bilbao/Ouzo

[gjgm]

just reading this.. the yacht was spotted 300m away, a manoevre made, thought they'd missed it, so just sailed away,no effort at radio contact, leaving the three guys drowning. This wasnt some drug smuggler keen to keep quiet, it was a public ferry, professionally crewed. Thats horrendous.

 

[mainshiptom]

I will second that, a few times I have called ships and was ignored !

They are too busy or dont want to know?

Tom

 

[SP2]

Yes the report seems to say that the PofB thought they had passed a yacht 30 metres off their starboard side after emergency evasive action - at 19 knots! How could they possibly just sail on? No VHF contact, no reporting the incident to the coastguard, nothing

Thoughts are with the crew's families - what a tragic loss.

 

[DOK]

I'm slightly surprised the report has come out whilst the OOW is still facing manslaughter charges. I cannot believe this report will do him any favours. Mind you, with such an apparently cavalier attitude to other seafarers, he probably doesn't deserve any favours.

 

[theforeman]

[ QUOTE ]
with such an apparently cavalier attitude to other seafarers,

[/ QUOTE ]

the report seems not to reach that conclusion - see page 36.

 

[DOK]

OK, so the trick cyclist reckons he wasn't "deliberately cavalier", preferring to suggest he simply showed a "lack of appreciation". Ffs, he was a professional seaman, second officer on a bloody big boat and he didn't appreciate that passing that close to a small boat might have implications for the yacht /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif I may not be a psychologist but I still reckon his attitude was cavalier - from the dictionary: "adjective showing a lack of proper concern".

Interestingly, the report also comments on the lookout's glasses (a story also picked up tangentially in today's Times). Apparently, he wore prescription photochromatic lenses. His glasses were examined by University College London's Institute of Ophthalmology and they reckoned the light transmission of the lenses was no more than 80% efficient. They compare this to 94.7% and 99.4% for ordinary uncoated and coated glasses respectively. This was considered to have significantly reduced his chances of seeing the yacht's nav lights.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

For me, the really sobering conclusion from this report was that the MAIB proved that, despite having 2 fully functioning, correctly set up and correctly operated commercial radars, the Bilbao did not detect the Ouzo at any stage on either of it's radars and this was despite the Ouzo carrying an octahedral radar reflector. In contrast, Southampton VTS did detect the Ouzo leaving Bembridge
The MAIB report concluded that the reasons for this were the poor radar reflection of the yacht, poor performance of the reflector and the sea state which was flat in the Solent but moderate where the collision occured
IMHO, there are 2 issues for we motorboaters here. Firstly, if 2 commercial radars are not going to detect a yacht in moderate sea conditions, then what chance does a leisure boat type radar mounted much lower and operated in less ideal conditions have of detecting it? A lot less, I would suggest. Something to bear in mind when in poor viz. Secondly, if the Bilbao did'nt detect the Ouzo on radar, then it's just as likely it would'nt have seen a similar sized mobo in similar conditions so, in poor viz, it would be well to assume that you have'nt been detected by any large ship radar. Scary thought crossing the Channel shipping lanes in fog?

 

[duncan]

add the use of auto clutter to the conditions just to finish the likely scenario.

interestingly a smaller craft with lower mounted radar would probably stand a better chance of seeing the yacht at around a mile because of the angles - although it would be an intermittent hit.

 

[jmmt]

I was a watch keeper for 10 years on ocean going vessels. There were normally two pairs of eyes watching out. There was the sailor on the focsle and me on the bridge. In restricted waters and poor visibility I would normally also have at least two radars. Quite a lot of support in keeping a lookout for other vessels! However I have to admit that I had a few close encounters with vessels of all kinds over these years and although to the best of my knowledge we never ran anything over, except for whales, it is better never to assume that the Bridge has seen you...

 

[Bergman]

Yes

I find this most confusing

The MCA did a reconstruction of the assumed voyage following the track recorded on VTS radar.

Despite having no radar reflector deployed VTS was able to track the yacht to a point close to where the Ouzo disappeared from the screen.

All this alleged/assumed and will almost certainly will be challenged in court.

The obvious point is why can VTS radar track a yacht when 2 radars on PoB cannot detect it.

The explanation is sea clutter - but PoB should have started detecting Ouzo a long way before a collision became a possibility, and at a range similar or greater than when VTS detected her leaving Bembridge.

It seems clear from VTS ability to track the simulated voyage without a radar reflector equally as well as the original voyage with a reflector (assumed) that the reflector was totally useless.

The mounting angle seems to be blamed for this but of course on a yacht the angle is always going to vary because of the heeling of the boat.

All very unsatisfactory. The court case, if it goes ahead will be very interesting.

Personally - I wouldn't go near the channel shipping lanes in fog.