Condor ferry & Fog!

[Capt Cautious]

Tim,
I think we've discussed this before - it came about after the Stockholm incident - and is designed solely for Inland waterways where the spoken language is English (well - sort of....).
So we have such easily understood and clear instructions as " see ya on tha two ol' buddy" becoming a legal requirement. Even I don't understand WTF they are talking about most of the time when I'm up the Mississippi or the Houston ship channel, so for a non english speaker the clarity of the instruction can only be guessed at.

Now lets try it in the channel - with a vessel from PRC or even a French fisherman. It aint gonna work.
CC

 

[Cruiser2B]

If restraint was lacking, how is the ferry's crew not blameworthy?

As I have already said, and you have continuously ignored, both vessels are likely to blame - so I've made it quite clear the ferry's crew is blameworthy. What you seem to be incapable of hoisting in, is that their fault may not be their speed - it might be inadequate lookout (radar poorly-tuned, wrong range scale, poorly-manned; inadequate listening watch); they might not have been sounding appropriate signals; and they may not have taken appropriate action on first indication there was a vessel ahead. They may very well have been going too fast for the conditions, but from what I've read so far, my feeling is their speed had little to do with the collision, and is certainly less important than other factors.

 

[timbartlett]

It aint gonna work.
CC

I agree. I just find it interesting that the USCG think otherwise. And I wonder whether an automated system, based on AIS might soon (?) be an answer. The USA is not backward in encouraging other nations to follow its example in most things, and an automated system would remove the two barriers of misidentification and misunderstanding that are the main reasons for not discussing things by VHF.

Not proposing anything -- just thinking aloud.

 

[Capt Cautious]

Tim, The idea of improved information exchange is of course ideal - and I agree with you that AIS is probably a very good medium with which to start.
The USCG have certainly become very much more user friendly than they used to be - and I have many interesting and often very pleasant encounters with them. I do however think that their modus operandii would be rather less well received on this side of the Atlantic, where we have a slightly different regard to our own personal liberty, the colonials are rather more content to be kept on a tight leash.
An answer needs to be found - the colregs are obviously in need of some serious rejigging to reflect advances in communication and navigation systems, and a general worldwide lowering in levels of competence.
CC

 

[Searush]

I agree. I just find it interesting that the USCG think otherwise. And I wonder whether an automated system, based on AIS might soon (?) be an answer. The USA is not backward in encouraging other nations to follow its example in most things, and an automated system would remove the two barriers of misidentification and misunderstanding that are the main reasons for not discussing things by VHF.

Not proposing anything -- just thinking aloud.

And for those of us that do not have AIS? Or only have receivers? Fortunately, the waters I sail are a lot less congested than the Channel, but we do have a number of fast cats in the area.

 

[alan_d]

One of the things being ignored here is that for a safe speed to be set there has to be consideration as to the manoeuvring capabilities of the ship.

Many large vessels operate on Intermediate Fuel Oil(IFO) which needs heating to burn in the diesel engine. When the vessel slows down it is necessary in some cases to change to gas oil for the main engine, this costs at least twice the amount per tonne so has a strong economic consequence.

In addition, extra steering gear motors are started and additional auxillary motors for the extra electrical draw. More crew members are summoned and that leads to increased overtime payments in many cases.

In smaller coasters the loss of sleep factors can make life even more desperate since they operate a 6 on 6 off watch system for months with calls to ports disturbing any routine built up.

So to go from "On Passage" status to "Manoeuvring" has costs implications before we even look at the effect of charter party conditions, owner's schedules.

It is highly probable that this case will find its way to the admiralty court in one way or another and the results will then govern actions for some time to come. The liability insurers (P&I Clubs) will ensure that the results are advised worldwide.

There are no easy answers in the commercial world of shipping and fishing nor for that matter in the leisure world of yachting.

But isn't that covered by the second part of Rule 19(b)?

Rule 19(b). Every vessel shall proceed at a safe speed adapted to the prevailing circumstances and conditions of restricted visibility. A power-driven vessel shall have her engines ready for immediate manoeuvre.

(My emphasis.)

 

[Greenheart]

Cruiser2B, I take your point, I followed it from the first; and certainly, I wouldn't have put my vessel where Les Marquises was that day, possibly a significant folly on the fishing boat's part.

Faults on both sides, doubtless. But...while a high-speed collision in poor visibility may involve questionable watch-keeping, insufficient fog signals, imperfect radar performance or flawed interpretation of radar display...wasn't it the ferry's pace and massive inertia that made from these individually minor ingredients such a calamitous cocktail?

If a sober and ordinarily competent motorist crashes his vehicle in thick fog, whilst driving at the legal speed limit on that road, should it mainly be supposed that his eyesight, or his wakefulness, or his brakes, tyres or steering are at fault? Or...was he just going faster than was safe at the time?

I'm glad you acknowledge speed is likely to have been a factor. Perhaps the only place we differ, is over the proportion of causal significance for each factor.

Presumably we may expect the surviving fishermen's account to fill in at least some of the gaps? Anybody know when the inquest is expected to wrap-up? Soon, God willing.

 

[timbartlett]

And for those of us that do not have AIS? Or only have receivers? Fortunately, the waters I sail are a lot less congested than the Channel, but we do have a number of fast cats in the area.

As I said, I'm not proposing anything, just thinking aloud.
But (assuming your boat is less than 13.7m long, you are not required to have:-
bilge pump
fire extinguishers
guardrails
an anchor
lifejackets
lifebelts
flares
VHF radio
a torch
a first aid kit
a tool kit
AIS

In fact, the only piece of "safety" equipment I can think of offhand that is compulsory is the most useless of all -- a radar reflector!"

It's not that long ago that a lot of yotties thought they were being conscientious if they had a bucket and a couple of flares. The idea that a VHF radio might be regarded as essential safety equipment was laughable.

But times change. Expectations change. Technology changes. Perceptions of risk change.

 

[Cruiser2B]

wasn't it the ferry's pace and massive inertia that made from these individually minor ingredients such a calamitous cocktail?

We're making headway, but I still feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. The ferry's pace has not been proven, and its inertia is massive even at low speeds.

If a sober and ordinarily competent motorist crashes his vehicle in thick fog, whilst driving at the legal speed limit on that road, should it mainly be supposed that his eyesight, or his wakefulness, or his brakes, tyres or steering are at fault? Or...was he just going faster than was safe at the time?

Quite the thread drift, but the deadliest fog-related driving accidents are caused by motorists driving at "reduced speed" into stopped cars, in what is typically called a "pile-up." Of course cars don't use radar or fog signals. And none of this has any bearing on the topic.

I'm glad you acknowledge speed is likely to have been a factor.

Likely??? Not! Please read it again:

They may very well have been going too fast for the conditions, but from what I've read so far, my feeling is their speed had little to do with the collision, and is certainly less important than other factors.

 

[Greenheart]

Thank you, and goodnight.

Cruiser2B, I'm quitting this thread. You are just perverse. Is it something in the air, over there?

 

[Cruiser2B]

Cruiser2B, I'm quitting this thread. You are just perverse. Is it something in the air, over there?

I asked before if your best argument was to hurl abuse - I have my answer. Can't say I'll miss the sparkling repartee.

 

[Pye_End]

That doesn't apply in the air, does it, where having a controller who knows who is where is seen as a Good Thing.

The point I was making was that even air trafic controlers are getting their information from transponders and radar, so if the fishing boat is not showing up for the ship, it presumably won't be showing up for the marine air trafic controllers either.

 

[Ubergeekian]

The point I was making was that even air trafic controlers are getting their information from transponders and radar, so if the fishing boat is not showing up for the ship, it presumably won't be showing up for the marine air trafic controllers either.

That's a good point. However, there's more to it than that, because as with controlled airspace, vessels wouldn't be allowed into controlled seaspace without saying where they wanted to go. So the controllers would have a much more "big picture" view, keeping things apart, rather than reacting of they got too close.

I'm certainly not saying that the UK coast should become a controlled area, but it seems to me that there are some areas where, as with big harbours already, obligatory radio contact and systems of permission might make things significantly safer.

 

[Searush]

The point I was making was that even air trafic controlers are getting their information from transponders and radar, so if the fishing boat is not showing up for the ship, it presumably won't be showing up for the marine air trafic controllers either.

It ain't necessarily so, different transponders, different locations, different tuning, as I understand it you could easliy be lost in the clutter on the ship scanner but clear as crystal on the TSS one.

 

[mcframe]

I'm certainly not saying that the UK coast should become a controlled area, but it seems to me that there are some areas where, as with big harbours already, obligatory radio contact and systems of permission might make things significantly safer.

I'm not sure if the regular "QHM, $SMALL_BOAT requesting permission to cross Ballast to Camber/Gunwharf" that we get on Ch11 actually makes things safer, but I've tracked X-channel ferries in from the Nab/forts - their reporting (& AIS) has helped me work out where they are and where our tracks might cross.

I've never actually heard QHM Pompey *refuse* permission to cross, but would consider that in that part of the world, the listening watch on VHF is vital for situational awareness - 'specially if you want to nip across the outer part of the channel/swashway without faffing about waiting.

 

[Lady Campanula]

Be careful what you wish for. Even a simple ATIS ( Air Traffic Information Service ) needs to be paid for and, to be any use, it needs highly-qualified ATCOs ( Air Traffic Control Officers ).

The costs of a mandatory Seaspace Control Service - whether Radar or Procedural - would similarly be high. Who is willing to pay for this?

Would it hope to employ Coastguard Officers, when we are shedding scores of them?

Such ideas all sound fine, until one is asked to fork out the readies....

 

[Beelzebub]

Latest on this incident:-

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=493833

 

[Searush]

I suspect French police may not be very sympathetic towards an English ferry company. Interesting that the management may get charged rather than the master.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I suspect French police may not be very sympathetic towards an English ferry company. Interesting that the management may get charged rather than the master.

No different to current UK H & SE laws under which company management can be held responsible for breaches of safety regs by their employees. Jersey H & SE regs may be different

 

[Searush]

Sorry Mike, I didn't spell it out, but my point was that by looking at the management rather than the skipper, the implication is that poor company rules were followed rather than good company rules ignored.

Now do you see what I was inferring?