Jessica Watson failed to notice ship at 1 mile

  • Thread starter Thread starter timbartlett
  • Start date Start date
Refueler said:
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.
Click to expand...

On reflection, I agree that there was a certain failure of 'good seamanship' on both sides. In fact, when I was drafting that post, that's what I wrote, before changing it to "certainly"/"probably". I did that for the perhaps-not-good-enough reason that I am have some sympathy for Jessica Watson because, as a matter of fact, she was 'stand on' and she is an amateur [see edit] whereas the ship, as a matter of fact, was 'give way' and its watch keeper is a professional. However, that sympathy doesn't get her off the hook of carrying a significant degree of responsibility.

Regarding the "200% sum of responsibilities" point I made, if the purpose is to establish liability for damages, then I agree it doesn't work. I see it as an alternative way of thinking about the underlying collison avoidance responsibility that avoids what I think is the 'see saw' trap in seeing responsibility as "either/or" and not "either or both".

[edit] and, I should have mentioned, single-handed and having to juggle sleep/watch keeping[/edit]
 
Last edited:
A few posters might do well to question if they fit this description:

Anti-authority - resents supervision, does not like to be bound by schedules or habits, prefers to do things when they feel ready, appreciation for anarchy, has a need for complete freedom, would rather work for self than a company, questions everything, wants things done their way, prone to behavior problems in school, gets angry when they don't get what they want, subversive, tends to dislike organized religion, fears confinement...

And you can even take a test to see! http://similarminds.com/global-adv.html

A known dangerous trait in pilots - maybe it has a similar dangers in the (leisure0 marine world where the non commerical mariners have no licence or livelyhood to lose?

PW
 
Observer said:
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'. QUOTE]

what a load of old 'cods wallop'.
Click to expand...
 
PilotWolf said:
And you can even take a test to see! http://similarminds.com/global-adv.html
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure I go along with all of it but this is the result I obtained:

rarely irritated, positive, tough, non phobic, fearless, likes the unknown, self reliant, high self control, confident, trusting, strong instincts, prudent, optimistic, willful, likes parties, prefers a specialized career, takes charge, altruistic, strong, high self concept, adventurous, practical, thoughtful
Click to expand...

Should be a pilot then hmm?
 
PilotWolf said:
A few posters might do well to question if they fit this description:

Anti-authority - resents supervision, does not like to be bound by schedules or habits...

A known dangerous trait in pilots - maybe it has a similar dangers in the (leisure0 marine world where the non commerical mariners have no licence or livelyhood to lose?
Click to expand...

Plenty of air accidents have been caused by pilots blindly following instructions, checklists and procedures without using their initiatives or intelligence to think about what they are doing.

Ultimately, I'm afraid "anti-authority" is just used as a vaguely demeaning insult without addressing the actual issues at hand. And I am still not sure how you got from "the Pride of Bilbao should have stopped" to "you're all anti-authority". Are we supposed to touch our caps gratefully and sink in silence when we're hit? After all, the professionals know what they're doing ...
 
Last edited:
The anti authority is a generalisation of the attitude of many posters here, there is a difference in questioning dangerous orders or instructions.

It's the fact that because you/I is/are a policeman/customs officer/UKBA staff/civil servant/etc you MUST be bad/incompetent/rude/agressive simply because of the career path/job you chose to follow that annoys me.

I spend a great deal of time at sea, the last month and a bit as Skipper/Captain (I don't like either term) and if I had £50 for everytime I've been woken up and called to the bridge due to the OOW's concern for the behaviour of pleasure craft (and a few commercial ships but around only around 5% of the incidents), I'd be off to the USA for the winter first class.

In 24 hours we witnessed 2 yachts crossing the Dover Straits TSS in contravention of the rules and ignoring the fact that we were restricted in our ability to manouvere - neither had anyone on watch in the cockpit and neither responded to radio calls or sound signals. We (at cost to the work we were carrying out) altered our course to avoid collisions - but I am amazed at the risk to their own life these sailor were prepared to take.

As for doffing caps as you are hit.. NO!! YOU also have a responsibilty under the IRPCS to avoid a collision EVEN if you are the stand on vessel.

PW
 
Last edited:
PilotWolf said:
It's the fact that because you/I is/are a policeman/customs officer/UKBA staff/civil servant/etc you MUST be bad/incompetent/rude/agressive simply because of the career path/job you chose to follow that annoys me.
Click to expand...
(1) How many dishonest civil servants do I have to come across before it becomes naive to go on assuming that they are all rare exceptions within an essentially honest service?
(2) According to a DVLA statement to the so-called "Independent" Complaints Assessor,
It is impossible to distinguish the honest customers from the many thousands who ... have simply failed to tax their vehicles and are seeking to avoid the penalty.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the DVLA is not unique. Having seen the way they behave, I am quite convinced that the CSA and the Inland Revenue (to name just two) apply the same "assume they are all guilty" principle. And if that is the rules they choose to play to, I feel entirely justified in applying the same rules to them.
(3) If people choose to remain in a job that encourages incompetence, rudeness, aggression, corruption, dishonesty and laziness, then it has to be assumed that they either had those attributes before they joined, or that they developed them afterwards. Otherwise why would they stay? (the salary and pension?)
(4) It's a fact of life that civil servants almost never admit to having made a mistake. But it's a very short stretch from "not admitting" to telling a downright lie -- and only a tiny stretch from that to blaming someone else.
In 24 hours we witnessed 2 yachts crossing the Dover Straits TSS in contravention of the rules and ignoring the fact that we were restricted in our ability to manouvere - neither had anyone on watch in the cockpit and neither responded to radio calls or sound signals. We (at cost to the work we were carrying out) altered our course to avoid collisions - but I am amazed at the risk to their own life these sailor were prepared to take.
Click to expand...
Amazing isn't the word for it. How about "fantastic", "incredible", or "unbelieveable".

As for doffing caps as you are hit.. NO!! YOU also have a responsibilty under the IRPCS to avoid a collision EVEN if you are the stand on vessel.
Click to expand...
But that does not give the pay-taker (I hesitate to use the word "professional" in this context) the right to go rampaging around the oceans claiming that either his qualifications or his displacement entitle him to ignore any of the colregs that don't suit him. I'm afraid such a highly selective way of interpreting the rules is one of the characteristics of civil servants that I most despise!
 
timbartlett said:
(1) How many dishonest civil servants do I have to come across before it becomes naive to go on assuming that they are all rare exceptions within an essentially honest service?
(2) According to a DVLA statement to the so-called "Independent" Complaints Assessor, I'm sure the DVLA is not unique. Having seen the way they behave, I am quite convinced that the CSA and the Inland Revenue (to name just two) apply the same "assume they are all guilty" principle. And if that is the rules they choose to play to, I feel entirely justified in applying the same rules to them.
(3) If people choose to remain in a job that encourages incompetence, rudeness, aggression, corruption, dishonesty and laziness, then it has to be assumed that they either had those attributes before they joined, or that they developed them afterwards. Otherwise why would they stay? (the salary and pension?)
(4) It's a fact of life that civil servants almost never admit to having made a mistake. But it's a very short stretch from "not admitting" to telling a downright lie -- and only a tiny stretch from that to blaming someone else.
Amazing isn't the word for it. How about "fantastic", "incredible", or "unbelieveable".

But that does not give the pay-taker (I hesitate to use the word "professional" in this context) the right to go rampaging around the oceans claiming that either his qualifications or his displacement entitle him to ignore any of the colregs that don't suit him. I'm afraid such a highly selective way of interpreting the rules is one of the characteristics of civil servants that I most despise!
Click to expand...

Well, maybe utter selfish stupidity are the words I really wanted to use but chose not to lower myself to insults - I wonder if a similar discussion to the Ouzo one would have taken place if these total idiots had been run down?

How many stupid and dangerous yachtsmen do I have to encounter before I decide that you are all incompetent w@nkers that shouldn't be allowed to own a rubber duck yet alone a yacht? I think I can see that just because you are a yachtie you aren't necessarily an idiot - it's a shame you don't share the same insight into the civil service/customs/UKBA/etc. - that speaks volumes...

Indeed I made sure that I kept a copy of the radar tracks, noted in the log and informed Dover and Grez Nez traffic of the vessels involved - not for any enforcement reason but in the hope that maybe they would try to contact the yachts involved to warn them of the risks they were taking and so that if some poor merchantman was dragged through the courts on circumstantial evidence I may be able to make a difference to the outcome. One of the merchant vessels involved was actually included in the half hour broadcasts by Dover CG due to being constrained by her draft of 17M.

Maybe some people stay in a job because they like it? And they feel that they make a POSITIVE contribution?

Or maybe we should all be as bitter and as twisted about life and the laws (whether we agree with them or not) of this country as you seem to be?

I will also be enquiring as to the RYA's feelings towards an author they sponsor who is so anti authority and whether they support your views.

It might be worth remembering that human nature only tends to recall the bad - you'll remember the bad meal but not the extra helpful waiter, you'll remember the car that cut you up on a roundabout but not the one that let you out of the junction, etc.

PW
 
Last edited:
Not good

.
PilotWolf, I have to say you are coming across as a bit of an archetypal 'pro seafarer' who typically refers to yachties as WAFIs . If you want to confirm peoples' mental stereotypes then just carry on posting the way you are.

If on the other hand you are genuinely interested in promoting understanding between professional seafarers and us poor amateurs then I think you should cool the beans a little.

- W
 
webcraft said:
.
PilotWolf, I have to say you are coming across as a bit of an archetypal 'pro seafarer' who typically refers to yachties as WAFIs . If you want to confirm peoples' mental stereotypes then just carry on posting the way you are.

If on the other hand you are genuinely interested in promoting understanding between professional seafarers and us poor amateurs then I think you should cool the beans a little.

- W
Click to expand...

I have resisted lowering myself to that level and indeed have tried to avoid coming across in that way - I guess I have failed? Believe me though some of 'your own' aren't doing you any favours...

We all share the same seas and I have always looked out for the welfare of all seafarers and will continue to do so.

But I will continue to defend my corner against those who chose to suggest that people have to fit a certain sterotype due to their occupation and as such will always 'fight' for my side.

W.
 
Last edited:
Aren't all those tests like stastics though - you can make it 'say' what you want to suit the result the tester desires?

It was the only one I could find by Google as I don't have my avaition teaching materials/references with me.

W.

PS. If you are blonde, 6', blue eyed, rich, own a nice boat/helicopter, have nice tits and a tight pu$$y I am the test result you are looking for!!!!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 01 of 2026(!)
Replies
9
Views
1K
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top