Wreck Report for 'Carfin', 1885

(No. 2804.)

"CARFIN" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1851 to 1876.

IN the matter of a formal Investigation held at Glasgow, on the 13th and 14th days of January 1886, before ALEXANDER ERSKINE MURRAY, Esquire, assisted by Captain WILLIAM CURLING and Captain D. R. COMYN, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the British steamship "CARFIN," of Glasgow, near Point St. Mathieu, Finistere, France, on or about 25th December 1885.

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 casualty was to a certain extent due to over confidence on the master's part, but taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the captain's excellent character and long services in the same employment, do not consider it necessary to deal with his certificate, but recommend him to be more careful in future.

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs.

Dated this fifteenth day of January 1886.

 

(Signed)

A. ERSKINE MURRAY, Judge.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

D. R. COMYN, R.N.R.,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Glasgow on the 13th and 14th days of January instant, when Mr. C. D. Donald, junr., appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Sutherland for the master, and Mr. L. Thomson for the owners. After the examination of the witnesses produced, Mr. C. D. Donald handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade required the opinion of the Court. Mr. Sutherland then addressed the Court on behalf of the master. Mr. C. D. Donald having been heard in reply, the Court then proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The "Carfin" was a screw steamship, built of iron, at Glasgow, in 1877, by the London and Glasgow Engineering and Iron Shipbuilding Co., Limited; her official number being 76,790. Her dimensions were as follows: 275.1 length, 34.19 breadth, 16.8 depth. She was registered at Glasgow 1,190.41 tons gross, 765.82 register tonnage. She was fitted with two compound direct acting engines, with inverted vertical cylinders of 150 horse power combined. She was owned by John Mann Thomson, of No. 1, Dixon Street, Glasgow, who was appointed managing owner in 1877. She was supplied with four boats, and had four compasses, 1 pole, 2 steering, on the bridges, and one spare. She left Bilbao, coast of Spain, on the 23rd December 1885, in command of Mr. Henry Hutchinson, who holds a certificate of competency, No. 07,634, with a crew of 22 hands, all told, and a cargo of 1,500 tons of iron ore; her draught of water 15 ft. 6 in. forward and 15 ft. 6 in. aft, and bound for Glasgow, and she appears to have been in good condition in all respects. At the time of sailing the weather was fine, with a moderate breeze from the north east. On crossing the Bay of Biscay she experienced strong gales and heavy sea from the N.E., and proceeded on her voyage, all going well. On the morning of 25th December she sighted Cape Penmarck, on the coast of France, about 7 to 8 miles distant, right abreast on starboard beam. Owing to the heavy sea that prevailed from the N.E., the captain, in order to get smooth water, steered for the Sein Channel, which was passed about 11.30 a.m. A course N. 3/4 W. was then steered to pass to the westward of La Vandree Shoal, and at noon Point Saint Mathieu was sighted ahead at about 15 miles distant, and Basse du Lis Buoy was then passed on starboard beam, about one to two miles distant. The weather at this time was clear, and the water smooth. Shortly after noon, the master, who was on the bridge, saw two buoys, one on the port bow and the other, which appeared to be much higher and which he took to be a beacon on La Parquette, on starboard bow. He then went below to examine the chart, and he came to the conclusion that the buoy on the port bow bearing N. by W. was that of the La Vandree Shoal, and that the large spire buoy on the starboard bow, bearing N. by E. 1/2 E., was the beacon upon the La Parquette Rock. Up to this time he intended to pass to the westward of La Vandree Shoal, but after examining his chart he was satisfied that the buoy on port bow was La Vandree, and the spire buoy on starboard bow was La Parquette; he then gave orders to steer so as to pass between these buoys. The master then went below to dinner, giving orders to the second officer to steer N. by E. and to pass between the buoys ahead, and to let him know by blowing the steam whistle when the vessel was close up to the buoys. She was then going full speed, about ten knots. Shortly after this, the vessel being close up to the buoys at 12.40, the second officer sounded the whistle, upon hearing which the captain immediately came upon deck and observed the position of the vessel, and that she was going as he intended, and went down again to dinner. Scarcely had he seated himself at the table, when the vessel took the ground and remained fast. The master immediately came on deck, and finding the vessel rapidly filling with water, as reported by the engineers, gave orders to get the boats out, and in half an hour after the vessel struck the engine room was full, and water up to the rail. All hands then got into the boats, and left the vessel. A short time after they left her they saw her break in two pieces, the stern sinking. They pulled for Brest, where they arrived at 6 p.m. of the same day, and were sent home by the British Consul. No lives were lost or effects saved.

It appears from the evidence before the Court that the primary cause of this casualty was the vessel not having charts showing the latest corrections up to June 1885. Those on board were supplied by the owner, and had corrections only up to 1883, and did not show the alterations in the placing of the buoys on La Vandree Shoal notified in the Admiralty Sailing Directions and Chart of June 1885, corrected to that date. It appears that the owners made no restrictions as to the supply of charts, and the master, although having received all the pamphlets issued by the Board of Trade regarding the changes made in buoys, marks, &c., did not notice that there were any alterations made in buoys on the north-west coast of France, and consequently did not think it necessary to supply new charts for the vessel. As a matter of fact, the "Notices to Mariners "in his possession did not contain any reference to the changes on La Vandree, though if he had procured the "Supplement" referred to on page 18 he would have been made aware of them. But the reference to that supplement is printed in such a manner as to lead a hasty observer to conclude that it refers to the coast of Spain. This omission would indicate the very great necessity there exists for owners and masters to supply the very latest corrected charts.

The following are the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court, and the answers thereto in giving judgment:-

Questions.

1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

2. Whether when she last left the United Kingdom she was supplied with proper charts and sailing directions, and whether the master took proper measures to ensure that they contained the latest corrections?

3. Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered after passing the Passe-du-Lis Rock, and whether proper and due allowance was made for tide and currents?

4. Whether the master was on deck at a time when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision?

5. Whether a good and proper look-out was kept? and if so, how did it happen that the beacon on La Parquette was not seen?

6. Whether the master was justified in mistaking a red spire buoy in close proximity to the buoy on La Vandree for the beacon on La Parquette?

7. Whether the master was justified in going so close to the whistling buoy on La Vandree as he did?

8. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care? And, finally,

9. Whether the master and officers are, or either of them is, in default?

Answers.

1. The stranding of the "Carfin" was owing to the captain having mistaken the spire or large conical buoy on the La Vandree Shoal for the beacon on La Parquette, and his steering to pass between the conical buoy, which he mistook for La Parquette, and the whistle buoy of La Vandree.

2. When she left the United Kingdom she was supplied with charts corrected to 1883, but she was not supplied with charts and sailing directions containing the latest corrections. But the Court considers that the captain having no special notice of alterations was, in the circumstances, to a great extent justified in relying on the chart he had.

3. The course steered was not -by compass, but by objects visible; and had the objects visible, viz., the bell or whistling buoy N.N.W. of the La Vandree Shoal, and the spire buoy to the N.N.E. of it, which the captain took for the beacon on La Parquette, been what the captain supposed them to be, his-course was not improper. As he was steering by the buoys above named, no allowance was made for tides or currents.

4. The master, having confidence in the position of his ship and the course he was steering, went below to dinner, leaving orders to blow the whistle when the buoy was approached. When the whistle was blown he came up, saw as he thought all right, and the ship going on the course he intended, and again went below, and in a minute thereafter the ship struck. The Court do not think that his going below had anything to do with the loss of the ship.

5. There were no look-out men forward, but the second officer and man at the wheel were both on the upper bridge, and looking out, and should have been able to see any rocks or broken water. The beacon on La Parquette was not noticed by any of the witnesses, possibly because the spire buoy on La Vandree was assumed to be the beacon in question.

6 and 7. The two buoys on La Vandree were not exactly in close proximity, though at a distance not greater than a quarter of a mile from each other. As the chart which the captain possessed had not the red spire buoy marked on it, and as the weather was so calm that it was motionless, it was not unlikely that while at a distance he should mistake the spire buoy for the beacon which he knew to exist on La Parquette. When he approached nearer he ought to have judged from the comparative proximity of the two, and the appearance of the spire buoy, that some change must have been made since the date of his chart, by a new buoy having been placed on the shoal. But in the circumstances, the Court consider that the main cause of his error was his over-confidence in his chart as representing the then condition of the buoys.

8. Except as regards the above error, the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

9. The officers were not in default, and the captain only to the extent above stated.

 

(Signed)

A. ERSKINE MURRAY, Judge.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING, R.N.R.,

D. R. COMYN, R.N.R.,

Assessors.

L 367. 2582. 180.-1/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.