Scot Carrier Collides with Karin Høj in Bornholmsgat — Barge Capsizes, Two Crew Die
Vessel: Scot Carrier (UK, general cargo, 89.98m) — collided with Karin Høj (Denmark, split hopper barge, 55.06m)
Date & location: 13 December 2021, 0327, Bornholmsgat Traffic Separation Scheme precautionary area, Sweden
Outcome: Karin Høj capsized; both of its two crew died. Scot Carrier sustained bow damage
Human factors: Distraction · Situational Awareness · Authority Gradient
Source: MAIB Report 5/2023
0327
Scot Carrier's second officer had been alone on the bridge, using a tablet computer continuously throughout his watch, and had consumed alcohol before taking it over. Neither vessel had a dedicated lookout posted — not unusual for the hour, but a direct breach of COLREGs Rule 5, which requires a proper lookout by sight and hearing at all times. At a planned ECDIS waypoint, the second officer altered course from 220° to 270° without scanning radar or taking a visual check for traffic in the new heading. Karin Høj was there. Scot Carrier struck it.
Karin Høj had no voyage data recorder and no survivors, so the investigation could establish nothing about its crew's actions before the collision. What is certain is the outcome: the barge capsized. Both crew members lost their lives.
The Second Failure
What makes this case unusual is what happened immediately afterwards. The second officer did not raise the alarm. He did not call the master. He returned Scot Carrier to its original course and speed, as if nothing had happened. The first anyone outside the ship knew something was wrong was 17 minutes later, when the Swedish Coast Guard queried Scot Carrier's irregular AIS track by VHF. Only then was the master alerted.
What an ECDIS Waypoint Actually Tells You
An ECDIS-planned waypoint tells you where to turn. It does not tell you whether it's safe to turn there. The second officer's course alteration at 270° was executed without any independent check of the traffic picture — no radar scan, no visual bearings, no AIS cross-check. Combined with a tablet computer that had held his attention for the entire watch and alcohol already in his system, the investigation found no effective lookout was being maintained in any sense the regulations recognise.
Recommended Actions
MAIB Report 5/2023 recommended the MCA clarify the requirement for a dedicated lookout during hours of darkness, specifically for ships in UK waters and UK-registered ships — closing a gap the investigation found had allowed "a single watchkeeper, however qualified" to be treated as meeting the lookout requirement. The report's findings point every operator toward the same practical actions:
- Confirm standing orders require a dedicated lookout for all hours of darkness — and that it's actually implemented on watch, not just written down
- Set and brief a clear policy on personal electronic devices on the bridge during watch — if none exists, create one
- Ensure the SMS's alcohol policy is understood and actively managed, not just documented
- Require a radar scan and visual/AIS check for traffic before every course alteration at a planned waypoint — an ECDIS waypoint is a navigational prompt, not a clearance
- Make immediate reporting after any collision or suspected collision an absolute standing order: raise the alarm, call the master, stop or manoeuvre to assist
Human Element Analysis
Distraction
The second officer used a tablet computer continuously throughout his watch. That sustained distraction prevented effective monitoring of radar and AIS, and is a direct contributing factor to Karin Høj never being identified before the collision.
Situational Awareness
Without a lookout or effective radar monitoring, the second officer had no real picture of the traffic around him — the ECDIS waypoint represented the entire extent of his situational awareness at the moment he altered course into Karin Høj's path.
Authority Gradient
The failure to call the master after the collision is an authority gradient failure in reverse: a junior officer making a unilateral decision to withhold critical information from the person who should have been informed immediately, with fatal consequences for those in the water 17 minutes before anyone started looking for them.
How This Pattern Repeats
| Industry | Incident | The parallel |
|---|---|---|
| Aviation | Colgan Air Flight 3407, 2009 | Non-pertinent conversation between the pilots below 10,000 feet — a direct 'sterile cockpit' violation — contributed to a loss of situational awareness during a critical phase of flight, the same pattern as a tablet computer holding a watchkeeper's attention through the moment it mattered most. |
| Nuclear | Chernobyl, 1986 | Operators disabled safety systems and departed from procedure during a test, normalising a shortcut that had seemed to work before — the same normalisation that let a single unlookout'd watchkeeper feel like an acceptable arrangement, right up until it wasn't. |
| Rail | Ladbroke Grove rail crash, UK, 1999 | A signal with a documented history of being passed at danger by other drivers wasn't treated with the urgency the pattern warranted — a known, recurring risk allowed to persist, much like watchkeeping practices everyone knew fell short of the standard. |
See How You'd Handle It
The scenario opens mid-watch: alone on the bridge, tablet in hand, a waypoint alarm about to sound. Do you check the traffic picture first, or turn on schedule? Six decision points follow, ending at the moment that decided whether Karin Høj's crew had any warning at all.
What Every Watchkeeper Should Take From This
- A single watchkeeper on the bridge, however qualified, does not meet the requirement for a proper lookout during hours of darkness
- An ECDIS waypoint tells you where to turn — it never tells you whether the way is clear. Check before every alteration, planned or not
- Personal electronic devices on the bridge during watch are a documented contributing factor in a fatal collision — treat the policy as safety-critical, not administrative
- Alcohol before a watch is never a private decision — it puts everyone on both vessels at risk
- After any collision or suspected collision, the first action is to call the master and raise the alarm — every minute of delay is a minute rescue services aren't moving
Test Your Knowledge
Think you've got this covered? Put it to the test in Crew Connect's free Knowledge Checker — try a quick colregs round and see how you score.
Related Reading
What Would You Do?
This report has been turned into rank-tagged "what if" questions in Crew Connect's free Knowledge Checker. Create a free profile to test your judgement against this scenario.
Create Free Profile & Try Incident Case ReviewCould You Have Prevented It?
Test your judgement in Crew Connect's Decision Simulator — real incident patterns, real consequences, free to try.
Try the Decision Simulator Free →Ready to advance your maritime career?
Free verified profile. Certificate tracking. Get found directly by shipping companies — no crewing agent, no placement fees.
Create Free Profile — 60 SecondsBrowse maritime jobs by rank & sector