Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
VicS
Well-known member
Two possible reasons I can think of for being on that southerly heading:
1. They realised that they would possibly pass through the exclusion zone as the HK turned if they continued straight towards the next mark so tried to get to a point where they would pass south of HK but left it too late.
OR
2. Realised that if they continued towards the mark they would be in the wind shadow of HK as she turned so tried to avoid that situation but left it too late
bedouin
Well-known member
I think you are misinterpreting what happened.
As I read it the yacht and tanker were on almost reciprocal courses as the tanker passed say Prince Consort, with the tanker on say 260 and atlanta on about 80. Then at some point the tanker sounded starboard. That puts the yacht in a difficult position as she is sailing into the water the tanker is about to turn into, but can't really be sure of the rate of turn. At this point it is very hard for a yacht to know what to do because it all depends on the rate of turn of the ship, guess that incorrectly and any action you take might bring you into dangerous conflicit.
Thinking through what the pilot said it seems that they thought the Atlanta was fine and didn't need to take any action at all - so they must have expected to pass across the yacht's stern.
Atlanta clearly thought they had to take action, and so turned to starboard to get out of the way of the turning tanker. Had they been right that a collision was likely then a turn to starboard was the correct but as it was it was the worst thing they could do. Other evidence suggests that there had been risk of collision for a minute or two - suggesting that Atlanta must have turned south at least 2 mins before the collision (unless it was at the very last minute).
It would be interesting to know at what point the tanker did sound starboard, so if the atlanta course change was in response to that, or simply because they assumed the tanker would be turning tighter round Brambles.
So it looks like a bad error of judgment on the part of the yacht skipper, but the tanker slowing the turn then starting again was clearly a contributory factor.
Of course just to add to confusion, the Yacht was the stand on vessel!
toad_oftoadhall
New member
It's possible I'm misunderstanding.
I think the yacht was on a resiprocal course, traveling east to her next mark but well to the north of the tanker.
Perhaps after contact from the patrol boat, perhaps in anticipation of the tanker's inevitable starboard turn the yacht made a 90 degree ish Stb turn to sail South-ish with the intention of staying to the west of the tanker throughout the tanker's manoever.
However the tankers didnt' turn at the point expected and the new Starboard course took the yacht under the ships bow.
THat's what I think happened, I could easily have missed something.
A1Sailor
...
I think Toad and bedouin have both got the respective "movements" correct. The only thing I'm not sure about is the location of the stranded powerboat. An earlier post suggests it was "on the far side of the tanker" (can't find the post!) but I think it too must have been on the tanker's stbd side, possibly between it and Atalanta. Otherwise there would have been no need for the tanker to slow the rate of its turn. I gather the powerboat managed to fix its engine problems.
It'll all come out in court, and hopefully be presented accurately by the press. The journalists at PBO or YM will surely be up to it!
It'll all come out in court, and hopefully be presented accurately by the press. The journalists at PBO or YM will surely be up to it!
savageseadog
Well-known member
The problem might not have arisen if the ship and yacht had been able to speak on the radio to each other. There are a number of issues with that. It's very common for race fleets to operate on their own channel, dual watch is possible between 16 and a working channel but 16 isn't the VTS channel. There is of course tri watch on some VHF's, when did you last try to use it? Could the ship have identified the yacht in question,there are lots of yachts around. Radio watch keeping can be difficult for yachts. Perhaps AIS transponders should be mandatory.
I sail in a busy port, the attitude of the harbour authority and ships is generally that leisure vessels keep out of the way of commercials, no debate. The practical outcome is that by and large a commercial won't steer round a leisure vessels even if they can, they certainly won't slow down either. Whatever the failings of the yacht did the HK should they have slowed down once collision was a possibility?
I sail in a busy port, the attitude of the harbour authority and ships is generally that leisure vessels keep out of the way of commercials, no debate. The practical outcome is that by and large a commercial won't steer round a leisure vessels even if they can, they certainly won't slow down either. Whatever the failings of the yacht did the HK should they have slowed down once collision was a possibility?
l'escargot
New member
They were on reciprocal (almost) courses almost east/west and before they passed port to port they each turned to starboard. The tanker was turning to starboard to head north, the yacht would have needed to carry on across it's bows whilst it was turning and not turn south to arrive on it's starboard side. All directions generalisations .
l'escargot
New member
That is how I understand it. Shortly before the point of collision they were each pointing roughly NW/SE with the yacht's rate of turn greater and they were carried down onto the bow of the tanker, when they lost way, with the wind and tide still carrying them east.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
I am sorry, but that doesn't even begin to make sense. If they were set to pass port to port, and both turned to starboard, how on earth did Atlanta end up on the Hanne Knutsen's starboard bow, ready to cross to her port side?
l'escargot
New member
Atalanta didn't end up on the HK's starboard bow. See#408.
Searush
New member
It occurs to me after reading all this speculative "analysis" that both skippers have had loads of time to decide the "facts" as they see them & that there are likely to be at least 2 different versions of events - possibly more if witness accounts are added into the mix. The phrase "Choose your lies carefully" springs to mind.
It might be hard to get a conviction for anything out of a mess like that. Just more public money wasted with precious little hope of any benefit for anyone but the media perhaps.
It might be hard to get a conviction for anything out of a mess like that. Just more public money wasted with precious little hope of any benefit for anyone but the media perhaps.
Grumpybear
New member
On the other hand, this was a widely reported incident involving a laden tanker in confined waters close to a major population centre and a "rich man's toy" racing yacht. The latter sustained major damage and lost a man overboard in circumstances which could easily have led to his death. Had the authorities not been seen to have acted formally, there would have been an outcry from the media and quite possibly from various shroud wavers and other shoulder-chip carriers which might well have led to serious if uninformed criticism of our leisure pastime and possibly the imposition of unwelcome and unnecessary regulation. Whatever the outcome of the trial, there are useful lessons for all concerned and for the wider seafaring community. In my view the trial is the least worst way of dealing with this, and will probably be followed by the release of a MAIB report which will tell us what ACTUALLY happened rather than the conflicting and, it seems to me, sometimes mutually exclusive perceptions of Monday morning quarterbacks.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
She ended up on the port bow, snarled up on the anchor, but she crossed the HK's bows to get there and was therefore on the HK's starboard bow when it all went wrong. Sorry, can't do a screen shot on this computer, but have a look at 0:25 - 0:30 on the Cowes Official youtube video. She was hit almost square on by the bow of the HK: how could she have got in that position if the two boats were on near reciprocal courses, passing port to port, and both turned starboard?
A1Sailor
...
From #404
I await the facts with baited breath!
If the tanker is going westish, the yacht eastish, north of the tanker, I can't understand how the yacht can have been anywhere other than on the tanker's starboard side. Both then turned to starboard. EDIT: The crew who went overboard a few seconds before impact went down the stbd side...
I await the facts with baited breath!
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
The two skippers can have conflicting view without anybody actually lying. Eyewitness testimony and memory are unreliable things and it is very easy afterwards to "remember", honestly, what you think must have happened rather than what actually did happen. That's why it's best, if you witness an accident, to write down exactly what you think you saw, and not what you think happened, as soon as possible and without talking to anyone else about it first. That's what I did when I saw someone break a Schemp-Hirth Discus into about six separate pieces on the day it was delivered, brand new.
Of course in this case there should be plenty of impartial evidence - black box, bridge voice recorder, AIS, ship based radar, shore based radar and so on - to establish exactly what both vessels did and when.
l'escargot
New member
Reading back that is a typo so I can see why you're confused
It should read before they passed starboard to starboard. But before their bows passed in order to pass starboard to starboard, both swung to starboard. What I was trying to highlight was that I t wasn't a simple crossing situation with the yacht going across the tanker on a straight course - with the tanker making it's turn to starboard, if the yacht had carried on it's course it would have still crossed the bows of the tanker and risked being run down. Possibly ending up on the starboard anchor instead...Taking the liberty of playing around with VicS diagram I see it something like this
What he would hope to do:
What he saw happening:
What he tried to do:
What actually happened:
The courses are just representative rather than reflecting accurate positions.
Last edited:
Searush
New member
I quite agree with that, however it is generally in the interest of each party to present their own evidence in a way that minimises the potential blame that may be apportioned to them. If you have time to think it thro, then that presentation will be supported by such evidence that may be available. Just saying . . .
I don't suppose either skipper wanted a collision.
Last edited:
dancrane
Well-known member
oldvarnish
Active member
Apart from local news, the media have completely ignored it. Only benefit seems to be to the armchair Admirals.
Marakei
New member
I'm in Scotland at the moment and it was a front page story in the Daily Record and the Scottish Sun when the trial started.
