Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[Alan ashore]

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.

While I agree with the second two statements, I disagree with the first. I make the camera almost exactly abeam of the aft end of the tanker's Foc's'le at the moment of collision(The starboard guardrails at the back of the foc's'l come into view a second or so before impact.)

I'm sure the deduced geometry from the video has been done to death on here before, but for the benefit of anyone who hasn't had a chance to work it out, IMHO the camera is unarguably very close to Egypt Point (per the transit of Luttrell Tower and the Power Station roof), and the collision itself is very close to a line between there and the big shed on Calshot Spit.

Hence by my reckoning the ship at the point of collision is heading about 273T. My impression, but it is only an impression, is that although she hasn't yet turned very far, she already has a significant rate of turn to starboard.

Do we know the interval between AIS updates on the plot shown here?, and do we know exactly where on the ship the GPS antenna feeding the AIS is? I believe both have a bearing on what the combination of the plotted track and the deduced geometry can tell us about when she actually started turning to starboard.

A.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

My impression, but it is only an impression, is that although she hasn't yet turned very far, she already has a significant rate of turn to starboard.

+1

This video kind of sort of perhaps vaguely gives me that sort of feel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6CjpHFNteI

 

[VicS]

VicS

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

Sorry I have not kept a copy of the data.

I have found the following but these put it on the final approach to Fawley jetty at 15:15 ( I guess GMT .... so could the collision have occurred as much as 1 hour earlier at 14:15 GMT / 15:15 BST ??????

But there are errors in these figures I think you will find if you try to plot them.

MMSI Speed Latitude / Longitude Course Timestamp
235598000 0.5 -1.3245 50.841 60 2011-08-06 15:27
235598000 1.2 -1.323667 50.84083 216 2011-08-06 15:25
235598000 1.5 -1.322833 50.84017 259 2011-08-06 15:23
235598000 5.1 -1.308 50.82516 321 2011-08-06 15:21
235598000 0.4 -1.323 50.83917 348 2011-08-06 15:19
235598000 1.4 -1.322833 50.83883 323 2011-08-06 15:17
235598000 1.5 -1.322333 50.83833 323 2011-08-06 15:14
235598000 1.5 -1.321667 50.83767 321 2011-08-06 15:12

 

[Seatrout]

This has to be, by far, the most amusing thread on the forum for a long time.
Col reg threads on the Solent bring out the true character of many a poster... this one has 32 pages in 2 days!
Awesome petandic-isms.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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!).

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that one could use AIS information (position and heading) from passing ships to work out where their MPZs were as they went through. Maybe one day yachts (and other vessels with AIS) in the MPZs will be alerted by MMSI at the time if they intrude, or get near doing so.

 

[savageseadog]

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.

Yes you're right, forgot.

 

[VicS]

This has to be, by far, the most amusing thread on the forum for a long time.
Col reg threads on the Solent bring out the true character of many a poster... this one has 32 pages in 2 days!
Awesome petandic-isms.

The number of pages depends on how many posts you choose to display per page..... we are only on page 4 as far as I am concerned!.

You should look back to 2011. There were several threads running totaling over 500 posts and another of well over 200 posts earlier this year when Wilson first appeared in court.
Plenty of scope there for even more "amusement"

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

Thank you - that's really interesting. I can't see much sign of a confusing turn to port there, though.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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?

Would it have mattered to a yacht outside the MPZ? Serious question.

 

[JumbleDuck]

This has to be, by far, the most amusing thread on the forum for a long time.
Col reg threads on the Solent bring out the true character of many a poster... this one has 32 pages in 2 days!
Awesome petandic-isms.

If only they had dropped an anchor. Now, what sort of anchor do you think would have worked best?

On a more serious note, I think this case and thread does show how very difficult it can be to do what some people advocate and apply the IRPCS simply, unequivocally and clearly to any given situation.

 

[sarabande]

some vaguely remembered ideas from a VLCC handling course at the old Sir John Cass colllege ship model tank:


The heading of a VLCC is not necessarily the same as the track. This may be caused by pivot point of the vessel changing due to ship speed, rudder angle, windage, laden depth, tidal current.


Could the yacht have been confused by HK pointing in a different direction from the one she was going ? especially if HK tried to do a wiggle ?

 

[bedouin]

Would it have mattered to a yacht outside the MPZ? Serious question.

Did he enter it?

The edge of the area of concern extend from gurnard to n e gurnard, if you look at the plot above then the tanker - if accurate - the tepee tanker either leaves, or gets very close to the edge.

It seems most likely that the collision was within a couple of hundred yards of gurnard, in which case te yacht may only have entered the area of concern a minute or so before the collision, after the confusion over the intentions of the ship.

On the whole I think that the mpz s a red herring - perhaps that is why he as not been charged with it

 

[bedouin]

Thank you - that's really interesting. I can't see much sign of a confusing turn to port there, though.

Exactly, it didn't turn to port, the evidence is that it sounded port then resumed its turn to starboard!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Did he enter it?

The edge of the area of concern extend from gurnard to n e gurnard, if you look at the plot above then the tanker - if accurate - the tepee tanker either leaves, or gets very close to the edge.

It seems most likely that the collision was within a couple of hundred yards of gurnard, in which case te yacht may only have entered the area of concern a minute or so before the collision, after the confusion over the intentions of the ship.

On the whole I think that the mpz s a red herring - perhaps that is why he as not been charged with it

Impossible to be sure but my gut feeling is a +1 to all this.

 

[Alan ashore]

Did he enter it?

The edge of the area of concern extend from gurnard to n e gurnard, if you look at the plot above then the tanker - if accurate - the tepee tanker either leaves, or gets very close to the edge.

It seems most likely that the collision was within a couple of hundred yards of gurnard, in which case te yacht may only have entered the area of concern a minute or so before the collision, after the confusion over the intentions of the ship.

Two observations:
1) Although many published chartlets show the Precautionary Area (aka AoC) to be bounded by the line between Gurnard and NE Gurnard, Admiralty charts show it as extending further W, as does the plot being discussed. In fact the bylaw which creates it (quoted in full in a number of posts in this thread) does not define ANY western boundary. (It may be that there's a legal definition of the precise bounds of the "main channel" referred to by the byelaw, but I must say I doubt it). So no question IMHO of the ship leaving the PA.

2) In any case the bylaw states that the MPZ exists while the ship is in the Precautionary Area. If a ship did happen to be on any edge of the PA headed straight out of the PA, then the MPZ would extend 1km outside the PA.

I'm still curious as to why they didn't throw in the charge of entering an MPZ in addition to the charges made. I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[Andrew_McEwen]

Forget the stuff about GPS tracks, etc.

Let's go back to the basics of the collision. There's a b*****y great big tanker heading West (ish) along the Solent. I'm in a racing yacht heading South (ish). Assuming I'm keeping a proper lookout, I have 2 options. Option 1. I decide to zip in front of the tanker, because I know I can out-run it, and I know exactly not only what he intends to do, but what he is in fact going to do . Option 2. I loose lots of boat lengths in the race, by dipping it, and its attendant "stern-first" tug, (after all the whole assembly is several 100 of metres long). I choose Option 1, and get away with it - that's a brilliant call. I choose Option 1, and it don't work for any reason: I'm in deep poo.

Simple ! (though not an easy call to make on the water, at the time.). IMHO the yacht Skipper made the wrong decision, and is extremely lucky that no-one was killed.

 

[Alan ashore]

Forget the stuff about GPS tracks, etc.

Let's go back to the basics of the collision. There's a b*****y great big tanker heading West (ish) along the Solent. I'm in a racing yacht heading South (ish). Assuming I'm keeping a proper lookout, I have 2 options. Option 1. I decide to zip in front of the tanker, because I know I can out-run it, and I know exactly not only what he intends to do, but what he is in fact going to do . Option 2. I loose lots of boat lengths in the race, by dipping it, and its attendant "stern-first" tug, (after all the whole assembly is several 100 of metres long). I choose Option 1, and get away with it - that's a brilliant call. I choose Option 1, and it don't work for any reason: I'm in deep poo.

Simple ! (though not an easy call to make on the water, at the time.). IMHO the yacht Skipper made the wrong decision, and is extremely lucky that no-one was killed.

Well , yes (ish), except that Atalanta was actually bound for a mark to the East (ish). In fact a little North of East (ish).

And come to think of it, isn't it rather remarkable that the pilot's evidence included the observation that Atalanta was not initially a concern to him, because until she (Atalanta) altered to Starboard, i.e. South (ish), the pilot was sure she would pass clear down the tanker's starboard side.

So is it not just as likely that Atalanta believed that holding her East (ish) course would have been the gung-ho call to zip across the bows of the tanker, which was certainly going to turn to starboard sooner or later? By turning South (ish) the skipper may actually have thought he was prudently chickening out, when in fact he was changing from a safe course per the Pilot's evidence to a manifestly disastrous one.

Of course, as has been said by others, the current proceedings are not likely to establish the true chain of events.

 

[Resolution]

Forget the stuff about GPS tracks, etc.

Let's go back to the basics of the collision.

Simple ! (though not an easy call to make on the water, at the time.). IMHO the yacht Skipper made the wrong decision, and is extremely lucky that no-one was killed.

Too simple. Real life is not like that.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Well , yes (ish), except that Atalanta was actually bound for a mark to the East (ish). In fact a little North of East (ish).

And come to think of it, isn't it rather remarkable that the pilot's evidence included the observation that Atalanta was not initially a concern to him, because until she (Atalanta) altered to Starboard, i.e. South (ish), the pilot was sure she would pass clear down the tanker's starboard side.

So is it not just as likely that Atalanta believed that holding her East (ish) course would have been the gung-ho call to zip across the bows of the tanker, which was certainly going to turn to starboard sooner or later? By turning South (ish) the skipper may actually have thought he was prudently chickening out, when in fact he was changing from a safe course per the Pilot's evidence to a manifestly disastrous one.

A terrific post, thanks. I hadn't considered the implications of the bouy Atlanta was heading for. As you say, if the perspective of the videos are to be trusted as to Atlanta's actual course and VicS's excellent map has the race leg right then whatever Atlanta was doing she wasn't nipping across the bow for competitive advantage. She was sailing miles out of her way in the wrong direction for some reason.

It's entirely consistent with Atlanta turning South to allow HK to turn safely, but then HK delays her turn. At that point Atlanta feels she can't turn around and resume her course because the port turn signal from HK suggests her stern might be about to move rapidly northwards. (I find it hard to believe Atlanta failed to to turn back onto her course for fear of a left turn wiping them out because it looks to me like HKs Starboard turn has begun, but it's hard to imagine any other reason.)

I'm not sure if Atlanta making a solid attempt to avoid the HK, and the HK behaving unpredictably *is* a valid defence here. If it is things look quite good for the defence IMHO.

Of course, as has been said by others, the current proceedings are not likely to establish the true chain of events.

Agree. In the Hot Liquid trial the defence version was simply not printed. We will never know the Skipper's version unless we pay for a transcript. I fear this will be similar. We've heard what the prosecution say, but they weren't there. The full version of the people who were on Atlanta will be less dramatic and of less interest to the press.

 

[Uricanejack]

I think a MAIB investigation rather than a prosecution would have been much more appropriate here. I think the actions of the tanker should be subject to much more scrutiny even if only to show they acted faultlessly, which I don't think they did. The fact that their actions aren't subject to such scrutiny could give the impression that it wouldn't be entirely favourable.

+1

At the end of the trial he will ither be "Guilty" of one or more of the offences or "Not Guilty". The rest of us will be none the wiser and still arguing.