Reconstructing Anchoring Incidents
When an anchoring incident occurs, the first question is often simple: what happened? The answer is rarely as straightforward. By the time an insurance company, investigator, owner or management company becomes involved, the incident is already in the past. The challenge is no longer managing the situation. It is understanding it. This is where incident reconstruction begins.
Looking Backwards
Unlike many operational decisions at sea, incident investigations are conducted after the fact. Investigators must work backwards from an outcome: a vessel has grounded, two vessels have collided, damage has occurred and liability questions have emerged. The task becomes reconstructing the sequence of events that led there. In most cases, no single source provides all the answers; instead, investigators assemble a timeline from multiple pieces of information.
Building the Timeline
According to Olivier de Roffignac, Head of Claims at Pantaenius Monaco, the objective is always to understand the full sequence of events rather than focus solely on the final outcome. “When an anchoring-related claim occurs, whether involving dragging, grounding or collision, our objective is always to reconstruct the full sequence of events rather than focus solely on the final outcome.”
In practice, Pantaenius relies heavily on statements from the captains and crews involved, as well as from counterparties such as other vessel captains, marinas and harbour authorities. Surveyors will typically conduct follow-up interviews with all involved parties, piecing together the sequence of events from multiple accounts. Alongside those statements, investigators search for as much objective information as possible: logbook entries, electronic track data, position reports, photographs and videos, weather records and any reports from third parties.
That process typically involves examining weather forecasts and actual conditions, vessel arrival times, anchorage density and available swinging room, anchor configuration and chain scope deployed, crew actions and responses, and how conditions evolved over time. Each element contributes another piece of the overall picture.
The Rise of Digital Evidence
The modern superyacht environment provides investigators with more information than ever before. AIS records can help reconstruct vessel movements and timing. Weather records can establish environmental conditions. Marina cameras, CCTV footage and drone footage may provide visual evidence. Communications logs can help establish who knew what and when. Together, these sources can create a remarkably detailed timeline.
As de Roffignac notes: “Modern investigations increasingly benefit from digital evidence.” Yet even with this information available, the picture is not always complete. Such data is often incomplete, inconsistent between parties, or simply not available, making it difficult to verify distances, times and movements with certainty.
Why Incidents Remain Difficult to Reconstruct
One of the most telling observations from Pantaenius is that ambiguity often persists even when substantial evidence exists. “Crew members on different vessels may genuinely interpret the same event differently.” People do not always experience developing situations in the same way. Different perspectives, incomplete information and the pressures of a rapidly evolving situation can all influence how events are perceived and remembered.
This is why objective evidence becomes so valuable. It helps establish sequence, clarify timing and reduce uncertainty in ways that memory alone cannot. As de Roffignac puts it, the final assessment is based on a careful weighing of available evidence rather than on a single, clearly documented chain of events.
More Than a Single Moment
Perhaps the most important insight from incident reconstruction is that anchoring incidents rarely occur in a single moment. They often develop gradually: a weather forecast changes, an anchorage becomes crowded, conditions deteriorate, a vessel begins to move, additional decisions are made and opportunities for intervention arise. Only later does the final outcome become apparent.
As de Roffignac explains: “In our experience, anchoring claims are rarely straightforward. More often, they involve understanding a series of small decisions made over several hours that ultimately contribute to an incident.” This reinforces a theme that has appeared throughout this series: anchoring incidents are rarely the result of one factor alone, but the product of multiple interacting conditions and decisions.
Why Evidence Matters
For owners, captains, insurance companies and investigators alike, evidence serves a common purpose: it improves understanding. Without it, discussions must rely heavily on memory and interpretation. With it, timelines can be established, assumptions verified and the sequence of events understood. The objective is not to assign blame, but to understand what happened as accurately as possible. Only then can meaningful lessons be learned.
A Question for the Future
As technology continues to evolve, the volume of operational information available to vessels is increasing. Position records, weather data, monitoring systems, cameras and digital logs all contribute additional visibility. Gideon Fey, Vice Global Head of Claims at Pantaenius GmbH advises owners to keep the chart plotter recording active while at anchor and, particularly following any contact incident, to save that data securely through screenshots, photos and video files. This record can allow an independent expert to perform a nautical analysis afterwards and, importantly, can help demonstrate that a vessel’s anchor did not slip. The question is no longer whether information exists. It is whether crews and owners are making the most of what is already available to them.
Next Article
Incident reconstruction traditionally focuses on vessel damage, liability and financial loss. But as environmental regulations evolve, another question is becoming increasingly important: what happens when anchoring incidents involve the seabed itself?
About This Series (article 4/6)
This series combines perspectives from professional captains, industry survey data and Pantaenius insurance specialists to explore how anchoring risk is observed, recorded and understood across the superyacht sector. The objective is not to measure risk from a single viewpoint, but to examine how visibility changes depending on where you stand.
