Report on the sinking of HMNZS Manawanui published
Discussion
Survey auxiliary ran aground and sank in Samoa last year; shambolic lapses of training, seamanship etc., quite similar to accidents in the North Sea where supply boats and stand-by boats have rammed oil rigs while the autopilot is still engaged but the dick on the sticks thinks it isn't.
I saw that youtube video on it and, oh boy, there's some really serious basic errors made, not just by the crew but also by the command in allowing a captain without a type rating to command the ship she hand very little knowledge of .............. and for her to tannoy - "(paraphrased) I know were sinking but please pop to the loo before evacuating in the liferafts" is just, wow!
The full report is here as a PDF
The full report is here as a PDF
Simpo Two said:
Remarkable.
When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
Engineering that level of automation between electronic control systems made by different manufacturers costs more than most ship owners are interested in paying for, so ergonomic disfunction like this is not uncommon. We work around them by using checklists much as are used by pilots. The autopilot panel will have an indicator lamp to show it is on but the age of ship in question means the lamps are probably incandescent lamps, which fail for fun on these panels and some mug has to change the lamps, if the mug had not been round the bridge checking that day then the relevant lamp may have failed and not been changed. When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
hidetheelephants said:
Engineering that level of automation between electronic control systems made by different manufacturers costs more than most ship owners are interested in paying for, so ergonomic disfunction like this is not uncommon. We work around them by using checklists much as are used by pilots. The autopilot panel will have an indicator lamp to show it is on but the age of ship in question means the lamps are probably incandescent lamps, which fail for fun on these panels and some mug has to change the lamps, if the mug had not been round the bridge checking that day then the relevant lamp may have failed and not been changed.
Well I guess the chances of surviving a shipwreck are better than surviving a plane crash so maybe that's why they don't mind too much. But a warning system that works effectively might be cheaper than buying a new ship. Or hire competent bridge crew of course!As a Pilot it was an imperative that I knew how to engage hand steering or had the confidence that the helmsman could.
As a Ship’s Master I ensure that every member of my Bridge team, including non-officers know how to engage hand steering and every deck officer & sailor undertakes 1 hour a week of hand steering.
This is so I don’t end up talking to a man in a wig in my professional capacity.
As a Ship’s Master I ensure that every member of my Bridge team, including non-officers know how to engage hand steering and every deck officer & sailor undertakes 1 hour a week of hand steering.
This is so I don’t end up talking to a man in a wig in my professional capacity.
Simpo Two said:
Remarkable.
When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
The maritime world is moving towards integration.When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
In 20 years you’ll have essentially 2 major bridge systems from Wartsila or Kongsberg.
A bit like Airbus & Boeing with aircraft.
Ship’s electronic integration bears more relationship to your house than your car.
Sony TV, JVC DVD player, Amazon Firestick, BT broadband & a Sonos Bluetooth speaker.
=
Furuno Radar, JRC MF radios, Kelvin Hughes ECDIS, Sperry gyro compass, Sailor VHF radios.
It’s a non standardised mess.
It is getting better, but there’s no will to establish standardisation & the emphasis is on training.
The 2 problems the marine industry has is legacy tonnage & walking at the pace of the slowest, and it’s traditions.
I’m proud of the fact I can still weild a sextant, in fact, I’d love to take a yacht transatlantic with no electricity at all.
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
I have also never worked on a ship that didn’t have GPS plus another form of electronic nav system.
But the sextant is still in the syllabus.
This is bonkers in 2025.
(If anyone wants a Celestial Nav Lecture I am happy to explain it.)
ChocolateFrog said:
Amateur hour.
Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
1) New Zealand are never going to war.Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
2) They prioritised things other than excellence in their recruitment & appointment policy.
They just need to do enough to convince China the aren’t a push over & delay until the Americans arrive.
Stick Legs said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Amateur hour.
Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
1) New Zealand are never going to war.Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
2) They prioritised things other than excellence in their recruitment & appointment policy.
They just need to do enough to convince China the aren’t a push over & delay until the Americans arrive.
Stick Legs said:
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
By chance I've just got to that bit in 'Navigational Instruments' by Richard Dunn. Fortunately for me my boat is on a river, which vastly reduces the chances of navigational error... And at all times I know which way the rudder is pointing and the thrusters only work when I push the knob!Stick Legs said:
1) New Zealand are never going to war.
2) They prioritised things other than excellence in their recruitment & appointment policy.
They just need to do enough to convince China the aren’t a push over & delay until the Americans arrive.
1) Nothing is certain.2) They prioritised things other than excellence in their recruitment & appointment policy.
They just need to do enough to convince China the aren’t a push over & delay until the Americans arrive.
2) I did wonder if 'DEI' played a part, notably in the suggestion that everyone goes to the loo before getting into the life rafts. That's what a mother says to her children before they go out for the day, not what a captain says when lives are at risk.
3) The Americans may not turn up next time.
ChocolateFrog said:
Stick Legs said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Amateur hour.
Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
New Zealand are never going to war.Imagine going to war and that's your leadership group, scary stuff.
Assisting other armed forces in a coalition is not what I was referring to, but New Zealand has a great military history.
I do not mean to demean any particular member of those forces, who I am sure would be delighted to be better equipped.
Simpo Two said:
2) I did wonder if 'DEI' played a part.................
Not by the Captain or crew I would suggest, but there is always the possibility that the higher up person who ordered the "non-command platform endorsed" (i.e. not "fully" qualified to Captain that type of ship) - female officer to take command of that ship would have a very, very large question mark hanging over them and their decision, and whether that decision was made with the best interest of the RNZN's military capability in mind or something else. For example the Captain had been in command of the ship for almost 3 years and yet still hadn't become fully qualified to command the ship, alongside many other personnel who were not fully qualified for their roles being onboard during the incident, with all 4 of main people involved being "not fully trained" in their roles, such as the people "steering" the ship who were not fully qualified to "steer" the ship for example as they were still undergoing some form of "steering" training (I have to be a bit generic as the report redacts a lot of the correct course names that these people hadn't completed yet), and that should be a huge concern.
Overall I think it shows the RNZN in an extremely poor light, especially at command level to allow so many "non-fully qual'd" people to be allowed to sea all at the same time and all on the same ship, as those involved were heavily let down by the leadership.
As the Inquiries report stated -
said:
The Court concluded that the individual deficiencies in the CO’s, (and 3x additional names redacted), platform related training, and experience in planning and conducting survey operations of the nature being conducted by the Ship, collectively combined to contribute to the Ship grounding.
Edited by IanH755 on Monday 7th April 18:41
Stick Legs said:
The maritime world is moving towards integration.
In 20 years you’ll have essentially 2 major bridge systems from Wartsila or Kongsberg.
A bit like Airbus & Boeing with aircraft.
Ship’s electronic integration bears more relationship to your house than your car.
Sony TV, JVC DVD player, Amazon Firestick, BT broadband & a Sonos Bluetooth speaker.
=
Furuno Radar, JRC MF radios, Kelvin Hughes ECDIS, Sperry gyro compass, Sailor VHF radios.
It’s a non standardised mess.
It is getting better, but there’s no will to establish standardisation & the emphasis is on training.
The 2 problems the marine industry has is legacy tonnage & walking at the pace of the slowest, and it’s traditions.
I’m proud of the fact I can still weild a sextant, in fact, I’d love to take a yacht transatlantic with no electricity at all.
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
I have also never worked on a ship that didn’t have GPS plus another form of electronic nav system.
But the sextant is still in the syllabus.
This is bonkers in 2025.
(If anyone wants a Celestial Nav Lecture I am happy to explain it.)
You may well consider it to be a non-standardised mess, however, I’ve always found it works quite well. In 20 years you’ll have essentially 2 major bridge systems from Wartsila or Kongsberg.
A bit like Airbus & Boeing with aircraft.
Ship’s electronic integration bears more relationship to your house than your car.
Sony TV, JVC DVD player, Amazon Firestick, BT broadband & a Sonos Bluetooth speaker.
=
Furuno Radar, JRC MF radios, Kelvin Hughes ECDIS, Sperry gyro compass, Sailor VHF radios.
It’s a non standardised mess.
It is getting better, but there’s no will to establish standardisation & the emphasis is on training.
The 2 problems the marine industry has is legacy tonnage & walking at the pace of the slowest, and it’s traditions.
I’m proud of the fact I can still weild a sextant, in fact, I’d love to take a yacht transatlantic with no electricity at all.
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
I have also never worked on a ship that didn’t have GPS plus another form of electronic nav system.
But the sextant is still in the syllabus.
This is bonkers in 2025.
(If anyone wants a Celestial Nav Lecture I am happy to explain it.)
In my most recent role, well, for the last 15 years, I have investigated the circumstances to determine the root causes of many collisions, groundings and FFO (Fixed and Floating Object) incidents. In my findings, I’ve never found that the type of equipment provided and being utilised was the problem, it was due to one or more other factors; operator error (poor training being a frequent factor (don’t get me started on STCW)), machinery / equipment failure, or simple failings in conducting a navigational watch, like keeping a lookout.
We need to remember that the basics work very well too, I vividly remember working the Japanese coast early in my career with no ARPA. We had two 3cm JRC CRT radars, and a Chinagraph pencil, it worked, although not good for the blood pressure!
Simpo Two said:
Remarkable.
When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
This is exactly the system we had fitted on the first ship I served on, when in auto pilot if you held the ships wheel over for five seconds it would disengage, this system was introduced as a safeguard after the Torrey Canyon grounding, where I think it was found the helmsmen didn’t know how to operate the auto pilot. After reading a few of the reply’s on here it sounds like we’ve gone backwards since then.When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
hidetheelephants said:
To paraphrase; don't attribute to DEI that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Well, there must be a reason why they appointed somebody incompetent, other suggestions welcome.davidexige said:
Simpo Two said:
Remarkable.
When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
This is exactly the system we had fitted on the first ship I served on, when in auto pilot if you held the ships wheel over for five seconds it would disengage, this system was introduced as a safeguard after the Torrey Canyon grounding, where I think it was found the helmsmen didn’t know how to operate the auto pilot. After reading a few of the reply’s on here it sounds like we’ve gone backwards since then.When a car is running under cruise control, if you brake it cancels. Could not a ship's autopilot be designed to cancel if manual input is made? (with suitable warnings)? Or not to cancel but at least give a warning so you know who's steering?
Popeyed said:
Stick Legs said:
The maritime world is moving towards integration.
In 20 years you’ll have essentially 2 major bridge systems from Wartsila or Kongsberg.
A bit like Airbus & Boeing with aircraft.
Ship’s electronic integration bears more relationship to your house than your car.
Sony TV, JVC DVD player, Amazon Firestick, BT broadband & a Sonos Bluetooth speaker.
=
Furuno Radar, JRC MF radios, Kelvin Hughes ECDIS, Sperry gyro compass, Sailor VHF radios.
It’s a non standardised mess.
It is getting better, but there’s no will to establish standardisation & the emphasis is on training.
The 2 problems the marine industry has is legacy tonnage & walking at the pace of the slowest, and it’s traditions.
I’m proud of the fact I can still weild a sextant, in fact, I’d love to take a yacht transatlantic with no electricity at all.
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
I have also never worked on a ship that didn’t have GPS plus another form of electronic nav system.
But the sextant is still in the syllabus.
This is bonkers in 2025.
(If anyone wants a Celestial Nav Lecture I am happy to explain it.)
You may well consider it to be a non-standardised mess, however, I’ve always found it works quite well. In 20 years you’ll have essentially 2 major bridge systems from Wartsila or Kongsberg.
A bit like Airbus & Boeing with aircraft.
Ship’s electronic integration bears more relationship to your house than your car.
Sony TV, JVC DVD player, Amazon Firestick, BT broadband & a Sonos Bluetooth speaker.
=
Furuno Radar, JRC MF radios, Kelvin Hughes ECDIS, Sperry gyro compass, Sailor VHF radios.
It’s a non standardised mess.
It is getting better, but there’s no will to establish standardisation & the emphasis is on training.
The 2 problems the marine industry has is legacy tonnage & walking at the pace of the slowest, and it’s traditions.
I’m proud of the fact I can still weild a sextant, in fact, I’d love to take a yacht transatlantic with no electricity at all.
A magnetic compass, mechanical watch, a sextant & a book of astronomical tables & I am confident I could get to my intended landfall.
I have also never worked on a ship that didn’t have GPS plus another form of electronic nav system.
But the sextant is still in the syllabus.
This is bonkers in 2025.
(If anyone wants a Celestial Nav Lecture I am happy to explain it.)
In my most recent role, well, for the last 15 years, I have investigated the circumstances to determine the root causes of many collisions, groundings and FFO (Fixed and Floating Object) incidents. In my findings, I’ve never found that the type of equipment provided and being utilised was the problem, it was due to one or more other factors; operator error (poor training being a frequent factor (don’t get me started on STCW)), machinery / equipment failure, or simple failings in conducting a navigational watch, like keeping a lookout.
We need to remember that the basics work very well too, I vividly remember working the Japanese coast early in my career with no ARPA. We had two 3cm JRC CRT radars, and a Chinagraph pencil, it worked, although not good for the blood pressure!
However the absence of non-standardised training & equipment in root cause analysis is not a ringing endorsement of it being an acceptable way to build ships in the 21st century.
IanH755 said:
Simpo Two said:
2) I did wonder if 'DEI' played a part.................
Not by the Captain or crew I would suggest, but there is always the possibility that the higher up person who ordered the "non-command platform endorsed" (i.e. not "fully" qualified to Captain that type of ship) - female officer to take command of that ship would have a very, very large question mark hanging over them and their decision, and whether that decision was made with the best interest of the RNZN's military capability in mind or something else. For example the Captain had been in command of the ship for almost 3 years and yet still hadn't become fully qualified to command the ship, alongside many other personnel who were not fully qualified for their roles being onboard during the incident, with all 4 of main people involved being "not fully trained" in their roles, such as the people "steering" the ship who were not fully qualified to "steer" the ship for example as they were still undergoing some form of "steering" training (I have to be a bit generic as the report redacts a lot of the correct course names that these people hadn't completed yet), and that should be a huge concern.
Overall I think it shows the RNZN in an extremely poor light, especially at command level to allow so many "non-fully qual'd" people to be allowed to sea all at the same time and all on the same ship, as those involved were heavily let down by the leadership.
As the Inquiries report stated -
said:
The Court concluded that the individual deficiencies in the CO’s, (and 3x additional names redacted), platform related training, and experience in planning and conducting survey operations of the nature being conducted by the Ship, collectively combined to contribute to the Ship grounding.
Edited by IanH755 on Monday 7th April 18:41
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff