Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

  • Thread starter Thread starter pvb
  • Start date Start date
Elessar said:
I’m a yacht master that teaches theory for power and sail to yachtmaster level, and whilst I only teach practical in motor boats I have done loads of yacht racing and cruising - I’d consider myself to be a competent sailor.

And I have no idea what you’re talking about. I guess it’s a flunked tack of some sort. But I’m not sure.

A commercial skipper may not have ever sailed. Why should he have?

To blame him for a collision for not anticipating that is laughable.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Posts 8 and 9 that suggested that the container ship might somehow have taken into account the possibility of the schooner missing stays. The OOW wil have seen the schooner going about to a course that would take him clear. Even if he knew enough about sailing to know that the manoeuvre could go wrong, there is absolutely nothing he could have done about it from what i have seen. The failed tack put it fully into the area of unavoidable collision for both vessels.
 
oldharry said:
I was responding to Posts 8 and 9 that suggested that the container ship might somehow have taken into account the possibility of the schooner missing stays. The OOW wil have seen the schooner going about to a course that would take him clear. Even if he knew enough about sailing to know that the manoeuvre could go wrong, there is absolutely nothing he could have done about it from what i have seen. The failed tack put it fully into the area of unavoidable collision for both vessels.
Click to expand...

Sorry OH I had no beef with what you said i shouldn’t have replied with a quote I was responding to the thread in general.
Trouble with a small iPhone screen.
In fact I completely agree with everything you say here So +1 from me! With a correct quote this time!
And now can someone tell me what missed stays are?
 
Last edited:
Elessar said:
Sorry OH I had no beef with what you said i shouldn’t have replied with a quote I was responding to the thread in general.
Trouble with a small iPhone screen.
In fact I completely agree with everything you say here So +1 from me! With a correct quote this time!
And now can someone tell me what missed stays are?
Click to expand...

In failing to complete the Manouver of passing a sailing vessels bow through the wind, it will end up 'stalled ' with no power in the sails and no water flow over the rudder.

Straightforward to recover from even on a vessel of size, but time consuming and therefore mind concentrating if there is little sea room or a risk of collision exists.
 
capnsensible said:
In failing to complete the Manouver of passing a sailing vessels bow through the wind, it will end up 'stalled ' with no power in the sails and no water flow over the rudder.

Straightforward to recover from even on a vessel of size, but time consuming and therefore mind concentrating if there is little sea room or a risk of collision exists.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Literally a failed tack as I assumed. I thought that was called getting “in irons”. I’ve not heard the term missed stays before.
 
Elessar said:
Thank you. Literally a failed tack as I assumed. I thought that was called getting “in irons”. I’ve not heard the term missed stays before.
Click to expand...

I was taught 70 years ago it was 'missed stays'. Interestingly after 65 years I never before heard it referred to as a 'failed tack' though the meaning is more obvious. I always understood 'in irons' to mean the vessel was stalled with her nose into the wind, with the sails not drawing, and insufficient steerage way to complete the manoeuvre, drifting back down wind out of control until sufficient speed was gained for steerage way. Not so common on modern boats which will tend to fall away from an in irons position, but a serious hazard for the likes of Hornblower, and Bolitho with their square rigged long keelers!

In my understanding what happened here was the schooner missed stays, or had a failed tack, and fell back under the bows of the oncoming ship. She would probably have missed the cargo boat had she been caught in irons, or at worse had a glancing collision rather than being T boned.
 
Stemar said:
Hence WAFI

IMO, the one thing any vessel, from an Optimist to a supertanker needs to be in confined waters is predicable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. (WAFI = Wind Assisted NonForumFriendlyWordSignifyingReproduction Idiot)

Much of the unpredictability is down to the nut on the wheel.

One thing my father taught me (his sailing career began in 1919 and ended in 1985, and only his very last boat had an engine) was the importance of keeping way on and keeping in control, when in confined waters. This is counter intuitive but correct. ELBE 5 missed stays because she didn’t have enough way on when she started to wend.
 
Last edited:
oldharry said:
I was taught 70 years ago it was 'missed stays'. Interestingly after 65 years I never before heard it referred to as a 'failed tack' though the meaning is more obvious. I always understood 'in irons' to mean the vessel was stalled with her nose into the wind, with the sails not drawing, and insufficient steerage way to complete the manoeuvre, drifting back down wind out of control until sufficient speed was gained for steerage way. Not so common on modern boats which will tend to fall away from an in irons position, but a serious hazard for the likes of Hornblower, and Bolitho with their square rigged long keelers!

In my understanding what happened here was the schooner missed stays, or had a failed tack, and fell back under the bows of the oncoming ship. She would probably have missed the cargo boat had she been caught in irons, or at worse had a glancing collision rather than being T boned.
Click to expand...

I've always been told 'missed stays' is a distinct situation. The vessel was tacked and failed to complete the manoeuvre. I was told a number of manoeuvres could have got the vessel 'in irons' including suddenly taken aback and other unexpected situations. But whether that is right or wrong, I do not know.
 
Yes; she wasn’t in irons; she missed stays, because she didn’t have enough velocity to get past the eye of the wind.

There’s a good discussion in Michael Frost’s two books.

Had she got into the eye of the wind and stuck there until she made a stern board (‘reverse your helm or else!’) she would have been in irons.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is necessary to be pedantic about these terms. Although I could get caught in irons in my 10m boat if I were careless, missing stays is something that I would associated with a larger vessel, especially something like a Thames barge that needs a backed foresail to go about.
 
Elessar said:
interesting and informative discussion.

And clearly beyond a commercial skipper who has likely never sailed.
Click to expand...

And if the master of the ship had more sailing experience than this entire forum put together, had served his time with the Flying P Line , etc etc etc... what was he meant to do?

Take some of the way off his ship and have the mega box boat close astern of him run up his backside?... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Take all the way off his ship, lose steerage, way, and take a sheer to port... straight into the inbound chemical tanker?.... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Carry on regardless in the belief that the skipper of the sailing boat would have enough experience not to stuff things up?

What he should have done... upon seeing that the sailing boat skipper had stuffed things up ... was to sound five blasts while telling the mate to make sure that he had noted the fact in the bell book.........
 
Elessar said:
Thank you. Literally a failed tack as I assumed. I thought that was called getting “in irons”. I’ve not heard the term missed stays before.
Click to expand...

"In irons" refers to the situation where the boat has failed to get the head through the wind, and has remained head to wind, gathering stern-way. It is unlikely with a fore-and-aft rigged vessel, but commonplace with a square rigged vessel. "Missing stays" is when the head fails to go through the wind, and the boat pays off on the same tack as it was on previously. "In irons" is harder to recover from (in open water) than "missed stays". Of course, in restricted waters with traffic around, either is likely to end badly!

In my earliest sailing days my dad owned a cutter-rigged converted lifeboat - missing stays was always a possibility!
 
Frank Holden said:
And if the master of the ship had more sailing experience than this entire forum put together, had served his time with the Flying P Line , etc etc etc... what was he meant to do?

Take some of the way off his ship and have the mega box boat close astern of him run up his backside?... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Take all the way off his ship, lose steerage, way, and take a sheer to port... straight into the inbound chemical tanker?.... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Carry on regardless in the belief that the skipper of the sailing boat would have enough experience not to stuff things up?
Click to expand...

Good points. And perhaps the skipper of the sailing ship should be aware of its tacking abilities and either not attempt to tack down a narrow channel in a F5-7 with lots of commercial shipping around, or at least to have the engine running in background to ensure a tack could be safely completed.
 
Frank Holden said:
And if the master of the ship had more sailing experience than this entire forum put together, had served his time with the Flying P Line , etc etc etc... what was he meant to do?

Take some of the way off his ship and have the mega box boat close astern of him run up his backside?... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Take all the way off his ship, lose steerage, way, and take a sheer to port... straight into the inbound chemical tanker?.... just in case the sailing boat stuffed things up.
Carry on regardless in the belief that the skipper of the sailing boat would have enough experience not to stuff things up?

What he should have done... upon seeing that the sailing boat skipper had stuffed things up ... was to sound five blasts while telling the mate to make sure that he had noted the fact in the bell book.........
Click to expand...

Yep completely agree. But as was said at the beginning of the thread “steam gives way to sail”.
It’s definitely worth reading past that rule.
 
Would this area be under the direction of 'traffic control'? In which case it may be known if the controller was aware of the movements of the sailing vessel and whether the container boat obeyed directions and made the controller aware of the situation.
In Southampton and Portsmouth, passing manoeuvres are often organised over the VHF.
But it's possible the sailing vessel was tacking upwind intending to stay out of the main channel and hence not directed by VTS or whatever. Although it's a big boat, it may be small enough to rank as a 'small craft' hence excluded from the main channel, not requiring a pilot, not subject to 'port control' etc.
None of which would necessarily prevent the container boat being in for some criticism.
There are parallels with the Marchioness, it's basically another tripper boat gets swatted by commercial traffic?
 
Unlikely to be any similarities to the Marchioness incident. Times have changed and both vessels will have been keeping a proper lookout and neither will have been under the command of a ratarsed watchkeeper. At least I hope that is the case these days on the crowded river Elbe.
 
I'd love to know what happened in the run up to the collision. Presumably both boats were being skippered by experienced professional skippers and were well aware of each other's presence.

Why did the schooner choose that place to tack and why was the ship so close? Surely you normally tack at the edge of the channel so if you miss stays you hit the bank - or was he trying to tack before crossing into the main channel?
 
Elessar said:
Yep completely agree. But as was said at the beginning of the thread “steam gives way to sail”.
It’s definitely worth reading past that rule.
Click to expand...

There was a reason I put that in inverted commas :).

Another provocative one: I can't see any sign of the commercial vessel claiming to be constrained by its draft, so it was the give way vessel.

Whatever the legalities, I don't hold with that either. AFIAK, in such situations, when I'm the minnow meeting a whale, might is right, especially in a channel. I won't be wasting my time looking for a cylinder, I'll be working out how to keep out of its way in such a way that SS Big Bugga will know he doesn't have to worry about me.
 
Stemar said:
, when I'm the minnow meeting a whale, might is right, especially in a channel. I won't be wasting my time looking for a cylinder, I'll be working out how to keep out of its way in such a way that SS Big Bugga will know he doesn't have to worry about me.
Click to expand...
This wasn't a minnow meeting a whale - it was a 121' long sailing boat meeting a 480' power vessel. Those are of comparable sizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top