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

[lenseman]

Common you lot! Don't you realise the skipper of the fishing boat was a part time computer geek?

He looked out of the bridge window and it stated - "404 - Sailing ship not found".



.

 

[Woodlouse]

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.

If you try to crash tack a square rigger with no one on the braces you will end up flat aback and risk losing the masts.

Whilst it is easy to criticise the captain of the sailing ship, his is not a situation anyone would want to be in. To be the unmanuverable stand on vessel trying to second guess a manuverable yet unyielding give way vessel is a colregs nightmare. I really wouldn't like to say what he could have done differently other than maybe a big bare away at the last moment.

My only query is, did his sound signals really qualify as short blasts?

 

[Seven Spades]

Because text said the fishing vessel was overtaking, if the sailing vessel turns to starboard and the fishing boat does what it is supposed to do i.e. turn to starboard then the sailing vessel will have caused the accident. It is difficult to see from the video the angle of approach of the fishing vessel, so I have taken as read the text.If the fishing vessel is an overtaking vessel then it is easy to understand the dilemma of the sailing vessel.

 

[Greenheart]

She doesn't look like she'd turn on a sixpence...

View attachment 29975

 

[Seven Spades]

i think the level of the fine was wholly inadequate shouldn't te courts make an example so that these vessels are made to understand their obligations? This accident was both avoidable and could have caused loss of life.

 

[westernman]

If you try to crash tack a square rigger with no one on the braces you will end up flat aback and risk losing the masts.

Flat aback yes. But you won't lose the masts or damage anything in what is calm conditions for a square rigger.

 

[macd]

Difficult to tell, but I would have thought that with both booms out, it would have been fishing.

No shapes shown, no gear in the water. It was not "a vessel engaged in fishing".

 

[Woodlouse]

Flat aback yes. But you won't lose the masts or damage anything in what is calm conditions for a square rigger.

Perhaps, it is still not a scenario you wish to find yourself in. Close hauled with a fishing boat coming at you, or flat aback and dead in the water with a fishing boat coming at you.

 

[gordmac]

Don't know anything about sailing, are you guys saying sailing boats are basically unable to steer? That seems a bit dodgy to me. If the sailing boat steered to port (if possible) would that have done enough to move the stern out of the way? Would full ahead give more speed than sails? More ability to steer?
If you can't steer the things without 15 minutes or whatever should they not have tried to get the other boat on the radio with enough time to do something and if there was no reply assumed there was nobody on watch and begun avoiding action? That would be my understanding of the rules.
Having said that I am guessing fishermen get little sleep fishing and maybe the guy on watch fell asleep, no excuse though and on the face of it he got away lightly with the fine. Would never have happened if someone on the fishing boat was doing their job.

 

[Woodlouse]

Don't know anything about sailing, are you guys saying sailing boats are basically unable to steer? That seems a bit dodgy to me. If the sailing boat steered to port (if possible) would that have done enough to move the stern out of the way? Would full ahead give more speed than sails? More ability to steer?
If you can't steer the things without 15 minutes or whatever should they not have tried to get the other boat on the radio with enough time to do something and if there was no reply assumed there was nobody on watch and begun avoiding action? That would be my understanding of the rules.

What we're saying is that sailing ships have certain restrictions as to how they are able to do react to other vessels. Hence why on the face of it powered vessels are required to give way to them.

 

[RichardS]

Didn't the magistrate find the fishing vessel totally at fault? Seems to me that is self-evidentally the correct judgement. The end!

Richard

 

[longjohnsilver]

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.

Yes that seems the logical conclusion I'd also reach. If I was the master of the sailing vessel and saw a supertanker approaching I'd be thinking maybe he was unable to manoeuvre easily so time for me to move away. However with a relatively small fishing vessel, which is highly manoeuvrable, I'd be expecting him to give way almost up to the last minute, as he should have done. Surely he has a right to expect that someone on the fishing boat would at least be keeping watch and in control of the wheel and therefore would also expect him to give way as he should.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Didn't the magistrate find the fishing vessel totally at fault?

No. He wasn't asked to apportion blame. He was simply there to determine guilt of the fishing boat skipper who had been charged.

 

[gordmac]

If the boat isn't replying to the radio I would assume there was nobody on watch and take avoiding action. If the sailing boat is basically unsteerable even when the other boat should be giving way surely the skipper should be more reluctant to just assume it would give way and be more cautious?
Are all sailing boats like that or only the big ones?

 

[lenten]

the fishing boat was 100% at fault---forget all the complicated arguments----he wasn t looking where he was going-----my view as an ex fisherman

 

[john_morris_uk]

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

I think many people on here are deluding themselves about how much difference the engines would make on that SV. Engaging forward propulsion might not have made and difference at all.... but without familiarity with the vessel in question its an impossible guess.

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.

I think you might have worked out by now from other peoples comments that tacking a ship like this particular SV is not anything like tacking a yacht... You can't just 'tack' the vessel - and you do risk spars and masts if you put her aback.

If you try to crash tack a square rigger with no one on the braces you will end up flat aback and risk losing the masts.

Whilst it is easy to criticise the captain of the sailing ship, his is not a situation anyone would want to be in. To be the unmanuverable stand on vessel trying to second guess a manuverable yet unyielding give way vessel is a colregs nightmare. I really wouldn't like to say what he could have done differently other than maybe a big bare away at the last moment.

My only query is, did his sound signals really qualify as short blasts?

Sort of sums it up to me.

Don't know anything about sailing, are you guys saying sailing boats are basically unable to steer? That seems a bit dodgy to me. If the sailing boat steered to port (if possible) would that have done enough to move the stern out of the way? Would full ahead give more speed than sails? More ability to steer?

Of course the sailing vessel can steer - but not with the same lack of constraints as a MFV. The engine might not have made any difference either - see my remarks above.

On large vessels its not always a matter of pressing the starter to get instant engine propulsion options. You have to give notice of wanting the engines to the engineer (who might be working on them?) and he/she might have told the OOW that the engines are on perhaps 1 hours notice or any other time he/she negotiates... Maintenance is an ongoing thing and happens at sea. Even if the engines are on immediate notice, they might have to be brought to readiness to start and then go through a start up routine before being able to apply power - and this is all assuming that it/they will make any difference (see my previous comments).

I get the impression that there is a tendency for people to think that large vessels are just like their small yachts - only bigger.

 

[[70521]]

On a lighter note, why did the crew of the big green ship not swarm over the fishing vessel and have fish fingers for tea?

 

[RichardS]

No. He wasn't asked to apportion blame. He was simply there to determine guilt of the fishing boat skipper who had been charged.

If the skipper of the fishing vessel was the only one charged then that sounds like a pretty conclusive apportionment to me!

Richard

 

[macd]

If the skipper of the fishing vessel was the only one charged then that sounds like a pretty conclusive apportionment to me!

That may be the case, but we don't know it. It's possible that the authorities took the view that the sailing vessel's skipper was culpable to some degree; having decided that, they would then consider the possibility of bringing a successful prosecution. If they deemed this low, they would not have brought the case. The Andrea's watchkeeper, remember, was bang to rights and pleaded guilty; the Alexander von Humboldt's skipper may very well have denied the charge, if brought (and with some reason).

More information (but nothing that specifically contributes to the above) here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-ho...s-releases.htm?id=3F9A1F95ADC8908A&m=6&y=2011

And a shorter version of the same report, plus lots of others for armchair skippers to get their teeth into, here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/newsandpublications/mcgaprosecutions/prosecutions2011.htm

 

[ffiill]

Clearly two vessels both of which were big enough to argue the point.
Personally in my little 34 footer if I see a big commercial boat I always aim to pass astern even if it means me dropping sails or turn off course.Never mind about collision regs!