(No. 342.)
"LUNA," (S.S.)
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster, on the 25th of
November 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by
Captain HOLT, I.N., and Captain HARRIS, as Assessors, into the circumstances
attending the damage caused to the steamship "LUNA," of London, through the
breaking of her wheel chain, and subsequent collision with the steamship
"WESTMINSTER" and the barge "HAND OF PROVIDENCE," in the River Thames, on the
9th of November 1878.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed:
(1.) That the breaking of the wheel chain was probably owing to a defect in it,
but that there is nothing to show that the master knew of any such defect.
(2.) That reasonable and proper precautions were taken by the master to
ascertain the efficiency of the wheel chain.
(3.) That the "Luna" did not carry sufficient spare steering gear, and should
have been provided with a spare tiller ready to be applied in the event of the
wheel chain breaking.
(4.) That the master did act properly after the breaking of the wheel chain, and
when he found that he was drifting on to the "Westminster," in keeping his
engines going full speed ahead; but that he should, as soon as the wheel chain
broke, have ordered the chains to be at once connected with the after wheel, to
get the vessel under control, although probably it could hardly have been done
in time to have avoided the collision with the "Westminster," or even with the
"Hand of Providence."
The Court, under the circumstances, returns to William Smith, the master of the
"Luna," his certificate.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated the 25th day of November 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)H. T. HARRIS.Assessors.
"G. TREFUSIS HOLT,
Reasons.
The Commissioner.—The "Luna" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port
of London, of the burthen of 477 tons gross and 374 tons net register, and is
fitted with two engines of 75 horse-power combined. She was built at
Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the year 1857, and at the time of the casualty which
forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. William J.
Branfoot, of Bonner's Field, Monkwearmouth, and a number of other gentlemen, Mr.
Branfoot being the managing owner.
She left London at 30 minutes past midnight of the 9th instant, in charge of a
pilot, and having a crew of 15 hands all told. She was in ballast, and drew 3
feet 6 forward and 10 feet aft. She had two wheels, one on the bridge amidships,
the other aft, and on this occasion she was being steered from the bridge
amidships. Shortly after 3 a.m. they were off Gravesend, when the vessel was
stopped for the purpose of landing the pilot. No sooner had the pilot left the
ship than an order was given to go on full speed ahead; and as the vessel was
angling across the river with her head towards the south shore the helm was
ordered to be put hard-a-starboard, in order to straighten her down the reach;
and those orders were obeyed. At this time the second mate, who was forward on
the look-out, observed a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the
"Westminster," riding at anchor some four or five points on the port bow and
distant from 400 to 500 yards; and he immediately reported her to the master and
the chief mate, who were on the bridge. The vessel's helm was, however, kept
hard-a-starboard so as to pass to the north of the "Westminster," and she had
brought the "Westminster" about two points on her port bow, when a link of the
wheel chain suddenly broke, upon which the vessel's head immediately began to
pay off to starboard. At this time the tide was ebbing very fast, and the wind
wag strong from north-west; and under the influence of wind and tide she was
carried rapidly down the river, her head pointing towards the south shore. The
master, fearing lest he should be drifted across the bows of the "Westminster,"
keep the engines going ahead full speed in order to clear her; but with only
partial success, for the "Luna's" port midship came in contact with the stern of
the "Westminster," and was stove in. Owing, however, to the way she had on her
she went clear, and passed along the "Westminster's" port side, her head still
pointing to the south shore. As soon as she was clear of the "Westminster," the
master, seeing that his vessel was in a sinking state, and that there were a
number of vessels at anchor on the south shore, and knowing that to be the usual
anchorage ground, ordered the engines to be put full speed astern, in the hope
of beaching her, if possible, on the north shore, where he knew that there was a
muddy bottom. In making, however, for the shore stern foremost, the vessel,
being quite out of control, came with her port quarter against a barge, the name
of which is not known. The effect was to turn her head down the river, and the
wind then coming upon the port quarter canted her head towards the north shore.
The master, therefore, ordered the engines to be put full speed ahead to run her
stern on to the shore; but before she reached it they came into another barge
called the "Hand of Providence," doing her considerable damage. The "Luna" then
passed on and ran stern on to the mud. As soon as she was beached, the master
went and got some carpenters and tools to try to stop up the hole in her side,
but it was so low down that it was found to be impossible to do so; and
accordingly application was made to the Thames Conservancy, by whom a vessel was
sent, and with her assistance the "Luna" was raised, the hole temporarily
stopped, and the vessel then brought up the river to Fletcher's Dock at
Limehouse. Such, briefly, are the facts of the case.
Now the Board of Trade under the rules, which came into operation on the 1st of
October last, have asked the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:—
" (1.) Was the cause of the breaking of the wheel chain " owing to a defect in
it?
" (2.) Had reasonable and proper precautions been taken " by the master to
ascertain the efficiency of the said " chain?
" (3.) Did the "Luna" carry sufficient steering gear?
" (4.) Were proper steps taken by the master after the " breaking of the
wheel-chain to prevent the collision with " the steamship 'Westminster' and the
barge 'Hand of " Providence,' or with either of them?"
And finally the Board of Trade state that "in their opinion the master's
certificate should be dealt with."
Some objection was taken by Mr. Roche, who has appeared for the master, to the
form in which those questions were brought before the Court. It was said that
the Court might think that the master was to blame in respect of some matters
other than those included under these heads, and that we might suspend his
certificate; but I think that Mr. Roche may safely rely upon our not overlooking
the provision in the concluding paragraph of the 30th section of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1876, to which our attention has been called by Mr. Howard Smith,
and which says that "every formal investigation into a shipping " casualty shall
be conducted in such a manner that if a " charge is made against any person that
person shall " have an opportunity of making a defence." I think, therefore,
that Mr. Roche, may feel confident that we should not take it upon ourselves
either to cancel or to suspend the certificate of a master or of any
certificated officer, unless he had every opportunity afforded him of making a
defence; and I doubt very much whether the Board of Trade would ask us to do so.
I will now proceed to consider the several points on which the opinion of the
Court has been requested. And first, was the breaking of the wheel chain owing
to a defect in it? We were told by the master that the chain was new in April
last, and that it had been overhauled and examined by the surveyor to the owners
so recently as the 17th of October last. The broken link is not forthcoming, but
that is hardly to be wondered at, as the pieces would no doubt be thrown away or
lost in the confusion. The rest of the chain, we are told, was 7/16ths of an
inch, which, according to the opinion of Mr. Gibson, the surveyor to the Board
of Trade, and of the gentlemen who assist the Court, was amply sufficient for
the purpose. No doubt the strain upon the chain when it parted would be very
great, owing to the helm being hard-a-starboard, and the engines going full
speed ahead, but not more so than a chain of 7/16ths ought to be able to bear;
and the only conclusion, therefore, to which we can come is that the breaking
must have been due to some defect in the link. But although there might have
been a defect, it is quite possible that it might not have been apparent even to
a person making a careful examination of the chain. There is nothing to show
that the master knew of any such defect, the chain had worked well during the
eight voyages in which he had commanded her; and we cannot, therefore, think
that any blame attaches to him for not having discovered this defect, if indeed
it existed.
The second question is,—
"Had reasonable and proper precautions been taken by the master to ascertain the
efficiency of the said chain?" As I have said, the chain was new in April last,
when the master first joined the vessel; he had seen it examined and overhauled
by the surveyor to the owners solate as the 17th October last. Can we then say
that the master has neglected to take reasonable and proper precautions to
ascertain the efficiency of the chain? We think not. We should be very unwilling
to say anything which would lead to the belief that a master is not bound to see
that every part of the tackle, apparel, and furniture of his ship, to use the
old words, is in a fit state, and that he ought to take proper and reasonable
precautions for that purpose; but we think that the master, knowing as he did
that these chains were new in April, and having seen them overhauled by the
surveyor on the 17th October, can hardly be accused of not having taken
reasonable and proper precautions to ascertain their efficiency. In our opinion
he did all that could reasonably be required of him under the circumstances.
The third question is,—
"Did the 'Luna' carry sufficient and proper spare steering gear?" It was said by
Mr. Farnfield, who has appeared for the owners, that vessels of this class, more
especially in the present depressed state of the shipping trade, can hardly be
expected to furnish themselves with all the new improvements that might be quite
proper for a large passenger steamship; and in that opinion we quite concur. He
has also told us that this vessel, having been built in the year 1857, was 21
years old, and that she was fitted with everything which was then considered
reasonable and proper for her, and that it would be unreasonable to expect that
owners should go to the expense of putting in new machinery, which might or
might not be successful. No doubt that is so. At the same time we think, seeing
that the breaking of the wheel chains is a circumstance which, although perhaps
not of very frequent occurrence, might happen at any moment, that it is the duty
of owners to take all reasonable and proper precautions in case it should occur.
Now what precautions were taken on board this vessel to meet such an occurrence?
I have already stated that, in addition to the wheel on the bridge amidships, by
which she was being steered, there was also a wheel aft; but both the master and
Mr. Gibson, the surveyor to the Board of Trade, have told us that it would take
from 10 to 15 minutes after the chain broke, before the chains could be
unshackled from the midship wheel, and connected with the after wheel, and until
that was done the after wheel would not act. According to Mr. Gibson it was a
real old fashioned plan; and the question is whether a plan, which would leave a
vessel totally helpless and unmanageable for the space of from 10 to 15 minutes,
in the midst possibly of a crowded thoroughfare, was adequate; and we think it
was not. We were told by Mr. Gibson that the rudder head projected above the
deck, and that nothing would have been easier than to have had a spare iron
tiller hanging on the rail alongside the after wheel, ready at once to ship into
a socket or on the top of the rudderhead. Mr. Gibson also told us that there was
a companion or something of the kind before the after wheel, which would have
prevented the tiller being fixed in front, but it might have been so constructed
that it could be shipped either at the sides or aft. All that was needed was to
be able to control the rudder until the chains could be attached to the after
wheel. Had the vessel been provided with some such contrivance, although
probably the collision with the "Westminster" might not have been avoided, that
with the two barges perhaps might have been.
The fourth question is,—
"Were proper steps taken by the master after the break- " ing of the wheel chain
to prevent the collision with the " steamship 'Westminster' and the barge ' Hand
of Pro- " vidence,' or with either of them?" We think that the master did
perfectly right, knowing that it was the practice for vessels to anchor on the
south shore, to endeavour to pass to the north of the "Westminster." Although he
might not see any vessel in the way, it was a reasonable and proper precaution
to pass to the north of the "Westminster," knowing that the usual anchorage
ground lay to the south of her. We think also that, when he found that his
vessel was drifting with the wind and tide down on the "Westminster," he acted
rightly in keeping his engines going ahead full speed; had he turned them
astern, he would in all probability have drifted across the "Westminster's"
bows; and in that case both of them might have gone down. We think, too, that,
knowing or believing that his vessel after the collision with the "Westminster"
was sinking, he did quite right not to anchor; had he done so she would have
sunk in deep water. We cannot therefore blame him for any of these things. The
only point in which his conduct seems to us to be open to some question is in
not having ordered the chains to be disconnected from the midship wheel and
attached to the after wheel without a moment's delay. Possibly it might not have
made any difference; in all probability it would not have saved the collision
with the "Westminster," or even with the barges, but it was the proper thing to
be done, and yet no order seems to have been given to do it.
Under all the circumstances, however, we are of opinion that we should not be
justified in either cancelling or suspending this gentleman's certificate, and
we shall therefore return it to him. (To Mr. Howard Smith.) You do not ask for
any costs, I suppose?
Mr. Howard Smith.—No, sir.
The Commissioner.—I think, under the circumstances, that we shall give no costs.
Mr. Roche.—I ask for none, sir.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)HY. HARRIS,Assessors.
"G. TREFUSIS HOLT,
I 101. 92. 70.—12/78. Wt. B 612. E. & S.
