MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[Uricanejack]

Restricted visibility simply does not apply to poor look out.
If the look out should have been able to see the other vessel. The vessels are considered to be in sight of one and other.

Cockcroft does refer to this.

I very much doubt the bridge crew of the Red Falcon considered their visibility to be restricted. The Bridge crew took absolutely none of the action a vessel operating in or near an area of restricted visibility would be expected to take.

Those would include. But not limited to.
Post Extra Look out.
Reduce to a safe speed.
Hand steering, Mate was steering, A dedicated QM might have been a better plan.
Use radar and commence radar plotting or systematic radar observation. A QM would have freed mate to do this.
Engines on stand by. possibly irrelevant Voith Schneider systems are highly maneuverable.

Appropriate sound signal 1 prolonged blast at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes. Might have made a significant difference. Most vessels out on the Solent on a late sunny summer afternoon would have thought they had lost the plot.

 

[Mark-1]

If you can take personal action to promptly reduce the actual issue causing the "restricted visibility" then it is not the "restricted visibility" which is being referred to in ColRegs.

Firstly, neither the rules nor C+L say that, and I can't see how it can be true. Again if you're driving the hypothetical RIB above with a bag on your head you can't continue flat out because you can promptly pull the bag of your head. If your vision is restricted you have to slow down. If you have already pulled the bag off your head your vision is no longer restricted and rule 19 certainly does not apply, but while the bag's on your head your vision is restricted.

Academic, because when it comes to being unable to see something directly in the Sun there is no personal action to promptly reduce the actual issue causing the "restricted visibility" as anyone who's read a Biggles Book will tell you.

Thistle has totally won me over. It seems plausible that there are circumstances where Rule 19 could be deemed to apply due to the Sun.

 

[Mark-1]

I very much doubt the bridge crew of the Red Falcon considered their visibility to be restricted. .

Me, too. In fact I doubt that their vision was restricted at all, but I don't think you and Thistle were claiming it was. I took it that you both just brought up the issue of Restricted Viz due to Sun & Rule 19 as an interesting abstract idea. Which it is.

 

[RichardS]

Firstly, neither the rules nor C+L say that, and I can't see how it can be true. Again if you're driving the hypothetical RIB above with a bag on your head you can't continue flat out because you can promptly pull the bag of your head. If your vision is restricted you have to slow down. If you have already pulled the bag off your head your vision is no longer restricted and rule 19 certainly does not apply, but while the bag's on your head your vision is restricted.

Academic, because when it comes to being unable to see something directly in the Sun there is no personal action to promptly reduce the actual issue causing the "restricted visibility" as anyone who's read a Biggles Book will tell you.

Thistle has totally won me over. It seems plausible that there are circumstances where Rule 19 could be deemed to apply due to the Sun.

See my post #200 which explains what Rule 19 "Conduct of Vessel in Restricted Visibility" is referring to.

I'm afraid that you have totally misunderstood ColRegs. The Sun will never cause a Restricted Visibility scenario as referred to in ColRegs.

I'm not sure what position Thistle is adopting but if it's the same as yours then the obvious conclusion applies.

Mark

 

[Thistle]

If you can take personal action to promptly reduce the actual issue causing the "restricted visibility" then it is not the "restricted visibility" which is being referred to in ColRegs.

What is 'the "restricted visibility" which is being referred to in ColRegs'? Taking Rule 3, we have a list of examples of restricted visibility caused by meteorological conditions (or sandstorms which are closely related to meteorological conditions.) I'd suggest that bright sunlight and its reflection off the water comes into the category of "similar causes". The mariner cannot do anything to reduce these causes; what he must do is to take appropriate action to reduce the risk from the conditions that these causes create.

 

[prv]

Rather alarmingly I find myself agreeing with Richard for once. The idea that sunlight falls into the same category as fog for Colregs purposes is ludicrous on the face of it.

Pete

 

[Mark-1]

The idea that sunlight falls into the same category as fog for Colregs purposes is ludicrous on the face of it.

Pete

Depends why you think that.

If you're saying you don't think the Sun can never leave you completely unable to see in a specific direction then I think you have a point. Certainly I don't recall ever being 100pc blind in one direction due to the sun and if you were the option to change your viewing perspective/course would probably exist.

If you're saying that in a hypothetical situation where you were rendered unable to see where you were going by the sun then rule 19 doesn't apply then I think you're wrong. If you can't see then Rules 11-18 have no meaning. You can't stand on or give way to vessels you can't see. In fact it's self policing, you might not consider your visibility to be impaired but you'll still be completely unable to follow the rules for vessels in sight of each other.

The whole point of rule 19 is to suggest/enforce sensible behaviour when you can't see. Lowering speed strikes me as a very good idea and if you hit someone I suspect they might well argue that you should have slowed down. Equally, if you saw someone who you thought was unable to see you due to sun making a sound signal would makes sense. (5 blasts might not be appropriate because their intention to press on might be very clear indeed!)

 

[RichardS]

Rather alarmingly I find myself agreeing with Richard for once. The idea that sunlight falls into the same category as fog for Colregs purposes is ludicrous on the face of it.

Pete

Indeed Pete.

"Restricted Visibility" has a particular significance under ColRegs in that, under Restricted Visibility conditions, the rules about one vessel being stand on and the other vessel being give way are suspended. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that any poor visibility situation involving the sun could ever justifiably trigger a suspension of the vessel priority rules.

If too much sun could cause Restricted Visibility then why should too little sun not do the same?

Unfortunately, I cannot convince several others so I think I'll bow out.

Richard

 

[Elessar]

Indeed Pete.

"Restricted Visibility" has a particular significance under ColRegs in that, under Restricted Visibility conditions, the rules about one vessel being stand on and the other vessel being give way are suspended. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that any poor visibility situation involving the sun could ever justifiably trigger a suspension of the vessel priority rules.

If too much sun could cause Restricted Visibility then why should too little sun not do the same?

Unfortunately, I cannot convince several others so I think I'll bow out.

Richard

You are so obviously right there is no point wasting your breath.

"sorry, i suspended the give way rule due to restricted visibility as my bobble hat slipped down over my eyes"

 

[dom]

The whole point of rule 19 is to suggest/enforce sensible behaviour when you can't see. Lowering speed strikes me as a very good idea and if you hit someone I suspect they might well argue that you should have slowed down. Equally, if you saw someone who you thought was unable to see you due to sun making a sound signal would makes sense. (5 blasts might not be appropriate because their intention to press on might be very clear indeed!)

I'm not sure one can reverse into Rule 19 like this.

"This Rule applies to vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility."​

The inherent reciprocity suggests an application to vessels in close proximity to, but which cannot visually see each other and therefore cannot determine either the existence of, or the other's maneuvers without the use of electronic detection aids such as radar and AIS. Hence the requirement for sound signals to provide the only possible means of detection by boats lacking these aids.

The mobo cannot seriously have a duty to determine whether the captain is momentarily blinded by the sun, has forgotten his spectacles at home that morning, or whatever.

In any event: both vessels blatantly contravened Rule 5, and Rule 2. That's clear.

The ferry also appears to have broken Rule 6 (a) (Safe Speed) i, ii, & iii; Rule 6 (b) he didn't even look at his radar; ignored Rule 7 (Risk of Collision) (a), (b), (c), and (d); broke Rule 8 (Action to avoid collision) because he wasn't looking; and went on to break Rule 13 (Overtaking); and Rule 16 (Action by give way vessel).

Not sure what Rule 19 brings to the table, any relevant case law?

 

[Mark-1]

inherent reciprocity

I don't think there is any inherent reciprocity, quite the opposite. By definition there might only be one vessel around, rule 19 still applies to it.

Not sure what Rule 19 brings to the table, any relevant case law?

No relevance to this incident, although this incident seems to have triggered the chain of thought. Just an interesting digression. No case law mentioned in C+L beyond the case in C+L which states rule 19 does apply to a vessel blinded by it's own smoke so local factors would trigger the responsibility to slow down etc. if a court thought the restriction qualified in all the other ways.

"sorry, i suspended the give way rule due to restricted visibility as my bobble hat slipped down over my eyes"

...and yet if you did have a bobble hat stuck over your eyes, you physically couldn't obey the rules that apply to vessels in sight of each other and slowing down would make a lot of sense. If you were able to lift your bobble hat you would no longer have restricted visibility. Again, turn it on it's head. If you were going flat out and then found yourself completely unsighted and kept going flat out into another vessel I'm pretty sure you'd be held to blame. Mind you, under that circumstance I'd assume Rule 18 would kick in. (Which raises the question does a vessel not under command due to a freak bobble hat event have an obligation to throttle back even though it's NUC in other ways? For me that's a question for another day. )

 

[Frank Holden]

I have just stumbled across a December copy of YW..... which contains a small piece re Red Funnel ferries.

Seems that three weeks after running over 'Phoenix' - on 21st October - 'Red Falcon' collided with a number of moored yachts in Cowes...sinking one.

Two days before the 'Phoenix' collision 'Red Eagle' had collided with a number of yachts while departing Cowes.

Both incidents occurred in fog.... but that is not an excuse......

 

[VicS]

I have just stumbled across a December copy of YW..... which contains a small piece re Red Funnel ferries.

Seems that three weeks after running over 'Phoenix' - on 21st October - 'Red Falcon' collided with a number of moored yachts in Cowes...sinking one.

Two days before the 'Phoenix' collision 'Red Eagle' had collided with a number of yachts while departing Cowes.

Both incidents occurred in fog.... but that is not an excuse......

Both of these other incidents were discussed on the forums at the time.
They have led to the current restrictions on vessel movements in Cowes harbour in poor visibility https://www.cowesharbourcommission....estricted_Visibility_within_Cowes_Harbour.pdf

 

[dom]

I don't think there is any inherent reciprocity, quite the opposite. By definition there might only be one vessel around, rule 19 still applies to it.

We'll just have to disagree on this; for sure the Red Funnel crew did not have sight of the mobo at the critical moment, but to be embraced by Rule 19 one would have to extend areas of restricted visibility to include a moving area in the direction cast by every vessel's shadow.The 'up-sun' vessel could of course speed up once the 'down-sun' vessel was shielded by a cloud!

Rule 19 (a) This rule applies to vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility​

Seems that three weeks after running over 'Phoenix' - on 21st October - 'Red Falcon' collided with a number of moored yachts in Cowes...sinking one.

Two days before the 'Phoenix'......

Cowes Bumper Cars as they're known over here!

God forbid any of this rubs off on you lot driving VLCCs around our oceans

 

[ProMariner]

Enjoying the views of the spread here, keep them coming.

There are 2 sets of rules operating in the solent: 1. Colregs, Bylaws etc. 2. Guess what the numpty who doesn't know anything and has had a couple of beers is going to do.

Granted, in this situation the Red Funnel was 100% at fault, the watch keepers should have been bouncing about the wheelhouse with their eyes on stalks, keeping good 360 degree situational awareness going, in an area usually full of ruperts going in no particular direction. The Thorn channel is a confluence of 5 different passages, busy spot. Most of the ruperts have no idea the colgegs exist, therefore their reactions and routes will be unpredictable. The Red Funnel watch keepers know this, they have been around this corner many times, but complacency lead the watch keepers to stay in their comfy chairs, rather than walk around, check their blind spots, use their eyes, ears, brains. They are professionals in a busy environment, colregs aside, I would expect them to be proactive and engaged enough to miss EVERYTHING.

That said, the rupert was also 100% culpable, lack of knowledge, lack of equipment, lack of situational awareness on so many levels, he was an accident looking for a place to happen, it's just lucky for us sailors that he was the rabbit in this situation, and not the truck. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety. As a previous poster said, if don't notice a 1000 ton bright red 6 story car ferry full of car alarms bearing down on you at 13 knots, maybe the sea is not the place for you.

 

[davidlhill]

Enjoying the views of the spread here, keep them coming.

There are 2 sets of rules operating in the solent: 1. Colregs, Bylaws etc. 2. Guess what the numpty who doesn't know anything and has had a couple of beers is going to do.
..............
As a previous poster said, if don't notice a 1000 ton bright red 6 story car ferry full of car alarms bearing down on you at 13 knots, maybe the sea is not the place for you.

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, THE most sensible post in this thread. (Pretty sure the ProMariner meant to write "..see EVERYTHING."!!)

The solent (and other areas with large pleasure ports) is full of numpties that buy a boat, have minimal training (if any), and set off. Quoting colregs is pretty pointless!

 

[RichardS]

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, THE most sensible post in this thread. (Pretty sure the ProMariner meant to write "..see EVERYTHING."!!)

The solent (and other areas with large pleasure ports) is full of numpties that buy a boat, have minimal training (if any), and set off. Quoting colregs is pretty pointless!

The Skipper and crew of the ferry are, supposedly, trained professional mariners. ColRegs is fundamental to their very raison d'etre so quoting it is inescapable. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Enjoying the views of the spread here, keep them coming.

There are 2 sets of rules operating in the solent: 1. Colregs, Bylaws etc. 2. Guess what the numpty who doesn't know anything and has had a couple of beers is going to do.

Granted, in this situation the Red Funnel was 100% at fault, the watch keepers should have been bouncing about the wheelhouse with their eyes on stalks, keeping good 360 degree situational awareness going, in an area usually full of ruperts going in no particular direction. The Thorn channel is a confluence of 5 different passages, busy spot. Most of the ruperts have no idea the colgegs exist, therefore their reactions and routes will be unpredictable. The Red Funnel watch keepers know this, they have been around this corner many times, but complacency lead the watch keepers to stay in their comfy chairs, rather than walk around, check their blind spots, use their eyes, ears, brains. They are professionals in a busy environment, colregs aside, I would expect them to be proactive and engaged enough to miss EVERYTHING.

That said, the rupert was also 100% culpable, lack of knowledge, lack of equipment, lack of situational awareness on so many levels, he was an accident looking for a place to happen, it's just lucky for us sailors that he was the rabbit in this situation, and not the truck. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety. As a previous poster said, if don't notice a 1000 ton bright red 6 story car ferry full of car alarms bearing down on you at 13 knots, maybe the sea is not the place for you.

It's too easy to say that both Skippers were 100% to blame for their own mistakes as that much is self-evident. However, what is being sought here is proportionate blame and that is a much harder bar to cross. However, for someone with your username, it should be well within your capabilities.

Richard

 

[ProMariner]

Do you not find a blame culture gets in the way of learning, or progress? If the MAIB declines to apportion blame, but to find reasons, who are we to know better? Both vessels broke R5, ferry broke R13, mobo broke R17, this is irrelevant, a more important lesson is what the 2 concerned skippers learned, and would do differently, and how we may benefit as a result. The important thing is not who is right, but who is left.

A wise old tug man once told me, steam may give way to sail, but fibreglass gives way to steel. He didn't mean in court either, he meant more the rending, popping, banging, splintering, and screaming kind of way. The lawyers can decide the liability side, as sailors, our job is to bring our boats and crew home safely.

If you are ever looking up at the bows of a ship underway, you have already lost. It matters not whether that ship is overtaking you, or which side you were trying to cross it from - you loose - period. Blame is a construct, but dead crew is a reality. I have spent much time in the Thorn Channel, and whether there in a small plastic boat, or a big steel one, I don't think I ever sat down for long,

 

[Frank Holden]

Both of these other incidents were discussed on the forums at the time.
They have led to the current restrictions on vessel movements in Cowes harbour in poor visibility https://www.cowesharbourcommission....estricted_Visibility_within_Cowes_Harbour.pdf

Ah... I was 'off the grid' throughout Sept/Oct....

However, three prangs in such a short time suggests more than just a simple 'sun gets in my eyes' problem to me.....