Wreck Report for 'Aristides', 1881

(No. 1170.)

"ARISTIDES" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at St. George's Hall, Liverpool, on the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th days of December, before THOS. STAMFORD RAFFLES, Esquire, Stipendiary Magistrate, assisted by Captains WILSON and METHVEN, Nautical Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage sustained by the British steamship "ARISTIDES," of Liverpool, through striking on a rock W. of Cape Blanes, Tunis, and the subsequent stranding of the said vessel W, of Ros Engelah, on the 15th October 1881.

Report of Court.

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 said vessel was lost owing to her being navigated too near the coast, and that the master was in default, and the Court suspended his certificate for six calendar months.

Dated this 5th day of December 1881.

 

(Signed)

T. S. RAFFLES, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

P. J. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

 

R. METHVEN,

 

Annex to the Report.

The "Aristides" was a screw-steamer, built of steel in 1881, at Liverpool, by Messrs. Thomas Royden and Sons, and registered there. Her gross tonnage was 1,536.05, and her registered tonnage 986.90. She was owned by the Steamship Aristides Company, Limited, and Mr. H. K. Layborn was appointed managing owner. She sailed from Liverpool on her first voyage on June 1st 1881 for Rangoon, under the command of Mr. William Desilva, who holds a certificate of competency as master No. 32,903, dated 23rd January 1867. Early in October she was at Odessa, and having loaded a cargo of grain and barley in bulk, amounting to 2,008 tons, she sailed thence on her return to Liverpool on the 6th October, with a crew of 24 hands all told, drawing 18 feet 4 inches forward and 19 feet aft. The ship appeared to have been well found in every respect, and the master and all the witnesses on the inquiry agreed that her compasses were quite correct. She put into Malta for coals about 8.35 a.m. on the 13th October, and after taking on board 190 tons, she sailed thence at 5.35 p.m. on the same day, her draught of water then being 18 feet 11 inches forward and 19 feet 5 inches aft. At noon on the 14th they were in latitude 35.46 N. and longitude 16.21 E. At midnight no light was in sight, their course being N.W. by W. At 1.20 p.m. on the 15th the light on Cain Rocks was sighted a little on the port bow. At 2.45 a.m. they were abreast of the light on the port hand, distant 1 to 1 1/2 miles. They kept the same course till the light bore S. by E. just abaft the beam at 2.55 a.m. The master then altered the course to W.N.W., and went below to consult his chart. He came out again at 3.10 a.m., and altered the course to W. by N. 1/4 N. nothing to westward. The master then went below, leaving orders to be called when drawing near the land, and in any case at 4 a.m. when the watch was changed; and the second mate stated that the master told him not to go inside of two miles off the land. This course was kept till the first mate relieved the watch at 4 a.m., when the second mate went below and told the master they were drawing up to the land, the extreme point of which bore half-a-point to a point on the port bow at a distance of about 7 miles in his opinion, and that Cain Light bore half-a-point on the port quarter. The master told him to keep the same course and to tell the first officer not to go inside a distance of 2 miles from the land, which he did, and left him in charge about 4.10 a.m. and turned in. The first mate seemed to be under the impression that the vessel was somewhat nearer the land than was desirable, and on his own responsibility hauled her up to N.W. for a few minutes, and then steadied her at W. by N. 3/4 N., being half-a-point to N. of the coarse given him by the second officer. About 4.20 a.m. the first mate sent the third mate to tell the master that they were getting near the land, which he supposed to be Cape Blanco; and he came back and reported that he had done so, and that the master told him to haul her off half-a-point, which he did, and steadied her at W.N.W., which course he kept till the vessel struck, at 5.15 a.m., on what all the witnesses declared to be a sunken rock, about 2 1/2 miles from the nearest land, which at that time was undoubtedly Point Engelah. The vessel struck heavily on the port side well forward, and heeled over to starboard, but quickly righted herself after passing over the danger, whatever it might be. According to the master's evidence, the third mate came to him again at 5.5. a.m., saying they were getting pretty well up to the Point—which would be Engelah; and he then said, "All right; I'll be up directly;" and he was actually going up when the ship struck, about 10 minutes later. Immediately he reached the bridge he telegraphed to the engine-room "slow" and "stop," but as she passed over the danger he ordered half-speed and kept her on her coarse. On sounding 5 feet 6 inches were reported in the fore-hold, and in about ten minutes a second sounding shewed 10 feet 6 inches. The pumps were put on in the engine-room, but to no purpose. The water gained rapidly, and the master determined to beach his vessel on the sands, which he did at 5.55 a.m., sounding as he went in at from 6 to 3 1/2 fathoms, the water washing the deck as he beached her. He first got out a stream anchor and kedge astern, and began to jettison the cargo in the fore-hold, throwing over some 300 tons. He also sent the second officer and a boat's crew to. Tunis for assistance, and H.M.S. "Bittern," Captain Pusey, came to their aid at 5 a.m. on the following day, and tried, but without success, to get her off. It came on shortly to blow, and the captain of the "Bittern" insisted on taking them away, which he did soon after 4 p.m., and they reached Tunis about midnight. Two days afterwards they went down to the ship, and found her full of water and further up on the beach. In the end she became a total wreck, selling for 230l., and property to the amount of 500l. additional was saved.

On the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Paxton, for the Board of Trade, asked the following questions:—

1. Was the course set by the master at 3.15 a.m., on the 15th October last, a safe and proper course, and was it made good?

2. Was the master justified in giving directions as to the navigation of the vessel without coming on deck to verify her position for himself, especially after the report made to him by the second officer at 4 a.m. and the third officer at 4.30 a.m.?

3. Was the alteration in her course directed by him to be made at 4.30 a safe and proper alteration?

4. Was the chief officer justified in altering the vessel's course on his own responsibility, or ought he to have called the master, having regard to the position of the vessel when he took charge of her at 4 a.m.?

5. What was the cause of the vessel's being so much to the westward of her true course, especially after the alterations made by the chief officer?

6. What was the object on which she struck at 5.15, and what distance was she then from land?

7. Was a good and sufficient look-out kept?

8. Ought the lead to have been used to verify the vessel's position?

9. Was the master justified in beaching her?

10. Generally, was the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?

11. What was the cause of the loss of the vessel?

12. Was her loss caused by any wrongful act or default on the part of the master, chief officer, or third officer, in regard to any of the above matters? And stated that, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the certificates of the master, chief officer, and third officer should be dealt with.

In answer to the first question, the Court was of opinion that the course set by the master at 3.15 a.m. on the 15th October was a course which took them too near the land, even at four miles distance, to be safe and proper for night navigation, and of this the master had abundant notice in the "Mediterranean Pilot" which he bad with him, and which cautioned him that "this part of the coast should not be approached too close," a caution which it was especially imperative on him to have attended to, as he himself had never been on that coast before, and the course given was certainly not made good.

As to the second question, the Court Was strongly of opinion that the master was not justified in giving the directions which he gave for the navigation of the vessel without coming out and verifying for himself the vessel's position, especially as he was unacquainted with the navigation.

In answer to the third and fourth questions, the alteration made by the master at 4.30 a.m. was certainly a safe and proper alteration in the right direction, as was also the alteration previously made by the first officer soon after he took charge of the deck; but he should have informed the master that he had made it, and had he done so—the first officer holding a master's certificate—it might, and certainly should, have been regarded by the master as a warning that the first officer thought the ship too near the land.

As to the fifth question, the fact that the vessel got so much to the westward of her true course, could only have been owing either to bad steering, which the officer of the watch ought to have discovered, or to the effect of some current of the existence of which there was no evidence. Had the Cain Rock Light been kept upon a proper bearing, and constantly regarded, it would have been a safe guide, and would have corrected any deflection from the course, either from bad steerage or the current.

As to the sixth question, the Court found itself unable to conclude, though all the evidence pointed to that conclusion, that this vessel struck upon an unknown rock 2 1/2 miles from Point Engelah, on a part of the coast which has been so thoroughly surveyed. The opinion of the master and officers was attempted to be supported by statements made by inhabitants in the neighbourhood, which the Court could not receive as evidence, or in any way rely upon, and also by a reference to the case of the "Mary Driver," said to have been lost in a similar way. But since the conclusion of the evidence, the Court has had the opportunity of looking at the printed report of the Court of inquiry in the case of the "Mary Driver" and the report states that that ship was lost "at or about" Point Engelah. In this case, the Court can only come to the same conclusion, which is supported by the fact proved that in forty minutes after striking upon the anger, whatever it might be, the ship was beached on a spot about 2 1/2 miles off, which could not have been possible had she struck 2 1/2 miles out from the point; and the evidence of the 2nd mate, also a master, that the extreme point of the land to the westward bore only from half-a-point to three quarters on the port bow, was confirmatory of the conclusion arrived at by the Court, that the vessel was much nearer the land when she struck than the master supposed.

As to the seventh question, the evidence as to the look-out was most meagre and unsatisfactory. The look-out man was said by the 1st officer to have been seen at his post about 20 minutes before the vessel struck, but neither he nor the 3rd officer, who was associated with him in the watch, could speak to his having remained there up to the time when the disaster occurred.

As to the eighth question, as the vessel was being navigated so close to the land, the lead should certainly have been used, and had it been used it would have warned the master of his danger.

In answer to the ninth question, the master acted wisely in beaching the vessel.

As to the tenth question, the Court could come to no other conclusion from all the evidence in the case, than that there was a great want of prudent attention to the navigation of this vessel on the morning of the day on which the catastrophe occurred.

Question eleven has been already answered in the finding of the Court as to the sixth question.

In answer to the twelfth question, the Court Was compelled to find the master in default for the reasons already given, and suspended the certificate of the master, Mr. William Desilva, for six calendar months. The Court did not consider it necessary to suspend the certificate of either the first or third officers, though it did not consider them altogether free from censure in the matter of the look-out; and the first officer ought to have been more careful in regard to the bearings of the Cain Light as they went along.

 

(Signed)

T. S. RAFFLES, Judge.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

P. J. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

 

R. METHVEN,

 

L 367. 940. 150.—12/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.