Wreck Report for 'Cochrane', 1886

(No. 2811.)

"COCHRANE" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at West Hartlepool, on the 27th of January 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains CASTLE and WARD, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "COCHRANE," on the Redcar Rocks, on the 31st of December 1885.

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 ship was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of Isaac Blackburn, the master. The Court accordingly suspends his certificate for three months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

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

Dated this 27th day of January 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

C. Y. WARD,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at West Hartlepool on the 27th of January 1886, when Mr. Howard Smith appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Tilly for the owner, and Mr. Barnley for the master of the "Cochrane," and Mr. Belk for the Redcar Pier Company. Four witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Howard Smith handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Barnley then addressed the Court on behalf of the master, and Mr. Howard Smith having been heard in reply, 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 "Cochrane" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of Middlesbro', of 515 tons gross and 328 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 75 horse power. She was built at Jarrow-on-Tyne in the year 1854, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. John Livingstone, Mr. Wm. McLeod, of Middlesbrough, shipowner, being the manager. She left Sunderland at about 11.30 a.m. of the 31st of December last with a crew of 13 hands and a cargo of coals, bound to London; and the vessel having been recently repaired, Mr. Doxford, of Middlesbro', the compass adjuster, went in her for the purpose of swinging the vessel, and ascertaining the deviation on her compasses. On getting outside this was done, and the vessel then proceeded to Tees Bay to land Mr. Doxford, but owing to the sea on the bar, they had to lie to off the Fairway Buoy until a steam tug had come up, on board of which they put Mr. Doxford, who, previous to his departure, handed to the master the deviation cards, which he had prepared for both his compasses. It was now about 4.30 p.m., and the vessel, which was then a few yards inside the Fairway Buoy, was put, according to the master, on a S.E. 1/2 E. course by the bridge compass, but according to the two men who were at the wheel, she was put on a S.E. easterly course. At this time it was blowing a moderate breeze from the W.N.W., with the tide last quarter ebb, and the vessel continued her course until about 5 p.m., when she suddenly struck, and it was subsequently ascertained that she had gone on the extreme eastern point of the Salt Scar, passing about 20 yards inside of the Salt Scar Buoy. Assistance having come to them from the shore, a kedge was carried out in a northeasterly direction, but as the tide was falling, she remained fast. At about 9 or 9.30, however, on the flood making, she came off, and an attempt was made to take her to the Tees, but it was then found that she would not steer, the fore compartment being full of water; and accordingly they ran her again on the rocks to prevent her sinking, and she came into collision with the Redcar Pier, doing some considerable damage to it. The vessel was subsequently got off, and taken to Middlesbrough, where she has since been repaired.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "What " number of compasses had the vessel on board, and " where were they placed?" We are told that she had two compasses, one before the after wheel and the other on the upper bridge before the 'midship wheel, by which on this occasion the course was set and the vessel steered.

The next three questions I propose to take together; they are as follow:—"(2.) Whether safe and proper " courses were set and steered after leaving the Fair- " way Buoy, and whether due and proper allowance " was made for tide, currents, or errors in the com- " passes, if any? "(3.) Whether the vessel was " navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" and "(4.) What was the cause of the stranding?" The captain has told us that on leaving the Fairway Buoy he put her on a S.E. 1/2 E. course, and allowing a quarter of a point for wind and tide and three quarters of a point for deviation, that, he said, would be equivalent to a S.E. by E. 1/2 E. course magnetic; and as the bearing of the Salt Scar Buoy from the Fairway Buoy is S.E., he considered that that would be giving the rocks a sufficiently wide berth. On looking, however, at the deviation cards, they show that on a S.E. by E. course, whilst the after compass has a deviation of 3/4 of a point, the bridge compass has hardly any deviation at all, and that whilst you would have to put her head 3/4 of a point more to the southward if you were steering by the after compass, in order to keep a S.E. by E. course, all that it is necessary to do if you are steering by the bridge compass is to keep her a little to the east of that course. The mistake then which the master made was to take the deviation card belonging to the after compass instead of that for the bridge compass, and to apply the 3/4 of a point which he there found as the deviation proper to be allowed for the bridge compass. As, too, I am told by the assessors that with the wind blowing a moderate breeze from the W.N.W., the tide last quarter ebb, and the vessel deeply laden, she would not make any lee way, the course S.E. 1/2 E. by the bridge would not give, as the master supposed, S.E. by E. 1/2 E., but about S.E. 1/2 E., or a little to the southward of that course. Seeing, however, that the bearing of the Salt Scar Buoy from the Fairway Buoy is as nearly as possible S.E., and that the vessel took her departure from a little inside the Fairway Buoy, it is clear that a S.E. 1/2 E. course, on which the master says he put her, would be neither a safe nor a proper course, having regard to the then state of the win dand tide; much more then would it be an improper course if the course steered was, as both the men at the helm have stated, not S.E. 1/2 E., but S.E. by the bridge compass. This, then, is in our opinion the cause of the vessel having stranded where she did, that she was kept on a S.E. course from the Fairway Buoy, the master erroneously supposing that he would, owing to the set of the wind and tide and to a deviation of 3/4 of a point on the compass, be heading about a point more to the east than he really was. It is therefore quite impossible for us to say that the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Having " regard to the above questions, was the stranding " caused by any wrongful act or default on the part of " the master?" and it is added that, "in the opinion " of the Board of Trade, the certificate of the master " should be dealt with." That the master should, when laying the vessel's course, have taken the wrong deviation card, seeing that those deviation cards had only just been prepared for and handed to him, and that he must have, or ought to have assisted in the preparation thereof, appears to us to be a very great act of carelessness. It was stated by Mr. Barnley, as an excuse for not seeing the danger into which he was running, that the atmosphere at the time was obscure, caused by drizzling rain and the smoke from the furnaces on shore; but it appears to us that this ought to have made him all the more cautious in laying his course. In our opinion the master has been guilty of a wrongful act or default, and for which we are bound to deal with his certificate. We are told that he has been for 27 years at sea, and that for the last five years he has held a master's certificate, and that he has never before met with any casualty. He has, however, by his neglect caused very serious losses to his employer, for which he can make no compensation whatever, and at the same time exposed the lives of all on board to great peril. On the whole, however, the assessors, to whom I always leave the question of the amount of punishment, are disposed to take a somewhat lenient view of the case, and we shall therefore suspend his certificate for only three months.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

JOHN S. CASTLE,

C. Y. WARD,

Assessors.

L 367. 2589. 180.—2/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.