Excessive speed in fog
- Thread starter Bru
- Start date
sailorman
Well-known member
Nothing new there then
Bru
Well-known member
Just had a manually generated holding email from Chirp, they've had problems with their email server and only just got my (and loads of other) submission
My report has now been referred to a Captain Xxxxx (I won't pay his name without permission) and I'm advised that he will be in touch with me within a week to ten days (backlog again)
To the extent that I can I shall keep the forum informed on further developments
My report has now been referred to a Captain Xxxxx (I won't pay his name without permission) and I'm advised that he will be in touch with me within a week to ten days (backlog again)
To the extent that I can I shall keep the forum informed on further developments
rubberduck
Well-known member
My boat does around 38, & at that speed you need to have your wits about you as things come up very quickly in perfect conditions, so half speed with low vis would be nuts even with a very good radar IMO. I would do tickover & still be very careful.
Bru
Well-known member
Does anybody have access to AIS archive data?
Basically, the master and owners of the RRV AUDREY are claiming she was already at the windfarm at the time I encountered them off Mersea Stone
They're also claiming it wasn't foggy, that if it had been they'd have slowed siren and made sound signals etc
If I can't catch them out (it's a bare faced lie and that's the long and the short of it) The matter will be closed effectively with them getting away with it
Basically, the master and owners of the RRV AUDREY are claiming she was already at the windfarm at the time I encountered them off Mersea Stone
They're also claiming it wasn't foggy, that if it had been they'd have slowed siren and made sound signals etc
If I can't catch them out (it's a bare faced lie and that's the long and the short of it) The matter will be closed effectively with them getting away with it
sailorman
Well-known member
what about HHA
Bru
Well-known member
Even if they keep the relevant data I doubt they'd five me access to it
I was hoping hoping someone subscribed to the pay features of Marine Traffic night be lurking around
sailorman
Well-known member
Dunno if you have to pay
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/ais-historical-data
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/p/ais-historical-data
Bru
Well-known member
Through the proverbial nose, the costs are further down the page and start from E133 and head for the stratosphere from there!
sailorman
Well-known member
you might suggest this option is open the the reporting authority
MoodySabre
Well-known member
Shipfinder has Playback where you can set the date and time. Mind you, I couldn't get it to work.
Bru
Well-known member
I'm sort've getting it working and getting some very interesting indications of it
It's flakey though and things keep disappearing and reappearing so I think I'm going to have to grab a series of screen shots of it
It's looking like the RRV Audrey had already been out once and made her way back into Brightlingsea before heading out for a second run which is when we encountered here (and that a couple of the Offshore boats were also batting about )
That does not fit with what the master and operators are claiming "after consulting the log book"
I started this as a bit of a shot in the dark, now I'm starting to get annoyed!
Work beckons and there are other things I really ought to be doing but if I have time tomorrow ...
Oldgeezer
Member
It is flakey, but she's doing 19.6 kts at 06:50 out of the colne - first trip
Then you came close to her on the next trip at 8:30.
Unfortunately it looks like the speed only gets updated every 10 minutes on shipfinder - so it only shows 12kts till the next update doing 21kts!
Good luck on this - its just downright dangerous!
Then you came close to her on the next trip at 8:30.
Unfortunately it looks like the speed only gets updated every 10 minutes on shipfinder - so it only shows 12kts till the next update doing 21kts!
Good luck on this - its just downright dangerous!
MoodySabre
Well-known member
Another thought. The owner of Boat Beacon is a forumite - perhaps he had access to historic data.
Yeoman of England
Member
If the incident had been reported to MRCC Thames and in turn to MAIB then AIS historic data can then be downloaded and passed to Enforcement branch of the MCA. They take this role seriously. It is not too late to report said incident.
Regards
Yeoman(Rtd)
sailorman
Well-known member
The OP logged a CHIP report
Bru
Well-known member
Hmm, possibly would have been a bit OTT though
I felt that the windcat was proceeding at an unsafe speed for the conditions and not making sound signals but we didn't have a close encounter or near miss ('cos I'm a coward and snuck up the shallows outside of the main channel! There a bold sailors and there are old sailors ....)
A CHIRP report seemed to be the way to go and it has certainly caused some muttering and probably cursing at their end. I'm awaiting a final response from the CHIRP investigator but the matter seems to be closed now (I'll post conclusions later)
Phoenix of Hamble
Active member
Suspect you'll have achieved the right outcome though Bru.... bet they'll think twice for a while now when its foggy... and hopefully slow down a bit.
Bru
Well-known member
My apologies one and all for the delayed update on this, it slipped my mind (I shall chastise myself later)
In a nutshell, despite the best efforts of CHIRP to get a sensible response from the operators of the work boat, all they did was constantly pick on any discrepancies in the emails
Initially, they denied being in the area at all
Then they denied being in the area at the specific time (even though the vessel had departed and returned to Brightlingsea already that morning and was on her second departure of the day when we encountered here) due to my report being in BST and their log being in UTC
Then they denied it was foggy because there was no note to say it was in the vessel log and after our next attempt to extract a sensible response they were only interested in pointing out that the vessel wasn't working at the Gunfleet Sands Wind Farm (OK< so it turns out to be working on the Clacton sea defences <sigh>)
CHIRP have concluded, and I agree, that there is nothing further to be gained by pursuing it and that hopefully they have learnt a lesson, if nothing else that AIS tracking can be used to pin down misbehaving vessels, for the future
My own conclusions are as follows ...
Firstly, and most importantly, we encountered two vessels (the RV Audrey and small fishing boat) in visibility that was measurably less than a cable. None of the vessels, including ourselves, were making routine sound signals as required by Colregs
My excuse, and I'm not going to even try and defend it, was that the electric horn fitted to Erbas was feeble when it worked, now doesn't work, the mouth blown horn is pathetic and the compressed air horn takes several minutes of pumping for just a few blasts so I kept that in hand in case of emergency
The gentle suggestion from the experienced Master Mariner I've been communicating with at CHIRP is that that isn't really good enough and that all vessels should be making the prescribed sound signals in poor visibility. He highlighted another case they have reported on in MFB35 which touched on the same subject
I intend to address this over the winter either by fitting a decent electric compressed air horn or an automated system driven by the VHF (I'm not sure whether the current Icom has the facility but the SH set I'd like to replace it with does)
My second conclusion is that I needed to be more detailed and accurate in my reporting. It took several exchanges of emails to resolve (admittedly actually unimportant) details by which time any chance of a sensible response from the operator was long gone. I should have written up a log of the encounter as soon as we anchored, if not whilst under way, and also downloaded the AIS tracks from Marinetraffic at the earliest opportunity
If you are minded to report an encounter to CHIRP, basically get your act together properly! And watch out for UTC / BST and Knots / MPH mix ups!
My third conclusion is that I can't help feeling that a certain amount of complacency might start to creep in around the operations of these work boats. After all, they're out and back several times a day over the same short stretch of water and I suspect it becomes a bit like driving a bus. Hopefully, this will have rattled their cage enough to make them take more care in future (for I have no druthers about saying that IMO they were not navigating safely that morning)
It has been an interesting learning experience although I don't intend to make a habit of it! However, if I encountered the same circumstances again I reckon I probably would
In a nutshell, despite the best efforts of CHIRP to get a sensible response from the operators of the work boat, all they did was constantly pick on any discrepancies in the emails
Initially, they denied being in the area at all
Then they denied being in the area at the specific time (even though the vessel had departed and returned to Brightlingsea already that morning and was on her second departure of the day when we encountered here) due to my report being in BST and their log being in UTC
Then they denied it was foggy because there was no note to say it was in the vessel log and after our next attempt to extract a sensible response they were only interested in pointing out that the vessel wasn't working at the Gunfleet Sands Wind Farm (OK< so it turns out to be working on the Clacton sea defences <sigh>)
CHIRP have concluded, and I agree, that there is nothing further to be gained by pursuing it and that hopefully they have learnt a lesson, if nothing else that AIS tracking can be used to pin down misbehaving vessels, for the future
My own conclusions are as follows ...
Firstly, and most importantly, we encountered two vessels (the RV Audrey and small fishing boat) in visibility that was measurably less than a cable. None of the vessels, including ourselves, were making routine sound signals as required by Colregs
My excuse, and I'm not going to even try and defend it, was that the electric horn fitted to Erbas was feeble when it worked, now doesn't work, the mouth blown horn is pathetic and the compressed air horn takes several minutes of pumping for just a few blasts so I kept that in hand in case of emergency
The gentle suggestion from the experienced Master Mariner I've been communicating with at CHIRP is that that isn't really good enough and that all vessels should be making the prescribed sound signals in poor visibility. He highlighted another case they have reported on in MFB35 which touched on the same subject
I intend to address this over the winter either by fitting a decent electric compressed air horn or an automated system driven by the VHF (I'm not sure whether the current Icom has the facility but the SH set I'd like to replace it with does)
My second conclusion is that I needed to be more detailed and accurate in my reporting. It took several exchanges of emails to resolve (admittedly actually unimportant) details by which time any chance of a sensible response from the operator was long gone. I should have written up a log of the encounter as soon as we anchored, if not whilst under way, and also downloaded the AIS tracks from Marinetraffic at the earliest opportunity
If you are minded to report an encounter to CHIRP, basically get your act together properly! And watch out for UTC / BST and Knots / MPH mix ups!
My third conclusion is that I can't help feeling that a certain amount of complacency might start to creep in around the operations of these work boats. After all, they're out and back several times a day over the same short stretch of water and I suspect it becomes a bit like driving a bus. Hopefully, this will have rattled their cage enough to make them take more care in future (for I have no druthers about saying that IMO they were not navigating safely that morning)
It has been an interesting learning experience although I don't intend to make a habit of it! However, if I encountered the same circumstances again I reckon I probably would
sailorman
Well-known member
Thanks Bru
I guess a photo shot of a plotter would help with the offender "blobbed-on" to give their details.
there are enough boaters here to monitor these fast cat boats in future