Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
Hi Wolfie..... take care of that blood pressure now!
Do you still fancy that sail I offered before the season ends, or is it too cold for a mobo?
best wishes
Scotty
Hi Wolfie..... take care of that blood pressure now!
Do you still fancy that sail I offered before the season ends, or is it too cold for a mobo?
best wishes
Scotty
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
I have read the report - a couple of times, albeit not recently. I am fully aware that their findings SHOULD not be used in court and believe that they prejudiced their so called independant and non judgemental stance by allowing the report to be published before the court case.
In view of the fact the POB chose not to stop (and I agree they should have) and identify the yacht and the fact that the Ouzo crew cannot confirm it we do NOT know it was the Ouzo that the POB had the encounter with - the whole MAIB report is based on circumstantial evidence and educated guesswork and therefore as you state the PROOF is not there. i seem to recall that the report was also fairly damning on the attitude of the Ouzo crew - but that is convinently forgotten whenever this case comes up.
Scotty - my BP is fine - just getting a little fed up with the attitude of a few on here that seem to think they have some God given right to critize and abuse anyone and anything they don't like or agree with, most of whom are simply doing their job (OOW, police, customs, UKBA, etc.)
As for the sail - drop me a pm with when you were thinking as I have a few more days off before we finish the current contract and then I am off to the USA for the winter before it gets too cold!
PW
chriscallender
Well-Known Member
Edited to say that I wrote this regarding Jessica Watson (not the Ouzo):
Discussions on blame are a bit meaningless; in any collision both parties are somewhat to blame and I'd assume this case will turn out no differerent.
What I find intresting is that in addition to using radar, it seems that both vessels were transmitting AIS (the tracks in the preliminary report were based on AIS information, right?).
For me its still very hard to understand how at rather low speeds, both of these vessels failed to detect the developing situation with at least 3 sources of information - visual, radar and AIS. Something has to go quite monumentally wrong for that to happen - so then I wonder was anyone actually awake at the time?
Chris
Discussions on blame are a bit meaningless; in any collision both parties are somewhat to blame and I'd assume this case will turn out no differerent.
What I find intresting is that in addition to using radar, it seems that both vessels were transmitting AIS (the tracks in the preliminary report were based on AIS information, right?).
For me its still very hard to understand how at rather low speeds, both of these vessels failed to detect the developing situation with at least 3 sources of information - visual, radar and AIS. Something has to go quite monumentally wrong for that to happen - so then I wonder was anyone actually awake at the time?
Chris
Last edited:
bedouin
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that by not stopping they have let themselves off the hook? That is perhaps the most distasteful part of this whole thing.
I am convinced that it was the Ouzo that the PoB saw - firstly it was in pretty much exactly the right place at the right time and secondly if not then the yacht in question would almost certainly have come forward, either to complain about the behaviour of PoB or in response to all the publicity.
There two areas that are uncertain
(a) what actually sank the Ouzo - without knowing that it is very hard to say beyond reasonable doubt that it was encounter with the PoB.
(b) what contributing factors there might have been - such as the Ouzo lights not functioning correctly, or not even being switched on, that means that PoB may not have been wholy responsible for the (near) collision - in fact in almost every collision there must be fault on both sides.
My strong criticism of the PoB is based not on getting too close to Ouzo (although there seem to have been a lot of laxness involved there) but on the fact that they did not stop. Based on their own account (and we don't have any others) they were so close to the yacht that they were afraid they would hit it with their stern - so they must have known that they were within a few yards. The rather confused sightings they claim afterwards (a white light in one place, a red light in another) could not genuinely have given them any confidence that the boat was unharmed (even if it was still afloat it might have been damaged). THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AND CHECKED - not doing so probably cost the lives of three people.
It is probably that Ouzo also bears some responsibility but in their defence don't forget that the PoB had just been executing a long slow change in course and had only settled on that heading a couple of minutes before the collision. Had the Ouzo checked just 5 minutes earlier they would have seen a large ferry that was on a course that would miss them by at least a mile and would probably have expected it to continue across the channel to Cherbourg or St Malo. Even if they had continued to observe the ferry (and there must be a question as to whether they did) by the time they realised that it had finished its course change and was going to get very close they probably only had a few seconds to act.
Don't forget that the Ouzo was the stand on vessel, the correct behaviour of PoB (had they seen them) would have been to alter course pretty much as they did to pass astern of the yacht.
The Ouzo was also presumably sailing close hauled on the starboard tack so actually had very little option in terms of altering course. All she could do would be to tack, and that would put her into direct conflicit with PoB had she done what was expected and passed astern.
Refueler
Well-Known Member
Alterations to port are not normally taken unless no other alternative ... it's shied upon generally.
As to showing a green light .... initial reaction would probably be to think it a crossing vessel and stand on - observing to see if any other light appears ie white steaming light. So immediate alteration on seeing a light is not normal unless all is obviously seen ...... at distance of-shore not that many yachts are encountered - so OOW may have assumed initially that it was faulty lights.
Later action is questionable .... but as an ex OOW myself - you have in mind that whatever action you take has to take into account any possible action by other vessel. If you get close and turn to port ... you would HOPE that other vessel does the UN-normal act of turning to port as well .... where in fact most would turn to stbd if they consider other vessel is not taking enough action.
The yacht would have greater chance of seeing the ship ... visually and by radar ... than the ship of the yacht. That is why I am aghast that she just retired to cabin and a 'nap' ..... regardless of ships actions - she TRUSTED that she would be avoided without due care of her own circumstances. That cannot be denied or altered.
Sorry but I will now say something that I'm sure that many will dislike - it's about time that some yachtspeople stopped knocking ships personnel at every opportunity. As I read some posts not so much in this thread but various others - the most condemning are usually from those who have no idea of ships bridges, manning, or duties ... they trot out the "Flag of Convenience", "Third-World", useless OOW, etc. etc. rubbish again and again ... Even in the days of 'full-scale' manning - incidents occurred and I personally know of many involving Brit and other so-called experienced nationalities ....
This young lass embarked on a venture that is arduous, dangerous and carries responsibility that IMHO she has been shown inadequate for. I don't care that she managed to limp back to port after the incident as that is not the issue. Whatever the ship did or failed to do - does not detract from the fact that Marine Board in Aussie considered her unsuitable, advised her and Parents NOT to undertake this Circumnavigation, found that she did in fact NOT carry out sensible watchkeeping .....
LONG_KEELER
Well-Known Member
We shall probably never fully know.
I think most of us like to feel that we would react in the right and proper way in most situations and if anything goes wrong it is likely to be the other party at fault.
In reality, we all get tired sometimes, or off colour for whatever reason or just generally downhearted. I can remember myself on one occasion on a channel crossing. I got very tired, felt sick and got disoriented in the inshore shipping lanes. Fortunately, I was probably lucky enough to get myself sorted out before anything bad happened. I like to think that I learned more about sailing that day.
If you extend this to the other party feeling a bit like you, anything is probably likely. Perhaps, for many of us, life is a futile attempt to become secure in a dimension that is intrinsically insecure.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
It happens. I remember one dawn after a hungover 2.30am start from Glenarm encountering a tanker off the Mull just inside the TSS. I altered course but ended up pretty disoriented as the course alteration put us beam on to a 6 knot tide and it was hard to work out where we were headed for a few minutes and what course to steer to put us just astern of the ship.
People who don't make mistakes often don't learn much either. Jessica is on a steep learning curve, but she is at a good age to learn quickly - unlike most of us on here. Stop her - as some seem to think should have happened - and who are you going to stop next?
Jessica says she did 155nm yesterday, so she must be doing something right.
- W
T
timbartlett
Guest
We don't have a "God-given right".
We have a very expensively-purchased right.
Like most forumites, I am given no option but to hand over many thousands of pounds to the government every year, in order to pay the salaries and subsidise the pensions of its ever-growing army of parasites.
That, I believe, gives us the right to criticize the parasites whenthey fail to do the jobs we pay them for, or when they abuse the powers we have given them.
If any of them don't like being criticised by the people whose money they are so pleased to accept, maybe they should leave.
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
Strange - that's not the impression I get.
I don't think you have purchased anything - you just paid your taxes like every other law abiding citizen.
Me too, but when did you pay an OOW? And I suggest that you get a good accountant - you might save a few ££.
Critizing is a little different to the abuse - often personal that gets posted here, besides you said you didn't have a right above?! Oh and what about those who critize the RYA? You don't seem to like that and surely they're not doing their jobs properly either or no one could say a word against them.
Or if the job and it's perks are so good maybe you should consider a career change? There's nothing like being a 'self employed' civil servant - clearly you can get your pension sorted a treat!
Still at least you made the effort to find the facts before publishing a diabtribe about the armed boardings that have been moaned about on here so much...
Oh, it might be worth remembering the fact that most of these organisations have thousands of staff but only a few let the side down - so does that makes it OK to slate the whole organisation and all the staff?
PW
Last edited:
Observer
Well-Known Member
There is a notable defensiveness from posters who appear to have a 'professional' background. Observing that a 'professional', in a specific case, in all probability, made a mistake, does not constitute "knocking ships personnel at every opportunity".
It seems likely, in this case, that mistake(s) occurred on both sides and it is to be hoped that both sides have acknowledged their respective mistakes and will avoid repeating them. However, if a person is being paid to perform a task or exercise judgement, and other people's safety or welfare depends on how well that task or judgement is performed or exercised, then, imo, the 'professional' carries greater responsibility for avoiding error than someone who is not a 'professional'. The same principle holds for all professions/occupations.
It seems likely, in this case, that mistake(s) occurred on both sides and it is to be hoped that both sides have acknowledged their respective mistakes and will avoid repeating them. However, if a person is being paid to perform a task or exercise judgement, and other people's safety or welfare depends on how well that task or judgement is performed or exercised, then, imo, the 'professional' carries greater responsibility for avoiding error than someone who is not a 'professional'. The same principle holds for all professions/occupations.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
.
Good post Observer - succinctly put.
- W
Good post Observer - succinctly put.
- W
Refueler
Well-Known Member
There are no single blame incidents at sea between vessels. Each carries a proportion of blame.
I do not say the Bulk carrier was in the right, I do not say she was 100% in the wrong. I posted a genuine comment based on my own personal experience and difficulty of ascertaining what it is you see..... and the possible reason for late actions.
Imagine if you can being on the bridge .... it's early hours of the morning ... nothing on radar ... you see a faint green light on the port bow. If it was a ship - then it's a long distance away ... if a yacht - then it's close. But it's night, you only see this faint light. ( Don't run away with idea that your pea-pot of a nav light on your yacht is anything but a faint glimmer out there ...).
What do you do ?
I can relate an incident of my own 50miles of West Africa coast. I was on a loaded 20,000 MT tanker proceeding north-west to round up and head north to Europe. Watchman came in while I was in chart-room and reported faint lights ahead. I immediately went to bridge windows and saw his lights ... quite a few very faint lights both sides of bow ... These were very faint and with binoculars - couldn't see anything but faint lights.
We were too far out as I thought for any small fishing boats etc. Nothing showed at all on the radar.
Next thing we knew - there were dug-out canoes and small boats with candles in jars as riding lights ... we were passing through a 'native' load of small paddled boats fishing.
Believe me that is something that I never wish to repeat ... I called the Master and he came up ... looked ... agreed that "what the hell can you do" ... no-one as far as we could tell was injured ... as we were not doing full speed having suffered engine problems and at that time were at only 4 -5kts. The wake was enough to push boats away but not swamp / overturn them.
Incident told to illsutrate it's not so easy as you seem to think.
30boat
N/A
I remember seeing tiny little canoes very far offshore in the Philippines.It's amazing how they survive in those things.Freeboard must have been less that 20cm.
dolphin
Well-Known Member
visibility
completely agree with last posts of webcraft & refueler !
just like to add, once the incident happen, there is a investigation and if the case go to the court, the responsibility usualy is shared between the parties! even in case, the vessel is on anchor and other vessel collide, both ships will be responsible lets say 70-80% for the vessel under way and 20-30% for the anchored vessel!
in our case, in my opinion the officer of watch is more to be blamed as there is no excuse, not to see a sailing boat in fairly good moony weather, taking in mind that he know - somewhere there, is something, exhibit a green light!
the visibility in the moon nights is not at all bad and with proper lookout the boat can be spotted in time !
unfortunately, the officers on watch, nowadays, rely a lot, on the radar only !
saying all above, do not mean, that the skipper of the boat is innocence for the incident!
wish to all a nice weekend
www.neatcss.com
completely agree with last posts of webcraft & refueler !
just like to add, once the incident happen, there is a investigation and if the case go to the court, the responsibility usualy is shared between the parties! even in case, the vessel is on anchor and other vessel collide, both ships will be responsible lets say 70-80% for the vessel under way and 20-30% for the anchored vessel!
in our case, in my opinion the officer of watch is more to be blamed as there is no excuse, not to see a sailing boat in fairly good moony weather, taking in mind that he know - somewhere there, is something, exhibit a green light!
the visibility in the moon nights is not at all bad and with proper lookout the boat can be spotted in time !
unfortunately, the officers on watch, nowadays, rely a lot, on the radar only !
saying all above, do not mean, that the skipper of the boat is innocence for the incident!
wish to all a nice weekend
www.neatcss.com
Observer
Well-Known Member
There is nothing in anything I've said that should suggest I think that the responsibility of taking watch on a ship is easy. I do not have direct knowledge but I imagine that the knowledge and experience needed to obtain certification as a deck officer, by any of the 'serious' flag nations, is considerably challenging, and rightfully so.
The fact that the task, and the training and certification process that is legally necessary to qualify a person to undertake that task, is challenging gives good reason to expect a higher standard of competence from a trained and certificated 'professional' watchkeeper than from a 'mere' amateur.
If the facts in this preliminary report are accurate, it is quite clear that the watchkeeper on the ship made a serious mistake. He saw a green light - he knew something was there. If he did assume (as you suggested earlier may have been the case) it was a powered vessel (without a steaming light) that should 'give way', that was a wholly unjustified assumption. Even if his assumption had been correct, he did not (self-evidently) take adequate action under rule 17.
Further, this collision did not happen in the space of a few seconds, so require an immediate assessment and the exercise of judgement under pressure. It developed over a period of 25 minutes, in open water and very liitle 'traffic'.
This conclusion does not (in my way of thinking) mitigate the responsibility of the watchkeeper on the yacht. My view is that in a two-party collision, the sum of liability of the parties is not 100%, it is 200%. Put another way, a factual circumstance that is held to increase the responsibility on one side does not, automatically, decrease responsibility by an equal amount on the other side. So both parties can be up to 100% 'at error' in terms of their respective responsibilities to avoid collision. In this case, I'm not looking to assess what those %ages may be. I don't have the facts, the expertise or the position to do so. However, it is clear, imo, that there was a serious failure of 'good seamanship', certainly by the ship's watch keeper and probably by the yacht.
Last edited:
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
From a colleague of mine:
Smol's Definition of a Professional: Someone who knows exactly how bad a job he can get away with.
Smol's Definition of an Amateur: Someone who does the best job possible for the love of it.
I don't know any amateur sailors who, after a possible collision, would sail blithely on without checking to avoid upsetting their timetable.
Refueler
Well-Known Member
I was pretty well in agreement with you till that last sentence. OK - I disagree with the 200% thinking - because Marine Incidents are based on division of the 100% rule. They factor the proceedings up to during and at incident point to apportion %. Maybe it will surprise you that actions AFTER the incident are not taken into account in that % but are for other decisions of responsibility after the fact etc.
Why do I not agree with the last sentence ... because it is worded to infer that the OOW CERTAINLY ... and yachtie PROBABLY. That flies in the face of Aussie Marine Investigation where they found yachtie seriously in violation of 'good seamanship and lookout duties'. IMHO - they are both guilty of poor judgement. The OOW did take action albeit too late ... the girl did nothing - ignore all the rubbish she spouted BEFORE the investigation about calling the ship repeatedly before collsion, nothing on radar etc. etc. and her crawling into bunk as 'safest place' ... She WENT TO SLEEP ... later enquiry showed she did NOT call ship until AFTER incident, she admitted going below to 'nap' ...
Colregs clearly state that stand on vessel has obligation also to take such action when action alone of give way vessel is insufficient to avoid collision ... that point of action is undefined and left to discretion of person to decide. She decided NOTHING.
There is no addition of mine to the story, there is no denial from her .... the enquiry cannot be likened in any way to Ouzo - as we have both parties still alive and able to give evidence. She f*****-up, pure and simple. The OOW needs to be hauled over the coals for his mishandling of the appraisal and actions taken. But she has to answer for NOT taking any action when situation was developing into a collision incident.
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Glad someone has come to the same conclusions as me.
Refueler
Well-Known Member
I hope it's agreeing with me !!
I really find it hard to understand how anyone can interprete this any other way ? Of course we all feel for her and glad she's alive. But that doesn't mean we all have to be in agreement with her. I live and work in the Marine industry. I see so many incidents, near misses .... hear about and am involved in various. I like to think that I can step back and look at it from that Industry perspective evaluating and apportioning my understanding of blame. I am lucky I suppose that I have been with yachts all my life and also most of my working life been shipping ... doesn't mean I know the answers though !!
T
timbartlett
Guest
Uncivil, and not a service
Pilotwolf, This is way off topic. Still, as you're obviously spoiling for a fight, I'm quite prepared to oblige.
(2) I don't have a problem with justified criticism of the RYA. I do have a problem with unjustified criticism.
(3) And I see no reason why my opinion of the RYA should be suppressed just because it doesn't match yours, even if you are/were a civil servant.
I'm afraid the culture of institutional dishonesty is so rife throughout the whole of the civil service that many (most?) civil servants can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. It is a culture that is actively endorsed and encouraged by those at the upper levels, and is tolerated or encouraged by those that are supposed to prevent it such as the "Independent" Complaints services and Ombudsmen's offices (Did you know, for instance, that the PHS Ombudsman only investigates 2.5% of the complaints it receives?). That, IMHO, is what makes it OK to slate the whole organisation.
I am emphatically not suggesting that the low-grade front-line staff who just do as they are told are getting rich quick: they are merely collecting the salaries and pensions that they are offered. But they are quite content to cheat and lie to the people that pay those salaries and pensions -- even to the extent of committing what would be called fraud if it were committed by anyone outside the civil service -- in order to meet the bogus targets and quotas that are set by their self-serving superiors.
Pilotwolf, This is way off topic. Still, as you're obviously spoiling for a fight, I'm quite prepared to oblige.
So what is the justification for taxes if it is not to pay for the so-called "services" provided by government? Contrary to what most civil servants seem to believe, the world does not owe them a living. They are supposed to provide something in exchange for the pay and perks.
I don't know what you mean by "an OOW", other than "Officer of the Watch". And I do employ an accountant, thank you, even though my tax affairs are quite simple. I find it disgraceful that I have to spend money on employing a professional service that I do not really want or need, purely to protect myself against the HMRC's uncanny ability to make mistakes. (Isn't it funny that when the Inland Revenue makes mistakes, they are always in its own favour, and never justify as much as an apology, but if a taxpayer makes a mistake -- even a perfectly neutral one -- it incurrs all sorts of penalties?)
I recall plenty of criticism, and little, if any abuse. I have certainly not been responsible, so far as I can remember, for any personal abuse.
(1) If you don't like how the RYA spend your money, you have the option of not being a member. Sadly, we do not have that option when it comes to paying taxes.
(2) I don't have a problem with justified criticism of the RYA. I do have a problem with unjustified criticism.
(3) And I see no reason why my opinion of the RYA should be suppressed just because it doesn't match yours, even if you are/were a civil servant.
Integrity: I'm not a habitiual liar, and I don't like messing up other people's lives. I couldn't sleep at night.
Is it only "thousands"? It feels like more.
I'm afraid the culture of institutional dishonesty is so rife throughout the whole of the civil service that many (most?) civil servants can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. It is a culture that is actively endorsed and encouraged by those at the upper levels, and is tolerated or encouraged by those that are supposed to prevent it such as the "Independent" Complaints services and Ombudsmen's offices (Did you know, for instance, that the PHS Ombudsman only investigates 2.5% of the complaints it receives?). That, IMHO, is what makes it OK to slate the whole organisation.
I am emphatically not suggesting that the low-grade front-line staff who just do as they are told are getting rich quick: they are merely collecting the salaries and pensions that they are offered. But they are quite content to cheat and lie to the people that pay those salaries and pensions -- even to the extent of committing what would be called fraud if it were committed by anyone outside the civil service -- in order to meet the bogus targets and quotas that are set by their self-serving superiors.