MAIB Report from the Cannes (Vision/Minx) accident last year

Bouba said:
I’m not apportioning blame. But the report does say that he was new to the job. Whenever someone is new to any job, the level of concentration is so high that you lose peripheral vision. The same thing happened in the Battle of Britain, inexperienced pilots concentrate so hard on flying that they don’t see the enemy plane coming for them. All I’m saying is that an old hand would man the anchor without a second thought and could (you never know) realize that a 90 ton boat with a giant rooster tail is hurling towards then at over thirty knots. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Thats why I always send the SWMBO to do our anchor. No sense in putting myself at risk
 
Think the skippers being done for the Fr eq of involuntary manslaughter .
I would expect a guilty plea and he gets a stretch .
But even 10 y and out in 5 for good behaviour feels cheap for the poor lad s family who’s son died .

Anyhow plenty time for him to read Lindsay Lords book the “ Navel architecture of planing boats “
He will be an expert on the dynamics when he comes out :) .
 
Bouba said:
I’m not apportioning blame. But the report does say that he was new to the job. Whenever someone is new to any job, the level of concentration is so high that you lose peripheral vision. The same thing happened in the Battle of Britain, inexperienced pilots concentrate so hard on flying that they don’t see the enemy plane coming for them. All I’m saying is that an old hand would man the anchor without a second thought and could (you never know) realize that a 90 ton boat with a giant rooster tail is hurling towards then at over thirty knots. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the poor bloke just had no chance with a maniac fast approaching at a ramming speed of 33 knots.
 
Bouba said:
I’m not apportioning blame. But the report does say that he was new to the job. Whenever someone is new to any job, the level of concentration is so high that you lose peripheral vision. The same thing happened in the Battle of Britain, inexperienced pilots concentrate so hard on flying that they don’t see the enemy plane coming for them. All I’m saying is that an old hand would man the anchor without a second thought and could (you never know) realize that a 90 ton boat with a giant rooster tail is hurling towards then at over thirty knots. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Honestly Bouba, you do talk some rubbish! At 33kts the boat was covering a statute mile every 90 seconds. By the time even the most experienced deckhand had realised the boat was heading his way it was probably too late.
 
Whilst supporting most of what has been said before, I think the simplest and most egregious issue is that both the skipper and the owner will have known that they were in a 5kn (and at times 10kn) speed limited area - which has been the case for decades and is usually very highly policed with massive fines for transgressors. The water around there is often full of swimmers, divers, paddle-boarders and dingy sailors so even if that tragic accident hadn't happened with Minx, it could so easily have been with some other innocent party.

Many forum members are aware that since the accident, the local prefecture have banned boats >24m from in between the Lerins Islands and from a few other busy areas around the Cote d'Azur, as well as introducing new restrictions on >22m boats. I wonder how connected this is to the Vision incident.
 
petem said:
Honestly Bouba, you do talk some rubbish! At 33kts the boat was covering a statute mile every 90 seconds. By the time even the most experienced deckhand had realised the boat was heading his way it was probably too late.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right!

At 33knts the Vision would've been planing and as it hit the Minx the Vision's bow mustve shot up and across the bow of the Minx by several feet or more.

Unfortunately it hit Jake Feldwhere directly in the head, killing him instantly ...."One of Minx’s crew and three of the guests went to the foredeck to help the injured crewman but the severity of his injuries meant that there was little they could do to help him."

The Captain is the only person to blame in this accident. He was showing off and someone died.

1.jpg

4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Look, while running the risk of upsetting everyone further, I will expand. There are two parts to an accident, the cause and the consequences. While, obviously, the victim has nothing to do with the cause, sadly he had everything to do with the consequence.
The consequences of any event can range from, just missed it by the skin of my teeth to the tragic. I was just trying to speculate on why the result was tragic. And I postulated that the inexperience of the deceased crewman meant that he may have been more oblivious to the events happening around him.
 
Bouba said:
Look, while running the risk of upsetting everyone further, I will expand. There are two parts to an accident, the cause and the consequences. While, obviously, the victim has nothing to do with the cause, sadly he had everything to do with the consequence.
The consequences of any event can range from, just missed it by the skin of my teeth to the tragic. I was just trying to speculate on why the result was tragic. And I postulated that the inexperience of the deceased crewman meant that he may have been more oblivious to the events happening around him.
Click to expand...

Using your own analogy I think a greater tragedy was missed by said skin of teeth. Had it not been a glancing blow many more would have been injured.
 
Bouba said:
Look, while running the risk of upsetting everyone further, I will expand. There are two parts to an accident, the cause and the consequences. While, obviously, the victim has nothing to do with the cause, sadly he had everything to do with the consequence.
The consequences of any event can range from, just missed it by the skin of my teeth to the tragic. I was just trying to speculate on why the result was tragic. And I postulated that the inexperience of the deceased crewman meant that he may have been more oblivious to the events happening around him.
Click to expand...

When you're in a hole stop digging. You're starting to sound like a bit of a twit.
 
I have seen in one man up front situations up anchoring on a high bulwark bigger boats , the person leaning over the side head looking Fwds with one arm giving direction to the helm .Sometimes the bow person holds the winch unbiblical, sometimes the control is at the helm .Either way with the racket of the windlass and chain clanking the guy would not be able to hear the Pershing within a boat length to kinda flinch away to the other stb side .
He would want to keep his eye on the chain coming up for weeds and the anchor , not daydreaming and peering around or looking astern with the skipper watching .Skipper would be eyes fwd watching for instruction either P or Stb rudder , midships or stop / hover . Watching the crews hand signals .
Its what they all do .
 
Bouba said:
Look, while running the risk of upsetting everyone further, I will expand. There are two parts to an accident, the cause and the consequences. While, obviously, the victim has nothing to do with the cause, sadly he had everything to do with the consequence.
The consequences of any event can range from, just missed it by the skin of my teeth to the tragic. I was just trying to speculate on why the result was tragic. And I postulated that the inexperience of the deceased crewman meant that he may have been more oblivious to the events happening around him.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure this is a significant factor.

An experienced crewman would not have been expecting a vessel to be approaching at 33kts in a 5kt/10kt zone.

If he was concentrating on the task, he might have been eyes down for a few seconds, and there would have been little audible warning over the sound of the windlass and chain until the boat would have been too close to move out of the way.
 
Bouba said:
Look, while running the risk of upsetting everyone further, I will expand. There are two parts to an accident, the cause and the consequences. While, obviously, the victim has nothing to do with the cause, sadly he had everything to do with the consequence.
The consequences of any event can range from, just missed it by the skin of my teeth to the tragic. I was just trying to speculate on why the result was tragic. And I postulated that the inexperience of the deceased crewman meant that he may have been more oblivious to the events happening around him.
Click to expand...

Im really not sure what the debate is here. :confused:

The report clearly states that the Vision captained by a man with cannabis in his blood collided with the Minx while attempting a dangerous manoeuvre while speeding at 33knts resulting in the death of a trained and fully licensed crew member.

The Captain of the Vision is to blame and no one else.

:unsure:
 
Last edited:
Poor Bouba. My heart goes out to the fella stringing himself up as the forum Piñata.

However boats are expensive.

Git yor sticks and blindfolds here. £1 a go!
 
But the deck guys head would be have been hanging over the side , with neck craning to see under the bow roller , so he could see the chain coming up .
So on the port bow his left eye peripheral vision zone would be the see slightly left of the bow area .NOT behind , lateral to the boat and certainly not any of the port stern quarter where “ Vision “ was approaching .
The right eyes peripheral vision would be basically the sky in front of and above the bow apex , so sea gull territory only .

Boubas study is folks sat square on head parallel to the ground in front of a screen .*

Even if the anchor guy had better than average peripheral vision he only would have spotted a fish with his left near the bow cleat area or a bird over the bow apex with his other eye , due to the tilt and craning of the neck attempting to see the chain .

As said auditory senses where reduced by the windlass + chasing clanking noises .
Can’ t taste or smell the Pershing either .No amount of extra super “ experienced “ or otherwise gained peripheral vision , his only defence against “ Vision “ bumping him off would have changed the outcome.


* Classic case of in vitro and in vivo .

Vitro - glass is what works in the lab simulations .
Vivo is in real life you get different results.
 
Last edited:
Portofino said:
But the deck guys head would be have been hanging over the side , with neck craning to see under the bow roller , so he could see the chain coming up .
So on the port bow his left eye peripheral vision zone would be the see slightly left of the bow area .NOT behind , lateral to the boat and certainly not any of the port stern quarter where “ Vision “ was approaching .
The right eyes peripheral vision would be basically the sky in front of and above the bow apex , so sea gull territory only .

Boubas study is folks sat square on head parallel to the ground in front of a screen .*

Even if the anchor guy had better than average peripheral vision he only would have spotted a fish with his left near the bow cleat area or a bird over the bow apex with his other eye , due to the tilt and craning of the neck attempting to see the chain .

As said auditory senses where reduced by the windlass + chasing clanking noises .
Can’ t taste or smell the Pershing either .No amount of extra super “ experienced “ or otherwise gained peripheral vision , his only defence against “ Vision “ bumping him off would have changed the outcome.


* Classic case of in vitro and in vivo .

Vitro - glass is what works in the lab simulations .
Vivo is in real life you get different results.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's hard and incredibly harsh to think the deckie could have avoided this.
The noise alone would have been enough, plus it's not like you're pulling the hook anchored outside St Tropez entrance where boats pass at 5 metres from the bow all the time, even though it does get very busy in the anchorage where the incident occurred.
Every so often you've got to go down and flake the chain too.

Having done the anchor on a boat the same size for years, I can only hope the poor lad rests in peace.
 
Bouba said:
And so I continue......
Out of the corner of the driver's eye: Peripheral processing of hazards in static traffic scenes | JOV | ARVO Journals
Click to expand...
Recently had to apply for an exchange driving licence in Belgium, for the C1E and D1E groups I had to do a medical, as part of that they tested my eyesight, depth perception and peripheral vision, and how you react to the stimuli, both with and without my glasses on, it was not quite as in depth as the last time I had it done before an eye operation, translating between Dutch and English really slowed down my responses to the doctor as I'm not fluent in Dutch yet. Still I manged to pass the test, but it made me realise that my eyesight is not as good as it was when I was a lot younger.
 
It’s not that often that I’m the most hated man on the forum (although, I seem to recall it’s not the first time).
You’ll all get over it soon??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top