Courageous collision trial

Blue Dolphin SG

Anyone following the collision trial?
Has been reading straits times and it seems like the ANL Indonesia is at fault. The VTIS radar picture shows the ANL Indonesia turn and ram Courageous in the back.
Interesting Exclamation

Fairyland SG

It's not easy to react when u are driving an elephant.

This is where the hardware/technology stop and the 'software' comes in.......sound navigation judgement of the officer in charge.

In this regard, I can see the software not only lacking in the two officers in the wheelhouse BUT also the two NCOs at watch!!!

Their answers to the DPP is very alarming and shows a lack of professionalism.

Price:- One Fearless Class PV in the scrap yard and lost of lives.

Altrex SG

it's human nature to be lazy.....everywhere, there r lazy bastards who dun take their jobs seriously. as long as nothing happens, everything's fine, the moment something does, shit happens.

we r in the wrong, but for ANL Indonesia to pretend to be an angel and push all the blame to us is absurd. merchant ships break ROR all the time....just like traffic laws (c'mon, who has NEVER broken 90kmph on a S'pore road b4?)

if merchant vessels r so law abiding in the Straits, there wouldn't be so many of them turning east less than 5 nm from PB, resulting in so many groundings off PB over the years....

and to remain on autopilot in the straits is crazy, just coz u're reaching PB doesn't mean everything's clear, u still have to report to VTIS and maintain on CH10 rite?

due to a rush for time, merchant vessels almost always REFUSE to slow down, and that OOW could have called VTIS East on CH10 or 16 if he was really confused.....he surely could have seen Courageous' masthead light >6nm, esp so given his superior height of eye, only losing sight of her as she got very near......(if he was alert as well)

and the golden rule is always, when in doubt, slow down to have more time to assess the situation.....he din....

moral of the story: pple always like to learn things the hard way, before that, it's always "it has never happened before"

Blue Dolphin SG

From the news and TV in the early part of the year, I thought we were in the wrong too. Until I saw the straits times that showed VTIS raw plot.
Hey, it sure looks like Courageous cross the bow of ANL and then ANL turn and continue at twice the speed of courageous and ram her at the back.
At that proximity and with little reaction time, not sure courageous have the chance to get out of harms way. Radar takes some time to settle down before giving good indication of contact turning.
Interesting to see how this differs from the original MPA report. I thinkt the report was VERY bias against Courageous. Cool

Atobe SG

In the trial of the two RSN Officers, is the Public Prosecutor interested in justice based on facts or based on assumptions from 20/20 hindsight ?

In the grilling of the expert witness for the Defense, the manner of grilling by the Public Prosecutor solicited a strong pertinent reply from the expert witness, as stated in the Straits Times - Wednesday, 14 January 2004:

Capt Third said his role was to determine the cause of the collision and, in his view, the two navy officers had not caused it. 'I've never really regarded what they did not do, but I have been looking and focusing my attention on what they did do.'

Ship collision trial: Prosecution grills expert
By Ben Nadarajan

THE prosecution in the trial of two navy officers charged with negligently causing a collision on Jan 3 last year reminded a defence witness yesterday that his duty was to the court, not to his 'paymasters'.

Attacking Captain John Third's conclusion that it was the actions of the container vessel ANL Indonesia which caused the collision with the navy ship RSS Courageous, the prosecutors tried to undermine the master mariner's credibility.

Deputy Public Prosector Hamidul Haq first said that Capt Third had not sailed for more than 20 years and that he had never been in command of a ship like the ANL Indonesia. But Capt Third pointed out that he had been investigating ship collisions for more than 20 years and that he was very familiar with how container ships operated.

DPP Hamidul suggested Capt Third's testimony was biased: 'You have offered your services as an expert in court for a fee to any client that wishes to engage your services and to present a case for them.'

Capt Third, a partner of marine surveyor Brookes Bell Jarrett Kirman Marine Consultants in London, retorted: 'No, if that was the way I conduct my business, I probably wouldn't have a business.'

When the DPP pursued this line of questioning and again said Capt Third was testifying as 'part of a business exercise', the witness said: 'Yes, it is an essential component of living that one has to earn money.'

DPP Hamidul then said it was very strange that in his expert reports, Capt Third had not found any fault with the navy vessel, but for a 'one-liner' saying that the Courageous had breached the rules by going against the flow of traffic.

He asked: 'So you are saying the Courageous did everything by the book and did not break any rule and norms of good seamanship?'

Capt Third said his role was to determine the cause of the collision and, in his view, the two navy officers had not caused it. 'I've never really regarded what they did not do, but I have been looking and focusing my attention on what they did do.'

The cross-examination continues today.