Wreck report for 'Royalstar', 1927

FOR OFFICIAL USE

(No. 7856.)

"ROYALSTAR" (S.S.).

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

ORDINANCE No. 125 (MERCHANT SHIPPING)

REPORT OF COURT.

In the matter of a Formal Investigation held at the First Magistrate's Court, Singapore, on the 25th and 26th January, 1927, before me, assisted by Captain GEOFFREY FREYBERG, O.B.E., R.N., Master Attendant, Straits Settlements, Captain ALFRED HENRY BARNES, D.S.C., Master Mariner and Pilot, Singapore, and Captain ROBERT WILLIAM MORRIS, Master Mariner, Singapore, into the circumstances attending the grounding of the S.S. "Royalstar" near Batu Beranti in Singapore Strait on the 13th January, 1927.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances attending the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto, that the casualty was caused by the negligence of the Master.

The Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the Master's certificate, but severely censures him for the acts of negligence stated above.

Dated this 27th day of January, 1927.

P. F. DAVID, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

ANNEX TO REPORT.

The S.S. "Royalstar," Captain John McLeod, Master, entered the Singapore Strait from the eastward in the early morning of 13th January, 1927, Horsburgh lighthouse being abeam to port distant about one mile at 6.14 a.m., course S. 75° W. (true), speed about 11 knots, the vessel drawing about 28 feet water (aft).

Both the Master and another Officer were on duty on the bridge from when the vessel passed Horsburgh lighthouse until the time of the accident, which occurred at 9.13 a.m., close north-eastward of Batu Beranti lighthouse. The weather was fine and clear with smooth sea.

The ship's position was not fixed from 6.14 a.m. until 9.05 a.m., when bearings taken by the 3rd Officer and plotted by the Master gave Peak Island (centre) N. 70° W. (compass), and Batu Beranti S. 54° W. (compass), the compass error being 2° E. The vessel was then about two miles from Batu Beranti.

At 9.11 a.m., as the vessel was apparently being set down towards Batu Beranti, the Master gave the order "hard-a-port," and at 9.13 a.m., while still swinging to starboard, the ship struck a reef or obstruction on the starboard side forward abreast of Nos. 2 and 3 bulkheads. As the "Royalstar" was making water the Master decided to proceed to Singapore Roads for assistance, where he anchored at 9.40 a.m. the same morning and docked later.

Owing to the lack of fixed positions there is not sufficient evidence to show whether the vessel struck the 13 feet submerged rock situated at a distance of about 2½ cables north-eastward of Batu Beranti or an uncharted reef or rock in this vicinity.

The Admiralty large scale chart of the locality was not in use, the ship being navigated by an out-of-date and uncorrected copy of Admiralty chart No. 2,403, Singapore Strait, on which the rock first-mentioned is not shown.

The Master stated in evidence that before leaving Liverpool he gave directions for his charts to be sent ashore to be corrected; but he took no steps to satisfy himself that his instructions had been carried out. The Court considered that it was clearly the duty of the Master personally to make sure that his charts were up to date, especially as it is admitted that the officer into whose charge they had been given left the ship a few days before she sailed.

The 13 feet submerged rock, which was discovered in 1923, is shown on the latest Admiralty Charts, and is also referred to in the Malacca Strait Pilot, 1924, a copy of which was in the Master's possession.

As stated in the finding, the Court was unable to determine whether the obstruction encountered by the "Royalstar" was actually this rock, or some other still uncharted rock or reef in the vicinity. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that if the Master had been in possession of a chart showing the 13 feet rock, lie would have given Batu Beranti a wider berth from the start.

In any case, if the Master had read and followed the directions given on page 170 of the Malacca Strait Pilot, he would have kept to the Northern side of the Strait and avoided this dangerous region with regard to which a very definite warning is given.

P. F. DAVID, Judge.

List of Questions and Answers.

1. Was the "Royalstar" properly equipped and in a seaworthy condition as regards her hull and machinery?-Yes.

2. Where and at what time did the casualty occur?-At 9.13 a.m. on the 13th January, 1927, near Batu Beranti Light in the Singapore Strait.

3. Was the "Royalstar" provided with her proper complement of officers as required by Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?-Yes.

4. Was the "Royalstar" provided with the requisite charts, sailing directions and navigating instruments?-Yes, with the exception that the charts in use had not been corrected up to date.

4A. Was the Master justified in proceeding on his voyage through the Singapore and Malacca Straits without proper Admiralty charts of the latest possible date?-No. The Court is of opinion that it was the duty of the Master to ascertain that all his charts had been brought up to date before sailing.

5. Was there a qualified officer of the watch on the bridge prior to and at the time of the casualty?-Yes.

6. Was a proper lookout kept on board this ship?-Yes.

6A. What was the state of sea and weather at the time of the casualty?-The weather was fine and clear, calm and smooth sea.

7. Were proper steps taken by the Master to ensure the safe navigation of the ship?-No (see reply to Question 9).

7A. If the Court is of opinion that the "Royalstar" struck a reef, was that reef properly charted on the latest Admiralty charts?-There is no doubt that the "Royalstar" struck a submerged rock, but owing to the vagueness of the evidence with regard to the position of the ship it is impossible to say whether the obstruction in question was the 13 feet rock shown in the latest Admiralty charts about 2¾ cables N.E. of Batu Meranti or an uncharted rock further to the northward.

8. Did the ship sustain material damage affecting her seaworthiness?-Yes.

9. Was the casualty caused by the negligence, error of judgment or unskilful navigation of John McLeod, Master of the S.S. "Royalstar"?-The Court is of opinion that the casualty was caused by the negligence of the Master-

10. Was the casualty caused by the negligence, error of judgment or unskilful navigation of Thomas MacDonald, Third Mate of the S.S. "Royalstar"?-No.

11. Is any action required with regard to the certificate of John McLeod, Master of the S.S. "Royalstar"?-The Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the Master's certificate, but severely censures him for the acts of negligence stated above.

12. Is any action required with regard to the certificate of Thomas MacDonald, Third Mate of the S.S. "Royalstar"?-No. The Court considers that the Third Officer is in no way to blame.

13. Costs of the Court by whom to be paid?-The costs of the Inquiry to be paid by the Attorney-General

(Issued by the Board of Trade in London

on Saturday, the 19th day of May, 1928.)

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses:

Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh;

York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;

or through any Bookseller.

1928.

Price 3d. Net.