Condor ferry crew to stand trial for death of French fisherman

G

guernseyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Feb 2005
Messages
3,623
Location
Guernsey
Visit site
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2013/06/15/condor-officers-face-trial-for-death-of-fisherman/

There are to be at least three charges:

(i) manslaughter,
(ii) unintentional wounding of two crewmen, and
(iii) failing to respect marine regulations designed to prevent collisions at sea.

also mentioned by prosecutor in Coutances are negligence, apparent deliberate violation of the obligation to exercise caution, failure to sound the Condor's foghorn, failure to maintain visual watch, failure to maintain sufficient radar watch, and switching off the vessel's anti-collision warning system.
 
In days gone by,if you went by sea as a passenger,you accepted that there might be unarguable reasons why you might arrive very late. It is not a train. The shipping company executives are guilty of pressurising the crew to keep to the timetable. If the deck officers had followed the Rules they would have been very late but would probably not have run any body down. So technically the blame is the ferry crew,but morally,the company executives. I hope that comes out in court.
 
jerrytug said:
In days gone by,if you went by sea as a passenger,you accepted that there might be unarguable reasons why you might arrive very late. It is not a train. The shipping company executives are guilty of pressurising the crew to keep to the timetable. If the deck officers had followed the Rules they would have been very late but would probably not have run any body down. So technically the blame is the ferry crew,but morally,the company executives. I hope that comes out in court.
Click to expand...

Did you see the transcript of the conversation on the bridge in the run up to the accident? (T'was linked to in a previous thread about the accident.) Not much evidence there they were anxious they were being forced on in difficult circumstances against their better judgement.
 
LittleSister said:
Did you see the transcript of the conversation on the bridge in the run up to the accident? (T'was linked to in a previous thread about the accident.) Not much evidence there they were anxious they were being forced on in difficult circumstances against their better judgement.
Click to expand...

No I didn't Little Sister and i should not have gobbed off from a position of ignorance. I will follow with interest. And in a previous life I have been crew on a vessel which was arrested and hammered by MCA enforcement,there are 3 sides to these stories,cheers Jerry.
 
LittleSister said:
Did you see the transcript of the conversation on the bridge in the run up to the accident? (T'was linked to in a previous thread about the accident.) Not much evidence there they were anxious they were being forced on in difficult circumstances against their better judgement.
Click to expand...

Agreed, quite the reverse. If the management were guilty of anything it would be for hiring such an unprofessional crew.
 
In the 1980's when Condor had hydrofoils we took one to St Malo as I didn't fancy the fog, no radar on my boat then.

What I didn't expect was to hammer along at what seemed a good 25 knots +, weaving in between yachts as they suddenly appeared, like playing ' Space Invaders ' !

I wondered if they had some special military style radar, but when I got off and looked, no just a standard job.

Schedules seemed to over-rule all else, and my toes still haven't completely uncurled.
 
LittleSister said:
Did you see the transcript of the conversation on the bridge in the run up to the accident? (T'was linked to in a previous thread about the accident.) Not much evidence there they were anxious they were being forced on in difficult circumstances against their better judgement.
Click to expand...

+1 - discussing tits and arses, weren't they?

Pete
 
Thanks for the link an interesting read.

The report goes out of its way to not accuse or blame.
Fog
37 knots.
No fog signal.
not paying attention.
0.75 mile range at 37 kn, W.T.F,
Not using the 10cm radar.

Who would need a crystal ball to predict the verdict?

No mention of company pressure for on time performance.
 
I well remember a RORC race mid 90s (Myth of Malham), when the course was Cowes, Poole Fairway, Needles Fairway, Poole Fairway, Braye breakwater.

Now that puts all the cross-channel yachts on the Poole-Channel Island-St. Malo route, certainly at the outbound end.

Even though there was some wind it was from the south and ten miles out the fog fell. So vision down to 200m and little hope of hearing anything behind us. And then a fast cat overtook us 200m to starboard doing 30+ knots.

I always hoped that he had seen us on radar.

10 years later I was on a fast cat to Cherbourg, and asked to visit the bridge to see what radar / lookout procedure they had. Reaction: "Oh you have to apply 3 months in advance with a copy of your passport to go on the bridge." Pity they left the bridge access door open throughout the whole voyage!
 
Seajet said:
In the 1980's when Condor had hydrofoils we took one to St Malo as I didn't fancy the fog, no radar on my boat then.

What I didn't expect was to hammer along at what seemed a good 25 knots +, weaving in between yachts as they suddenly appeared, like playing ' Space Invaders ' !

I wondered if they had some special military style radar, but when I got off and looked, no just a standard job.

Schedules seemed to over-rule all else, and my toes still haven't completely uncurled.
Click to expand...

Years ago I was skippering a yacht back from Jersey to UK and a Condor deliberately altered course and came so close (I assume to show off to his passengers) we nearly got a swamped cockpit not to mention the inevitable rock and rolls, I was below and only alerted when the shouts of the on deck crew brought me up in time to witness this clown passing about 25 yards astern. Of course I wrote to Condor expressing my disgust at their bad seamanship and disregard of other mariners and colregs but of course all I got was an half hearted apology for my perceived observation. acting prudently in fog is the responsibility of the skipper only, nothing to do with "commercial" pressures.
 
The Guernsey Press reports today that the French judge has suspended proceedings until 11 September to allow both sides more time to prepare their cases. The prosecutor is calling for 3 year prison sentences for both the Condor captain and 1st mate, with 24 and 30 months respectively suspended. Lifetime bans on serving as maritime officers are also called for.

The defence asserted that both officers were watching radar but saw nothing untoward. The prosecution pointed out that the radar records clearly show an echo indicating a boat ahead.
 
As someone who has radar I reckon only a buffoon would rely on a bog standard commercial set to spot yachts or anything else at high speed in fog !

Was this commercial pressure or ego ? I would guess both.
 
Seajet said:
As someone who has radar I reckon only a buffoon would rely on a bog standard commercial set to spot yachts or anything else at high speed in fog !

Was this commercial pressure or ego ? I would guess both.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the use of radar but I suspect the cause was more to do with complacency. Having done the trip so many times without incident they then don't recognise the need to switch modes to reflect the new environment around them.
 
Seajet said:
As someone who has radar I reckon only a buffoon would rely on a bog standard commercial set to spot yachts or anything else at high speed in fog !

Was this commercial pressure or ego ? I would guess both.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the Condor had more than one type of radar, but the voice recordings indicated that the conversation was about women, etc, suggesting that their minds, if not their eyes, were not on the job in hand.

Condor assert there was no pressure, the crew were free to act according to their judgement.
 
Seajet said:
More than one set, or more than one type ie frequency ?!
Click to expand...

If you read the report linked to in post #9, then the answer to your question is "both", but the 10cm radar was off and both displays were showing the 3cm signals (but on different ranges). The 10cm radar was u/s (see section 6.2.2 of the report).
 
Whilst I don't often wish negative things on those around me, I genuinely hope they both receive the quoted Prison sentences and the lifetime bans. You cannot do 38 knots through Fog, not put out the required fog horn, run into someone's vessel, sinking it and killing someone in the process and not expect to be harshly punished.

How many small craft need to be run down and destroyed and/or crew killed before the authorities will actually take a tough stance on irresponsible captains/crews. Whakuna/Nedlloyd Vespucci, the Ouzo and now this. Genuinely staggered that they'd bother to plead innocent. Maybe a little maturity and toughness to accept their awful mistakes. Noone seems to do that anymore
 
epirb speed, chanelyacht maybe ?

From the report:

08:42 the fishing boat sinks
08:43 automatic activation of the epirb
08:52 Cross Joburg (MRCC for the area) reports having received the epirb distress from Cross GrisNez (which coordinates French epirbs)
09:03 Cross Joburg communicates the position of the fishing boat

That is:
9 minutes between activation and alert being received
11 more minutes to the position being known



It strikes me the speed at which the epirb chain has worked, it seems a lot faster than in many other cases where one reads reports about first satellite pass, sometimes second satellite pass, etc and usually definitely longer periods before the alert is completely identified.
The report speaks about "406 epirb" so it is definitely the satellite path of the mayday which is considered, not the 121.5 homing signal.

How come there is this difference ?
Is it because the distress position was so close to the coast, so it's easier to intervene and is given a higher priority vs signals from the high seas ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top