Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial

[toad_oftoadhall]

I've already explained. But if you insist how about, ooh, shall we say ... the IRPCS?

5. Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.​

See post 157.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I cannot see how the charge of failing to maintain a proper lookout can be made to stick - UNLESS in one of his statements to the MCA the skipper said something along the lines of "it came up on my blind side/never saw it until it hit me guv". Presumably the onus is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge.

+1

Maybe there's merit in Angele's theory about the reasons for charging him with it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I cannot see how the charge of failing to maintain a proper lookout can be made to stick - UNLESS in one of his statements to the MCA the skipper said something along the lines of "it came up on my blind side/never saw it until it hit me guv". Presumably the onus is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge.

As I've just posted, keeping a proper lookout is more than just seeing. If the collision situation existed for long enough that someone on the yacht could have been expected to realise it in time to take effective evasive action, then it doesn't sound like an effective lookout. If the ship was jinking around all over the place, so that it was simply impossiblel for anyone on the yacht to work out whether a collision was going to happen until it was too late, then no degree of effectiveness of lookout would have been enough.

I'm off sailing for the rest of the day, and look forward to reading what turns up.

 

[JumbleDuck]

See post 157.

So why ask the daft question then, if you already knew that maintaining a proper lookout involves more than seeing?

 

[bedouin]

I saw a claim somewhere that the collision situation was apparent to the pilots on the HK four or five minutes before the crunch. If that's the case, I wonder why neither boat took evasive action.

Altanta did - it turned to starboard - not unreasonable. The pilots seem to be saying that they should have done something else, but I am not sure what exactly

If the risk of collision was apparent to HC so early (a) why did they only give him 5 20 seconds before the collision and (b) why didn't they take more effective action of their own.

It seems that the testimony of the pilots is a bit confused (not surprising - it was more than 2 years ago)

 

[fireball]

If the ship was jinking around all over the place, so that it was simply impossiblel for anyone on the yacht to work out whether a collision was going to happen until it was too late, then no degree of effectiveness of lookout would have been enough.

with a 1000/250m exclusion channel (ship is 42m wide so round up to 50) it would take a yacht going 5kts just over a minute and a half to travel across the whole width of the zone. Just 40 seconds to clear the 100m to the side of the zone if they were in the middle.
At 10 kts (I've no idea what speed the ship was travelling) it will cover the 1000m in 200 seconds - ie AMPLE time for a yacht to clear out of the way - assuming the ship is holding a straight course.
So we'd need to know what course the ship took during that 200 seconds and did it exit from the initial imaginary MPZ that the skipper of the yacht would be obliged (and trying?) to clear?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I cannot see how the charge of failing to maintain a proper lookout can be made to stick - UNLESS in one of his statements to the MCA the skipper said something along the lines of "it came up on my blind side/never saw it until it hit me guv". Presumably the onus is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge.

As I've just posted, keeping a proper lookout is more than just seeing.

The fact that the conclusion resulting from "a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision" is wrong does not show the watch was not adequate to provide "a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision".

You've failed to cite a single case of the rule being interpreted in your way. The obvious reason for that is that it simply isn't.

AFAICT it's perfectly possible to collide with something without having broken Rule 5.

 

[sarabande]

years ago when I belonged to the RIN, there was a lot of technical discussion on how to present a ship's potentialposition on a radar screen, given her course, speed, and maneouvrering characteristics. I understand the light blue team call this an aircraft's envelope.

It was decided to call this a domain, and many a Japanese academic presented paper after paper on domain calculation and presentation.

When we are sailing in familiar waters, we have an "eidetic" image of the route in front of us, and the surrounding landmass, and - if you are good at it - the buoys and other marks. With a lot of experience people can project your own vessel's domain and that of other oncoming ships onto that eidetic map, and coupled with a bit of "what-iffery" and "OMG, the worst case is" generate a mental map with flashing red crosses where a collision might take place, unless you make an early decision to change course or speed and alter your own domain.

Sometimes, it's called common-sense, and I cannot see how any professionally qualified seaman, with a crew containing other PQ seamen, can possibly think that is wise, prudent or even moderately sensible to sail across the bows of a vessel which is 30 000 (yes, thirty thousand) times heavier than your own, and whose domain is inexpressibly larger and less flexible than your own.

The die for the collision was cast many minutes before the incident occurred. Atalanta had opportunity to keep out of th eway: she did not do so, but attempted to cut across the bows of a vessel legitimately making a well-known course to her destination; a course which is heavily constrained by precedent, case history, and extensively considered and developed legislation and local rules. They may be badly or confusedly written (as in the drafting of "Precautionary Area" in post#73) but there is no excuse for taking the risk of crossing a tanker's bows with such serious possible consequences.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Sometimes, it's called common-sense, and I cannot see how any professionally qualified seaman, with a crew containing other PQ seamen, can possibly think that is wise, prudent or even moderately sensible to sail across the bows of a vessel which is 30 000 (yes, thirty thousand) times heavier than your own, and whose domain is inexpressibly larger and less flexible than your own.

The die for the collision was cast many minutes before the incident occurred. Atalanta had opportunity to keep out of th eway: she did not do so, but attempted to cut across the bows of a vessel legitimately making a well-known course to her destination; a course which is heavily constrained by precedent, case history, and extensively considered and developed legislation and local rules. They may be badly or confusedly written (as in the drafting of "Precautionary Area" in post#73) but there is no excuse for taking the risk of crossing a tanker's bows with such serious possible consequences.

+1 to all that. They could have stayed out of the channel while the ship passed. It's only about 1000m wide there. I appreciate many of us wouldn't leave that kind of safety margin but IMHO it's still be prudent to do so.

However what makes good sense, and what the law requires are two different things. Plus the benefit of any doubt goes to the Atlanta.

 

[flaming]

Atalanta had opportunity to keep out of th eway: she did not do so, but attempted to cut across the bows

I don't think she did, I think their courses were almost reciprocal. In which case it's entirely possible that the right, no left, no right sound signals (and course alterations) of the tanker could have significantly affected the outcome.

After all it doesn't take a huge alteration of course from the tanker to take you from going down the port side, well out of the prohibited zone, to aiming straight at it. And if you can't then turn to port because you expect the tanker to turn that way at any moment, and you can't turn to starboard because your kite is preventing you, and you realise this with less than 30s to go....

Well, that's my theory anyway....

 

[l'escargot]

Indeed. But perhaps in the excitement of racing they thought they could get away with nipping across the Kanne Knutsen's bow. I wonder if they would have been prosecuted if the two boats had missed each other by ten feet?

Why would he have thought that? He would have been disqualified for entering the MPZ, it was no advantage to him.

 

[DAKA]

If the defence fail to switch the blame to the speeding, confusedly signalling tanker; the broken down mobo (what is Daka's boat called?);
I really am fascinated to learn what the defence argument is.

Not involved ............. this time , honest


If the doppy pillock gets away with this the only safe way forward would be the total ban of all boats (power and sail) from the whole of the shipping channels while a protected vessel is navigating within the channel.



Sarabande sums this up very well The die for the collision was cast many minutes before the incident occurred. Atalanta had opportunity to keep out of th eway: she did not do so, but attempted to cut across the bows of a vessel legitimately making a well-known course to her destination; a course which is heavily constrained by precedent, case history, and extensively considered and developed legislation and local rules. They may be badly or confusedly written (as in the drafting of "Precautionary Area" in post#73) but there is no excuse for taking the risk of crossing a tanker's bows with such serious possible consequences.

 

[l'escargot]

Not involved ............. this time , honest


If the doppy pillock gets away with this the only safe way forward would be the total ban of all boats (power and sail) from the whole of the shipping channels while a protected vessel is navigating within the channel.



Sarabande sums this up very well The die for the collision was cast many minutes before the incident occurred. Atalanta had opportunity to keep out of th eway: she did not do so, but attempted to cut across the bows of a vessel legitimately making a well-known course to her destination; a course which is heavily constrained by precedent, case history, and extensively considered and developed legislation and local rules. They may be badly or confusedly written (as in the drafting of "Precautionary Area" in post#73) but there is no excuse for taking the risk of crossing a tanker's bows with such serious possible consequences.

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?

 

[Groot T]

you know, given the 'confused signals' from the tanker, I would have though it be advantageous for the Yacht to signal back 'I am un-aware of your intentions'.

But then again, yachts don't need to fit horns, don't cha know..

 

[Angele]

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?

Snail, I think you should be defending Mr/Lt Wilson. Your postulations are putting a lot of doubt in my mind as to whether a guilty vedict is deserved. Far more than yesterday's "HK was speeding" and "why didn't the HK just stop and do a 180".

 

[savageseadog]

Not involved ............. this time , honest


If the doppy pillock gets away with this the only safe way forward would be the total ban of all boats (power and sail) from the whole of the shipping channels while a protected vessel is navigating within the channel.

[/I]

I was thinking myself that if this prosecution fails then more onerous rules may be introduced in the Solent and possibly elsewhere. It can be difficult to predict what vessels may do when manoeuvring in confined waters, that could apply to both commercials and yachts, at least some of the case may rest on whether the yacht could or should have foreseen the movements of the ship. Easiest way out of the problem would be to ban yachts entering channels where ships go and make yachts cross as per TSS's, ie at right angles.

 

[rotrax]

If the ship was jinking around all over the place.

What!!! Have you seen how big it is!

Ships dont jink!

It was the HANNE KNUTSEN-not the GARETH EDWARDS!

 

[John Barry]

What!!! Have you seen how big it is!

Ships dont jink!

It was the HANNE KNUTSEN-not the GARETH EDWARDS!

Perhaps if the ship is going to jink around the best solution would be to establish an exclusion zone around it - perhaps about 1000m ahead and 100m each side. Then you'd just have to keep out of the zone, and the ship could jink to its heart's content.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Perhaps if the ship is going to jink around the best solution would be to establish an exclusion zone around it - perhaps about 1000m ahead and 100m each side. Then you'd just have to keep out of the zone, and the ship could jink to its heart's content.

I thought that entering the exclusion zone was an offence in itself. If so I don't see why they didn't charge him with that? Or is 'impeding' what you do if you enter the exclusion zone? [1] If so is the ship required to hold a steady speed and course as required by Rule 17? Or is there some doubt if the exclusion zone applied or not?

Anyone provide a linky to the legal consequences of entering the exclusion zone?

[1] Impede sounds a bit IRPCS to me, rather than local by laws.

 

[A1Sailor]

Perhaps if the ship is going to jink around the best solution would be to establish an exclusion zone around it - perhaps about 1000m ahead and 100m each side. Then you'd just have to keep out of the zone, and the ship could jink to its heart's content.

Did you not play rugby for Wales with Gareth?