Fishing boat clearly in the wrong bumps into stern of large sailing yacht (video)

[Athene V30]

As a matter of interest.......Presumably an FV of that size would show up on AIS and could be contacted by VHF

Report says Sailing Ship tried VHF with no response.

You are quite right, the sailing ship would have to take action at a much earlier time than a fore and aft rig.

Same as if I was sailing along singlehanded with a spinnaker up (it has been known!) as opposed to a genoa and needed to take avoiding action it would take longer to get sorted so I would have to start sail handling earlier, I wouldn't just rely on VHF and sound signals and hope a collision did not happen.

 

[Conachair]

Presumably an FV of that size would show up on AIS and could be contacted by VHF

I had a quick hunt but couldn't find it so maybe not.
Even so, the best skippers around are the worst drinking partners, no good stories whatsoever Too cautious with plan b,c,d & e, not enough info to even bother trying to guess what those might have been in this case but something could have been done to prevent the bang happening.

 

[Fascadale]

Report says Sailing Ship tried VHF with no response.

You are quite right, the sailing ship would have to take action at a much earlier time than a fore and aft rig.

Same as if I was sailing along singlehanded with a spinnaker up (it has been known!) as opposed to a genoa and needed to take avoiding action it would take longer to get sorted so I would have to start sail handling earlier, I wouldn't just rely on VHF and sound signals and hope a collision did not happen.

The interesting bit in this statement is that you say (quite correctly) that when you know that you needed to take avoiding action you prepared accordingly.

At a range of +2nms how was the SV to know that she needed to take avoiding action?

 

[Athene V30]

At a range of +2nms how was the SV to know that she needed to take avoiding action?

Steady bearing and reducing range = risk of collision

 

[Fascadale]

Steady bearing and reducing range = risk of collision

Yes but at +2nms, when she would have needed to start her tack, she was the stand on vessel

 

[Athene V30]

Yes but at +2nms, when she would have needed to start her tack, she was the stand on vessel

Rule 17 applies - Action by stand-on vessel

(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

So in this case the Sailing Ship failed to comply with these requirements in the rules.

 

[NormanS]

Right then, experts: one says 300metres, one says 2 miles. At what distance would YOU assume that the give-way vessel, wasn't going to?
Obviously it depends on the type and manoeuvreability of YOUR boat. Telepathy would be useful also, I think.

 

[Conachair]

Right then, experts: one says 300metres, one says 2 miles. At what distance would YOU assume that the give-way vessel, wasn't going to?
Obviously it depends on the type and manoeuvreability of YOUR boat. Telepathy would be useful also, I think.

No point even trying to guess while sitting in a nice warm room next to a laptop, you need to be there to make a call with so many other factors going on, it's not a black and white world.

I *always* assume (just a little bit ) that the give way vessel isn't, then if it does it's a pleasant mild surprise and if doesn't you're ready for it.

 

[dancrane]

Can you picture the journey-times and recorded course of a sailing vessel bound from, say, Plymouth to St Malo, if her master takes care to assume in plenty of time that every vessel which she might encounter within one sea-mile, doesn't have any lookout or steersman? Wouldn't her own course then become so weirdly evasive and unpredictable as to represent a hazard in itself?

I got the impression that the black smoke from the FV's engines, was a consequence of her going hard astern at the last moment...if that is so, it would appear to indicate that right up until perhaps five seconds before her master finally woke up and took action, the collision could have been avoided...

...on that basis, the sailing vessel had good reason to believe that until the last few moments, it wasn't too late for the FV to avert collision, if her crew could be alerted, and hadn't been so damned slack. So rule 17 part (b) hardly applies here.

 

[Fascadale]

Rule 17 applies - Action by stand-on vessel

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

I think this is the key question: how, at about 2nms can it become apparent that one should abandon the requirement to remain the stand on vessel and instead take other action.

Rule 17(b) also refers so vessels finding themselves "so close"......that they are then obliged to take action.

I would find it difficult to equate a range of +2nms as being "so close"

 

[dancrane]

This thread is unpleasantly reminiscent of the one from last year...or was it 2011...regarding the Condor ferry that ran down a French fishing vessel at 38 knots, in very limited visibility and with totally inadequate radar-watch...

...then as now, there was a great deal of criticism of the boat that was run down, simply for being in the path of another that wasn't paying any attention.

That said, looking at the barque's decks after the collision, there doesn't seem to be very much sail aloft. How hard would it have been to 'luff' the vessel, if she'd been carrying just main and fore-tops'l, and jibs/staysails? In the last ninety seconds before the crunch, how possible would it have been to crash-stop the barque or put her on a parallel course with the fishing vessel?

 

[Athene V30]

I think this is the key question: how, at about 2nms can it become apparent that one should abandon the requirement to remain the stand on vessel and instead take other action.

Rule 17(b) also refers so vessels finding themselves "so close"......that they are then obliged to take action.

I would find it difficult to equate a range of +2nms as being "so close"

Based on assumptions - if it takes the Sailing Ship 15 minutes to go about and she is travelling at 6 knots then the decision to tack has to be made by 1.5miles from the point of tacking / danger because that is the distance she will travel in the time it takes to act.

When I was OOW on a big grey thing (from 20m to 200m length overall) for 4 hours at a time when on watch I was constantly evaluating the risk of anything coming within 2 miles and building a course of action to act by 5 or 6 miles based on visual and radar information as well as trying to get somewhere, hunt exercise submarines, get the right wind to launch fixed wing (yes that dates me). It is possible.

 

[NormanS]

Based on assumptions - if it takes the Sailing Ship 15 minutes to go about and she is travelling at 6 knots then the decision to tack has to be made by 1.5miles from the point of tacking / danger because that is the distance she will travel in the time it takes to act.

When I was OOW on a big grey thing (from 20m to 200m length overall) for 4 hours at a time when on watch I was constantly evaluating the risk of anything coming within 2 miles and building a course of action to act by 5 or 6 miles based on visual and radar information as well as trying to get somewhere, hunt exercise submarines, get the right wind to launch fixed wing (yes that dates me). It is possible.

Surely in this case, it's not the speed of the SV, but the speed of the approaching FV that is relevant? It was probably doing at least10 knots. So at what distance do you decide that the approaching FV is not under control?

 

[Biggles Wader]

What was that other ship in the first few seconds of the vid?Was that relevant to who could alter course and where?We dont know,but we do know what the magistrate thought,and that is probably correct.

 

[Fascadale]

Based on assumptions - if it takes the Sailing Ship 15 minutes to go about and she is travelling at 6 knots then the decision to tack has to be made by 1.5miles from the point of tacking / danger because that is the distance she will travel in the time it takes to act.

When I was OOW on a big grey thing (from 20m to 200m length overall) for 4 hours at a time when on watch I was constantly evaluating the risk of anything coming within 2 miles and building a course of action to act by 5 or 6 miles based on visual and radar information as well as trying to get somewhere, hunt exercise submarines, get the right wind to launch fixed wing (yes that dates me). It is possible.

I defer to your experience....................

 

[Athene V30]

Surely in this case, it's not the speed of the SV, but the speed of the approaching FV that is relevant? It was probably doing at least10 knots. So at what distance do you decide that the approaching FV is not under control?

At whatever distance is required to give the sailing ship the amount of time it takes to act to avoid risk of collision. The alternative is to crash - oh that's what happened. Rule 17.

I am leaving this thread now. Had enough of the lack of understanding of COLREGS. The fundamental is Don't Crash and if a crash occurs all are at least partly to blame.

 

[dancrane]

The fundamental is Don't Crash and if a crash occurs all are at least partly to blame.

That seems a harsh stand-point, which can hardly apply to every incident and near-miss at sea.

I recall misjudging a close-quarters manoeuvre, and by cocking it up, I caused contact with another boat whose course had been rightful, safe, predictable and unvarying. It's unhelpful to believe the principle that simply by being present, responsibility for one fool's error is shared by all others involved.

 

[westernman]

A sailing boat like that will only take a minute or two to change course substantially.
It will take a good 40 minutes to and hour with all hands on deck to tack properly and brace all the yards and have all the sails set up right on the new tack - but in an emergency you will just wind the wheel hard over.

 

[bedouin]

the fundamental is Don't Crash and if a crash occurs all are at least partly to blame.

That is true - but in this particular instance it is hard to see what the sailing ship could do. If she was close hauled on starboard she had no ability to turn to port, turning to starboard would have crashed immediately, and it is unlikely she could have made a sufficient alteration to her speed in time.

Realistically no one expects a fishing vessel (not fishing) to give more than 100m clearance and the FV still had plenty of room to manoeuvre until long after the last time at which the SV could do anything useful.

 

[Resolution]

I am leaving this thread now. Had enough of the lack of understanding of COLREGS. The fundamental is Don't Crash and if a crash occurs all are at least partly to blame.

It is a pity you have left the thread because you still have not adequately answered the question. How, in practice, does the master of a large vessel with low manoeverability time his actions when on a converging course with a vessel of substantially greater manoeverability? How in practice does the master balance his initial obligation as stand-on vessel to hold his course, with his final obligation to take avoiding action?

This is enormously relevant to all of us who sail small yachts or motorboats and cross paths with large ships. How many times as give way vessel in your yacht have you aimed at ducking close under the stern of a ship steaming down the TSS at twenty knots, secure in the expectation that he will hold his course and speed?

I'm not criticising, just looking for guidance as to what ship's masters (or OOWs) are most likely to do in practice.