Wreck Report for 'Fairway', 1884

(No. 2359.)

"FAIRWAY" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at West Hartlepool on the 7th and 8th of November 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARFITT and MURDOCH as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "FAIRWAY, off Hartlepool, on the 11th of October 1884.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said steamship was due to the wrongful default and neglect of Frederick John Courtman, the master; but under the circumstances the Court will not deal with his certificate.

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

Dated this 8th day of November 1884.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner,

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

ALEK. MURDOCH

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at West Hartlepool on the 7th and 8th of November 1884, when Mr. Israel Davis appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Bucknill for the owners, master, and officers of the "Fairway," and Mr. Aspinall for the Hartlepool Port and Harbour Commissioners. Twelve witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and one by Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Israel Davis handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Bucknill then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Israel Davis having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow :—

The "Fairway" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 614 tons gross and 373 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 66 horses power. She was built at Dundee in the present year, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of the "Fairway" Steamship Company, Limited, Mr. John Forsey, of No. 16, Water Lane, Great Tower Street, London, being the manager. She left Uddevalla, in Sweden, on the 7th of October last in water ballast, with a crew of 14 hands all told, and having on board the master's wife and child, bound to Hartlepool; and at 3 p.m. of the 11th of the same month, sighted the English coast. At the time she was on a W. by N. course, which was continued until 5.20, when they made out the land to be Souter Point, distant from 4 to 5 miles. At this time it was blowing a gale from the northward, with a heavy sea; and as the master did not wish to get to Hartlepool until it was near high water, which on that day would be about 8.30 p.m., he brought the vessel to, and went down and had his tea. At 6 o'clock he came up on deck again, and the vessel was then put upon a S. 1/2 E. course to make the Hartlepool Heugh Lights, and at 6.40 they were sighted bearing about two points on the starboard bow, and distant from 5 to 6 miles, upon which the course of the vessel was altered about a point to the westward to S. 1/2 W. She continued on that course until the lights were about three points upon the starboard bow, when the helm was ported gradually until her head was brought to SSW., passed the lights on that course, and when they were from two to three points abaft the beam, the master, believing that he was a good. halfmile away from them, ported his helm with a view to enter the bay, and thus brought the vessel's head about west. Before this, however, the boatswain had been directed by the master to go forward and get the starboard anchor over the bows, and he and the look-out man were engaged unlashing it when the chief officer and his watch came up and gave them a hand. Whilst they were so engaged a heavy squall from the N.N.E. struck the vessel, rendering it difficult to see objects at a distance, and during its continuance breakers and a dark line, which proved to be the breakwater, were suddenly observed ahead and on the .port bow. Whether the anchor had by that time been got over the bow and the ropes coiled up, is open to some doubt; but on the captain's attention being called to the breakers and breakwater, he at once ordered the helm to be put hard-a-port, hoping to bring the vessel round; but before the helm had had time to act she struck the bottom, went on, and with her port bow came with great force against the breakwater. The sea then canted her round with her port broadside against the breakwater, and when in that position eight of the crew, including the chief mate and boatswain, left the vessel and got on to the breakwater, leaving the master, chief engineer, cook, one able seaman, and two firemen alone on board. On learning from the chief engineer that the engines were in working order, the master thereupon ordered them to go full speed astern, but finding that she was foul of the mooring chains belonging to the works at the breakwater he ordered them to go easy ahead, and having cleared the chains and got the vessel's stern canted out seaward, the engines were again put full speed astern, and then by steaming easy ahead he got her round the end of the breakwater where they were at once in comparatively smooth water, and having opened the leading lights into the harbour he brought her to anchor. Soon afterwards the lifeboat came to their assistance, and about 15 or 16 bands having come on board, they succeeded in keeping her afloat until a steam tug came out and towed them into the harbour, where, notwithstanding all their efforts, she filled, there being two large holes in her bottom. Since then, however, she has been raised, and taken into dry dock, where, as I understand, she is now undergoing repairs.

These being the facts of the case, the first question which we are asked is, "Whether the 'Fairway' was navigated by the master too close to the Heugh Light- " house, and whether the master shaped a westerly " course towards Hartlepool harbour too soon after " passing the said lighthouse?"

It is admitted that the proper course for a vessel from the northward intending to enter the old harbour, is to keep outside and to the southward of the Stone buoy, and not to pass between the buoy and the land; and the directions for doing so are simple and clear. It will be seen from the chart that the Stone buoy lies nearly due south of the Heugh Lights, about S. 1/8 E., and is distant about a third of a mile from it, and that from the Stone buoy the light at the end of the Old Pier bears about N.W. by W., or three points to the northward of west. The proper course, therefore, for entering the harbour from the northward is to take care not to allow the Heugh Lights to get to the eastward of north until the light at the end of the Old Pier has been brought to bear three points to the northward of west, after which the vessel's head may be safely laid to the west and towards the light at the end of the Old Pier, until she picks up the leading lights or is boarded by a pilot. Mr. Belk, the engineer to the Port and Harbour Commissioners, has told us that the place where the vessel first struck the breakwater is as nearly as possible 650 feet from the shore, or not quite half the total length of the breakwater, which is 1385 feet long. Now it will be seen that from this point the Heugh Lights bear about N.N.E. 1/4 N., or more than two points to the eastward of north, whilst the light at the Old Pier end, if it could have been seen, would be bearing W.N.W. 1/4 W., or less than two points to the northward of west. It is clear, therefore, that for the vessel to have got where she did the Heugh Lights must have been allowed to get to the eastward of north long before the lights at the end of the Old Pier, if they could have been seen, had been brought to bear three points to the northward of west. Mr. Bucknill admitted, indeed, that the master must have ported his helm and brought his vessel's head to the west too soon; but he has said that it is always extremely difficult on a dark stormy night to judge distances accurately, that the master when he ported his helm thought that he was a good half mile from the lights, whereas, as a matter of fact, he was considerably less than a third of a mile from them. But it was not a question of miscalculating his distances, his fault was for having allowed the Heugh Lights to get to the eastward of north before he had sighted the light at the end of the Old Pier, and had brought it to bear three points to the north of west.

The second question which we are asked is, "Ought " the 'Fairway' to have been brought to anchor?" I hardly understand the meaning of this question. As a matter of fact the master did bring her to anchor as soon as he had got into the bay, and was under the lee of the breakwater. But, if it is meant to imply that he should have dropped his anchor when he saw the breakers and the breakwater ahead and on the port bow, we think that he was quite right not to do so, and not to anchor until he was inside the bay.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was " speed properly and sufficiently reduced?" On this point the master is at issue with the donkeyman, who was at the time in charge of the engines. According to the master the speed of the engines had been reduced some time before the breakers were seen; according to the donkeyman, the speed was not reduced until just before the casualty. In the opinion, however, of the assessors, it was not a question of speed, but of the proper course not having been steered.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Were " safe and proper courses set and steered, and proper " alterations made therein; and was due allowance " made for winds, tides, currents, and the condition of " the vessel?" As regards the courses steered from Souter Point until they had got abreast of the Heugh Lights, we have nothing to say; the mistake was in bringing the vessel's head to the westward, and the Heugh Lights to the eastward of north, before they had sighted the light on the end of the Old Pier, and brought it to bear three points to the northward of west.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Was a " good and proper look-out kept, and were proper " reports of objects made, and was the chief officer in de- " fault in respect thereof?" The boatswain, on receiving the order from the master to get the starboard anchor over the bows, went forward, and there being no spare hand on deck, called upon the look-out man to come and assist him; and it was whilst they were engaged unlashing the anchor that the chief officer came up with the two hands composing his watch, and then all five were for a time engaged getting the anchor out. Whether it was 'got out, and everything cleared up, before the breakers and the breakwater were seen, is open to question; according to the chief officer and the boatswain it was all finished, according to the look-out man he was still assisting to get out the anchor when he suddenly caught sight of the breakers ahead. But however this may be, we have no doubt that on a night such as this, with a strong gale blowing, with squalls and misty rain, it was not a proper thing to take the look-out man from his post. The blame for so doing does not, so far as we can see, rest with the chief officer, who was not on deck when the man was called to assist to get the anchor out, but with the master, who, when he sent the boatswain forward to unlash the anchor, must have known that there was no 'one there to help him except the look-out man.

The sixth question which we are asked is as follows: "Did the master take reasonable measures for ascer- " taining the nature of the navigation, and the pre- " cautions applicable thereto?" It seems that the master had never before been into this old harbour but he had, about six or seven years before, been into the west harbour, and he was evidently not well acquainted with the place. Under these circumstances it was obviously his duty to have obtained the best information in his power on the subject. It seems that he had one of Imray's charts, dated however in the year 1876, and that the instructions were dated 1878. Neither, however, upon the chart nor in the instructions is there any indication of the existence of the breakwater, although we are told by Mr. Belk that some 626 feet of it had been completed by 1857, and the further addition has been going on since 1870. It can therefore hardly be said that the master took all reasonable measures for ascertaining the nature of the navigation.

This then brings us to the seventh question, which is as follows: "Was the stranding due wholly or in art " to the inadequacy of the sailing directions or chart " or to the absence of a light on the breakwater?" No doubt the chart and sailing directions which he had on board were not such as he ought to have been furnished with, seeing that they do not indicate the existence of the breakwater; but the question is whether their insufficiency in any way conduced to the casualty in this case, and in our opinion they did not. Breakwater or no breakwater, the master had no right to go between the Stone buoy and the land; his proper course, as we have seen, was not to have allowed the Heugh Lights to get to the eastward of north until he had sighted the light at the end of the Old Pier, and brought it to bear about three points to the northward of west; and this his chart very clearly indicated to him as the proper course by lines drawn from the Stone buoy to the Heugh Lights, and to the light on the Old Pier head. Nor does it appear to us that the stranding was due to the absence of a light on the end of the breakwater, for if there had been one there it would have given the master no information, but might have confused him seeing that he did not know of the existence of the breakwater. Nor is it pretended that his ignorance of the existence of this breakwater in any way contributed to the casualty, the only effect of the breakwater would be to conceal from him the light on the Old Pier head almost up to the time when he might safely steer for it, and he had no right to put the vessel's head to the west until after he had seen that light, and brought it three points to the north of west.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Was " the 'Fairway' sufficiently manned?" it appears that she had a master, mate, boatswain, four able seamen, a cook, two engineers, a donkeyman, and three firemen. There were thus, exclusive of the master, six hands to do the work on deck, namely, the chief officer, boatswain, and four A.B.'s, or an officer and two able seamen to each watch. Looking, however, to the fact that she was a' very small steam vessel, only 614 tons, gross, that the chief officer and boatswain both held master's certificates, and that the other deck hands were all rated as able seamen, the assessors are not prepared to say that the vessel was under-manned.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the stranding?" I have already stated that the stranding of the vessel was due to the master having ported his helm when too close to the Heugh Lights, and thus brought those lights to the eastward of north before he had even sighted the light on the end of the Old Pier, and before he had brought it to bear three points to the northward of west.

The last question which we are asked is, "Who " was, or who were, in default?" And it is added that " the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate " of the master, Frederick John Courtman, should be " dealt with." That the whole blame for this casualty rests with the master can hardly be denied, seeing that he was at the time on deck directing the navigation, and that it was by his directions that the vessel's head was brought round to the west sooner than it ought to have been. It has been contended by Mr. Bucknill that this was an excusable error of judgment; but in our opinion that is not so. On the contrary, we think that it was an act of neglect and default to bring the Heugh Lights to the eastward of north before he had even sighted the light at the end of the Old Pier. At the same time it is to be observed that he was actively attending to his duties on deck; and that, when he was left with only 6 hands on board, of whom only one was a seaman, he succeeded by great skill and courage in extricating his vessel from a position of very considerable difficulty and danger. He has also, we are told, never before met with any casualty; and under all the circumstances we are disposed to take a lenient view of his case, and we shall therefore not deal with his certificate.

One question yet remains to be disposed of, namely, the question of insurance. We are told that, when the Board of Trade applied to Mr. Forsey for information as to the amount for which the vessel was insured, he stated in reply that, being only the manager, he could not give the required information without the authority of the shareholders, and that for this purpose it would be necessary to call a general meeting. Under the advice, however, of his counsel, he has now stated to the Court the amount for which the vessel was insured. He has told us that the vessel cost them in June last 11,250l.; and that she was insured for that amount; that the outfit was not insured at all; and that, although under charter for a voyage to Gibraltar, and thence so Safi, the freight was not insured. We could wish that other owners were as well advised, and when so advised would act as wisely as this gentleman has done in the present case; for if they have nothing to conceal, I cannot conceive why they should object to state in what amount their property was insured.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

ALEX. MURDOCH,

Assessors.

L 367. 2134. 170.—11/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.