Crew behaviour was against established practices, official says
The ill-fated oil tanker, MT Pratibha Cauvery, that ran aground off Chennai coast, on Wednesday, steered towards cyclone ‘Nilam’ instead of moving away from it.
This was revealed by defence sources on Thursday. The Coast Guard and Naval authorities received inputs that the ship was drifting close to the shore around noon on Wednesday. The ship had 356 tonnes of furnace oil and two tonnes of diesel, but it was not clear if it was enough to propel the vessel to safety.
Though defence officials suggested the port deployed tugs to tow the tanker, stormy weather conditions went against the idea.
Dismissing reports that the defence agencies did not respond to distress calls, an official said all possible efforts were made to ensure the safety of the crew. Asked why neither helicopters nor ships could access the oil tanker between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Wednesday, he said the parameters of safe helicopter operation did not allow any aerial mission.
“The crew started the engines around 1 p.m. (on Wednesday) and steered the ship southwards towards the cyclone instead of moving away from it. This was against all established actions of mariners. Despite repeated warnings not to abandon the ship, they lowered the life boats,” he said.
Confirming that the ship moved towards the cyclone, deputy inspector-general of Coast Guard (region east) Gurupdesh Singh said there was no communication gap and the Coast Guard was constantly monitoring the tanker’s movement since the distress call came and was planning the rescue. However, the exact circumstances that led to the mishap would be known only after the enquiry.
According to Commodore (retd.) R.S. Vasan, former regional commander (east), if the ship was without power and needed help, the port should have provided the help as soon as possible.
“The ship could have been moved inside to safer areas well before the storm hit the city. However, this may not have been done due to financial/operational reasons,” he said. There were also some unanswered questions about the master’s decision to abandon the ship.
“He was close to the shore and it is difficult to say if the ship would have floundered in shallow waters. However, in all such cases, it is the Master’s call and he is at liberty to choose the option to abandon the ship if in his opinion, the ship and the crew were in danger. In the worst case scenario, it could be an error of judgement. Only a joint investigation can establish the root cause,” Mr. Vasan said.
Keywords: MT Pratibha Cauvery, cyclone Nilam, Chennai
The golden rule of survival during an emergency like this is to stay on the ship. All ships have navigational charts and the Elliot's beach is documented to be a sandy area and not a rocky area.
There is no imminent danger of the ship slamming into any rocks and breaking up. Using life boats is the last resort as ship is the safest structure. Any experience mariner knows this. Also, if launching the boats, it should have been done on the side which faces the beach, as the ship will act as a breakwater to block the waves.
The question here is not why the rescue initiated ASAP, but the real question is was the decision to launch the lifeboats is correct or not. A ships captain not only has the liberty to make a decision, but also has the responsibility for the safety of his crew. The ship had settled down in the sand and is stable. Not breaking apart to take emergency action. This does not take much to investigate, unless there was a mutiny and the crew members launched the boats.
Instead of pointing here & there for the mistake, first of all to rescue
the ship to put into the right course to avoid the oil spill into the
sea front and beach which highly fragile. We hope for the good and let
the govt officers to plan to move the ship to save the environment.
The picture titled "Questions ahoy" is not readable. Why dont the IT team do something about it, may be a pop-up option on clicking the picture...
Why do government agencies rush to make public pronouncements on
accidents without first carrying out an investigation? In all major
maritime nations, reports into accidents and major incidents,
collisions, groundings, fatalities, etc., are always published for the
benefit of other seafarers. Unfortunately this is rarely done by our
marine departments.
Such investigations are also carried out by an independent authority
such as the Marine Accident Investigation Board so that a fair
assessment of the contribution of port authorities, coast guard, etc., is
also carried out.
Be it air or marine accidents, the initial response is always to blame
the pilot (in this case, 'master') for negligence, incompetence or
poor professionalism. The role of outside agencies is glossed over.
Please Email the Editor