COLUMN | Bulk carrier grounding response puts tug crews' bravery in focus [Tug Times]

"Assumptions based upon scanty information may be dangerous and should be avoided."

The above line is taken from a previous version of the collision regulations – the version I had to learn by heart when I entered the shipping industry. Sadly, no sooner had I learned them all than they were replaced by the 1972 version, but I still remember some of them.

Of course, remembering a rule and applying it are two different things, and I failed to apply this rule in my previous column about the Portland Bay incident. In particular, I praised the tug crews and said their bravery should have been recognised.

I am grateful to Vik Chaudhri, who is Manager, Transport Safety, at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) for contacting me to point out that the bravery of the tug crews was recognised. Indeed, the three crewmembers of SL Diamantina have all received an Exceptional Bravery at Sea commendation from the International Maritime Organisation.

They were nominated by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), whose CEO Mick Kinley was present when they received their awards in London. So, well done AMSA, and well done Brad Lucas (master), Marius Fenger (engineer) and Alex Alsop (deckhand). I am delighted you were recognised, and I can only apologise for my sloppy research that failed to discover the fact.

Mr Kinley extended his heartfelt congratulations to the men and pointed out that, “thanks to the remarkable bravery, stamina and resourcefulness” of the tug crew, “twenty-one people are safe today. And if that weren’t enough, their actions averted an environmental disaster that would have had long-lasting ramifications had they not succeeded.”

Tugmaster Brad Lucas was pleasingly modest in his remarks, choosing to praise the contribution of his crewmates and their outstanding support during the incident.

“This award means a lot to me because I want to stand next to my engineer Marius and my deckhand Alex and remember the day, remember what we did that day,” Lucas said.

I suspect that Vik Chaudhri of ATSB is normally employed in a leadership role, but in the Portland Bay investigation, it was all hands to the pumps, so I believe he led the investigation and the writing of the report.

He also proved to be remarkably forthcoming about the work of his bureau and generously answered my questions about the towing aspects. It is worth quoting him at some length:

"The ATSB investigation report focused on the areas (subjects) where the nine systemic safety issues were identified to best improve future safety. In reporting the limitations of the tugs that initially responded, the best efforts of their crews were also acknowledged.

"Fortunately, the severe weather conditions did not result in serious injury to anyone or damage to the tugs, which would have necessitated investigating these matters in far greater detail to identify the safety factors that contributed to any adverse consequences."

In other words, an analysis of the deployment of the first tug would have had to discuss not only the bravery of the crew and the merits of sending it out, but also the potential risks.

Mr Chaudhri also told me he received a lot of feedback from people in the industry, with some pointing out that a tug with only three crewmembers and no aft winch should not have been deployed. He decided to, “balance these matters by just stating the facts as opposed to an in-depth analysis,” which was probably wise.

In conclusion, he pointed out that all the safety issues and recommendations in the report will be regularly updated on the ATSB website, starting from September this year, and will include feedback from the companies and organisations that were subject to those recommendations. It will be interesting to discover whether they agree or disagree with the ATSB findings.

I suppose ships have been breaking down since the first steam engines were fitted to replace or augment the sails, and I have spent the odd few days drifting around in the middle of the Pacific while the engineers worked round the clock to get us going again, but it seems to me that modern vessels, with all their technical sophistication, are more difficult to fix than the vessels of my youth.

If I have learned anything from the last two columns (apart from the need to avoid assumptions based upon scanty information), it is that there are still good people in the industry and you can still rely on tugs to do their very best, even in impossible situations.

But I wonder if the increasing sophistication of tug propulsion systems might soon lead us into territory where the tugs are as unreliable as the vessels they are assisting. I certainly hope not.

Finally, a report caught my eye recently, and it has nothing to do with tugs, but says everything about the fine traditions of the sea. A South Korean bulk carrier received a distress call from a Chinese cargo ship in a remote part of the Indian Ocean and immediately diverted to assist.

Despite the efforts of the crew of Run Fu 3, they were forced to abandon ship, and all were rescued by the South Korean vessel Maple Harbour. As you will all be aware, China and South Korea are not the best of friends, but that made no difference to the mariners who acted in the traditional manner.

I only saw one report about the case, and it will be quickly forgotten by all except the 23 rescued people and their families, but in these troubled times where diplomacy and statesmanship appear to have been replaced by stupidity and childish cruelty among some world leaders, it is good to know shipping people are still acting decently.