Page 61 - Collision Avoidance Rules Guide

The following comment with regard to choice of display was made
by the Netherlands Court at the inquiry into the collision between the
vessels Atys and Siena (1963):

This collision teaches the following lesson with respect to the use of
shipborne radar. The master declared he would have preferred to use his
radar with true bearing presentation and on the 3 mile range scale. However
he complied with the pilot’s request and switched to the ship’s head up
display and the 1 mile range scale. In this particular case the master was
right. Under the prevailing conditions it was misleading and dangerous to
use the radar’s 1 mile range scale in the congested approaches to the New
Waterway. With the radar switched to the true motion presentation, it would
have been much easier and faster to accurately determine the behaviour of
the Siena. Determination of ships’ movements by the observation of echoes
on the radar display is much easier when a north up stabilised or true display
is used than when a ship’s head up or unstabilised display is used.
More generally speaking it can be said that under similar circumstances
masters should not leave the decision of how the radar should be used and
what presentation or range scale should be chosen, to the pilot. Especially
since the shipborne radar can for these masters be a valuable aid for the
proper navigation and conning of the vessel and can help them in judging
the value of the pilot’s advice.

The UK Government has issued a Marine Guidance Note (MGN 152)
relating to the proper use of radar, including ARPA. This notice draws
attention to the need for shipmasters and others using radar to gain and
maintain experience in radar observation and appreciation by practice
at sea in clear weather so that they can deal rapidly and competently
with the problems which will confront them in restricted visibility.
In an action brought before the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in 1988 the owners of the Seapride ZZ sought
to limit their liability after the vessel struck a tower in the Delaware
River. It was held that the owners were not entitled to limit their lia-
bility because the ship’s master was not properly trained in the use of
ARPA. The following comment was made with respect to the need for
ARPA training:

The evidence clearly showed that both Captain Siderakis and Pilot Teal were
not properly trained on ARPA. Petitioners may not have significant authority or
control over Pilot Teal due to his compulsory and temporary tenure on the
ship. They do, however, have the ability and responsibility to assure that its
ship’s master is sufficiently trained on the ship’s equipment, particularly those

42