Jessica Watson failed to notice ship at 1 mile

[LittleSister]

Alterations to port are not normally taken unless no other alternative ... it's shied upon generally.

Really? Why would that be then?

 

[Woodlouse]

Really? Why would that be then?

It comes from both vessels having to turn to starboard when head to head. As that is the only time in the colregs when the specific avoiding action is stated the most common interpretation by power driven vessels is that you turn to starboard in any give way situation. Knowing this a stand on vessel that turns to port might find it's self on another collision course when the give way vessel alters course to starboard.

 

[webcraft]

Alteration of course to port - Rule 17 (c)

.

As that is the only time in the colregs when the specific avoiding action is stated the most common interpretation by power driven vessels is that you turn to starboard in any give way situation.

Rule 17 (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) (ii) of this rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances at the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

- W

 

[PilotWolf]

Private Message: Re: I will continue to defend my corner

Today, 00:46
timbartlett timbartlett is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 256
Default I will continue to defend my corner
Quote:
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.
So why do you and your (former?) colleagues expect to go on believing in the stereotype that anyone who doesn't receive a government salary must be a crook, without our "side" fighting back?

The ball is in the civil service's court: chuck out the fraudsters, reward what little intelligence and integrity is left amongst its staff, and start treating the citizens of this country with a bit of courtesy and consideration. Then it might slowly start to recover the respect that it has thrown away.
__________________
www.timbartlett.co.uk

I am not sure why you have chosen to go to private messages other than maybe due to being off topic? Anyway I will answer it openly in the forum:

So why do you and your (former?) colleagues expect to go on believing in the stereotype that anyone who doesn't receive a government salary must be a crook, without our "side" fighting back?

Where does that gem of an insight come from? I assume that boat owning civil servants never get boarded. Police officers never get stopped on the road. Customs officers never get stopped at airports, etc.

The ball is in the civil service's court: chuck out the fraudsters, reward what little intelligence and integrity is left amongst its staff, and start treating the citizens of this country with a bit of courtesy and consideration. Then it might slowly start to recover the respect that it has thrown away.

Unfortunatetly change is not really in the hands of those that the public get to meet on a day to day basis. Respect and courtesy works both ways...

W.

 

[timbartlett]

My reply to Pilotwolf moved to The Lounge as a new thread called Civil(?) service - moved from PBO Forum

 

[Refueler]

TB & PW, Can I hold your coats while you step outside & sort this out?

Maybe a deep breath & count to 10 would help.

About time someone called this out .... we have a sensible thread here and it's being destroyed by others insisting on having a ridiculous bun-fight over absolutely ridiculous off-topic rubbish.

Maybe they can "Grow up" and get back on topic or start another thread somewhere else to have their spat !

 

[Refueler]

It comes from both vessels having to turn to starboard when head to head. As that is the only time in the colregs when the specific avoiding action is stated the most common interpretation by power driven vessels is that you turn to starboard in any give way situation. Knowing this a stand on vessel that turns to port might find it's self on another collision course when the give way vessel alters course to starboard.

thank you ... in fact in the rules it does say a turn to port is to be avoided except when overtaking ...

Most Ships / vessels will rather do a 360 round turn to stbd than turn to port .... a) because the round turn adds time and distance to the incident, b) avoids the other vessel turning to stbd as is the norm.

It's really common sense ... you only have to consider what are usual actions of a vessel and it makes sense.

 

[Refueler]

.......It's actually rather rude to reply to private messages in public, and even worse to publish the whole thing. But you are an (ex) civil servant, and you have already made it clear that you do not expect the rules that apply to other people to apply to you.

It has been confirmed by YBW Moderators that PM's are regarded as private and not to be cut and pasted to forums unless BOTH parties involved agree. I asked Dan and previous mods about this specifically after previous incidents.

Anyone not believe me ? Go ask Dan yourself.

 

[PilotWolf]

You said it: it's way way way off topic and because it is pretty obvious that several people who are following the original thread are bored with this backwater.


It's actually rather rude to reply to private messages in public, and even worse to publish the whole thing. But you are an (ex) civil servant, and you have already made it clear that you do not expect the rules that apply to other people to apply to you.

Well that's your view - this was a public discussion and you chose to make it private, I did not invite your message and as such by your values it could be deemed to invade my privacy. I have nothing to hide in my comments, maybe you do? I am rather bored with it too as clearly you are always right and woe betide those that disagree with your views or opinions. I have never to my knowledge suggested that others obey rules that I don't, nor have I had to lower myself to abusing you to make a point.

It comes, amongst many other places, from a statement made to the so-called "Independent" Complaints Assessor by a Director of the DVLA, who said that the DVLA could not differentiate between innocent motorists and the "thousands" who were "simply trying to avoid payment of the penalty". In other words, once the DVLA had decided that you are guilty, innocence (even proven innocence, as in my case) does not let you off the penalty. What really disgusted me was that the ICA accepted this concept without demur. Fortunately for me, the court disagreed with both of them.



Actually, change *is* in the hands of those that the public meet every day. When that DVLA clerk was told to lie to me in order to con or coerce me into paying an unlawful penalty, she had a simple choice: she could either obey the order, (and by doing so become guilty of fraud herself) or she could have refused, or she could have reported the matter to the police, and helped get her corrupt superiors put away. I accept that the latter is not easy -- particularly as it would have involved dealing with another government agency which suffers from exactly the same problem. But the fact that that particular matter went through at least five layers of management without anyone putting a stop to it is indicative of the depth of the rot.

So the DVLA have upset you so every civil servant is bad? Hmmm... interesting thought process.

Have you noticed that the places that display notices threatening their customers with penalties for arguing with staff are invariably the very ones in which the service is so poor and the staff are so unhelpful that tempers are almost certain to become frayed?

Strange as they seem to be everywhere these days - maybe in your view nowhere and no companies now offer any form of (good) quality service.

It is because the civil service regards itself as above the law that I regard it as beneath contempt. Cause and effect in that order -- not vice versa.

PS I know you are going to say that I have referred to just one "isolated" incident, but I assure you there are many more. If I had not referred to a specific incident, I am sure you would have adopted standard civil service procedure and accused me of talking vague generalizations.

Yes, but as I have said it works both ways - maybe it's your attitude to dealing with the various civil servants that have upset you that causes the problem in the first place?

PW

 

[timbartlett]

About time someone called this out .... we have a sensible thread here and it's being destroyed by others insisting on having a ridiculous bun-fight over absolutely ridiculous off-topic rubbish.

Maybe they can "Grow up" and get back on topic or start another thread somewhere else to have their spat !

I can't agree that standing up for democracy against totalitarianism is "a ridiculous bun-fight over absolutely ridiculous off-topic rubbish." ;-) but I entirely agree that it's off topic.
So I've moved it.

 

[webcraft]

thank you ... in fact in the rules it does say a turn to port is to be avoided except when overtaking ...

Oi! I already posted that a few posts back - it is Rule 17 (c)

It is however a good example of someone showing that they don't know the Colregs as well as they think they do.

- W

 

[Woodlouse]

In my defense I was working purely from memory when I typed that cause I couldn't be arsed to get my copy of the colregs that were downstairs. Been a few years since I actually sat down and read them.

Still I was on the right lines. And as far as I'm concerned as long as you know what action to take it doesn't matter if you don't really know why.

 

[mikeinkwazi]

Do you use radar

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.

This is getting silly! Do you use radar? An example: A few years ago I was on a delivery up the Irish sea and off watch. I got up after ten mins or so and went out to the cockpit for a look around. The other guy was below watching radar. Crossing our bows 400m away was a ruddy great freighter. I called the crew up asked what the hell and he said (a bit white around the gills) there was no ship on the radar! I checked he was correct. Why do you think the girl was telling fibs?

 

[Woodlouse]

This is getting silly! Do you use radar? An example: A few years ago I was on a delivery up the Irish sea and off watch. I got up after ten mins or so and went out to the cockpit for a look around. The other guy was below watching radar. Crossing our bows 400m away was a ruddy great freighter. I called the crew up asked what the hell and he said (a bit white around the gills) there was no ship on the radar! I checked he was correct. Why do you think the girl was telling fibs?

I do use radar, and I know how to use it well enough that I always check the gain, sea and rain clutter to make sure I get the best picture possible, which I'm sure you'll agree is pretty fecking important if you're relying on it. If you can miss a ship on radar at 400 yards then well done to you, you've achieved the impossible. Either the settings were completely wrong, or the radar was broken.

 

[PilotWolf]

The other guy was below watching radar. Crossing our bows 400m away was a ruddy great freighter. I called the crew up asked what the hell and he said (a bit white around the gills) there was no ship on the radar! I checked he was correct. Why do you think the girl was telling fibs?

Can I ask why? Operator error, faulty equipment?

You don't give many details but from your account it seems no one was on look out until you went up to the cockpit? Mk1 eyeball is still the best option...

W.

 

[PilotWolf]

It has been confirmed by YBW Moderators that PM's are regarded as private and not to be cut and pasted to forums unless BOTH parties involved agree. I asked Dan and previous mods about this specifically after previous incidents.

Anyone not believe me ? Go ask Dan yourself.

Thank you Refueler - I was not aware of that. But I stand by what I did and the reasons why. I have received a further PM but have no wish to get into a PM war over something which started in a public forum so I will neither publish it nor respond.

W.

 

[strangford]

Reply posted on The Lounge.

 

[mikeinkwazi]

Can I ask why? Operator error, faulty equipment?

You don't give many details but from your account it seems no one was on look out until you went up to the cockpit? Mk1 eyeball is still the best option...

W.

The 'crew' was an owner, always a delicate situation. The radar was working fine, for the previous 500 miles and for the next 100. You can blame crew/ skipper whatever, or you can admit the thing is never perfect. I would rather use Mk1 eyeball in addition and hope not to be at sea when those of us who think their kit is perfect are around!

 

[PilotWolf]

Yes I know the owner/crew scenario! So why did it not show up - any idea?

W.

 

[Ubergeekian]

I do use radar, and I know how to use it well enough that I always check the gain, sea and rain clutter to make sure I get the best picture possible, which I'm sure you'll agree is pretty fecking important if you're relying on it. If you can miss a ship on radar at 400 yards then well done to you, you've achieved the impossible. Either the settings were completely wrong, or the radar was broken.

I'm more interested to know how she didn't spot it visually. My guess is that she - unintentionally - only confirmed what the radar had told her was there, so didn't see a ship she wasn't expecting.