Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
You should renew your acquaintance with Cockcroft - times have changed since the adoption of the '72 Colregs.
Some excerpts from the Rule 6 discussion in the sixth edition:
Condor ferry & Fog!
- Thread starter rich
- Start date
You should renew your acquaintance with Cockcroft - times have changed since the adoption of the '72 Colregs.
Some excerpts from the Rule 6 discussion in the sixth edition:
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Do we know how limited the visibilty was, and whether is was a blanket over the whole area, or patchy?
Additionally do we know what the sea state was, as presumably this would have an impact on radar?
Assuming that the fishing vessel had radar then presumably he had as much of a duty and ability to stay clear of the ferry as ferry did of him, at least until they had sight of each other (assuming thet did). If you want somebody to blame (personally I do not) then both vessels are responsible - it's just that one came off significantly worse than the other. A padestrian crossing a motorway keeps coming to mind. Do you blame the car for hitting the person, or the person for being there in the first place?
If the answer is that neither saw each other due to radar not picking each other up, then it certainly makes AIS look much more attractive. The fishing vessel may well not have had a transponder, but the ferry will have.
Good seamanship according to RYA Yachtmaster book:
Put on lifejacket and maybe even tow the dinghy (in case you are run down)
Try to keep out of shipping lanes by heading for shallow water
It is difficult to complain about the rules from a coffin. Sometimes it is about self-preservation.
The risks of being run down in fog obviously go up significantly. It's always been that way and always will. All of these electronics may well give a huge help, and a false sense of security, and perhaps detract from good old fashioned seamanship?
It is difficult to speculate without the facts, and much of the focus has rightly been on ferry speed and radar ability, and looking at the situation from an armchair is much easier than being there at the time. However I agree with Chruiser2B in that questions need to be asked as to what electonic equipment the fishing vessel had; was he keeping a watch; was he for example fishing in the fog in an area known to have shipping? Assuming he had AIS and was keeping watch it is difficult to see why he did not see the ferry.
Tragic.
Additionally do we know what the sea state was, as presumably this would have an impact on radar?
Assuming that the fishing vessel had radar then presumably he had as much of a duty and ability to stay clear of the ferry as ferry did of him, at least until they had sight of each other (assuming thet did). If you want somebody to blame (personally I do not) then both vessels are responsible - it's just that one came off significantly worse than the other. A padestrian crossing a motorway keeps coming to mind. Do you blame the car for hitting the person, or the person for being there in the first place?
If the answer is that neither saw each other due to radar not picking each other up, then it certainly makes AIS look much more attractive. The fishing vessel may well not have had a transponder, but the ferry will have.
Good seamanship according to RYA Yachtmaster book:
Put on lifejacket and maybe even tow the dinghy (in case you are run down)
Try to keep out of shipping lanes by heading for shallow water
It is difficult to complain about the rules from a coffin. Sometimes it is about self-preservation.
The risks of being run down in fog obviously go up significantly. It's always been that way and always will. All of these electronics may well give a huge help, and a false sense of security, and perhaps detract from good old fashioned seamanship?
It is difficult to speculate without the facts, and much of the focus has rightly been on ferry speed and radar ability, and looking at the situation from an armchair is much easier than being there at the time. However I agree with Chruiser2B in that questions need to be asked as to what electonic equipment the fishing vessel had; was he keeping a watch; was he for example fishing in the fog in an area known to have shipping? Assuming he had AIS and was keeping watch it is difficult to see why he did not see the ferry.
Tragic.
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
T
timbartlett
Guest
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.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Well now, it seems to me there is no need now for any official enquiry into this incident as the armchair specialists have presented all the facts, argued the case and pronounced the verdict already.
It all might seem glaringly obvious where the finger of blame should point in this case and I'm not saying it is or is not because until the FACTS are ALL available that would be very presumptuous. Look at the case of the Wahkuna where a yacht was run down in fog by a fast moving container ship in the Channel. Both vessels had radar, both vessels had seen each other on radar and yet a collision still ensued. The blame was shared IIRC to an extent as neither vessel was blameless with radar setup and use not correct on either, but Wahkuna (the yacht) actually turned back mistakenly into the ships path when she was just clear. Something similar may have occurred here also when all the facts are known.
The sad thing remains the loss of life here regardless of blame.
The reality too is that ships do not stop moving in poor visibility, it is not always possible for small boats to avoid going to sea in fog or if it is met to dodge back into shallow waters and fitting AIS transponders to everything from rubber ducks up is not the answer either. I posted very early on that I haven't heard foghorns in regular use for many years, despite at times having as many as a dozen ships in 6ml range on our radar out in the English Channel lanes in really thick fog. Like it or not nothing much will change.
It all might seem glaringly obvious where the finger of blame should point in this case and I'm not saying it is or is not because until the FACTS are ALL available that would be very presumptuous. Look at the case of the Wahkuna where a yacht was run down in fog by a fast moving container ship in the Channel. Both vessels had radar, both vessels had seen each other on radar and yet a collision still ensued. The blame was shared IIRC to an extent as neither vessel was blameless with radar setup and use not correct on either, but Wahkuna (the yacht) actually turned back mistakenly into the ships path when she was just clear. Something similar may have occurred here also when all the facts are known.
The sad thing remains the loss of life here regardless of blame.
The reality too is that ships do not stop moving in poor visibility, it is not always possible for small boats to avoid going to sea in fog or if it is met to dodge back into shallow waters and fitting AIS transponders to everything from rubber ducks up is not the answer either. I posted very early on that I haven't heard foghorns in regular use for many years, despite at times having as many as a dozen ships in 6ml range on our radar out in the English Channel lanes in really thick fog. Like it or not nothing much will change.
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
To offer a strictly balanced view - This was restricted visibility, it was BOTH parties responsibility to keep clear. There are no stand-on vessels in fog.
CC
CC
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
Can you please tell me how you keep clear of a vessel going over 30knots when you are not sure exactly where it is?
I thought the whole idea was that you went at a speed that enable you to avoid other vessels, i.e. the distance travelled during your personal and vessels reaction time was less than your visible distance. If you can only see 2 feet infront of your face you have to travel very slowly.
Last edited:
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
By keeping a good lookout - by all available means appropriate to the existing circumstances and conditions, and by proceding at a safe speed.
CC
CC
Robin
Well-Known Member
To do that requires the maritime equivalent of a Sky+ Box that can freeze live action at the mere touch of a pause button.
Searush
Well-Known Member
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
I find it very hard to believe that people who go to sea really believe that ships travel at a speed such that they can avoid collision by sight only. Do people here really think that ships slow to a snails pace say in the Western Approaches when the visibilty is reduced?
Most ships will lose the ability to steer well before getting to a visible hoizen only speed.
Most ships will lose the ability to steer well before getting to a visible hoizen only speed.
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
I'd personally be all for the imposition of speed limits. Obviously controlled and monitored by VTS, and working hand in hand with AIS. In this manner commercial pressure to maintain schedules would be completely removed, charter parties already allow for having to comply with national and international legislation.
It would be akin to running a lap behind the yellow flag.
It would certainly have the effect of focussing attention on safe speed, as would the imposition of fines. I've no doubt that had the vessel which came off worst been a passenger vessel with hundreds of people on, that not only would the red tops still be bleating about it - but legislation "to make sure this never happens again..." would be swiftly enacted. It would most likely take the form of imposed limitation of speed.
We already have speed limits of 10kts imposed in certain US waters, to protect the whales, bless'em. It can be done.
CC
It would be akin to running a lap behind the yellow flag.
It would certainly have the effect of focussing attention on safe speed, as would the imposition of fines. I've no doubt that had the vessel which came off worst been a passenger vessel with hundreds of people on, that not only would the red tops still be bleating about it - but legislation "to make sure this never happens again..." would be swiftly enacted. It would most likely take the form of imposed limitation of speed.
We already have speed limits of 10kts imposed in certain US waters, to protect the whales, bless'em. It can be done.
CC
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. My ship is perfectly steerable and manageable at 1.5kts...whats more - I reduce speed in restricted visibility. There are actually a lot of masters in charge of vessels in British waters who are both competent and compliant with regulations. They also have the full backing of their employers in doing so - ISM made sure of that.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush please. The current tendency to criminalise the seafarer makes life bad enough, without all of us being painted as "the bad guys" by people who really should know better.
CC
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
If visibility was good for fog, say 100 metres, the ferry would cover that distance in less than 7 seconds.
The ferry is also 26 metres wide.
Lookout is irrelevant. I doubt you could get out of the way of that on a Jetski!
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
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
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
Good one, Searush!
Though on this thread, it's becoming tempting to fast-forward...
Though on this thread, it's becoming tempting to fast-forward...
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Are talking solely in a TSS?
How would a VTS know what the visibility was near a particular ship ?
What should the speed limit be? A safe speed for one vessel is not necessarily a safe speed for another.
Capt Cautious
Well-Known Member
The French and British VTS know the position of every ship in the Channel and Western approaches, and monitor them fastidiously.
There is no need to know exactly what the visibility is at any particular point - all that is needed is for the channel (for example) to be split into sectors, and then to have a speed limit imposed upon that sector for whatever period is required. This could be promulgated by UK or France as part of the routine traffic updates, sent out on Navtex and SatC, and broadcast on AIS and DSC. AIS gives all the monitoring required, for the larger vessels at least...
If all vessels all have the same max speed then a substantial degree of risk is immediately removed, and by reducing to even 10 kts max a lot of the problems disappear. More time to assess situations, slower development of situations, and the ability to keep a more efficient lookout because everything is happening slower.
CC
There is no need to know exactly what the visibility is at any particular point - all that is needed is for the channel (for example) to be split into sectors, and then to have a speed limit imposed upon that sector for whatever period is required. This could be promulgated by UK or France as part of the routine traffic updates, sent out on Navtex and SatC, and broadcast on AIS and DSC. AIS gives all the monitoring required, for the larger vessels at least...
If all vessels all have the same max speed then a substantial degree of risk is immediately removed, and by reducing to even 10 kts max a lot of the problems disappear. More time to assess situations, slower development of situations, and the ability to keep a more efficient lookout because everything is happening slower.
CC
Greenheart
Well-Known Member
That's very persuasive, Cap'n.
If the Titanic had been going just a few knots slower, she wouldn't have bust so many water-tight compartments...would have sunk much more slowly, if at all...the ships speeding to her aid would've made it in time...deaths reduced by about 1400, maybe?
And James Cameron wouldn't be so smug and wealthy.
If the Titanic had been going just a few knots slower, she wouldn't have bust so many water-tight compartments...would have sunk much more slowly, if at all...the ships speeding to her aid would've made it in time...deaths reduced by about 1400, maybe?
And James Cameron wouldn't be so smug and wealthy.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
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.