Condor ferry & Fog!

[Ex-SolentBoy]

You missed my point. The requirement to avoid a close quarters situation, keep a lookout, and procede at a safe speed applies to ALL vessels - not just the big one that did the damage.
CC

No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that if you charge about at 30 knots in fog there is no safe speed for the other vessel!

It doesn't matter what speed the fishing boat was going at. If he has no way of knowing where the ferry, and he is not required to carry radar, then it is impossible for him to avoid it. The ferry, by travelling at that speed has removed his ability to proceed safely.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Ok, but that is still a long way from proceeding at a speed that you can take sufficient action within your visible horizen, otherwise there will be days where dozens of vessels will be bobbing around just waiting for the fog to clear.

Does it really matter if people are delayed? Inconvenient, yes. Worth risking lives for, no.

 

[Shibumi]

Why is nobody discussing the manning of the fishing boat's radar?

(she had one fitted if the photograph is correct).

 

[Pye_End]

Does it really matter if people are delayed? Inconvenient, yes. Worth risking lives for, no.

So what you are suggesting is that if you get a high pressure giving you say 2 days of fog in the channel, then the channel should be closed to ships for the duration?

 

[Capt Cautious]

No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that if you charge about at 30 knots in fog there is no safe speed for the other vessel!

It doesn't matter what speed the fishing boat was going at. If he has no way of knowing where the ferry, and he is not required to carry radar, then it is impossible for him to avoid it. The ferry, by travelling at that speed has removed his ability to proceed safely.

While I totally agree with your point that a vessel can impact upon anothers ability to proceed safely, the approach speed of 2 vessels head on at 15kts is 30 kts and happens regularly, even in restricted visibility. There is very very seldom a coming together. Something else was affecting this situation. I would reitterate that both vessels are required to maintain a lookout by all available means appropriate to the existing circumstances and conditions, and both vessels are give-way vessels. The neglect of one or both to provide such a lookout facility, or give way as a result of failure of this facility, when one is routinely available does not make it OK.

If you were fit and young you may risk a dash across the dual carriageway, if you were incapacitated in any way you'd certainly be expected to think twice, although you are still equally entitled to mix it with the trucks. Seamanship is just common sense with water-wings.
CC

 

[timbartlett]

Does it really matter if people are delayed? Inconvenient, yes. Worth risking lives for, no.

Do you drive? cycle? use public transport? There are risks inherent in everything we do. They may be minimised but they can almost never be eliminated.

The question, surely, is where we strike the balance between risk and benefit.

 

[rich]

Fisherman laid to rest today

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=493706

 

[Beelzebub]

It would appear that Les Marquises was lifting its pots at the time of the incident and was travelling at 4 knots.

Its ability to manoevre would probably have been impaired by the string of pots that it was hauling and indeed it was quite possibly attached to the sea-bed by the string.

http://www.rennes.maville.com/actu/...SS_MVI_rennes&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS

 

[Cruiser2B]

Cruiser2B, it's difficult to believe your remarks are serious, or that you believe them yourself.

You've been determined to defend the Condor at every step, and to blame the fishermen just for being there, doing their work.

You've treated the idea that old-fashioned visibility is a primary tool for preventing collision, as something that's out of place in an age when radar and reflectors exist.

You don't seem to approve of routinely making significant reductions in speed, or the modification of timetables, in periods of doubtful visibility. (The fact that now, you're casting doubt on the speed the ferry was travelling at, sounds like you're on the back-foot).

You seem to voice exactly the unapologetic conceit about the circumstances wherein this tragedy occurred, which we might expect from a solicitor for the Condor crew. Are you a relative, or a major share-holder, perhaps?

If you're a small-boat sailor, as most of us are, isn't there a significant part of your outlook, that recognises the rights of private individuals to navigate responsibly (and in a manner that shows they know their duty not to loiter in the way of less manoeuvrable traffic) in open water, without being flattened by vast, very high-speed commercial operators who place cavalier reliance on high-tech solutions to poor visibility, which patently don't always work, as here?

Your reasoning seems determined to oppose a most basic rule - that no-one should allow or cause a collision to occur, purely on the basis that it was the other party's business to keep clear.

dancrane, there is no need to be so unpleasant. Nor do you need to put words in my mouth. I am not defending Condor, but trying to add balance to the discussion. It is my opinion that most collisions can be blamed on both parties - I've not placed any blame on Les Marquises, but pointed out some of the questions that need to be answered to determine their part in the accident. By the same right, I'm not absolving Condor of the blame, but most of the finger-pointing has already been levelled at that crew; I do not need to add my voice to that choir. The one thing I refuse to do, is march a fellow mariner to the gallows before the investigation has been done. Too many here, yourself included seem to think Condor was 100% to blame without knowing the facts or bothering to ask the questions. Purely in the interest of a productive dialogue, I would like to see us stick to the facts; and where we don't have the facts, then we should acknowledge the assumptions. We don't know with certainty: the speed of the Condor, the actual state of visibility, whether a fog lookout was closed up, whether fog signals were being sounded (in either vessel), or the state of the radar watch (in either vessel). I'd very much like to discuss what we know and knock around some what if's. I'm particularly interested in the discussion of safe speed - note I've not stated anywhere that Condor was complying with rule 6, nor have I offered an opinion on what I would consider safe speed, other than it could be higher than the speed at which a vessel can stop in half the visible distance.
Now do you have anything to contibute to the discussion or is your best argument hurling ad hominem abuse at another poster?

 

[Cruiser2B]

The French and British VTS know the position of every ship in the Channel and Western approaches, and monitor them fastidiously.

I have to assume they didn't know the position of Les Marquises, or they might have warned Condor of an impending close-quarters,

While I totally agree with your point that a vessel can impact upon anothers ability to proceed safely, the approach speed of 2 vessels head on at 15kts is 30 kts and happens regularly, even in restricted visibility. There is very very seldom a coming together. Something else was affecting this situation. I would reitterate that both vessels are required to maintain a lookout by all available means appropriate to the existing circumstances and conditions, and both vessels are give-way vessels. The neglect of one or both to provide such a lookout facility, or give way as a result of failure of this facility, when one is routinely available does not make it OK.

Well said!

 

[stav]

I have not read all the posts for this thread but there seems to be a lot of assumptions and rule bantering going on when a man has actually died.

I can not see how sound signals would help as we live a mile from the coast and at high tide can hear the wave piercers going past. Additionally it seems to me being outside at that speed is only possible when sheltered behind the superstructure.

If the fishing boat was pulling his pots surely he would expect someone to give way, though if it was me I would still want to be looking at the radar screen.

As for the technology surely it works. I have called Condor up on a windy day and they had a clear signal at 6 mile, we are GRP, wood and heavy aluminium mast. Additionally I do not know much about radar but a colleague at work has a largish motor boat with equally expensive radar and when questioned about coming home in fog says no problem it even picks up the pot markers.

As for fog well this time of year fog patches are a regular part of the forcast and does not stop a trip to France. In fact I have always considered Condor to be the least of my worries in fog.

I just hope the investigation is thorough, robust and prompt with useful real findings and suggestions. Such as publishing routes with way points to help us keep out of the way, Issuing more information over the VHF, or the CI having a local navtex frequency with shipping movements on etc. I would also be interested to know if fog can reflect sound as I am sure I have heard the Condor coming from one direction and then seen it in another.

Sounds like I am hanging Condor out but unless the fisherman did a sudden course alteration it is likely that the condor was give way vessel, but I am not hanging Condor out to dry I just want a safer seas or at least a true appreciation of the limits of the technology and then some acknowledgement that there are less well equiped boaters out there and some suggestions to make it safer.

To this end does anybody now how long the report will take and where it will be published?

Also I order my AIS reciever today.....

 

[Pye_End]

If the fishing boat was pulling his pots surely he would expect someone to give way, though if it was me I would still want to be looking at the radar screen.

..... it is likely that the condor was give way vessel,

Surely that would depend on the visibility. If it was that poor then both share the responsibility as they would not be in sight of each other.

 

[RichardS]

Sounds like I am hanging Condor out but unless the fisherman did a sudden course alteration it is likely that the condor was give way vessel,.....

Actually, I think that in restricted visibilty there is no such thing as the "give way vessel" .... both vessels have an equal responsibility to avoid the other.

Richard

 

[Seven Spades]

It seems most likely both vessels will be found responsible, however I if the Ferry is traveling at high speed I hope they throw the book at it.

It has been my impression that too many vessels or their masters have taken the view that it is an acceptable risk to travel at high speed in fog because they have radar. This is a position I cannot accept and I do not think that there is a legal defence to this position.

We will have to see. I hope that this will bring about a change in attitude towards safety.

 

[Greenheart]

I wasn't being unpleasant. You'd know, if I was.

Cruiser2B, I wasn't being unpleasant. I was carefully expressing irritation, because I felt you were wilfully avoiding a conclusion which the circumstances, (as much as we know of them) present as thoroughly probable.

Moreover I felt you were suggesting that this conclusion, even if it may be shown to be accurate, is not in itself sufficient to cast doubt on the Condor Vitesse's crew, because such conduct is normal practise, and they've had no such incident previously.

This seems to be a tone in some of the posts, (not by any means all your own); an acceptance that commercial motives will ensure that millions of tonnes of shipping will continue to be driven hard through blinding fogs, regardless of occasional failures by the high-tech systems set up to penetrate the gloom...because "that's the way it is".

The Condor's vast speed need not be any great danger, if its application is limited by visibility. But if radar is thought to be infallible, and if that presumption is felt to justify speeds which make even moderate visibility 'too little, too late' to alter course or throttle back, then this operator must be taking unreasonable risks.

Here's a quote from you, Cruiser2B:
do you suggest they come to a complete stop? Or what do you consider a safe speed - 1 knot? Is it realistic to expect a ferry on an expected 1-hour hop, to spend the next day and a half at sea, because a fog rolls in?

Well, I'm sure 1 knot is a safe speed. But I doubt M. Lesaulnier would be dead, if the Condor had only restrained itself to four knots. Assuming the aluminium fishing vessel had still been hit (and that's some stretch), the damage would've certainly been very great, but I doubt we'd be talking about it now.

It seems Les Marquises was itself travelling at four knots. As I said back on post#9 (ages ago, it seems), I think our sub judice speculation is pretty unpleasant...but reading points of view which seemed to imply that this pedestrian vessel was flattened by an innocent giant which routinely and rightfully motors at a pace far faster than allows avoidance of small-fry in its path...to that opinion, I object, and I can't easily respect its holders.

Nothing personal; frankly, I'd rather we all drop it, and wait for the inquiry.

 

[stav]

Actually, I think that in restricted visibilty there is no such thing as the "give way vessel" .... both vessels have an equal responsibility to avoid the other.

Richard

Yes but if you are impedded how can you take avoiding action or if you are travelling at 5knts and being over taken by a vessel doing in excess of 30knts what can you do? If I can I like to be out of the marked channels for larger vessels but that is not always possible.

 

[fisherman]

I've had the utmost difficulty avoiding a collision in fine weather, with a ship that seemed intent on running me down at only 12 kts.
The only good thing about the speed in this case is that the fishing boat would have a fairly quick and clear indication of Condor's course on target trail, but what to do about it? Assume you have the Condor approaching on radar. You can't quite tell if he is going to pass close, but clear, and you know his ARPA can show him this. Do you wait, hoping this is the case? If you decide to move, can you decide which way? If he has seen you are stopped, he quite reasonably could pass either side, he has no aspect and you may move into his path, and unless he is prepared to slow or stop, cause the collision. No time for a VHF call, unless you just yell on 16 and hope. If you had more time I would suggest make all speed at his course minus 90 deg, showing him your portside, which clearly tells him he is the give way vessel, and try to inform him by radio. The driving issue is lack of time due to speed.

Years ago the local RNLI were taught about radar and one thing that stuck was the first thing said: "If you see an echo there is something there, but if you don't, it doesn't mean there isn't".

 

[Cruiser2B]

True -- though it took a bit of doing to find all those separate quotes from Cockroft!
But an interesting one that you've missed out was the Elder Brethren's advice to the Court in 1972, when -- dealing with two ships, both between 100 and 150m in length and in visibility of about a mile, suggested that an appropriate speed without radar might be 6-7 knots and an appropriate speed with radar would be 8-9 knots.
Cockroft does caution against taking those figures too literally, but referrs to them as "an illustration". And of course things have moved on in 40 years. Even so, I find it hard to imagine that they have moved on so far that speeds three or four times higher are now OK in visibility three or four (or more) times worse.

Sorry Tim - I meant to respond to this but got sidetracked responding to slings and arrows - I'm certain you can relate. I don't think it was that hard to find the excerpts - they were all in the first two pages of the Rule 6 discussion. The passage you provided likely relates to "moderate speed" having taken place before the 72 colregs had come into force. And the advice is particular to the specific vessels, cargo vessels that are doubtless incapable of matching Condor's stopping performance. Illustrative, but not definitive. I won't put you on the spot and ask what you would think a safe speed would be - without knowing all the factors and the vessel's performance characteristics, it would be unfair - but would appreciate reading your thoughts on how you determine safe speed.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Cruiser2B, I wasn't being unpleasant. I was carefully expressing irritation, because I felt you were wilfully avoiding a conclusion which the circumstances, (as much as we know of them) present as thoroughly probable.

This is where I get to say it's difficult to believe your remarks are serious or that you believe them yourself. "As much as we know" is not a great deal. The fact that you have settled on a "thoroughly probable conclusion" despite the paucity of evidence doesn't square with your final remark about waiting for the inquiry.

Moreover I felt you were suggesting that this conclusion, even if it may be shown to be accurate, is not in itself sufficient to cast doubt on the Condor Vitesse's crew, because such conduct is normal practise, and they've had no such incident previously.

You are attempting to justify your rancor by manufacturing an opinion for me, that I did not express, and do not have.

Well, I'm sure 1 knot is a safe speed. But I doubt M. Lesaulnier would be dead, if the Condor had only restrained itself to four knots. Assuming the aluminium fishing vessel had still been hit (and that's some stretch), the damage would've certainly been very great, but I doubt we'd be talking about it now.

It seems Les Marquises was itself travelling at four knots...

Nothing personal; frankly, I'd rather we all drop it, and wait for the inquiry.

Quite possibly, but let's also run the numbers - Condor at 4 kts, Marquises at 4kts on reciprocal heading, closing speed 8kts, 30 m vis means 8 seconds to react. As someone pointed out, Condor is 26 m wide - do you think 8 seconds is enough time for Marquises to sort out the figure emerging from the fog, decide which way to go and actually get out of the way? Is it time enough to sound the warning signal or get on channel 16? A collision at 8kts might not be fatal, but very well could be - as I pointed out before, Condor is 5000 tonnes, so it would roll over Marquises like a dumptruck over a garbage can. It wouldn't take a lot of digging to find reports of fatal collisions that happened at similar speeds.

Again this is not meant to exonerate Condor; this is meant to reinforce my point that both vessels have a responsibility to avoid collisions -- and small vessel operators cannot be complacent or assume the big vessels will do all the avoiding.

 

[stav]

this is meant to reinforce my point that both vessels have a responsibility to avoid collisions -- and small vessel operators cannot be complacent or assume the big vessels will do all the avoiding.

Surely though (and what I meant by give way vessel), if a vessel choses to do 30knts in poor viability then they have taken on the responsibility for collision avoidance?