Colregs, big mobo/small sailboat, on Hamble and similar

[winch2]

Are you sure it was 'yachtie arrogance'?

I rather thought it was failure to keep a lookout as the enquiry found.

I didnt agree with the enquiries conclusion at all. The idea that you play nip and tuck with a huge tanker in such tight confines has nothing to do with keeping a look out per se, as any "competent skipper" should have been studying the ships trajectory for hours. In my mind it was...."We're racing off the Squadron, everyones looking at us and darned if that thing is gonna make us look like whimps or, spoil our fun", so to speak.
Mrs Winch put it another way which involved waving something but I refrain from uttering it in polite company.

 

[flaming]

I didnt agree with the enquiries conclusion at all. The idea that you play nip and tuck with a huge tanker in such tight confines has nothing to do with keeping a look out per se, as any "competent skipper" should have been studying the ships trajectory for hours. In my mind it was...."We're racing off the Squadron, everyones looking at us and darned if that thing is gonna make us look like whimps or, spoil our fun", so to speak.
Mrs Winch put it another way which involved waving something but I refrain from uttering it in polite company.

That is a complete misunderstanding of what caused that incident.

Let me spell it out for you.

EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made took it AWAY from its next mark. EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made tried to take it South of the ship's course.
It was categorically NOT an "arrogant racer chancing his arm" situation. Ironically if it had been, and he'd have kept going towards his next mark there would not have been a collision. It was actually his misguided attempts to get out of the way that caused the collision.

It was, purely and simply, a complete misreading of the situation by the skipper and crew of the yacht. They were clearly fixated on the fact it was about to turn to Starboard, and did not want to be on its starboard bow. But failed to realise that they'd actually already crossed its track, and trying to get to the Port side of the ship took them back across the bow.

Have a look at this reconstruction, and understand that his next mark is the one next to South Bramble. Then try and argue that it's an arrogant racer chancing his arm heading for his next mark across the bow of a ship.

 

[capnsensible]

I didnt agree with the enquiries conclusion at all. The idea that you play nip and tuck with a huge tanker in such tight confines has nothing to do with keeping a look out per se, as any "competent skipper" should have been studying the ships trajectory for hours. In my mind it was...."We're racing off the Squadron, everyones looking at us and darned if that thing is gonna make us look like whimps or, spoil our fun", so to speak.
Mrs Winch put it another way which involved waving something but I refrain from uttering it in polite company.

There is so much wrong with that post I don't even know where to begin.....

 

[capnsensible]

Well never mind professional mariners conduction an in depth enquiry with access to ais tracks, radar, port authority launch witnesses, bridge recordings and more accurate information, they clearly completely overlooked that the yacht skipper was showing off. What a mistake to make.

 

[flaming]

Well never mind professional mariners conduction an in depth enquiry with access to ais tracks, radar, port authority launch witnesses, bridge recordings and more accurate information, they clearly completely overlooked that the yacht skipper was showing off. What a mistake to make.

To be honest the main issue was that it wasn't an inquiry, it was a prosecution. As a result of which it was of far, far less use to understanding the actual route cause than a MAIB report would have been.

 

[capnsensible]

To be honest the main issue was that it wasn't an inquiry, it was a prosecution. As a result of which it was of far, far less use to understanding the actual route cause than a MAIB report would have been.

So what difference would that have made to the investigation? Same track, same collision. Can't see how an MAIB report could have drawn any alternative conclusion with the identical evidence.

Perhaps they've got a special show off rule?

 

[winch2]

EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made took it AWAY from its next mark. EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made tried to take it South of the ship's course.
It was categorically NOT an "arrogant racer chancing his arm" situation. Ironically if it had been, and he'd have kept going towards his next mark there would not have been a collision. It was actually his misguided attempts to get out of the way that caused the collision.

Courses, marks?. At the end of the day he rammed his yacht on purpose into a tanker because he was .."racing"? and your defending the racing fraternity come what may? He should have aborted the race and gone down wind before he even reached the ship. In my book its called Seamanship.

 

[flaming]

Courses, marks?. At the end of the day he rammed his yacht on purpose into a tanker because he was .."racing"? and your defending the racing fraternity come what may? He should have aborted the race and gone down wind before he even reached the ship. In my book its called Seamanship.

Dribble.

 

[flaming]

So what difference would that have made to the investigation? Same track, same collision. Can't see how an MAIB report could have drawn any alternative conclusion with the identical evidence.

Perhaps they've got a special show off rule?

No, the point is that the job of a prosecutor is to paint the worst possible light, and the job of the defendant's lawyer is to present the best possible light, then all we get is a one word "Guilty".

There's no objective analysis that shows us what the flawed thinking was that put him there. There's no learning that those of us who race in that area can take and either measure against our own processes, or adapt our thinking to. There's no learning for the patrol boat skipper (who, lest we forget was on his first day in the role of skipper) as to how to communicate more clearly with boats he wants to change course. No learning that ABP could maybe have not scheduled the first day of a new patrol boat skipper during Cowes Week....
Perhaps there could have been learnings along the line of the patrol boat said "start your engine and clear the area" but was that actually the best thing to say? Would "gybe now" have been better? We don't know, because all we got was "guilty".

 

[flaming]

Courses, marks?. At the end of the day he rammed his yacht on purpose into a tanker because he was .."racing"? and your defending the racing fraternity come what may? He should have aborted the race and gone down wind before he even reached the ship. In my book its called Seamanship.

I mean, good grief "On purpose"..

He didn't crash his boat because he was racing. He crashed his boat because he failed to actually understand the situation he was in. I'm absolutely not defending his seamanship, his situational awareness, his thought process or the outcome. I'm just pointing out that repeatedly turning his boat AWAY from the mark he was trying to get to does not match the analysis of "racer chancing their arm". If he was chancing his arm he'd have kept going to where he was trying to get to. And ironically enough wouldn't have crashed into anything,

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Mark-1]

EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made took it AWAY from its next mark. EVERY alteration of course that the yacht made tried to take it South of the ship's course.
It was categorically NOT an "arrogant racer chancing his arm" situation. Ironically if it had been, and he'd have kept going towards his next mark there would not have been a collision. It was actually his misguided attempts to get out of the way that caused the collision.

I'm probably covering old ground here but whatever the escort vessel said didn't help one bit.

I'll try to hunt out the original thread, I've forgotten all the detail, and it's more interesting than I remember.

 

[capnsensible]

No, the point is that the job of a prosecutor is to paint the worst possible light, and the job of the defendant's lawyer is to present the best possible light, then all we get is a one word "Guilty".

There's no objective analysis that shows us what the flawed thinking was that put him there. There's no learning that those of us who race in that area can take and either measure against our own processes, or adapt our thinking to. There's no learning for the patrol boat skipper (who, lest we forget was on his first day in the role of skipper) as to how to communicate more clearly with boats he wants to change course. No learning that ABP could maybe have not scheduled the first day of a new patrol boat skipper during Cowes Week....
Perhaps there could have been learnings along the line of the patrol boat said "start your engine and clear the area" but was that actually the best thing to say? Would "gybe now" have been better? We don't know, because all we got was "guilty".

Well I'm not sure another ream of maib lessons learnt will produce anything productive even supposing people actually bother to read it. Bet most posters on here don't even know what it is.

The point of the prosecution, if you prefer, is a real attention grabber to wake people up into keeping a good look out. At which, it's clearly done its job. Lesson, big one, learnt. Despite the conflict of interest between leisure vessels and commercial craft it doesn't appear to be a place where accidents happen often, so I guess it's safe enough for most of us. Plus, of course, several lawyers have fatter wallets...

I would liked to have had this guide all the years I sailed in the Solent. Would have been useful to explain stuff to students.

Solent Handbook


The troller on this thread is just making stuff up. Takes all sorts, I suppose.

 

[flaming]

The point of the prosecution, if you prefer, is a real attention grabber to wake people up into keeping a good look out. At which, it's clearly done its job. Lesson, big one, learnt.

From observations on this forum, I'd say if that was the plan it's backfired. The prosecution has allowed plenty of people to dismiss the incident as relevant to them because they keep a good lookout and don't go chancing their arm with ships.

Keeping a good lookout was never the issue. They saw the big tanker in plenty of time. Nor was chancing their arm. They just fundamentally misunderstood the path it would take relative to their own course.

But because he was prosecuted for failing to keep a lookout, not "getting it wrong" no analysis of why that was has ever been done, other than by amateurs like us on forums with second hand info.

 

[capnsensible]

Well 11 years later it still seems to have an instant recall factor!

As a 100k fine tends to do.

Anyway, the point of this thread seems to be some people want to make IRPCS as complicated to apply as they possibly can, whist others find them simple.

Plus 1 troll.

 

[B27]

No, the point is that the job of a prosecutor is to paint the worst possible light, and the job of the defendant's lawyer is to present the best possible light, then all we get is a one word "Guilty".

There's no objective analysis that shows us what the flawed thinking was that put him there. There's no learning that those of us who race in that area can take and either measure against our own processes, or adapt our thinking to. There's no learning for the patrol boat skipper (who, lest we forget was on his first day in the role of skipper) as to how to communicate more clearly with boats he wants to change course. No learning that ABP could maybe have not scheduled the first day of a new patrol boat skipper during Cowes Week....
Perhaps there could have been learnings along the line of the patrol boat said "start your engine and clear the area" but was that actually the best thing to say? Would "gybe now" have been better? We don't know, because all we got was "guilty".

That year, IIRC, there was also an 'exclusion zone' for the boats racing, to keep them away from the Island shore, for some crowd entertainment racing along the Green etc. This put more pressure on some boats to go towards the ship channel area.

 

[flaming]

Well 11 years later it still seems to have an instant recall factor!

That's more the video than the fine I think!

 

[flaming]

That year, IIRC, there was also an 'exclusion zone' for the boats racing, to keep them away from the Island shore, for some crowd entertainment racing along the Green etc. This put more pressure on some boats to go towards the ship channel area.

Yes, there was. That's where the famous video comes from, the "extreme 40s" racing.

 

[oldgit]

MAIB, their primary interest is revealing what happened and why, especially the events leading up to any "incident."
They do not have any powers to take legal action .
From memory the MCA cannot use the MAIB report as evidence, should MCA decide to prosecute, they must assemble their own evidence for any court action.

 

[Never Grumble]

I would liked to have had this guide all the years I sailed in the Solent. Would have been useful to explain stuff to students.
Solent Handbook
The troller on this thread is just making stuff up. Takes all sorts, I suppose.

I've never really made a note of ships outbound from Southampton until recent but does anyone know if they publish which way they will go once through the precautionary area i.e. North or South of Ryde Middle? Just the other month a departing cruise ship got very excited about one yacht reporting him to VTS but I was slightly bemused as to how the yacht was to predict which side of Ryde Middle the cruise ship would sail?

Some people just wont agree there is a different approach which is more than equally valid.

 

[bedouin]

From observations on this forum, I'd say if that was the plan it's backfired. The prosecution has allowed plenty of people to dismiss the incident as relevant to them because they keep a good lookout and don't go chancing their arm with ships.

Keeping a good lookout was never the issue. They saw the big tanker in plenty of time. Nor was chancing their arm. They just fundamentally misunderstood the path it would take relative to their own course.

But because he was prosecuted for failing to keep a lookout, not "getting it wrong" no analysis of why that was has ever been done, other than by amateurs like us on forums with second hand info.

Perhaps it really was the issue - strange he should be convicted of it otherwise. Looking at the few seconds of video there is it seems hard to work out why he stood on - surely had he seen the tanker he would have done something