Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[l'escargot]

Since there is evidently a "cut" between when we see Atlanta alongside and the shot of the bows, there would have to be 2 cameras for it to be continuous.

It's not a cut, it is the camera being moved through 45 degrees or so in one jump on a fixed tripod.

 

[penfold]

Sarabande bases that on Atalanta "cutting across the bows" of the tanker. I think the original situation was actually the opposite - the tanker was going to cut across the bows of the yacht and both boats were anticipating this and were prepared for it. The plan then changed, the tanker aborted it's turn and turned back to port towards the yacht which to try and avoid a collision continued to turn to starboard. With the tanker still turning to port he ran out of time, space and wind with the inevitable conclusion. I think the questions are whether Atalanta could reasonably anticipate the tanker not carrying out it's indicated manoeuvre, did the tanker do enough to indicate it's altered intentions and did the tanker do everything it could to avoid a collision occurring or were they just relying on the Atlanta getting out of the way?

There may or may not have been sound signals indicating turns to starboard, then port, then back again; it doesn't alter the fact that 150k tonne tankers don't turn quickly. on ships this size it often takes the best part of 30 seconds for the rudder to go from one side to the other, never mind the ponderous rate of swing once the helm is over. The sound signal for turning to port may only have manifested as a check in the swing to starboard rather than an actual turn to port IYSWIM.

Exactly how quickly can a vessel that size change direction at that sort of speed? Serious question.

Not very; see above.

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?

150k tonnes doesn't slow quickly even going full astern, and doing so destroys the flow over the rudder and loses steering control. The earliest you could reasonably expect the master to take such emergency action is when Atlanta disappeared under the focsle, perhaps 30 seconds before contact; in terms of slowing the ship there's bugger all the master could have done and losing steerage by going astern would have risked colliding with other vessels and probably running out of the channel and going aground.

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.

The HK's course and to an extent the master's actions are a matter of record;
1. the ship has a log.
2. if HK has an ECDIS this will have a record of the track according to GPS and the AIS record will mirror the ECDIS.
3. HK may have a VDR, the ship equivalent of a black box.
4. Southampton VTS will have a record of her track and may have Atlanta's as well.

You'd be a foolish man to temporise in the face of that lot.

 

[bedouin]

It's not a cut, it is the camera being moved through 45 degrees or so in one jump on a fixed tripod.

You sure?

I am not going to check the video again just now but I am sure the change in shot is a direct "cut" from a view of the side of the tanker to a longer focal length shot of the bows. If that were done on a single camera continuous then you would see the camera being panned to the bow and "zooming in".

If you can't then it has to be a cut of some form - and the only way it can be continuous is for there to be two cameras.

 

[geoid96]

You sure?

Yes. This does not relate to the shot of the collision itself. The important section, clearly without a cut, starts from 1:05 where the chimney, HK anchor with gennaker attached and Gurnard NCB are all roughly in line. The camera then pans East until about 1:35 where a dismasted Atalanta sits in a position that would not be too far from that of the original collision. Times above relate to version of video linked from the Daily Echo report.

 

[Alan ashore]

You sure?

I am not going to check the video again just now but I am sure the change in shot is a direct "cut" from a view of the side of the tanker to a longer focal length shot of the bows. If that were done on a single camera continuous then you would see the camera being panned to the bow and "zooming in".

If you can't then it has to be a cut of some form - and the only way it can be continuous is for there to be two cameras.

Are you two guys looking at the same video edit? (serious question). Following the video link in the daily echo report linked to in the first post, then I see this frame, which surely does look like a cut - no?

 

[Giblets]

150k tonnes doesn't slow quickly even going full astern, and doing so destroys the flow over the rudder and loses steering control. The earliest you could reasonably expect the master to take such emergency action is when Atlanta disappeared under the focsle, perhaps 30 seconds before contact; in terms of slowing the ship there's bugger all the master could have done and losing steerage by going astern would have risked colliding with other vessels and probably running out of the channel and going aground.

Exactly why ship of HK's size have an escort tug tied to the stern. And also to assist with the actual turn.

 

[A1Sailor]

How much can the Master and the Pilot actually see from the bridge? Once the yacht disappears under the bow are they effectively "blind" - with only Bob Fisher's commentary from the shore to go on? Presumably they have VHF comms with the tug and the other escort vessel, though.

 

[l'escargot]

Are you two guys looking at the same video edit? (serious question). Following the video link in the daily echo report linked to in the first post, then I see this frame, which surely does look like a cut - no?
View attachment 35984

Yes, the same video. It could look like a cut, it could also be a sharp move of the camera from one position to another, right to left, ie not panned. I think it is the latter. The camera appears already pretty much zoomed in to the maximum so there would be very little blurring or extra frames in a short move over 45 degrees or so.

It then does pan back left to right and there is at least one boat in the foreground that is in the same relative position to the side of the tanker - the small sailing boat with an outboard on the back on roughly the same heading as the tanker.

 

[fireball]

Check this video - You see the Atalanta comes into the shot at around 7 seconds - it's not clear whether her spinny is pulling at that point but it's certainly flogging from 11 seconds onwards. The contact takes place at ~33 seconds - so that's at least 20 seconds between kite flogging and impact where the yacht seems to be just a sitting duck ... I'd love to know what on earth the skipper was doing during those 20 seconds

 

[fireball]

It could look like a cut, it could also be a sharp move of the camera from one position to another, right to left, ie not panned. I think it is the latter. The camera appears already pretty much zoomed in to the maximum so there would be very little blurring or extra frames in a short move over 45 degrees or so.

I disagree - I think it's a cut - not a very big cut - but a cut - the audio has a little jump in it too ... it's certainly not a tripod pan as the horizon level on pre/post change are different.

 

[l'escargot]

I disagree - I think it's a cut - not a very big cut - but a cut - the audio has a little jump in it too ... it's certainly not a tripod pan as the horizon level on pre/post change are different.

No definitely not a pan. Have a look for the boat with the outboard before and after the change in shot and it's relative position to the tanker at about 45 secs and 1.15

 

[bedouin]

I disagree - I think it's a cut - not a very big cut - but a cut - the audio has a little jump in it too ... it's certainly not a tripod pan as the horizon level on pre/post change are different.

Plus that specific frame referenced above is clearly a cut as it has both old and new angles superimposed. You would have to be able to pan/zoom and refocus in a fraction of a second to do that without!

 

[dancrane]

...at least 20 seconds between kite flogging and impact where the yacht seems to be just a sitting duck...I'd love to know what on earth the skipper was doing during those 20 seconds

I suppose if the yacht's skipper saw the HK bustling along unstoppably on a course apparently well ahead of his own, he reasonably assumed they'd not collide...

...but then the ship's substantial starboard turn at that point bought the two together in a way the Atalanta's crew couldn't necessarily have foreseen.

The more I watch it, the less convinced I am that anybody was really culpably stupid in this situation...

...although if the limited depths in that vicinity regularly call for large ships to make tight turns there, it must be cavalier for any other vessel with local knowledge to risk a close-up.

 

[l'escargot]

Plus that specific frame referenced above is clearly a cut as it has both old and new angles superimposed. You would have to be able to pan/zoom and refocus in a fraction of a second to do that without!

Don't forget you are viewing a condensed YouTube video that doesn't contain all the frames from the original. I wouldn't like to be categoric about that without seeing the original recording.

I think the original point was that there could be a time lapse in the middle of the film but I would say it is reasonably apparent that even if there is a "cut" the position of other boats throughout and Atalanta itself before and after the collision, show that it is a continuous recording which could indicate the position of impact fairly well.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I suppose if the yacht's skipper saw the HK bustling along unstoppably on a course apparently well ahead of his own, he reasonably assumed they'd not collide...

At that point [1] they would have been entitled to turn NE and cheerily sail on to their next mark in the race (as it happened putting more distance between themselves and the Tanker). ...but they didn't, they pressed on South. That's what I find inexplicable. [2] There will be a reason I'm sure, we just don't know it (yet).

[1] Before that point, in fact.
[2] Going over old ground, I know.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

New info, I think:

http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/535446/trial-of-cowes-week-yachtsman-roland-wilson

Richard Twitchen, Commodore RN, had written an expert report. In his opinion the escort of one boat was insufficient to police the prohibited zone. He thought the ship's speed was on the borderline of speeding.

He agreed the Corby 33 was manoeuvrable and that if Atalanta had retained her Easterly course there would have been no collision but maintained that had she done so she would have passed across the ship's bow from port to starboard. Slowing the rate of turn was the cause of the accident.

Confirmation the Atlanta's ideal course was easterly:

Captain Towner thought that if Atlanta had continued on its easterly course it would have sailed clear.

 

[A1Sailor]

Navy man's crash decision 'almost inexplicable'

It doesn't add much, but there was an article in Saturday's Southern Daily Echo:

Roger Towner, Maritime and Coastguard Agency registrar general of shipping and seamen, said the skipper should have heeded laws stating that the oil tanker’s size had right of way. Giving evidence at the trial at Southampton Magistrates' Court, Mr Towner said: “Frankly to go across the bows of a tanker, it’s almost inexplicable.”

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10734829.Navy_man_s_crash_decision__almost_inexplicable_/

Hopefully the defence will get heard.

 

[bedouin]

Richard Twitchen, Commodore RN, had written an expert report. In his opinion the escort of one boat was insufficient to police the prohibited zone. He thought the ship's speed was on the borderline of speeding.

He agreed the Corby 33 was manoeuvrable and that if Atalanta had retained her Easterly course there would have been no collision but maintained that had she done so she would have passed across the ship's bow from port to starboard. Slowing the rate of turn was the cause of the accident.

Given this is a criminal case - that sounds as if it should be not guilty then

 

[fireball]

Captain Towner thought that if Atlanta had continued on its easterly course it would have sailed clear.

Wind was SW or SSW? Seems to be from the other vessels in the area.

This is my take

So for sailing eastwards the At(a)lanta would've been deep downwind on starboard tack(gybe) as seen by the SS F40 boats later in the footage - his choice best course to sail would've been to carry on or gybe - carry on wasn't an option as HK would turn to starboard - to gybe could've seen them taken up towards Calshot as they'd have to wait for the HK to pass.
I would think Lt R Wilson decided to carry on as deep as possible so as not to loose too much ground due to the passing ship (iirc they were heading to a buoy just south of Bramble bank). Possibly here the HK sounded the horn to say it was turning starboard and the Atlanta changed course to pass down the port side?
The HK altered course to port (as part of the intended course or to avoid the NUC mobo?) - possibly cutting across the Atlanta's intended new course - so the Atlanta headed up (ie to starboard) but with such a big kite up they couldn't handle the new heading - ended up beam on to the wind with a flogging kite and very little speed. It can take a lot of work using sail and rudder alone to get out of such a position - during that time the skipper had to deal with the oncoming HK as well. With the engine controls down below (just start/stop or levers too?) he didn't (have time to?) order the engine to be started, forget the flogging kite and motor clear.

IMHO, whatever the intricacies of movements, sound signals and other distractions in the last 60 seconds before impact, Lt R Wilson was sailing a course too close to the planned and well known manoeuvring area of a large ship that he was obliged to keep clear of. Why he took such a course is unclear - it's been reported he was at the tail end of the fleet - but race series can be won/lost from the back and he may have been just trying to finish in front of his closest competitor which may have clouded his judgement.

The exclusion zone is strange - 1km in front is a long way - but seems to be a sensible safety margin - but 100m to the side and stern do not seem sufficient - as ships sterns swing out during course changes and a small boat skippers planned 100m gap could rapidly disappear. However, there are remarkably few incidents - so perhaps the current rules are sufficient and small boat skippers just need to be a little more prudent when navigating in the vicinity of shipping.

 

[Alan ashore]

Don't forget you are viewing a condensed YouTube video that doesn't contain all the frames from the original. I wouldn't like to be categoric about that without seeing the original recording.

I think the original point was that there could be a time lapse in the middle of the film but I would say it is reasonably apparent that even if there is a "cut" the position of other boats throughout and Atalanta itself before and after the collision, show that it is a continuous recording which could indicate the position of impact fairly well.

It's all far too academic to really matter to us i think, but the significance of a cut for me is that it could mean 2 cameras, not necessarily co-located. i.e. the view of the collision itself might be from a point which is not on the Power Station roof / Luttrell tower transit after all...