United Salvage was severely limited in its ability to provide the required salvage services as it did not own, operate or directly control any towage vessels for which it relied on towage providers. This limitation was not made clearly known to Portland Bay’s master, owners or managers or involved authorities to allow them to properly assess whether the most suitable towage vessels, including the emergency towage vessel, had also been promptly deployed for salvage and emergency response.
Response by United Salvage
United Salvage advised the ATSB that it had mobilised with the intent of providing its best endeavours to assist Portland Bay with ‘available’ towage assets and continued these endeavours with any asset ‘available’ either under the Lloyds Open Form (LOF) salvage agreement or tasked by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. United Salvage did not provide advice on safety action.
ATSB comment
The ATSB acknowledges that United Salvage used the towage assets made available to it and recognises the limitations with respect to the assets at its disposal. However, the ATSB considers that a salvage company offering to provide professional salvage services, including under an LOF salvage agreement, should afford the master, owners and managers of the ship to be salved the opportunity to consider the salvor’s capabilities and limitations. This would allow them to make informed decisions about whether other salvage or towage providers should supplement the salvor’s services. A professional salvor should ensure that suitable towage assets are readily available at its disposal to provide the salvage services required and expected.
Therefore, the ATSB considers that United Salvage should have clearly informed Portland Bay’s master, owners and managers as well as response agencies about its limitations. As such, the ATSB has issued the following safety recommendation to United Salvage.
On 1 September 2025, United Salvage advised that it did not accept the safety recommendation associated with this safety issue and provided its reasons. The ATSB’s assessment of this response is that United Salvage’s reasons are based on unsubstantiated claims that repeat similar ones in its submission to the draft investigation report. Most of those claims were rejected as they were either factually inaccurate or inconsistent with other evidence obtained as detailed in the final investigation report. Since United Salvage does not accept the recommendation or intend to address the safety issue, the ATSB is closing this issue as ‘not addressed’.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that United Salvage takes safety action to address this safety issue by ensuring that its capabilities and limitations to provide professional salvage services are made clearly known to the master, owners and managers of the ship to be salved under a salvage agreement.
On 1 September 2025, United Salvage advised that it disagreed with the ATSB’s recommendation. In large part, United Salvage’s response repeated information in its submission to the ATSB draft investigation report. While the final investigation report addressed the submission in detail, a summary of United Salvage’s reasons for not accepting the recommendation is provided below for context and completeness.
The ATSB notes with concern that United Salvage does not accept the recommendation and the reasons it provided are of further concern. These reasons contain unsubstantiated claims that repeat similar ones in its submission to the draft investigation report. Most of those claims were rejected as they were either factually inaccurate or inconsistent with other evidence obtained as detailed in the final investigation report. However, the key points below are provided as they continue forming the basis of the ATSB’s assessment of the associated safety issue.
