1.Date of occurrence of the event: 2014/03/21
2.Company name: Beagle Marine S.A.
3.Relationship to the Company (please enter ”head office” or
4.Reciprocal shareholding ratios: Wholly-owned
5.Name of the reporting media: Please see the other matters as below
6.Content of the report: Please see the other matters as below
7.Cause of occurrence: Please see the other matters as below
9.Any other matters that need to be specified:
Regarding the collision and total loss accident of MV Beagle III
against MV Pegasus Prime, the Yomiuri News in Japan published a
story on 20 Mar. The news story stated that the collision was
caused by a sudden alteration of course to the starboard side by
Beagle III and that the accident could have been avoided if both
vessels maintained the direction. However, we believe the story
did not consider maritime practice and international conventions.
Hence we hereby provide some clarification to the misleading story.
Due to the momentum of sailing, IMO has published COLREGs to
prevent collision at sea. The convention requires that all vessels
shall take measures when risk of collision presents and alter
course to the starboard side. The Yomiuri story assumed that
collision could be averted if course was maintained. But that
is not in compliance to international regulations. Also, the story
cited the analysis of a professor at Tokyo University of Marine
Science and Technology that the vessel would pass by a 200m
distance if courses had been maintained. However, 200m is actually
a very short distance, just slightly longer than the vessel.
A change in sea or wind condition could potentially cause the
vessels to collide hence it shall not justify the maintenance
of course. Further, the accident happened at around 3am when the
visibility is limited. In that regard, proper measures of collision
prevention should clearly be taken.
From the record of AIS, our Beagle III altered the course from 200
to 270 degree true course 6 minutes before the collision, which is
in compliance to the international conventions. On the other hand,
Pegasus Prime had not taken any action to alter her course until 1
minute before the collision. And she mistakenly altered her course
to portside from 45 to 345 degree true course, which made her sail
towards the portside red lights of Beagle III. As a result, the bow
of Pegasus Prime twice contacted with the portside side plate of
Beagle III and caused the sinking of our vessel. From the lack of
preventive measures and wrongful course taken by Pegasus Prime,
it is probably that a gross negligence was present if not machinery
failure. Furthermore, MV Pegasus Prime did not assist the rescue
operation after the accident which already caused 2 deaths and
8 missing. It is a clear breach of SOLAS convention.
The Yomiuri story mistakenly described our measures to avert
collision as “sudden change of course for unknown reasons”.
It is a misunderstanding on marine practice and it failed to point
out the illegal actions of MV Pegasus Prime. As a professional
shipping company, we would like to provide clarifications on
the facts of the accident. We are currently working with the lawyers
to pursue civil and criminal liability of the counterparty. All loss
of property and relevant liability are properly insured. There is not
significant impact on the financial and operational soundness of