savageseadog
Well-known member
Might be ultra competitive on a new rating
Cowes Yacht / Ferry crash
- Thread starter ctva
- Start date
Might be ultra competitive on a new rating
ProDave
Well-known member
No what I said is as soon as the last car is on, the ramps go up, the ropes are untied and the ferry is on it's way, before the last occupants have gathered their stuff, locked the car and left the car deck.Pete,
I always had you down as one of the sensible ones on here...
ProDave is saying the ferry is leaving as the last few cars disembark - which I said I can't believe, but what if the vehicle in front stopped,- when I've been on these things both lanes are full - presumably one's going back to ' England ' as the Islanders call the mainland, or try a 007 style jump
Lightwave395
Well-known member
Good thought, she'd have to go IRC now, probably out of class for the C32 OD fleet...
ProDave
Well-known member
Which makes it doubly lucky that the boat was unoccupied otherwise the sea might have turned a horrible shade of red.......
lw395
Well-known member
It's hard to see why the ferry should be able to get far enough off track to hit a mooring area.
I would assume radar is their primary means of positioning in the river?
I would hope they're not just using GPS, I drove along a main road yesterday for about 2 miles with the satnav telling me I was about 100m away from the road driving parallel to it!
Back in the old days, my Decca Navigator often went potty as we went past Cowes, its little LED digits told us we were doing 17 knots once.
Maybe some bad boy in one of the cars on the ferry was running a GPS jammer, didn't want someone to know he'd taken the car to the island or something? Nicking a car with a tracker?
Maybe the ferry was following a depth contour and the breakwater has moved the contours?
prv
Well-known member
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Re: Whitelink ran around
Hmm. Interesting SNAFU.
Fortunately no one hurt.
Crew stood down with pay pending an investigation? Normal. Company making a statement Master and Mate suspended? Not so much. Company changing SOP for restricted visibility? A review of SOP might have been a good plan after the first SNAFU.
Not that anything has been eliminated yet? Like control or Propulsion failure. One might wonder why anyone was suspended if there might have been a control or propulsion failure.
I had a look at the MAIB site for old reports. Red Falcon had an incident at the other end of its run about 12 years ago. It makes interesting reading much of which may be relevant again. There is also a report about an accidental Co2 release. Not relevant but it does refer to crew size.
Deck crew
Master, Mate, 4 deck ratings.
From 1st report. Vessel is crewed by 3 shifts per 24hrs. Rotating 4 days on 2 days of 8hr day. Master and Mates hours staggered by about an hour or so. The Crew would be on an AM Shift.
Fairly typical. Lunch bucket short run ferry operation. Small crew, changing Frequently. The Master or Captain is also a primary Navigating Officer. The Mate apparently loads, discharges, comes up to the Bridge after car deck duties complete and may take over as Navigation Officer. When Mate is not on Bridge a Deck rating acts as QM.
Well that was good visibility. Vessel was running late, Master decided to operate in a non-standard unsynchronised mode. BRM (Bridge Resource Management) was abysmal, Procedures non-existent or not followed, No Proper Handover of conduct of the vessel. Nobody informed the Mate ship was in a non-standard mode. Mate didn’t notice, Followed by significant SNAFU. The Master in 12 years with company had only used this non-standard mode 5 times the Mate in 3 years with the company had never used it. Clearly neither had a good understanding of how it worked.
Master and Mate 40 years experience at sea. Both Class 1 MM. Master and Mate worked regularly together. Master and Mate trusted each other Master assumed Mate was very experienced and forgot to mention the non-standard mode. Master had deferred to Mates Experience.
Policy Procedures and Training changed.
12 years ago, 40 years experience probably both retired long ago. 12 years is plenty of time for old lessons to be forgotten by new people.
Frequent shift changes, how many days into rotation? Fatigue could be a factor?
Voith Schneider systems have a very good reliability. They are very different from regular vessels, about as far different as helicopters are from aero planes. You need a really good understanding of the system when shit happens.
The ship has 4 different control consoles, 2 on the centerline at each end of the wheel house. 1 on each Bridge wing for docking.
Under normal operation Red falcon used system in a synchronised mode steering with the aft unit only.
The report did not mention if the forward unit was used to steer with while docking. And did not indicate steering was synchronised when throttles were synchronised. Just stated the aft wheel on console was used to steer with the aft unit.
No and position of RADARS was not mentioned. Or I didn't notice.
Vessel is equipped with RADAR, GPS, AIS and ECS no mention of ECDIS. It was 12 Years ago?
Not sure what MCA require for minimum Bridge Manning on a Vessel of This size. 4700 GRT. Length 92m
(North America, Normal 1 Certified Navigation Officer, 1 additional person as QM and I additional person as a Rating certified as a Look out. 2nd additional person can be Under Training) Although this is based on IMO requirements Domestic Vessels can be authorised locally to vary from this.
This would be the minimum, Various considerations would require an ability increase this, EG Darkness, The State of wind sea and current, Heavy Traffic, Concertation’s of small Vessels, Restricted Visibility, The proximity of Navigational Hazards.
I am not very familiar with the Solent. I do suspect some might apply.
If Auto Pilot in Use QM can be Look Out.
Report did not indicate if an auto pilot is fitted. Or Used.
Under 3000 GRT. With full 360 View from Wheel House. QM can be lookout additional person not required.
These Vessels have 360-degree view from Bridge.
Normal recommendation for good BRM practice. In an area where some or all of the above may apply.
A Navigator, A Co Navigator, A Dedicated Look Out and A QM.
It doesn’t matter who the Navigator. Or Co Navigator are. Master or Mate can play either role.
The point being. The vessel is not relying on a single person, not making an error. Particularly in Fog.
It is very easy to make an error if relying on a RADAR. Particularly If good radar observation technics are not being used appropriately. ECS ECDIS or Chart Overlay may not be the primary means of navigation. If they are being monitored by the co navigator. The Navigator who is glued to the RADAR might get a helpful hint they might be out of position.
For a bridge team, who communicate well, have a good plan they are all aware off. All understand. All Understand fully how their ship works. And are monitoring RADAR and other Navigational systems together.
An appropriately positioned lookout perhaps with a portable RADIO, On a 90 M ship with 50 m visibility, was near the front, It might just make a difference. If they yell out “bloody hell skipper there’s a boat in front”
Operating a modern well equipped, fully functioning, adequately crewed. Coastal ferry in reduced visibility of less than 1 cable visibility, Safely at a safe speed, (Possibly not the normal service speed).
Should be no big deal. Just another routine day at work, possibly not getting a break to eat the lunch in the bucket.
If you read through other ferry grounding or collision reports.
A few will include a propulsion or system failure. Most if not all will include problems with BRM. Good Training, Good planning and good BRM allow vessels to recover safely from propulsion or system failures.
Fatigue is surprisingly rare. Or at least coming up as a finding in a report is surprisingly rare, Despite the lack of regulation.
The first incident was a good opportunity for a company to re evaluate its SOP, Training and Familiarisation. So Is this one. Both the Mate and Master can learn from it along with all the rest of their Mates and Masters. Whatever their errors or omissions were. Its highly unlikely they were the only Mates or Masters on these vessel's. Who's Navigational Practices, particularly BRM, might need a wee bit of a tune up.
Hmm. Interesting SNAFU.
Fortunately no one hurt.
Crew stood down with pay pending an investigation? Normal. Company making a statement Master and Mate suspended? Not so much. Company changing SOP for restricted visibility? A review of SOP might have been a good plan after the first SNAFU.
Not that anything has been eliminated yet? Like control or Propulsion failure. One might wonder why anyone was suspended if there might have been a control or propulsion failure.
I had a look at the MAIB site for old reports. Red Falcon had an incident at the other end of its run about 12 years ago. It makes interesting reading much of which may be relevant again. There is also a report about an accidental Co2 release. Not relevant but it does refer to crew size.
Deck crew
Master, Mate, 4 deck ratings.
From 1st report. Vessel is crewed by 3 shifts per 24hrs. Rotating 4 days on 2 days of 8hr day. Master and Mates hours staggered by about an hour or so. The Crew would be on an AM Shift.
Fairly typical. Lunch bucket short run ferry operation. Small crew, changing Frequently. The Master or Captain is also a primary Navigating Officer. The Mate apparently loads, discharges, comes up to the Bridge after car deck duties complete and may take over as Navigation Officer. When Mate is not on Bridge a Deck rating acts as QM.
Well that was good visibility. Vessel was running late, Master decided to operate in a non-standard unsynchronised mode. BRM (Bridge Resource Management) was abysmal, Procedures non-existent or not followed, No Proper Handover of conduct of the vessel. Nobody informed the Mate ship was in a non-standard mode. Mate didn’t notice, Followed by significant SNAFU. The Master in 12 years with company had only used this non-standard mode 5 times the Mate in 3 years with the company had never used it. Clearly neither had a good understanding of how it worked.
Master and Mate 40 years experience at sea. Both Class 1 MM. Master and Mate worked regularly together. Master and Mate trusted each other Master assumed Mate was very experienced and forgot to mention the non-standard mode. Master had deferred to Mates Experience.
Policy Procedures and Training changed.
12 years ago, 40 years experience probably both retired long ago. 12 years is plenty of time for old lessons to be forgotten by new people.
Frequent shift changes, how many days into rotation? Fatigue could be a factor?
Voith Schneider systems have a very good reliability. They are very different from regular vessels, about as far different as helicopters are from aero planes. You need a really good understanding of the system when shit happens.
The ship has 4 different control consoles, 2 on the centerline at each end of the wheel house. 1 on each Bridge wing for docking.
Under normal operation Red falcon used system in a synchronised mode steering with the aft unit only.
The report did not mention if the forward unit was used to steer with while docking. And did not indicate steering was synchronised when throttles were synchronised. Just stated the aft wheel on console was used to steer with the aft unit.
No and position of RADARS was not mentioned. Or I didn't notice.
Vessel is equipped with RADAR, GPS, AIS and ECS no mention of ECDIS. It was 12 Years ago?
Not sure what MCA require for minimum Bridge Manning on a Vessel of This size. 4700 GRT. Length 92m
(North America, Normal 1 Certified Navigation Officer, 1 additional person as QM and I additional person as a Rating certified as a Look out. 2nd additional person can be Under Training) Although this is based on IMO requirements Domestic Vessels can be authorised locally to vary from this.
This would be the minimum, Various considerations would require an ability increase this, EG Darkness, The State of wind sea and current, Heavy Traffic, Concertation’s of small Vessels, Restricted Visibility, The proximity of Navigational Hazards.
I am not very familiar with the Solent. I do suspect some might apply.
If Auto Pilot in Use QM can be Look Out.
Report did not indicate if an auto pilot is fitted. Or Used.
Under 3000 GRT. With full 360 View from Wheel House. QM can be lookout additional person not required.
These Vessels have 360-degree view from Bridge.
Normal recommendation for good BRM practice. In an area where some or all of the above may apply.
A Navigator, A Co Navigator, A Dedicated Look Out and A QM.
It doesn’t matter who the Navigator. Or Co Navigator are. Master or Mate can play either role.
The point being. The vessel is not relying on a single person, not making an error. Particularly in Fog.
It is very easy to make an error if relying on a RADAR. Particularly If good radar observation technics are not being used appropriately. ECS ECDIS or Chart Overlay may not be the primary means of navigation. If they are being monitored by the co navigator. The Navigator who is glued to the RADAR might get a helpful hint they might be out of position.
For a bridge team, who communicate well, have a good plan they are all aware off. All understand. All Understand fully how their ship works. And are monitoring RADAR and other Navigational systems together.
An appropriately positioned lookout perhaps with a portable RADIO, On a 90 M ship with 50 m visibility, was near the front, It might just make a difference. If they yell out “bloody hell skipper there’s a boat in front”
Operating a modern well equipped, fully functioning, adequately crewed. Coastal ferry in reduced visibility of less than 1 cable visibility, Safely at a safe speed, (Possibly not the normal service speed).
Should be no big deal. Just another routine day at work, possibly not getting a break to eat the lunch in the bucket.
If you read through other ferry grounding or collision reports.
A few will include a propulsion or system failure. Most if not all will include problems with BRM. Good Training, Good planning and good BRM allow vessels to recover safely from propulsion or system failures.
Fatigue is surprisingly rare. Or at least coming up as a finding in a report is surprisingly rare, Despite the lack of regulation.
The first incident was a good opportunity for a company to re evaluate its SOP, Training and Familiarisation. So Is this one. Both the Mate and Master can learn from it along with all the rest of their Mates and Masters. Whatever their errors or omissions were. Its highly unlikely they were the only Mates or Masters on these vessel's. Who's Navigational Practices, particularly BRM, might need a wee bit of a tune up.
Last edited:
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Yes, your post was pretty clear, but probably less so through the red mist brought on by an internet disagreement.
LadyInBed
Well-known member
Am I being picky in saying that the wreck buoy doesn't conform to spec?
[h=3]Characteristics[/h]The buoy has the following characteristics:
- A pillar or spar buoy, with size dependent on location.
- Coloured in equal number and dimensions of blue and yellow vertical stripes (minimum of 4 stripes and maximum of 8 stripes).
- Fitted with an alternating blue* and yellow flashing light with a nominal range of 4 nautical miles where the blue and yellow 1 second flashes are alternated with an interval of 0.5 seconds.
- If multiple buoys are deployed then the lights should be synchronised.
- Consideration should be given to the use of a racon Morse code “D” and/or AIS transponder.
- The top mark, if fitted, is to be a standing/upright yellow cross.
https://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/mariners-information/navigation-buoys/emergency-wreck-buoys
prv
Well-known member
Exactly, and that's what I'd expect to be Red Funnel policy and their vessels seem to be well-equipped for it. Piloting in tight waters in thick fog on GPS only would not be good practice.
Pete
{151760}
...
I have no experience and little knowledge of radar. Can it give an accurate position in fog rather than just a warning of objects ahead? If it's a case of taking bearings via the radar, that will take a few moments, rather than the instantaneous confirmation of a plotter, wouldn't it? If they have ECDIS, wouldn't they have radar as an overlay on the plotter in addition to radar screens?
Uricane Jack's very iinformative post implies that there might be as few as four people as operating crew. IF that's the case it's easy to see, for me at least, that they could all become occupied looking out of the windows rather than monitoring the electronics.
dom
Well-known member
Depends on the software, but a good well-calibrated radar system will certainly provide definitive bearings to the relevant pilotage landmarks, which should obviously be decided upon in advance for a two destination ferry. I am half assuming that some emergency/problem occurred on the vessel as such a cretinous pilotage mistake does otherwise seem unlikely.
Last edited:
prv
Well-known member
Best usability would be radar overlaid on a chart, yes. It's what I use on my boat if visual pilotage is difficult or impossible, because it gives you the readability and detail of the chart but with a continual cross-check of the GPS - if the radar picture starts to shift out of alignment with the chart, then there must be an error in the position source (or possibly the chart, its datum, etc). However, we don't know whether Red Falcon has this facility - commercial operators generally aren't susceptible to adverts for Raymarine et al's shiny toys like yachtsmen are, and tend not to update bridge equipment unless there's a sound business case for it.
Assuming just a radar display without a chart, in a harbour with well-defined edges you're still going to have a pretty good idea where you are. Below is a random image from Google - bear in mind this is a 24" leisure radome, whereas a 4-8 foot open array will have a much tighter beamwidth and hence sharper definition.
In any case the point of this branch of the thread is that, regardless of what may be easier to use in practice as long as everything is working, I would not expect any commercial marine operator to commit to paper a policy of relying on GPS alone for position-fixing within a harbour.
Pete
duncan99210
Well-known member
I’ve used radar to make an approach through a narrow passage into an anchorage at night with no navigation marks. Although I could have overlaid the radar onto the chart, I simply used the radar image to navigate by, mainly because I could turn the brightness down further than I could the overlaid chart display. It’s really quite easy to fix your position in terms of where the land is in comparison to where you are: provided you’ve studied the charts closely and decided how far off the shore line you need to be to remain in safe water, then the straight radar plot will provide the information in a simp,e to read format. Not that I’d do it again if given a choice but we were seeking shelter from a rapidly rising wind which had arrived well in advance of the forecast...
savageseadog
Well-known member
Re: Whitelink ran around
They've found another wreck although I'm not sure Red Funnel are to blame
https://www.theguardian.com/science...cient-greek-discovered-at-bottom-of-black-sea
They've found another wreck although I'm not sure Red Funnel are to blame
https://www.theguardian.com/science...cient-greek-discovered-at-bottom-of-black-sea
Seajet
...
Well why not say that in the first place.
lw395
Well-known member
Best usability would be radar overlaid on a chart, yes. It's what I use on my boat if visual pilotage is difficult or impossible, because it gives you the readability and detail of the chart but with a continual cross-check of the GPS - if the radar picture starts to shift out of alignment with the chart, then there must be an error in the position source (or possibly the chart, its datum, etc). However, we don't know whether Red Falcon has this facility - commercial operators generally aren't susceptible to adverts for Raymarine et al's shiny toys like yachtsmen are, and tend not to update bridge equipment unless there's a sound business case for it.
Assuming just a radar display without a chart, in a harbour with well-defined edges you're still going to have a pretty good idea where you are. Below is a random image from Google - bear in mind this is a 24" leisure radome, whereas a 4-8 foot open array will have a much tighter beamwidth and hence sharper definition.
In any case the point of this branch of the thread is that, regardless of what may be easier to use in practice as long as everything is working, I would not expect any commercial marine operator to commit to paper a policy of relying on GPS alone for position-fixing within a harbour.
Pete
Try viewing the radar overlaid on the chart, when the GPS thinks the boat is 150metres from where the radar knows it is.....
prv
Well-known member
Try re-reading my post?
That situation is precisely why I advocate overlaying radar on the chart. Now it will be obvious that the GPS is 150m wrong and a potential accident is averted.
Pete
lw395
Well-known member
Try re-reading my post?
That situation is precisely why I advocate overlaying radar on the chart. Now it will be obvious that the GPS is 150m wrong and a potential accident is averted.
Pete
Depending on the chart image it's very easy to convince yourself that the radar image matches different features on the chart sometimes.
It's hard to believe somebody who'd been in and out of the same river dozens of times would get caught though.
Lucky Duck
Well-known member
My radar is mounted just above the starboard spreader, but whoever had carried out the commissioning hadn't set it up properly so the system knew the scanner was 90 degrees "out" - this made life a bit interesting the first time I used it in anger!
