ONBOARD Magazine summer 2019

PYA
Is a passage
plan optional?
A recent Admiralty
Court decision
in London gave
shipowners, operators
and Masters a
timely warning as
to their collective
responsibilities to
seaworthiness.
Words: Capt A. Croft
MBA, AFNI
In brief, a container ship grounded leaving
port due to ignorance of shallow ground
warnings in a port fairway which should
have been no go areas for a ship of this
size and draft. The London court denied
compensation under marine insurance as
it had determined that:
•à The vessel’s passage plan was defective
with respect to the failure to appraise
no go areas making its subsequent
passage unsafe.
•à The passage plan made the vessel
unseaworthy. The court found that
effective passage planning, and
seaworthiness are linked.
•à The unseaworthiness of the ship was
the cause of the grounding as the
Master did not know of this danger
in his subsequent action to leave the
fairway.
•à Due diligence to ensure seaworthiness
was not properly exercised by ships
officers. The Safety Management
System did not excuse the owner from
liability as ships’ officers are employees
(servants or agents) of the owner.
How does this ruling potentially affect
large yachting operations?
Although marine insurance is of generally
little interest to Captains of superyachts,
this ruling now makes a new emphasis on
the proper preparation of passage plans
and also, in its execution, and monitoring.
A failure on part of the Captain or his
officers potentially exposes any otherwise
well-run yacht to Port State detention and
other penalties.
By merely being in a Port State’s waters,
with a passage plan on board which does
not clearly incorporate ALL currently
available updated corrections and notations
to paper or electronic charts, a yacht
may be deemed unseaworthy and unsafe
to proceed to sea. However, in yachting
there are some other relevant points to
bear in mind.
Extract of SOLAS Regulation applicable
to small vessels and pleasure craft
Regulation 34àapplies to all vessels but the
degree of voyage planning may sensibly be
less for small vessels and pleasure craft.
There is still a need for prior planning, but
the plan need not be written down. The
following should particularly be taken into
account when planning a boating trip:
See www.mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/
solas/solas_v/Regulations/regulation34.htm
AlthoughàRegulation 34àonly applies when
proceeding to sea, small craft users should
adhere to the voyage planning principles
when also sailing in categorised waters.
Master’s liability
Secondly, and in addition, under SOLAS V, if
the Master is responsible for the Passage
Plan, and the Plan is found incomplete or
deficient, then the Owners may have a
claim on their insurers based on ‘Crew
Negligence’. See further information at:
www.mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/solas/
solas_v/Regulations/regulation34_1.htm
which gives the Rule on the Master’s
Discretion...and which rather forbids
interference from the Owner or Manager.
Conclusions?
Whilst the lack of required certificates
and supporting documents may render
the vessel unseaworthy, it is as well for
us to recognise the various conditions
under which SOLAS V may not apply – e.g.
tonnage limits of 150GT for all voyages
and 500GT for International Voyages, and
to also appreciate the various relaxations
which flag-states may have agreed for
smaller vessels flying their flags.
For example, The UK Codes of Practice
which are accepted as equivalence to the
technical requirements of SOLAS, and
their appreciation that (quote) ‘degree of
voyage planning may sensibly be less for
small vessels and pleasure craft’ (unquote).
à
The PYA recommends that the recent
court ruling on the Container Vessel LIBRA
case should be presented in the yachting
sector as more of a reminder to those
in yachting who should take note of the
need to apply the professional statutory
requirement to APPRAISE, PLAN, EXECUTE
and MONITOR all movements of their
vessels at all times…..even when moving
anchorage position!
ONBOARD | SUMMER 2019 | 145