteelRegistered length:32.61mGross tonnage:248.0Engine type and power:MAK - 970kWService speed:10 knotsAccident detailsTime and date:0404 (UTC) on 3 October 2000Location of accident:Latitude 53° 15.21’N Longitude 009° 59.42’Won Doonguddle rock off the west coast of Ireland. People on board:13Fatalities:12Damage:Total loss of vessel341.2AROSA1.2.1The vessel and backgroundArosa was a 26-year-old side trawler, in which the fishing gear was operated over the starboard side. She was a typical Spanish design of the time when she was built. She had a shelter deck between the whaleback and theaccommodation superstructure, which was aft. The shelter deck housed the main winch for the warps to the net. The wheelhouse was about three-quarters aft from forward. The original plan showed that there was accommodation for 15crew members. However, at a later date, a cabin was built into the wheelhouse for the patrón de pesca *.(*Note: patrón de pesca = skipper and patrón de costa = mate or coastal skipper)During the last 30 years, side trawling has been replaced by stern trawling techniques in the British fishing fleet. However, there are fishing vessels using the side method still operating out of Spain. Photograph 2shows Arosa in the process of fishing, and her trawl warps can be seen leading out on thestarboard side from the forward and after gallows. When the fishing gear was hauled in, the warps were shortened until the trawl doors reached the gallows.The winch was then stopped and the doors were hooked on to the gallows anddisconnected from the warps, before the rest of the gear was brought alongside.Photograph 2Arosa engaged in fishingPhotograph courtesy of Irish Marine CorpsSpanish fishing vessels have been fishing in the Atlantic seas west of Ireland for several hundreds of years.However, in 1976 territorial waters were extended to give a 200-mile Economic Exclusion Zone. At that time Spain was not in theEuropean Union, and the extension excluded Spanish fishing vessels from their traditional fishing grounds. To overcome this problem, Spanish owners boughtinto the British fleet which had spare quota capacity, by obtaining British fishing licenses and registering their vessels in the UK. It was the same, to someextent, with Spanish owned vessels and the Irish fleet. Although Spain hassince entered the European Union, there are still a number of Spanish ownedand operated fishing vessels on the UK register. As a condition of their fishinglicences, Anglo-Spanish vessels must have a registered office in the UK andhave to visit (but not necessarily land catches at) a UK port eight times per year.In 1999, through MAFF, it was deemed that Anglo-Spanish fishing vesselsshould show a genuine economic link with the UK. The consequence was thatthey now have to land 50% of their quota stocks in the UK and, on average, this amounts to between eight and ten visits per year. Anglo-Spanish fishing vessels mostly catch hake, megrims and prawns. Only a few of them catch non-quotafish such as sharks and ling, which they have to land twice every six months.Using a satellite-based vessel monitoring system, Arosa automatically sent her position, speed and course every two hours, whether she was in port or at sea.The monitoring system was an EEC requirement, which had come into effect at the beginning of 2000. The last transmission was sent at 0246 UTC on 3October 2000, which was just over an hour before the grounding, giving herposition as latitude 53° 18’02” N longitude 010° 17’53” W, with her course as080° and her speed as 9 knots.1.2.2The crewThere were 13 crew members on board Arosa at the time of the accident, 10 of whom were Spanish, 2 were from Ilha São Tomé, and 1 from Ghana. The oldest crew member was one of the deckhands, who would have been 57 years old a day after the accident, and the youngest was the sole survivor, who was 24years old.The patrón de pesca was 31 year old Ramon Pardo Juncal. He held a Spanish first class certificate as skipper in fishing vessels up to 700gt for deep seafishing, bounded by the co-ordinates 60°N, 35°S, 20°W and 52°E. His certificate also allowed him to sail as mate on vessels over 700gt. He also held certificates in radiotelephone operation, fire-fighting and sea survival. He had more than 10 years experience fishing on the Grand Sole Bank (about 100 miles south ofFastnet on the south coast of Ireland), the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) andSouth Africa. He had been sailing for over a year on Arosa as patrón de costaand, by the time of the accident, had served three trips as patrón de pesca.5The patrón de costa, Euginio Diaz Carracelas, was nearly 44 years old. He helda Spanish second class certificate for fishing in coastal areas of the Atlantic. Hecould take command of vessels of up to 75gt in fishing grounds no more than 60miles off the coast bounded by 39°00’N, 21°00’N and the meridians of EuropaPoint and the Canary Islands. He had gained his fishing experience on theGrand Sole Bank, and off the coast of Mauritania, the Canary Islands, Portugaland Canada. He had joined Arosa4 months previously.The survivor had been a deep-sea fisherman since leaving school 8 yearsbefore. He had served mostly on factory ships in the north and south Atlanticand had worked before on a similar vessel to Arosa, which he joined in January2000. He had not attended a sea survival course, although he believed most ofthe other crew members had done so. The fishing trips lasted between 19 and20 days.The MCA equates the patrón de pesca’s Spanish certificate to a UK Class 2certificate of competency, and the patrón de costa’s Spanish certificate to aClass 3 certificate of competency. The minimum certificate requirements were aClass 1 and a Class 2 certificate of competency.1.2.3Details of vessel surveyArosa entered the UK registry in 1984 under her previous name of SlebechThree. The following year, the vessel changed ownership, and structuralalterations were made in way of the shelter deck. After a period laid-up in Spain,the vessel changed ownership again in about 1994, when she was bought byher present owners.The last United Kingdom Fishing Vessel Certificate was issued by the MCA on19 June 2000 and was valid until 13 November 2003.As part of her qualification for a certificate, she had been surveyed by theclassification society, Bureau Veritas, on 30 October 1999, with respect to herhull and superstructure; her hatchways, doors, ventilators and other openings;her main and auxiliary machinery; her bilge pumping arrangements; herelectrical equipment and installations and her steering gear, watertight doors,means of communication, refrigerating plants and her anchors and cables. Aperiodical bottom survey, which Bureau Veritas had recommended should beconducted by 15 July 2000, had not been carried out.She had the following relevant safety equipment:2 x 16 person inflatable liferafts with 71m long painters. Both werestowed on the wheelhouse top and had been last serviced on 22September 1999; (see photograph 2)1 inflatable, 3.9m long, boat stowed aft of the shelterdeck and served bya single arm davit;6a survival craft portable radio;a COSPAS/SARSAT EPIRB located on the wheelhouse top;12 lifejackets of various makes and 3 Cosalt Premier lifejacketsdistributed throughout the vessel;4 lifebuoys of which 2 had buoyant lines and 2 had smoke markers/lights;12 ship’s distress parachute signals;a Kenwood main transmitter/receiver radio telephone and alarm signalgenerator;a Skanti reserve transmitter/receiver radio telephone and alarm signalgenerator; anda fixed Crame VHF radio transreceiver.(The vessel was exempted from a portable radio, provided that a waterprotected VHF radio transreceiver was carried on board.)In December 1999, a renewal survey for her UK fishing vessel certificateshowed a number of deficiencies needed to be attended to, but none wererelevant to the accident.Arosa was granted a number of exemptions from The Fishing Vessels (SafetyProvisions) Rules 1975concerning structural fire protection and fire detection,ventilation systems, means of escape from the engine room, certain compassrequirements, certain nautical publication requirements (navigational tables, list of lights, sailing directions, tidal steam atlases) and certain fire appliances.Survival suits are not a statutory requirement and none were on board Arosa. 1.2.4Navigational equipment and practicesThe vessel was fitted with:an Anritsu RA-722 UA radar;a Raytheon radar; and2 Shipmate RS-5800 GPS sets connected to a Sodena Turbo 2000plotter, on which there were 22 vector electronic navigation charts.The electronic navigation chart (see chart extract 1 overleaf),for the area inwhich Arosa went aground, was a Sodena digitised/vector version of EPSHOM chart number 7197 of 1988 at a scale of 1:150,000. This was largely based on7the British Admiralty chart number 2173 Loop Head to Slyne Head(see chartextract 4 at section 2.4.1). The distribution of this electronic navigation chartstopped several years before, because Sodena systems now use C-MAPelectronic charts of CM93 version 2(see chart extract 6 at section 2.4.2). Asan unconditional requirement of EPSHOM, the Sodena software had a start-uppop-up screen, giving a warning that up-to-date paper charts should be onboard. This had to be acknowledged by the operator. There were paper chartson board sufficient for the area of operation.Of the eight identified electronic navigation charts which were on board Arosa,none were less than a scale of 1:150,000. These are considered suitable forfishing offshore, but not for coastal navigation when the largest scale chartshould be used.The electronic company Hispano Radio Electrónica SAL of Marin (Ponteverdra)last had dealings with Arosa’s navigation systems on 14 April 2000, when thefollowing work was carried out:•automatic pilot replaced;•radar replaced;•Sodena plotter monitor replaced;•Crame 5000 VHF radio repaired;•Sonda Furuno FCV-291sounder repaired;•Sonda Koden CVS-8831 sounder repaired;•Raytheon Orders radar equipment repaired; and•general navigational equipment checked.This work was carried out after Arosa had suffered heavy weather damage.The patrón de pesca and the patrón de costa carried out the navigationalwatches at all times at sea.The patrón de pesca took the navigational watch between 0600 and 1200 andbetween 1600 and 2300. His cabin was integral with, and at the aft part of, thewheelhouse.The patrón de costa took the navigational watch between 2300 and 0600 andbetween 1200 and 1600.There was no bridge chair, but a small stool was at the aft end of thewheelhouse where the patróns took their meals.89C h a r t E x t r a c t 1 - E x t r a c t f r o m t h e e l e c t r o n i c n a v i g a t i o n c h a r t i n u s e o n A r o s a1.3NARRATIVEAll times are UTC.1.3.1Events leading up to the groundingArosa left Marin in north-west Spain on 8 September 2000. On 22 Septembershe berthed at Ardrossan to land her catch, take on stores and bunkers, and toeffect a repair to her hull. A diving firm was contracted and four divers examinedthe hull. A small hole was found directly below the forward gallows and about1.5m beneath the waterline. The plate around the hole was soft and it wasdecided that an internal repair should be made, which was carried out by a localship repair firm (see Annex 1).During this time in port, an MCA surveyor visited Arosa and detained herbecause the patrón de pesca and the patrón de costa did not have UKcertificates of equivalent competency. Two British skippers holding full skipper’scertificates of competency were found, and they joined the vessel on 26September. The detention order was lifted and Arosa left Ardrossan later thatafternoon. On 27 September, on her way to the fishing grounds, she berthedbriefly in Killybegs harbour where the two British skippers disembarked. At thistime, it was noted that some water was apparently entering the vessel in way ofthe repaired area. The mechanic then constructed a cement box, using somemetal plates and inserting them between frames either side of the apparent leak.The vessel continued on passage with exactly the same crew as she had onboard when she was detained, and began fishing just before dawn on 28September(see chart extract 2 opposite). That evening, she concentrated herfishing in a 9-mile square box centred on a latitude 53° 40’N longitude 011°50’W. Still fishing, she left this box in the early hours of 1 October and headedsouth. At 0226 she made her compulsory report to Valentia Radio that she wasleaving fishing area E and moving to fishing box area F. Later that morning sheentered a new 20-mile square box centred on latitude 53°00’N and 12° 15’W.The weather was bad that day, but it improved the next day.At about 1846 on 2 October, Arosa stopped fishing, left her grounds and headedfor the coast of Ireland at full speed of 10 knots. At 2142, she made hercompulsory report to Valentia Radio that she was leaving fishing box area F andmoving to fishing box area E. She also reported the amount of fish which shehad on board; a total of about 4.5 tonnes. When the catch had been cleared, allthe crew had a meal together, after which they showered, went to bed, or stayedin the messroom. By 2230 (0030 vessel’s time) everyone had gone to bedexcept for the patrón de costa, who was in the wheelhouse in charge of thenavigational watch. Apparently, there was no deckhand on watch, as the patrónde costa wanted the crew to rest. Normally after stowing the gear, he wouldhave told a deckhand to shower and have a sandwich before taking the watchwith him.1011Chart Extract 2 - Showing the vessel monitoring positions (from 0840 27/9/00 to 0246 3/10/00) of ArosaKillybegsRossaveelPosition of grounding3/10 - 00462/10 - 004621001/10 - 00421/10 - 004429/9 - 004228/9 - 004027/9 - 0840Reproduced from Admiralty Chart 2 by permission of the Controller of HMSO and the UK Hydrographic Office1.3.2Events after the groundingOne of the deckhands (referred to in this report as the survivor) was awake inhis bunk when he felt a blow to the vessel. He did not take much notice of itbecause he thought that it was a big wave breaking against the vessel. Afterseveral minutes he felt Arosa striking rocks, and shortly afterwards the generalalarm went off. The patrón de costa had entered the accommodationpassageway from the wheelhouse. He shouted for the crew to get up and to goon deck as the vessel was sinking. The survivor saw many of the crew runningto the upper decks; the vessel was still striking the rocks. Arosa then becamelodged between two rocks and she stopped moving.The electricity failed and the main engine stopped soon after the grounding.When the survivor reached the upper deck, he saw all the crew except for thecook, Jose Ramon Garcia Figueroa, and the oldest fisherman on board, JoseAntonio Ferreiros Perez, both of whom he had not seen since dinner theevening before. The rest of the crew members were wearing lifejackets,although some had been donned hastily, and had not been tied securely. He didnot don a lifejacket himself as he knew the vessel was aground, and he thoughtthat it would restrict his movements and he would be thrown against the rocks. Ifit had been an open sea situation he would have donned one.Arosa was listing heavily to starboard, and the survivor found himself with thetwo patróns, the engineer, Alfredo Estevez Garcia, the bosun, Julian SotoFuentes, and two deckhands, Fransisco Filgueira Fernandez and Luis MiguelVidal Rivadulla, near the wheelhouse. He also saw another deckhand, OrlandoSoares, nearby and the deckhand, Jesus Lafuente Chazo, making his way tothe deck. He saw the engine room rating, Sebastian Vaz de Almeida, on top ofthe wheelhouse, and the deckhand, Albertino Herculando da Costa Cravid,clinging on to the side rail.One of the deckhands said that they should launch the liferafts, and the engineroom rating and two other deckhands assisted him. They carried out this taskbut did not board the rafts because they had drifted away from the vessel; thedrop from the deck was high, due to the starboard list, and they considered thatthe high seas would have made it difficult for them to remain in the rafts.One of the deckhands moved forward to the bow, which was by now close to acliff face. All the others close to the survivor were, one by one, swept away bythe waves. As the survivor was swept away, he could see the engine roomrating and a deckhand still on the wheelhouse top. When he came to thesurface, he was alongside Arosa and he tried to climb back on board, but wasunable to do so. He was being tossed by the waves and battered on the rocks.The next time he managed to get his head above water, he was beside a largerock, on which he was able to find a hand hold. Before the next wave hit him, hewas able to climb up the rock out of the reach of the waves.12At 0404, Valentia Coastguard Radio VHF radio received a distress message on channel 16 from Arosa saying that she was in position 53° 15.21’North and 009° 59.42’West, and taking in water, and requesting a helicopter. A“Mayday Relay” was broadcast at 0410, giving the name of the fishing vessel, her position, the nature of her distress; four vessels in the area responded. The Aran Islands lifeboat and the Shannon rescue helicopter R115 were tasked to the distress scene.The survivor saw a light in the distance, which became brighter, and then he heard the noise of the rotor blades of a helicopter. He waved to the helicopter and was winched up off the rock, at 0519. The helicopter continued to search for other survivors. At 0549 the patrón de pesca was found in the water and he was winched up. He was unconscious so the helicopter crew carried out resuscitation techniques on him, while travelling to Galway hospital. However, he later died.At 0542, rescue helcopter R116 was tasked from Dublin to the distress scene. A French fixed wing aircraft had also been tasked to the area and arrived there at about 0628. The aircraft began a search for survivors, operating at about 150m above sea level. Due to deteriorating weather conditions, the aircraft was released about an hour later. At that time rescue helicopter R110 was tasked to fly to Galway and R115 was appointed as on-scene commander of air assets. At 0742, R115 reported sighting an upturned liferaft about 2 cables north of Doonguddle rock.The weather was deteriorating further, and it was decided that only one helicopter should search the area at a time, to be relieved when necessary by the others waiting in Galway. The visibility had reduced to 1 mile. The wreck of Arosa was visible, but she was almost submerged under the waves (see photographs 3, 4 and 5). The vessel was facing south-east and was on the western side of Doonguddle.At 0928, R116 recovered a body about 3 miles north of Doonguddle rock. An Irish naval vessel and two fishing vessels joined the lifeboat. Coastguard units were searching coastal areas. During the rest of the day, three other bodies were recovered, one of which was in a liferaft. Two of the bodies were not wearing lifejackets and one body’s lifejacket was half on. Later that afternoon the search was called off as the wind was north-west 52 knots gusting to 55 knots (force 10).Another body was recovered the next day. Diving on the wreck to look for survivors was discussed, but it was deemed too dangerous for the divers because of the bad weather conditions.From the very outset of the emergency, the transmissions from Arosa’s EPIRB had been picked up and Dublin MRCC was alerted to them.13Photograph 3Photograph 4 14Photograph 515Date/Time Position Wind Sea Swell Weather Visibility2/10/00 120053°N,12°30’W4 to 5SWModerateto rough(2.5m)Heavy (4.5m)NWFair Moderateto good2/10/10 150053°N,12°30’W4 to 5SModerate(1.5m)Moderate toheavy (4m),NWFair Moderateto good2/10/00 180053°N,12°30’W6 to 7SSEModerate(1.5m)Moderate(3.5m) WSWRain attimesModerate2/10/00 210053°N, 12° W6SSWRough(3m)Low (1.5m),WRain attimesModerateto poor3/10/00 000053°N, 11° W7 SW Veryrough(4.5m)Notdistinguishedfrom seaRain ordrizzleModerateto poor3/10/00 030053°15’N,10°W7SSWVeryrough(5.5m)Notdistinguishedfrom seaRain ordrizzleModerateto poor3/10/00 060053°15’N,10°W6 to 7SRough toveryrough(4m)Low (1m),WSWRain ordrizzleModerateto poor3/10/00 090053°15’N,10°W7SSERough(3m)Moderate(3m), SWRain ordrizzleModerateto poor3/10/00 120053°15’N,10°W7 to 8SSERough(3.5m)Low tomoderate(2m) SWRain ordrizzleModerateto poor16171.5KEEPING A SAFE NAVIGATIONAL WATCH ON FISHING VESSELSArosa should have had a copy of MCA’s Marine Guidance Note MGN 84 (F)Keeping a Safe Navigational Watch on Fishing Vessels on board, as it was arequirement of her United Kingdom Fishing Vessel Certificate - see section1.2.3.The following extracts from MGN 84 (F) are relevant to this accident:2.What are the Arrangements of a Safe Navigational Watch?The watch should always take into account the prevailing circumstances andconditions. Even where there is no statutory requirement for certificatedofficers, it is still essential that watchkeepers are always experienced,capable, and have been instructed in their duties. This is especially vital ifyou are making a landfall, navigating close to the coast, in restricted visibility,severe weather conditions or in dense traffic.When deciding the composition of the watch the following factors should beconsidered:the weather conditions, visibility and the time of day. …..two peopleshould always be on watch during the hours of darkness and in poorweather conditions;the proximity of navigational hazards which make it necessary foradditional navigational duties to be undertaken;the use and operational condition of navigational aids such as radar,automatic pilot, and position fixing equipment.3. Fitness for DutyBoth the skipper and the watchkeepers should take full account of the qualityand quantity of rest taken when determining fitness for duty. Particulardangers exist when the watchkeeper is alone. It is all too easy to fall asleep,especially while sitting down in an enclosed wheelhouse. Watchkeepersshould ensure they remain alert by moving frequently, and ensuring goodventilation.4. NavigationThe intended voyage should be planned in advance taking into account anyrelevant information. Courses should be checked before departure.It is important that watchkeepers maintain a close watch on their own vesseland always know the position, speed and course steered. Many groundingsoccur when the position is not being monitored and the watchkeeper thinkshe is in safe water.18。

相关文档
最新文档