Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
A1Sailor
...
Perhaps this should be cross posted on the MoBo forum.
EDIT:
My fingers are slower than a snail's
Last edited:
Resolution
Well-known member
Perhaps this should be cross posted on the MoBo forum.
I'm not THAT brave....
Tender_aft
New member
I'm a Mobo'er (mostly) who found your discussion of this subject more in depth hence I am camping out here whilst reading.
I am that Brave (it made me laugh)...and I see you worded it more carefully in the Mobo forum
I have just cross posted...we are all interested in this subject.
Uricanejack
Well-known member
I was googleing this subject and chap a while ago and Google came up with his resume or CV on one of those Corperate wanabee job seeker sites.
Realising it was obviously created prior to this imfamous incident. It was thourly padded pouring it on thick about his expertise in navigation and how he was personaly responible for training virtualy every body in the Navy and making sure they use good navigational practiceand follow all the regulations.
It was absoloutly hillarious.
Poor bugger will for ever be known as the ultimate wafi. I hope he gets off. He was't the only one who screwed up there was a whole team of pafi's on the Tanker.
Realising it was obviously created prior to this imfamous incident. It was thourly padded pouring it on thick about his expertise in navigation and how he was personaly responible for training virtualy every body in the Navy and making sure they use good navigational practiceand follow all the regulations.
It was absoloutly hillarious.
Poor bugger will for ever be known as the ultimate wafi. I hope he gets off. He was't the only one who screwed up there was a whole team of pafi's on the Tanker.
Iain C
Active member
I don't think it's fair to blame the broken down mobo, however I'd definitely blame the chap in the big orange mobo. Sounds like a typical mobo case of not knowing the sound signals, passing too close to some poor chap out for a sail (no doubt causing lots of wash) and stowing his anchor inconsiderately. Bet you a fiver he leaves it like that when he's in the marina too, overhanging the pontoon and getting in the way. Of course he could have slowed down a bit and avoided the poor yacht but that mobo thread reckons it would have cost him a fiver in diesel to get back on the plane...
Mobos, eh?
DJE
Well-known member
The relevant notice is here:
http://www.qhm.mod.uk/portsmouth/port/port-directions?action=view&id=19
Including:-
Any person who has a requirement to exceed the above speed limits for specific reasons should apply to the Queen’s Harbour Master for a licence.
I expect that Southampton Pilots might just have a licence to exceed the speed limit given the size of the vessels involved.
prv
Well-known member
They may well do, but it's still irrelevant as the tanker was outside of the speed limit zone. Outside Portsmouth Harbour itself, the limit only applies within half a mile of the shore.
Pete
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Seems to me the only relevant questions are 1) Was an adequate lookout kept on Atlanta 2) Did Atlanta, in fact, impede the HC. 3) Was Atlanta required not to impede HC.
1 - Personally I'd have though it would be hard to prove an adequate lookout wasn't kept on Atlanta. Hard to imagine that a collision is, in itself, proof of an inappropriate lookout, but maybe it is.
2 - Was the HC impeded? Sounds like there's a possibility it was already being impeded before Atlanta got in the way. I haven't read enough to know if HC made a speed/course alteration specifically due to the Atlanta. Given it was restricted to such a large degree maybe it didn't.
3 - Was Atlanta required not to impede HC. I think yes.
It'll be interesting to hear the outcome and the reasons behind it.
Last edited:
sarabande
Well-known member
does anyone know who was crewing for the skipper ?
Bar talk is that some very senior officers were on board, so there might have been a lack of tactical navigatorial knowledge....
Bar talk is that some very senior officers were on board, so there might have been a lack of tactical navigatorial knowledge....
toad_oftoadhall
New member
If so there will perhaps be some very credible witnesses stating that an appropriate watch was kept on Atlanta.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Apart from that whole sailing into the path of an 850 foot long, 150 thousand ton tanker painted bright red thing, of course.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
See post 109.
l'escargot
New member
Or were they sailing away from the indicated path of the tanker when it changed direction again and headed towards them?
Angele
Active member
Right, time to take your seats for part 2. Begins in 2 minutes. Quiet at the back, please....
awol
Well-known member
If the defence fail to switch the blame to the speeding, confusedly signalling tanker; the broken down mobo (what is Daka's boat called?); and we haven't had evidence of the HM launch conversation yet; I reckon their best chance is to ask the judge to recuse himself as an AWB owner and thus obviously lacking in judgement.
I really am fascinated to learn what the defence argument is.
I really am fascinated to learn what the defence argument is.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Does it matter in relation to the "lookout" charge? I very much doubt that a collision alone is proof of an inadequate look out and JumbleDuck has failed to cite a case where it has been.
I'd have thought any erratic behavior from the ship would be more of a defence against the other two charges.
Tranona
Well-known member
Right, time to take your seats for part 2. Begins in 2 minutes. Quiet at the back, please....
Let's hope the court is more objective than many of the comments here. Seems according to some that he is guilty already because
1 He is a stupid naval officer (they are all like that, you know)
2 The "professionals" are always right
3 The camera does not lie
4 Worst of all his suit does not fit him - and what about that tie he wears?
He must have a pretty good story, otherwise why is he taking such a high risk in going to court? Of course, it may not be a good story and 1-4 above are all correct.
Last edited:
rotrax
Well-known member
I know that a Very Senior bod in the RNSA was aboard at the time-a very well known racing sailor, ex RN and one who gives talks on Hi Line helicopter rescue and safety at sea.
I should think he will be giving his 2p's worth-or perhaps keeping quiet...................
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Me too.
In relation to the lookout charge I'd guess they'd get some crew members to testify they were on deck keeping a lookout and had seen the ship miles away and heard it's sound signals.
In relation to the 'impeding' charge I'd guess they'll claim that HC failed to meet its obligations under rule 17 and/or the ship didn't change course or speed for Atlanta and therefore wasn't impeded and/or that ship was already in the process of being impeded by another vessel.
That's obviously guesswork and idle conjecture based on nothing. I'm looking forward to finding out.
The MCA have a significant history bringing and losing cases that seem cut and dried at first glance.
The defence might respond to a prosecution claim that the ship changed course or speed for Atlanta by saying it was breaking rule 17, and if the prosecution say it held course and speed then the defence might say it wasn't impeded. They've only got to implant some reasonable doubt and rule 17 has endless scope for reasonable doubt!
Last edited:
