Circus in Newtown Creek

[SlowlyButSurely]

Following on slightly from the last post about lack of seamanship, did anyone hear the Pan Pan call on Saturday afternoon from a yacht called "Circus" which was having difficulty in Newtown Creek?

The initial call was somewhat confused but seemed to indicate that the yacht was aground and drifting around wildly with the anchor fouled and dragging. The confused (and very patient coastguard) attempted to establish exactly what the problem was and after about 20 minutes of questioning decided the best option was to send out Lymington lifeboat.

As far as I could ascertain, the problem seemed to be that the yacht's anchor was down but with insufficient scope to enable it to hold and they were unable to bring it up again because the windlass would not work.

Unfortunately I didn't have time to listen to the conclusion of the incident. Does anyone know what the outcome was?

 

[tome]

Should draw your attention to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. 'Naming and shaming' isn't a good idea:

(1) A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a
designated person—
(a) he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information
as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by
means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person
on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b) he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such
a message.

 

[fireball]

You could argue back the otherway - by issuing a PAN PAN the yacht in trouble was addressing everyone within range ... therefore everyone was the intended recipient ... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[tome]

Doesn't make any difference. He was addressing all licenced users, not a public forum

Consider the implications of a person in distress failing to make the call for fear of public ridicule here or elsewhere

 

[SteveB_Sigma33]

Seems a little harsh Tome.

I'm sure Slowlybut surely just wants to establish what happened and perhaps why. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned for all of us here. Is there something lurking in Newtown creek that bites anchors?

As with regards to someone not putting out a cry for help for fear of ridicule here well that's just plain daft.

 

[fireball]

I'll repeat my /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

but b4 you get too hot under the collar (it is nice outside atm isn't it!) there have been quite a few occurrences on here of discussing a boats action following VHF comms ... I'm not saying it is right - just that it has happened and SBS is just following trend ... don't be too harsh!

 

[Slow_boat]

Do we all have to be frightened of legislation all the time? I can't wait for my retirement cruise!

 

[[2068]]

It would have been better to say "A Yacht in Newtown Creek", without actually naming the yacht. That's all.

I've had more than my fair share of anchoring fiascos in Newtown Creek myself, but it was my choice to own up to them /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

dv.

 

[fireball]

Do tell us! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[tome]

Sorry if you think I'm being harsh - certainly not hot under the collar and looking forward to sneaking off down the boat for some light teak scrubbing later today

The fact is I believe this is a very important principle, and there for a good reason. I agree that other incidents of VHF traffic have been discussed here, but think we shouldn't be so specific and certainly not name the vessel. After all, if you hold a VHF licence you have specifically agreed not to

Had the question been 'Anyone know the outcome to the boat in Newtown Creek calling for help with an anchoring problem' I wouldn't have objected

 

[fireball]

Didn't have a problem with your pointing out the rules at all .. just seemed a harsh way of doing so ...

if you'd posted what you've put above I wouldn't have objected! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[l'escargot]

But can you demonstrate he used wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information? It would seem without intent, there is no offence. I don't think the DPP will run with this one.

 

[tome]

Did you miss the little 'or' at the end of the para to which you refer?

 

[Bergman]

Is there a good reason for this clause, or is it simply a throwback to the days of link calls which the drafters couldn't be bothered to leave out.

 

[Achillesheel]

Notwithstanding all of the above, did the yacht in question receive assistance and did the situation get resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned?

 

[Bergman]

I don't have a clue mate

I'd rather take up golf than sail in the Solent.

 

[alldownwind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a clue mate

I'd rather take up golf than sail in the Solent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless.
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]


I'd rather take up golf than sail in the Solent.

[/ QUOTE ] Surely it can't be that bad?

 

[jhr]

He's exaggerating; nothing's that bad. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Slow_boat]

but it's close