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.