wadget
New member
Its more rule 17 in this case.
Fishing boat clearly in the wrong bumps into stern of large sailing yacht (video)
- Thread starter Jamesuk
- Start date
Its more rule 17 in this case.
KevinT1
Active member
One of the basic rules for youngsters when they were learning to sail Optimists - when is it acceptable to colide with another boat ?
Answer "never"
And back to the early comment - the SV should have been taking avoiding action much earlier - if nothing else "engine on". They were just as much to blame as the Fishing Vessel !
Answer "never"
And back to the early comment - the SV should have been taking avoiding action much earlier - if nothing else "engine on". They were just as much to blame as the Fishing Vessel !
dancrane
Well-known member
Granted no-one has the right to let a collision occur on the basis that it's conspicuously someone else's duty to alter course...
...but I reckon it's too much to cast any culpability on the sailing ship here - surely there isn't a rule written anywhere that allows large fishing boats to plough along apace for extended periods with absolutely no lookout, nor helmsman and no-one attending the radio? So the sailing ship's master can scarcely be blamed for expecting the fishing boat to notice her, or hear her repeated horn signals...
...and even if the sailing ship HAD somehow proactively, spontaneously pirouetted, mightn't doing that have been judged in retrospect as highly irresponsible, if the fishing vessel had finally woken up and rapidly, simultaneously altered course, with their consequent new relative courses ending in a collision calamitously worse?
...but I reckon it's too much to cast any culpability on the sailing ship here - surely there isn't a rule written anywhere that allows large fishing boats to plough along apace for extended periods with absolutely no lookout, nor helmsman and no-one attending the radio? So the sailing ship's master can scarcely be blamed for expecting the fishing boat to notice her, or hear her repeated horn signals...
...and even if the sailing ship HAD somehow proactively, spontaneously pirouetted, mightn't doing that have been judged in retrospect as highly irresponsible, if the fishing vessel had finally woken up and rapidly, simultaneously altered course, with their consequent new relative courses ending in a collision calamitously worse?
sailorman
Well-known member
a rocket through the wheelhouse might have got the OOWs attention
DJE
Well-known member
mainsail1
Well-known member
I had the same kind of situation a few years back. I concluded that the give way vessel was not going to take action to avoid me so at the last minute I altered course to avoid him and he suddenly altered course. Collision happened and the lawyers decided that I should have maintained my course. You can't win!
prv
Well-known member
dancrane
Well-known member
Just my point; hence I say the sailing ship here, can't fairly be criticised for standing on. It's not as if he hadn't tried hard to attract the other vessel's attention.
mainsail1
Well-known member
I had no alternative but to alter to port to pass astern of him although I know a starboard turn is preferable. He was crossing on port tack and I was on starboard in a crowded part of the Solent. If he had just continued on his merry way we would have missed as I had done the job for him. As it was I 'T' boned him!
Moonshining
Active member
How much extra speed would starting the engine have done. There was probably 30 seconds or so prior to the impact when it would have become apparent that the FV wasn't keeping a lookout
Conachair
Guest
Fair lump of a boat, you wouldn't really want 400 tonnes bangig into the side of you.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1266401
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1266401
prv
Well-known member
Fair enough; that rule does say "if the circumstances of the case admit", which implies they sometimes don't. I just wondered if that might have contributed to the unfavourable decision.
Pete
Ariadne
Active member
Read the report , they had left somebody on watch, maybe not the Captain or mate, but I guess somebody who should have called somebody up in time to do something.
The SV had an obligation to avoid collision and didn't, didn't even try to alter course.
60/40 blame here both are guilty of not taking avoiding action when they could.
As to the horn, in reality on a big motor vessel; you ain't going to hear it until it's too late! It may be a legal requirement but you won't hear it if the doors are closed and you are motoring home.
As said she wasn't fishing, beam trawlers lower the beams for stability. If she was fishing she would have traveling at around 4-5kts and would not have been able to turn that fast in any case as due to the loads she would have capsized, probably killing all on board. They have a track record for doing this!!!!
The SV had an obligation to avoid collision and didn't, didn't even try to alter course.
60/40 blame here both are guilty of not taking avoiding action when they could.
As to the horn, in reality on a big motor vessel; you ain't going to hear it until it's too late! It may be a legal requirement but you won't hear it if the doors are closed and you are motoring home.
As said she wasn't fishing, beam trawlers lower the beams for stability. If she was fishing she would have traveling at around 4-5kts and would not have been able to turn that fast in any case as due to the loads she would have capsized, probably killing all on board. They have a track record for doing this!!!!
ytd
New member
I would have been tacking the SV or bearing away to pass astern when the trawler was 300m away. In my experience, it's rare to see anyone in the wheelhouse of a FV when transiting to and from fishing grounds. Maybe it's a case of stones and glass houses when you consider the number of single handed sailors 'interacting' with fising boats.
KenMcCulloch
New member
As prv (who has quite a bit of square rig experience) has already pointed out, tacking a vessel like this is a pretty complex labour intensive process. Not something that can be done more or less instantly as is possible in a Bermudan rigged yacht, 10-15 minutes might be considered pretty quick to organise a tack in this ship, with a well drilled crew.
NormanS
Well-known member
By my calculation, assuming the FV was doing 10 knots, that would give the sailing ship about 58 seconds to do anything. Do you seriously think it could change course in that time?
Athene V30
Active member
This thread is going round in circles!
Yes the Fishing Boat is in the wrong, it should have altered course to starboard and or made a reduction in speed so that it was obvious to the Sailing Ship that it was taking action to avoid the collision. This did not happen so the Sailing Ship appeared to me to have two options:
1. Sound horn, use VHF and do nothing (as happened) in the hope that the fishing boat act - resulting in a luckily minor collision. But 'what if' the fishing boat had an ice breaker bow and had T-boned the Sailing Ship midships?
2. Do something to manoeuver out of the way. The decision to do this had to be taken in plenty of time due to the type of vessel. This is what Rule 2 and Rule 17 (thank you Wadget - I knew the detail was in there somewhere!) are all about.
Both to blame - Fishing Boat more so.
Fascadale
Well-known member
As a matter of interest.......
.............had the SV assessed the FV would take no action to avoid the collision then how far from the point of collision should the SV have started her tack? It has been suggested that it would take the SV 15 to 20 minutes to tack: does that translate to about 2nms to the CPA? If that is the case it seems a long way off for the SV to decide that she should abandon her requirement to "stand on".
And at that distance how could the SV correctly assess that the FV would neither slow nor turn?
Presumably an FV of that size would show up on AIS and could be contacted by VHF
.............had the SV assessed the FV would take no action to avoid the collision then how far from the point of collision should the SV have started her tack? It has been suggested that it would take the SV 15 to 20 minutes to tack: does that translate to about 2nms to the CPA? If that is the case it seems a long way off for the SV to decide that she should abandon her requirement to "stand on".
And at that distance how could the SV correctly assess that the FV would neither slow nor turn?
Presumably an FV of that size would show up on AIS and could be contacted by VHF
NormanS
Well-known member
myquest
Member
What a strange response. I get from this that the SV did all that was legally required but was almost as culpable as the FV that did nothing to prevent the collision until the last seconds. You wouldn't happen to be "sitting on my (very noisy motor) boat in St Maarten" would you?