Earthrace

Rum_Pirate

Rum_Pirate

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Aug 2004
Messages
27,972
Location
A tiny Island, Caribbean
Visit site
According to the may PBO, the Earthrace boat was off Guatamala when the the person on watch saw a blinking light ahead and thinking it was a navigation light consulted his charts whereupoon the boat hit a local small fishing boat anchored and killed one of the occupants (there is more).

Erm, if it had been a moored navigation light surely the Earthrace would have hit it and got damaged.
Surely the Earthrace officer on watch should have IMMEDIATELY taken evasive action to avoid whatever it was in his path?

Oh well, only another unimportant little fisherman trying to eke a living for his family (no social security etc) geting in the way of a bunch of 'individuals' (for want of a better description) trying to set some record that few will notice and fewer will remember.
 
Well, seeing the amount of publicity that Earthrace is getting on YBW, I'd be very surprised if the IPC mags were objective about it...

I find the whole thing totally disgraceful.

Marc.
 
This issue has been aired extensively on another thread, but probabhly the biggest argument against using strobes for navigational purposes or for nav lights is that it is extremely difficult to judge how far away one is - and I can confirm this from trials I have done with manoverboard lights.
 
Is it not hard to judge the distance from any light on a dark night with little background light?

Should the Earthrace people not have known this very basic fact given their high speeds? Is it not a basic requirement to be careful close to shore off these types of poor countries where money to buy latest navigation equipment is not available? The poor fishermen would have never had vessels such as Earthrace in their contemplation.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Erm, if it had been a moored navigation light surely the Earthrace would have hit it and got damaged.
Surely the Earthrace officer on watch should have IMMEDIATELY taken evasive action to avoid whatever it was in his path?


[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably, whoever was on watch would have known that there were no navigation marks immediately ahead because he would have been checking the chart from time to time. This would have been reinforced in his mind by the dimmness of the light. As such he wouldn't have felt any great sense of urgency about altering course.

As to the rights and wrongs of the case, how can you possibly judge without knowing the facts. If the fishing vessel was inproperly or inadequately lit, then it's very hard to blame the crew of Earthrace. If it was properly lit, then there's not much to excuse them. Have you seen an official report into the accident?
 
Another thing: Where did you read that the fishing boat was anchored. It seems unlikely if they really were 14 miles offshore at the time. If they weren't anchored, then the fishing boat crew should also have been keeping a lookout as well.

Regardless of that, I think the decision to immediately carry on with the trip appears callous, but that's an entirely different matter to the crew being responsible for the death.
 
James, the fact is that regardless of rights and wrongs, this is a tragedy which resulted in the loss of human life. Earthrace have been at pains to try and brush it aside as an "incident", paid off the family and carried on racing.
I very much doubt that they would have been allowed to carry on racing if the fisherman had been British and the accident had occured off the coast of Cornwall... I also very much doubt that the yachting mags would have just dismissed the accident as "yet another fisherman displaying the wrong lights".

It doesn't suprise me, I am no so naive as to think that there is a universal value to a human life, but it does sadden me.

Marc.
 
Please keep well away from the Thames Estuary.

You can be thirty miles out at sea and still be only waist deep.

Anyway the race had been well publicised so of course everyone should have kept out of its path as it was racing - NOT
 
They weren't in the Thames estuary, they were off the coast of Guatemala. However, that is besides the point; I asked where he had read that they were anchored because all the other news articles that I have read suggested that the fishing boat was drifting at the time. I don't doubt that there are many places in the world that you can anchor that far from shore, indeed, there is nowhere that you can't (given enough chain). What seems unlikely is that you would choose to anchor in such a place.
 
Even if they were anchored/drifting freely/drifting on a sea anchor it does not excuse Earthrace from running then down.
Earthrace at that speed (whatever it was) should have taken evasive action to avoid hitting the virtually stationary boat.

Please advise if the run down vessel had been within 14 miles of the UK coast and showing a light (EVEN if it was the wrong light it does not give the right to run it down) and somebody had been killed, what would have happened??

I got the impression that once they had paid off the family the incident was closed and marked off as a slight marr to the journey/race - F*** the third world populace as it interferred with the race. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

I am sorry, IMHO it was a damn poor show by Earthrace and their backers.
 
Cripes you lot are damming aren't you.

So ... you see a flashing light in front of you when you are travelling at 1/2 speed (they already had a problem with one engine).
You believe it to be a Nav mark (flashing white lite ok!) and it seems some way off ... better check the chart to see what it is and see what is the best course of action (ie - how far do we need to turn to miss the obsctruction)
BANG ... hmm ... ok - it was much closer than originally expected.

Sounds like an accident to me .... the helm didn't intentionally ram the fishing boat did he? Ok, perhaps they should've researched a bit more and realised that the fishing boats don't always show the "correct" lights ... but then equal blame should be given to the fishermen who didn't show the "correct" lights or realise they were about to be hit (assuming earthrace were showing the correct lights).

According to the report the Earthrace crew did everything they could to save the crew - unfortunately one(?) was lost before they managed to get to him. The others in the fishing fleet (initially) refused to help.

Tragic Accidents DO happen and we can all learn from them. This will happen again and it will be equally unintentional.
 
For certain the facts are not fully clear yet. Perhaps they never will be.

Wnat is clear is that Earthrace headed directly for a light while investigating what it was. This is clearly a basic error. Secondly having killed a native they treated it as a corporate would any PR mess up. That does not make them different to some other western companies operating overseas. But it does make them amongst the worst.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Wnat is clear is that Earthrace headed directly for a light while investigating what it was. This is clearly a basic error.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details, but I think it is possible that the description of a 'flashing white light' is being over interpreted.

I have not sailed off Guatmala, but I had an experience off Tanzania that could have ended the same way. Sailing at 10kn 10 miles offshore on a very black night, I became aware of a flickering white light ahead. While I was still trying to work out what it was, we flashed past a bloke fishing from a tiny boat and waving a half dead torch. Time from 1st seeing the light to passing very close by was perhaps 20 seconds. That light could have been a containership 10 miles away, I knew it wasn't a nav mark because there weren't any within 50 miles, but my 1st thought was that it was a small boat a mile or 2 off, fishing on one of the shallow patches in the area. My next action would probably have been to check the chart to see exactly where the next 'fishable' spot was.

I don't know what happened in the Earthrace incident, but it may not have been a fishing boat just showing the wrong lights, but a practically invisible small boat giving essentially no warning. You don't just bung the wheel across the instant you see something like that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You don't just bung the wheel across the instant you see something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly .... after all - it is unidentified ... so which way do you bung it?
You could slow down whilst you identify it - but do you stop each time you see a light on the bow?
 
According to the blog speed was being limited to around 16knots but yes, I would slow down and would probably also bear away to starboard a point or so to move the light from dead ahead. There is a world of difference between 'stopping' every time you see some potential obstacle and slowing down. Even if I believed it was a navigation marker I would not head straight at it.
 
I think that is right. We have all had situation where a nav buoy suddenly looms infront of us because we miscalculated it's distance. So a couple of points to starboard, look, think and possibly slow down are sensible and good seamanship.

Futhermore and importantly if one is heading directly at something the bearing is always dead ahead. If one steers a couple of points to either side and the bearing starts to change suddenly one has a little time to react.
 
Yes, but that is for a 'real' light that you clearly see. It is possible this was a very faint light and they never really got a proper look at it. In the tale I related above, I spent the entire 20s time between thinking I saw something and nearly hitting it, asking myself 'is that a light?'. As I say, I have no idea if this was the case here, but if it was I can sympathise.
 
I see what you mean if it looked like a distant light. If that were the case I would agree with you. I have just looked at their site and I quote MAR 20th

" At 00:30, Distefano spotted a small white and red flashing light directly ahead. According to maritime law, flashing lights are to be used as navigational aids, marking things such as channels."

Also maritime law - off any poor fishing town!

Only a few days later 3rd April did they change the story to...

"The unique wavepiercing vessel was involved in a collision off the coast of Guatemala with an unlit fishing skiff; resulting in damaged propellers, gearbox and engine mounts."

The legal/PR guidance in their story is pretty clear. It works like this.

1. We had a terrible incident - not our fault at all
2. We acted heroically
3. Rub the incident out
 
[ QUOTE ]
Even if they were anchored/drifting freely/drifting on a sea anchor it does not excuse Earthrace from running then down.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they were drifting, then they were underway, and had a responsibity for avoiding a collision when it became clear that earthrace hadn't seen them. If they were anchored, then they didn't, but they would have been responsible for showing a decent anchor light (that's just common sense that far offshore). Either way, if they failed to do either of these, then a significant portion of blame is on their own shoulders. As you say, their death shouldn't be treated lightly just because they are poor fishermen, but neither should their responsibilities.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I have not sailed off Guatmala, but I had an experience off Tanzania that could have ended the same way. Sailing at 10kn 10 miles offshore on a very black night, I became aware of a flickering white light ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were lucky to see even that. I was sailing with an ex fisherman off Zanzibar when we saw the local fishing fleet set sail. 30 or 40 small dhows, no engines and no electrics; an incredible sight. I asked him how they were lit at night without electrics. "They aren't" he replied. He went on to say that a fishing boat was run down every couple of years (they went up to 40 or 50 miles offshore) often with the loss of all onboard. I asked why they didn't just hoist a hurricane lamp (of which they had plenty). He shrugged and said that the fishermen just weren't particularly worried about it.

That's fine, but it's their risk, and I wouldn't criticise the master of the ship that runs them down. Likewise I would not be hugely critical of a crew who run down an inadequately lit boat. In the earthrace case it seems a bit off to make accusations of negligence without being very very sure of the facts. As far as I can tell, nobody here does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top