Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[bedouin]

On the impede charges it is a bit tricky. I think that they did impede the tanker but only for reasons they could not know - they could not be expected to know the MOBO was there and the tanker did not make their intentions clear. I think the substantial turn south was a clear and deliberate attempt to comply with their obligations which would have worked (according to expert testimony) if the tanker had not slowed its turn.

Rule 5 - not guilty unless there is evidence that something happening on board distracted them from watching the tanker.

Rule 7 - is he really being charged under rule 7 - I don't see that one at all.

Rule 8 - perhaps comes down to what else could he have done. I think the prosecution would have to suggest a better course of action he should clearly have pursued.

But a lot of this depends on the timing of his turn South - it could be that that was too late to be effective in any circumstances. If he turned south shortly after HK sounded starboard then he should be in the clear.

However I can't help thinking that the magistrate will be reluctant to find him not guilty on all counts so may find him guilty on one charge.

 

[DAKA]

Start of a new conjecture-athon.

My view on what the verdicts should be based on the little we've heard so far'.


Rule 9b & Rule 18 - Not Guilty.

Purely because I don't think the ship was impeded any more than a fly impedes my car when it hits the window. If it turns out a) My definition of impede is wrong b) The ship took any kind of evasive action for Atlanta my view would change.



That's my view. What are the verdicts of the other armchair admirals?

I'm confident the captain (pilot) has been impeded for hours since the collision . so I'm going for Guilty.
It would be ludicrous (just my opinion, I understand your judgement ) to have a situation where boats can ignore the rules on the basis the stand on boat isnt at risk.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I'm confident the captain (pilot) has been impeded for hours since the collision . so I'm going for Guilty.
It would be ludicrous (just my opinion, I understand your judgement ) to have a situation where boats can ignore the rules on the basis the stand on boat isnt at risk.

I agree it's ludicrous, and maybe a court somewhere has come up with an interpretation that makes "impede" mean "get in the way of". It would certainly make sense.

 

[rotrax]

Didums ... no I don't fancy a speedway bike ... I prefer powering two wheels myself ... Point still stands - know the danger of the sport and take responsibility for your own actions whilst doing it.
I could see that the organisers would have a responsibility if they asked you to do a specific task that was dangerous - in yacht racing that could be setting a race course across a dangerous bar in heavy weather - leaving the skippers no choice as to their course - or perhaps setting a mark too close to the shallows. But for the main we're talking about sailing a boat as fast as possible - that can be dangerous in itself, but the organisers haven't required you to fly the kite or put up full sail - so if you have an accident due to your own actions then its your own responsibility.

You accused me of being deficient in the balls department.
I responded to say I was affronted as it is perhaps the one thing I may have an excess of.
If you had been involved in the serious aftermath of an avoidable Motor Sports fatality as I have been as an organiser you would perhaps take a different view.
If one day one of these foiling dinghy's at full speed gets out of control and hits a heavy yacht or motorboat in Chichester Harbour and the result is a death the question WILL be asked if it was a good idea to place the course across the marked navigation channel.
Just because it has always been done wont cut the mustard...............................................
IMHO, of course.

 

[bedouin]

I'm confident the captain (pilot) has been impeded for hours since the collision . so I'm going for Guilty.
It would be ludicrous (just my opinion, I understand your judgement ) to have a situation where boats can ignore the rules on the basis the stand on boat isnt at risk.

Err - I don't like to bother you, but the yacht was the stand on vessel - check the rules

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Err - I don't like to bother you, but the yacht was the stand on vessel - check the rules

I need an explanation of this. Isn't the constrained by draught/narrow channel vessel the stand on vessel?

PS: This thread has been terrific. Very little of the nastiness and ad homs that so many threads contain. Slap on the back all round.

 

[John.edwards]

Err - I don't like to bother you, but the yacht was the stand on vessel - check the rules

completely wrong

 

[John.edwards]

I need an explanation of this. Isn't the constrained by draught/narrow channel vessel the stand on vessel?
.

completely correct

 

[fireball]

You accused me of being deficient in the balls department.
I responded to say I was affronted as it is perhaps the one thing I may have an excess of.
If you had been involved in the serious aftermath of an avoidable Motor Sports fatality as I have been as an organiser you would perhaps take a different view.
If one day one of these foiling dinghy's at full speed gets out of control and hits a heavy yacht or motorboat in Chichester Harbour and the result is a death the question WILL be asked if it was a good idea to place the course across the marked navigation channel.
Just because it has always been done wont cut the mustard...............................................
IMHO, of course.

You're suggesting that the race committee is somehow responsible for any bad seamanship of the competitors. In any sail racing I've ever taken part in it has always been the case that the final decision lies with the (adult) skipper of the vessel - implication is that they take full responsibility for any decisions they make. I agree with that implication and do not feel it should change for sail races that take place.

On the subject of courses set and traversing "marked navigation channel" - you seem to be forgetting how sail boats work - quite often they cannot travel directly from one mark to another and have to tack/gybe to get there - so their course isn't a direct line. The actual course taken by any vessel between 2 marks will vary depending on the wind, tide & other variables so it isn't generally possible for a race organiser to set a course that results in competitors not using "marked navigation channel"s.

Taking Chichester Harbour specifically - it isn't a commercial harbour - although there are a few fishing boats, sightseeing boat & a ferry - the vast majority of boat movements are leisure craft (racing and non-racing) and you're suggesting that the non-racing leisure craft take priority?
If you want to take specific classes into consideration - I think you'll find that the harbour federation are carefully looking at the performance craft - specifically the foiling craft - and will consider excluding them from sponsored racing within the harbour if they consider them to be incompatible with the rest of the harbour use - the same as catamarans and yachts are precluded from racing within the harbour.

Any accidents with racing boats are still the responsibility of the skippers involved - and "get out of my way I'm racing" just doesn't cut it ...

 

[bedouin]

I need an explanation of this. Isn't the constrained by draught/narrow channel vessel the stand on vessel?

PS: This thread has been terrific. Very little of the nastiness and ad homs that so many threads contain. Slap on the back all round.

No - a narrow channel and constrained by draught are both "do not impede" rather than "give way" also the tanker wasn't showing the day mark for "constrained by draught" and so that rule does not apply.

So technically, even though the yacht was required not to impede, as soon as risk of collision existed the yacht became the stand on vessel. If you check the rules you will see that that is stated explicitly (Rule 8 f (iii))

In most cases the distinction is not that important but it is in this case - the yacht had taken action as required "not to impede" but due to circumstances beyond her control a risk of collision developed - at which point the yacht became the stand on vessel.

In practice of course the yacht should still have done everything possible to keep out of the way because the tanker had very limited options, but according to the rules the yacht was stand on.

 

[Talulah]

No - a narrow channel and constrained by draught are both "do not impede" rather than "give way" also the tanker wasn't showing the day mark for "constrained by draught" and so that rule does not apply.

So technically, even though the yacht was required not to impede, as soon as risk of collision existed the yacht became the stand on vessel. If you check the rules you will see that that is stated explicitly (Rule 8 f (iii))

In most cases the distinction is not that important but it is in this case - the yacht had taken action as required "not to impede" but due to circumstances beyond her control a risk of collision developed - at which point the yacht became the stand on vessel.

In practice of course the yacht should still have done everything possible to keep out of the way because the tanker had very limited options, but according to the rules the yacht was stand on.

My interpretaion of Rule 8f (iii) doesn't change the status of the yacht to become 'stand on'. It basically means that a vessel which is stand on and should not be impeded cannot carry on regardless if it determines a risk of collision exists. It has a duty to avoid a collision.

"A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision."

 

[bedouin]

My interpretaion of Rule 8f (iii) doesn't change the status of the yacht to become 'stand on'. It basically means that a vessel which is stand on and should not be impeded cannot carry on regardless if it determines a risk of collision exists. It has a duty to avoid a collision.

"A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision."

That's not right - check any authoritative text on the matter.

It is a bit crazy because 8(f) says that vessel A is required not to impede vessel B while vessel B is required to keep out of the way of vessel A - only a lawyer could have come up with that.

What it really means is that it is fine for vessel A to stand on provided that B has sufficient sea room to manoeuvre, if not then A must give B the space it needs.

 

[penfold]

No - a narrow channel and constrained by draught are both "do not impede" rather than "give way" also the tanker wasn't showing the day mark for "constrained by draught" and so that rule does not apply.

Nonsense; not flying the vertical cylinder doesn't change the fact HK was a vessel constrained by her draft navigating a narrow channel.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

the tanker wasn't showing the day mark for "constrained by draught" and so that rule does not apply.

I think this is wrong. The rules say nothing about a boats status being predicated on showing the correct day shape. If yuo can find a single case where that has been decided I'd like to see it. Although I'm sure showing the wrong shape might help the defence in a case such as this a lot.

That's not right - check any authoritative text on the matter. What it really means is that it is fine for vessel A to stand on provided that B has sufficient sea room to manoeuvre, if not then A must give B the space it needs.

So in this case Atlanta was not the stand on vessel because HK clearly had no room for manoeuvre.

As for interpretation of 8(f):

(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

Yet another shockingly written rule, but I think this means "the rules of this part with regard to vessels on a collision course", rather than all the rules of this part. I'd be interested in seeing the interpretation in any "authoritative texts". I don't have Cockcoft and Lameijer.

 

[bedouin]

Nonsense; not flying the vertical cylinder doesn't change the fact HK was a vessel constrained by her draft navigating a narrow channel.

It is amazing how many people make comments on the rules without even bothering to read them.

Please quote here the precise wording of the rule that applies to constrained by draught and explain how it applies in this case.

 

[bedouin]

I think this is wrong. The rules say nothing about a boats status being predicated on showing the correct day shape. If yuo can find a single case where that has been decided I'd like to see it. Although I'm sure showing the wrong shape might help the defence in a case such as this a lot.
So in this case Atlanta was not the stand on vessel because HK clearly had no room for manoeuvre.

As for interpretation of 8(f):

(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

Yet another shockingly written rule, but I think this means "the rules of this part with regard to vessels on a collision course", rather than all the rules of this part. I'd be interested in seeing the interpretation in any "authoritative texts". I don't have Cockcoft and Learjammer.

I have checked with Cockcroft and Learjammer, and I am correct on this one

As for the day shapes - check the wording of Rule 18 (d) i

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have checked with Cockcroft and Learjammer, and I am correct on this one

I'm still a bit doubtful but if you've checked I guess I'll have to take your word for it, until I can check myself.

As for the day shapes - check the wording of Rule 18 (d) i

Well there's no doubt about that - thanks!

 

[rotrax]

You're suggesting that the race committee is somehow responsible for any bad seamanship of the competitors. In any sail racing I've ever taken part in it has always been the case that the final decision lies with the (adult) skipper of the vessel - implication is that they take full responsibility for any decisions they make. I agree with that implication and do not feel it should change for sail races that take place.

On the subject of courses set and traversing "marked navigation channel" - you seem to be forgetting how sail boats work - quite often they cannot travel directly from one mark to another and have to tack/gybe to get there - so their course isn't a direct line. The actual course taken by any vessel between 2 marks will vary depending on the wind, tide & other variables so it isn't generally possible for a race organiser to set a course that results in competitors not using "marked navigation channel"s.

Taking Chichester Harbour specifically - it isn't a commercial harbour - although there are a few fishing boats, sightseeing boat & a ferry - the vast majority of boat movements are leisure craft (racing and non-racing) and you're suggesting that the non-racing leisure craft take priority?
If you want to take specific classes into consideration - I think you'll find that the harbour federation are carefully looking at the performance craft - specifically the foiling craft - and will consider excluding them from sponsored racing within the harbour if they consider them to be incompatible with the rest of the harbour use - the same as catamarans and yachts are precluded from racing within the harbour.

Any accidents with racing boats are still the responsibility of the skippers involved - and "get out of my way I'm racing" just doesn't cut it ...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
It all comes back to an organisers duty of care.
The competitors seamanship-or lack of-is a different issue.
If a court found that the duty of care was not in place if an accident happened the organisers may well be bought to book.
Setting a dinghy race course on a Sunday afternoon in Chichester Harbour across the nav. channel when the tide is right for larger vessels to use said channel could possibly be lacking this duty of care.
As a previous poster alluded, putting larger less manouverable craft in the way of speedy dinghy's increases the possibility of collision.
Simple arithmetic.
By the way, while at anchor at East Head a Lazer RS collided with our boat.
It had very experienced crew on board-international level-who had a bad attitude and tried to suggest it was somehow our fault.
Bottom line is that they were practicing through the anchorage-a hazardous occupation as they found out-and made a miscalculation.
Should racing dinghy's be doing that?
Over to you.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Please explain why you think this phrase applies to people putting forward a different argument you, but not to yourself.

 

[penfold]

It is amazing how many people make comments on the rules without even bothering to read them.

Please quote here the precise wording of the rule that applies to constrained by draught and explain how it applies in this case.

Vessels Constrained by Their Draft

[A vessel constrained by her draft may, in addition to the lights prescribed for power-driven vessels in Rule 23, exhibit where they can best be seen three all-round red lights in a vertical line, or a cylinder.]

Looks pretty clear to me that you're wrong.