Jessica Watson failed to notice ship at 1 mile

[timbartlett]

Interesting, isn't it, that the headline given to YBWs report of the preliminary report on the PinkLady/Silver Yang collision majors on the 16 year-old skipper's failure to notice the ship at a range of 1 mile (how???).
But the most interesting bit of the report is

At about 0125, Silver Yang's bridge watch keeper reported observing one green light to port, on a bearing of 345°(T) at a range of about 4 miles. He continued to monitor it and at 0148½, he altered the ship's heading by 10° to starboard, in an attempt to avoid Ella's Pink Lady. He continued to monitor the closing situation and at 0150, applied hard-to-starboard rudder in an attempt to avoid collision.

In other words, a supposedly professional officer saw a vessel that he should have expected to give way to, at a range of four miles. He watched it, closing on a steady bearing, for more than twenty minutes ... but still failed to give way. Then, only two minutes before the collision, he made a minimal alteration of course across the bow of the other vessel. And at half a minute before the collision, the only effect of his "hard-to-starboard" would be to swinging his stern to port -- sideswiping the yacht.

 

[Wansworth]

I served on a ship as relief mate where the skipper considered he did not have to give wayto yachts.God knows what he got up to on his watch!

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Interesting, but still failed to give way. Then, only two minutes before the collision, he made a minimal alteration of course across the bow of the other vessel. -- sideswiping the yacht.

...........and what was Jessica doing at this time?

 

[timbartlett]

...........and what was Jessica doing at this time?

The preliminary report suggests that she had looked around about 25 minutes before the collision, then went below for a cat nap.

No-one (that I know of) has suggested that was the most brilliant bit of seamanship (or seapersonship?).

My point is that most of the news reports have castigated the 16 year-old for her single error of not seeing the ship, which endangered no-one but herself. Very few have criticised the professional for what sounds like a whole succession of errors that endangered someone else.

 

[Woodlouse]

Have to say that this report is very different to the account we first heard.

In defense of the chap on watch, he only saw a green light when the boat was four miles away. If I recall my colregs correctly then the lights on Pink Lady would only have had to be visible at a range of three miles so spotting the vessel earlier may not have been possible. We all know how badly yachts can show up on radar screens, even with reflectors.

Now I'm not saying the watch officer was correct in his actions, but how many of you can see a single green light and instantly know whether avoiding action is necessary? It might not be immediately apparent that the range is closing as a steady bearing can also mean a parallel course.

Seems that with the current evidence both vessels are at fault. The cargo ship for failing to give way early enough, and the yacht for not maintaining a proper lookout and failing to take avoiding action once the giveway vessel failed to take sufficient avoiding action its self.

Now the part I cannot comprehend is how Jessica Watson failed to spot a cargo ship at a range of 1 mile when she was monitoring the radar for a reported one minute to ascertain the course of a ship 6 miles away. My experience of small boat radars tells me that a cargo ship one mile away will be such a large contact on the radar that it will almost form a ring around the range line. It will certainly be a big enough blob on the screen to be completely unmissable.

So, is Miss Watson telling the truth yet?

 

[Observer]

Where is this report? It doesn't appear on MAIB

 

[Woodlouse]

It's a preliminary report that YBW have published as news on their home page. The final report won't be out for some time, but we won't let that stop us from jumping to conclusions.

 

[Dyflin]

Where is this report? It doesn't appear on MAIB

I'd be surprised if it ever did too

horses mouth

 

[Pye_End]

So it appears she had a active radar enhancer, and the ship was only travelling at 9kn. She also has radar, with a guard zone - which failed to pick up the other ship? Would have thought that with these electronics aboard there should have been plenty of time to 'see' each other from a considerable disctance, even if mark one eyeball didn't. I wonder if there was a guard zone on AIS as well.

Must have been a terrifying experience whatever age you are.

 

[timbartlett]

Where is this report? It doesn't appear on MAIB

And probably never will! It's a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and published on their own website on
www.atsb.gov.au/media/739587/mo2009008_prelim.pdf

(Insert "mo2009" in place of the string of dots in that url!)

The final report won't be out for some time, but we won't let that stop us from jumping to conclusions...

such as...

is Miss Watson telling the truth yet?

how many of you can see a single green light and instantly know whether avoiding action is necessary? It might not be immediately apparent that the range is closing as a steady bearing can also mean a parallel course.

A single green light immediately tells me that it's an unpowered vessel ... and if it isn't a tow (unlikely, without seeing some sign of the tug) it's most likely a sailing vessel.And if it wasn't in sight before, and it is now, then it's probably getting closer. And he didn't have to make an "instant" decision: he waited nearly twenty five minutes before doing anything!

 

[Woodlouse]

A single green light immediately tells me that it's an unpowered vessel ... and if it isn't a tow (unlikely, without seeing some sign of the tug) it's most likely a sailing vessel.And if it wasn't in sight before, and it is now, then it's probably getting closer. And he didn't have to make an "instant" decision: he waited nearly twenty five minutes before doing anything!

Just because you've only just seen the light doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there before though. Once you've seen it however you'd need to monitor it before deciding on a course of avoiding action if necessary otherwise the seas would be a very dangerous place with vessels making wild course alterations every time they saw a light.

I'm not saying the chap on watch was correct in his actions, I'm simply trying to explain how events could have played out to end as they did. He misjudged the situation. Even so, it would seem he acted far more professionally afterwards by stopping the engines and making sure that the girl didn't want any assistance before moving on. Which is more than can be said for the bridge watch of the Pride of Bilbao when they ran down the Ouzo.


My comment on whether the girl is telling the truth or not is simply because I cannot imagine how one can see a ship 6 miles off on radar and miss a ship that is only 1 mile away.

 

[timbartlett]

Just because you've only just seen the light doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there before though. Once you've seen it however you'd need to monitor it before deciding on a course of avoiding action if necessary otherwise the seas would be a very dangerous place with vessels making wild course alterations every time they saw a light.

Entirely agree -- and have been taken to task on other forums for suggesting that one should not go round frantically trying to dodge everything else that floats.

But the fact that something has become more noticeable than it was a few minutes ago suggests that something has changed even if it's not irrefutable evidence, so it is at least a reason to keep an eye on things. The report hardly suggests that the area was desperately busy, with only one other ship mentioned as being in sight, so there seems to be no reason to just sit there watching the green light getting brighter and brighter.

My comment on whether the girl is telling the truth or not is simply because I cannot imagine how one can see a ship 6 miles off on radar and miss a ship that is only 1 mile away.

And if she was going to lie, why not tell one that makes herself out to be blameless, rather than one that lays herself open to accusations of being asleep, not keeping a lookout, etc. etc., FWIW, my guess is that the sea clutter control was set far too high. She wouldn't be the first or the last to fall for that!

 

[Woodlouse]

And if she was going to lie, why not tell one that makes herself out to be blameless, rather than one that lays herself open to accusations of being asleep, not keeping a lookout, etc. etc., FWIW, my guess is that the sea clutter control was set far too high. She wouldn't be the first or the last to fall for that!

That's pretty much my conclusion as well. But a ship at that range is a massive target for a radar, especially a small craft one which would usually depict a ship at that range as almost a semi circle or more on the screen. You'd have to try very hard to get the radar sensitivity so low as to miss it. Yet apparently she was still able to pick up a ship 6 miles away. It would be interesting to try and replicate such settings on a radar.

 

[Searush]

I know nothing about radar, but from what you say, could a megga target be mistaken for range ring?

 

[ign]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but reading the thread I was wondering: does having her radar on make her more visible to the ship's radar? Or is it only the reflector that she has on board that reflects the ship's radar signal?

 

[Woodlouse]

I know nothing about radar, but from what you say, could a megga target be mistaken for range ring?

No. The range ring will be a thin line, the target will be a massively thick curved splodge.

Tis starting to interest me this now. Next time i'm on a boat with a radar I'm going to practice making huge close targets disappear, just to see if it would be easy to do by accident.

 

[David_Jersey]

My thinking is that with a ship 6 miles away that it was not a wise time to try sleeping. but my hat off to her for how well she coped with the dismasting.

My gut feeling is that she probably wasn't asleep, but intends to do most of this voyage from within the cabin on instruments, hence her being down below reading instruments and found out the hard way that sometimes a MK1 eyeball is useful............a ship 1 mile away would (given the weather conditions she described to the investigators) be easily spotted with a MK1 eyeball. Indeed probably hard to miss.........or not

 

[webcraft]

It was clearly the ship's fault

It might not be immediately apparent that the range is closing as a steady bearing can also mean a parallel course.

Single green light = sailing vessel. For the bearing to remain steady on a paralell course the sailing vessel would have to be travelling at the same speed as the ship. Unlikely.

In any event the officer on watch would either be able to see Ella's Pink Lady on radar or not. If on radar he would have known he was on a collision course. If not then he should have immediately realised he had a small sailing vessel nearby on a possible collision course and made an immediate course alteration.

While not wishing to prejudge the conclusions of the full report it would seem from the preliminary report that the officer on watch on the ship was thoroughly and consistently negligent.

Why anyone chooses to gloss this over and continue to berate Jessica is quite beyond me. It seems to give some people pleasure. She has much more experience that (eg) Tania Aibi, who also had a smaller boat and no 'ground support'.

- W

 

[Woodlouse]

The ship was reportedly doing 9 knots. It is entirely possible that a sailing yacht could be keeping pace.

I've already explained my opinions of the ships actions and as I've stated, to me it seems like the chap on watch misjudged the situation. Everything there is pretty clear in the report.

What is not clear though is how Jessica Watson failed to see a ship that was 1 mile away on her radar. Something there does not make sense, especially as she claims to have tracked another vessel by radar minutes before the collision.

 

[timbartlett]

The ship was reportedly doing 9 knots. It is entirely possible that a sailing yacht could be keeping pace.

The green light was about 15 degrees off his port bow. If it had been anything keeping pace and on a parallel or diverging course, he'd have seen its stern light.

What is not clear though is how Jessica Watson failed to see a ship that was 1 mile away on her radar. Something there does not make sense...

My guess would be that the sea clutter control was turned up too high.