Does this article ....

CharlesSwallow

New member
Joined
3 Dec 2009
Messages
2,545
Location
E Mids, London & Greece
Visit site
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
12,982
Visit site
It sounds as if both parties made mistakes; but MAIB isn't there to allocate blame. Its role is to establish the facts. Others will use that information to establish who, if anyone, was at fault.

The MBM article simply reflects that.
 
Last edited:

CharlesSwallow

New member
Joined
3 Dec 2009
Messages
2,545
Location
E Mids, London & Greece
Visit site
It sounds as if both parties made mistakes; but MAIB isn't there to allocate blame. Its role is to establish the facts. Others will use that information to establish who, if anyone, was at fault.

The MBM article simply reflects that.

I refer you to my first sentence. Had I been reading an MAIB publication, I would agree with you. However it was in a boating journal where I expect (informed) opinnion for my money.

Chas
 
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
12,982
Visit site
It's too early, unless you want your boaty magazines to start deciding on guilt. We have enough of that with the red tops.
If appropriate, further action will be taken now that the MAIB report is available.
 
T

timbartlett

Guest
I refer you to my first sentence. Had I been reading an MAIB publication, I would agree with you. However it was in a boating journal where I expect (informed) opinnion for my money.

Chas
AFAIK, the MAIB report has only just been published. None of the yottie mags have had a chance to comment on it, other than on-line on a (free) website.

Yottie mags do not have a team of experts standing by to make assessments at the drop of a hat.
And even if they did, there are essentially only two kinds of informed opinion they could give -- either confirming the MAIB's findings or disagreeing with them.

I have noticed, in the past, that when I have criticized the MAIB's findings, I am invariably criticised by those who regard official utterances as unarguable, regardless of the actual facts, evidence, or reasons. I would hardly criticise anyone else for being reluctant to stick their neck out without having had the chance to analyse the full report in detail.

On a first skim, it looks as though the ship was the give-way vessel to three fishing boats (approaching from its starboard side but not actually fishing), but the OOW took action that was far too little and far too late. The fishing boat that it actually hit was not keeping an effective lookout. It was entitled to take avoiding action once it became apparent that the ship was not taking effective action, but the lack of lookout meant that it was too late to be effective.

It seems most likely that in this case the MAIB is right, and that both vessels were to blame to some extent, in that both vessels disobeyed the rules. Which one was most to blame is a matter that is probably best left for the courts to decide -- and I'm not sure that we would learn much from it, anyway. Surely the point is to avoid collisions, not to be able to say "ah yes, but I was only ##% responsible"?
 
Last edited:

john_morris_uk

Well-known member
Joined
3 Jul 2002
Messages
27,425
Location
At sea somewhere.
yachtserendipity.wordpress.com
Sorry but I don't understand what is confusing about the report - as reported on the link shown. Its clear and concise and quotes relevant passages.

Sounds like both vessels failed to apply IRPCS - the ferry company has changed its procedures (presumably in watchkeeping and standing orders for actions on... etc), a young skipper has tragically lost his brother and appears to have been admonished for his watchkeeping and actions as well, what else do we need to know?
 

macd

Active member
Joined
25 Jan 2004
Messages
10,604
Location
Bricks & mortar: Italy. Boat: Aegean
Visit site
However it was in a boating journal where I expect (informed) opinnion for my money.

Was it? Surely it was published on a website yesterday. So what money was that?

It's a straight piece of news reporting, restricting itself to facts, which is what news reporting should do.

P.S. I'll happily grant you, however, that it might usefully (and logically) have included a link to the MAIB report (which some kindly forumite posted hereabouts yesterday).
 
Last edited:
Top