Consistent discrepancies: deck logs or weather routing reports?

There have been recent cases in which the tribunal considered whether there were major or consistent discrepancies between the WRC reports and the Master’s report (see London Arbitration 23/21, 32/22, 15/23). In some SMA awards, the panel performed a similar exercise and also considered the reported slip.

In an unreported London Arbitration, the tribunal found that the deck log recorded weather conditions by at least one Beaufort force above the data from the WRC for more than half the days en route. The tribunal held that this amounted to a consistent discrepancy between the deck logs and the WRC analysis, and therefore rejected the deck logs as probative. The tribunal also found the deck logs to be unsatisfactory, as they were written in the same hand in all entries and were not contemporaneous documents. Also, the slip was missing from the document, which enables the tribunal to consider if there were external factors affecting the vessel’s SOG. The tribunal also accepted the tendency of the deck officers to overstate the wind strength and sea state.

Regarding the good weather days analysis, the tribunal accepted the preference of “means/ average conditions” since this can be compared with the reported average speed, average consumption and average RPM. This somehow explains that in some instances, the ship encounters adverse weather in sub-periods of the noon to noon period, may not be enough to disqualify the entire period noon to noon or any other selected period ( COSP to Noon, or Noon to EOSP).

In another unreported London Arbitration, the panel found consistent discrepancies between the deck logs and WRC analysis, as on 10 out of 13 steaming days, the deck logs recorded at least one point higher wind speed on the BF scale than the WRC.

In another unreported London Arbitration, the Owners presented a log abstract, and the master reported adverse currents almost daily. The arbitrator studied the engine log and found that the log abstract was unreliable.

In another unreported London Arbitration, the arbitrator had also to deal with the issue of whether there were considerable discrepancies between the deck logs and WRC reports. The tribunal found that there were considerable discrepancies as the logs recorded one point on BF scale for much of the time, which made a difference between classifying a day as “good” or “bad”.

Aside from the wind speed, arbitrators have also considered the wind direction, and wind wave or swell, as well as the reported currents (the ship reported daily adverse currents but the slip and/or the WRC reflected the opposite- this was enough for the arbitrator to find Owners breached clause 11).

In some instances, the weather routing clause specifies “ in the event of discrepancies between the deck logs and WRC report analysis”. Despite that, there are some challenges. In The Punica ( SMA 3513), addressing variances between the deck logs and Ocean Routes Reports, the panel held “Attempting to match the data to logbook positions and weather reports is thus an approximation at best.”

In an unreported London Arbitration, the arbitrator also recognised that the timings in the deck logs cannot match with the periods reflected in the WRC reports, but the comparison between the noon time and that in the WRC was sufficient to test both sets of evidence.

There is a tendency among many weather routing companies to reject any argument made on the slip, but both SMA and LMAA Arbitrators did not ignore this, as some cases prove.

[ Note: the above are just observations and not the Author's opinion on the matter].

#decklogs #underperformance