SINGAPORE POLYTECHNICSINGAPORE MARITIME ACADEMY

DIPLOMA IN MARITIME TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

LAW OF MARITIME CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND INSURANCE (MA0099)

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE COLLISION OF THE DRILLSHIP ENIWETOK WITH THE

SENTOSA CABLEWAY ON 29 JANUARY 1983

GROUP MEMBERS PARTICULARS

NAME ADMIN NUMBER CLASS

1. SIM QING YI P0961103 DMTM 2A/22

2. AIMAN

3. WILLIS FOO

Abstract

This is an accident case occurred on 29 January 1983 at about 6pm where a Drill-Ship Eniwetok collided with overhead cableway between the main island of Singapore and the island of Sentosa.

As a result of the collision, two of the cable car plunged into the sea, killing seven people. And also a total of thirteen other people stranded in four other cabins. An emergency rescue operation involving the Singapore Police Force and all three services of the Singapore Armed Forces was set up at the PSA Tower under control by Mr Philip Yeo, the then Second Permanent Secretary of Defence. The Rescue Operation was directed by then Colonel (Now Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong, Chief of Staff (General Staff).

A Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the President of the Republic of Singapore on 5 February 1983. The Person in charge of this Inquiry was then Senior State Counsel Sivakant Tiwari with assistance of two Queen’s Counsel, Mr Richard Stone and Michael Beloff. This appointment of the commission under the Inquiry Commissions Act (Chapter 48) was gazetted in the Republic of Singapore Government Gazette No. 436, dated 11 February 1983.

This Commission sat in the High Court for 55 days from 23 May 1983 to 12 August 1983. A total of 85 witnesses were heard, 222 exhibits were admitted into evidence and 2076 pages of notes of evidence were recorded.

TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE

1. Abstract 2

2. The Collision of Eniwetok with the Sentosa Cableway 4-5

3. Factors that may create the Collision of the Eniwetok with the Cableway 6

4. The Conclusion of the Commission Report 7-8

5. The Law of Negligence 9

6. Group Analysis Of The Report 10

7. Individual Analysis Of The Report 11-14

8. References 15

The Collision of the Eniwetok with the Sentosa Cableway

Seven die as two cable cars plunge into seaThe Sunday Times, Jan 30, 1983

SEVEN people died last night when two Sentosa cable cars plunged into the sea after the ropeway had been struck by the derrick of an oil drilling vessel.

Last night rescue services were engaged in an operation to save another six people stranded in four other cable cars which stopped when the accident happened. And early today two passengers were rescued from one of the stranded cars in a daring helicopter operation.

The helicopter lowered a winchman onto the car's roof; at first he was blown off but on the second attempt he got onto the roof of the car and freed the two passengers. Apart from the helicopters, floating cranes were being moved into position in case they were needed to reach the stranded cars, two on each side of the water.

An emergency operations centre was set up in PSA Tower under the control of Mr Philip Yeo, Second Permanent Secretary (Defence).The disaster happened shortly after 6 pm. A PSA tug began towing the drillship away from Keppel Wharf. Shortly afterwards, eye witnesses said the vessel's gantry tower snagged one of the two cables, pulling it out of place.

A PSA boatman, Mr Mohamed Noor Nani, said he looked up from his boat after hearing a loud noise. He grabbed a loudhailer and shouted "Go stun! Go stun!" (Go astern) but the drillship kept moving. Its tower snagged the cable and the two cars were dislodged and flung into the water.

Some witnesses said three or more of the people in them were thrown out as the cars hurtled 55 m into the water. Several bodies fell close to Jardin Steps and a two-year-old boy was rescued alive from the water. He was in critical condition with head injuries.

A team of army frogmen rushed to the scene and combed the water for bodies. Police sealed off the area around the World Trade Centre as rescue vehicles and ambulances were moved in. Police Task Force members were called out to control big crowds which gathered at the terminal as news of the tragedy spread.

The seven known dead included two out of seven of a Sikh family which had gone to Sentosa for the day. A third, a two-year-old boy, was critically ill in hospital. The other four had not been accounted for.

As the operation to reach the stranded cars continued, the major fear was that the still-entangled drillship tower could break the ropeway. A Singapore Fire Service spokesman said: "Almost anything we try will be risky."

The problem was worsened by a combination of the strong current and the rising tide – high tide was at 11 pm. In a bid to prevent the drillship from moving, four tugs put lines aboard and worked to and fro to keep the drillship Eniwetok steady in the water.

The Eniwetok had been converted from a bulk carrier in Keppel Shipyard and was commissioned only six weeks ago. With the advent of the high tide at 11 pm, rescuers feared that as the drillship rose with the tide, the tension might snap the cable.

As well as the two Sikhs, the dead were Mr Fred Kunimoto, an American businessman living in Singapore, and a 60-year-old American visitor, a Chinese woman aged about 30, an Australian man aged about 35, and a Caucasian woman.

The accident is the first involving death or injury since the cable car system opened in February 1974. But in 1977, there were several cases of people being stranded when cable cars broke down.

The system, which cost $12 million, is run by Singapore Cable Cars and jointly owned by the Sentosa Development Corporation and the PSA.

A Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the President of the Republic of Singapore on 5 February 1983 into the accident. The Commission conducted the Inquiry in public for 55 days from 23 May to 12 August 1983 and submitted its report on 30 December 1983. The Commission made recommendations for appropriate safety measures to be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

Factors that may create the Collision of the Drill-ship with the Cableway on 29 January 1983

In the report of the commission of inquiry, the lead counsel said that “Ever though there was an introduction of height restriction placed on Keppel Harbour in 1973 with referenced in accordance with the International Practice”, this accident wouldn’t have been occurred if the below factors had not been coincided on that day such as:

1. If the scheduled arrangement of the departure of Eniwetok by Keppel Shipyard was not on an ebb tide;

2. If the emphasis of the height of the ship and the cableway is highlighted by the Captain Joki and the Pilot Baptista;

3. If it was some other tug at the after end of Eniwetok instead of Tug Valiant (V7);

4. If the report of the tripped of the towering hook mechanism had been done by Tug-Master Koruthu after an earlier incident;

5. If the second tripping of the towering hook mechanism hadn’t occurred;

6. If anyone on board had looked up and warned against the collision before it took place...

It was noted that the tower of the Drill-ship Eniwetok struck the cableway while she was being unberthed from adjacent Oil Wharf in a tide flowing strongly towards the cableway with assistance of tugs at the forward and after end of the vessel. The vessel was also under command and control of a Master and Pilot whom both didn’t knew the actual height of the tower of the ship which in fact did not realise that it is taller than the cableway.

When the towline of Tug Valiant V7 accidentally slipped, the means of towing Eniwetok stern first away from Wharf and cableway had lost its support which enforced the effect of tidal stream to propelled the Vessel towards the cableway with the main engine had already been put ahead.

The Conclusion of the Commission Report

The Lead Counsels had conclude that the main dominant cause of this accident was the Negligence of both Master of the Vessel (Captain Joki) and Pilot of Port of Singapore Authority (Adrian Cajetan Baptista)

The Master, Captain Pekka Erkki Joki and The Pilot, Adrian Cajetan Bapista was the main personnel had caused this accident as they had been grossly negligence on their duties such as

a. Captain Joki had failed to exercise his full authority as a Master and also due care and skill to comply with ordinary practices of seamen by:

Ensuring that a properly coordinated unberthing manoeuvre was planned and executed by Pilot Baptista;

Having a proper maintained lookup; Taking over control of the ship in sufficient time and take whatever steps

necessary to avoid collision including countermanding of the pilot’s orders; Familiarise himself with the unberthing situation of the vessel and to inform

himself and others about the details relevant to safe navigation of the ship such as recognising the possibility of collision with the cableway in the event of accident or error while manoeuvring the ship in close proximity to the cableway;

Briefing on the special features of his ship to Pilot Baptista Briefing to Chief Officer Mahon on the proposed manoeuvre and stressing on

the critical importance of the actions of the after tug; Ascertain the actual height of the ship and of the cableway...

b. Pilot Baptista had failed to exercise due care and diligence in execution of his pilotage duties while having conduct of the vessel by failing:

To familiarise the himself sufficiently with the details of the vessel and the unberthing situation of the vessel

To ascertain the actual height of the vessel; Recognise the possibility of collision in the event of error or accident; To acceptance of the Master’s offer to have anchors on standby; To recommend to the Master to delay the unberthing until the change of tidal

stream; To order the proper manoeuvres to restrain the vessel from moving towards

the cableway after the slipping of the towline...

c. Dereliction of the Chief Officer duties by Robert Thomas Mahon: Not ensuring that Keppel Harbour scale chart was onboard at Eniwetok Alert the Master the risk of a collision between the Ship and of the Cableway Remain at the his station until the unberthing manoeuvre was completed Maintaining a Proper lookout throughout the unberthing No Vigilance on the helideck when the towline had slipped which increased

the danger of collision

d. The Owners/ Managing Agents – Kepdrill International Incorporated SA/ Kapal Management Private Limited

Failure to provide the necessary information & equipment which ensure the safe operation and navigation of the ship such as Charts

Failure to ensure the existence of a proper and fully coordinated system of marine management of the ship

e. Port of Singapore Authority Failure to take all necessary steps to protect the safety of the cableway such as

i. Instructing its Pilots to obtain the heights of all Vessels that intended to navigate in Keppel Harbour

ii. Prohibit Vessels that had a height exceeding the promulgated clearance under the cableway

iii. Introduce a system whereby all tall structured vessels is to be declared to the Port Operation Centre when piloting into or out of Keppel Harbour

Failure to maintain of Tug Valiant (V7) in a fit and safe condition to render towage services

i. Adequately inspect and maintain the towing hookii. Implementation of a system whereby all incidents such as involuntary

tripping of towing hook mechanism were be reported

f. Keppel Shipyard Limited for its breaches of duty of care to its neighbour Failure to take all necessary steps to protect the safety of the cableway

The Law of Negligence

What is Negligence?

Negligence is a type of tort (also known as a civil wrong).

"Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness", because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. They could also be aware of the issues, yet choose to put the issue aside because they underestimated the importance. It is the opposite of "diligence".

It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm. 

What is Contributory Negligence?

Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is defense to a claim based on

negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff, Claimant has, through his

own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. A finding of contributory negligence is

not a complete defence for a defendant, the court will, based on the circumstances of the case,

reduce the damages awarded to the claimant according to the claimant’s level of culpability.

For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving

negligently.

Contributory negligence is often regarded as unfair because under the doctrine a victim who

is at fault to any degree, including only 1% at fault may be denied compensation entirely.

This cited reference is a very narrow application of contributory negligence and only applies

to cases of implied warranty.

The Breaches of Duty of Care

The Legal Obligation of Duty of Care is to take reasonable care to avoid causing damages.

In English tort law, an individual may be owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the duty-owner, to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. Its origins can be found in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.

Group Analysis

Individual Analysis

Name: AimanClass: DMTM 2A/22

I can agree that both Captain Pekka Erkki Joki and The Pilot, Adrian Cajetan Baptista have put forth an act of negligence, leading them to the breach of their respective duties.

The safety of life, property and environment is the prime responsibility of the Master or Captain. This also accounts for the safe navigation of the vessel. In Eniwetok’s case, Captain Pekka Erkki Joki, due to an act of negligence, failed to produce the safety standards required in his prime responsibility.

The damage caused by Eniwetok to the cableway would mean that the captain failed to maintain the safety of property.

In the article, “Seven die as two cable cars plunge into sea, The Sunday Times, Jan 30, 1983”, it was claimed that “the major fear was that the still-entangled drillship tower could break the ropeway”. “Almost anything we try will be risky." said a Singapore Fire Service spokesman. Hence, it is proven that due to the failure of the captain failure to maintain the safety of property, he has also failed to maintain the safety of life and environment. With the possibility of the cableway snapping, the number of casualties could be potentially higher, not only for the people on board the cable cars, but also those around its vicinity.

Individual Analysis

Name: Sim Qing Yi Class: DMTM 2A/22 Admin No: P0961103

I totally agree with the Lead Counsels Conclusion as it was clearly the negligence of the Master of Eniwetok (Captain Pekka Erkki Joki) & the Pilot (Adrian Cajetan Baptista) and other relevant Organisations.

Based on the statements by the involving parties, the evidences and the witness’s statement, this is my view points that make me agree to this Conclusion.

The Negligence of the Master of Eniwetok, Captain Pekka Errki Joki & the Pilot, Adrian Cajetan Baptista and Chief Officer Robert Thomas Mahon

Lack of knowledge of the exact details of the ship when taking over from Keppel Shipyard by the Master

Master neglect the unberthing situation as he was busy with the preparation for the departure and assume that the Pilot would be experienced enough to lead the Ship toward sea safety

The Pilot never voice out to the Port Operation Centre or the Master that He was inexperienced in handling the drillship and also unberthed any ship from the Keppel Oil Wharf

When the Ship was delayed for the departure, the Pilot should have tried to familiarise himself with Ship and the Harbour area before meeting the Master & discuss the unberthing plan.

The Pilot assumes that the Master would provide all the necessary information of the Ship details to him for its unberthing situation such as the height of the ship.

There was no discussion of height of the ship as the Pilot felt that was inapplicable as the Ship is moving towards western working anchorage instead towards to the Cableway.

Ignorance of the Two Critical Heights of the ship and the cableway

The Breaches of the duties of care to its neighbour by Marine Manager Chiam Toon Thong of Keppel Shipyard:

Failure to check the height of the cableway before revamping the Eniwetok. Inform the Port Operation Centre that the Ship was a tall drillship with special

characteristics which will increase the risk to the cableway. Ensure that the Master of the ship fully aware of the unusual characteristic of the ship Failure to ensure that its Dock-master are aware of the height of all tall ships coming

into Keppel Shipyard Warning to the Operators of the cableway the risk created by the presence in close

proximity to the highest point of the ship to the cableway and requesting them to take all passengers to be taken off the cableway while such ship was being manoeuvred.

The Breaches of the duties of care by Captain Goh Choo Keng/ Superintendent Nova Elliotte Lewis/ Deputy Superintendent Lawrence Seow Hood Teck and Tug-Master Jaccob Koruthu of Port of Singapore Authority:

Failure to maintain the tug boat in a condition fit manner. Prohibit Vessels that exceeding the height of the cableway. Getting the correct details of the Vessels that are manoeuvring within the Keppel

Harbour though either from the Master of the Vessels or its Pilots Failure to implement a system to record all incidents that are reported, which

appropriate measures taken to prevent a recurrence. Making sure that all equipment are not faulty before usage

The Breaches of duties of care by Captain Chak Kwok Wai of Kepdrill International Incorporated SA/ Kapal Management Private Limited as he was the Officer directly response for acting behalf of Kapal Management Pte Ltd:

Failure to provide the necessary adequate charts for the Master and/or for the use of the ship, prior to the departure of the ship.

Providing the full and clear information about the height of the ship, as unusual feature relevant to its safe navigation to the Master.

Failure to ensure the existence of a proper and fully coordinated of marine management onboard the ship

Individual Analysis

Name: Willis FooClass: DMTM 2A/21Admin No:

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

1. The Collision of the Eniwetok into the Sentosa Cablewayhttp://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/dream/life/headline/lifh10.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Cable_Car_disaster

2. Report of Commission of Inquiry into the Collision of the Drillship Eniwetok with the Sentosa Cableway on 29 January 1983, Published on 30 January 1983

3. The Law Of Negligencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law