Condor ferry & Fog!

[guernseyman]

The following summary is extracted from today's Guernsey Press:

Thick fog covered all of Condor Vitesse's sailing area on the morning of 28 March, with only 20-30 metres of visibility at the time of the accident.
Weather conditions reported in the Vitesse logbook, written 40 minutes before the crash at 8am, said that the sea state was calm but there were thick fog patches.
But 17 minutes before the collision, the Vitesse crossed a sunny patch and visibility had improved - up to approximately two miles according to the master.
Then, at around 8.38am, the Vitesse had hit a 'fog wall'.

The report by the French marine accident investigation bureau ruled that the weather conditions had been a first causal factor of the accident.

It said the other four main causes of the accident, which killed French father-of-four Philippe Lesaulnier, were:

The lack of attention from officers on the Vitesse bridge was the second causal factor.
The lack of a continuous radar lookout during Les Marquises' fishing operation was an underlying factor.
The decision to turn off the Vitesse's foghorn was a contributing factor.
The speed at which the Vitesse was travelling (36.9 knots) was too fast and an underlying factor of the collision and an aggravating factor of the consequences of the impact.

 

[Greenheart]

Noblesse oblige

Oughtn't the intensity of any crew's radar monitoring, relate to the vessel's pace?

If the fishing boat's speed was barely ten percent of the ferry's, isn't it normal, and acceptable, that the attention of her steersman wasn't glued to the radar?

Likewise, at their unmoderated high speed, didn't the ferry's crew have a proportionately greater duty to monitor the radar, as their only means of penetrating the fog?

Faults on both sides, yes; but more blame belongs on one than the other. If your size and speed allow invulnerable, rapid progress in minimal visibility, don't you owe it to littler vessels to see them in time not to squash 'em?

 

[Robin]

Oughtn't the intensity of any crew's radar monitoring, relate to the vessel's pace?

If the fishing boat's speed was barely ten percent of the ferry's, isn't it normal, and acceptable, that the attention of her steersman wasn't glued to the radar?

An occasional glance as in a still picture of the radar tells you nothing at all. You need to monitor the moving picture.

Likewise, at their unmoderated high speed, didn't the ferry's crew have a proportionately greater duty to monitor the radar, as their only means of penetrating the fog?

The responsibility was exactly the same on both vessels. It may be harder to understand WHY the radar watch on the ferry was poor, but the responsibility is the same. Two radar screens, two opportunities for detection missed.

Faults on both sides, yes; but more blame belongs on one than the other. If your size and speed allow invulnerable, rapid progress in minimal visibility, don't you owe it to littler vessels to see them in time not to squash 'em?

Yes, but then arguably a so called professional fishing boat skipper (I think it said he was a relief skipper?) has a duty to his crew as well as a legal responsibility I believe to maintain a proper radar watch having decided to go to sea that day in those conditions. His crew could not watch the radar, they were working the pots on deck.

This incident shows very sloppy procedures on both vessels. IMO heads should roll on the ferry bridge and sadly one has already done so on the fishing boat.

 

[Greenheart]

Agreed.

Is it believed that the dead man's duties that day, overseeing his crew, necessarily distracted him from the radar display, or was he in fact quite unjustifiably inattentive?

It's as difficult to imagine any fishing boat skipper blithely dawdling in a fast-ferry lane during thick fog, as it is to understand why said ferry wouldn't have eased back on the throttle in those conditions, to buy itself some reaction time.

I'm sorry if I'm alone in still holding speed mainly to blame, here. In my mind is the thought that harbour-entrances are regularly congested with vessels both ably and inexpertly skippered, many following twisting courses that defy every rule of the road...but the rarity of serious collision resulting, owes almost everything to tight speed-limits in such places. The same vessels cutting loose at a thousand yards per minute...fatal. My point being that without high speed, errors of judgement or lack of awareness/visibility, are much less likely to be calamitous.

 

[Capt Cautious]

An occasional glance as in a still picture of the radar tells you nothing at all. You need to monitor the moving picture.




The responsibility was exactly the same on both vessels. It may be harder to understand WHY the radar watch on the ferry was poor, but the responsibility is the same. Two radar screens, two opportunities for detection missed.



Yes, but then arguably a so called professional fishing boat skipper (I think it said he was a relief skipper?) has a duty to his crew as well as a legal responsibility I believe to maintain a proper radar watch having decided to go to sea that day in those conditions. His crew could not watch the radar, they were working the pots on deck.

This incident shows very sloppy procedures on both vessels. IMO heads should roll on the ferry bridge and sadly one has already done so on the fishing boat.

Totally agree. They were all professional mariners, working under exactly the same set of rules. Not that the same criteria don't also apply to non-professional mariners, a minimum level of competency is both required and expected.....this should be a heads-up for many - I hope.

CC

 

[Robin]

Agreed.

Is it believed that the dead man's duties that day, overseeing his crew, necessarily distracted him from the radar display, or was he in fact quite unjustifiably inattentive?

One possible problem would be that the boat was not on a steady course whilst handling pots, so the changing (relative motion) picture on the screen would be changing for another reason, his own course changes, not just for the fact that a large target was rapidly approaching. Condor comes up fast but it is a very big radar target, providing somebody is actually looking.

It's as difficult to imagine any fishing boat skipper blithely dawdling in a fast-ferry lane during thick fog, as it is to understand why said ferry wouldn't have eased back on the throttle in those conditions, to buy itself some reaction time.

No such thing as a fast ferry lane. Condor route tracks are not that constant either from my own observations, even to passing the 'wrong' side of buoys when tide heights allow. The huge tidal ranges in the Channels Islands area means that above half tide a lot of otherwise danger areas are deep water and can be a convenient short cut. I've seen the ferries pass very close in off the SW corner of Jersey for example when we (yacht with 7ft draft) were much farther out. As for fishing in 'lanes' you would be surprised at what they do close to the Ushant TSS and on the most probable track to the next one off Casquets, despite large numbers of ships nose to tail.

I'm sorry if I'm alone in still holding speed mainly to blame, here. In my mind is the thought that harbour-entrances are regularly congested with vessels both ably and inexpertly skippered, many following twisting courses that defy every rule of the road...but the rarity of serious collision resulting, owes almost everything to tight speed-limits in such places. The same vessels cutting loose at a thousand yards per minute...fatal. My point being that without high speed, errors of judgement or lack of awareness/visibility, are much less likely to be calamitous.

This was NOT a harbour entrance or anywhere near one. Regardless of speed they should have been keeping a proper radar watch, yet despite two bridge officers watching two different screens they apparently did not see the fishing boat, yet the recorded radar image clearly shows a target was there to be seen. I haven't re-visited the report but I'm pretty sure the target was first visible on screen at 6-8mls.

As has been pointed out in another reply, had it been the fishing vessel running into Condor, people would be screaming 'what crazy fishermen', but that scenario isn't that far removed from what happened, two vessels, two courses that coincide so who hits who is just a matter of timing.

 

[Robin]

Totally agree. They were all professional mariners, working under exactly the same set of rules. Not that the same criteria don't also apply to non-professional mariners, a minimum level of competency is both required and expected.....this should be a heads-up for many - I hope.

CC

One reason I'm not a fan of yachts with radar at the wheel position because it needs to be monitored continually. Someone on the wheel has other distractions and in fog it is even more difficult to keep a steady course that won't screw up the radar relative motion picture that most small boats will be using. Autopilot helps with a steady course but then on auto is there even someone full time behind the wheel to watch the radar if that is where it is. With a radar at the nav table below, it is easier to avoid other distractions and concentrate on the display. On our last boat we used to have a standalone radar at the nav table, next to a standalone plotter and with a secondary autopilot control head so the course could be changed from there. In our case that would be SWMBO out on deck staring into the fog and me in the warm reading the radar and driving by autopilot. .

 

[Cruiser2B]

Oughtn't the intensity of any crew's radar monitoring, relate to the vessel's pace?

I understand what you're saying here, and admit that I tend to agree - insofar as Rule 6 consideration goes. That is to say that if I were to decide to go full on into near-zero vis, the bridge would be all-business with no unneccesary chatter, extra lookouts would be posted with specific instructions, and both radars would be monitored continuously, with guard zones set and the chief officer would have been given very specific directions as to how his radar would be set-up and monitored. The only way to keep the ship safe is to stay ahead of it - and going that speed means you have to be watching that much farther ahead to give sufficient time to react.

That does not absolve the master of the Marquises - it's unfortunate the report does not put as much detail into this aspect. Understandably they don't know what was going on in the wheelhouse before the accident, but the report could have described the layout - I can't imagine that it would be impossible for him to have a hand on the wheel and be able to monitor/adjust the radar simultaneously. If that is indeed the case, then surely his inattentiveness was just as grievous as that of the Condor officers. From the report I gathered that he was just driving the boat and not overseeing the operations on deck.

I'm not impressed at all by the lack of detail in BEAMER's report. There is only an assumption that Marquises could have painted at 6 miles - there is no proof that it did. There should be some discussion of the limitations imposed on the radar set-up, the way that it was with the Chief O's set slaved to the Master's. They made no mention of guard alarms; whether or not they were set and why. The report's authors make a very big deal of the potter's blip, but fail to explain why it was not automatically acquired as a target, or why a supposed "very neat blip" failed to leave a consistent trail.

If, as they've suggested, Marquises was painting well on radar from 6 miles away, then the Condor crew had approximately 10 minutes to sort it out and react. It only takes 400 metres for them to go from 37 kts to fully stopped. The fact that they had sufficient time to avoid collision despite their high speed, doesn't support the notion that they were going too fast. It does however reinforce the notion that they weren't maintaining a proper lookout.

 

[timbartlett]

I'm sorry if I'm alone in still holding speed mainly to blame, here.

You have ploughed this lonely furrow with dogged (but IMHO misguided) persistence.

Both vessels had ample time in which to see each other (by radar) and take avoiding action as required by the rules. We cannot tell why the skipper of the fishing vessel did not do so, but it is pretty clear from the report that the watchkeepers on the ferry were not keeping a proper lookout.

It is possible but by no means certain that the collision would have been less severe if the ferry had been moving more slowly. OTOH we should not forget that 37 knots was not a fatal speed for two of the three fishermen. 27 knots was not a fatal speed for the crew of the Wahkuna. 19 knots was a fatal speed for all three of the crew of Ouzo. There is no simple correlation between speed and danger.

Indeed, if we follow the assumption that seems to be implicit in some of your posts, it could be said that if the ferry had been moving more slowly, then an even less adequate lookout would have been acceptable. I don't believe that to be true.

 

[Seajet]

Utter nonsense! Marquises drove to her eventual rendezvous with Condor, at whatever speed she was doing. If her course had been a few degrees different or she had been going a fraction of a knot slower, they would not have come together. If the master had seen the ferry on radar, he would have had many courses of action to take, but primarily could have avoided being ahead of the ferry. There were faults on both bridges/wheelhouses.

As other posters have since mentioned, common sense, if any were around, would put the onus on the nutcase doing 37 knots to keep even more of an eye on things; and he had the dedicated bridge crew available to do so, that's the only 'utter nosense' going on here...

 

[timbartlett]

As other posters have since mentioned, common sense, if any were around, would put the onus on the nutcase doing 37 knots to keep even more of an eye on things; and he had the dedicated bridge crew available to do so, that's the only 'utter nosense' going on here...

I don't think anyone has suggested that the ferry was keeping a proper lookout, or that it was travelling at a safe speed, or that it took appropriate action. And our natural sympathy for the crew of the fishing vessel and the family of its skipper naturally make us reluctant to look too closely at the part he played in the accident.

But I'm afraid the idea that it is "common sense" to ignore the colregs is worryingly popular on YBW at times.

Rule 19 is a little more long winded than some of the other rules, but it is very clear, and very simple, and both vessels had an equal responsibility to conform to it. Neither of them did so. It is likely, on the basis of the available information, that the fishing vessel ignored rules 5 and 7 as well. The fact that her skipper died does not, unfortunately, absolve him of his share of the responsibility.

 

[Greenheart]

I certainly don't think there's any point having heaps of clever kit on board, then ignoring or overlooking the critical infomation it provides. For the record, I accept that in this instance, inadequate radar watch allowed a situation to occur which could and should have been avoided.

I wasn't suggesting, above, that this collision occurred at a harbour entrance. I was only thinking of places that are busy enough to be potentially extremely dangerous, but which are mostly prevented from being so, by low speed limits.

I realise that the variables which decide whether a collision will be slight/serious/grave/fatal, are too complex to make absolute claims about, and speed is only one of them.

But - if we accept that it's impossible to predict every aspect of any given situation - surely no single strategy could more effectively reduce the likelihood and degree of damage and grief from an impact, than reducing speed? Speed's fine if the skipper's visibility (whether by eye or radar) is definitely uncompromised. When there's the least doubt, or any flaw in watchkeeping, then to continue full-bore must be a culpable gamble.

Quote from Cruiser2B: The fact that they had sufficient time to avoid collision despite their high speed, doesn't support the notion that they were going too fast. It does however reinforce the notion that they weren't maintaining a proper lookout.

...But shouldn't visibility (by eye or radar) be an absolute prerequisite for the use of speed? This quote says to me that the Condor's high speed was quite usual, and accepted as perfectly safe, but that in retrospect, the watchkeeping fell a bit short. No! Surely they were going too fast - too fast for their half-assed watch-keeping, in those conditions?

Visibility oughtn't to be an afterthought. I reckon we can agree that there shouldn't be speed without visibility. Trouble is, we already routinely see high speed in use, and sadly each application is not invariably based on the certain presence of an adequate lookout. I call that excessive speed, because a sleepy lookout on the same vessel might very well easily suffice, when going slowly.

It makes sense for enough speed to be allowed, to require assiduous watchkeeping; but it can't be safe only to hope that the watchkeeping is good enough for the default-setting of maximum speed. Wrong way round.

Not that I'm seriously expecting things to slow down.

How fast was the Titanic going, nearly a century ago?

 

[Seajet]

Tim,

I know you like a good argument, and I often agree with some of your views, but please don't twist my words; I most certainly never said it was common sense to ignore colregs !

I suggest you consider what I DID say - the ferry was travelling at maniac speed, and had a dedicated bridge crew to look after radar watch; 2 things conspicuously absent in the case of the fishermen !

 

[Capt Cautious]

Tim,

I know you like a good argument, and I often agree with some of your views, but please don't twist my words; I most certainly never said it was common sense to ignore colregs !

I suggest you consider what I DID say - the ferry was travelling at maniac speed, and had a dedicated bridge crew to look after radar watch; 2 things conspicuously absent in the case of the fishermen !

There really was no excuse for either bridge to be improperly operated. The fisherman had 2 guys who were not engaged in any navigational operation whatsoever - which I think we all agree should have taken precedence over everything else - (at least that is what has been strongly put forward in the case of the ferry - why not the fisherman ?) One of them could easily have taken the wheel while the skipper monitored the radar. There is no legislation anywhere exempting fishing boats from keeping a proper lookout or complying with colregs. If they were not physically capable of complying then there are other questions to answer, it is not sufficient to say "they were fishing so couldn't". Both vessels had a duty to properly monitor the radar and interpret it competently.

I genuinely understand the passion with which some folks are pointing at the ferry, but, there are serious questions to ask of both sides. The true balance of blame (when we see it quantified) is probably going to start another battle royal.

CC

 

[Seajet]

For Christ's sake Wake Up to the Real World !

Fishing boat with small crew, probably tired, plodding on; High speed commercial ferry with bridge crew, deciding to go at usual nutter speed - as I have seen personally on earlier sailings with Condor - , sod the conditions, as the timetable was the rule.

I would add that I am no fan of fishing boats, I have been victim of Brit' types' cra*p behaviour damaging my boat, and think UK fishing boats lack of upkeep a disgrace compared to other countries pride in their boats.

I have seen French and British fishing boats trundling along straight across Channel without a soul on the bridge.

That doesn't excuse a bunch of supposed ''bridge crew' more qualified and specialised to the voyage alone in a high powered projectile on a whole different level of speed regime, with a dedicated purpose & destination, killing people through zero seamanship just through an attempt to keep to timetables!

 

[Capt Cautious]

Thats what I mean about passion.

From a dispassionate perspective, and a professional one at that - the fatality was caused by two vessels being in the same place at the same time. This is actually somewhat exclusive of any speeds, and this is reflected in the report.
If it is accepted that with a proper lookout on each vessel neither vessel would have collided, then the root cause resolves to something other than speed. If one was to say that if she had been going slower she wouldnt have been in that position at that time is hardly valid - as the same argument stands if she left the dock 1 minute later, and similar could be said of any event. That part I'm afraid is coincidence - nothing more. A slower speed would of course have given everybody more time. But if you have your eyes closed you still walk into walls - just a little later than if you were running with your eyes closed.

CC

 

[timbartlett]

For Christ's sake Wake Up to the Real World !

The real world is that both vessels were partly responsible, and that if either of them had been keeping a proper lookout and followed the directions given in Rule 19, this incident would not have hapenned.

The onus was on both vessels to avoid collision. Neither of them did.

 

[Seajet]

Yes, it is rather obvious that everyone should keep a lookout.

Navigating in fog has been likened on this thread to moving around a room in the dark; 'people still bump into things'...

They don't run in the dark waving knives though, which this was the equivalent of !

 

[Greenheart]

Might is right, is wrong

Seajet has a good point, which no-one out there ought to need explanation of.

Isn't it sadly possible that in the Condor crew's minds, a close watch of radar just wasn't as vital as, with hindsight, it clearly ought to have been? And frankly, which of us would have needed hindsight to to see the risk they ran?

With a long record free of trouble, might they have developed the assumption that everyone stays out of their way...and when the hitherto reasonable visibility was lost in the fatal final minutes, not only did they not back off on the throttle, they didn't even check their path on the only effective means of seeing through the fog.

Granted it is everyone's duty to avoid collision, but in my book, semi-somnolent lookouts are more guilty, the faster they go. Seeing it differently may have caused this crash.

If another boat similar to the Marquises had likewise failed to keep radar watch, and collided head on with the Marquises at the same slow speed, who here thinks we would even have heard about it?

On the other hand, if another ferry similar to the Condor Vitesse had kept the same slack watch, and each had ploughed into her sistership at a combined 74 knots, it'd be a huge international tragedy.

Drivers skidding and spinning, making tentative progress on ice or in fog, may suffer dings and dents, but it's when someone speeds through as if there were nothing amiss, that things get deadly.

Circumstances may test our competence but it's speed that turns up the heat if competence is questionable.

 

[SHUG]

Does Condor have a regular and well defined route? If so it would be prudent to keep clear of that area in fog.