Skip to main content

Concepts

Bridge Resource Management Failure

**Definition:** Systematic breakdown in the coordination, communication, and decision-making processes among bridge watchstanders during navigation, resulting in avoidable collisions or near-misses.

Definition: Systematic breakdown in the coordination, communication, and decision-making processes among bridge watchstanders during navigation, resulting in avoidable collisions or near-misses.

Key Failures

Bridge Resource Management (BRM) failures typically involve:

  1. Poor Communication
  • Inadequate or absent contact reports between watchstanders
  • Bridge-to-bridge radio attempts that go unheeded
  • Lack of information sharing between bridge and Tactical Operational Plot (TOP)
  • Incomplete handover during watch relief
  1. Leadership and Command Oversight
  • Commanding Officer (CO) not being called with contact reports during high-risk maneuvers
  • CO arriving too late to intervene
  • Lack of explicit standing orders for complex navigation evolution
  1. Watchstander Qualification and Attention
  • Watchstanders not fully engaged in tactical picture
  • Failure to recognize course or speed changes of nearby vessels
  • Inadequate monitoring of Navigation/Tactical displays
  • Tunnel vision focused on planned maneuvers
  1. Speed and Maneuvering Decisions
  • Excessive speeds in constrained waters (e.g., exceeding planned interim movement speed)
  • Delayed turning/course changes when contacts are in proximity
  • Failure to maintain buffers for high-traffic density areas
  • Confusion over collision avoidance responsibilities
  1. Procedural Violations
  • Not stationing required positions (e.g., Shipping Officer)
  • Not setting Navigation Detail with sufficient time margin
  • AIS set to receive-only when transmission is required by port authority guidance

Case Patterns

The available information is grouped below.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) — 2025-02-12

Collision with BESIKTAS-M near Port Said, Egypt while transiting in high-density Suez Canal approach traffic at 19 knots (double the planned interim movement speed of 10 knots).

Failures:

  • CO not called with initial contact report on BESIKTAS-M
  • Bridge team did not recognize BESIKTAS-M's 10-degree port turn at 2338
  • Multiple course changes and contradictory maneuvers between 2329–2345
  • No Shipping Officer stationed (procedural violation)
  • No coordination with Tactical Operational Plot (TOP) supervisors
  • OOD decision to continue at excessive speed to "delay turning left to avoid congested waters"
  • Conning Officer (CONN) initial rudder order was only 2 degrees when contact was 500 yards away
  • Collision occurred after 16 minutes of inadequate maneuvers and poor information flow

Outcome: 20-foot gash in boat-and-anchor crane room, 15-foot gash extending to fantail. Eight Sailors working in Paraloft were within 10 feet of impact; collision timing was inches from catastrophic berthing compartment penetration.

Investigation & Root Cause Language

Maritime accident investigations identify BRM failures through:

  • Gaps in bridge watch relief and handover procedures
  • Lack of structured information flow from sensors to decision-makers
  • Absence of "contact management plan" — explicit plan to avoid each known contact
  • Failure to invoke command presence early
  • Contradiction between stated procedures and actual execution

Accidents linked to this concept are grouped by vessel type.