MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[prv]

There is nothing in the MAIB report to suggest that the skipper of Phoenix would have known what it meant.

I'm sure he wouldn't, but the noise might have caused him to look in that direction and notice the 1000 tonnes of red-painted steel festooned with wailing car alarms

Still, I can't see that five blasts would have been appropriate. There wasn't any risk of collision with the yacht, the ferry was just waiting for it to go past before starting its turn. That's just normal navigation for them; if it warranted five blasts then the things would be sounding off constantly for much of the year.

Pete

 

[Skylark]

Despite sailing in the Solent for thirty years I am not aware of having ever seen this leaflet. The advice (instruction?) about crossing "ship channels" at right angles worries me. How many of us actually do that? For example when careful lookout shows there are not any ships around?

I’m fairly new to The Solent so the first thing I did was to look over the charts, read the relevant sections of the Almanac and Pilot Books and check both VTS and QHM website sections for recreational users. There are a number of potential hazards around this stretch of water and it helps my situation awareness to have read a little about them. I’ve written on these forums before, in 20+years sailing around North Wales, I’ve never heard 5 blasts. Within the Solent, it will be heard almot every weekend.

Both vessels had culpability as they did not keep a proper lookout to avoid the collision. To assign percentage blame seems futile to all except ambulance chasing, parasite lawyers. Having read the report, the Mobo owner does not bathe himself in glory, that’s for sure.

 

[VicS]

I’m fairly new to The Solent so the first thing I did was to look over the charts, read the relevant sections of the Almanac and Pilot Books and check both VTS and QHM website sections for recreational users. There are a number of potential hazards around this stretch of water and it helps my situation awareness to have read a little about them. I’ve written on these forums before, in 20+years sailing around North Wales, I’ve never heard 5 blasts. Within the Solent, it will be heard almot every weekend.

Both vessels had culpability as they did not keep a proper lookout to avoid the collision. To assign percentage blame seems futile to all except ambulance chasing, parasite lawyers. Having read the report, the Mobo owner does not bathe himself in glory, that’s for sure.

IMO sailing into a shipping channel in front of a ferry outside a busy port like Southampton without looking 360 is about as dumb as blindingly stepping off the kerb in a busy London street in front of a bus!

He could equally well have sailed into the path of a 200,000 ton container ship... then there would not have been any discussions about who was in the right or wrong.

 

[RichardS]

IMO sailing into a shipping channel in front of a ferry outside a busy port like Southampton without looking 360 is about as dumb as blindingly stepping off the kerb in a busy London street in front of a bus!

If one steps off the pavement on a busy street in front of a bus, you are the give way vessel and the bus is the stand on/right of way vessel.

In this case, the small mobo was the stand on/right of way vessel and the ferry was the give way vessel.

I would say totally opposite situations.

Richard

 

[bedouin]

If one steps off the pavement on a busy street in front of a bus, you are the give way vessel and the bus is the stand on/right of way vessel.

In this case, the small mobo was the stand on/right of way vessel and the ferry was the give way vessel.

I would say totally opposite situations.

Richard

The concepts of stand on and give way only apply to vessels in sight of each other.

In this case it has been proved that that was not the case

 

[RichardS]

The concepts of stand on and give way only apply to vessels in sight of each other.

In this case it has been proved that that was not the case

Good try ... but not correct.

In conditions of good visibility, the mobo is stand on and the ferry is give way.

That's it. :encouragement:

Richard

 

[bedouin]

Good try ... but not correct.

In conditions of good visibility, the mobo is stand on and the ferry is give way.

That's it. :encouragement:

Richard

In real life things are never that simple.

a) According to the local conventions the mobo should not have been there at all.
b) The ferry was restrcited in his ability to change course owing to the yacht on his port bow.

The seamanlike actions by the Mobo would have been to cross the channel at right angles and pass behind the ferry.

 

[chrishscorp]

Good try ... but not correct.

In conditions of good visibility, the mobo is stand on and the ferry is give way.

That's it. :encouragement:

Richard

Might I ask Skipper, Have you ever sailed lake Solent on a busy sunny summers saturday ?

 

[Elessar]

In real life things are never that simple.

a) According to the local conventions the mobo should not have been there at all.
b) The ferry was restrcited in his ability to change course owing to the yacht on his port bow.

The seamanlike actions by the Mobo would have been to cross the channel at right angles and pass behind the ferry.

Seamanlike yes. But that didn't make it predominantly his fault.

I spend as little time as possible in the Thorn channel and stay outside the marker buoys for all the deep water channel as much as possible, including in Southampton water which is 1 way traffic for deep draft vessels.

However I depute your "local conventions" point. Many if not most small craft, power and sail, seem oblivious to the fact that if you stay in the shallow bits you can only be hit by a ferry and not a big ship, and they dutifully and routinely sail between the port and starboard laterals. Red left green right, right? Then motor gives way to sail and might is right. That's my colregs learned..........

 

[RichardS]

Might I ask Skipper, Have you ever sailed lake Solent on a busy sunny summers saturday ?

I'm just stating the ColRegs as applicable at this location.

If one sailing vessel impacting the preferred route of the ferry is classed a a "busy summer Saturday" in the Solent, I suggest that you avoid sailing near Split when the Jadrolinijas come through. Some of those guys have never heard of ColRegs or AIS, the problem being that you don't know which ones have the "knowledge" and which don't. :ambivalence:

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Seamanlike yes. But that didn't make it predominantly his fault.

I totally agree.

A few have gone for 50:50 and a smaller number for circa 75 ferry : 25 mobo and I think those two options reflect two fair decision points. However, most will simply not commit and others almost seem to be suggesting that the mobo is more at fault.

I've been deciding issues like this all my professional life with real-life consequences for the guy on the "wrong" side so a forum "verdict" is no sweat.

Richard

 

[VicS]

If one steps off the pavement on a busy street in front of a bus, you are the give way vessel and the bus is the stand on/right of way vessel.

In this case, the small mobo was the stand on/right of way vessel and the ferry was the give way vessel.

I would say totally opposite situations.

Richard

You edit the quote and twist what I say to mean something different ............. as you so frequently do!

Forget the bit about Londoon buses.

IMO the owner of Phoenix was pretty dumb to drive into a shipping cahnel down which a 200,000 ton container ship, a big oil takner or a big Cruise liner could have been coming. He would not have known!, but they would definitely have hade the "right of way" .

Its clear you think that just bindly sailing into a potential danger like this on the basis of the colregs paragragh whatever it is is perfectly noramal , sensible and acceptable

 

[RichardS]

IMO sailing into a shipping channel in front of a ferry outside a busy port like Southampton without looking 360 is about as dumb as blindingly stepping off the kerb in a busy London street in front of a bus!

If one steps off the pavement on a busy street in front of a bus ......

You edit the quote and twist what I say to mean something different ............. as you so frequently do!

Errrrrr ..... perhaps run that one by me again Vic.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Its clear you think that just bindly sailing into a potential danger like this on the basis of the colregs paragragh whatever it is is perfectly noramal , sensible and acceptable

It's also clear that talking about an accident that didn't happen is not going to get us very far.

Is there something about apportionment of blame that you don't understand?

Richard

 

[PilotWolf]

Perhalps not. I am just an old fart behind a computer screen with an opinion on the Internet.
Based only upon having read the MAIB report and come to my own conclusions from the limited information in the report.

Apperntly I have touched a nerve by referring to the 2 man bridge team as minimum compliance.
Which you are free to disagree with.
My opinion there was no dedicated lookout.

Is a 2 man Bridge team sufficient? Many vessels operate with a single person on watch. Depending upon where they are.

Forget the sise of the bridge team. I will stipulate a 2 man bridge team should be perfectly capable of keeping an effective look out on a vessel of this sise with a 360 view from the bridge. Even in the Solent which I have heard is often quite busy.

Look at the photo graph of the Bridge.
Where is the radar?
Where is the ECS?
Where is the Chief Officer? At the control consol steering.
Where is the Master? Sat on his ass on the far side of the bridge from the radar.
Who had the conduct?

Given the information in the report. Do you believe they were keeping an effective look out. To the standards you would normally expect? Of a professional bridge team?
I don’t. Far from it.

The hazards associated with small vessels who may or may not know the rules, further emphasize how far bellow generally expected standards they were.

So the little guy made some errors. He didn’t know any better. The two on the bridge of the ferry should have known better. If they knew better they should have acted better.

I think we're actually in some sort of agreement!

Personally I don't think 2 people is enough. Our mono hulls operate with 1.

Bad design or poorly located equipment is common on many vessels, especially if it after market additions.j

W.

 

[capnsensible]

I've been deciding issues like this all my professional life with real-life consequences

Richard

Thats brilliant and a great big thank you. If it wasnt for the REMF's keeping things overseen properly, then us Guys and Girls in the Front Line would be, ahem, adrift.

:encouragement:

 

[Tomahawk]

I'm sure he wouldn't, but the noise might have caused him to look in that direction and notice the 1000 tonnes of red-painted steel festooned with wailing car alarms

Still, I can't see that five blasts would have been appropriate. There wasn't any risk of collision with the yacht, the ferry was just waiting for it to go past before starting its turn. That's just normal navigation for them; if it warranted five blasts then the things would be sounding off constantly for much of the year.

Pete

From my reading... the bridge were looking at the yacht because they were unsure of what the yacht was about to do... hence "I am unsure about your intentions and concerned there is a risk of a collision" ...

Of course I could be wrong?

 

[RichardS]

Thats brilliant and a great big thank you. If it wasnt for the REMF's keeping things overseen properly, then us Guys and Girls in the Front Line would be, ahem, adrift.

:encouragement:

My pleasure.

Richard

 

[Simondjuk]

I find it concerning how many people consider AIS a fundamental collision avoidance tool in the Solent, in daylight and good viz, on a busy summer Saturday afternoon?

There are too many vessels and watercraft, large numbers of the fastest, most manoeuvrable and least predictable of which are neither receiving or transmitting AIS, the courses and speeds of all vessels are too prone to abrupt and significant change, and the situation too dynamic for devices which present only a partial representation of that complex dynamic to be of value.

It's a head up, eyes out environment.

 

[Dockhead]

One would be in his general line of vision, the other isn't.

But I'm most interested in the split of responsibility. So far we have votes for 80:20 and 50:50 so let's have some more indicative voting, please.

Richard

50:50 -- clearly.

Neither vessel saw the other. Neither vessel took ANY action. Cut and dried.

And yes, AIS on the Phoenix would have prevented the accident. The Red Falcon couldn't see the mobo because of the sun. TThose guys have had a few foibles in recent years, but they have vast experience dodging all kinds of erratically maneuvering and clueless WAFI's -- they encounter hundreds of vessels on the average day, and they do it day in and day out. If Phoenix had appeared on their screen, they would have done what they do hundreds of times a day, and just dodged him. But Phoenix was coming out of the sun, and they just missed him. One time out of tens of thousands of collision risk situations they encounter on that run over the years.

As to Phoenix -- the guy maneuvered into the shipping channel without even glancing over his shoulder to see whether any traffic was coming down. No sun obscured his view; he just didn't look at all. He was worse than clueless, but that's no excuse for the Red Falcon, which also needed to see and respond.

As to the significance of the Phoenix being stand-on -- those who think this is important should read some collision cases. Someone even used the word "right of way" -- there is no right of way at sea -- being a stand-on vessel in a crossing is very different from having right of way on land.

Being stand-on means doesn't mean that you have some right to blithely carry on and rely on other vessels dealing with collision avoidance (as having right of way does, to a great extent, on a road). Being stand on means that having properly detected the risk of collision (by having kept a proper watch as you are obligated to do), you give the give-way vessel a chance to maneuver first. Standing-on is an obligation, not a privilege. If the give-way vessels fails to maneuver, and the reason why is irrelevant, it becomes your turn and your obligation to manuever yourself and prevent the collision. So having failed to keep a proper watch, having failed to detect the risk of collision, and having then failed to maneuver yourself as you are obligated to do, the fact that at some point you might otherwise have been the stand-on vessel is irrelevant. Any court would call this 50:50.