100mph in Southampton Water

[mainsail1]

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/56cc42d940f0b61507000006/MAIBInvReport2_2016.pdf
The MCA report is published. To me, the idea that anyone would think even half this speed was appropriate beggars belief.
What do you think?

 

[sarabande]

will the RYA take any action such as removing the driver's licence for a period ?

A hair's breadth away from multiple deaths.

 

[thecommander]

Agreed. In the summer you see the boys in Huntons, Rings and other fast mobos running in excess of 50 knots past the Fawley oil terminal and you think to yourself, one little mistake mate and you'll end up in the side of an oil tanker. Complacent and in some cases reckless behaviour in a busy commercial port.

In the case of the accident, the Hamble cardinal could very easily have been a family going sailing for the day.

I welcome the speed limit and I hope HM and the Police properly enforce it.

 

[snooks]

Why? Did this boat hit another boat? No.

Have you driven a powerboat at speed?

The two main things are trim and avoiding stationary objects, which is effectively everything else when you're travelling fast.

Obviously if there is more than one boat out practicing observation becomes more important, but in order for a boat to do over 80 we're talking the exception rather than the norm, and the people with those boats are usually race drivers who are practicing and are used to racing around with many othe boats in the vicinity.

How many accidents have there been of high-power fast motorboats hitting other vessels in this area?

 

[Blue_mischief]

How many accidents have there been of high-power fast motorboats hitting other vessels in this area?

How many does there need to be before regulation takes place?

 

[RichardS]

100 mph without any seat harness being used seems incredible to me. but I'm not a 100mph powerboat owner.

Richard

 

[snooks]

How many does there need to be before regulation takes place?

Regulate the fishing marks that this boat took to be surface markers for divers by all means — they cause far more problems than high speed powerboats at 8am on a Wednesday morning.

However bringing in regulation because of one unfortunate accident is bonkers, by that rationale sailing should be regulated; we should all have to be qualified to get on a boat, wear lifejackets and crash helmets at all times and have to fill in risk assessment forms. After all there have been more accidents involving sailing boats and the loss of lives than there have high speed accidents on this stretch of water.

That area has been used as a testing area for decades.

 

[PhillM]

If mr Google has the calculations rights, that is about 90 seconds to cover three miles. Knowing that I'm sailing at 3-4 and there is a good chance that I or crew could be on the coach roof sorting out sails in that area, I find the idea of anyone, however skilled, travelling at that speed alarming.

I would go as far as to say that speed like that should be in open water, not the Solent, unless there was a LNTM in place so that everybody has proper warning.

 

[Iliade]

Ask for regulation and the next thing you'll get will be a 6 kt limit throughout UK coastal waters...

The problem is not that he was doing 87kt but that he had unrestrained, possibly minor, passengers and had to avoid poorly marked fishing gear. The primary cause of the accident was the illegally acting fisherman. His speed made the incident serious, but it could just have easily have been one of us travelling at 4 kt on a dark and stormy night getting drowned because the boat got hung up by the propellor on said poorly marked gear.

[edit: Must type faster]

 

[snooks]

If mr Google has the calculations rights, that is about 90 seconds to cover three miles. Knowing that I'm sailing at 3-4 and there is a good chance that I or crew could be on the coach roof sorting out sails in that area, I find the idea of anyone, however skilled, travelling at that speed alarming.

I would go as far as to say that speed like that should be in open water, not the Solent, unless there was a LNTM in place so that everybody has proper warning.

Do you go sailing often at 8 am on a Wednesday morning?

At 87knots the wash is little more that a ripple, as all that is in the water is the prop and a slither of hull. Trust me I've been meters from boats doing that speed. You get much worse from a boat doing 20 knots.

 

[jimmyk]

Ask for regulation and the next thing you'll get will be a 6 kt limit throughout UK coastal waters...

The problem is not that he was doing 87kt but that he had unrestrained, possibly minor, passengers and had to avoid poorly marked fishing gear. The primary cause of the accident was the illegally acting fisherman. His speed made the incident serious, but it could just have easily have been one of us travelling at 4 kt on a dark and stormy night getting drowned because the boat got hung up by the propellor on said poorly marked gear.

[edit: Must type faster]

my boat already has a 6knot limit

 

[Thistle]

What do I think? I think that the drivers of this boat were setting a very poor example. They had been at the head of governance in the sport as well as being experienced participants so we can expect that they both knew the relevant rules and why the rules were in place. OK, the rules were for racing but the reasons for the rules surely make them applicable in principle well beyond actual events. For all aboard to be wearing the harnesses provided would seem to be a pretty basic precaution.

Leaving aside for the moment the pure speed (which may or may not have been ill-advised) they were in an open area where they could see no other vessels and where what little wake they might make would not cause problems but they didn't actually check the area before using it. Had they checked the area they would have known about the fishing markers or, more importantly, whether there were divers operating in the area. They could then have taken steps to avoid any such obstacles. I think it is a pity that the need for checking an area before using it for high-speed runs was not mentioned in the report.

That is not to excuse the poorly marked fishing gear. It should have been better marked but markers like those in use seem to be an accepted fact of life in that area (as around most of our coast) regardless of what may be said in any local NTM or harbour regulation. As the report suggests this should be a wake-up call to those who set or regulate such fishing gear. Perhaps more worrying was that the driver's initial thought was that the item they saw could have been a diver's surface marker (SMB) and I've seen little to suggest that SMBs should be even as big as this marker, though it does seem to be accepted that they should be brightly coloured. Hopefully this will again be a wake-up call to both sides. (Just as incidents where there has been confusion as to whether or not a yacht was sailing should be a wake-up call to those of us who don't always use a motoring cone when we should!)

Finally, I think that the speed was inappropriate in that the driver could not react safely to something unexpected happening in front of them. Exactly what a safe speed might have been would depend not only on the water and weather conditions but on the vessel and the skill of the driver. There are so many variables in there that it would seem not to be amenable to regulation.

Lots of problems but what about a possible answer? What about designated areas for high speed runs? These would not need to be permanent but could, like range danger areas, be switched on and off depending on demand (and, hopefully, checked before use.) It would need regulation - which we all try to avoid - but it would be regulation to separate activities, not regulation to limit those activities.

 

[Sandy]

Sadly the report, as far as I could see, did not mentioned the speed at the time of impact only the maximum speed the boat had been travelling.

 

[AndrewfromFal]

I think that the speed was inappropriate in that the driver could not react safely to something unexpected happening in front of them. Exactly what a safe speed might have been would depend not only on the water and weather conditions but on the vessel and the skill of the driver.

This hits the nail on the head, and echoes something I said in the thread when the accident occurred.

The problem of what constitutes a 'safe speed' (for a powerboat or indeed a car) is that many people's perception of a 'safe speed' is based on an unrealistic view of their own ability to cope with the unexpected / their vehicle's ability to look after them.

 

[lw395]

Do you go sailing often at 8 am on a Wednesday morning?

At 87knots the wash is little more that a ripple, as all that is in the water is the prop and a slither of hull. Trust me I've been meters from boats doing that speed. You get much worse from a boat doing 20 knots.

And we get many worse accidents with power boats doing 20 or 30 knots.
Also many near misses.
Any power boat can turn over if you make an error at high speed. High speed for this boat is much higher than high speed for a small RIB.
Motor sport can be dangerous.
Nobody died.
Nobody got life-changing injuries.
No non-participants seem to have been even inconvenienced.

IMHO the driver made an error in expecting the area to be totally clear of fishing gear etc, and possibly reacted wrongly to what he saw.
But so what? It's no worse than making an error on a pushbike, it happens, occasionally people get hurt or worse.

 

[prv]

Perhaps more worrying was that the driver's initial thought was that the item they saw could have been a diver's surface marker (SMB) and I've seen little to suggest that SMBs should be even as big as this marker

"As big as" a 5-litre chemical bottle? Most SMBs are rather bigger than that.

To me the diver idea seems odd, because why on earth would sport divers want to grovel about in the mud at the bottom of Southampton Water? Has anyone ever seen divers (apart from commercials who'd be covered by a support boat and announcement by VTS) anywhere in Southampton Water?

Not meant to be a criticism of the driver, btw, obviously it had to be a split-second reaction not a considered conclusion.

Pete

 

[jac]

"As big as" a 5-litre chemical bottle? Most SMBs are rather bigger than that.

To me the diver idea seems odd, because why on earth would sport divers want to grovel about in the mud at the bottom of Southampton Water? Has anyone ever seen divers (apart from commercials who'd be covered by a support boat and announcement by VTS) anywhere in Southampton Water?

Not meant to be a criticism of the driver, btw, obviously it had to be a split-second reaction not a considered conclusion.

Pete

I have to say I thought that.

IN a split second who knows what would go through your head but with the benefit of hindsight - it's surely better looking for the driver to say I thought I might kill someone so avoided it and caused the accident rather than I might damage my boat so avoided it. and caused the accident

 

[Pete7]

To me the diver idea seems odd, because why on earth would sport divers want to grovel about in the mud at the bottom of Southampton Water? Pete

Less than 100 yards from were this accident took place is a submerged flyboat in 20m of water. Its actually just off the Calshot Pier in a deep hole and as you say very dark and muddy, but it's there and dived occasionally. I have also dived Hythe Pier for the old bottles etc.

Off topic but the real challenging dive is the rock outcrop under Poole chain ferry, you need balls for that one, oh and slack water, no traffic etc. So early dawn slack, mid week, during the summer.

 

[Thistle]

"As big as" a 5-litre chemical bottle? Most SMBs are rather bigger than that.

Agreed ... but the picture in the report seems to show a rather larger plastic container hence my comment. Having looked again at SMB's, you are probably correct and there's even a suggestion now, I see, that black SMBs are more visible than brightly coloured ones.

 

[Triassic]

The problem of what constitutes a 'safe speed' (for a powerboat or indeed a car) is that many people's perception of a 'safe speed' is based on an unrealistic view of their own ability to cope with the unexpected / their vehicle's ability to look after them.

Actually what I see in this thread is a lot of people basing their view of what is a safe speed on a realistic view of their own ability, rather than a realistic view of the ability of the driver actually involved in the incident. He was quite experienced at those speeds, how many people on here are actually qualified to offer an informed view on what he was doing?