Condor ferry & Fog!

[Capt Cautious]

That's not what I meant. I would like to know at what range the Condor can hear a standard foghorn, taking into account engine noise and so on. That may well be rather less than the range at which a quiet man in a rowing boat could hear it ...

For the answer to that, as you probably already know, you would need to address the Classification society. The vessel would have been built to Class rules, and the the specs of all equipment would be detailed and specified by them. I would expect the performance data of the monitoring equipment to be available. I've no doubt it will be made available to competent authorities during the investigation.
CC

 

[jimi]

I know it has become some kind of hobby for one or two people on this forum to try to find fault with anything and everything I say, but it is pretty stupid to try to do so when I am simply reporting the content of published reports. Please look again at what I said, and then follow your own advice, and look at the MAIB report:-
I wrote:
The MAIB report http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Ouzo_.pdfsaid
2.8.7 Conclusion
Ouzo probably passed within 20 metres from the bow of Pride of Bilbao, and then passed close down the windward side of the vessel and out into her wake. Ouzo’s navigation lights remained on for a period, despite the yacht being catastrophically affected by the encounter.
The officer of the watch on Pride of Bilbao did not positively seek confirmation that the yacht and her crew were safe after the near collision because:
o The second officer believed that he had passed a safe distance from the yacht;
o The second officer believed that the sighting of a single red and/or white light astern was sufficient proof that the yacht was safe;
o The second officer lacked an appreciation of the likely or possible effect of the close encounter with the yacht.
Whatever the views of the officer of the watch and the bridge team, the master should have been called and told of the incident.

I wrote:I'm afraid I cannot find a truly authoritative source for the verdict, but every source I've found with a quick google agrees with the RYA summary:-
http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/ouzo.aspx
Following a six week trial the Second Officer of the Pride of Bilbao, Michael Hubble, was found not guilty of three counts of manslaughter and not guilty of engaging in conduct as a seaman likely to cause death or serious injury (pursuant to Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995).

Mr Bartlett your fundamental error here is to confuse 2 things:

1) A verdict by a jury in a criminal court of law where the balance of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The defence worked very hard to introduce reasonable doubt into the jury's mind and succeeded in enough of them to let the jury fail to reach a verdict.

2) A MAIB report. As i already stated MAIB reports are not used in courts of law as by doing so would constrain the MAIB in any conclusions drawn and lessons learnt.



Not only that but you do not refer actually to the post I responded to:

IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards.

And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident.

As for your initial comment about one or two people finding fault with everything you say, I've only had one brush with you over the bearings issue, where again your analysis was superficial and your tone unnecessarily arrogant and dismissive.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Sorry, I'm not sure which report you are looking at, because the Funtingdon report shows that probability of detection reaches a peak at about three miles, with minima at just over 2 miles and just under 4 miles. There are several maxes and mins at ranges of less than 2 miles, and another minimum at about 11 miles.

Sorry - my mistake. I was trying to remember the maxima and minima without downloading the report again (different computer). You are quite right.

Thanks for the explanation - that all makes sense. In practice, how steady is this effect?

 

[Mark-1]

fundamental error

Someone's made a fundamental error but it's not me or Pilot Wolf or TB.

Hubble was cleared it says so on the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7142272.stm

The MAIB report confirms that they did see a light behind them (I think this is taken from the bridge recording:

A few seconds later, the lookout, who was standing at the forward windows of the bridge, glimpsed the shape of a small yacht with two white sails close to the starboard bow. It quickly passed from his view down the starboard side and he ran over to the starboard side of the wheelhouse.
The second officer asked if the yacht was clearing, but received no reply from the lookout.
The lookout stated that he could see a red light about one point on the starboard quarter. The second officer acknowledged, but did not see the light at that time.
The second officer returned to the centre of the wheelhouse where he turned off a number of aft deck lights, which he believed might have been obscuring their vision, before going again to the starboard side.
The lookout saw the light again, and told the second officer, but did not indicate its relative position.
It is at this point that the second officer believes he saw a single red light about 4 or 5 points off the stern, on the starboard quarter of Pride of Bilbao. The sight of the red light provided him with reassurance that the yacht was clear of Pride of Bilbao’s stern.
Once Pride of Bilbao was back on course, the second officer had another look around before returning to the chartroom. At this time, he noticed a single white light about 2 points to port of the stern. He took the light to be the stern light of the yacht, and thus providing further proof, in his mind, that the yacht was not in any trouble.
The vessel continued on its voyage to Bilbao.
The second officer and the lookout did not discuss the incident any further,

For the sake of my blood pressure you should admit you got it wrong, the evidence is overwhelming,

 

[jimi]

2.8.4 Was the yacht safe after the incident?
The lookout had run across the bridge to the starboard side as the yacht passed from view to determine where it was. At first, he did not see the yacht or her lights, probably because he was not looking from the extreme outboard vantage point on Pride of Bilbao’s bridge, but a few metres inboard. From his position he would only have been unable to see a boat that was very close alongside the hull (Figures 17 and 17a).
After starting an alteration of course to starboard, the second officer walked over to join the lookout. At that time, the lookout saw a single red light about a point (11 degrees) on the starboard quarter and fairly close. This was probably a light from Ouzo.
The lookout reported the light, however despite acknowledging the report the second officer did not actually see it himself. The second officer believed glare from some of the vessel’s floodlights was obscuring his vision aft, and he walked to the after light consol and switched them off.
He then returned to rejoin the lookout. The lookout then saw the red light once again, and reported the fact without indicating the direction. It is thought that this could well have been a light from the yacht. The second officer heard the report and saw a light himself about 4 to 5 points (45-56 degrees) off the stern, on the starboard quarter. A reconstruction of the probable relative positions of the two vessels indicates that the yacht would have been between 1 and 2 points (about 11 to 22 degrees) off Pride of Bilbao’s stern at the time of this sighting. It is concluded, therefore, that the light the second officer saw could not have been associated with the yacht.

 

[Seven Spades]

In suggesting you need to be able to come within visible distance, it's evident you've never been on the bridge of a large ship. 30m vis means the crew of the Condor can't see anything beyond the pointy part of their own ship - 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? Radar and fog signals should be sufficient to warn of a potential collision situation that would then neccessitate slowing or stopping - it says that in colregs. Until there is an indication of a vessel ahead, there is no reason that a vessel should not proceed at a reasonable speed.

I think the answer is self evidently yes.

Before radar these ferries would have stayed in port, fogbound. The fact that a man has been killed by this reckless action is reason enough don't you think?

You say there is no reason... at a reasonable speed, quite correct probably 8knts max then any vessel has a chance of moving to avoid a collision. At 30knts you can't move quick enough and it it not reasonable.

 

[timbartlett]

Mr Bartlett your fundamental error here is to confuse 2 things:

I am not "confusing" anything: throughout this discussion I have clearly distinguished between the MAIB report and the court verdict.

Not only that but you do not refer actually to the post I responded to...your analysis was superficial and your tone unnecessarily arrogant and dismissive.

I leave it to others to decide whether my analysis is "superficial".
Your assertion that "you do not refer actually to the post I responded to" appears to be deliberately misleading. I did refer to it: I included it as direct quotes -- which you seem to have ignored.

I doubt whether the screen dump (below) will be clear enough for anyone to read the words (they can always skip back to the post concerned) but it will, I hope, show the grey quote boxes that you have chosen to omit.

 

[jimi]

I am not "confusing" anything: throughout this discussion I have clearly distinguished between the MAIB report and the court verdict. I leave it to others to decide whether my analysis is "superficial".
Your assertion that "you do not refer actually to the post I responded to" appears to be deliberately misleading. I did refer to it: I included it as direct quotes -- which you seem to have ignored.

I doubt whether the screen dump (below) will be clear enough for anyone to read the words (they can always skip back to the post concerned -- but it will, I hope, show the grey quote boxes that you have chosen to omit.

Tim, you are talking absolute bollox. You did not quote the post I responded to. If you are going to enter into an argument at least have the decency to quote the correct post rather than deliberately misquote with the deliberate intention of misleading.

aand then post a misleading screenshot.

For those interested the relevant posts are #65 - #68

I'm out of this post.

I have no intention of engaging with you again.

 

[Greenheart]

Amen to that, Seven Spades. Obvious, isn't it? (Sorry to put this in after those chaps started arguing again).

 

[timbartlett]

You wrote:-

Not only that but you do not refer actually to the post I responded to:

IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards.

And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident.

If you click on the screen dump I provided, you will see that the second of the grey quote boxes says "IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards."
The third of the grey quote boxes says " And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident."

 

[jimi]

You wrote:-

If you click on the screen dump I provided, you will see that the second of the grey quote boxes says "IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards."
The third of the grey quote boxes says " And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident."

Why do you persist in muddying the waters of a perfectly sensible and civil discussion with such ludicrous allegations that are demonstrably untrue?

TB you are an idiot of the first water. That was not the post I responded to and you are well aware of it.

 

[DAKA]

this is not in response to any one poster or argument.
I would like to bring to all sailors attention this flyer issued by the MAIB for the attention of fishing boats.

It makes it very clear that everyone has a duty to keep a constant look out, it reinforces what I have being saying for years, it really is your duty to ensure you dont get into harms way.
That means constant watches, you cant pop below to navigate/put the kettle on/use the head.

Reading the full report of the Scottish Viking tragic incident last August is a must for any offshore sailors.

The Scottish Viking (giveway vessel) hit a fishing boat in clear vis, settled seastate, they could see one another from miles away.

If it isnt obvious from that incident who was at blame , I really struggle to imagine that anyone can be blamed when two vessels cant see one another.

Fog moves around in Banks.
You cant tell how bad the banks are until there is something to see.

It is possible the ferry could see 1 to the side , but the fishing boat was concealed in a bank of fog that wasnt apparent until the ferry got to the bank.
Fog can also be layered, allowing 1 mile visibility between two tall ships but totally obscuring low boats.

 

[timbartlett]

TB you are an idiot of the first water. That was not the post I responded to and you are well aware of it.

if you did not want me to refer to the post in which I wrote: "IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards."
" And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident.", then why on earth did you write:-

...
Not only that but you do not refer actually to the post I responded to:

IIRC, the watchkeepers on the Pride of Bilbao believed they had had a near miss, and both believed they had seen the lights of the yacht astern of the ferry afterwards.

And the OOW was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident.

 

[Mariner69]

In many discussions with Cockcroft, when a student and subsequently at sea, it was taken that the rule for safe speed was to be able to stop ones own ship in half of the visibility prevailing. If both ships adhere to that rule then no collision should occur.

I suspect that a "Lady Gwendoline" case will be found in due course and the old statements will be re-stated until the next time.

The commercial pressures on Masters are immense; one who fails to meet the office set requirements will soon find his relief waiting on the quay. The relief may even be much cheaper since the nationality rules for Master no longer apply.

A sad and tragic outcome for all involved.

 

[DAKA]

In many discussions with Cockcroft, when a student and subsequently at sea, it was taken that the rule for safe speed was to be able to stop ones own ship in half of the visibility prevailing. If both ships adhere to that rule then no collision should occur.

I suspect that a "Lady Gwendoline" case will be found in due course and the old statements will be re-stated until the next time.

The commercial pressures on Masters are immense; one who fails to meet the office set requirements will soon find his relief waiting on the quay. The relief may even be much cheaper since the nationality rules for Master no longer apply.

A sad and tragic outcome for all involved.

was that the one where 10 knots was deemed irresponsible

 

[sarabande]

re: Disappearance of small boat's signal on screen.

A single incident: returning nighttime on a collection from France to Plymouth last year, we were using a decent Raymarine set which was collecting signatures from a variety of visible and invisible targets.

One set of lights (clearly a fishing boat in action) passed from port to stbd, and was only very occasionally visible as a trace on the radar. Even at close range (<1 mile) all that could be seen were his lights - and even then, they were sometimes obscured by his gear.

Qinetiq mentions signal interference from structure and other reflecting surfaces (a subject which has appeared here frequently), and I wonder whether the fishing boat had other devices which inadvertently prevented a clear return from developing on the COndor's screen. Looking at Mark-1's pic of the boat, there appear to be two small tri-ball reflectors above their own radar set, with some worklights (?metal body) directly in front. Or are they GPS units ?

UG is right, along with other comments that empirical work needs to be carried out on why signals disappear. OK, the theory seems to have been carried out by Qinetiq, but should MCA or the French equivalent be setting up a study of effects in the field ?

 

[Mariner69]

The major factor was that the court inspected all the records and found the owners had failed to stop the Masters speeding in fog over a period.

The owners had saved money by only having an engineer superintendent and not a marine superintendent who would be a Master Mariner and able to interpret the log books and take issue.

It cost the owners a lot of money, limitation not allowed etc, and the whole industry paid attention for a while.

Before radar, I was told by one old Captain that they would go to anchor to wait for the weather to clear before proceeding very slowly. In those days fixing in bad weather was difficult if not impossible. Once anchored at least you knew roughly where you were!!

 

[Sailfree]

I had a close encounter with a ferry going from Portsmouth to Spain at the end of the Solent several years ago, Sea state smooth, visibility good. They crashstopped and looked via searchlight on their Port side. We were well clear by c 250 yards on their starboard side.
They obviously did'nt have a clue where we were despite us having the nav and steaming light on.

That encounter (subsequent to the Ouzo disaster) has led me to have a lack of faith in the watchkeepers and their ability to use either their eyes or radar.

Thanks for that report Jimi. Its informative and frightening!

Its the spread of factual information like that that makes these forums so good.

After the Ouzo incident I bought a waterproof handheld VHF and a personal EPIRB but I now feel less confident of ships watchkeepers abilities.

 

[ChrisE]

re: Disappearance of small boat's signal on screen.

A single incident: returning nighttime on a collection from France to Plymouth last year, we were using a decent Raymarine set which was collecting signatures from a variety of visible and invisible targets.

One set of lights (clearly a fishing boat in action) passed from port to stbd, and was only very occasionally visible as a trace on the radar. Even at close range (<1 mile) all that could be seen were his lights - and even then, they were sometimes obscured by his gear.

Qinetiq mentions signal interference from structure and other reflecting surfaces (a subject which has appeared here frequently), and I wonder whether the fishing boat had other devices which inadvertently prevented a clear return from developing on the COndor's screen. Looking at Mark-1's pic of the boat, there appear to be two small tri-ball reflectors above their own radar set, with some worklights (?metal body) directly in front. Or are they GPS units ?

UG is right, along with other comments that empirical work needs to be carried out on why signals disappear. OK, the theory seems to have been carried out by Qinetiq, but should MCA or the French equivalent be setting up a study of effects in the field ?

My understanding of why targets disappear from radar screens (in calm conditions) is that they pass underneath the radar beam as the target approaches the ship. You can observe this from your own yacht as you get close to a target it will vanish.

This problem has been solved by the latest broadband radar (which I have on my fishing vessel) which enables you to track targets right to the side of the boat.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I think the answer is self evidently yes.

Before radar these ferries would have stayed in port, fogbound. The fact that a man has been killed by this reckless action is reason enough don't you think?

You say there is no reason... at a reasonable speed, quite correct probably 8knts max then any vessel has a chance of moving to avoid a collision. At 30knts you can't move quick enough and it it not reasonable.

I don't believe at this point that we know Condor was going 30 kts - for all we know they could have been doing 8. Perhaps we should make it illegal for small vessels to operate in fog. That makes as much sense as requiring large vessels to come to a full stop to wait for the fog to lift.