Container Ship Sinks Yacht

[snooks]

Or....IMHO

Navigate with caution?...personally if I clocked a big blob taking up most of my radar (which can't be too far from what the yacht saw) I'd run away, back the way I came!! :-D

Call me Chicken if you want, but at least I'd cross the channel, it might be 30 mins later, but I'd rather be in the bar, than a liferaft :-D

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Conclusion jumping

Well .. It would appear the ship did see them and had altered course, presumably to avoid collision .. but that is a guess as facts so far are pretty scanty. However what I was commenting on was the inbuilt bias in us all to assume that these ships are at fault.
Not necessarily true, in my experience as I've already said I've seen plenty examples of professional seamanship in the main shipping lanes by large ships.

Of course not stopping is inexcusable, no matter the rights and wrongs of anything else.

But go on, tell us why it might be a good idea to turn to port in a crossing situation.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Re: Foolhardy .. what do you think?

Except that IRPCS require you to operate on the basis that radar will NOT see everything (Icebergs and small vessels are specifically mentioned) , and navigate accordingly.

Whatever the radar issues, the watchkeeping was demonstrably inadequate. As for identification, that cant really be an issue as all that will be required is for CROSS Jobourg to replay the radar plot, and pick off the call sign from the screen. If they look carefully they will probably see the yacht on the plot as well.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Tumblehome]

Known facts of the case

So far, so much speculation. I do think it's wise not to be in too much of a hurry to rush into print here with firm views on the subject of legal blame.

The facts so far are:

1. The yacht took 30 minutes to sink (source: Portland CG)
2. No distress message was heard by any party (source: ditto)
3. There is currently no evidence that the yacht was hit by the ship
4. There is no proof that the yacht in question had an operational radar
5. A question mark has been raised over the effect of the ship's bow wave (source: Portland CG).

My comments on the above:

Point 1: The time it reportedly took the yacht to sink seems at odds with the BBC report that '10-15ft' was sliced off the bow of the yacht.

Point 5: The role of the bow wave presumably has to be considered as an alternative to collision, if you accept the ship captain's estimate of nearest contact as 2 ca. It is not, perhaps, so outrageous when you remember the Wolfson Unit's conclusion that a breaking wave whose height is 'roughly equal to the beam of a boat' is capable of capsizing some models.

Yachting World will be doing its own interviews and investigation of the circumstances of the incident and will try to bring you as full a picture as possible of all the facts of this case in our August issue. There are some interesting questions about radar visibility, for example, given that the ship may not have 'seen' the yacht, but the ferry got a radar hit on a liferaft!

Elaine Bunting, Yachting World



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chriscallender]

Re: Or....IMHO

What if there are also big blobs very close back in the direction you came from as well? I have no experience of operating radar but having crossed the shipping lanes in good visibility I can imagine the situation where the picture could get so complicated that you wouldn't know where to go if you were trying to track the course and speed of multiple targets. Its bad enough when you can see them.

Anyway at least this time around everyone is still alive and unhurt.

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Any report of VHF traffic?

I've always thought if I found myself caught in fog and traffic it would be wise to put out an 'all ships' on Ch 16 and Ch 13 every 15 minutes or so, advising of position, course and speed. More chance of being heard than an aerosol foghorn, anway.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[snooks]

Re: Or....IMHO

There should be a point where there are no big blobs, other wise they'll hit each other...actually much like the Tricolor...erm...May be the hoverspeed would be a better idea, at least their radar works :-D

Glad no one was hurt as well

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tom52]

Ferry rescue

I understand from local (Meridian) TV news that the Condor ferry responded to sighting a flare from the liferaft not a radar hit.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Re: Foolhardy .. what do you think?

I propound the view that personal responsibility is what counts, do it if you like, don't if you don't like, and I was only saying "I have long held the view". In this case it would seem likely that a radar set would have avoided the accident, though of course we don't know the whole case.

I have been in the North Sea in a real thicko with cable layers, fishing boats, ferries and all sorts too-ing and fro-ing and was never so glad of a radar, likewise in the Solent following the start of one of the Whitbreads when it closed in, too many boats in too small a space. Entering through Plymouth breakwater in a pea souper, trying to follow the channel into Stellendam on a clear night - the radar turned it into a road.

It would be my first choice but I'm not saying it has to be yours. My parents crossed to and fro the channel with only a sharp pencil, but either is wasn't so busy then or I'm more of a coward - probably both.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Conclusion jumping

It is difficult to see under what circumstances the ship does not share the blame, but facts are so uncertain that it is difficult to draw definite conclusions. But if the ship knew the yacht was there, then they were negligent in sinking them - and not stopping. If they didn't then they weren't keeping a proper lookout, or maintaining a safe speed.

As to turning to port - I think sometimes the safest option is to turn away from the other vessel - so if the other vessel is on your starboard bow, turning (hard) to port can be the safest option.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Foolhardy

To start out in that sort of viz might be foolhardy but fog is tricky to forecast with any precision.

The fact that ships don't use foghorns is to be regreted. Hearing them, and acting on what you hear, is the only comfort cos they can't here you.

Radar is all very lovely but small ship radar isn't the greatest thing to make life and death decisions on. Large ship radar is the business so the ship has all of the advantages.

At base the Colregs still call for slowing down and sound signals from all parties.

Watchkeeping standards on yachts and ships are a curates egg.

While the ship appears to have acted appalingly by not stopping somebody must have done something right because nobody died.

The nearest I get to religion is in just these conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[peterb]

Fog rules, OK?

Be careful. Colregs in restricted visibility are quite different to thse in full vis. In particular, "give way" and "stand on" are only defined for full visibility conditions; there are no such things as "give way vessels" and "stand on vessels" in fog. And there are special rules for avoiding action, depending on whether the other vessel is forward or abaft the beam.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Since I posted this after the early morning news, each subsequent report seems to differ in the 'facts' presented.

Quite clearly we need the real facts from those involved directly, rather than via (some) journalistic sources who may not understand the relevance or otherwise of the information they gather.

That said we do need for this to be investigated properly and appropriate action taken if justified, there are lessons to be learned.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Closing speed ....

I share Peppermints caustic view (or should that be cautionary) of "leisure" marine radars. I would also point out that some comments ascribed to the skipper of the yacht may have been second if not third hand.

However, I am struck by one comment attributed to the skipper which is that he had 15 seconds from seeing the container ship to colliding with it. For those mathematically challenged, the closing speed would have been 28kn at a visibility of 200 yds. Allow some exaggeration in the skipper's estimate and put yourself in his position and picture in your own mind the likely radar plot preceeding this accident?

Commiserations and best wishes to the skipper ....


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Moose]

Not stopping

Perhaps the ship did not stop because they did not know they had hit anything.

<hr width=100% size=1>

Moose

 

[Cornishman]

A similar incident had occurred about 24 hours earlier when a 'container ship' hit the 60 foot Belgian registered yacht Zest of Belgium off Plymouth. She was dismasted and holed above the waterline and towed to Plymouth by the Plymouth Lifeboat. 7 persons on board, nobody hurt.
Official versions of both incidents are on the MCA Press Release website.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Closing speed ....

There are too many holes and inconsistencies in the data available. I would like to know where the quoted 15 secs came from. If the radar was working and watched the closing situation would have been seen a long time before, if however the ship altered unpredictably, perhaps for another target, it would take time to show on a small boat radar, if it then came out of the fog then you could understand the quoted 15 seconds to react to a visual sighting. Also at close quarters on the screen the echo from a big ship is too strong and you end up with a trace that encircles your position, difficult to tune out quickly so you can see what is really going on and any alteration here would be difficult to see in time. Ideally such close encounters are best avoided but sometimes they happen even if you try to work to a 'no closer than 1 mile CPA' rule.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

The voice of reason.

There is no reason to suppose that the ship was aware of having hit anything.

Yacht radar, even were it in use, is not to be compared with the real thing and, even if it were in use and even if the ship had been acquired as a target at a realistic range, and identified, was the observer on the yacht (a) practised in plotting and (b) plotting correctly, considering that this set is most unlikely to be fitted with ARPA.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[marklongstaff]

Re: Container Ship Sinks Yacht-Harnesses in fog?.

This one used to cause lively debate on sailing courses and night classes.... Sailing in the conditions of todays incident... do you get your crew to wear lifejacket and harness or just a lifejacket? and justify your decision....

Mark L.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Not stopping

If the container ship was indeed bound for the far east, as reported, it would be a reasonable size of vessel - at least 600 ft? She wouldn't have been able to see her own bow in that visibility and then allow for containers stacked on deck etc .... I also doubt she even knew she'd hit anything.


<hr width=100% size=1>