toad_oftoadhall
New member
Nah, I'm pretty clear on where the vessels were going - just a typo.
Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
Nah, I'm pretty clear on where the vessels were going - just a typo.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I find it incomprehensible when the timing or the rate or the angle of the turn results in a nimble racing yacht being hit by a slow moving oil tanker roughly a quarter of a mile long. And I mean incomprehensible - I just don't understand what they were trying to do.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Maybe they thought the yacht would head down the ship's starboard side and not nip across its bow?
l'escargot
New member
You're not keeping up here. They would have had to "nip across it's bow" to pass down it's starboard side and that manoeuvre would have involved a turn to port to cross the bow of a boat turning to starboard. That would have been incomprehensible...
bedouin
Well-known member
It wasn't that slow moving - wasn't it doing 12-15 knots.
I wonder if the yacht just vastly underestimated its speed and so thought it had plenty of time to get across the bows whether or not the ship turned. I can't think of any other reason for the actions he took
dancrane
Well-known member
Wasn't Atalanta already on the tanker's starboard side? So...if the guard-boat had told them to stand clear, they'd only have had to steer hard over, one way or t'other, to remain on her starboard side. It might've lost them a position in the race, but it would've saved them a very close encounter too. Why do you say they would've had to "nip across its bow" in order to reach the starboard side?
Alan ashore
Member
I'm in two minds about the comprehensibility of the end game.
If the earlier conjecture (and be aware that I see ALL of what we are doing here as speculation, in which we are indulging largely because we find it interesting to do so) that the yacht's turn from East ish to South ish was as a result of misapprehending the ships future movements, then that bit is IMHO explicable. I suspect that such mistakes are frequently made (e.g. by the many novices who may be about at times), even for ships that have not been obliged to change their immediate plans after signalling Echo. My guess is that the Defendant, by no means a novice, would have been unlikely to make that mistake in normal circumstances. It has been reported that the defense will cite confusing sound signals, and I'm inclined to believe they could indeed be part of the explanation for the turn to the South.
But thereafter, I don't know enough about the precise times, distances, speeds and crucially rate of turn to form an opinion on the explicability of the collision itself.
If the earlier conjecture (and be aware that I see ALL of what we are doing here as speculation, in which we are indulging largely because we find it interesting to do so) that the yacht's turn from East ish to South ish was as a result of misapprehending the ships future movements, then that bit is IMHO explicable. I suspect that such mistakes are frequently made (e.g. by the many novices who may be about at times), even for ships that have not been obliged to change their immediate plans after signalling Echo. My guess is that the Defendant, by no means a novice, would have been unlikely to make that mistake in normal circumstances. It has been reported that the defense will cite confusing sound signals, and I'm inclined to believe they could indeed be part of the explanation for the turn to the South.
But thereafter, I don't know enough about the precise times, distances, speeds and crucially rate of turn to form an opinion on the explicability of the collision itself.
Alan ashore
Member
l'escargot
New member
A1Sailor
...
Wasn't Atalanta already on the tanker's starboard side? So...if the guard-boat had told them to stand clear, they'd only have had to steer hard over, one way or t'other, to remain on her starboard side. It might've lost them a position in the race, but it would've saved them a very close encounter too. Why do you say they would've had to "nip across its bow" in order to reach the starboard side?
Yes - they started off on the ship's starboard side, sailed southish while it altered course to starboard, and ended up on it's port side - but only just!
l'escargot
New member
Their paths never crossed for Atalanta to get on the starboard side of the tanker, the tanker was turning across Atalanta's bow.
A1Sailor
...
I disagree, but I wasn't there...
How did the crewman who jumped overboard a few seconds before the collision end up on the starboard side of the ship? Did he swim round the bow? Was it Michael Phelps?
Last edited:
dancrane
Well-known member
How did the crewman who jumped overboard a few seconds before the collision end up on the starboard side of the ship? Did he swim round the bow? Was it Michael Phelps?
John.edwards
New member
the question of confusing signals with respect to the actions of HK don't seem to take into account the presence of a disabled powerboat. Signalling an action that would then require a change because of a risk of collision with one vessel is fine in my book. the disabled vessel cannot take action itself. The yacht skipper KNOWS that there are lots of boats about but has no idea what is happening on the far side of a huge tanker and so shouldn't assume that the tanker is free to do anything. It is perverse on the one hand to say that it is a crowded waterway and everyone should be alert and cautious and on the other to say that vessels (including big ones) should not be responsive to emerging issues.
VicS
Well-known member
It was not travelling that fast at that at the time of the collision.
It was doing 11 knots as it approached the precautionary area but had slowed to about 8 knots by the time it was off Egypt Point
toad_oftoadhall
New member
That's my take.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Even 11 knots isn't fast. Plenty of thinking time for Atlanta.
As I say above, for me, the most 'inexplicable' thing is why Atlanta remained on a South-ish course long after she needed to. The next mark of her course was north-east-ish.
I assume the "facts" are wrong somewhere. We're going on media reporting which is always a bit dodgy.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Eh? The video shows them crossing from the starboard side to the port side; it's the port anchor which catches the mast.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
That seems most likely to me, and would explain the Rule 5 charge; the prosecution would claim that they did not make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision . Whether a prosecution for a cock-up is worthwhile and in the public interest is another matter. I think not, myself.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Yeah, and clearly the authorities agree because the HK's captain isn't in court.
However, although under the circumstances making an incorrect signal might be fine, it could still be part of an explanation why another boat totally misread a situation.
