MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[Elessar]

The MoBo owner had 17 years experience sailing Lake Solent; he did not hold any marine or boating qualifications and had no knowledge of local regulations and guidance. He also had 2 pints of beer with his pub lunch.

He left Hamble, crossed the channel towards the west, then was crossing it again at a very acute angle heading south(ish) towards Cowes. Then bang. (Figure 8).

I'm sure the Daily Mail will love this one. Mandatory qualifications and mandatory drink driving laws.

you forgot to say if he was wearing a lifejacket.

 

[Elessar]

a) IMHO it is certainly a narrow channel
b) The ABP guidance would apply either way.

I am prepared to go up to 60% Phoenix but that is my limit

It is no more a narrow channel for a ferry than it is for a small yacht. It is not a narrow channel in the context of this collision.

 

[Sandy]

VHF would have made no difference whatsoever.

The Phoenix skipper was not looking around in all directions anyway so an AIS would have not affected that. However, the bleeping/flashing from his AIS receiver would probably have attracted his attention saved the day.

Some of my daily work is around the IT/human interface and I don't think that AIS would have saved the day. Another beep, that is not going to grab your attention, but the radio crackling into life and saying your vessels name REALLY does, we were passing Lulworth Range when the Range Safety Boat called us by name (OK we transmit on AIS) but that had the entire crew alert in eight nano seconds. A pleasant request to go at least three miles offshore so we did not get shot was quickly responded to!

I wonder if the ferry had time for five blasts?

From time to time I crew on a vessel on the Solent and a) am always amazed at how busy it is and b) the size of the ships.

 

[RichardS]

Referring to any of the COLREGS rules apart from Rule 5 (and possibly 6) is pretty pointless if neither has seen the other.

You should be quoting Bedouin rather than me as Rule 9 is his baby.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Some of my daily work is around the IT/human interface and I don't think that AIS would have saved the day. Another beep, that is not going to grab your attention, but the radio crackling into life and saying your vessels name REALLY does, we were passing Lulworth Range when the Range Safety Boat called us by name (OK we transmit on AIS) but that had the entire crew alert in eight nano seconds. A pleasant request to go at least three miles offshore so we did not get shot was quickly responded to!

I wonder if the ferry had time for five blasts?

I'm not sure how that is relevant.

The ferry had not seen the mobo and knew nothing about the accident until later so VHF could not have been used by either vessel as neither vessel saw the other until it was all over.

In the circumstances of the incident, AIS might have been the best chance for both vessels, ideally a transceiver as suggested in the report, although I think that would be a non-starter for the mobo.

Richard

 

[Angele]

You should be quoting Bedouin rather than me as Rule 9 is his baby.

Richard

... Maybe I should be quoting both of you, since you both seem to think that any COLREG rule (apart from 5 and 6) is relevant. But it is you who is laying far more blame on one party than the other (post 11) by an implied reference to Rule 13.

Both failed in their obligations under rule 5. Because of that, the starting point for allocation of blame would normally be 50/50.

 

[RichardS]

... Maybe I should be quoting both of you, since you both seem to think that any COLREG rule (apart from 5 and 6) is relevant. But it is you who is laying far more blame on one party than the other (post 11) by an implied reference to Rule 13.

Both failed in their obligations under rule 5. Because of that, the starting point for allocation of blame would normally be 50/50.

So are you joining Bedouin and going for 50:50 ..... or is that just the starting point rather than the finishing point 'cos it's the finishing point I'm interested in.

What is surprising is that so few are actually prepared to commit to a decision as to whether it's equal blame or more blame on the ferry. To me, it's so clear that the ferry is mostly to blame that I'm somewhat nonplussed that others are being so hard on the mobo skipper. Perhaps it a lifetime of professionally apportioning blame which makes me very comfortable with the concept.

Richard

 

[dom]

... Maybe I should be quoting both of you, since you both seem to think that any COLREG rule (apart from 5 and 6) is relevant. But it is you who is laying far more blame on one party than the other (post 11) by an implied reference to Rule 13.

Both failed in their obligations under rule 5. Because of that, the starting point for allocation of blame would normally be 50/50.

Agreed; MAIB is clear about the Rule 5 transgression:

"No action to avoid collision was taken on board either Red Falcon or Phoenix because the ferry’smaster and chief officer did not see the motor cruiser closing on the starboard bow, and the driverand passengers on board Phoenix did not see the ferry approaching on the motor cruiser’s portquarter."

​

And having completed its investigation made no recommendations in light of the fact that 'Red Funnel' had already completed its own investigation. Moreover, even Red Funnel refer to Radar Displays and not AIS in relation to its own working practices:

• "Completed its own investigation report, which made recommendations connected with bridgemanning, bridge watchkeeping procedures, the use of window blinds and the positioning of radardisplays, which are intended to improve navigational watchkeeping practices.
  
• Issued a circular to all staff warning of the dangers of repetitive tasks and a fleet-wide letterregarding the conduct of navigation."

 

[Angele]

So are you joining Bedouin and going for 50:50 ..... or is that just the starting point rather than the finishing point 'cos it's the finishing point I'm interested in.

What is surprising is that so few are actually prepared to commit to a decision as to whether it's equal blame or more blame on the ferry. To me, it's so clear that the ferry is mostly to blame that I'm somewhat nonplussed that others are being so hard on the mobo skipper. Perhaps it a lifetime of professionally apportioning blame which makes me very comfortable with the concept.

Richard

“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 shall be the prevention of future accidents through the ascertainment of its causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an such investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame.”

They don't, and nor shall I.

 

[Joker]

50:50.

Though I did love this:
"However, although such guidance is readily available on ABP’s website, and is disseminated through various sailing and boating clubs, the actions of Phoenix’s owner indicates there are recreational boaters in the Solent that the guidance has yet to reach."

 

[RichardS]

They don't, and nor shall I.

I'm fully aware that the MAIB don't .... but that doesn't mean that we can't.

Richard

 

[CLB]

AIS might have been the best chance for both vessels, ideally a transceiver as suggested in the report, although I think that would be a non-starter for the mobo.

Richard

Why would it be a non-starter? I have a boat, almost identical in terms of style and size to the mobo in this incident and I have a transceiver. They are only a few hundred quid now, so not really out of the realms of someone owning a boat worth tens of thousands.

BTW I think the Ferry skip should take a larger portion of the blame, but I put it at about 70:30.

 

[Angele]

I'm fully aware that the MAIB don't .... but that doesn't mean that we can't.

Richard

Agreed. We can if we want to. It is just that I don't feel the need to point the finger at anyone. I enjoy reading MAIB reports, but not to come to a view as to whose fault it is, but rather as a learning experience and to understand whether there are things I could do to make my own boating safer.

And I think there are lots of things that can be learned from this one. Keeping a look out at all times and in all directions for starters. Looking both ways before crossing the road. But also, being aware of new risks if you are outside of your normal operating environment - I suspect the skipper of Phoenix had not appreciated the risk of being taken from behind if moving much slower than he would do normally.

Then there are the issues on the bridge of the Red Falcon. Not using all available means to keep an effective look out. Focussing on a single potential collision risk so as to blot out other things going on around you. Not paying greater attention to blind spots. Etc.

Then there are the issues around gizmos. Listening into VTS, the potential benefits of AIS even when you don't think it is necessary.

All useful learning points for me.

 

[dom]

It's an interesting philosophical question with conflicting legal interpretations: two boats, both breaking Rule 5 (lookout), accidentally clonk into each other.

Does one apportion blame 50:50 right there, or does one try and analyse the dynamics of the ensuing collision to guide a decision based upon rule(s) inadvertently infringed by the two vessels as they blindly navigating a busy waterway?

Rule 2(a) does, however give us a clue as to how to proceed:

"Nothing in these rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these rules or of the neglect of any precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

​

Does anybody know if there is any definitive case law here? I can certainly think of incidents where there are references in the obiter dicta, but in terms of ratio?

 

[Mark-1]

It is not a narrow channel in the context of this collision.

a) IMHO it is certainly a narrow channel

Does rule 9 define Narrow channels? Or do the IRPCS define Narrow channels elsewhere? I'm not sure they do. In which case we can't tell - unless Cockcroft & Lameijer has some case history. Anyone have it to hand?

 

[CLB]

It's an interesting philosophical question with conflicting legal interpretations: two boats, both breaking Rule 5 (lookout), accidentally clonk into each other.

Does one say 50:50 right there, or does one try and analyse the dynamics of the collision to guide or decision a on the Rule(s) inadvertently infringed by the two vessels blindly navigating a busy waterway?

I think 50:50 is a good starting point based on neither keeping a proper lookout, but then you bring in 'who should have given way to who' and the Ferry suddenly becomes more culpable imho

 

[Mark-1]

I think 50:50 is a good starting point based on neither keeping a proper lookout, but then you bring in 'who should have given way to who' and the Ferry suddenly becomes more culpable imho

Is that relevent in terms of moral blame - you can't give way to someone you haven't seen so the root cause is still lack of proper lookout.

 

[CLB]

Does rule 9 define Narrow channels? Or do the IRPCS define Narrow channels elsewhere? I'm not sure they do. In which case we can't tell - unless Cockcroft & Lameijer has some case history. Anyone have it to hand?

Narrow channel or not, looking at where the collision appears to have taken place (fig 6 in the report) there is plenty of channel to the ferry's starboard side to allow it to go behind the MoBo. This would have also put the ferry on the correct side of the Channel, rather than in the middle of it.

 

[RupertW]

I think 50:50 is a good starting point based on neither keeping a proper lookout, but then you bring in 'who should have given way to who' and the Ferry suddenly becomes more culpable imho

That sounds right to me. Discussing who should have given way in a situation when neither saw the other is missing the main point. I look at these partly to see what I do (or could do) differently to avoid another vessels mistake harming me. And keeping a look out all round is a long learnt lesson beating VHF, AIS and even knowledge of COLREGs in this case.

 

[Angele]

Is that relevent in terms of moral blame - you can't give way to someone you haven't seen so the root cause is still lack of proper lookout.

+100. :encouragement: