Bow Spring vs Manzanillo II: Grounding in the Suez Canal
A fully loaded chemical tanker named Bow Spring was sailing north in the Suez Canal’s Northern By-pass Channel on July 8, 1999. The weather was fine and the ship was staying inside the deep channel because she was heavy and needed safe depth. Off to her starboard side, a dredger called Manzanillo II was working on a new access channel for a port project. From Bow Spring’s bridge, the dredger’s bearing looked steady and its course looked like it might cross toward the main channel ahead. The crew tried to raise the other ship on VHF and sounded the horn, but got no answer. Minutes mattered: Bow Spring passed a buoy around 17:56, saw Manzanillo II shaping across ahead at roughly half a mile, and at about 17:59 put the wheel hard to starboard. At 18:00, Bow Spring grounded just outside the channel edge. The tanker later refloated, but in the process she lost half her rudder and damaged her propeller. The crew believed the grounding was a deliberate “beach to avoid collision,” a choice they thought was safer than risking a crash with a dredger that seemed to be coming across their path.
Behind the scenes, there was more confusion. Notices to mariners had warned that dredging was happening in a big rectangle to the east, but the notice did not say exactly where inside that space dredging would occur or show the new channel line. Pilots were supposed to tell northbound ships that dredgers would not enter the by-pass channel, but Bow Spring’s master said no one told him that. The dredger did have special shapes to show it was restricted in ability to maneuver, but from Bow Spring’s viewpoint on the dredger’s starboard side those shapes were hard to see until very late. On the dredger, the mate later drew a sketch and said he entered the work area, slowed to dredging speed, and then turned to port within the dredging lane. The dredger also had a precise GPS-based survey screen proving where it was at the end of its run, but the operator failed to record the entire track that day, so the early part of its movement remained disputed. What everyone agrees on is the tight timeline: Bow Spring saw a constant-ish bearing, worried about a close pass, called with no reply, altered hard to starboard, and then touched bottom.
In court, a High Court judge sat with two Elder Brethren of Trinity House as nautical assessors. They were asked two practical questions: what should the dredger have done, and what should the tanker have done?
- Dredger’s duty: Manzanillo II should have made it obvious it would not cross into the channel used by the deep-draft tanker. A clear, substantial alteration to port early enough to present her port side broad to Bow Spring would have removed doubt.
- Tanker’s duty: Bow Spring’s concerns were understandable given vague notices and poor visibility of shapes. But instead of swinging out of the channel and grounding, the proper action was to reduce speed or go astern.
Final Judgment Summary
- Manzanillo II created the danger by not making her intentions unmistakably clear.
- Bow Spring overreacted by swinging hard to starboard and grounding instead of slowing down.
- Apportionment: 50/50 split of liability.
- Each vessel’s owner was held responsible for half the loss and damage.
That is how the story ends: two vessels in clear weather near Port Said, mixed mistakes on both bridges, and a straightforward judgment that divides responsibility right down the middle.
