failure to adhere to colregs

G

gonfishing

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Jan 2003
Messages
1,707
Visit site
the Skipper of the Diamant was fined for failing to adhere to col regs 5 & 19 I have read the report and cannot really see if he could have done much more, other than slow down further, perhaps I am wrong could you explain please ??
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-dops_enforce_newsroom-prosecutions/mcga-dops_enforce_prosecutions_2003.htm>http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/mcga-dops_enforce_newsroom-prosecutions/mcga-dops_enforce_prosecutions_2003.htm</A>

julian

<hr width=100% size=1>If it can, It will.
 
Yes he could have slowed down further, but he could of also use his radio and contact the other ship for their movements.

<hr width=100% size=1>
penguin_type_md_wht.gif
 
Mmm, I think he got off lightly IMHO. Without quoting chapter and verse, 33 knots in fog does'nt constitute a 'safe speed adapted to conditions' in my book. In addition, the ColRegs instruct that an alteration of course to port is avoided and, on hearing a fog signal, minimum speed is adopted, both of which were contravened
The report does'nt seem to comment on the ARPA system though. What was the ARPA telling them about the position/course of the other vessel? It may not have been functioining correctly but that does'nt absolve the skipper from observing the ColRegs

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I can understand the prosecution under col reg 19, but not 5 what else could he have done ???

julian

<hr width=100% size=1>If it can, It will.
 
Colreg 19 says that in restricted visibility, an alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam should be avoided so far as possible. Therefore, his first turn should have been to starboard AND he should have slowed down or stopped, if necessary, until he was sure of Northern Merchant's course.

VHF contact a possibility but not usual, I think, in restricted visibility.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I guess it means he did not keep a proper lookout 'by all available means' ie his radar. Doubtless, the ferry was fitted with a sophisticated ARPA radar, maybe 2 or even 3 and yet the skipper and officers either through misintepretation or malfunction, failed to determine the position and course of the other vessel

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Let's face it, these high speed Cats are a law to themselves. Reducing speed to 33knots is pathetic and continuing at that speed placed the passengers in serious risk. Fotunately for the Luxemburg company they only have the damage to vessels to cover.
I was enetering St Helier in clear and good conditions a number of years ago. I entered the channel when no ship was in sight on the horizon. I kept right along the starbard side. The next thing I saw was the shadow of one othese beasts coming up behind me. I do not know what speed this vessel was going at but it was fast and as it passed my 4.5 ton boat myself and my family were thrown all over the place as the boat was laid flat by the huge sea which was created by the wake hitting the harbour wall and deflecting back.
In todays society, where health and safety is the priority and risk assessments have to be carried out for nearly every activity it is amazing that the captains of these vessels are allowed to behave like boy racers.
As in all H&S claims the company should have received the severest punishment along with skipper, this way the company would in future apply stricter conditions to Captains to ensure compliance.

Regards.

Peter.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
what i find surprising about that report is the tiny fine of 1500 on the master of a ferry doing 33 knots in fog, and the initial fine of 100000 on a boat leaking oil.

1500 to the ferry company (who may well pay the employees fine) will be way less than the cost of slowing down!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top