Fishing boat lost.

[rich]

The head of Jersey’s Fishing Association says the community is “preparing for the worst” after discovering the wreck of a local fishing boat hit by a Condor freight vessel in the early hours of this morning.
Three fishermen are missing following the collision, which occurred around 05:30 as the Commodore Goodwill was en route from Guernsey to Jersey on its regular sailing.
Coastguards called out the RNLI's inshore and all-weather lifeboats and two French rescue helicopters, Guernsey's RNLI all-weather lifeboat and a French naval fixed-wing aircraft.
A large number of local fishing vessels also joined the search, and the JLA self-launched.
“One of our fishing boats has located the wreck which is three-and-a-half miles west of St. Ouen’s Bay,” said Jersey Fishing Association President Don Thompson.
“It is on the seabed in about 40 to 50 metres of water and that depth is a challenge. There is no sign of a life raft and the Coastguard is currently coordinating a specialist dive team up in Cherbourg to go down there, but there is quite a lot to co-ordinate.”

 

[JerseyDiver]

A bit early to say “local fishing boat hit by Condor freight vessel”

I will wait for the MAIB report rather than the local fishermans assessment.

 

[Bandit]

I would prefer to say " a collision between a local fishing boat and a Condor freight vessel" and await the MAIB report as well.

Bailiwick Express a local on line news Company had released this AIS tracking video.

 

[dunedin]

If the AIS traces are correct the fishing boat was going too fast to be actually fishing at the time, so presumably normal COLREGs applied.

Lets hope for the best regarding survivors, but can’t be looking good, Very sad

 

[jrudge]

Condor … again

 

[Farmer Piles]

Maybe, but the fishing boat was steaming, underway at 12kts and the Condor was on her starboard bow so technically in the right. Not that it excuses the crew for not keeping watch and the resulting tragedy.

 

[Black Sheep]

the fishing boat was steaming, underway at 12kts and the Condor was on her starboard bow so technically in the right.

My understanding of the colregs is that in the event of a collision, it is very unlikely that either vessel is "technically in the right".
I think you are saying that your understanding of the situation, from the AIS tracks, is that the Condor would have been stand-on vessel. But that status carries with it certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to avoid a collision.

We don't know the full situation, so I certainly won't be rushing to judge either vessel.

But I will say that one very heartening thing from the AIS recording is the sheer number of assets, official and unofficial, that were joining the search very quickly after the incident.

 

[Farmer Piles]

I quite agree, especially as fishing boats tend to be lit up like Christmas trees, both boats are on AIS, you would think that at least the ferry would have an alarm.
Just a horrible scenario and both sad and scary that it could happen.

 

[jfm]

My understanding of the colregs is that in the event of a collision, it is very unlikely that either vessel is "technically in the right".
I think you are saying that your understanding of the situation, from the AIS tracks, is that the Condor would have been stand-on vessel. But that status carries with it certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to avoid a collision.

We don't know the full situation, so I certainly won't be rushing to judge either vessel.

But I will say that one very heartening thing from the AIS recording is the sheer number of assets, official and unofficial, that were joining the search very quickly after the incident.

The AIS tracks suggest that this case will bring to light some of the many drafting deficiencies in the Colregs. (As I've said on here many times, imho it is a truly awful document and needs an urgent re-write by people who know how to write. We mostly avoid collisions despite them, not because of them, imho). You say stand-on "status carries with it certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to avoid a collision" but Rule 17 (which I think is what you have in mind) absolutely does not say that. Maybe it should, and many think it does, but as a straightforward matter of language it does not. I'm not trying to start a big Colregs debate; I'm merely throwing in a long-held thought that Colregs are terrible and need re-doing imho, and these AIS tracks in this tragic case seem to illustrate that rather starkly imho.

 

[Plum]

You say stand-on "status carries with it certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to avoid a collision" but Rule 17 (which I think is what you have in mind) absolutely does not say that.

That is interesting, I would like to understand how you would improve the wording of Rule 17b "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."

www.solocoastalsailing.co.uk

 

[SC35]

That is interesting, I would like to understand how you would improve the wording of Rule 17b "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."

www.solocoastalsailing.co.uk

I would update the Colregs to include something that relates to the size of a vessel.
Standing on to a large commercial vessel in an 11 metre bowl made of fibreglass makes sense in zero situations.

 

[dankilb]

Fishing boat missing off channel islands

@Moderator possible to combine?

 

[mm42]

I would update the Colregs to include something that relates to the size of a vessel.
Standing on to a large commercial vessel in an 11 metre bowl made of fibreglass makes sense in zero situations.

It makes perfect sense, the watch keeper on the large commercial vessel expects the stand on vessel to do just that, stand on, and works around that. If the yachtie starts making it up as he goes along, based on the unwritten rule of tonnage, that's when things go wrong.

 

[SC35]

It makes perfect sense, the watch keeper on the large commercial vessel expects the stand on vessel to do just that, stand on, and works around that. If the yachtie starts making it up as he goes along, based on the unwritten rule of tonnage, that's when things go wrong.

Okay, I’ll try standing on to a Cruise Ship next time I am out and we’ll see what happens.

 

[mm42]

Okay, I’ll try standing on to a Cruise Ship next time I am out and we’ll see what happens.

Assuming you're not doing something stupid like encroaching into a narrow channel where they're constrained by draught then please do, it's what the watchkeeper will be expecting.

I sail medium sized commercial vessels (not the biggest, but something which if push came to shove would sink a yacht without feeling it) and I expect other vessels to behave as they should. There is, in fairness, a reason yachts are often held in very low regard by professional mariners, and that's often down to them doing what they think they should, rather than what they should.

 

[colhel]

That is interesting, I would like to understand how you would improve the wording of Rule 17b "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."

www.solocoastalsailing.co.uk

My understanding is the rules say "MAY take such actions...".

 

[Plum]

My understanding is the rules say "MAY take such actions...".

Not according to my copy of the rules

 

[colhel]

Not according to my copy of the rules ☺

Which is why they need rewriting/clarifying then ?

 

[JerseyDiver]

Which is why they need rewriting/clarifying then ?

There are 2 parts to rule 17. The first part is a ‘May’ the 2nd part is a ‘Must’.

Does not exonerate the give way vessel from taking appropriate action.

 

[jfm]

That is interesting, I would like to understand how you would improve the wording of Rule 17b "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."

www.solocoastalsailing.co.uk

Well to begin with, I wouldn’t do it piecemeal. The thing needs a thorough re think from cover to cover.

Perhaps the posts above prove the point thst colregs confuse. There is clearly a “may” rule in 17 and a separate “shall” rule. They’re doing different things but that’s a mess- they need integrating.

But I’ll to try to answer your question. First, there is a debate to be had about whether the legal obligation in 17b should exist at all. It doesn’t on the road. Why does every collision need some blame both sides? (Actually that’s a myth- it doesn’t even under colregs if you read them with precision, but it’s a very widely held view, so there’s a failing in the colregs right there).

But let’s suppose on balance it makes sense to have the 17b obligation. In that case, the timing is all wrong. The 17b obligation is only triggered when collision can’t be avoided by the actions of the give way vessel alone. In almost every situation the manoeuvrability/response time/turning circle of the 2 vessels will be different, from which it logically follows that in 50% of cases 17b fails to achieve its aim of avoiding collision.

Example- imagine a small fast powerboat as the give way vessel and a container ship standing on. The point at which the 17b obligation crystallises on the container ship is when the powerboat can’t (not won’t) avoid the collision, at which point there is no meaningful ability to alter the motion of the supertanker. So the rule is, frankly, dumb.

Obviously collisions don’t happen often but this is not because of coltegs, it’s despite them. They’re doing no good.

While I’m at it, why do colregs jump between give way/stand on, shall not impede/vessel not to be impeded, and keep out of the way of? Three phrases doing the same thing or slightly different? And what’s difference between shall not impede passage and shall not impede safe passage? is there meant to be a difference?

what if I’m helming a 24m power boat and I’m on collision course with a 15m sailing boat in a narrow channel eg marina. Does rule 9b override the power/sail rule? What is the hierarchy of these rules sprinkled about the place? There might be an answer but it’s very hard to find.

There are many other faults - this post would get long if I listed them all.
Incidentally, in open sea if I’m stand on in 24m motorboat to a 200m container ship, I stand on, as the law positively requires. This rule should have nothing to do with the greater effort required to steer a big ship and everything to do with predictability of actions, imho.

Finally, what sort of cackhanded English is “as will best aid to avoid collision”. The verb “aid” followed by the preposition “to” - really? Or is it not a preposition at all - maybe “to avoid” is an infinitive serving as the object of “aid”? Heck. Ugly English, 1/10 marks, either way.