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

[flaming]

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

We had very long threads at the time. It was generally accepted by both sides that they had seen it a long way off, but still managed to be in the wrong place.... If I recall correctly the defense centered on the ship sounding starboard, but not turning, then sounding port and turning to port. The collision then took place before the eventual turn to Starboard. On the face of it you can understand not wanting to be on the starboard bow of a ship that you know is about to turn to Starboard, and has in fact started and then aborted a turn to starboard already.

Obviously he lost the case. But whether that defense had any part in why he was there is partly why I think a MAIB investigation where conclusions on root causes could be made by an independent professional, rather than him being prosecuted in a court of law would have been a lot more use to the sailing community.

 

[benjenbav]

The reason Roland Wilson was charged with failing to keep a proper lookout was bcs that’s tantamount to being the maritime equivalent of careless driving and was a charge with clear parameters that the prosecution, in this case, felt confident of proving.

 

[bedouin]

We had very long threads at the time. It was generally accepted by both sides that they had seen it a long way off, but still managed to be in the wrong place.... If I recall correctly the defense centered on the ship sounding starboard, but not turning, then sounding port and turning to port. The collision then took place before the eventual turn to Starboard. On the face of it you can understand not wanting to be on the starboard bow of a ship that you know is about to turn to Starboard, and has in fact started and then aborted a turn to starboard already.

Obviously he lost the case. But whether that defense had any part in why he was there is partly why I think a MAIB investigation where conclusions on root causes could be made by an independent professional, rather than him being prosecuted in a court of law would have been a lot more use to the sailing community.

Yes - seems clear that he had seen the ship and taken reasonable steps to avoid it's expected course- and the helm on the ship must have some responsibility for dithering.

But do you think say 30 seconds before the collision he knew where the ship was? Even then turning hard to port would have avoided the collision. It seems quite likely to me that he didn't know and so would be guilty of not keeping a proper lookout.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Yes - seems clear that he had seen the ship and taken reasonable steps to avoid it's expected course- and the helm on the ship must have some responsibility for dithering.

But do you think say 30 seconds before the collision he knew where the ship was? Even then turning hard to port would have avoided the collision. It seems quite likely to me that he didn't know and so would be guilty of not keeping a proper lookout.

I would suggest he knew exactly where the ship was, furthermore I would suggest his eyes were glued to the thing such that his judgement was severely impaired, much like a rabbit in the headlights. The idea that he somehow lost sight of the ship he had been trying to keep clear of for several minutes seems bizarre to me. He just screwed up, not uncommon in crisis situations.

 

[capnsensible]

Another mystery solved by the Forum Accident Investigation Board.

Might just as well go for thr showing off theory.....

 

[finestgreen]

If he didn't take into account information available to him about where the ship was going to go relative to his own boat, that's a failure to keep a proper lookout.

(I have no opinion on whether that's the case, just I don't think "he knew it was there" is enough)

 

[Chiara’s slave]

"with him altering course to follow the channel"
In which case you should have known where he was going. He has in his sights the turn at Egypt point and the tidal stream off there as we all know is brutal even for a big ship and it all needs to be taken into account.
At the end of the day you can crow all you like re Colregs but as Ive already said in narrow coastal waters with a preponderance of commercial shipping, mighty is always going to be righty and you study the Pilotage and sail accordingly.
When I go out for a sail I spend my time sailing 'around' them and not confronting them,a concept which has given us many many years of enjoyable sailing.

Once again, I thought you said you were a Solent sailor, yet you seem to imagine this incident happened in the deep water channel from Southampton water. Do you not know where the Needles channel is, or Hurst Point? He was at least 8 miles from Egypt point, and in a channel well over a mile wide. Guessing where exactly he’d end up after his turn, maybe you’re better at that than me. But we had to judge as best we could at the time, and it was far closer than I would have preferred, we had about a minute of concussed wind afterwards. I maintain that was due to his utter contempt for other craft, rather than necessarily a breach of colregs, but pretty sure if the excreta had hit the rotator, it would have been down to him.

 

[Frank Holden]

Colregs question please. Context is narrow channels (eg Hamble), good viz, vessels in sight of each other, no overtaking going on, close quarters risk of collision between a yacht under sail not motor (say a dinghy, or a 10-15m sailing vessel) and a powerboat of 30m. I'm asking here on s'butt mainly to get input from cruising sailors and dinghy sailors/racers.

Willing to stand corrected but I thought it was forbidden for 'yachts' ( dunno about sailing dinghies) to be under sail on the Hamble?
I read that somewhere, I haven't sailed on the Hamble since 1965, they tell me things have changed.

 

[finestgreen]

Willing to stand corrected but I thought it was forbidden for 'yachts' ( dunno about sailing dinghies) to be under sail on the Hamble?
I read that somewhere, I haven't sailed on the Hamble since 1965, they tell me things have changed.

Nothing in the byelaws:

https://www.hants.gov.uk/thingstodo/hambleharbour/safety/byelaws

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Willing to stand corrected but I thought it was forbidden for 'yachts' ( dunno about sailing dinghies) to be under sail on the Hamble?
I read that somewhere, I haven't sailed on the Hamble since 1965, they tell me things have changed.

Don’t think that’s the case now in the Hamble. Certainly see plenty of folks under sail, not normally any kind of problem. Portsmouth does require that sailing vessels equipped with an engine must use it when entering / leaving.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I much prefer to motor in the Hamble. We are probably wider than most 30 metre power boats though

 

[Frank Holden]

Nothing in the byelaws:

https://www.hants.gov.uk/thingstodo/hambleharbour/safety/byelaws

Golly, no steam hooters allowed!!!
Killjoys!
Bit of a bugger that I can no longer land my flying boat on the river.
But I can be 'Master of a Pontoon'.
I I think that is up there with being Captain of the Heads.

 

[Stemar]

Don’t think that’s the case now in the Hamble. Certainly see plenty of folks under sail, not normally any kind of problem. Portsmouth does require that sailing vessels equipped with an engine must use it when entering / leaving.

And that vessels under sail are treated as though under power.

I had to come in under sail in my Snapdragon several years ago. W 6, gusting 7, so totally unpredictable past the fort. I still bear the mental scars

 

[Mark-1]

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

I re-read the original thread last night. (You were one of the better contributers.)

He'd clearly seen the tanker and took early decisive action to go round its stern which any one of us at the time would have thought reasonable. He absolutely did not stand on.

Really everything he did makes logical sense and is consistent with him seeing the ship and responding to what he could see. You could argue he should have dropped the kite to give himself more options and/or put the engine on, but failing to do so wasn't bat poo crazy.

I suspect all Solent Sailors, including me, are pretty nervous of that point where the ships make their turn precisely because we instinctively know its easy to sail yourself into a point where there's no good option.

At this distance in time I'm struck by the fact that the Escort Vessel are somehow deemed blameless when whatever they said didn't help the situation one bit. An aggressive "Get out of the ****** way" doesn't help when the vessel has no way to know which way out of the way is. They seem to have added anxiety without offering the slightest help. (For instance: "Leave the kite up and follow us to the North East", would have solved the whole problem, I suspect the reason they didn't say that is because they also had no idea exactly where the ship was going.)

It's harsh but fair that he was convicted of the last two charges, but there's no way he was guilty of the failure to keep a lookout. At 11 years distance I have a lot more sympathy for the yacht than I did at the time.

Of course, dropping the kite and beating back upwind at first sight of the ship would have avoided the whole issue but in the real world few people would do that IME. (We could also quibble about the yacht's actions at the very bitter end, and I'm sure we can all develop our own theories on that.)

 

[flaming]

Yes - seems clear that he had seen the ship and taken reasonable steps to avoid it's expected course- and the helm on the ship must have some responsibility for dithering.

But do you think say 30 seconds before the collision he knew where the ship was? Even then turning hard to port would have avoided the collision. It seems quite likely to me that he didn't know and so would be guilty of not keeping a proper lookout.

I said at the time, and the intervening 13 years haven't changed my mind, that I think it's probably a case of "solution fixation". I.e he'd decided to avoid the ship by passing port to port, and stuck with that plan well after it should have been clear that it wasn't going to work.

 

[flaming]

At this distance in time I'm struck by the fact that the Escort Vessel are somehow deemed blameless when whatever they said didn't help the situation one bit. An aggressive "Get out of the ****** way" doesn't help when the vessel has no way to know which way out of the way is. They seem to have added anxiety without offering the slightest help. (For instance: "Leave the kite up and follow us to the North East", would have solved the whole problem, I suspect the reason they didn't say that is because they also had no idea exactly where the ship was going.)

On this I absolutely agree. It always struck me as odd that the escort vessel (who's whole reason to exist is to prevent exactly this) seemed to escape any censure, or really any questioning as to what role it played, or didn't play. Especially as it was the chap in charge's first day as skipper. And on that, you'd say "what sort of organisation puts someone into a new job on the very hardest day's work of the year?"

But because we got a prosecution we didn't get a MAIB report. Which might have at least addressed the role of the escort vessel,

 

[finestgreen]

But because we got a prosecution we didn't get a MAIB report.

Is this a rule?

 

[flaming]

Is this a rule?

I don't know if it's official, but it seems to be...

 

[MisterBaxter]

There is, or used to be, an annual prize within the publishing trade for the book with the most bizarre or ridiculous name. A book called 'How to avoid huge ships' by John Trimmer won the prize one year, and I think came third in a later 'all time greats' ranking of all past prize-winners. I felt at the time that it was by no means a ridiculous topic for a book. If I sailed in an area with any amount of shipping in a confined space, I'd certainly buy a copy and study it with both care and interest.

 

[benjenbav]

I don't know if it's official, but it seems to be...

As mentioned, not keeping a proper lookout is something of a default charge.

In circumstances like Atalanta/Hanne Knutsen, where there’s no loss of life, nothing much to be learned beyond observe the moving prohibition zone in the precautionary area and the case against Roland Wilson was easily proved, it’s always going to be difficult to justify spending public money on an MAIB enquiry.