COLREGS EXERCISE ONLINE WEEK 15 MAY 9, 2024, DUE 2200H

Case Study: Exxon Chester vs. Regal Sword:

Total 100 Pts.

1. COLREGS Application Analysis=

2. COLREGS and its Relevance: =
3. Key COLREGS Rules and their Application:
a. Rule 14(c): Head-on Situation: =
b. Rule 19: Conduct in Restricted Visibility:

Analysis of the Incident: = According to investigation reports, both the Exxon

Chester and the Regal Sword likely violated COLREGS: Why??
1. Excessive Speed. =
2. Failure to Reduce Speed: =
3. Poor Navigation by Regal Sword: =
4. Improper Maneuvers:
a. The Regal Sword =
b. The Exxon Chester =

Conclusion:
The collision between the Exxon Chester and the Regal Sword highlights the
importance of adhering to COLREGS. The contributing factors likely included:

This case serves as a reminder for mariners of the importance of careful

navigation, proper use of navigational equipment, and strict adherence to
COLREGS, especially in conditions of restricted visibility.

Additional Points to Consider:

a. The specific details of the case, such as the content of voyage data recorders
(black boxes) might have provided a clearer picture of the actions taken by each
vessel.
b. The final judgment in the case may have apportioned fault between the two

ANSWER
 1. COLREGS Application Analysis:
 In this case, both the Exxon Chester and the Regal Sword likely
violated several rules outlined in the COLREGS.
 The COLREGS are designed to prevent collisions at sea by
establishing rules for navigating vessels and determining right of way.
 However, both vessels failed to adhere to these regulations, leading to
the collision.
2. COLREGS and its Relevance:
 COLREGS are of paramount importance in maritime navigation as
they establish a standard set of rules that all vessels must follow to
ensure safe navigation and prevent collisions.
 Compliance with COLREGS is crucial, especially in situations of
restricted visibility, as failure to adhere to these regulations can lead to
catastrophic accidents, as seen in the case of the Exxon Chester and
the Regal Sword collision.
3. Key COLREGS Rules and their Application:
 a. Rule 14(c): Head-on Situation: Both vessels likely failed to take
appropriate action to avoid a head-on situation as required by Rule
14(c). Instead of altering course to starboard, they maintained their
course, ultimately resulting in a collision.
 b. Rule 19: Conduct in Restricted Visibility: The incident occurred in
conditions of restricted visibility, where Rule 19 requires vessels to
proceed at a safe speed and take appropriate measures to avoid
collisions. However, it appears that neither vessel reduced speed or
took adequate precautions, leading to the collision.

Analysis of Violations:
1. Excessive Speed: Both vessels were likely moving at excessive speeds
given the prevailing conditions, which contributed to the collision.
2. Failure to Reduce Speed: Neither vessel took sufficient measures to reduce
speed in restricted visibility, a violation of COLREGS.
3. Poor Navigation by Regal Sword: The Regal Sword likely demonstrated
poor navigation by failing to anticipate the risk of collision and take evasive
action.
4. Improper Maneuvers:
 The Regal Sword may have made improper maneuvers by failing to
alter its course to avoid a head-on situation.
 The Exxon Chester's maneuvers may have also been improper, such
as failing to take evasive action to avoid the collision.

Conclusion:
The collision between the Exxon Chester and the Regal Sword underscores
the critical importance of adhering to COLREGS. The contributing factors to
 the collision included excessive speed, failure to reduce speed in restricted
visibility, and poor navigation practices by both vessels. This case serves as
a stark reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with COLREGS
and the necessity for mariners to exercise caution and adhere strictly to these
regulations.

Additional Points to Consider:

a. Examination of voyage data recorders could have provided crucial
insights into the sequence of events leading up to the collision.
b. The final judgment in the case would likely have apportioned fault
between the two vessels based on their respective violations of
COLREGS.