Whether operating large commercial vessels or smaller leisure craft, one truth remains constant in maritime operations: safety and structural integrity are paramount. Over the years, both high-profile incidents involving large ships and smaller, less-publicised accidents have highlighted the importance of regular marine surveys. These thorough inspections are designed to ensure that vessels of all sizes are seaworthy and compliant with safety standards, potentially preventing disasters before they occur.
In this blog, we explore both large and small maritime incidents that occurred in UK waters and how proper marine surveys could have made a significant difference.
--------------------------------------------------
What is a Marine Survey and Why is it Important?
A marine survey is a detailed inspection of a vessel’s structure, equipment, and overall condition. It is critical for ensuring that a boat—whether a commercial, pleasure craft, or houseboat—is safe and fit for purpose. Marine surveys are essential for detecting structural weaknesses, maintenance needs, and compliance with maritime regulations.
Surveys come in many forms:
- Pre-purchase Surveys: To assess the condition of a vessel before buying.
- Insurance Surveys: Required by insurers to evaluate a vessel’s risks and establish premiums.
- Condition Surveys: To assess a boat’s current condition and recommend maintenance or repairs.
- Damage Surveys: Conducted after an incident to evaluate the extent of damage.
Marine surveys are crucial for detecting potential problems early, ensuring that vessels remain safe and avoid costly repairs or catastrophic failures. Let’s now look at real-world maritime incidents that highlight the importance of marine surveys for vessels large and small.
--------------------------------------------------
MV Hoegh Osaka (2015): Cargo Distribution and Stability
Incident: On 3 January 2015, the pure car and truck carrier Hoegh Osaka was rounding West Bramble buoy in the Solent when it developed a significant starboard list, resulting in a cargo shift and subsequent flooding. The vessel lost steerage and propulsion as the list exceeded 40°, and by 2115, it had drifted onto Bramble Bank, grounding shortly thereafter. Fortunately, all 24 crew members were successfully evacuated or recovered from the surrounding waters, and no pollution occurred. The ship was refloated as part of a major salvage operation and returned to a safe berth in Southampton on 22 January.
The Root Cause: A detailed investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) revealed that Hoegh Osaka had departed Southampton with inadequate stability for the voyage. The upper vehicle decks were heavily loaded, while the lower decks were relatively empty, leaving the vessel’s centre of gravity dangerously high. Additionally, the ship was low on bunker fuel, stored low down in the ship, further contributing to the stability issues. The lack of ballast loaded prior to departure exacerbated the problem. Critically, no departure stability calculation had been performed, a practice that had reportedly become common in the car carrier sector.
While the cargo shift contributed to the situation, it was the vessel's inadequate stability at the time of departure that caused the excessive list. Cargo distribution practices, incorrect ballast tank level estimations, and discrepancies in cargo weight and stowage contributed to the ship's overall instability. These factors had combined to leave Hoegh Osaka in a dangerously unstable condition from the moment it departed Southampton.
How a Marine Survey Could Have Helped: A comprehensive marine survey would have included checks on the vessel’s cargo loading plan, ballast levels, and stability condition prior to departure. A stability survey would have identified the ship’s high centre of gravity, imbalanced cargo distribution, and insufficient ballast. The absence of a departure stability calculation, which is crucial for ensuring that a ship has an adequate margin of stability for its intended voyage, could have been addressed. A thorough review of these factors before sailing would have flagged the issues and ensured corrective actions were taken—such as reloading the cargo, adjusting ballast, and ensuring fuel levels were adequate—preventing the severe list and the subsequent grounding.
Lessons Learned: The Hoegh Osaka incident highlights how unsafe practices, even in large commercial vessels, can become ingrained over time. The failure to calculate departure stability had become a routine omission, underscoring the importance of regular, thorough marine surveys in identifying such lapses before they lead to disaster. Following the incident, the owner and manager of Hoegh Osaka took steps to enhance their procedures and ensure proper stability calculations are conducted, but the lesson here is clear: comprehensive marine inspections and adherence to safety protocols are essential for preventing such incidents.
Pride of Canterbury Ferry Fire (2014): Mechanical Failure and Propeller System Issues
Incident: On 29 September 2014, the cross-channel ferry Pride of Canterbury experienced a significant mechanical issue as it approached its berth in Calais. The starboard controllable pitch propeller (CPP) stopped responding, forcing the ship’s master to proceed with only the port side propulsion and a bow thruster. As the ferry neared the dock, a pipework joint in the starboard CPP system ruptured, spraying oil onto the hot exhaust uptakes, causing a fire. The crew quickly evacuated the main engine room, sounded the general emergency alarm, and mustered passengers at their emergency stations. Despite the fire, the ferry was able to berth safely, and the blaze was extinguished using the ship’s hi-fog system and fire hoses. All passengers and cargo were safely disembarked.
The Root Cause: The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) determined that the back pressure valve in the starboard CPP hydraulic system had jammed shut, causing the oil pressure to increase until a flanged pipework joint failed. Crucially, this failed joint, along with others in the system, was not shielded to prevent the spray of oil in the event of a failure. The investigation also revealed that the back pressure valve had not been tested for functionality in its 23 years of service, and the potential for high pressure throughout the system had not been adequately considered. Additionally, there was no high pressure alarm installed in the system, which delayed the crew’s awareness of the issue. The presence of combustible materials near the engine uptakes allowed the fire to spread.
How a Marine Survey Could Have Helped: A comprehensive marine survey, particularly focused on the mechanical and safety systems of the Pride of Canterbury, would have identified several of the issues that led to this fire. Marine surveys typically include inspections of key mechanical systems, including propulsion systems and hydraulic lines. In this case, a surveyor would have noted the lack of shields on the hydraulic joints, which are critical for preventing oil sprays in the event of a rupture. Additionally, the worn back pressure valve could have been identified during regular testing and replaced before it failed.
Surveys also include a review of safety features, and the absence of a high pressure alarm would have been flagged as a serious oversight. Had such an alarm been in place, the crew could have been alerted to the rising pressure in the system earlier, potentially preventing the pipe joint from rupturing. Furthermore, the surveyor would have recommended removing combustible materials from the area around the engines, reducing the risk of fire spreading in case of an oil spray.
Lessons Learned: The Pride of Canterbury incident highlights the importance of regular testing and maintenance of critical mechanical systems. The failure of the back pressure valve after 23 years of service without functional testing demonstrates the risks associated with neglecting older components. Marine surveys can play a crucial role in identifying such risks, ensuring that components are tested and replaced as needed. In this case, a thorough survey could have prevented the fire, ensuring the ferry’s propulsion system was fully operational and reducing the risk to both passengers and crew.
Narrowboat Lindy Lou Fire (2007): The Need for Fire Safety on Small Vessels
Incident: In the early hours of 20 January 2007, a devastating fire broke out aboard the narrowboat Lindy Lou, which was moored at Lyme View Marina, Adlington. The fire spread quickly, tragically claiming the life of one person and severely injuring the other occupant, who suffered serious burns and smoke inhalation. The fire's rapid spread left little time for evacuation, and the boat was completely destroyed.
The Root Cause: The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) determined that the fire started due to a solid fuel stove that had been improperly installed. Specifically, the stove did not meet the manufacturer’s installation guidelines, as the hearth dimensions and air gaps around the stove were less than recommended. Furthermore, evidence was found of long-term charring beneath the wooden hearth structure, indicating that it had been smouldering for some time before finally igniting. Another critical safety oversight was the absence of smoke alarms on board. At the time, the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) and the Boat Safety Scheme (BSS) did not require smoke alarms on small recreational craft, which left the occupants unaware of the fire until it was too late.
How a Marine Survey Could Have Helped: A marine survey, particularly focused on safety and fire prevention, would likely have identified several critical issues aboard Lindy Lou. First, the improper installation of the solid fuel stove would have been flagged as a serious fire hazard. Marine surveyors are trained to inspect installations to ensure they comply with safety standards and manufacturer recommendations, and in this case, they would have recommended that the stove be properly installed with adequate hearth dimensions and air gaps to prevent overheating and charring of nearby materials.
Furthermore, while smoke alarms were not legally required, a marine surveyor would have recommended their installation as a best practice, especially on habitable small craft like Lindy Lou. Early detection of the fire could have allowed the occupants to evacuate before the fire became uncontrollable, potentially saving a life.
Lessons Learned: The tragic loss of life in the Lindy Lou fire highlights the importance of adhering to safety standards, particularly regarding stove installations and fire prevention measures. It also underscores the critical role that marine surveys can play in identifying safety risks, even in smaller vessels that may not be subject to the same stringent regulations as larger commercial ships. Following this incident, recommendations were made to the British Standards Institution to include smoke alarms as a requirement on habitable small craft. However, it remains the responsibility of boat owners to ensure that all safety precautions are in place—something that a thorough marine survey can help facilitate.
MSC Napoli (2007): Hull Integrity , Heavy Seas and Environmental Risk
Incident: On 18 January 2007, the 4419 TEU container ship MSC Napoli was navigating the English Channel when it encountered heavy seas, with waves reaching up to 9 metres in height. The vessel was pitching heavily at a speed of 11 knots when, at 1105, it suffered a catastrophic hull failure in the area of the engine room. Recognizing the severity of the situation, the master quickly decided to abandon ship. After broadcasting a distress call at 1125, all 26 crew members evacuated safely in an enclosed lifeboat and were later rescued by two Royal Navy helicopters. Thankfully, there were no injuries.
Following the abandonment, MSC Napoli was taken under tow toward Portland, UK. However, as the vessel neared the coast, it became evident that there was a significant risk of the ship breaking apart or sinking. To prevent an uncontrolled sinking, the decision was made to intentionally beach the ship in Branscombe Bay on 20 January 2007. During the beaching, MSC Napoli listed heavily, resulting in the loss of several containers overboard.
The Root Cause: The investigation into the incident identified several factors that contributed to the hull’s structural failure:
- The vessel’s hull did not have sufficient buckling strength in the area of the engine room.
- At the time of MSC Napoli's construction, classification rules did not require buckling strength calculations to be performed beyond the midship area, leading to a structural vulnerability.
- There was little or no safety margin between the hull’s design loading and its ultimate strength.
- The load on the hull was likely increased by the "whipping effect"—a phenomenon in which the ship's hull flexes violently due to wave impacts.
- The ship's speed was not sufficiently reduced despite the severe weather conditions, placing additional strain on the hull.
How a Marine Survey Could Have Helped: A comprehensive marine survey, particularly one focused on the structural integrity of the vessel, could have flagged potential weaknesses in the hull, particularly in areas not covered by the original classification rules, such as the engine room. A survey might have identified the insufficient buckling strength in that part of the ship and recommended remedial actions before the ship encountered heavy seas. Furthermore, a marine surveyor would have advised on best operational practices in severe weather conditions, such as reducing speed to lessen the impact of large waves, potentially reducing the likelihood of hull stress failure.
Lessons Learned: The catastrophic failure of the MSC Napoli hull illustrates the importance of regularly assessing a vessel's structural integrity, especially in light of updated safety standards. The initial classification rules at the time of construction did not require specific calculations beyond the midship area, a critical gap that left the vessel vulnerable. Following this incident, over 1500 ships of similar design were urgently screened, with 12 vessels identified as requiring immediate remedial action.
This incident also highlights the necessity of incorporating modern research into "whipping effect" and other stresses that can affect a vessel in heavy seas. While hull failure may seem like a rare occurrence, the incident of MSC Napoli underscores the importance of ensuring that container ships—especially older ones—are capable of withstanding the extreme forces they may encounter. A comprehensive marine survey would have ensured that the vessel was up to current safety standards and equipped to navigate safely through challenging conditions.
Overplating on Narrowboats and Dutch Barges: A Structural Hazard
Incident: In one notable case, a Dutch barge moored on a gravel tidal mooring was nearly lost due to a catastrophic failure of improperly executed overplating. The vessel had been overplated twice—first with a doubling plate and then an additional layer of steel over the doubling plate. This poorly executed repair eventually led to a two-foot crack forming in the second overplate. Water rapidly began to flood between the layers, and the vessel nearly sank. Only the quick actions of the occupants, who used bilge pumps to keep the vessel afloat until it could be docked, saved the boat from complete disaster.
The Root Cause: The practice of overplating, while often seen as a quick fix for deteriorating steel hulls, can be fraught with dangers if not properly executed. In this case, the second overplating had been applied over an existing doubling plate, without removing the underlying corroded steel or addressing the root problem. The repair was structurally unsound because:
The double and triple layers of plating added significant weight to the hull, causing the vessel to sit lower in the water and reducing the freeboard (the distance between the waterline and the deck).
The plates were not welded to the primary supporting structure (the shell side framing), leaving them dependent only on edge welding for security. This resulted in weakened structural integrity and increased the risk of failure.
The overplating did not address the corrosion on the original hull, meaning the underlying problem continued to worsen even after the additional plating was applied.
The failure occurred when the stress on the hull—likely exacerbated by the tidal conditions of the mooring—became too much for the inadequately supported overplating. The resulting crack allowed water to flood into the void between the layers of steel, rapidly filling the vessel with water.
How a Marine Survey Could Have Helped: A marine survey would have identified the significant risks associated with overplating. Marine surveyors are trained to assess the underlying condition of a vessel’s hull and advise against "quick fixes" like overplating, especially when the original steel is not properly repaired or replaced. In this case, a surveyor would have recommended removing the corroded steel and replacing it with new, high-quality steel plating. Additionally, a thorough survey would have flagged the lack of proper attachment to the vessel’s supporting structure and the insufficient edge welding, both of which contributed to the crack and subsequent flooding.
The surveyor also would have highlighted the impact of additional weight from overplating on the vessel’s buoyancy and stability, ensuring that the owners understood the long-term consequences of this “repair.” A proper repair, rather than overplating, would have maintained the vessel’s structural integrity and prevented the near-sinking.
Lessons Learned: This incident serves as a cautionary tale for the dangers of overplating, particularly on steel-hulled vessels such as Dutch barges and narrowboats. Overplating is not a true repair—it merely covers up the problem, often leading to more serious issues down the line. Marine surveys play a critical role in identifying improper repairs and guiding vessel owners toward more permanent solutions, such as removing corroded steel and replacing it with new, properly installed plating.
By addressing the root of the problem rather than opting for a superficial fix, vessel owners can avoid the catastrophic failures that can result from overplating and maintain the long-term safety and seaworthiness of their boats.
The Importance of Marine Surveys for All Vessels
Whether it's a large commercial ship like the MSC Napoli or a small recreational boat like the Lindy Lou, regular marine surveys are essential to ensuring the safety and seaworthiness of all types of vessels. These surveys identify potential risks, from structural weaknesses and mechanical failures to safety protocol deficiencies, before they turn into disasters.
For small boats, which often operate with fewer safety regulations compared to larger ships, marine surveys can be especially important. Issues like fire hazards, improper installations, and overplating can go unnoticed, yet they pose serious risks. Marine surveyors have the expertise to identify these problems early, ensuring that small boat owners can enjoy their vessels safely.
Why Every Vessel Needs a Marine Survey
The incidents discussed above—from large commercial ships to small narrowboats—illustrate the critical role that marine surveys play in preventing maritime disasters. Whether you operate a large tanker or a small leisure craft, regular inspections of your vessel’s structure, equipment, and safety systems can make the difference between a safe voyage and a catastrophic event.
Marsurv specialises in conducting thorough marine surveys for vessels of all sizes.
Our team has extensive experience in identifying risks and recommending actionable repairs and upgrades to ensure that your boat is safe and compliant.
Don’t wait for a small issue to turn into a big problem—schedule your marine survey today and safeguard your vessel’s future.
Commentaires