Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

Can he appeal? I'm not sure how they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he didn't see the tanker.
Rule 5; He did not keep an adequate lookout.

I'm surprised he's found of guilty of Rule 5 as I would reserve that for where no one is on watch on the bridge of a vessel or minium manning isn't maintained.
However, it will make no difference to the fine so not worth appealing.
 
I'm surprised he's found of guilty of Rule 5 as I would reserve that for where no one is on watch on the bridge of a vessel or minium manning isn't maintained.
However, it will make no difference to the fine so not worth appealing.

My first thought too.

Not at all surprising he was found guilty of the others though.
 
the results look as if they have established (via precedence) greater need for

1 improved clarity of all instructions and rules relating to the conduct of vessels in the Solent and other waters

2 the need to maintain extreme vigilance and lookout at all times

3 the greater the experience on board, the greater the failure (I am unhappy about that)
 
…. which could mean much, much stricter enforcement on an MPZ

Which, surely, is as it should be. It'll need much more resource thrown at it, though. Miltary vessels, and I refer in particular to Trident Subs, have a number of RIBS with SBS/RM as well as MOD Plod vessels. How appropriate is it for a tanker to sail through a busy yachting race with one escort vessel and a tug?
 
Which, surely, is as it should be. It'll need much more resource thrown at it, though. Miltary vessels, and I refer in particular to Trident Subs, have a number of RIBS with SBS/RM as well as MOD Plod vessels. How appropriate is it for a tanker to sail through a busy yachting race with one escort vessel and a tug?

That is good reason for a MAIB report and some learning to come out of the incident.
 
That is good reason for a MAIB report and some learning to come out of the incident.

Probably would have been a better course all round.

After all is anyone less likely to drive in front of a tanker because of the threat of a big fine? No, you try not to do that because it risks your boat.
 
We (the tax payers) end up paying for this man's stupidity

32-year-old Roland Wilson, of Perthshire, Scotland, was today found guilty of failing to keep a proper lookout, and impeding a vessel using a narrow channel. He was fined £3,000, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15, and made to pay costs of £100,056.68.

The Armed Forces Legal Aid Authority is funding Wilson's defence.
 
Probably would have been a better course all round.

After all is anyone less likely to drive in front of a tanker because of the threat of a big fine? No, you try not to do that because it risks your boat.

Hopefully the publicity surrounding the trial will get through to some of those who take to the Solent without ever having read a notice to mariners.
 
Which, surely, is as it should be. It'll need much more resource thrown at it, though. Miltary vessels, and I refer in particular to Trident Subs, have a number of RIBS with SBS/RM as well as MOD Plod vessels. How appropriate is it for a tanker to sail through a busy yachting race with one escort vessel and a tug?

As appropriate as running a yacht race near a navigation channel used frequently by large vessels.
Competitors who have to take avoiding action must surely be miffed if others scoot off into the distance.
Seems a bit unfair-chance makes it a non level playing field.
IMHO, of course.
 
Just part of racing in the Solent. Another thing to make a decision about, like wind, tide and other competitors.
 
Top