Historic schooner sunk by container ship...

[lw395]

A German sailing friend who is familiar with large traditional vessels agreed with that translation (he’s perfectly bilingual) and pointed out to me that big tiller steered vessels are prone to this type of confusion, particularly where, as here, there are tiller ropes.

But as others pointed out, it would also have been handy to crack some sheets if wanting to bear away.
Even fin keel sloops can refuse to bear away with the genoa oversheeted, let alone the main.

 

[doug748]

But I think you’re still stuck on the idea that the sailing vessel isn’t a big ship. It was a large vessel in a narrow channel and yours and others assumptions that the big ship has rights because it’s ‘obviously a large vessel in a restricted or narrow channel’ isn’t necessarily true...

.

Forget what you think my assumptions might be, look at my words and the facts.

Making up things and then denouncing them in ringing tones is feeble and bluffs nobody.

 

[Stemar]

Elbe 5 draft: 12', 3.66m

Astrosprinter draft 7.3m

Nothing's changed my opinion - and it's nothing but a sofa hero's opinion - that it's imprudent to sail something like that in a narrow channel shared with large vessels when you've got passengers on board. One thing with a good crew and nothing to distract them, quite another when you've got passengers who can be guaranteed to distract you at exactly the wrong moment.

 

[Kola]

Elbe 5 draft: 12', 3.66m

Astrosprinter draft 7.3m

Nothing's changed my opinion - and it's nothing but a sofa hero's opinion - that it's imprudent to sail something like that in a narrow channel shared with large vessels when you've got passengers on board. One thing with a good crew and nothing to distract them, quite another when you've got passengers who can be guaranteed to distract you at exactly the wrong moment.

^^^^^

 

[steveeasy]

Cant understand why hardly anyone did not have lifejackets on. Its a miracle anything is left of the boat and everyone survived. I suspect this accident will have long lasting consequences.

Steveeasy

 

[john_morris_uk]

Forget what you think my assumptions might be, look at my words and the facts.

Making up things and then denouncing them in ringing tones is feeble and bluffs nobody.

I haven’t made up anything.

And don’t get your knicks in a twist. There were others jumping on the wrong reasons.

 

[Frank Holden]

While I may have - in an attempt to keep things simple -used the wrong terminology on one occasion the rules on the Elbe are as I imagined them to be...plus an extra bit...
More info here https://www.bsh.de/DE/PUBLIKATIONEN...eeschStrO_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

From page 43..

"§ 25 Right of way of ships in a fairway
(1) In derogation of the provisions of Rules 9(b) to (d), 15, and 18(a) to (c) of the International Regula- tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, the regulations contained in the following paragraphs shall apply to vessels navigating in a fairway.
(2) A vessel proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, irrespective of whether or not she can safely navigate only within the fairway channel, shall have the right of way over vessels
1. entering that fairway,
2. crossing that fairway,
3. making turns in that fairway,
4. leaving their anchoring or mooring grounds."

Major difference with rule 9 is that the vessel in the fairway has 'right of way' over all comers..... you can't come out of Brunsbuttel on your 10,000 motorship and expect a 1000 ton coaster coming down from Hamburg to give way to you... even though you are on his starboard bow...

 

[nortada]

While I may have - in an attempt to keep things simple -used the wrong terminology on one occasion the rules on the Elbe are as I imagined them to be...plus an extra bit...
More info here https://www.bsh.de/DE/PUBLIKATIONEN...eeschStrO_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

From page 43..

"§ 25 Right of way of ships in a fairway
(1) In derogation of the provisions of Rules 9(b) to (d), 15, and 18(a) to (c) of the International Regula- tions for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, the regulations contained in the following paragraphs shall apply to vessels navigating in a fairway.
(2) A vessel proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, irrespective of whether or not she can safely navigate only within the fairway channel, shall have the right of way over vessels
1. entering that fairway,
2. crossing that fairway,
3. making turns in that fairway,
4. leaving their anchoring or mooring grounds."

Major difference with rule 9 is that the vessel in the fairway has 'right of way' over all comers..... you can't come out of Brunsbuttel on your 10,000 motorship and expect a 1000 ton coaster coming down from Hamburg to give way to you... even though you are on his starboard bow...

What defines a fairway?

Must it be a buoyed channel?

 

[Norman_E]

I have not followed all this and have not time to read all the posts, but if I am correct that the container ship was proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, it does not matter a bit if the schooner was also doing so because by definition a tacking vessel is making turns. It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.

 

[nortada]

I have not followed all this and have not time to read all the posts, but if I am correct that the container ship was proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, it does not matter a bit if the schooner was also doing so because by definition a tacking vessel is making turns. It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.

Bit difficult to comply, if you are constrained by your draught and a yacht sailing down your stbd side decides to tack under your bow and then cocks it up.

 

[requiem]

What defines a fairway?

Must it be a buoyed channel?

Not always, but for the most part:

§ 2 Definitions:
1. Fairway The term “fairway” denotes those parts of navigable waters that are marked or delimited by any one or more of the visual signs described under Items B.11 through B.13 of Annex I to the pre-sent Ordinance or, when they are not so marked or delimited, those parts of such waters that are designated for the through passage of vessels to or from inland waterways; any such fairway shall be deemed a “narrow channel” in terms of the International Regulations for Preventing Col-lisions at Sea, 1972, as amended;

 

[requiem]

I have not followed all this and have not time to read all the posts, but if I am correct that the container ship was proceeding along the course of the fairway channel, it does not matter a bit if the schooner was also doing so because by definition a tacking vessel is making turns. It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.

Passing port to port is a natural consequence of complying with Rule 9 (and 14 for that matter); there are sections in these regs that cover the exceptions to that, specifically "§ 22 Exceptions from the requirement to proceed on the starboard side of a fairway"

 

[nortada]

What defines a fairway?

Must it be a buoyed channel?

Not always, but for the most part:

Thanks - not your fault but a typical wishy- washy definition that can be interpreted in anyway one wishes.

 

[oldharry]

Thanks -not your fault but a typical wishy- washy definition that can be interpreted in anyway one wishes.

Thats because the regs try to deal with real life situations which can not easily be predicted.

 

[lw395]

.....It does not say so in the quoted regulations but presumably vessels traveling in opposite directions in the fairway are normally expected to pass port to port.

Normally yes, but there are plenty of cases where green to green is acceptable.
A small vessel travelling a short distance between two points on its left bank will often just keep left for that short distance, maybe with VHF contact with opposing vessels or under port control. You will hear this on Ch 11 in Portsmouth.
Where there is a small craft channel alongside the main channel, it is often bi-directional, so inshore craft often pass craft in the main channel green to green.

My understanding of this incident is that the Schooner was for a long time outside the fairway, the box boat was in the fairway well to the right side, and expected the schooner to stay outside or right on the edge of the fair way and pass green to green.

 

[doug748]

I haven’t made up anything.

.

Eh up.

You said:

",,,,,you are stuck on the idea that the sailing vessel was not a big ship"

Truth is, I have never said anything about the size, or relative size, of either vessel. It's an irrelevance.

You said:

" yours and others assumptions that the big ship has rights because it’s ‘obviously a large vessel in a restricted or narrow channel’..."

Fact is I have said nothing at all about the rights of anyone in this matter and have made no assumptions about any of it. However,
....after hundreds of posts about the incident, here and in other places, I commended the novel approach of finding and studying the relevant documentation - read again my post 88.

So, after taking the eccentric line from the outset, looking at totally the wrong regulation and persisting in the face of fair contrary evidence. Capping it off by misreading that evidence - you have some neck for complaining about other's: "...silly knee jerk reaction"

 

[oldmanofthehills]

I completely agree - but I was trying to get people to see beyond the silly knee jerk reaction of "It was a yacht in a narrow channel and therefore the ship was automatically the stand on vessel because it was bigger (and commercial was mentioned earlier which a complete red herring and nothing to do with IRPCS).

The yacht shouldn't impede because it was sailing. It's one of the very few exceptions to the power sail rule. Nothing to do with size.

The old rhyme comes to mind:-

"He was right dead right as he sailed along.
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong."

Bad luck in carryout a difficult tack in a restricted channel or simply showing off by trying to sail when the iron topsail should be used? Lucky no one was killed

 

[Kukri]

The old rhyme comes to mind:-

"He was right dead right as he sailed along.
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong."

Imprudent behaviour or simply showing off by trying to sail when the iron topsail should be used? Lucky no one was killed

Probably none of the above. With the foresail and a staysail only she ought to have been able to reach along the lee side of the channel but we would all rather be on the weather side, wouldn’t we, particularly as in this case the weather side is also the starboard side. We don’t know what was astern of the little boxboat. Maybe there was not an immediate opportunity to pass under her stern. But the proximate cause of the collision was the misunderstanding of the helm order.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Eh up.

You said:

",,,,,you are stuck on the idea that the sailing vessel was not a big ship"

Truth is, I have never said anything about the size, or relative size, of either vessel. It's an irrelevance.

You said:

" yours and others assumptions that the big ship has rights because it’s ‘obviously a large vessel in a restricted or narrow channel’..."

Fact is I have said nothing at all about the rights of anyone in this matter and have made no assumptions about any of it. However,
....after hundreds of posts about the incident, here and in other places, I commended the novel approach of finding and studying the relevant documentation - read again my post 88.

So, after taking the eccentric line from the outset, looking at totally the wrong regulation and persisting in the face of fair contrary evidence. Capping it off by misreading that evidence - you have some neck for complaining about other's: "...silly knee jerk reaction"

Perhaps I quoted or referenced you in particular by mistake.

Read back and see how others mentioned size and spurious assumptions.

I agree it’s nothing to do with size.

However, some people’s understanding of IRPCS is poor IMHO.

Too many people still make their collision avoidance decisions on erroneous and spurious assumptions such as ‘it’s a commercial vessel’ or ‘its bigger than me’. Both of these were implied at various points in this thread.

 

[lw395]

.....
Too many people still make their collision avoidance decisions on erroneous and spurious assumptions such as ‘it’s a commercial vessel’ or ‘its bigger than me’. Both of these were implied at various points in this thread.

In port, commercial vessels tend to be operating in channel and under Harbour Authority control or local regs, so very often do indeed have extra rights over leisure craft. But the bigger sailing vessels can be part of the same regime sometimes, megayachts and tall ships even need to take on a pilot sometimes. I think the threshold in the Solent is round about J-class or 'junior tall ship'?