“LucySnug”AllegedCollisionwithFishingVessel–31stOctober2011.doc

Confidential and privilegedDate7 November 2011ToDeborah Yu The London P&I ClubFromEdward Ma CCSubject“Lucy Snug” Alleged Collision with Fishing Vessel 31st October 2011Dear Deborah,We report in full on the results of our investigation on board the Lucy Snug and the on the case in general.1 IntroductionIt is alleged that on 31st October 2011, at about 0420 local time (GMT+8), at approximate position 3052.0N/123.7E, along the east coast of China, roughly to the east of Shanghai, M/V Lucy Snug collided with a local Chinese fishing boat ZHEPUYU 32165. As a result of the alleged collision, the owners of fishing boat and the local fishing administration claimed that the boat was capsized with all six fishermen on board missing. Alleged collisionShanghaiUpon instructions from the Club, Prof. Zhang Duo, our marine consultant, and Ms Liu Xiaowen, boarded M/V Lucy Snug on 3rd November 2011 in Qingdao port to investigate the alleged collision and to assist the master and the crew in the MSA investigation. 2 The two ships involved in the alleged collision2.1 MV Lucy SnugThe Lucy Snug, flying Italian flag, is a general cargo ship built in 2010 in China, of 22070 gross tonnage, 11930 net tonnage, with a length overall of 179.5 metres and a breath of 27.7 metres. The ships wheelhouse is extended to both sides, without the traditional open air bridge wings. Her hull above the waterline is painted dark blue.The ship bridge, situated aft, is fitted with modern navigational aids, including two ARPA radars, two GPS sets, two VHF radios, an AIS set and a gyrocompass with autopilot, etc. In particular, the ship is equipped with and operating an authorized ECDIS system instead of the traditional paper chart for their routine navigational purposes. All of the bridge equipments are in good operating condition and was operational at the time of the alleged collision.2.2 ZHEPUYU 32165According to Mr. Hu Yimin, deputy director of maritime and fishery office of Putuo District, Zhoushan Municipality, ZHEPUYU 32165 was 33 metres in length, 6.3 metres in width, of steel construction, with a propulsion power of 202 kilowatts. Her steering house was painted white and hull sky blue; It was manned by six fishmen during the ill-fated voyage, five of which were local residents, 1 from Shaanxi Province.3 The Evidence3.1 The DocumentsOur representatives viewed the ships deck logbook, engine room logbook, bell book, course recorder chart and printout of voyage log. All the records seemed to be in order, showing a normal passage of M/V Lucy Snug through the area where the alleged collision took place, without alteration of speed, with normal small alterations of course. The voyage log shows the following in the early morning of 31st October 2011 (local time):TimeLATLONSOG/knCOG/HDG/CORR/Wind/knWind/03:48:503046.186N12315.840E12.3 kn347.8344.7-0.919.6 kn58.304:14:503051.359N12314.184E12.2 kn339.6335.8-0.818.6 kn73.904:22:503052.857N12313.492E12.1 kn341.4344.5-0.919.3 kn57.504:31:503054.621N12313.024E12.0 kn351.8353.4-0.919.6 kn51.83.2 The Crews StatementsOur representatives interviewed the master, Captain Cappelluti Nicola, an Italian national born in 1967, holding a valid masters certificate of competency issued by the government of Italy; the chief mate, Pirvu Gily, an Romania national born in 1972, holding a valid chief mates certificate of competency issued by the government of Romania; the second mate, Tudor Gabriel, an Romania national born in 1982, holding a valid certificate of competency for an officer in charge of a navigational watch issued by the government of Romania. According to the chief and second mates and the deck log entries, during the above period of time, M/V Lucy Snug was sailing normally, as indicated by the voyage log; the visibility was very good with slight swell; the wind was blowing from the north east at Beaufort force 5; the lights from of group of stationary vessels were very clear, M/V Lucy Snug was passing through the middle of the vessels from 0355 on; the chief mate came to the bridge to relieve the second mate at 0400 (not the usual 0345 or 0350, as required); the relieved second mate and his AB had not left the bridge until 0435 or later; an AB and a cadet were also on the bridge with the chief mate; the master was in his cabin all the time. All of them claimed that they did not see the lights of ZHEPUYU 32165, nor hear any calling for help. The second mate also mentioned that a large vessel, numbered Target 17 on the ARPA radar display, was passing the alleged area.3.3 The Scratches on Lucy Snugs HullForeign blue paintForeign white paintstemOur representatives also checked the scratches on the hull of M/V Lucy Snug at the bow. There are some fresh scratches and foreign paint on the bow stem and then leading to starboard side, before the starboard anchor recess, about 2 metres above the waterline. It seems that the upper foreign paint is whitish and the lower light blue, obviously from contact with a foreign object. 3.4 The VDR RecordThe master had the VDR data transferred to his computer, however, the special manufacturers software is not available to us, as a result we are not able to view the scenario around the alleged material time of collision. Mr. Pei, boarding M/V Lucy Snug as owners representative, transferred to us several still pictures of the VDR video that he had copied while the VDR video was being replayed by a manufacturers technician, as instructed by the two investigating officers from Shanghai MSA.3.5 Fishing Administration Officials StatementOur representatives also interviewed Mr. Hu Yimin, deputy director of maritime and fishery office of Putuo District, Zhoushan Municipality, who came on board representing the local fishing administration. According to the information he has given, ZHEPUYU 32165 was one of about 10 fishing vessels as a fishing fleet headed by the skipper of their head vessel. They trawled at day time and anchored at night. In the early morning of 31st Oct. 2011, the skipper of the head vessel called all the fishing vessels on the VHF to weigh anchor to start a new days trawling operation. However, no response had been received from ZHEPUYU 32165. They started a searching operation around the area, but failed to find it. They came to realize that the vessel had sunk at some time during that night after having found the shell of a life raft floating on the sea with the vessels name printed on it and some fishing net cases also bearing the fishing vessels name. All the six fishermen on board are missing together with the fishing vessel. The exact time of the accident is unknown. 4 The First MSA Investigation in QingdaoThe alleged collision is investigated by Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration (MSA), within whose jurisdiction the alleged collision took place. Therefore, two investigating officers from Shanghai MSA came to Qingdao, accompanied by Mr. Wu, a lawyer representing the fishermen, and several officials from the local fishing administration, including Mr. Hu Yimin, as mentioned above. The MSA officials collected the following evidence: All ships certificates Officers license (master, chief and second mates, and duty ABs) Logbook (deck and engine) Bell book (deck and engine) Course recorder chart Ships particulars Arrival conditions Crew list GPS position log Backup data of ECDIS Foreign paint sample4.1 MSA Officers AllegationAccording to master of M/V Lucy Snug, on 2nd Nov. 2011, the investigating officers boarded the vessel, collecting some routine evidence, retrieving the VDR data with a technician. In particular, they replayed the ships VDR video at the time point of 0400 hrs on 31st Oct. 2011. The video showed an echo passing down the starboard side of M/V Lucy Snug at a very close range. The investigating officers alleged that the echo should be the missing ZHEPUYU 32165 and M/V Lucy Snug was guilty of her sinking.4.2 Crews ExplanationThe master and his mates watched the video and debated that the echo remained there for more than 30 minutes after the ship had been past and clear from it; had the echo been ZHEPUYU 32165, there would have been sufficient time for it to call for help on VHF from its sister vessels in the close vicinity, but this was not the case.5 The Second MSA Investigation in QingdaoOn 3rd Nov. 2011, while our representatives on board, the investigating officers boarded the vessel for the second time. 5.1 MSA Officers Allegation The MSA officers focused on a new echo (“the Echo”) this time, which they claimed was ZHEPUYU 32165 and sank at about 0420 hrs of 31st Oct. 2011. Alleged missing vessel04:14HeadingPredicted track04:14Echo disappeared? The Echo was, together with another echo, on the ships bow without a small triangle beside it, while all other echoes were marked with small triangles beside them. The Echo disappeared from the screen at 04:14, about 6 minutes before its alleged time of sinking. The MSA officers alleged that its disappearance was due to the blind sector of the ships radar antenna obscured by the deck cranes.It is worth to note the relative position of the Echo with two other echoes (with triangle marks) on the ships port bow and the echo (without triangle mark) on the starboard bow. We wish to point out that the intensity of the Echo is much weaker than others. It could make some sense in our later analysis.5.2 Master and Crews ExplanationThe master of the ship thought that the Echo must be a flag post indicating underwater fishing nets, its disappearance was due to the blind sector of his ships radar detection. The chief and second mates assumed that the Echo must be a false echo, otherwise it would not have disappeared 1.2 nm (6 minutes passage) ahead of Lucy Snug, taking into account the fact that Lucy Snug was almost on even keel (10.26 fwd, 10.86 aft) and the blind range should only be two times of the ships length (about 0.2 nm). All of them complained that the MSA officers had not allowed them to check whether or not the Echo reappeared after Lucy was past that position.6 MSA Officers Preliminary OpinionAfter the interviews with the master and his mates, the two MSA officers held a very brief discussion with us. They made it clear that, presently, all the available evidence points to the fact that Lucy Snug is the ship that sank ZHEPUYU 32165, however their final conclusion is subject to the results of sample analyses and further investigation on the wreck of ZHEPUYU 32165 (if located and refloated). The MSA officers further explained that, the Echo entered Lucy Snugs radar blind zone, which is usually 2 times of the vessel length; however, owing to the obstruction of deck cranes and the Echo being right ahead of Lucys bow, the blind sector would be rather larger. We asked the MSA officers if the Echo reappeared on the screen after Lucy Snug passed, they gave a quick positive “yes”, and vaguely explained that it reappeared at a late stage and then disappeared due to change of display range. We further asked them if they could confirm that the Echo was ZHEPUYU 32165. They replied that the Echo was at the exact position of ZHEPUYU 32165, which could be verified by other means.Owners representative, Mr. Pei, was also on board. All of us urged the MSA officers to release the vessel as soon as possible in line with the provisions of IMO Casualty Investigation Code. However, they would not do so until a letter of undertaking reach the fishermen. 7 Comments on the Evidence7.1 Logbooks and Other RecordsIn terms of certificates, M/V Lucy Snug has not been found unseaworthy. Her documents, records and other paper work are all well maintained. None of which indicates a collision with a fishing vessel. On the other hand, none of which could preclude the possibility of such an incident.7.2 Lucy Snug Crews StatementsThe master and his crew all stated a normal passage. However, it does not seem to be a routine practice for a second mate and his AB to stay on bridge for more than half an hour after being relieved.7.3 Opponents StatementThere is so far only sketchy information about ZHEPUYU 32165, mainly from Mr. Hu, the local fishing administration official, who further admitted that the exact time and position of the alleged accident are not known. Information regarding its size, construction, colour etc. needs to be verified. Manning a fishing vessel of such a size, 6 men is a very reasonable figure. Generally, Mr. Hus statement is reasonable, though subject to further verification.7.4 The VDR VideoThe VDR video will provide a reliable scenario of the alleged accident. However, its not available to us at this stage. With the several still pictures at hand, we have the following analysis. Please refer to the picture at 0416. The red question mark “?” is where the Echo should be, and the echo on starboard bow without a triangle mark is still on display.04:16?04:16But before going further, we make clear two points in the first place. Firstly, the triangle mark indicates the operation of AIS device; the Echo (without the triangle mark) did not have its AIS operational at the alleged material period of time. Secondly, its reasonable to assume that nobody, including the MSA officers, knows the exact time and position of the alleged incident, due to the un-operation of AIS device on the Echo. This can also be inferred from the statement of Mr. Hu, and are demonstrated by the facts that two allegations, corresponding to different times, has been given by the MSA officers during their investigations.We also wish to refer you to the picture at 04:18 and the following could be noted. The time of the alleged accident. It can be observed, on the picture at 04:14, the position of the Echo relative to those of the two echoes on Lucy Snugs port side, and it could be noted that on the picture at 04:18, M/V Lucy Snug was at the position where the Echo should be. This means that the alleged collision should have taken place at 04:18 rather than 04:20, as claimed by the MSA officers. Target 17. On the picture at 04:18, an echo on the port side was plotted and numbered No.17. The second mate stated that he made VHF contact with it and maintained his course and speed while No.17 altered course to starboard and passed astern of M/V Lucy Snug, apparently performing her give-way obligations in a crossing situation. It can be reasonably reckoned at this stage based on the aspect of their meeting that, No.17 would not pass close to the fishing boats. The display mode. The radar was being operated in the off-centre mode, with M/V Lucy Snug being positioned at the bottom. This resulted in an uneven and unbalanced display of the echoes in terms of their dimensions. In other words, the closer the echoes to M/V Lucy Snug, the more concentrated they are in terms of their dimensions; the farther away from the ship, the larger the echoes seem to be. Looking at the echoes at the top, they look much larger, and the echoes close to Lucy Snug dwindled to nothing or unrecognizable but for the triangle marks. Therefore the disappearance of the Echo at 04:14 might be owing to a) it was much weaker than others around it in terms of display intensity, and b) it dwindled as it was approaching to M/V Lucy Snug in the off-centre display mode. The MSA officers have formed a theory (or a mental set) in pinpointing the “hit and run” ship, i.e. a vessel sunk by another ship must disappear on the radar display, so they gave up their first allegation because the first echo remained on the display for at least 30 minutes after Lucy Snug M/V cleared it. They then turned to the echo because it did disappear at a time. However it does not hold water again because the Echo reappeared and disappearance does not necessarily mean a vessel was run over and sank in this case, as analysed above.7.5 The Foreign Paint and its Sample AnalysisThe fresh scratches and foreign paint on Lucy Snugs hull at the bow are the most compelling evidence against us, which put Lucy Snug in a very unfavourable position. The colours and their layout, the position above water, correspond with the alleged fishing vessel and the accident itself, if not contradictory. Furthermore, the master and his mates are unable to give a plausible explanation as to how and when they were there. Sample analysis will be subject to the refloating of the wreck of ZHEPUYU 32165 which is 50 metres under the sea.We note that the Master has recalled that during the last bunkering in the Black Sea, the ship was assisted by two tugs of blue colour. Any pictures of the tugs or any other evidence could be very helpful.7.6 Questions Remained UnansweredWith all the available information at hand at this stage, there are some questions remained unanswered and clarification is required in further investigation. The alleged collision might take place at any time during the night. Was M/V Lucy Snug the only ship passing the area? By what means and how do the MSA officers confirm that the first echo (down the starboard side of Lucy Snug at close range) was from ZHEPUYU 32165? Was where a triangle mark beside it thereby indicating that it had its AIS device switched on? By what means and how do the MSA officers confirm that the Echo was from a vessel and from ZHEPUYU 32165? If the Echo was from a vessel, why it did not switch on its AIS device, as other vessels of her type in the vicinity did? If the Echo was from ZHEPUYU 32165, why the Echo was substantially dimmer than the echoes of other vessels of her similar size and type, taking into account the distance from M/V Lucy