Back to Casualty List | Search The Casualty Database
Precis File
SHIP NAME: Aguila Azteca KEY: NUM. ENTRIES: 4
source LMIU
type C
volume
material
dead
link

Grounded on reef off Bermuda in 32 26 30 N 64 50 54 W Oct 01 1984 Refloated. Sold to be broken up in Far East.


source HOOKE
type A
volume N
material
dead
link

The 231,074 dwt Mexican steam tanker Aguila Azteca was on a voyage from Cayo Arcas Terminal near Campeche, Mexico, to Europoort loaded with 196,000 tonnes of cure oil, when she ran aground on a reef on the northern coast of Bermuda, some 10 miles from Fort George signal station, in lat 32.36.30N, long 64.50.54W on October 1, 1984. After being refloated nine days later without the loss of any cargo, she proceeded to Europoort to discharge the crude oil, after which, due to the severity of the bottom damage sustained during her period aground, she was sold to South Korean ship breakers.


source Fairplay, 1990-07-05, p23
type D
volume 0
material
dead
link

This source blamed use of small scale charts which do not show the reefs north of the Islands. Ship was loaded with 196,000 tons of heavy crude. Somehow the ship was not holed. The chart in use on the bridge covered both the North and South Atlantic. The chief officer was on the bridge. Once again it was broad daylight, clear visibility, and calm seas. Bermuda had been visually sighted and again there had been accurate satnav fixes. As the mate fiddled with the radar the ship drove aground at full sea speed less than eight miles off the island. In both instances, as in so many cases previously, subsequent enquiry found the grounding was entirely due to negligence and incompetence on the part of the vessels' crews.


source CTX
type C
volume N
material
dead
link

Fairplay may have been referring to the Tifoso, a very similar casualty. In both cases, the ship had no large scale charts of Bermuda. The charts that a tanker carries are determined by the owner, not be the crew.

What about the incompetence/negligence of the owner who failed to provide the ship with anything close to the proper charts? How was the OOW supposed to know there were any reefs there?

The Hooke account contradicts the Fairplay with respect to hull damage. If Hooke is right, and it seems unlikely the ship the ship would have been scrapped it there were no damage, this is a strong example of both hydrostatic balance and Fairplay's lack of understanding of same. Notice she continued on to Europoort for discharge with apparently no spillage. The fact that she was part-loaded was undoubtedly a big help here. It would be interesting to know the location of the damage.