Question 1. To what extent were you involved in any briefing/plan after the Master/Pilot exchange?
The OOW was not included in the Master/Pilot exchange but was on the bridge and overheard some of the discussion, but was making the pilot a cup of tea, listening out to the VHF and monitoring the radar.
Question 2. Did you feel you could have challenged the master's decision making at any point? Was the Master receptive to suggestions/challenges?
The master is generally open to suggestions and challenges, the OOW is confident that in their ability to raise any issues. Generally it is felt that the bridge team work reasonably effective together.
Question 3. Overall, how effective were the communications between the bridge team?
The OOW in this instance was also the ships Chief Officer, and generally worked effectively together onboard, and got on. There was a lack of communication though between crew and pilot at the time of the incident. OOW was heavily involved in monitoring bridge navigation equipment and responding to calls relating to the upcoming cargo discharge.
Question 4. At what point did the vessel deviate off ECDIS track?
The approach to the berth did not follow the pre-planned route exactly , and the approach to the berth was slightly off due to the lack of visibility. However the vessel stayed within the navigational limits imposed by the channel / depths of the port.
Question 5. Was there a language barrier between the bridge team and the pilot?
No, the ships crew and pilot were able to operate effectively.
Question 6. When did you realise the bridge team had lost control of the vessel?
The vessel is turned with the tug assistance (no line connected, just pushing when requested).
The visibility means that the pilot was not effectively able to monitor the sideways speed of the vessel and its orientation with the berth.
The vessels bow strikes the quay very heavily causing damage to the vessel and the quay.
Question 7. During the approach were you adhering to the stipulations of Rule 19? COLREGS generally? Taking the bad weather (low visibility) into account, what actions were being taken to safely navigate the vessel in prevailing conditions?
Vessel was at reduced speed and the radar was being monitored. Fog signal was operating, apart from the bridge team stated there were no extra lookouts posted.
Question 8. How often were you fixing position, and by which means were you doing this?
Position fixing was by GNSS input into the ECDIS system only.
Question 9: Were there any safety parameters on the ECDIS system and if any alarms sounded why were they ignored by the bridge team and pilot?
On investigation it was found that: ECDIS not set up correctly – lack of crew familiarity with ECDIS system and manoeuvring information.
Question 10: Was the vessel’s personnel complying to the company’s SMS?
A review of the SMS highlighted differences between the set up of ECDIS and the passage plan undertaken, and that defined by the SMS (I will leave you to identify and develop this if necessary).