Volume 11: Number 4: December 2004

RISK WATCH
The Britannia Steam Ship
Insurance Association Limited

PUTTING BY
A rare incidence of a ship putting by, that is, intentionally grounding
in order to avoid a collision, has been considered by the Court of
Appeal in London.
The Bow Spring was proceeding north through the

The matter was appealed by Manzanillo II, arguing that

Suez Canal when it observed the dredger Manzanillo II

she should have been held free from blame.The Court

on the starboard bow, apparently shaping to cross the

of Appeal, however, agreed with the Court of First

channel. Unfortunately, Manzanillo II was not readily

Instance and emphasised that although Manzanillo II

identifiable as a dredger and indeed, up until a short

was displaying restricted manoeuvrability shapes

time before reaching the channel, did not turn to

there was no other indication that she was a dredger

commence actual dredging operations. Each ship

and that her slight alterations of course to port whilst

attempted to contact the other by VHF to determine

approaching the channel were inadequate and

the others intentions but without success.The Master

incapable of indicating to Bow Spring that her

of Bow Spring decided that it was necessary to come

intention was to turn away from the channel and not

full astern and turn starboard thereby intentionally

to cross it. Manzanillo II should, by a greater and more

grounding the vessel.

obvious manoeuvre to port, have made it clear to Bow

Spring well before she did, that she was not going to

At the Court of First Instance it was held that the

cross the channel.

actions of the Bow Spring were hurried and an illconsidered over-reaction. However, Manzanillo II was

The risk that Manzanillo II was not actually crossing the

also considered at fault as she ought to have been

channel was one that the Master was not prepared to

aware that ships using the channel might be

take because of the danger of collision and the Court

concerned that dredgers approaching from the

of Appeals affirmation of the 50/50 apportionment to

starboard side might be thought to be entering the

blame indicates the partial sympathy with the Masters

channel. Blame was attached 50% to each ship.

assessment.

RISK WATCH The Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited

A plague of locusts
on your radar
Seafarers will be familiar with large concentrations of fishing boats
off the west coast of Africa which fill their radar screens, but these
pictures testify to an image of more biblical proportions, namely a
vast swarm of locusts off the port of Nouakchott.The size of the
swarm was 14nm by 7nm, an area of approximately 186 square km,
resulting in spectacular radar images and a new deck coating.

The size of the swarm was 14nm by 7nm, an area of approximately

186 square km, resulting in spectacular radar images and a new
deck coating.

Notice of Arrival to the US Coast Guard

Timely submission of an accurate Notice of Arrival (NOA) is of paramount
importance when en route to any US destination; failure to comply
with the NOA procedures can lead to significant delays to the ship.
It is now apparent that the US Coast Guard (USCG)

Should circumstances on board change or errors or

considers any changes in a ships circumstances as

omissions be noted in a NOA after submission, then

invalidating any NOA already submitted, requiring the

revised information should be sent to the USCG in a

submission of revised information to the USCG and

timely manner in accordance with the regulations. If 96

possible delay to the ship.

hours or more remain in the voyage, then changes must

be submitted as soon as practical but at least 24 hours

A recent example of this problem arose when two

before entering the port or place of destination. If less

stowaways were discovered by the crew on board a

than 24 hours of the voyage remain, then the changes

ship on arrival at Houston.The ship had previously

must be submitted as soon as practical but at least 12

given the requisite 96 hour NOA to the USCG.The

hours before arrival in port.

USCG took the view that the change of circumstances

the presence of the two stowaways on board

Lawyers advise that there is no requirement to re-submit

invalidated the NOA, necessitating the submission of

the whole NOA, rather the amended information should

revised information and requiring the ship to wait

be included in the relevant section of the NOA form and

outside Houston potentially for a further 96 hours.

be submitted, making reference to the time of filing the

In the event, after negotiations, the US authorities

original NOA.

agreed to reduce this delay to 24 hours.

The Association has received a number of
notifications from Members of the failure of the USCG
to accept NOAs since November last year. In addition
to the above, examples include; an omission to
provide the 24-hour telephone number of the ships
port agent, an omission to provide the correct prefix
number for the ships satellite telephone and also the
failure to amend NOAs for the second, and
subsequent, US ports of call. Whilst these errors may
seem minor, they can lead to significant delays to
the ship.

Lawyers advise that there is no requirement to re-submit the whole

NOA, rather the amended information should be included in the
relevant section of the NOA form and be submitted, making reference
to the time of filing the original NOA.

RISK WATCH is published by The Britannia

Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited
Tindall Riley (Britannia) Limited
New City Court
20 St Thomas Street
London SE1 9RR

The Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited is

happy for any of the material in Risk Watch to be reproduced
but would ask that written permission is obtained in advance
from the Editors.

Tel +44 (0)20 7407 3588

Fax +44 (0)20 7403 3942
www.britanniapandi.com

Tanker overfill alarm failure

A recent MARS (Marine Accident Reporting Scheme) article published
by the Nautical Institute highlighted a potentially very serious problem
experienced by one tanker operator which we wish to bring to the
attention of all tanker operating Members and their sea staff.
The tanker in question was loading a clean product

In this particular instance the manufacturers accepted

with a light density of only 0.665. During the loading

the responsibility for replacement of all the flotation

operation tanks were filled in excess of 95% during

devices on this ship.

which it was found that the automatic high overfill

alarms did not activate.

For those operators likely to carry lighter density

products and/or chemicals we strongly recommend

Pre-arrival tests had been successfully conducted

that their technical departments and sea staff review

on this equipment. A thorough investigation ensued

the nature of the equipment fitted on board their

in cooperation with the equipment manufacturers.

particular ships, if necessary in conjunction with

This resulted in the revelation that the float devices

the manufacturers, in order to assure themselves

manufactured from stainless steel did not provide

that a similar problem could not happen on board

sufficient buoyancy to operate effectively in cargoes

their ships.

with density less than 0.750.

For those operators likely to carry lighter density products and/or

chemicals we strongly recommend that their technical departments
and sea staff review the nature of the equipment fitted on board
their particular ships.