6
(c)-Cargo and passengers' baggage, etc.
The Regulations with regard to the stowage of cargo and passengers' baggage have never been observed or enforced. The responsibility here must be shared alike by the owners of the ships, by the Master, by the Captain Superintendent of Police and by the Harbour Master. The omission to observe these regulations has been open and deliberate and has been in no measure an evasion. As will appear later in this report we are unanimously of opinion that these provisions are impracticable and ineffective.
(d).-General.
So far as the responsibility for carrying out these Regulations rests upon the owners, we find that the owners of S.S. Sui An have been completely exonerated.
We are impressed with the fact that they have done everything in their power to ensure that full effect should be given to the Regulations on this ship.
(2.)-BY THE MASTER.
Captain Birss, the Master of the S.S. Sui An, has in our opinion contravened the following Regulations :--
(a.) Regulation No. 26, which requires that " Bach guard while on duty shall carry one police whistle, one rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition, and one revolver and 25 rounds of ammunition".
(4) Regulation No. 27, which requires that guards shall be exercised weekly in the use of their weapons. Also Regulation No. 20 which requires that the arius and ammunition of the ship should be tested weekly by the ship's officers.
(c) Regulation No. 28, which lays down that "At least one guard shall be on uty and shall patrol the space between the dodgers and the grille protecting the bridge deck at all times during the voyage". All guards on duty were posted outside the grille which protected the bridge deck. (d) Regulation No. 32, which requires that "Each certificated officer shall earry one revolver and 25 rounds of ammunition at all times while the ship is in a danger zone". The Master and his certificated officers were carrying no arms.
The
(e) Regulation No. 52. This relates to the locking of the engine and boiler room doors at all times while the ship is in a danger zone. Master shares with the Chief Engineer the responsibility for the fact that the doors of the engine and boiler room remained unlocked.
We find that Captain Birss understood the terms of the Regulations and the purpose for which they were framed. He however disapproved of them for reasons which he has given us and made his own arrangements independently of them. We consider the reasons given by Captain Birss to be unsatisfactory and that the arrangements he made in lieu of those laid down in the Regulations were of such a nature as to make the defence of the bridge in event of attack, practically abortive. Only two rilles were issued to the four guards on duty. By direction of Captain Birss they were carried unloaded. The guards were only given a few rounds of ammunition for their revolvers. Neither Captain Birss nor any of his certificated officers carried armıs. The Piracy Regulations were not brought to the notice of the officers by the Master. The only direction given by him in the event of a piracy was that the guards should retire to the bridge. He failed to realise the danger of piracy and that any piracy must be a surprise attack. His guards were not properly disposed. We realise fully the difficulty in which Captain Birss was placed by the surprise piratical attack made on his ship. We desire to guard ourselves from being understood to reflect here upon his personal conduct on that occasion. In our opinion, however, he must be found negligent in having omitted to hold himself, his certificated officers, and his guards, in readiness to defend the ship in accordance with the Piracy Regulations.
(3)-BY THE CHIEF OFFICER.
We find that the Chief Officer must be held negligent for having omitted to carry arms as required by Regulation No. 32.
7
(4).-BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER.
390
We find that the Chief Engineer must be held negligent for his failure to comply with Regulation No. 32. He also omitted to comply with Regulation No. 52 which requires that the doors of the engine and boiler rooms should be kept locked.
(5). BY THE SECOND ENGINEER.
What we have stated above with reference to the Chief Engineer applies also to the Second Engineer. At the same time with reference to his position in this enquiry having contravened Regulation No. 32, we notice that he was on duty in the engine room at the time of this occurrence, and we shall here later recommend that certificated officers on duty in the engine room shall not be required to carry arns upon their persons.
(6). THE GRILLES AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE GUARDS,
There are two outstanding features in the circumstances of this occurrence to which our attention has been drawn. Firstly, the grilles prescribed by Regulation No. 2 or provided in accordance with Regulation No. 10 were not kept locked. Secondly, two guards out of the four who were on duty were posted aft on the main deck among the second class passengers, Both these matters are within the province of the Master only. We notice that no contravention of any Regulation is involved in them. The Regulations require grilles but as the same time omit to require that they should be locked. It is, of course, obviously improper that they should not be kept locked. The suggestion has been made to us that this omission by the Master constitutes a breach of Regulation No. 56 which requires that "The Master shall commit no act of omission which may tend to prevent any of the provisions of these Regulations from being properly carried out We rejour this suggestion and are content to express the view that Captain Birss would have carried out his duty as Master more efficiently if he had taken steps to keep the grilles locked. The two guards allocated to the main deck aft were posted there by the Master primarily to protect the bridge deck, &c., in accordance with Regulation No. 24 (b). We have only one comment to make on this subject, namely, that in our opinion a better and more effective disposition could have been made.
(7.)-GENERAL.
The complete success of the piratical attack on the S.S. Sui An was in our opinion due to the fact that the Piracy Regulations generally were not carried out as a routine on this ship; the officers carried no arms on luty; the guards were improperly armed and badly placed for defence. There seems to have been no anticipation whatever of an attack.
8. -Adequacy of the existing Piracy Regulations for the suppression of the attack made upon the S. S. "Sui An".
If the Piracy Regulations had been strictly followed by Captain Dires one guard provided with a whistle and armed with que rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition, also with one revolver and 25 rounds of ammunition would have been on duty near the bridge between the dodgers and the grille. A second guard similarly equipped, presumably posted on the bridge deck forr'ard of the engine room skylight would have been also on inty. Every certificated officer, whether on or off duty, would have carried a revolver and 25 rounds of ammunition. Apart from these Regulations we think it likely that if discipline had been enforced on the officers and on the guards of the ship, the master of the ship, in view of the short duration of the voyage, would have been found at the time of this attack, near the bridge. In our opinion these Regulations if carried out would have been effectual to this extent. We think it unlikely that this piratical plan of attack would ever have been attempted. If it had been attempted, in our view the bridge could have been held against the attack for a sufficient time to have robbed it of its element of surprise. An opportunity would have been furnished to inflict damage upon the attackers and to send up signals of distress. It is probable that the bridge could not have been finally held against a determined assault by a large body of armed pirates, but unless the success of the surprise is practically certain, no surprise attack would be undertaken on a ship of the type of the 8.8. Sui An.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.