Optimising Watchkeeping to Prevent Collision Hazards on the MV Francisca
Optimalisasi Dinas Jaga Untuk Mencegah Terjadinya Bahaya Tubrukan di MV. Francisca
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48192/vns.v13i1.743Keywords:
Watchkeeping, Collision Hazard, COLREG 1972, STCW, MV FranciscaAbstract
Negligence during the navigational watch is a major contributor to collisions at sea, even though the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG) 1972 and the STCW Convention, as amended in 2010, set clear requirements for lookout, assessment of collision risk, and watchkeeping arrangements. This study analyses efforts to prevent collision hazards caused by negligence during the navigational watch on the general cargo ship MV Francisca. It was carried out during the authors’ sea practice from 5 August 2022 to 5 August 2023 using a descriptive qualitative design, with data collected through direct observation, interviews with watchkeeping officers and crew, and documents such as the logbook and standard operating procedures. The units of analysis were the officers of the watch and the navigation equipment used during the watch. A near-collision on 25 January 2023, during a voyage from Rotterdam to Reykjavik in Scottish waters in snow and waves of about 6 m, served as the case study. The Second Officer ignored repeated reports from the cadet that a fishing vessel on the starboard side was less than 1 nautical mile away with a decreasing closest point of approach, because he was completing a passage plan that should have been prepared before departure; a collision was avoided only by a late alteration of 75° to starboard and a reduction to dead slow ahead. The Chief Officer had also left his 16:00–20:00 watch to the Second Officer outside the latter’s watch hours. The study concludes that watchkeeping on the MV Francisca did not fully comply with COLREG 1972 and STCW, particularly regarding continuous lookout, response to reports, handover, and avoidance of distracting tasks. Stricter watchkeeping discipline, better use of radar and ECDIS, effective communication within the bridge team, and training are recommended.
References
Aylward, K., Weber, R., Lundh, M., MacKinnon, S. N., & Dahlman, J. (2022). Navigators’ views of a collision avoidance decision support system for maritime navigation. Journal of Navigation, 75(5), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463322000510
Bowo, L. P., & Furusho, M. (2019). Usability of human error assessment and reduction technique with a 4M framework (HEART–4M): A case study on ship grounding accidents. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 7(4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.5505/jems.2019.54775
Car, M., Brčić, D., Žuškin, S., & Sviličić, B. (2020). The navigator’s aspect of PNC before and after ECDIS implementation: Facts and potential implications towards navigation safety improvement. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(11), Article 842. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110842
Du, L., Valdez Banda, O. A., Goerlandt, F., Huang, Y., & Kujala, P. (2020). A COLREG-compliant ship collision alert system for stand-on vessels. Ocean Engineering, 218, Article 107866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107866
Engler, E., Banyś, P., Engler, H.-G., Baldauf, M., & Sill Torres, F. (2021). Evaluation of PNT error limits using real world close encounters from AIS data. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(2), Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9020149
Fahrisani, A., Anggeranika, V., & Azmy, F. M. (2022). Optimising watch handover before crew members keep their watch on MV. Amanah Morowali AMC. Journal Marine Inside, 4(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.56943/ejmi.v4i1.35
Fan, S., & Yang, Z. (2024). Accident data-driven human fatigue analysis in maritime transport using machine learning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 241, Article 109675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109675
Fan, S., Zhang, J., Blanco-Davis, E., Yang, Z., Wang, J., & Yan, X. (2018). Effects of seafarers’ emotion on human performance using bridge simulation. Ocean Engineering, 170, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.10.021
García Maza, J. A., & Poo Argüelles, R. (2022). COLREGs and their application in collision avoidance algorithms: A critical analysis. Ocean Engineering, 261, Article 112029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112029
Hannaford, E., Maes, P., & Van Hassel, E. (2022). Autonomous ships and the collision avoidance regulations: A licensed deck officer survey. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 21(2), 233–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-022-00269-z
Hu, Y., Zhang, A., Tian, W., Zhang, J., & Hou, Z. (2020). Multi-ship collision avoidance decision-making based on collision risk index. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(9), Article 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8090640
International Maritime Organization. (2011). STCW including 2010 Manila amendments: STCW Convention and STCW Code (2011 ed.). International Maritime Organization.
International Maritime Organization. (2018). COLREG: Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (2018 ed.). International Maritime Organization.
Kasyk, L., Wolnowska, A. E., Pleskacz, K., & Kapuściński, T. (2023). The analysis of social and situational systems as components of human errors resulting in navigational accidents. Applied Sciences, 13(11), Article 6780. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116780
Kayisoglu, G., Bolat, P., & Tam, K. (2022). Evaluating SLIM-based human error probability for ECDIS cybersecurity in maritime. Journal of Navigation, 75(6), 1364–1388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463322000534
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Moleong, L. J. (2011). Qualitative research methodology. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Nuryaman, D., & Denisyanti, S. (2022). Handover procedures before crew members keep their watch on KM. Sabuk Nusantara. Jurnal Sains Teknologi Transportasi Maritim, 4(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.51578/j.sitektransmar.v4i1.48
Sanchez-Beaskoetxea, J., Basterretxea-Iribar, I., Sotés, I., & Maruri, M. (2021). Human error in marine accidents: Is the crew normally to blame? Maritime Transport Research, 2, Article 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2021.100016
Sidauruk, E. B., Siregar, M. S., & Nurman, S. (2023). Analysis of watchkeeping officers’ skills in using radar to prevent accidents on MT. Narpatisuta. Journal on Education, 6(1), 3441–3448. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v6i1.2834
Supriyono, H., & Subandrijo, D. (2017). COLREG 1972 and bridge watchkeeping. Deepublish.
Syibli, Y. M., & Nuryaman, D. (2021). The role of shipboard navigation equipment in improving the safety of navigation. Dinamika Bahari, 2(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.46484/db.v2i1.250
Tsimplis, M. N., & Papadas, S. (2019). Information technology in navigation: Problems in legal implementation and liability. Journal of Navigation, 72(4), 833–849. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0373463318001030
Weng, J., Yang, D., Chai, T., & Fu, S. (2019). Investigation of occurrence likelihood of human errors in shipping operations. Ocean Engineering, 182, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.04.083
Youn, I.-H., Park, D.-J., & Yim, J.-B. (2019). Analysis of lookout activity in a simulated environment to investigate maritime accidents caused by human error. Applied Sciences, 9(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9010004
