Own ship was a small container vessel that had a near miss with a large tanker crossing from port to starboard. The tanker failed to give way as required, forcing the container vessel to reduce speed to avoid a collision. The minimum distance between the vessels was only 0.19 miles. The container vessel sounded five short blasts on its whistle and tried calling the tanker on VHF radio, but received no response from the tanker. The report questions why large vessels seem to think they have right of way over smaller ships when international regulations state otherwise, and is surprised the tanker officers did not act more carefully given the type of vessel and consequences of collisions.
Original Description:
Case Study of a Near Miss Crossing PSC China (1992)
Own ship was a small container vessel that had a near miss with a large tanker crossing from port to starboard. The tanker failed to give way as required, forcing the container vessel to reduce speed to avoid a collision. The minimum distance between the vessels was only 0.19 miles. The container vessel sounded five short blasts on its whistle and tried calling the tanker on VHF radio, but received no response from the tanker. The report questions why large vessels seem to think they have right of way over smaller ships when international regulations state otherwise, and is surprised the tanker officers did not act more carefully given the type of vessel and consequences of collisions.
Own ship was a small container vessel that had a near miss with a large tanker crossing from port to starboard. The tanker failed to give way as required, forcing the container vessel to reduce speed to avoid a collision. The minimum distance between the vessels was only 0.19 miles. The container vessel sounded five short blasts on its whistle and tried calling the tanker on VHF radio, but received no response from the tanker. The report questions why large vessels seem to think they have right of way over smaller ships when international regulations state otherwise, and is surprised the tanker officers did not act more carefully given the type of vessel and consequences of collisions.
- Manila to Hong Kong. Wind NE 4/5. Daytime. - Report No. 93003. Own ship was a small container vessel, target vessel a large tanker crossing from port to starboard. Failure of the tanker to give way caused me to reduce speed as action to avoid collision. Altering course would have caused violent rolling and my vessel was loaded with containers. The resultant close quarters minimum distance was 0.19 miles. I wonder and question why large vessels think they have the right of way over small vessels, even though this action contravenes the Collision Regulations. I would have thought that officers on a tanker would have more sense, being the type of vesels they are and the consequences of collisions. Even repeated five short and rapid blasts on both whistle and light produced no effect and VHF calls were not answered.
Shell Petroleum Company, Limited, A Corporation in Its Own Behalf As Owner of The Motorship Lembulus v. Charles Peschken, and Canolius v. Hines and Fred W. Bents, 290 F.2d 685, 3rd Cir. (1961)
Susie Ann Spence, Administratrix of The Estate of Roosevelt Franklin Spence, Deceased v. Mariehamns R/s and Firma Gustav Erikson, 766 F.2d 1504, 11th Cir. (1985)
The First National Bank of Chicago, of The Will of Wayne J. Hart, Deceased v. Material Service Corporation, A Corporation, 544 F.2d 911, 1st Cir. (1976)