I STILL can't get it....

[steve_cronin]

I STILL can\'t get it....

That article about the Moody 47 and the container ship.

How did the yacht see himself as the stand-on vessel on first spotting the ship on radar? He was steaming north (ish) and the ship was sailing towards the SW so the ship was to starboard of the yacht. So applying Rule 15 (When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.) notwithstanding the visibility situation, his initial thought surely would have been that he was the "give way" vessel not the stand on vessel as stated in the little summary panel about his situation/blame in this month's mag. I'm not questioning the excess speed in restricted visibility factor nor even the relevance of Rules 10 f & j (since ships running at those speeds might consider themselves lining up for the Casquets TSS at that point.) I just can't see why the yacht INITIALLY thought that he was in the stand on position since he was showing a "green traffic light" to the other vessel.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[bedouin]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

I haven't read the article to which you refer - but Rule 15 only applies to ships in sight of each other, so does not cover the situation where ships are detected by radar alone.

In conditions of restricted visibility there is no concept of "give way" or "stand on" vessel

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

In these circumstances aren't all "give way" vessels? I know I am.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

I've just re-read the MAIB report and I have to say it appears to contain an inconsistency. This may be due to an incomplete transcription of the skipper of the yacht's report or may actually be an erroneous assumption on the part of the MAIB inspector.

In the YM report, as in the MAIB report on which it is based. I can find no reference to the skipper stating that he assumed he was the stand-on vessel. Indeed, the actions he took suggest that he assumed, correctly, he had to take avoiding action. The first time it is mentioned that the skipper though he was the stand-on vessel comes in the Analysis section. It is nowhere mentioned in the 'Narrative of events on Wahkuna' section'.

As you say, fog or no fog, nowhere in the ColRegs is there anything to suggest he was the stand-on vessel.

I know the owner of Wahkuna is very unhappy with the report and is seeking redress. This may be part of his case.

On another aspect of the report; the next issue of YM will contain a track diagram showing how Wahkuna came to be hit on the port bow when she was originally heading north and the ship was heading west.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

haven't read article either but ... from memory ... maib report showed wahkuna crossed P&O's track, turned SE/E back onto P&O track hence collision was on wahkuna's port side ... still doesn't throw much light on the matter ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Well maybe its me

and the fact that I come from a long line of cowards - but I wouldn't be looking at a blip on my radar screen that was moving a lot quicker than I was without allowing a bit of common sense to prevail - like turning hard right and sailing at worst a reciprocal bearing to the oncoming fast moving thing with a gap of at least 3 or 4 miles between us until it had passed.
There's no point in bleating about Colregs when you only know half the story and its no use having radar unless you know how to use it.
If common sense had been applied instead of all the twaddle that was - this wouldn't have happened.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

I should have brought it in with me James but I distinctly remember that in one of the three little summary boxes it says "...the skipper of the yacht falsly assumed that he was the stand on vessel..." (or words to that effect) I don't doubt the experience of the skipper and since until recently we have sailed those same waters over the same time period, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I had met him somewhere so either it's a typo on the mag's part of the MAIB ruling was confusing.

There are so many factors involved in this case that I'm sorry I missed the forum debate on it which appeared to have been whilst I was "elsewhere" although I never of course miss reading YM cover to cover*!

Steve Cronin

* even though I no longer get my free bottle of scotch for signing up to yet another year's subscription. Three extra issues mightn't be that appealing as, now that Mary Flavin is free of her temporary "bondage", we will be spending extended periods in the eastern med when I'll have to trot down to Mikaelis's news-stand for my copy.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Well maybe its me

Absolutely agree but I wasn't trying to re-kindle the seemingly extensive previous discussion which apparently occurred in July/August last year on this forum. I was just mentioning the reporting of the MIAB conclusions in the current YM

Steve Cronin


<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[claymore]

Re: Well maybe its me

No, neither was I but having read the article twice thuis weekend - once in YW and again in YM it does just seem to have been a perfectly brainless incident. the Captain/Master should be fired for gross idiocy, the owners ought to lose their licence for setting such stringent targets which don't allow for bad weather and the skipper of the boat needs to learn how to use the equipment he's paid for and then get someone to teach him a bit about applying common sense when he's out there.
Sorry to sound unsympathetic - if I'd committed such acts of complete gormlessness and endangered the lives of those who have put their trust in me - I'd have been sacked - and quite rightly so.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Well maybe its me

you havn't said anything that I don't agree with 100%

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[AndrewB]

Long line of cowards.

What you say makes sense in most situations but never crossing the Channel in the eastern half where there will be blips all over the place near the shipping lanes, and finding a spot 3 miles clear of all of them is out the question. Moreover one boat bucking the Colregs can set in motion a chain reaction affecting a number of ships.

Think hedgehog crossing the M1. It's do-able, but not by the fainthearted. Amazingly though, actual collisions between yachts and large ships are quite rare, rarer than ship-ship collisions in the Channel.

And as MAIB say, this one definitely falls into the category of the classic "radar assisted collision". Statistically, I question whether yacht radar can be shown to offer any real extra safety in fog. It may actually be counter-productive, luring yachts out in marginal conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Re: Long line of cowards.

"It may actually be counter-productive, luring yachts out in marginal conditions. "

That's an interesting thought Andrew. I am still deliberating over buying radar and have become convinced of its need. Now I've read the report and the recommendations for yachtsmen, I realise it is not totally dependable, but is one more tool in the box which provides SOME benefit.

I would'nt want to be lured out into fog just because I had radar, but if I get caught out mid channel, I think I would much rather be with it than without.

<hr width=100% size=1>Nostalgia is not what it used to be.

 

[ChrisE]

Re: Long line of cowards.

I'm probably second in the line but wouldn't venture out without radar.

I take your point, Andrew, about marginal conditions but the reality of sailing in the Channel, especially in the early season, is that the murk can suddenly appear even if not forecast and then without it you are truly in a difficult position. I speak as one who past under the nose of a vessel in an un-forecast fog with the radar inoperable and was only aware of it when Mrs Enstone pointed out the big red wall that appeared 50 yds behind our stern.

I agree about the volume of shipping, though, I've done my fair bit of dodging with 12 or so images on the screen and if you can keep a mile between them you are doing quite well.

I haven't read either of MAIB or YM reports but for the skipper to do a U-turn indicates to me that he was extremely confused. If you use the EBL then it is fairly obvious as to the ships which represent a real threat.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Long line of cowards.

ignoring the fact that the yacht had arpa but didn't use it and plotting the tracks of the two vessels (from the container ship's evidence and you might have a view on that) then it appears as though the yacht (both vessels were on 6nm radar range) took roughly from 1045 to 1052 to determine that a collision was possible at which point they were 1.7nm apart and the yacht just over 1 cable from the container ship's track .. what happened next reminds me of an animal caught in a car's headlights .......

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

The real lesson is...

...that radar is not a lucky charm.

Buying £X,000 of Raymarine kit and hanging it up your mast/screwing it to your chart table won't stop bad things happening.

It seems to me that anybody selling radar to a fingers-crossed leisure sailor ought to cost in at least a full day's simulator training. Even then, radar is only any good if someone is maintaining a radar watch and running plots during poor viz, and most mom and pop yaohts are not staffed to allow this.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.

In the Analysis section (2.4.2) it states: 'The skipper of Wahkuna was under the mistaken assumption that he was 'the stand -on vessel...'

However, in the Narrative of Events section (1.7) nowhere does the skipper say that this was the case. The skipper apparently submitted a 36-page statement to the inspector, none of which appeared directly in the report. The narrative would appear to be a construct of the inspector from various sources. Even so, I would have expected an assumption as important as being the stand-on vessel, would have been referred to at this stage.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

... one part of the skipper's 36 page statement must have appeared which was the calculation he made that when 1.7nm apart the container ship would pass some *miles* ahead. that could only be true if the container ship's course was 45-70 degrees to the north of its true track ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: Long line of cowards.

I'm bloody glad I had it when fog has descended on me unannounced in July and August!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

But he wasn't; and as you know visibility can clear in a few minutes in the Channel so even though he wasn't "In sight" of the other vessel, at the moment of the radar "sighting" you would have expected him to react to anything in a POTENTIAL "right of way" position rather more positively than just altering a few degrees and being content to drop the boat dead in the water with a passing distance of only a couple of cables. I would have wanted that target a couple of rings away at all times and on a parallel reciprocal course on my port side. Rule 8 says it all AND refers to radar as well as visual. IMO, the last minute jiggering around and being struck on the port bow was more relevant to tactics on the racing circuit than establishing liability here. Maybe without it the albiet ill advised and specifically NOT recommended (by the latter half of rule 15) "...passing close ahead", might just have put him in clear water.

Althought I would like my insurers to get back the £400K (cos it'll help my premiums to stay down), I wonder what sucess they expect, unless the excess speed card carries more weight for them.

Aye, hedgehogs and motorway juggernauts alright and it's easy to criticise.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[Tumblehome]

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Hi James

The report is definitely confusing in places, but it does say in section 2.4.2. "The skipper of Wahkuna was under the mistaken assumption that he was the stand-on vessel".

I agree that it doesn't make sense at all - even if it hadn't been foggy, as a yacht under engine he wouldn't have been the stand-on vessel anyway. It does make you wonder.

As to how the yacht ended up heading SE - which she must have been to be struck on the port bow - the report does not offer an explanation, which would have had to be provided either by concrete proof or by the crew's testimony. My sources at the MAIB tell me that during the investigation the skipper and crew were all adamant that they had been steering 012° - clearly impossible. So I'm not sure about the plot that is to be published by YM next month - will it be the yacht skipper's account?

Elaine, Yachting World



<hr width=100% size=1>