If they can't see rocks and a lighthouse, what chance do we have?

I’d wager that yachts running aground are far more common than 20 a year, even taking into account the comparative number of vessel movements compared to merchant vessels.
 
This is the bit that got me:
8TimeStationVHF transmission0439:55Priscilla’s OOW“We are approaching a danger, I will change course”
0440:05Orkney VTSO“Yes sir, there is clear water to the south at this time. Thank you"
0440:15Priscilla’s OOW“I need to go to starboard right”(stated as a question)
0440:32Orkney VTSO“Priscilla this is Orkney VTS, for information there are rocks 5 cables1 ahead of you, there are rocks 5 cables ahead of you. There is clear water to the south, over”
0440:48Priscilla’s OOW“Ah, I need to change course to the south”(stated as a question)
0441:00Orkney VTSO“Priscilla this is VTS there is rocks 5 cables ahead of you, 5 cables ahead of you. There is clear water to the south, over”

He is travelling west, is told to turn south, and thinks he has to turn to starboard! There is no helping some people.
 
I suspect his future is flipping burgers.
How he got that far is mindboggling. Surely (Shirley) the other crew would have clocked his failings??
 
mel80 said:
If you read the transcript, he wasn't ever told which way to turn. It sound like a language issue to me. The meaning of "Clear water" is not entirely straightforward for a non-native English speaker..
Click to expand...

Reading the transcript again I think you are right. If he does not understand “clear water” he would be confused. The shore authority should have said “ turn to port by 90 degrees immediately” if they were permitted to do so. However, I suspect that they are not allowed to give navigation instructions only information.

The watch keeper is still incompetent to get in that position in the first place but maybe the last couple of minutes are understandable.
 
Dutch01527 said:
Reading the transcript again I think you are right. If he does not understand “clear water” he would be confused. The shore authority should have said “ turn to port by 90 degrees immediately” if they were permitted to do so. However, I suspect that they are not allowed to give navigation instructions only information.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but that’s the issue with people commentating on a scenario they’re not sure about. The VTS was an information service not a TOS, and in any event the incident occurred outside of their VTS area, so they can’t give instructions.

Also to a watch keeper the term clear water should be perfectly understandable.
 
Few random comments.

I was freelance for most of UK work but don't recall any of the companies requiring drug tests or being subject to random testing. Here in the US both companies I worked for require pre employment screen and I was subject to random tests, even stores routinely require a pr employment test. It's also a USCG requirement to be tested within 2 hours of an incident. I don't know if this is because drugs are more freely available here and indeed some are legal in some states. But DOT safety critical jobs are not allowed recreational drugs, merchant marine, truck drivers, bus drivers, etc.

VTS will not give instructions on navigation as its firstly not their role and secondly they are not 'qualified' to make those decisions. The local VTS will prompt vessels to make a descision especially regarding passing arrangement. And expect those discussions to be made on the VTS VHF channel. Things here are very different over here but from memory Humber, Soithampton, Thames were the same.

I wonder if he was thinking he needed to turn to starboard because that would have taken him back to his track?

Rgarding age, it's not about the number of years but the maturity of the person. Something I have noticed here more so.

W.
 
When ever a system is relying on a single human.

The risk of shit happening is relatively high.

I don’t agree with random drug testing. Unfortunately America doesn’t value actual freedom.
Even so.
Shit still happens. Particularly when there is only one human.
 
mm42 said:
No disrespect but that’s the issue with people commentating on a scenario they’re not sure about. The VTS was an information service not a TOS, and in any event the incident occurred outside of their VTS area, so they can’t give instructions. QUOTE
.
Also to a watch keeper the term clear water should be perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

No disrespect taken, my post speculated that was the case so I am pleased that you have confirmed my thoughts. If you are suggesting that only bona fide experts on a subject should post on a topic that would make for very limited discussions.

To someone who’s native language is not English clear water is not a well used term. Safe water or deep water would have been much better.
 
Last edited:
It is a truism that there is always safe water behind you! (If lost or confused go back the way you came until you can sort it out.) But he also seemed to be concerned about covering up his earlier mistake and turning 180 degrees would have made that a bit obvious.
 
mm42 said:
Also to a watch keeper the term clear water should be perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. Clearly an english speaker would know the term but looking though the IMO standard marine communication phrases, "clear water" is not listed. In fact, the major use of "clear" in the SMCPs is as an indication that something should be avoided (e.g. "keep clear of ...") which may have added to the confusion.
There doesn't seem to be a standard phrase that covers this situation exactly, but"depth of water is sufficient in postition ..." (AI/6.2.1.5.9) is probably the closest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top