power point presentation Navigation And Watch keeping presentation

do power point presentation simailar to the attached 2 presentations

same topics 18 slides i mean it should be in in same topic (Navigation And Watch keeping presentation)

 

i need it after 3 hours from now

Navigation And Watch keeping presentation

Assignment 1

Great Brisbane and Naomi Maru ( March 25 1987 )

Vessel Types

Before the collision

Damages done to the vessels

COLREGS Rules

COLREGS rules breached and ignored, solutions

Conclusion

References

Overview

Vessel: Great Brisbane.
Flag: Pana.
IMO: 7700817.
Type of Operation: General cargo Ship.
Damage to vessel: Nil.
Departure Point: Sasebo, Japan.
Departure Time : N/A.
Destination : Thevenard, SA.
General Cargo Ship Great BRISBANE Vessel Data :

Vessel: Naomi Maru.
Flag: Aus.
IMO: N/A.
Type of Operation: Fishing Vessel.
Damage to vessel: Substantial.
Departure Point: N/A.
Departure Time : N/A.
Destination : Green Cape NSW.
Fishing Vessel Data NAOMI MARU

1: The Chief officer gave no clear reasons for his actions which he timed as 1611. Action taken under Rule 18, to avoid a fishing vessel would be incompatible with his assertion that no fishing shape was seen by him.
2: If action was being taken under Rule 17 and NAOMI MARU, as a vessel not engaged in fishing.
3: If doubt existed concerning NAOMI MARU’S intentions, in the latter instance, an obligation existed under Rule 34 GREAT BRISBANE to indicate such doubt by giving five or more short and rapid blasts on the whistle.
4: GREAT BRISBANE maintained that NAOMI MARU was in his port side at the time he altered course and that he altered to 250*
5: At 1600 , that GREAT BRISANE would pass circumstance had changed for any reason and thus no proper lookout was kept as required by rules 5.
6: NAOMI MARU remained aware of the developing collision risk and his obligations under rules 15 and 16 to keep clear.
Before the collision occurred

Great Brisbane :
Suffered minor indentation to the hull, paintwork was scraped
and there was minor damage to the accommodation ladder platform.
General Cargo Ship Great BRISBANE Damages

NAOMI MARU: had bow damage allowing ingress of water and mast stays were broken, displacing the mast.
NAOMI MARU Fishing Vessel Damages

Rule 7:
Covering risk of collision, which warns that assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.
Rule 8:
Covers action to be taken to avoid collision.
Wrong Rules Great BRISBANE Done

Rule 7 solution: Vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision, including the use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects
Rule 8 solution:
Actions taken to avoid collision should be: positive , obvious , made in good time

What must Great Brisbane do Colreg Solutions

Rule 5: Requires that “every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Rule 7: Covering risk of collision, which warns that “assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information“.
Rule 15: Crossing situations.
Rule 16: action to be taken by the give-way vessel.
Rule 26: covers light requirements for fishing vessels.
Wrong Colregs Rules NAOMI MARU Done

Rule 5: Every vessel must at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight (day shape or lights by eyes or visual aids) and hearing (sound signal or Marine VHF radio) as well as by all available means in order to make a full assessment of the situation and risk of collision.
Rule 7 solution: Vessels must use all available means to determine the risk of a collision, including the use of radar (if available) to get early warning of the risk of collision by radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects
Rule 15: Crossing situations When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.
Rule 16: The give-way vessel The give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear
Rule:26 (e) :A vessel when not engaged in fishing shall not exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in this Rule, but only those prescribed for a vessel of her length.
What NAOMI MARU Colregs RULES SOLUTIONS !

1: If both vessels had maintained course and speed collision could not have occurred.
2:the chief officer of GREAT BRISBANE contributed to the collision in that he did not comply with rule 7 as he.
(a) failed to use all available means to determine risk of
collision:
(b) failed to make proper use of radar equipment; and
(c) made assumptions on the basis on scanty information.
(d) Was not positive.
(e) Did not comply with rule 8
Conclusion

1: The Skipper of NAOMI MARU contributed to the collision in that:
a) He failed to maintain a proper lookout, in contravention of Rule 5.
b) He also made assumptions on the basis of scanty information, in
contravention of Rule 7(c).
c) When GREAT BRISBANE became a crossing vessel he did not comply
with Rule 15 and failed to keep out of the way for a vessel on
his own starboard side.
d) He did not comply with Rule 16 through failing to take early and
substantial action to keep well clear.
Conclusion

http://www.solarbright.com.au/images/australia-flag.gif 
http://dlc.k12.ar.us/David.Nance/Images/Flags/panama%20flag.gif
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea
http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/colreg.aspx
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25043/mair17_001
REFRENCES

The collision between the fishing vessel
Homeland
and
the ro-ro passenger vessel
Scottish Viking
(5 August 2010)
Drew, Ernest and Hamad
(June 24, 2011)

COLREGS Rules
Vessel signs
Nature of the incident
Collision overview
Contributing factor to the collision
COLREGS rules breached and ignored
Corrective actions
Navigational Watch-Keeping practice ignored
Corrective measures
Conclusion
References
Overview

Rule 2 – responsibility
Rule 5 – lookout
Rule 7 – Risk of collision
Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision
Rule 15 – Crossing situation
Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel
Rule 17 – Action by the stand-on vessel
Rule 34 – Maneuvering and warning signals
COLREGS RULES

Power driven Vesselththt
Power driven Vessel

*

Fishing Vessel

Italian registered ro-ro passenger ferry Scottish Viking on 5 August 2010, collided with the UK registered fishing vessel Homeland about 4 miles off St Abb’s Head.
Fishing vessel Homeland sank
One crew member fatality (Daniel McNeil).
Nature of the incident

Overview of the collision
The collision between Homeland and Scottish Viking occurred because those responsible for the watch on either vessel had not taken sufficient action to determine that a risk of collision existed. On board Homeland, the stand-on vessel, this was primarily because an inadequate lookout was being kept and the wheelhouse was not being manned continuously. On board Scottish Viking, the give-way vessel, the watch-keeper took insufficient action to determine that a risk of collision did exist, and , when the collision was imminent, did not take effective action to avoid the two vessels colliding.

Manning and qualifications
Incompetence
Lack of navigation policies
Un-compliance of safety management
Lack of precautionary thought
Radar was set on short-range 1.5 miles and echo did not appear on display on time.
Misunderstanding of sign signals.
Contributing factors

Rule 2 – responsibilities (requires master to be primary responsible for the safe and effective navigation of the vessel). However, Scottish Viking master handed over control to the second officer. According the ISM code, master has the responsibility for verifying that specified requirements are observed, and motivating the crew in observation of company policies.
COLREGS rules breached/ ignored

COLREGS Rules breached
Rule 5 – lookout (proper lookout was not performed by Homeland vessel watchman (Daniel who was distracted by the skipper in assisting in mending a torn net on the aft deck) Daniel lack watch-keeping proficiency and without appropriate qualifications and limited experience) STCW 95 states that no other duties should be assigned to the lookout. Need for early detection and monitoring.

Rule 7 – risk of collision (Homeland’s watchkeeper did not use all appropriate available means to establish if there was a risk of collision. They left the wheelhouse unmanned and there was no indication to the skipper of any potential risk of collision). Need to use radar, undue reliance on AIS rather than visual/ radar monitoring.
COLREGS rules breached Cond.

COLREGS Rules breached
Rule 8 – Action to avoid collision (The second officer’s late recognition of the need to take avoiding action prevented him from taking early avoiding action in accordance with Rule 8). Need for early action, the need for precautionary thinking. If in doubt, assume it exist and appropriate action.

Rule 15 – Crossing situation (The Second officer delayed his decision , thereby eliminating his options of collision avoidance by reducing speed or altering course to starboard , particularly after Achieve had altered her course to port. His only remaining option was then to alert course to port , albeit contrary to the spirit of Rule 15.
Rule 16 – Action by the give-way vessel (Action needed to be taking by the give-way vessel to avoid collision was to late)
COLREGS rules breached Cond.

Rule 17 – Action by the stand-on vessel (Rule 17(b) requires the stand on vessel to “take such action as will best aid to avoid collision”. Homeland skipper attempted to comply with rule 17 (b) however, his actions were too late to be effective.
COLREGS Rules breached

Rule 34 – Manoeuvring and warning signals ( Recognising that action was required by Homeland to avoid collision, the second officer should have sound at least five short and rapid blast on the whistle in accordance Rule 34(b). Need for correct signals to avoid misunderstanding of intentions.
Rules breached

According ISM Code in lines with the company’s navigation policy, it require the master to be the primarily responsible for safe and effective navigation of the vessel.
It requires navigational polices contained in the SMS to be strictly followed.
Navigational Watch-keeping practice breached

Navigational Watch-Keeping practice breached
At sea, the closet point of approach (CPA) of not less than one (1) shall be maintained whenever possible.
Thee primary means of plotting shall be the efficient use of all automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA)

The master should have been available to ensure that the company’s navigational policies are being followed.
The policy of closest point of approach not having less than 1 mile should have been maintained.
The automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA) should have been used to avoid the collision.
Corrective Measures

Although Daniel had intermittently returned to the wheelhouse to check the navigational situation, these checks were insufficiently thorough to identify a risk of collision with Scottish Viking.
Daniel’s inability to maintain a proper lookout was compromised by the skipper’s priority of requiring his assistance with mending the torn net on the aft deck.
Daniel might have lacked sufficient watch-keeping proficiency, given his absence of qualifications and limited experience.
Conclusion

Scottish Viking’s second officer did not use the radar to fully appraise the situation or the risk of collision.
Daniel had not understood or anticipated the developing situation.
Scottish Viking’s second officer, when navigating in close proximity to fishing vessels, did not usually take early avoiding action. His experience was that fishing vessels often carried out erratic maneuvers and that taking early avoiding action could result in unnecessary close-quarter situations.
Conclusion cond.

Scottish Viking’s second officer showed a poor attitude towards guidance and regulations. He lacked precautionary thought and failed to appreciate the hazard he was creating by intentionally navigating in close proximity to other vessels.
It is apparent that the Scottish Viking’s master did not sufficiently motivate the second officer to follow the company’s navigational procedures, or verify that they were being compiled with.
Conclusion cond.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Homeland_Scottish-Viking_Report , viewed June 16, 2011.
References