MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[capnsensible]

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

Bingo, got it in one. The rest of it is white noise and wah wah. He could have been given phaser banks and photon torpedos but that would have made no difference to keeping a proper lookout, the dipstick.

I have seen it time and time again when teaching that people just dont look behind. Or around them in marinas, it only takes a moment!

 

[dom]

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

But where? Personally, I find crawling around behind a binnacle installation a right royal PITA, especially when offshore under AP sitting in the cockpit, or wherever. Also I like a MFD downstairs at the chart table for when say approaching a tricky port requiring the cross referencing of multiple publications without being drenched by a wave every couple of mins, or having the pages ripped out by the wind!

As you know I have a few 70s, a head for the AP backup system in the cockpit, and a MFD mounted on the cockpit bulkhead visible from pretty much anyone, inc. a crew member wishing to nav while somebody else helms. The MFD below is useful for watching depths and swinging patterns at anchor, keeping an eye on wind-speeds, approaching vessels, etc.

I guess people need to fit according to individual preferences, sailing areas, and boats?

 

[Angele]

Consider me confused.

Richard

Whilst I still maintain that all this is irrelevant (due to the fact that neither vessel noticed the other), let me try to clear the confusion.

The Red Falcon is not restricted to staying within the channel. It wanted to turn to port in order to take the most direct route to Cowes, but there was a yacht in the way, so it had to delay this action until the yacht had cleared its path. (One suspects the yacht may not have realised it was where the ferry wanted to go). It was then the ferry hit the mobo.

For the big oil tankers that go to the oil refinery, and for cruise ships and container ships going up to Southampton, the Thorn Channel is most definitely a narrow channel. For the Red Funnel vessels, it is not. They routinely stray outside.

They don't draw much, as evidenced by the fact that they can park on Shrape Mud.

 

[bedouin]

Consider me confused.

Richard

The culpability of the boat skipper does not depend on Rule 9, so whether it applied or not is irrelevant.

I believe it should, or at least that the boat skipper should have assumed it did, but it doesn't really affect by view of culpability as the local regs were more specific (e.g cross at right angles)

 

[RichardS]

Bingo, got it in one. The rest of it is white noise and wah wah. He could have been given phaser banks and photon torpedos but that would have made no difference to keeping a proper lookout, the dipstick.

It's a pity that the ferry skipper didn't also just look out of his bloody window or perhaps, just look at his bloody radar. Perhaps the white noise and wah wah is what fogged his radar? :encouragement:

Phaser banks and radar is a bit OTT .... but a £100 AIS would be sufficient.

Richard

 

[dom]

Whilst I still maintain that all this is irrelevant (due to the fact that neither vessel noticed the other), let me try to clear the confusion.

The Red Falcon is not restricted to staying within the channel....

...nor is it more than 150m, nor was it displaying a blackcylinder by day and three all round redlights in a vertical line at night as required by LNTM No. 3/2014 for applicable vessels.

Though, I absolutely fail to see why there is any confusion whatsoever here Perhaps the MAIB's hesitancy to make recommendations reflected a drafting disagreement on how to write a non-expletive laden version of something like this:

"Listen you waterborne idiots; look out of your God Damn windows, look around occasionally, and if you can't remember the Colregs, then at least revert to the Green Cross Code you learnt in primary school. Oh, and if the sun blinds you, pull the fekkin visor down, or put your hand in front of it [no the sun not the visor you muppets!]


​

 

[lenten]

i fished the solent day/night for 7 years in a slow fishing boat-----whilst its useful to know the colregs-----the best way to keep safe is to drive defensibly-----in this case when you are being overtaken by a larger faster vessel pull over a bit and give him more room then keep an eye on him until he safely passes you-----forget all the electronic gizmos----the number one rule for defensive driving is keeping yours eyes open and knowing whats going on all around you------whilst our colregs experts can argue % of blame ----i would say that he failed to keep a lookout and he failed to keep his family safe-----in that he was 100% to blame

 

[capnsensible]

It's a pity that the ferry skipper didn't also just look out of his bloody window or perhaps, just look at his bloody radar. Perhaps the white noise and wah wah is what fogged his radar? :encouragement:

Phaser banks and radar is a bit OTT .... but a £100 AIS would be sufficient.

Richard

If I wasnt extremely familiar with the area (which I am) and if I hadnt have taught hundreds of people to navigate in complete safety there (which I have) I would still say that unless there is very bad visibility (which I have been in there) then there is no need at all for AIS. An all round lookout is always, always gonna be the best. And if you are gonna cross a well known and completely obvious busy channel, take 27x more care at least.

If you are reading this whist wandering around with your smarty phone, please dont bump into anything!

 

[capnsensible]

"Listen you waterborne idiots; look out of your God Damn windows, look around occasionally, and if you can't remember the Colregs, then at least revert to the Green Cross Code you learnt in primary school. Oh, and if the sun blinds you, pull the fekkin visor down, or put your hand in front of it [no the sun not the visor you muppets!]

Yess!!!:encouragement::encouragement:


​

 

[capnsensible]

i fished the solent day/night for 7 years in a slow fishing boat-----whilst its useful to know the colregs-----the best way to keep you safe is to drive defensibly-----in this case when you are being overtaken by a larger faster vessel pull over a bit and give him more room then keep an eye on him until he safely passes you-----forget all the electronic gizmos----the number one rule for defensive driving is keeping yours eyes open and knowing whats going on all around you------whilst our colregs experts can argue % of blame ----i would say that he failed to keep a lookout and he failed to keep his family safe-----in that he was 100% to blame

Double bingo!!!

 

[Angele]

"Listen you waterborne idiots; look out of your God Damn windows, look around occasionally, and if you can't remember the Colregs, then at least revert to the Green Cross Code you learnt in primary school. Oh, and if the sun blinds you, pull the fekkin visor down, or put your hand in front of it [no the sun not the visor you muppets!]

:encouragement:

 

[Elessar]

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

I regularly witness them operating outside the channel and therefore I know not.

Edit 2.7m draft fully loaded. Less than a sporty 40fter. Is it a narrow channel for 40 ft yachts? I think not.

 

[RichardS]

If I wasnt extremely familiar with the area (which I am) and if I hadnt have taught hundreds of people to navigate in complete safety there (which I have) I would still say that unless there is very bad visibility (which I have been in there) then there is no need at all for AIS.

But I'm only repeating what the MAIB are saying. If you don't agree then best take it up with them. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[RichardS]

i fished the solent day/night for 7 years in a slow fishing boat-----whilst its useful to know the colregs-----the best way to keep safe is to drive defensibly-----in this case when you are being overtaken by a larger faster vessel pull over a bit and give him more room then keep an eye on him until he safely passes you-----forget all the electronic gizmos----the number one rule for defensive driving is keeping yours eyes open and knowing whats going on all around you------whilst our colregs experts can argue % of blame ----i would say that he failed to keep a lookout and he failed to keep his family safe-----in that he was 100% to blame

Indeed, the mobo skipper is 100% responsible for the mistakes that he made .... but that's a different metric.

As for the electronic gizmos ... you need to blame the MAIB for throwing that one into the mix.

Richard

 

[dom]

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

I see the confusion here, they do indeed routinely navigate outside the channels, not safely mind as they tend hit lots of things. But then they also do that in deeper water. Tricky one this!

 

[capnsensible]

But I'm only repeating what the MAIB are saying. If you don't agree then best take it up with them. :encouragement:

Richard

Why on earth would I do that? It doesnt matter at all as long as you keep a good lookout. Especially behind you....

 

[RichardS]

Why on earth would I do that? It doesnt matter at all as long as you keep a good lookout. Especially behind you....

Personally, I reckon that it's a much better, and longer-life-preserving, tactic to keep a good lookout especially on what's ahead of you .... rather than what's behind.

The Ferry skipper had obviously been on one of your courses.

Richard

 

[capnsensible]

 

[Mark-1]

I'll check Cockcroft & Lameijer tonight, if I remember.

Cockcroft and Lameijer (rather an elderly copy now) tell us this:

"The term ‘narrow channel’ is not easily defined. In deciding whether a particular stretch of water is or is not a narrow channel the Courts take into account the evidence as to the way in which seamen usually navigate the locality and the advice given by the Elder Brethren. A narrow channel need not be of any particular length and does not necessarily terminate at the last of the buoys or objects marking the channel. The narrow channel rule has been held to apply to the passage between two piers and to 100 metres (yards) outwards beyond the objects marking a harbour entrance. It was held not to apply to a recommended route between two buoys where vessels could have gone outside them in safety. Passages approximately 2 miles wide have sometimes been considered narrow channels. In considering the passage between Duncansby Head and the Skerries in the Pentland Firth (Anna Salen-Thorshovdi, 1954) Mr Justice Willmer said: For myself, I certainly see difficulties in applying the ‘narrow channel’ rule to a passage which is nearly four miles wide. I should hardly have thought that ‘narrow’ was the word to use for this passage, for it is not a particularly narrow passage. In the Faith I-Zndependence (US Court, 1992) the passage between buoys at the entrance to Delaware Bay, approximately 1.2 miles wide, was held not to be a narrow channel but it was held that good seamanship and prudent navigation require that every vessel keep to starboard if safe and practicable. Rule 9 will apply to any narrow channel connected with the high seas which is navigable by seagoing vessels unless there is an inconsistent local rule. It does not apply to lanes of traffic separation schemes although such lanes may be relatively narrow."

The bit I've bolded seems to support both sides of the argument.

 

[Uricanejack]

The MAIB don’t care who is to blame and do not apportion blame.
I haven’t even read the report yet. Still.
A Ferry overtaking a dumb ass in a boat.
The ferry hasn’t got a leg to stand on and four out of five fingers will be pointing backwards.