100mph in Southampton Water

[sarabande]

It would for example be a bit daft to prohibit police cars from exceeding 100mph on a motorway because shortly after doing so one of them skidded on diesel whilst taking an exit ramp at 70mph.....?

As analogys go, the above is excellent.

As I understand it, the crash was not on the speed test route but was whilst returning, post speed test, to the Hamble River at a somewhat lower speed.

The boat still crashed while under his "control", in which case there are two conclusions:

1 his control was not good enough

2 the boat design or mechanical/electrical systems failed in the emergency manoeuvre the pilot undertook.]


One or other is not fit for purpose.

 

[pmagowan]

It would for example be a bit daft to prohibit police cars from exceeding 100mph on a motorway because shortly after doing so one of them skidded on diesel whilst taking an exit ramp at 70mph.....?

As analogys go, the above is excellent.

As I understand it, the crash was not on the speed test route but was whilst returning, post speed test, to the Hamble River at a somewhat lower speed.

It does not matter one jot what the speed was. What matters is that it was so fast that the 'experienced' driver was unable to safely avoid a fixed obstruction. It also matters that he took inadequate care of his passengers, avoided the use of safety equipment and didn't check his course was clear before driving in a manner where he would be unable to avoid fixed obstructions.

This was not happenstance, a random unpredictable event. He was not struck by lightning, suffered catastrophic engine failure, or rammed by an angry pilot whale. He was traveling at speeds in which he was unable to react safely to an obstruction in the water that had been minding its own business all day. He took an irresponsible risk with his own and his crews lives, as well as anyone else that may have been using the water that morning. In the vast majority of cases he may have got away with it. On this occasion he did not. He has brought the eyes of authority on his hobby and has spoiled it for everyone else who can behave in a responsible manner.

 

[Daedelus]

It does seem to me that there are different, albeit related points here:

1 The test run at 100mph was down Southampton water and seems to have been in or close to the deep water channel and encountered no problems;

2 A fishing marker, the usual 25 litre blue plastic drum was outwith the byelaws and had no flag to indicate what it was. The byelaws need further legislation to allow the port authority to remove non-compliant markers legally.

3 The power boat was had slowed down considerably from its test run and was returning and was just outside the mouth of the Hamble when it encountered the fishing marker and took dramatic avoiding action which led to the hook and capsize.

It seems to me that there were a number of issues here, firstly the power boat crew should have advised the port authority (who do give regular VTS updates on VHF) so that they could have broadcast a warning if the fit took them and also, if the fit took them, advised that yes they could test but no more than 40 knots. A restriction which they had imposed on other craft so reasonable to assume they would have done it again. It would then have been up to the power boat whether to comply or not. If they really wanted belt and braces they could have had a safety boat patrol the area first to check for obstacles, fishing marks etc. However, that does seem a little OTT.

The sooner the port authority get legislation in place so they can enforce the fishing float flag scheme the better. UK fishermen are always blaming their extreme poverty for failure to properly mark the wretched things but the French seem to do it successfully and their fisherman are a law unto themselves.

Since the accident occurred near the mouth of the Hamble it could have been assumed that there might be more traffic around there, even it was a Wednesday morning early (well known in yachting and small boat circles as a time when no-one ventures out).

So for me, no real problem with the very fast test (although had I been out there I would have appreciated knowing something like a missile was coming along). However, it does seem he was going too fast near the mouth of the Hamble. Finally, I too wish they would do something about odd bits of things that float as fishing markers.

 

[Resolution]

I agree with most of Daedelus's assessment, which strikes me as measured and pragmatic. One key point missing from the MAIB report was the boat speed when the driver saw the blue floats and started the swerve that led to the hook and subsequent roll. MAIB must have known the speed as they had the GPS info, so I speculate that it was not reported on because they did not consider the boat speed at that particular point to be significant to the accident. Perhaps a sudden swerve at almost any speed in such a high powered racing boat could have led to a hook and roll? What do powerboat experts say?
I am mindful that the photos posted of the accident show a lot of splash and distance covered in the accident, so it clearly was travelling at speed.
Is this a similar situation to that often seen with guys playing with Lambos and other supercars, where rear-end slides and spins result from the driver tramping on the throttle too hard on take off?
Peter

 

[pmagowan]

I agree with most of Daedelus's assessment, which strikes me as measured and pragmatic. One key point missing from the MAIB report was the boat speed when the driver saw the blue floats and started the swerve that led to the hook and subsequent roll. MAIB must have known the speed as they had the GPS info, so I speculate that it was not reported on because they did not consider the boat speed at that particular point to be significant to the accident. Perhaps a sudden swerve at almost any speed in such a high powered racing boat could have led to a hook and roll? What do powerboat experts say?
I am mindful that the photos posted of the accident show a lot of splash and distance covered in the accident, so it clearly was travelling at speed.
Is this a similar situation to that often seen with guys playing with Lambos and other supercars, where rear-end slides and spins result from the driver tramping on the throttle too hard on take off?
Peter

I can't understand where you draw this conclusion from giving that the report specifically deals with speed being an important factor. The precise mph is pretty irrelevant since we know that the speed was too great for the driver to correctly identify a fishing float and to take evasive action without causing a crash that significantly injured, and almost killed one of his crew. If his speed has been 5kn we would not be having this discussion. However, he may very well have travelled safely at over 100mph if he had taken a number of reasonable precautions, all of which he failed to do.

Had there been an enforceable speed limit for the area where the accident occurred, the likelihood of this accident occurring would have been reduced.

 

[l'escargot]

The boat still crashed while under his "control", in which case there are two conclusions:

1 his control was not good enough

2 the boat design or mechanical/electrical systems failed in the emergency manoeuvre the pilot undertook...

or even the slower speed was not in fact "safe"...

 

[Resolution]

or even the slower speed was not in fact "safe"...

Magowan
In essence this is the question I was asking. Was the manoeuvre of avoiding the blue buoys done in such a way that the boat would have hooked at almost any speed? I don't know, I was looking for expert comment from someone used to handling high-powered twin screw mobos.
Peter

 

[[70521]]

You think a man with his son unconscious, drowning in a capsized boat was within his comfort zone? He may have thought he was prior to the 'accident' but he was obviously overestimating his own skill and luck.

By comfort zone I meant well capable of driving the boat at that speed. After the accident it would be difficult to say, BUT he did pull the lad out of the boat - clearly the "red mist" had not descended and he took some very good decisions that meant his son did not drown; I am not so sure I would have been so clear headed after seeing the pictures of the event.

 

[pmagowan]

Magowan
In essence this is the question I was asking. Was the manoeuvre of avoiding the blue buoys done in such a way that the boat would have hooked at almost any speed? I don't know, I was looking for expert comment from someone used to handling high-powered twin screw mobos.
Peter

The answer is clear. Speed was an important factor as declared in the report. You can't flip a boat in this way without significant speed.

 

[pmagowan]

By comfort zone I meant well capable of driving the boat at that speed. After the accident it would be difficult to say, BUT he did pull the lad out of the boat - clearly the "red mist" had not descended and he took some very good decisions that meant his son did not drown; I am not so sure I would have been so clear headed after seeing the pictures of the event.

I don't follow. He was, by definition, not capable of driving the boat at that speed in those conditions otherwise he would not have crashed. His mental state post accident is more or less irrelevant and has no bearing on what it was previously. I am very glad, and commend him for his actions to rescue his son but that doesn't take away from the fact that he should not have put his son in that danger in the first place.

 

[dunedin]

Daedalus - just because the accident didn't happen at the higher speed run doesn't mean it was safe - maybe just lucky. Rather it is probably that as a sudden avoiding action at a lower speed was disastrous, if the driver had required to take avoiding action at the higher speeding could have been even more catastrophic.

 

[Jonas]

Definitive Scuttlebutt

This has to be the ultimate Scuttlebutt thread. Location: Southampton Water. There's motor against sail, sail against motor, everyone hates the fishermen and their pot markers, you go too fast, you go too slow, calls for legislation - there's even a flying pig.
What a grand start to the week.

 

[Resolution]

Re: Definitive Scuttlebutt

This has to be the ultimate Scuttlebutt thread. Location: Southampton Water. There's motor against sail, sail against motor, everyone hates the fishermen and their pot markers, you go too fast, you go too slow, calls for legislation - there's even a flying pig.
What a grand start to the week.

No anchor angle and no mention so far of ensigns. Only 4/10 IMHO .

 

[Triassic]

By comfort zone I meant well capable of driving the boat at that speed. After the accident it would be difficult to say, BUT he did pull the lad out of the boat - clearly the "red mist" had not descended and he took some very good decisions that meant his son did not drown; I am not so sure I would have been so clear headed after seeing the pictures of the event.

People crash cars at 30mph when something unexpected happens and catch them out, so the real question here is whether he should have expected to find a fishing pot (or as he initially thought a divers mark) right in the entrance to the Hamble. As I said previously I'm not that experienced with these water, last Saturday was the first time I went through them, and there certainly weren't any fishing pots to be seen anywhere near the area then, just a nice line of navigational buoys marking the channel.

Givens this chaps experience I suspect he was very much within his comfort zone, even after he rolled the boat. That would have been something he most certainly would have trained for extensively, and maybe given the length of his career even experienced. What may appear to be a huge deal and a really dramatic event to some is just another day in the office to others, and we cannot ignore this factor when evaluating if his actions were reasonable.

 

[dom]

Givens this chaps experience I suspect he was very much within his comfort zone, even after he rolled the boat. That would have been something he most certainly would have trained for extensively, and maybe given the length of his career even experienced. What may appear to be a huge deal and a really dramatic event to some is just another day in the office to others, and we cannot ignore this factor when evaluating if his actions were reasonable.

I seriously had to check it wasn't April 1st when I read that. Son seriously injured (he'd no idea how badly), trapped and drowning underneath a boat, but the driver still in his comfort zone ....wow!!!

 

[pmagowan]

I seriously had to check it wasn't April 1st when I read that. Son seriously injured (he'd no idea how badly), trapped and drowning underneath a boat, but the driver still in his comfort zone ....wow!!!

This man obviously borders on the Godlike. He is infallible and unaffected by things others would find quite distressing. He also seems to have gathered some followers who are blind to his inadequacies.

 

[Keen_Ed]

If they really wanted belt and braces they could have had a safety boat patrol the area first to check for obstacles, fishing marks etc. However, that does seem a little OTT.

Don't see why they couldn't have done it themselves at - say - 20kts. That' still a mile every three minutes.

 

[Thistle]

People crash cars at 30mph when something unexpected happens and catch them out

... so they are quite likely to have been going too fast for the conditions. They should have been travelling at such a speed that they could stop safely if something happened in front of them. They should also have been reading the road ahead to predict what might happen and select a course and speed to allow for it happening. That covers the huge majority of situations except for, perhaps, another driver coming towards you and swerving into your path which may not be avoidable.

In the case which is the subject of this thread there was no-one else coming towards him. He was driving at a speed at which he was not able to react safely to something which happened in front of him. He had not "read the road" to predict what might happen (and I'd suggest that a poorly marked pot being in that area, with which the driver was familiar, came into that category) and didn't choose a course and speed to allow for it happen.

The driver may well usually be extremely competent. On this occasion his standards slipped and an avoidable incident occurred.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I don't follow. He was, by definition, not capable of driving the boat at that speed in those conditions otherwise he would not have crashed.

More utter rubbish, by that reasoning anyone involved in a car crash should have their licence revoked.

 

[Resolution]

... so they are quite likely to have been going too fast for the conditions. They should have been travelling at such a speed that they could stop safely if something happened in front of them. They should also have been reading the road ahead to predict what might happen and select a course and speed to allow for it happening. That covers the huge majority of situations except for, perhaps, another driver coming towards you and swerving into your path which may not be avoidable.

In the case which is the subject of this thread there was no-one else coming towards him. He was driving at a speed at which he was not able to react safely to something which happened in front of him. He had not "read the road" to predict what might happen (and I'd suggest that a poorly marked pot being in that area, with which the driver was familiar, came into that category) and didn't choose a course and speed to allow for it happen.

The driver may well usually be extremely competent. On this occasion his standards slipped and an avoidable incident occurred.

There's a lot of pious commentary on this unfortunate accident. As to driving at a slow enough speed to avoid an unexpected obstacle, hands up all of you who have NEVER driven into / onto a pothole in the road?