Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[Angele]

I've taken part in at least three RORC races for which we were issued trackers and on the Fastnet an AIS transponder was mandatory. There were TSS zones in all the races and I assume if tracker or AIS was to show a transgression then disqualification would result. I know that two or three boats were DSQ's on this year's Fastnet but I'm not sure if it was for this reason.

I thought the penalty in this year's Fastnet for a transgression of any of the TSS "no go" areas was a 10 hour penalty (or was it 12?), and not disqualification.

 

[prv]

Thank you for that. Now, with a bit of cunning and some AIS information, it should be possible to reconstruct, post facto, any moving prohibited zones which were around during any race and check these too. Do you know if it's done?

I very much doubt that any round-the-cans races will require AIS. Savageseadog mentioned RORC races and the Fastnet, which are offshore, so AIS and satellite trackers make a certain amount of sense (though I imagine it changes the game when you know where your competitors are!).

Pete

 

[Resolution]

I don't think safety was to be found up wind, unless he could out run the tanker?
With the benefit of hindsight, he should have gybed, even if he had to let the kite halyard run.

With enough breeze to drive the boat, I would be wanting the crew set to gybe in their normal roles, not thinking which of the sheet or guy hands should be unavailable for that while below starting the engine.

Agree that with hindsight he would have been better to gybe, but presume that he ruled this out as it would have put him into the expected path of the tanker after that first sound signal.
Once committed to staying on starboard gybe, you can see from the video that the kite collapsed as they went too high, and the yacht lost speed. It is possible that with the engine on (and throttle wide open!) they would have squeaked past the bows untouched. Would still have violated the Moving Exclusion Zone etc, but no damage or injury.
We have had hours to decide the best action- he would have had maybe a minute or two. Would we have done better on the water?

 

[Resolution]

Thank you for that. Now, with a bit of cunning and some AIS information, it should be possible to reconstruct, post facto, any moving prohibited zones which were around during any race and check these too. Do you know if it's done?

But how often do small boat AIS transmitters send out their little package of data? I seem to recall 30 seconds , which would not be much help in close quarters situations in round the cans races.

 

[VicS]

Thank you for that. Now, with a bit of cunning and some AIS information, it should be possible to reconstruct, post facto, any moving prohibited zones which were around during any race and check these too. Do you know if it's done?

At the time AIS info was available for the tanker

If plotted on a chart you can see the track within the precautionary zone and you can compare this with the published diagram of anticipated routes

By studying the video and using transits of identifiable landmarks you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occurred ...... well into the turn to stbd.

Track in red.

Approx course for the relevant leg of the race in pink.


.

 

[lw395]

At the time AIS info was available for the tanker

If plotted on a chart you can see the track within the precautionary zone and you can compare this with the published diagram of anticipated routes

By studying the video and using transits of identifiable landmarks you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occurred ...... well into the turn to stbd.

Track in red.

Approx course for the relevant leg of the race in pink.


.

Sorry, your picture is wrong.
Had it been right, the view from Cowes would have be the arse end of the tanker when it happened.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

At the time AIS info was available for the tanker

If plotted on a chart you can see the track within the precautionary zone and you can compare this with the published diagram of anticipated routes

By studying the video and using transits of identifiable landmarks you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occurred ...... well into the turn to stbd.

Track in red.

Approx course for the relevant leg of the race in pink.


.

At no point in that track is HK maintaining course and speed in accordance with Rule 17. Is there an exception somewhere in the rules for a vessel that must turn due to lack of water? I assume there must be but I don't recall it.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Sorry, your picture is wrong.
Had it been right, the view from Cowes would have be the arse end of the tanker when it happened.

I don't think the pink line is intended to indicate Atlanta course, so I see no reason why it can't be correct.

 

[lw395]

I don't think the pink line is intended to indicate Atlanta course, so I see no reason why it can't be correct.

Well it's misleading, or at best shows that the yacht came well south of the direct route, presumably in an attempt to go astern of the tanker.
Had they taken the rhumb line, they would have passed in front of the tanker, but broken the MPZ rules.

 

[A1Sailor]

I don't think the pink line is intended to indicate Atlanta course, so I see no reason why it can't be correct.

Depends on the defenition of "well into" in

you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occurred ...... well into the turn to stbd.

Does the tanker didn't seem to be steaming away from Cowes in the video?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Well it's misleading, or at best shows that the yacht came well south of the direct route

Misleading or not I see no reason why the track is wrong and I see no reason why the pink leg route is wrong.

One or both might be wrong, but I don't think we can say that for sure.

The picture doesn't mark the point where the collision occured of course, I assume off Cowes from the video.

 

[VicS]

Sorry, your picture is wrong.
Had it been right, the view from Cowes would have be the arse end of the tanker when it happened.

My picture is not wrong!

The view of the tanker when the collision occurred may not be from astern but very much from a point abaft the beam.
As I said if you study the video carefully you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occured
It was someway south of the pink line. (That is merely a line drawn from the previous buoy, Aquaspec, to the next one which, IIRC, was the last one before the final leg to the finish line) but as I said above well after the start of the turn to stbd.

 

[VicS]

Misleading or not I see no reason why the track is wrong and I see no reason why the pink leg route is wrong.

One or both might be wrong, but I don't think we can say that for sure.

The picture doesn't mark the point where the collision occured of course, I assume off Cowes from the video.

I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that both are correct.

 

[A1Sailor]

My picture is not wrong!

The view of the tanker when the collision occurred may not be from astern but very much from a point abaft the beam.
As I said if you study the video carefully you can work out fairly accurately where the collision occured
It was someway south of the pink line. (That is merely a line drawn from the previous buoy, Aquaepod ???, to the next one which, IIRC, was the last one before the final leg to the finish line) but as I said above well after the start of the turn to stbd.

OK - I interpreted "well into the turn to stbd" in your previous post as meaning just before the turn was complete! Apologies...

 

[savageseadog]

Thank you for that. Now, with a bit of cunning and some AIS information, it should be possible to reconstruct, post facto, any moving prohibited zones which were around during any race and check these too. Do you know if it's done?

I don't know if it's been done that way, probably not in the case of MPZ's. I do recall a trans ocean race where there was an infringement but I don't know the nature of the tracking used. The yellowbrick trackers used by RORC only update every half hour so it's difficult to prove TSS infringements, as commercials don't use yellowbrick then it would have to be cross plotted with AIS. The Yellowbrick polling period could probably be reduced, at a cost.

 

[Resolution]

VicS

Does your AIS track have the times attached? Evidence in court seemed to show that the collision occurred around 15.15, IIRC.

 

[bedouin]

Seems to me the yacht made an error in assessing the course of the ship, and an error in reacting correctly to that.
I'm not clear at what point, if any, the yacht's action crossed the line into illegality.

It's easy to say they ***ked up, and easy to make smug comments about staying well out of the way of tankers, less easy to be totally sure that any yachtsman couldn't find himself in a similar position.


There are about 1000 boats in Cowes Week, each of which passes in or out of Cowes Roads a dozen times. Give it a few years and 'one in a million' trains of events become inevitable.


I also wonder if the outcome had been different, perish the thought that the yacht skipper had been killed, the actions of the ship would be under greater scrutiny?

How on earth is the yacht supposed to estimate the course of a tanker which first starts to turn to starboard, then stops turning , the sounds port , then turns to starboard again?

It seems the the yacht did make a substantial alteration to avoid the tanker ad the tanker continued the turn.

 

[bedouin]

At no point in that track is HK maintaining course and speed in accordance with Rule 17. Is there an exception somewhere in the rules for a vessel that must turn due to lack of water? I assume there must be but I don't recall it.

Yes, the legally accepted interpretation is that the stand on vessel can carry out any normal navigational manoeuvre, such as tacking or following a channel.

Where hk contravened the regulations was by ceasing the turn once started. Clearly they were forced to by the broken down boat, but to the crew of Atlanta it must have looked as if the tanker were deliberately trying to run them over

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I don't know if it's been done that way, probably not in the case of MPZ's. I do recall a trans ocean race where there was an infringement but I don't know the nature of the tracking used. The yellowbrick trackers used by RORC only update every half hour so it's difficult to prove TSS infringements, as commercials don't use yellowbrick then it would have to be cross plotted with AIS. The Yellowbrick polling period could probably be reduced, at a cost.

It would be a simple enough matter to recreate the MPZ using GIS software. I could do it, given the track data. It wouldn't be difficult.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that both are correct.

They certainly look plausable to me. Nobody has successfully debunked the 'picture' or offered an alternative that differs. I'm convinced, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

How on earth is the yacht supposed to estimate the course of a tanker which first starts to turn to starboard, then stops turning , the sounds port , then turns to starboard again?

I expect the guys in the escort boat would say if Atlanta shot completely out the the channel long before the situation developed they wouldn't have needed too. I have some sympathy with that view. But I have more sympathy with Atlanta.

Yes, the legally accepted interpretation is that the stand on vessel can carry out any normal navigational manoeuvre, such as tacking or following a channel.

Thanks.