Container Ship Sinks Yacht

[BrendanS]

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

The chances of being hit by another vessel and sunk, are negligible.

Normal safety rules should apply. If sea conditions are such that you'd normally have crew wear harnesses while on deck, then these rules should still apply.

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[jac]

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

Originally I always would have said life jackets only.

Several years ago I was "sailing" an enginless yacht across Poole Harbour entrance channel in a f0 Gusting f1 at night when a truckline ferry came out. She came so close that I gave the order to unclip harnesses in case we were struck and sunk.
The wash was a bigger risk even though she had slowed down and we were all thrown around. Now I would always say stay attached to the boat.

A lifeline is usually very quick to undo so if you do sink you can release it quickly and if you do survive the collision do you want people in the water between the two hulls thrown there by the wash or the impact.

Also bare in mind that a mastless boat has a very sharp motion and someone could easily get thrown overboard from that. With no mast and lines over the side you won't get them back, they will have to get to you.

In my book stay with the boat till she actually sinks.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[marklongstaff]

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

Though generally sea/wind conditions in fog would be calm.. so no harnesses?
ML

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

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

Skippers decision. MOB in fog would be much harder to find than in normal conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[ParaHandy]

Time is of the essence ...

Such are the competitive pressures, a container ship needs to achieve 25kn and I would hazard a guess that her speed would be at least 12kn (not much steerage below that) and might have been much more ... the yacht might have had very little time even assuming she had a steady contact which is a rarity in the usual channel chop


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

So to write a tabloid headline

MURDER SHIP AT LOOSE IN CHANNEL
"Commercial pressure forced me to sink yacht" says Captain Dick Head.

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

 

[ParaHandy]

write a tabloid headline

"when the SS Mow-em-down docked today, the captain was asked to explain the forest of masts and rigging attached to his anchors"

I don't know how true this is but a pilot going onboard a cargo ship (Honkong or so the story goes) asked the captain whether he knew he'd got part of a yacht's rigging attached to his forward anchor ....

Entirely coincidental, this was a PR puff for the Clifford Maersk a 6,300 teu container ship "Propulsive power is provided by a twelve-cylinder MAN BW diesel engine, which provides an output of 74,640bhp at 94revs/minute. This translates into a speed of 25 knots when fully laden. Such a speed is necessary for the Clifford Maersk to meet her schedule commitments on the competitive Europe – Far East trade."



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Conclusion jumping

Trifle premature to say with 100% assurance that the ship's to blame! Scenario could be that you're crossing see a biggie on radar on collision course on port bow, think easiest thing to do is turn to port to go behind, at the same time the biggie acts correctly by turning to starboard. OK I hear you say, restricted visibility so they should slow down. Irrelevant I reply, all lookout is done by radar in these craft anyway so state of visibility is of no consquence. The collision in this scenario is caused by a serious error by the small craft.
Not saying that these were anything like the facts in this case but just refuting your argument that just because a collision ocurred then the biggie's to blame.

With regard to your other point of having to turn hard to port, the only scenario I can imagine that being a good idea is a last ditch desperate attempt to get out the shit, you should not allow a situation like that to develop, you shaould have taken another course of action well before then.

All IMHO of course

Cheers

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Conclusion jumping

I'm not saying that the yacht is blameless - but there is no way that a ship that sinks a yacht and doesn't stop is totally innocent. If they knew thay they had hit the yacht then they should have stopped. If they didn't then they weren't keeping a proper lookout.

As to turning to port - I agree it is a last ditch effort - but my "standing orders" are that if collision seems imminent then the initial action is to turn onto the same course. A massive container ship appearing 200yds away is exactly the situation in which I envisage the rule being used

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TonyS]

Re: Known facts of the case

My wife and I crossed from St Vaast (round the corner from Cherbourg) to Yarmouth, during the day on the 28th. We left after another yacht radioed from outside, at our request, that the visibility was half a mile. The actual visibility kept on changing from about 200m to 300 m until we were nearly through the West bound shippng lane. In the East bound lane there were more than 10 ships/ yachts on our radar (Raymarine) fitted to our Bavaria 36. The MARPA system is excellent and gives the closest point of contact, time, speed and bearing of each ship as well as the vector. The closest we came were two ships just as the fog strated thinning on the West bound lane and they both appeared exactly wher we expected. The only avoiding action was to slow down so that we were not closer than 200 m. There were no foghorns after ST Vaast which we had heard from 2 AM.
We were in close company with another yacht that over an hour crossed in front of us and was often less than 400 m away, but we never saw!!
We have the radar on the binnacle and took it turns to keep watch.
My worry was not the big ships which can easily be seen on radar and were also doing speeds anywhere between 12 to 27 knots in the fog, but the sailing and motor boats without radar reflector. Without a reflector a yacht on a small radar cannot be seen. My boat is my first and is only 2 months old but we have travelled 500 miles in the time we have had her. I trained myself with the radar in daylight in the Solent and can confirm that a yacht without a reflector can simply not be seen even if it has radar itself. Did this boat have a radar reflector?
The second point is that if the radar screen is not on the binnacle then you need more than two people to look out and watch the radar.(you need to rest, make tea etc. in a 12 hour crossing)
I felt confident that we would not have a problem with large ships as the radar picks them up at 24 miles which gives lots of time even if it is travelling at 24 knots.
It will be very interesting to know more of the real facts.
Tony

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony

 

[Mirelle]

Yacht sinks ship!

Now that's NEWS!

I have some doubts about the rigging-round-the anchor story. As a youth I was told it, in London, about a fishing boat's gear, and when I went to HK in my 30's the same story was being told about a junk!

More brutally, a very experienced Scottish Fleet Manager in Hong Kong, a man whom I infinitely admired and who was the descendant of geneations of Eyemouth fishermen, said that collisions with fishing boats only became news when the fishing boats, in Europe and Asia, got steel hulls - until then, nobody noticed or cared.

Ships have been failing to sound fog signals for at least a century now. There is no doubt at all that modern ship radars are very good indeed; what is less certain is how much use yacht radar reflectors are!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Think about it, please...!

It is quite impossible for the OOW and lookout on the bridge of a large containership to see their own bow, in good visibility, because of the deck stack, nor can they, from their position on the centreline of a ship which has at least 32 metres beam (if she is an older, smaller one in the Far East trade) or even more (if she is a modern "post-Panamax") see over the side. In this case the visibilty was not good.

The impact of a yacht weighing perhaps ten tons of scrunchy fibreglass and wood striking a glancing blow on 60-100,000 tons moving at between 18 and 25 knots is not going to be felt.

Unless a distress call was made, and all the reports seem to agree that none was, there is no way that the ship could have known of the incident.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Conclusion jumping

Don't think your really talking damage limitation rather than collision avoidance. Presume that you intentions are to get as quickly as possible onto the same course and increase speed to minimise closing speed and reduce the size of aspect presented?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Re: Think about it, please...!

I agree with Mirelle: in all probability, if the ship in this incident had not picked the yacht up on their radar, the chances of them being aware of the collission are virtually nil. When the Queen Mary ran down its escorting Destroyer during the war, the destroyer was sliced in two. Reportedly, the shock was not even felt on the larger ship! (Or was it the QE?).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Bray]

Turning to port

In the ColRegs, Rule 19 (d) - Conduct of vessels in restricted visibility, actions to avoid radar contacts closing on a constant bearing - clearly states that

...so far as possible the following shall be avoided: (i) an alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam, other than a vessel being overtaken (ii) an alteration of course towards a vessel abeam or abaft the beam.

In other words, if a radar echo on a constant bearing is detected on your starboard quarter then you should turn to PORT

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Conclusion jumping

Both

Reducing the closing speed gives more thinking time, minimises the aspect to reduce the risk of impact. Should impact occur, it will be at the lowest relative speed and taken in the best place, increasing the chance of just being brushed aside rather than having the bow chopped of (talking sailing yachts here of course).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Corporate manslaughter

Mirelle, congratulations on your sterling attempt to defend the indefensible.

Any vessel is required to keep a good lookout at all times. In narrow waters where there is a liklihood of encountering vessels that don't produce a good radar return, in my view this means the OOW of a ship such as you describe should station a bow lookout and bridge wing lookouts. Not just plough on blind at 20 something knots. And if an accident happens and the master claims 'commercial pressure' as a defence then a charge of corporate manslaughter would seem appropriate.

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

 

[Mirelle]

Correct, full marks, top of the class

I used that as a trick question when teaching Colregs to junior officers. They had without exception been taught "never to turn to port!"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

The Queen Mary and the Curacao

which was in fact a light cruiser. They were steaming at speed and zig-zagging. Good example - a famous case.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

To put this into perspective....

How many people expressing indignation, here, have noticed that on Sunday, off Corregidor Island in Manila Bay, the ferry "Superfast XII" collided with, and sank, the wooden hulled ferry "San Nicholas", and that 28 people are missing?

Less than one? None? Not one? Nil? Zilch? A big round number?

Who cares - they are only brown skinned foreigners!

But those same brown skinned foreigners are the nation most likely to have command of the navigational watch and the lookout on a ship bearing down on your expensive yacht, since the Philippines provides some 22% of all seamen at sea today.