96020 Hong Kong, China Area Near Misses

 Problems in Harbour Approaches
Far East

Report No. 96020

In the many times that I have run into Hong Kong, China in the past year, I havenoted several incidents. My first encounter involved a small Vietnamesevessel outward from Hong Kong, China. I heard this vessel report in very bad Englishthat he was passing Chesterman buoy and Mardep reply that he was not passingChesterman buoy but Number 2 buoy. I identified the ship on radar and visually,watched him cross the separation zone at a shallow angle and enter the inboundlane. At this time, I was approaching Chesterman buoy so I slowed down andasked Mardep for information on the ship. The operator replied "becareful, this is a Vietnamese ship". He then went on to call that ship,who duly answered, and instructed him that he was in the wrong lane andshould alter hard to starboard immediately. What the operator did not appreciatewas that by this time the other vessel was fine on my STARBOARD bow andaltered course to starboard as instructed. I was already going astern andno situation developed but after passing clear I heard the Vietnamese shipcall Mardep again and report that he was passing No.1 buoy. He was informedby Mardep that it was Chesterman buoy and not No. 1 and was given a courseto steer.
Fortunately I was only a spectator of the second incident, having learntmy lesson the first time I was only steaming at 10 knots from No.1 buoyto Green Island instead of the 18 knots my vessel is capable of. One largebulk carrier was heard calling Mardep asking permission to overtake twosmall vessels apparently doing 7 knots. He was forbidden to overtake byMardep, despite informing them that he could not steam so slowly and stillmaintain steerage. He was told to stop his engine. At the time he was closeto Chesterman with a force 5 cross wind and a cross current which was runningfairly strongly. I was carrying 8 degrees of set at 10 knots in the samearea shortly afterwards. Approaching the above were two very large containervessels who also asked for permission to overtake and were also refused.Both close to No.1 buoy and both stopped, fortunately they were communicatingwith each other as they came very close. Thus three large vessels were madeto steam slowly behind two small coasters and the container ships pickedup their pilots 45 minutes behind schedule.

The third incident was while leaving Hong Kong, China when I was slowly catchingup on two vessels ahead. I had just passed No.2 buoy when I noticed a verylarge ship crossing the outward lane very slowly from starboard to portbetween Chesterman and No.1 buoy. I thought he was either going to the inwardlane or heading for the passage between the islands. All three outward boundships altered course to starboard to put him on the port bow. Almost immediatelyafterwards the large vessel altered course to run parallel with us. Themiddle ship of the three just beat me to it in asking Mardep what the largevessel was doing. Mardep replied with the vessel's name, which I did notget, and said that as he had been entering in the wrong lane Mardep hadinstructed him to return to No.1 buoy, go round the buoy and enter in thecorrect lane. I could not believe my ears, not a word had been said to anyoneor any warning message broadcast. I did not pick up the original conversationand obviously the second vessel did not hear it either but we may have beenon the other Mardep Channel at the time.

 

FEEDBACK
Marine Department, Harbour Building, 38 Pier Road, GPO BOX 4155 Hong Kong, China Tel 2852 4456 Fax 2545 1535 Telex 64553
I am disturbed to read in the July issue of SEAWAYS [(Page 19) MarineAccident Reporting Scheme No 45, MARS 96020] description of three incidentsin the western approaches to Hong Kong, China Harbour. The Hong Kong, China Marine Departmentis committed to providing an efficient and professional service. We aredirectly concerned with the safety of the port and I welcome the reporter'sconstructive criticism.

With a view to continually improve the way that we provide our servicesI intend to look closely into the reported incidents in order to see whatlessons can be learnt from them. However, I find it difficult to start asinformation on time of occurrence is lacking.

Whilst I fully appreciate the confidentiality of the reporting scheme,I would be grateful if you could help me by providing the dates and approximatetimes of the three incidents.

I recently received the above letter. As always,this report was destroyed before publication and so I am unable to givethe information requested. In order to asssist MARDEP, would the reporterlike to give this information direct to MARDEP or send it to me to be passedon anonymously?