MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[RichardS]

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.

I only suggest that a transceiver is probably a non-starter in this particular case because of the likely attitude of the skipper. He has no VHF, therefore no DSC, therefore no MMSI, therefore no way of activating the transceiver unless he applies for an MMSI and he just doesn't seem like that kind of guy. However, an AIS receiver is cheap, easy to connect up, and needs no MMSI so there's perhaps more of a chance that he would take the plunge.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

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.

But surely you then have to make a judgement as to the severity of the impact on others of not keeping a lookout. One way to assess that might be to think about the other ColRegs rules which were broken because of the failure to keep a proper lookout.

Another way would be to say that if the mobo skipper fails to keep a lookout, he is putting himself in as much danger as anyone else,, if not more, whereas if the ferry skipper fails to keep a proper lookout then there is probably very little chance that there is any risk to his own health or life but he could easily kill or maim many others.

I suggest that this imbalance puts a lot more moral pressure on the ferry skipper.

Richard

 

[dom]

I only suggest that a transceiver is probably a non-starter in this particular case because of the likely attitude of the skipper. He has no VHF, therefore no DSC, therefore no MMSI, therefore no way of activating the transceiver unless he applies for an MMSI and he just doesn't seem like that kind of guy. However, an AIS receiver is cheap, easy to connect up, and needs no MMSI so there's perhaps more of a chance that he would take the plunge.

Richard

He could also just look out of his bloody window and take the odd glance over his shoulder

 

[RichardS]

He could also just look out of his bloody window and take the odd glance over his shoulder

And so could the ferry skipper .... and he's driving a 4000 tonne killing machine.

Richard

 

[chrishscorp]

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.

You beat me to it Angele.

As OP I posted the link because these incidents and there investigations can be a great tool for learning from, not so we can point fingers or apportion blame.

I will have to mull over the benefits of fitting AIS to our yacht, I have also today learnt that a 14 year old 30 foot power cruiser may not be listening on CH16 because its not even fitted with a VHF set !!, even though i would consider that to be a pretty newish boat and presumably reasonably well kitted :ambivalence:

 

[bedouin]

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?

No - rule 9 does not define narrow channels (deliberately) and the definition will vary with the characteristics of the vessel involved.

In this case there certainly IS a narrow channel - Thorne Channel is pretty narrow and some very large ships come down there, so there is no doubt of the duty of the skipper of Phoenix to be aware and take precautions when crossing the channel. The course of Phoenix certainly contravened rule 9.

Whar Elessar contests is whether the Ferry "can only navigate safely within the channel", he says not

 

[RichardS]

No - rule 9 does not define narrow channels (deliberately) and the definition will vary with the characteristics of the vessel involved.

In this case there certainly IS a narrow channel - Thorne Channel is pretty narrow and some very large ships come down there, so there is no doubt of the duty of the skipper of Phoenix to be aware and take precautions when crossing the channel. The course of Phoenix certainly contravened rule 9.

Whar Elessar contests is whether the Ferry "can only navigate safely within the channel", he says not

Can it be a "narrow channel", by definition, if it is not buoyed?

Of course, just because something is buoyed, it does not make it a channel.

Richard

 

[CLB]

A channel might be narrow to one boat, but not to another. It is certainly not a narrow channel for a boat that can safely navigate outside of it, imho

A similar ferry going into Lymington is definitely in a narrow channel, once past Jack in the Basket, but in this case I think it less likely to apply.

 

[bedouin]

Can it be a "narrow channel", by definition, if it is not buoyed?

Richard

Yes it can - but anyway Thorne Channel certainly is buoyed

 

[dom]

And so could the ferry skipper .... and he's driving a 4000 tonne killing machine.

Richard

Mobo skipper also driving a killing machine from the perspective of a kid sailing a small dinghy, kayaker, etc.

Both were culpable morally, I'd say 50:50, but the insurers will no doubt have had the relevant case law to hand. Both skippers were lucky to get away with no serious injuries inflicted/received.

Aside from the lookout question, it is also worth noting that breathalyzing both skippers is now standard practice following an incident. Being intoxicated could have an unknown bearing on an ultimate decision even where the ferry was for example blatantly in the wrong.

 

[RichardS]

Yes it can - but anyway Thorne Channel certainly is buoyed

Does the MAIB report assess it as a "narrow channel"? I would be inclined to accept their opinion.

Richard

 

[Mark-1]

No - rule 9 does not define narrow channels (deliberately)

Yet another thing the IRPCS deliberately fails to define. I can imagine them chuckling to themselves and thinking "This'll generate a nice long thread once they invent the internet!". (Yes, I know...)

Mobo skipper also driving a killing machine from the perspective of a kid sailing a small dinghy, kayaker, etc.

+1, you could argue the highly visible nature of the ferry makes it easier to avoid and therefore less dangerous to others than the powerboat. You can argue 'dangerousness to others' either way, it's not a useful measure of culpability in this case.

 

[Mark-1]

Does the MAIB report assess it as a "narrow channel"? I would be inclined to accept their opinion.

Richard

I'll check Cockcroft & Lameijer tonight, if I remember. Rules shouldn't be like this. "Are we in a narrow channel, dear?" "I'm not sure, I'll go home check a reference book, then I'll read every maritime court case in history...."

 

[bedouin]

Does the MAIB report assess it as a "narrow channel"? I would be inclined to accept their opinion.

Richard

I don't think it is relevant in this case. The report focusses on not keeping a look out - and not knowing the rules.

 

[flaming]

The ferries don't stay in the channel, you frequently encounter them between west knoll and West Bramble for example. So I don't think the narrow channel regulations would apply in this incident as they are clearly not restricted to the channel.

However... Probably worth pointing out that it's only because the ship that hit them was a red funnel ferry, and not (for example) a big orange tanker that this is the case...

Setting off into that channel from the shallow area around Calshot spit without looking to see if there was anything in the channel is an interesting way of discharging your duties as a skipper.

I thought the key part of the report was when it stated that he was only doing 6-8 knots because of a nervous passenger. Clearly normally he'd have been going a lot faster, so it's more than probable that he id simply not used to things overtaking him... Any yacht sailor who has 17 years of experience in the Solent is going to be much more aware of big stuff coming up behind them, because it will have happened on multiple occasions.

 

[prv]

No motor cruiser would have it at the chart table. Why yachts ever do mystifys me.

I find it a bit silly but not mystifying

It's just old habits being continued with new technology. When we all navigated with pencils and paper it made good practical sense to do it on a solid table in a dry, protected cabin. When plotters first appeared, being a navigation tool, it obviously made sense to many to put them in the place where you do the navigation. Even though the reason you were doing navigation in your living room in the first place, instead of on the "bridge" near the helm with a good view, no longer applied.

Pete

 

[Angele]

The ferries don't stay in the channel, you frequently encounter them between west knoll and West Bramble for example. So I don't think the narrow channel regulations would apply in this incident as they are clearly not restricted to the channel.

Although it could have been written with more clarity in the report, I think that is exactly what they were trying to do. They were in the channel, wanting to turn left onto 180 to go between North Thorn and Thorn Knoll SHMs and hence pass close to West Knoll. But the yacht was in the way, so their entire attention was drawn to that.

 

[flaming]

Although it could have been written with more clarity in the report, I think that is exactly what they were trying to do. They were in the channel, wanting to turn left onto 180 to go between North Thorn and Thorn Knoll SHMs and hence pass close to West Knoll.

That would be a normal track for the red funnel in my experience.

Here's the track for Red Falcon today. The Red dot to the west of the track is West Bramble, the Blue dot to the east is the Bramble post.

 

[Angele]

I find it a bit silly but not mystifying

It's just old habits being continued with new technology. When we all navigated with pencils and paper it made good practical sense to do it on a solid table in a dry, protected cabin. When plotters first appeared, being a navigation tool, it obviously made sense to many to put them in the place where you do the navigation. Even though the reason you were doing navigation in your living room in the first place, instead of on the "bridge" near the helm with a good view, no longer applied.

Pete

.... plus you can put the kettle on at the same time.

 

[RichardS]

The ferry had very limited options for manoeuvre owing to all the small boats - especially the sailing boat on his port bow.

The correct behaviour for the motor boat was to give the ferry sufficient room to maneouvre - Rule 9 should apply.

Does the MAIB report assess it as a "narrow channel"? I would be inclined to accept their opinion.

Richard

I don't think it is relevant in this case.

Consider me confused.

Richard