guernseyman
Well-Known Member
Today the Guernsey Press comments that while the captain was banned for 5 years, the first officer is 'free to do it again'.
Condor ferry crew to stand trial for death of French fisherman
- Thread starter guernseyman
- Start date
Today the Guernsey Press comments that while the captain was banned for 5 years, the first officer is 'free to do it again'.
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
Since you seem to have it all figured out, I will put you on the spot - what do you think would have been a safe speed?
pathfinderstu
Well-Known Member
+ 2 .
Exactly what I was thinking. The collision regs regarding speed in fog etc were made long before radar was invented when you had to feel your way past ships using sound signals
Exactly what I was thinking. The collision regs regarding speed in fog etc were made long before radar was invented when you had to feel your way past ships using sound signals
DanWash
Member
This kind of thing cannot be tolerated. I do see that Condor are under huge pressure to provide a flawless service. I swear I am not exaggerating when I say a late ferry makes the front page of the local paper (that everybody reads) under the banner of 'travel misery'. However as a local recreational boat owner it scares me half to death every time I come across it. I passed it at the very spot of the sinking not 3 weeks ago. The ticket buying public need to realise that good seamanship is not always compatible with their plans and just deal with it. I'm afraid I think the sentences are a joke, I know jail time will not bring the any comfort to bereaved families, but it just may save my family and friends from being mowed down if the skipper knew a long prison term awaited those who navigate with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
DanWash
Member
BTW installed AIS as a result of being scared of the beast, if any of you are wondering if its worth the money - the answer is yes! every last penny!
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
The Owners may agree but the Charterers will most probably not and then the disputes begin.
Many ships with large engines cannot operate for any length of time at low speed as their engines are not designed for that purpose.
Setting the speed limits by reference to engine settings, say; Half Ahead to be the limit. This would result that 15 knots would be half speed for the Condor but well in excess of the Full Ahead for other vessels.
Slow running means that some ships have to change to Marine Gas Oil (MGO) to function rather than Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO) which is very thick. This doubles (approx.) the cost of fuel whilst using MG instead of IFO. The low sulphur oil is also required. Who will pay?
You could argue for 8 knots maximum but that then leads to longer encounters and the ferry chap is correct in his assertion that speed for a vessel capable of operating much more quickly than those around them can make a huge difference.
In short, proper bridge management (seamanship we used to call it), a good look out by all available means and an ability to stop in the visible distance (better half the distance) is what is required. And 'Yes' (IMHO) the sentences make a mockery of the results of the incident but are appropriate to the crime itself.
DanWash
Member
Reading the beamer report and the transcripts, although the tits and arse discussion is disappointing, its actually only a small exchange - the bulk of their time seems to have been taken up discussing routine (?) random drugs testing for the crew. The report makes one recommendation which I can't believe isn't law / SOP/ guidelines already - a sterile bridge, like a commercial aircraft, nobody would think of trying to have a discussion / paperwork filling exercise with a pilot whist (s)he flew the aircraft, why would anybody think it appropriate in a ferry doing 38knts in shoal waters?!
guernseyman
Well-Known Member
But the fast Condors have four engines. They could reduce speed by using fewer. In their early days, with frequent engine problems, we often saw them crawling along under reduced power.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the "going slower to reduce time exposed argument"? It sounds a bit like driving down the high street at 70 mph so there's less chance someone pulls out in front of you. Being in fog at 20 knots instead of 10 knots might reduce the chance of a side-on collision but only if you make the assumption that you wouldn't be able to avoid that collision by reducing your speed. It makes the consequences of a collision far worse as well.
Radar, even a fairly modern military set costing up to a million or so and with a skilled operator, can't spot everything in all conditions and a small boat at sea is one of the hardest targets. I can't speak for the very latest military kit but I'm pretty certain there aren't many civilian boats around with anything even vaguely approaching the level of ability of the military stuff. Anyone who thinks relying on radar for collision avoidance is acceptable is kidding themselves. It reduces the chance in zero-vis but that's all.
In clear visibility you handle your vessel in such a way that you can avoid collisions no matter what the other vessel does - that's a basic tenet of col regs. It doesn't always work once you're in to close quarters pilotage in channels, harbours and marinas but then other rules usually apply anyway.
When visibility is reduced and a safe speed becomes much lower some people seem to be accepting a risk of collision with others, even though it's simply because they can't avoid it at the speed they are travelling at. The only reason I can think of for that is because they feel their journey and their need to be somewhere in a hurry is so important that they decide it's acceptable to put other's lives at a greater risk than necessary.
It doesn't matter if it's a ferry, a fishing boat, a yacht, a speed boat or even a warship. You reduce speed to such a level that you can stop in time to avoid a collision. That's where the expression "feeling your way through the fog" comes from.
The Master of that ferry should be in prison for manslaughter.
Radar, even a fairly modern military set costing up to a million or so and with a skilled operator, can't spot everything in all conditions and a small boat at sea is one of the hardest targets. I can't speak for the very latest military kit but I'm pretty certain there aren't many civilian boats around with anything even vaguely approaching the level of ability of the military stuff. Anyone who thinks relying on radar for collision avoidance is acceptable is kidding themselves. It reduces the chance in zero-vis but that's all.
In clear visibility you handle your vessel in such a way that you can avoid collisions no matter what the other vessel does - that's a basic tenet of col regs. It doesn't always work once you're in to close quarters pilotage in channels, harbours and marinas but then other rules usually apply anyway.
When visibility is reduced and a safe speed becomes much lower some people seem to be accepting a risk of collision with others, even though it's simply because they can't avoid it at the speed they are travelling at. The only reason I can think of for that is because they feel their journey and their need to be somewhere in a hurry is so important that they decide it's acceptable to put other's lives at a greater risk than necessary.
It doesn't matter if it's a ferry, a fishing boat, a yacht, a speed boat or even a warship. You reduce speed to such a level that you can stop in time to avoid a collision. That's where the expression "feeling your way through the fog" comes from.
The Master of that ferry should be in prison for manslaughter.
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
That expression is from pre-radar days. Are you suggesting that vessels come to a full stop in zero vis? How practical is that?
DanWash
Member
To be fair with the dual radar set up on the Condor boats you can see pot markers, small boats, birds even. There was no trouble 'seeing' the Marquesis it's simply that everybody was too engaged having a chat to do anything about it. That's what angers me - it's just pure negligence. 38knots may be excessive in fog, it may not, maybe 20 would have been more appropriate, bottom line - they had expensive top end kit, which they failed to use , they could have killed somebody travelling at 6 knots in those circumstances. I personally feel that 38knots is too fast if you are relying solely on radar, a slower speed (even by 10knots) would increase the time you have to search for and identify targets by 25%, but I'm a recreational sailor, not an commercial HSC skipper, in any case as I said, they weren't looking anyway. BTW - Mariner69 , surely the sentence must be influenced by the out come of the crime? I see the luck rather than judgement aspect, but if you cause death or injury on the road through negligence you can expect a harsher punishment than if you had merely damaged property.
Babylon
Well-Known Member
For goodness' sake, I can see every little boat (except perhaps an inflatable under oars) on my inexpensive entry-level Furuno..!
The bottom line is that it was speed PLUS inattention that killed.
I hope the bereaved families have adequate access to the law to enable them to succeed in their civil action against the company.
The bottom line is that it was speed PLUS inattention that killed.
I hope the bereaved families have adequate access to the law to enable them to succeed in their civil action against the company.
pathfinderstu
Well-Known Member
Well am out of this thread, before I get angry about the utter tosh a lot of people are posting on this here, people who have probably never stepped foot on the bridge of a ship, unqualified, inexperienced and the worrying thing to me is that they seem to believe that they are right.
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
Strange but to a great extent true.
You will note the often loud and painful cry from the loved ones after a motor 'accident' where due to somebodies negligence their loved one has been killed. The case proceeds to court say as 'Driving Without Due Care and Attention' and the case sentence is based on the tariff for that offence. Ten dead may be taken to heighten the level of sentencing but not by ten times the sentence for one dead person.
The actual crime is what the charge is based upon.
Murder/manslaughter are two different levels of charge based on the death of one person. The choice of charge by the prosecutor has a great influence on the outcome. A lesser charge may be easier for a jury to accept on the same evidence than a more draconian charge.
It is a finely tuned task for the prosecuting authority to chose the intended route to a form of 'justice'. Where the crime is considered to be relatively minor (and to some extent occurs often ) then the crime will be dealt with in a relatively light manner. Where the result of the crime has been severe there will be a split away from the perceived level of the crime and the tragic outcome. The sentencing tariff does not have enough range to cover the demands for retribution ranging from a death sentence to a smacked hand.
The crime of failing to maintain an adequate lookout can have many outcomes from near miss, bent metal, to large scale pollution and/or a substantial number of deaths. When the original sentencing tariff was designed it would allow a range of options based on the normal expected outcomes and the perceived state response for the good of society as a whole.
To summarise it is an imperfect world.
Criminalising seafarers has become more common worldwide over the last few years and is an area of concern. Masters and officers have been locked up for prolonged periods for crimes that are not directly their own. An engine room worker, officer or rating, opens a sealed valve and oil pollution occurs it is the Master who is prosecuted as the Owner's representative. Some Owners are not at all supportive of the Master and have been known to walk away. Moving their assets as quick as they can to a suitable holding jurisdiction.
In the "LADY GWENDOLEN" & "THE FRESHFIELD" [1965] 1 Lloyd's Rep 335, the F was at anchor in the Mersey in thick fog. The LG running at full speed with radar on collided with her. The radar was glanced at but not continuously monitored. The court found that the Master had been a habitual speeder in fog in an effort to maintain the vessel's schedule.
If I recall correctly, the Owners had saved money by only employing an Engineer Superintendent rather than both Marine & Engineering supers. A Mariner Super would be expected to pick up from the log book and talk to the Master about the speeding in fog. The Owner was penalised financially in that he was not allowed to limit his liability.
If the new concept of Corporate Manslaughter was carried back into the Owner's office and followed though then the Master might receive more support in reducing speeds for fog and failing to meet timetables.
It will not stop the occasions where attention wanders during a discussion on the merits of the last run ashore and the tragic consequences thereof.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
At least reduce speed such that the impact is a clang rather than a death. Many vessels used to anchor in fog rather than risk it.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
You can't - you may be seeing 90% or more but, having been involved with a lot of radar testing, both maritime and airborne, I can guarantee your set cannot see every little boat.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
You can see some of the pot markers, birds, etc. on the Condor ferry radar but, unless they have installed microwave FMCW and conditions are suitable, you cannot see them all. Frankly I'd be very surprised in Condor's radar saw a fraction of the pot markers out there, especially given the height above the waterline it's at.
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
If you advocate vessels anchoring when it gets foggy, the cost of products in the UK will see a dramatic rise, due to the increased cost of shipping. I can't remember the size difference, but Condor vs Marquises is something akin to lorry vs tin-can; any speed would have been devastating to the smaller vessel.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
The Condor is a cat so may well have gone right over the Marquises as opposed to a mono hull pushing her aside
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
I didn't advocate that at all - zero-vis is very rare. A collision at 1/2 knot (to take it to the extreme) would not have been devastating to the Marquises at all. If the Condor were travelling at say 8 knots, then the Marquises would possibly have had time to avoid the collision, and the Marquises would have also been more likely to spot the danger and act appropriately.
As for goods costing more if vessels have to reduce speed in fog I agree, though I'm not sure it would be a dramatic rise - God forbid anything should make us cut down on the availability of cheap disposable imports...