Container Ship Sinks Yacht

[pugwash]

Watchkeepers aren\'t what they were

Following the Tricolour and subsequent collisions (another one today in the Baltic) experienced Channel pilots criticized the dreadful standards of watchkeeping on some ships they work with, particularly those of certain Asian and "convenience" flags. Officers who don't look out of the windows, who drive only by radar, who are unaware of the reality of conditions, etc. Like the second officer who was filling in his garbage log when the Norwegian Dream (2000 passengers and crew) sliced into a container ship off Ramsgate a couple of years ago, though his ship was passing through one of the busiest and most dangverous crossing zones in the world. And the huge number of near-misses observed in Dover Straits and nearby waters. Watch-keepers don't have salt water in their veins anymore. They tend to be office workers transfixed by computer screens. In these circumstances, a yacht in fog is a sitting duck. I'm not saying the officers of this ship were to blame, but recent history suggests they could well be. We have watch-keeping standards under IMO, but little compliance and no enforcement.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

when i was working offshore

in the gulf of suez on a production platform/drill platform we had a supply tug on permanent standby to warn off the container/car vessels, on more than one occasion the tug had to go shoulder to shoulder to shove off the tosspot who was not keeping watch properly
stu

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[trev]

Why is it 'containership sinks yacht' and not 'yacht sinks after ramming containership' ?

<hr width=100% size=1>Trev

 

[babylocked]

Re:In so much as

It gets you across the supposed line of danger quicker and makes any collsion avoidance clearer.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Bray]

A question

I know there are a number of professional mariners who contribute to Scuttlebutt so can one of you answer this question. What is the forward visibility of a fully stacked 200m container ship from the (aft) bridge (ie how near can you see, not how far) a) by eye and b) by radar?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: Hard up .. so to speak?

The old boy in the binns definitely thinks so.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: Foolhardy .. what do you think?

Was that a two or four berth sharp pencil, John?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Re: Foolhardy .. what do you think?

OK, I give up, I cannot think of a riposte.

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

 

[Mirelle]

They never have been!

I heard the same complaints 30 years ago, when I actually knew an elderly Master Mariner who maintained that glassed in wheelhouses were for sissies, and I don't doubt that the old salts of 1900 had a poor opinion of watchkeeping then, compared to 1870....

I fear the Tricolour is a rotten example - you seem to forget that this case was a re-run of the Varne Wrecks - the Texaco Caribbean, Nikki and Brandenburg - of 1970, with the huge difference that there was no loss of life this time.

Statistically, however, whilst there is no doubt that the paper workload on the OOW is now such that some of it inevitably gets done whilst on watch, the number of collisions has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years.

I don't pay much attention to what Pilots have to offer by way of anecdotal evidence; remember that they have jobs to protect.

And in my experience a Channel pilot who criticises Asian seamanship is cutting his own throat - it is the Asian containerlines who are the most regular employers of Channel pilots - who are non-compulsory, remember...The Ever Decent had one, the Norwegian Dream did not, although the former, owned in Taiwan, had 2000 containers, and the latter, owned in Norway, had 2,000 passengers....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Conclusion jumping

I would like fewer accidents, in the same way i wd like there to be fewer crioppled motorcyclists who "had right of way"

The ship was traveling down-channel, the yacht northwards. They "put in a 90 degree turn to pass behind the ship" - but which way was the turn? In the SW wind, they'll have been on a broad reach, so a port turn is tempting - just tighten up and head downchannel, the ship overtakes and the yacht turns back north. But if it wasn't quite 90 degrees, and because the tss heads not-quite-due-west there... the turn simply delayed a collision - and unlike a starboard turn, a port turn makes little immediate difference to the relative position of the yacht. The ninety degree to starboard would mean they needed to gybe.

Anyway, the direction of turn is of no consequence to the second issue: the ship was seen on radar 1.5 miles away - that's three minutes, and long enough to get the engine on. Then what? tumtee tum for two minutes... "suddenly it loomed up on us with 15 seconds notice" eh? What was the yacht radar showing all this time? I hope the skipper wasn't writing up the log "which he feels will prove very valuable." Surely the radar would show that the 90 degree turn had done nothing?

Even then, 15 seconds is a fair old time. We all drive cars down a street taking less than that time. 50 yards at eight knots. Maybe drag-starts would be part of the collision avoidance practice?

Commiserations, nonetheless.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Conclusion jumping

My guess is they did turn to starboard from the comments made to 'pass astern of the ship'. For the truer picture though, their course would have been 013degs +/- depending on tide offset expected, the ships course would have been around 250degs, if they turned 90degs right onto 103degs they are only 30degs off the approach course of the ship, it takes a while to open the distance at that angle. If the ship did alter, maybe for something else the ship DID see, the alteration of course would take some time to show on the yacht radar, time they did not have. Looking at a radar picture is meaningless, you need to watch the CHANGING picture, the movie or the track of the ship, to see the course alteration. Bearing in mind the yacht made a big course change as well, the radar picture for some minutes would be a mess to interpret, minutes is all they had.

Modern yacht radars are good but still have limitations, the yacht is yawing, any collision avoidance feature electronic or manual will depend on the electronic compass input being correct, the radar heading mark set up exactly right and the set adjusted correctly to give a clear target return etc etc. A ship that close will show as a huge echo encircling the yacht unless the gain is reset way down.

Hindsight may suggest a 180 deg turn would have been better lets wait and see what the MAIB come up with.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: even more conclusion jumping

okay okay, this is indeed speculation. But with light swesterlies, it's impossible to sail on a course of 100 in the channel. On a broad reach, they turned to west, and at two miles distant not even "counting" this as collision avoidance. Now on a nice beat, a little bit more northerly to catch the wind, boat a bit heeled over (cos lots of sail out with earlier broad reach)... perhaps meant no radar track of monster boat bearing down on them, until they saw it.

as you say, await MAIB.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: even more conclusion jumping

Course of 100 ish is 105 off the bow, probably brought down to below 90 from stbd side with apparent wind. This would actually be better I think than they had if heading home at 113 on port. All this assumes they were headed for the Solent via the Needles not the East Solent and all IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>