STEP CHANGE FOR SAFETY GLOBAL SHARING DEC 2013 - SAFE NAVIGATION | Page 34

Authorised User (see Terms and Conditions): Member of North of England P&I Association

FOREWORD
When cases arising out of collisions between ships reach the Admiralty Court it is apparent that deck officers
are provided with considerable radar and other electronic assistance to enable them to avoid collisions with
other ships. See for example Samco Europe v MSC Prestige [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 579, a collision
which occurred in good visibility in the Gulf of Aden between a very large crude carrier and a container ship
despite the fact that both vessels were equipped with automatic radar plotting aids, automatic identification
systems and electronic chart display and information systems, and observed each other by radar at a distance
of about 15 nautical miles.
The question which arises is why, despite all the impressive electronic assistance designed to enable deck
officers to avoid collisions, collisions still occur. The answer is, and always has been since radar was first
introduced, that the rules of navigation set out in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea 1972 must still be applied by deck officers. Thus, in Samco Europe v MSC Prestige the officer of the
watch on board MSC Prestige failed to take early and substantial action to keep out of the way of Samco
Europe in breach of Rules 15 and 16 of the COLREGs and the officer of the watch on board Samco Europe
altered course to port in breach of Rule 17 of the COLREGs.
This short and compact guide to COLREGs therefore has a vital and necessary role. It reminds mariners
of the basics of the COLREGs and that they must be kept well in mind and obeyed notwithstanding the
profusion of equipment on the modern bridge. That equipment does not avoid collision. It is merely an aid to
collision avoidance. What avoids collisions is compliance with the COLREGs.
The Hon Mr Justice Nigel Teare
Admiralty Judge
The Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK

2