Condor ferry & Fog!

[Deleted User YDKXO]

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?

Actually under UK law it may make no difference. To be honest I dont know exactly which regulations pertain in this particular case but for an accident involving the UK H&SE, these days, company management simply can't say that their employees ignored company regulations and expect to wash their hands of the matter. Even if the Skipper was not following company regulations, management could still be prosecuted for other failings relating to the accident such as, for example, inadequate training or poorly maintained equipment.

 

[Flying Penguin]

Actually under UK law it may make no difference. To be honest I dont know exactly which regulations pertain in this particular case but for an accident involving the UK H&SE, these days, company management simply can't say that their employees ignored company regulations and expect to wash their hands of the matter. Even if the Skipper was not following company regulations, management could still be prosecuted for other failings relating to the accident such as, for example, inadequate training or poorly maintained equipment.

They would be responsible for whatever their employees do unless they are so far out of the ordinary as to be "off on a frolic of their own" (I think that's the right quote from case law, damned if I can remember the case name).

Whether the skipper was following procedure or not, the company could still be liable for the skipper's failings. Whether they are in fact liable is a question for the investigation to decide.

Jamie

 

[Giblets]

I've never actually heard QHM Pompey *refuse* permission to cross.....

Permission is quite often refused (normally with the word "Negative") especially when one of the X Channel ferries, large cargo boats or naval craft are approaching the harbour entrance inbound or outbound.

It should also be remembered that the approaches to the harbour entrance and most of the important parts of the harbour are covered by CCTV as well.

 

[Greenheart]

At long last...but it was always obvious.

The conclusion of the inquiry is finally in.

"...The radar return on the Master's screen "could not be confused with a port buoy," BEAmer said, and 47 seconds "should have been long enough for the Master to detect it".

BEAmer also said the ferry was travelling at an inappropriate speed considering the conditions, and that this was an "underlying" cause of the collision an "aggravating factor" for the consequences of the impact.

"An appropriate speed would have given officers a longer detection notice and reduced [the] force of impact," the report said.

Certain persons who contributed to this thread six months ago, may like to reflect on that! It was always fairly obvious.

 

[Pye_End]

The conclusion of the inquiry is finally in.

"...The radar return on the Master's screen "could not be confused with a port buoy," BEAmer said, and 47 seconds "should have been long enough for the Master to detect it".

BEAmer also said the ferry was travelling at an inappropriate speed considering the conditions, and that this was an "underlying" cause of the collision an "aggravating factor" for the consequences of the impact.

"An appropriate speed would have given officers a longer detection notice and reduced [the] force of impact," the report said.

Certain persons who contributed to this thread six months ago, may like to reflect on that! It was always fairly obvious.

It also does not agree with your view that ships should only proceed where visibility allows. They are content that radar is sufficient to satisfy colregs.

 

[Searush]

It also does not agree with your view that ships should only proceed where visibility allows. They are content that radar is sufficient to satisfy colregs.

Provided some beggar is actually looking at it & knows what it is telling him!

 

[Pye_End]

Provided some beggar is actually looking at it & knows what it is telling him!

Indeed. The report confirms that it was a radar watch keeping problem (+no fog signal), and no watch keeping on the fishing boat that were the causes. The speed issue the report make is the assumption that more thinking time would have let one or both vessels to twig what was going on before it was too late.

 

[Seajet]

Seamanship ?!

I hope I can be forgiven repeating my post from the 'accident report is out' thread, as I have seen this first-hand...

'Progress' using radar in thick fog is fine, say 5-6 knots, but 37 ?! Come On !

Sheer lunacy driven by tidetables and possibly ego's;
----------

As soon as I heard about this accident I shuddered...

I travelled on the Condor hydrofoil ( it was a fair while ago, about 1983ish ) from St Peter Port to St Malo.

It was thick, solid fog, virtually all yachts were staying well put - less radars in those days.

I was stunned when the thing went to VERY high speed, and slalomed 'Space Invaders' style as fishing boats and yachts appeared as they went past ( I couldn't see forward, whether anyone could from up front either was very much on my mind !

When we disembarked I made a point of looking at the radar scanners, in case they were some special wonder-kit to allow this behaviour; nope, bog standard as fishing boats of the time used

I can understand going slowly in a hydrofoil is expensive etc, but so is running people over, and this accident wasn't a hydro' anyway; I hope Condor get very severely knobbled.

 

[Lady Campanula]

From someone else's 'wise words'.....

"If you see an echo there is something there, but if you don't, it doesn't mean there isn't".

Reduced visibility at sea is a hazard in its own right, not merely an inconvenience as many leisure yotties now seem to believe. And hazard identification/avoidance is a primary responsibility of the skipper.

I've long used John Campbell's 'Yachtsman's Guide To The Collision Rules' as being both available and quite cheap. The definitive and oft-quoted guide is, of course, 'Cockcroft'.

My spies tell me a new and much-updated edition will be available from early next month/November. It is seriously to be hoped that the many ColRegs experts on these forums will bring to our fevered discussions the authoritative content and explanations found in one or other of these excellent manuals. Or risk being 'shot down'.....

Er, hands up those who knew there are numerous Amendments dating from 2009....

 

[Greenheart]

Hear hear, Seajet.

Indeed, visibility is the primary issue, because nobody deliberately lets a collision like this happen if they can see that it is going to.

And evidently we can't fault the radar - it seems each vessel's system had spotted the other; and if indeed the modern radar is always an entirely adequate substitute for eyesight, I'm glad - that's a big 'well done' for technology.

The problem is, that if the radar screens weren't being assiduously attended, both boats were effectively blind. And surely it's only commonsense, that a vessel with compromised visibility, goes slowly?

People stumbling around a pitch black room looking for the light switch, don't generally run. People hurrying through well-lit, busy stations routinely fail to look where they're going, and collide.

The assumption of visibility was the problem, made deadly by the use of high speed, assumed to be safe.

The faster you go, the harder you need to look out. Condor didn't.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Certain persons who contributed to this thread six months ago, may like to reflect on that! It was always fairly obvious.

I take it this is a none-too-subtle shot my way? You may wish to re-read what I posted then:

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.

Rather prescient - bad lookout, no listening watch, no fog signals (on both vessels, btw). For the record, when I stated that, we didn't know what speed Condor was doing or what the actual state of visibility was - now we do. I will state now that I think 37 knots was too fast for the conditions but I stand by my previous statement that speed was a less-important factor than the poor lookout and disregard for sound signals. Does the report (which is lacking in thoroughness, imo) state what they consider to be an appropriate speed for the Condor ferry? I didn't get from the report that Condor should have come to a full stop.

 

[Greenheart]

I doubt the inquiry would recommend a speed limit. Those who draw-up these ferries' timetabling must be quite influential - doubtless it'd be an enormous step backward for commerce and tourism if thousands of deliveries and private vehicles run late because of fog.

Isn't the whole sorry business more likely to result in a voluntary undertaking by fast ferry operators, to ensure that radar-watches are infallible during fog?

 

[Pye_End]

Does the report (which is lacking in thoroughness, imo) state what they consider to be an appropriate speed for the Condor ferry? I didn't get from the report that Condor should have come to a full stop.

This is a bit of a tricky one to answer, which is probably why they don't give a view. Clearly the speed they were doing did not give both parties sufficent time to correct the errors that were made. 10kn have been muted here, as have 6kn,5 and 1.5kn. However, in the ultimate test of a real pea souper, virtually any meaningful speed could end up as a colision given similar circumstances.

Not sure what combined speed would have resulted in the non-sinking of the fishing boat. The other significant factor lies in the experience of the folk in the ferry, and them knowing how often their radar watch does not pick up on a small vessel. Perhaps your answer is clearer if these two questions are answered.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Perhaps your answer is clearer if these two questions are answered.

Absolutely. I understand maritime safety accident reports are supposed to explain the cause(s) without apportioning blame - this is where there needs to be a better description of what should have been done, so that history doesn't repeat. It is simply not sufficient to say the speed is inappropriate; there needs to be a discussion of what speed would be appropriate - a range or a ball-park figure would suffice. The report as far as I can tell, did not delve into company policies or Captain's standing orders - and whether or not the bridge crew disregarded orders or standard operating procedures/best practices. If the company doesn't have a policy on operations in restricted vis, particularly when only one of the two radar systems is operational, then it should. Frankly I think BEAMER left more questions unanswered than they answered.

 

[Capt Cautious]

She should indeed have come to a full stop.

She detected a vessel forward of the beam, and a close quarters situation could not have been avoided. The target was there plain as day on the Bridgemaster, recorded for posterity on the SVDR. The action was required. If the OOW saw the target - he would have been required to reduce speed to the minimum at which the vessel could be kept on course, and if neccessary take all way off. He didn't see it because of....?.

Whether the target was seen early or too late the action was none the less required. A close quarters situation was unavoidable and rule 19 was in effect.

I think it highly unlikely that any authority will set a precedent by stating the speed that should have been applied. This will always be left to the judgement of the master unless the vessel is in a regulated VTS - and even then the master has the final word in all matters relevant to the safety of the vessel.

They may state that 37kts was somewhat in breach of rule 6, this is stating the obvious. The safe speed will always be subjective, but commercial concerns are certainly not listed amongst the applicable criteria for determining it.

When its as thick as a bag I certainly don't consider stopping (unless a colregs situation requires it), I consider this is actually far more dangerous in fog, in traffic, than proceding at a steady slow speed. Aside from another vessel not being able to tell which direction I'll be going if I do start making way, it is impossible to tell the aspect of a vessel which is stopped purely from its radar return. (The aspect of a moving vessel is invariably available thanks to ARPA or manual plotting. Rule 19 makes allowance for "overtaking" another vessel and a vessel may alter to port in order to do so. This is the only time a vessel can alter to port for a vessel forward of the beam in restr. vis. If you dont know the aspect, you dont know you are overtaking. It gets slightly more confusing if you consider rule 13 is in the section of the rules relating to vessels in sight of one another - leaving an overtaking vessel in fog as a rather poorly understood beast).

I have 3 Bridgemasters, a couple of ECDIS and all the other mod cons of any other large commercial vessel. However, without competent people to observe the equipment and keep a good lookout - I may as well switch them off.

CC

I take it this is a none-too-subtle shot my way? You may wish to re-read what I posted then:



Rather prescient - bad lookout, no listening watch, no fog signals (on both vessels, btw). For the record, when I stated that, we didn't know what speed Condor was doing or what the actual state of visibility was - now we do. I will state now that I think 37 knots was too fast for the conditions but I stand by my previous statement that speed was a less-important factor than the poor lookout and disregard for sound signals. Does the report (which is lacking in thoroughness, imo) state what they consider to be an appropriate speed for the Condor ferry? I didn't get from the report that Condor should have come to a full stop.

 

[Cruiser2B]

She should indeed have come to a full stop.

The context was the "appropriate speed" for Condor in thick fog, not what action is required by Rule 19. The report didn't suggest that Condor come to a halt when it enters fog, as some have suggested on this forum.

I think it highly unlikely that any authority will set a precedent by stating the speed that should have been applied.

The discussions in Cockcroft suggest the Elder Brethren are not averse to stating a speed that should be applied. If BEAMER doesn't want to state what an appropriate speed would be, then they are hardly in a position to say that the speed applied was inappropriate.

 

[Capt Cautious]

The context was the "appropriate speed" for Condor in thick fog, not what action is required by Rule 19. The report didn't suggest that Condor come to a halt when it enters fog, as some have suggested on this forum.



The discussions in Cockcroft suggest the Elder Brethren are not averse to stating a speed that should be applied. If BEAMER doesn't want to state what an appropriate speed would be, then they are hardly in a position to say that the speed applied was inappropriate.

I've often noticed such statements as "about 8 or 9 knots" - there is no actual statement (as far as I remember) specifying a speed that should be maintained or treated as a maximum. This question used to frequently appear in masters orals - as you probably remember - and what they wanted to ascertain is ones thought process and the application of all relevant information. For a vessel with a stopping distance of 400m from 37kts the safe speed is rather a different animal to one on my vessel - which takes a little over a mile. It is an entirely different scenario - adjudicating after an event such as this will doubtless result in all sorts of "safe speeds" being mooted. Specifying one before the event that is truly relevant is an entirely different matter. At 6 knots I wouldn't have stood a chance of missing him if he was still undetected at such short range.

If the Condor was unable to take proper and effective action to avoid collision, then clearly her speed was innappropriate, and not in compliance with Rule 6. This conclusion is exclusive of any speed that may be determined at some later stage as being the "proper speed" for the circumstances.

Under ISM there would already be in place procedures for restricted visibility, the speed however will still be left up to the master. To specify a speed would be rather foolhardy as it is impossible to predict the exact circumstances of any incident. It is best left to competence. If that is missing then we should ask why. It is not acceptable or safe to substitute competence with procedures.

CC

 

[timbartlett]

She should indeed have come to a full stop.

She detected a vessel forward of the beam, and a close quarters situation could not have been avoided. The target was there plain as day on the Bridgemaster, recorded for posterity on the SVDR. The action was required. If the OOW saw the target - he would have been required to reduce speed to the minimum at which the vessel could be kept on course, and if neccessary take all way off. He didn't see it because of....?.

I think the point is that although the radar detected the fishing boat -- definitely at just over 1 mile, probably at 5 or six miles -- the watchkeepers didn't. Having failed to detect the fishing boat, there would be no reason (under rule 19) for Condor to slow down.

Whether had been going too fast before the fishing vessel was detected (i.e. breaking Rule 6) is IMHO, a separate issue (FWIW, I think she was -- but I have never driven a fast ferry!)

Like so many other collisions before and since, this seems to be what motorcyclists know as a SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) -- a breach of Rule 5.

 

[Capt Cautious]

I think the point is that although the radar detected the fishing boat -- definitely at just over 1 mile, probably at 5 or six miles -- the watchkeepers didn't. Having failed to detect the fishing boat, there would be no reason (under rule 19) for Condor to slow down.

Whether had been going too fast before the fishing vessel was detected (i.e. breaking Rule 6) is IMHO, a separate issue (FWIW, I think she was -- but I have never driven a fast ferry!)

Like so many other collisions before and since, this seems to be what motorcyclists know as a SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) -- a breach of Rule 5.

Off we go.....

Greetings Tim - that sounds good - until you consider that it could be used as the excuse in EVERY collision - thereby making other causes such as safe speed, incompetence, etc purely a byproduct of failure to keep a lookout. While I accept that "failure to keep a lookout" is a regular visitor on the maib lists - not seeing somebody does not mean that the other rules no longer apply. I don't think any rule begins "unless you've not seen him". Obviously failure to keep a lookout is a causative factor - the result of which was a domino effect of many other rules falling down. Rule 19 applied, as did all the other relevant rules - not just bits of them - you can't cherry pick.

CC

 

[alant]

I hope I can be forgiven repeating my post from the 'accident report is out' thread, as I have seen this first-hand...

'Progress' using radar in thick fog is fine, say 5-6 knots, but 37 ?! Come On !

Sheer lunacy driven by tidetables and possibly ego's;
----------

As soon as I heard about this accident I shuddered...

I travelled on the Condor hydrofoil ( it was a fair while ago, about 1983ish ) from St Peter Port to St Malo.

It was thick, solid fog, virtually all yachts were staying well put - less radars in those days.

I was stunned when the thing went to VERY high speed, and slalomed 'Space Invaders' style as fishing boats and yachts appeared as they went past ( I couldn't see forward, whether anyone could from up front either was very much on my mind !

When we disembarked I made a point of looking at the radar scanners, in case they were some special wonder-kit to allow this behaviour; nope, bog standard as fishing boats of the time used

I can understand going slowly in a hydrofoil is expensive etc, but so is running people over, and this accident wasn't a hydro' anyway; I hope Condor get very severely knobbled.

I seem to remember being told that the 6 knt speed limit in Cowes, was due to the fast ferry (not sure if Cat or Hydrofoil in those days, ran over a small family boat 'fishing', resulting in the death of one & bad injury to other. In those days, the ferry ran in at high speed until well into the Medina.
Can anyone confirm this?

This is the official speed limit rule -

"Speed Limit
The speed limit within Cowes Harbour jurisdiction is 6 knots over the ground. Exceptions to this rule may be made on occasion, as authorised, over a course appointed and regulated by the Harbour Master. The maximum speed limit will not, however, exonerate the owner, Master or crew thereof of the responsibility of reducing speed as necessary in the observance of normal practice of seamanship when passing mooring trots, boats alongside wharves, jetties, pontoons, vessels engaged in maritime works and in any other circumstances which could endanger the safety of other persons, vessels, boats or properties or cause damage thereto."