Condor ferry & Fog!

[rich]

Report copied from C.T.V



An inquest into the death of a fisherman in Monday's fatal ferry collision has been told there was nothing anyone could have done to save the father-of-four.

Frenchman Philippe Lesaulnier died after the boat he was travelling on was torn apart by the huge Condor Vitesse in a devastating accident.

The 42-year-old's family are in Jersey to accompany his body on his final journey home.

Meanwhile, Islanders have been paying tribute to the 'well respected' fisherman.

It has already been announced that Mr Lesaulnier drowned following an injury to his chest.

Renaud Gaudeul, the French prosecutor who is leading the country's investigation into the incident, revealed the information.

Father-of-four Mr Lesaulnier was killed when the boat he was skippering and the Condor Vitesse collided in thick fog near the Minquiers.

An autopsy on 42-year-old Mr Lesaulnier showed the fisherman died from drowning following an injury to his thorax - the neck to diaphragm area.

Granville prosecutor Gaudeul has also announced that his investigation into the tragedy has so far found that the ferry's speed was 'considerable but not abnormal' and that the impact of the collision was 'extremely violent'.

Mr Lesaulnier's two fisherman colleagues survived the crash by clinging onto wreckage from the fishingboat, called Les Marquises, which was ripped apart by the force of the impact.

The Condor Vitesse ferry has been in Portsmouth for repairs after the collision and it has been announced that it will be back in service from tomorrow (Friday). All Condor bookings that were closed have now been reopened.

It has been announced that a fund has been started for Mr Lesaulnier's family.

The collection has been organised by Jersey firm The Fresh Fish Company, who have organised a collection tin at their trailer over this weekend at Victoria Pier at the end of Commercial Buildings.

Condor have announced that the captain of the Vitesse has been taken off active duty, but has not been suspended.

A spokesperson for Condor said: "The Captain and Chief Officer, who were on board the ship, are not performing any operational duties. Both officers are assisting the company in its investigation into the incident and its causes. They also need to be available to assist the authorities."

A joint investigation is being carried out between French and Jersey Police to try and establish the answers to widely asked questions - how was an accident like this able to happen?

Was the ferry going too fast? Was their fog horn being sounded regularly enough? And did the fishing boat have a radar deflector to alert other boats of their whereabouts?
__________________

 

[Juniperskip]

My last trip on the Condor to Guernsey was in vis of around 500 meters and acording to the saloon monitor we were cruising at 27 kts. I felt then that an accident with a small fishing boat or yacht was only a matter of time.

Without pre-judging, lets see what the accident report says. Think we can work it out.....

 

[ColdFusion]

Is the Condor somehow exempt from complying with collision regulations - i.e. ships shall proceed at a safe speed for the conditions and visibility? I recall reading somewhere that at the time of the collision the Condor was travelling at 30+ kts in fog. How can a good (and effective) lookout be kept when travelling at that speed in fog? If this turns out to be the case, as a result of the facts (eventually) reported in the accident report, rather than the "facts" reported by the media, then I hope the Condor's captain and Condor's operators are prosecuted.

 

[Searush]

I suspect that it will be argued that a "good lookout" was being kept on the Radar. Unfortunately, it is possible that smallish wooden French fishing boats don't give that big a blip.

I suspect our small plastic yots, even with radar reflectors, won't give that big a blip either. Caveat sailor.

 

[Csail]

Don't speculate and ignore the media.

 

[Searush]

Don't speculate and ignore the media.

Is that "Don't ignore the media?" Or are you simply ordering me to not buy newspapers?

Can I speculate that you are exceeding your remit by telling me what to do?

Perhaps you think that I care any more about your opinion than you do about mine? But please feel free to express your opinion, I have no problem with you doing that.

 

[stav]

From the picture in the local paper it was quite a substantial smallish 30foot or so proper fishing boat. Hard to believe it did not show up on radar, unless it was behaving erratically as is the way of fishing boats. I do have radar but have still taken the opportunity to upgrade my chart plotter (for other reasons) and added an AIS reciever on the basis it will provide a more reliable set of information bearing in mind I am not an expert radar user and corrosion in the connector has let me down twice. I feel that sound signals would have done little to help at that speed.

Poor chap, poor family.

 

[prv]

Hard to believe it did not show up on radar, unless it was behaving erratically as is the way of fishing boats.

So if it was behaving like a fishing boat, it's OK for the ferry to run it down?

Pete

 

[Greenheart]

Not that I like pondering this very sad matter, sub judice...but as we're a broadminded and widely-experienced bunch, and since any of us might have had our vessel sunk, just as Les Marquises was...would any of you say it's really remotely likely, that circumstances will come to light, which:

a) excuse this enormous and not very manoeuverable vessel for having proceeded at high speed in an area of poor visibility, or:

b) somehow show that the fishermen were asking for it, or:

c) allow the Condor operators off the hook because of their (previously successful) use of top-quality kit to identify and avoid other vessels, or:

d) (worst of all) lead us to accept that bad stuff happens sometimes?

Please tell me if you think I'm way off the mark here:

How different, in actual cause, human error and stubborn myopic conceit, was the Titanic's company-driven haste through an ice-field, which made her sinking unpreventable, from this tragedy, where again, a company schedule appears to have resulted in unjustifiable haste, an unavoidable collision when visibility was poor, and a horrid tragedy?

 

[Cruiser2B]

since any of us might have had our vessel sunk, just as Les Marquises was...

This should depend on whether the investigation(s) determine that a proper lookout was kept on Les Marquises and they were sounding fog signals. I'm curious too, if the assembled masses think it prudent to be fishing on the path of a scheduled ferry in a thick fog. Even if it's not marked on the charts, one would think local fishermen would not only be aware that a big high-speed ferry tears through that area, but they should know its route and schedule by heart. Frankly if Les Marquises wasn't doing their part in avoiding collision the outcome would have been the same whether Condor was at 10 knots or 40 knots.

 

[Greenwichman]

Proceeding in fog

Until we have the report on the tragedy involving the French fishing vessel and the Condor ferry there is no comment we should make on that specific incident, but in the general case from a professional big ship perspective I would offer three observations about small craft and fog:

First - yachts and craft under 50 feet loa are unlikely to be detected on radar at sufficient range, even if they are carrying radar reflectors. As earlier forum threads have discussed, radar reflectors have a very poor technical performance. An active transponder may enhance the echo, but otherwise small craft should always assume they will not be detected.

Secondly - within 4 miles (even further out in heavy weather, and upwind) sea returns are likely to obscure contacts on big ship radars. Decision-making by yachts within 5 or 6 miles of a large ship should therefore assume that even if detected a small grp or wooden craft may not be tracked on ARPA at close quarters.

Third - the best defence for a small craft faced with fog is to retreat to shallow water; certainly, avoid shipping routes. If caught out in shipping lanes use separation zones as safe havens; heave-to. Don't rely on "safe speed" on the part of others - too often it will be "safe" only in relation to other large vessels that paint strongly on radar. Small fry are at greater risk nowadays because watch-standers (mistakenly) believe in their radars.

Bill Anderson's 'Question of Seamanship' (YM - April) has some good advice, but even so his scenario makes an unsafe assumption that ARPA is tracking a yacht within 3 miles. His important point - with which I agree - is that the yacht skipper in that fictional case should have been taking much earlier decisions about avoiding the risk of collision.

Fog and yachting are a dire mix. Yacht radar, AIS etc are all very well, but reliance on such aids leads to technology-assisted collisions. There is loads of proof, sadly.

None of this is intended to defend high speed on the part of large vessels proceeding in fog; I don't condone it and they should slow down, but the reality is that people like us in small craft are at great risk and we should sail defensively.

 

[stav]

So if it was behaving like a fishing boat, it's OK for the ferry to run it down?

Pete

No absolutely not, perhaps he could have slowed down to try and judge what the 'other vessel' was doing or given a wider berth. Felt strange seeing 2 of the wave piercers out on Saturday.

 

[prv]

This should depend on whether the investigation(s) determine that a proper lookout was kept on Les Marquises and they were sounding fog signals.

I know they should have been doing these things - but in practice I doubt they would have made much difference. By the time a lookout saw the thing roaring out of the murk at 30 knots, it's too late to get out of the way. And on the ferry, snug inside and above such huge noisy engines, who's going to hear the (handheld aerosol?) horn of a 30' fishing boat?

Pete

 

[fisherman]

I've spent some time in fog off the Lizard, and it is very difficult. If you are fishing the boat will not maintain a regular heading, so any target tracks will be useless. If a large target approaches you have to set off on a course and keep it steady to get a target track, but he may have logged you as stopped and your sudden movement causes a problem. I'm a crabber, trawlers don't have a choice where to go if the gear is down. Then, can you decide if the other vessel, using his superior technology, is going to pass close but clear and which side. Also, off the Lizard most ships make a course alteration for Land's End, his track may be misleading.
My old radar had no tracking, I used to mark targets with a chinagraph on the screen. The new(er) radar can show the port or stbd aspect of the other vessel, but by the time the range is that small you could be in trouble. Basically, with vis at a half mile you can work, with care, but below a quarter mile its not possible and you must be on your toes and all eyes peeled. I've had vis down to less than 20 metres: not a hope in hell with an eyeball.

 

[alant]

No absolutely not, perhaps he could have slowed down to try and judge what the 'other vessel' was doing or given a wider berth. Felt strange seeing 2 of the wave piercers out on Saturday.

Assuming he could 'see' the "other vessel".

 

[Greenheart]

Greenwichman's reasoning is sound; we aboard our cockleshells can't expect to rely on legal basics to keep us alive in a fog, if we place ourselves where hundreds of thousands of tonnes of shipping have every right to be.

But equally, isn't this a timely reminder to ships' watchkeepers and captains, that even the best technology doesn't guarantee they act safely when visibility is poor, and so their speed ought invariably to allow them the option to avoid objects/vessels after they are spotted by the watch, even where they may be late by consequence?

Reports from the Channel Islands news site described passengers aboard the Condor as terrified, because they thought the Condor might sink, and traumatised by having seen the fishing boat's crew yelling from the water. I doubt any of them thought the ferry's schedule justified that ghastly scene.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Reports from the Channel Islands news site described passengers aboard the Condor as terrified, because they thought the Condor might sink, and traumatised by having seen the fishing boat's crew yelling from the water. I doubt any of them thought the ferry's schedule justified that ghastly scene.

At least the Condor had the decency to stop and help, unlike the Pride of Bilbao.

 

[Greenheart]

True. But even in wartime, it's not unheard of, to pick up survivors of vessels wilfully sent to the bottom. I forget the details of the Pride of Bilbao, but not to render assistance seems beyond criminal.

 

[Sailfree]

On a recently cruise on the Queen Elizabeth I visited the bridge. I asked a number of questions regarding visibility of small GRP boats and the confident replies led me to believe that modern radars "saw" them.

Can anyone with sea going experience of knowledge of big ships radar offer an opinion please.

 

[Sailfree]

At least the Condor had the decency to stop and help, unlike the Pride of Bilbao.

The Pride of Bilbao MAY have caused the Ouzo to sink and there were a number of factors indicating poor watchkeeping but I do not believe for one minute that it would have ignored peoplein the water had it known they were there.

They may have been guilty of seeing what they wanted to see but your post could be misread to infer ther simply ignored the incident.