Ferry with 682 on board sinks after collision off Cebu

Romblon?

The Sulpicio ship was heading out to sea and, crucially, away from land and shore lights. From its bridge, the passenger ferry would have been clearly visible, being lit up like a Christmas tree; its navigation lights should also have been clearly visible. Conversely the ferry was in bound and ahead of it would have been all the lights of Cebu City. Even so, the container ship should have been visible, if only by virtue of its navigation lights and especially its red "side light". BUT, as an eye witness has stated, it would appear that the container ships navigation lights - and possibly also its accommodation lights - were not visible. Did the container ship suffer a power failure as it left port or were they simply extinguished to save fuel? When the OOW on the ferry finally saw the container ship looming ahead, he sounded the ship's whistle.

Now either the ferry's radar wasn't working or it was not being monitored. A vessel the size of that container ship would have produced a strong echo even against the "clutter".

Not forgetting:

• Failure to maintain a lookout - the bridge may even have been deserted apart from the helmsman
• Failure to acknowledge and act on information received from the ferry - was its VHF radio functioning and switched on even?
• Failure to launch its lifeboats and assist in the rescue effort

inter-alia.

The eye witness may be mistaken about the lights of the SE7. As a landsman unaccustomed to seeing ships at night he may have missed the SE7's masthead lights and sidelights.

I've seen a report that the damage to the ferry was starboard side, aft. I'd like to be able to confirm that. If true, then Rule 15 may apply and the ferry's case is not looking pretty.

I hope PAL don't run their planes in this kind of way.

No, PAL certainly don't. As witness their approval to fly to Europe. Indeed NO scheduled airline behaves in this way, anywhere!

Interestingly President Aquino included a reference to his intention to repeal the Cabotage Law (i.e. open up Philippine domestic shipping to international competition)

Meant Bohol; must keep my islands sorted out properly..

Do we know which side the ferry was struck on?

I agree the eye witness may have missed the navigation lights, but surely not the SE7's accommodation lights as well?

I read (probably) the same press report as you but I'm having a hard time reconciling that with the chart you found. The only explanation I can come up with that might account for the ferry being struck on her starboard side is that she misjudged her approach, overshot the entrance to the northbound traffic lane and crossed into, or over, the southbound traffic lane just south of its exit - in other words she was heading NW-ish when she should have been heading N by E. If that's the case, the Sulpicio ship should have gone hard-a-port, signalled that with two short blasts on its whistle, continued turning until it was about 90 degress off-course and then executed a more gentle turn to starboard to bring it back on its original course. Had it done that, the accident would be no more than a near miss. In this scenario, the ferry was caught between a rock and a hard place - quite literally! And we are assuming that the Sulpicio ship was in the correct lane!

Whatever. In the wash-up, there'll be a couple of firings of junior personnel from both ships, a few wrists will be slapped and shipping will continue to be as unsafe as it currently is.

Fair play to 2Go, though. It's doing considerably more for its passengers than Sulpicio did when the Princess of the Stars sank.

Both captains have submitted their Maritime Protests:



Edit: That didn't work out too well as the site resized the pictures - and it won't accept the PDF they came from (max PDF file size is 18.5 Kb!).

Go to this page from Cebu Daily News and scroll down to see the Protests.

Do you have those on a larger scale?

Wretched Civil Law system.

In the English Admiralty Court each ship would be required to file a Preliminary Act (a detailed questionnaire) before going any further. The PAs are then sealed, the regular pleadings (Statement of Claim, Defence, Counterclaim) are settled and filed and before going to trial the PAs are opened in the presence of both parties. This stops either ship from improving her story in the light of what comes out in the pleadings. Not so here.

Yep, I added a link to that post

As of 11am (PST) today, the death toll stands at 71 with a further 49 still listed as "missing".

Gerardo Carillo, who is both a lawyer and a Cebu City Councillor, has called for both ships' captains to be arrested, jailed and charged with reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide - even before the Coastguard completes its investigation and convenes the Marine Board of Inquiry. "A criminal case should be filed against them as soon as possible. The complainant should be the Republic of the Philippines on behalf of the casualties and their families," he said. That's all very well and good and the Councillor's words will find resonance amongst those affected but the proper venue for apportioning guilt - if there be any - is a Marine Board of Inquiry which could then recommend criminal charges, if appropriate.

The 11,405 GRT St Thomas Aquinas, formerly Superferry 2 and originally named Sumiyoshi, was built in 1973 as a RoRo Passenger ship with a maximum speed of 19 knots; she is registered in the Philiipines.



The 9,754 GRT Sulpicio Express Siete was built in 1981 as a general cargo ship and has been renamed at least 5 times since she was launched. She has a maximum speed of just 7.2 knots and is registered in the Maldives.

I have been inside those life rafts a few times!

Kay has travelled on the "Superferry 2" and recalls her as "not very nice inside". She had planned to return from Negros by ferry but I put my foot down. I think she's taken her last ferry.

Take a look at the following picture:


This is the mv "Kikai" built in 1979 in Japan. Notice that there is a lifeboat suspended from davits visible between the twin funnels. Here she is again in 2006 - she was then owned by 2Go and named "Our Lady of Good Voyage":



the forward hold has been replaced by passenger accommodation and an extra deck has been added but the lifeboat is still there. But she was sold last year to Trans-Asia and named "Trans-Asia 9":



But where has the lifeboat gone - it's suddenly disappeared! (She's had two other Filipino owners: William Lines - who bought her from the Japanese - and who sold her to Gothong.)

The Special Board of Marine Inquiry convened today in Cebu to start its investigation. As well as questioning the captains of the Thomas of Aquinas and Sulpicio Express Siete, they will also be questioning the captain and chief officer of Trans-Asia 9. This is the ship that left Cebu Port shortly after the Sulpicio Express Siete and which overtook it whilst in the traffic separation scheme. It is speculated that the Sulipico vessel eased to port and entered the then empty northbound lane to give the Trans-Asia ferry room.

More importantly, the SBMI will want to know why the Trans-Asia ship did not heave to and assist in the rescue operation - as it was required to do under international maritime law. Its captain may argue that his vessel had no lifeboats that could be lowered but that would be a weak excuse since she has two accommodation ladders on her starboard side and she could have acted as a receiving station for those survivors who were picked-up by small fishing boats. More lives might have been saved as the fishing boats had to ferry those they rescued to shore; a vessel conveniently located at the scene would have saved valuable time.

By failing to help, the Trans-Asia 9's captain has demonstrated no regard for human life and he deserves to be stripped of his licence and criminally prosecuted. If he was acting under orders from his owners, then Trans-Asia should be fined an eye-wateringly high amount and lose their licence to operate.

The SBMI reconvenes tomorrow morning.

At the end of the first day of the Marine Board of Inquiry, things aren't looking particularly good for Sulpicio. Here are the SunStar's and Cebu Daily News' accounts which condense to the following salient facts:

• The Sulpicio ship was, according to Trans-Asia, navigating in the wrong channel of the Traffic Separation Scheme. It was occupying the inbound lane when it should have been in the outbound lane.
• The Trans-Asia ship contacted the Sulpicio ship on VHF Channel 16 and both ships then switched to Channel 12. During the ensuing conversation the Trans-Asia ship notified its intention of overtaking the Sulpicio ship on its starboard side but did not mention the fact that the Sulpicio ship was in the wrong lane.
• At the end of that conversation, neither ship retuned their VHF sets back to Channel 16 as required by Maritime laws and regulations (Channel 16 is the international distress, safety and calling channel and must be monitored by all seagoing vessels). Therefore:
  • The Sulpicio ship did not receive the inbound 2Go's radio messages
  • The Trans-Asia ship did receive the Mayday call issued by the Sulpicio ship at the time of the collision on Channel 12.
• The 2Go captain stated that he could not detect the Sulpicio's navigation lights. International Maritime law dictates that (white) masthead lights be visible for 6 nautical miles and the red and green side lights be visible for 3 nautical miles. Even against the illuminated background of Cebu, the Sulpicio's side lights should have been discernible - unless, of course, bulbs of the wrong wattage were fitted.

Just as there are "Rules of the Road" governing the use of roads, there are similar international rules governing shipping which are also known as the "Rules of the Road". I believe Andrew will agree with me that in this case, Rules 10, 17 and 18 apply here.

Rule 10 covers traffic separation schemes and the Sulpicio ship did not observe Rule 10(b)(i) - Rule 10(b) states:

Rule 18 covers responsibilities between vessels and Rule 18(a) states:

In this case, I suggest that the 2Go ferry was restricted in her ability to manoeuvre: she could not alter course to starboard, to pass the Sulpicio ship port-to-port, because of the very shallow waters at Lawis Ledge. She was, by definition, the "stand on" vessel. The Sulpicio ship, being in the wrong lane, is de-facto the "give way" vessel.

Rule 17 dictates the actions to be taken by the "stand on" vessel. Under Rule 17(a), the 2Go ferry should maintain her course:

However the Sulpicio ship - the "give way" vessel - was observed by radar plot on the 2Go ship to be maintaining her course. This situation is covered by other sub-clauses of Rule 17:

I rather think that from the 2Go's point of view, Rule 17(b) came into play, however its captain should have sounded 5 one second blasts on his ship's horn immediately prior to and repeated whilst executing his turn to port; it is (currently) not know if he did this.

A good example of not following procedures in place. Rules of the road seems a good analogy. And the story, probably a good summary of the Philippines in general?

Certainly international maritime laws were flouted and I agree, it is tempting to extrapolate this story to life generally in this country. But I think that'd be an unfair exaggeration.

Ferry travel is often the only means of travel to smaller islands and also the only affordable means for the averagely poor Filipino. In order to keep fares low whilst maximising profits, shipping companies do cut corners in every aspect of their operation. It may come as a surprise for you to know that every ferry trip commences with a prayer being broadcast over the ship's PA system - and not a safety briefing.

The Coastguard is supposed to be responsible for navigational aids such as marker buoys but it is resource-strapped and therefore what few buoys there are may not have been checked ever to ensure that they are in their correct positions or indeed functioning. It is believed that the lighthouse at Lawis Ledge was not working on the night of the collision. But of course the Coastguard - who hold these Maritime Boards of Inquiry - are hardly likely to find that they may, through their lack of attention, have contributed to this or any other similar incident.

The Philippines has no equivalent to the RNLI - although, I'm told, President Marcos did consider establishing such a service. I think it would be a Good Thing if the now-scrapped Pork Barrel were to be used to create a Lifeboat Service, initially near major ports and seaways and spread-out over time to other vulnerable areas. There exists the capability to build all-weather, self-righting lifeboats in this country similar to this Trent Class one currently in service in Fishguard:


And such a project would benefit many, many Filipinos.

I happen to know that China buys all retired RNLI lifeboats for their own lifeboat service - I know that because we carry them.

I think most of us know Dr James Reason's "Swiss Cheese Model":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

This applies to any collision at sea; there must always be a multiple failure - the holes have to line up.

I am rather shocked that the two ships first saw each other on radar at 2.7 miles - on a fine clear night the effective radar range should be much more than that.

I am also startled that the SE7 did not seem to have a VHF with dual watch capability - most marine sets will monitor 16 even when switched to a working channel like 12

A turn to port is something that the Rules generally discourage.

The Swiss Cheese Model. Was only talking about it the other day. All the cheese holes lined up and the mouse got through....

We are talking about ships that are some 40 years old!