MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[Frank Holden]

I recall a UK case in the last year or two... on the Humber?.... where one party was held to a higher level of blame because he had professional qualification.

In this one I would suggest 70/30 or thereabouts.... there is no obligation under UK law for the mobo driver to have a clue... and he was the missee....

 

[Tomahawk]

I wish my hands weren't so tied by keeping my job and/or getting future jobs as I have so many things I want to say...

PW

Does anyone.... who counts as regards your working situation know your real identity?

 

[PilotWolf]

Does anyone.... who counts as regards your working situation know your real identity?

Possibly and I dont want to take the risk.

W.

 

[Uricanejack]

The employment risks of posting on the internet are real. But rare.

Just Avoid posting anything directly critical of your employer. Or inside information. Which is not public.
Most cases I have heard off. Someone has posted something which could be regarded as a form of harassment.
Other than harassment. Most employers aren't going to worry much about what a minion posts.
A Negative comment about the company posted by a manager might not be a good career move.

I cant see expressing an opinion about a public document like a MAIB report being a problem. Or a general comment about recreational boats. Certification requirements or lack of. Being a problem.

Posting about a particular incident identifying an employer would probably not be a good idea.
Posting a comment about the NTSB report would be ok. Just avoid comments not in the report.

 

[Tomahawk]

Separate to much other comments, how would this have ended up if the mobo had been a small sailing dngy? Or if someone had been knocked off the mobo during the colission?

 

[CLB]

Separate to much other comments, how would this have ended up if the mobo had been a small sailing dngy? Or if someone had been knocked off the mobo during the colission?

I did ponder about the relative speed of the boat hit. Had it been a sailing boat or displacement mobo, he may well have seen the ferry two minutes earlier on a rather different heading and decided to cross, then he may even have seen it again just prior to the impact but would have had little chance of getting out of the way. I think the fact that the ferry was on a very different heading and reasonably far away only 120 seconds before impact may well have something to do with the result. This is not an excuse for the mobo skipper, constant lookout is required, but I think the speed of events may have taken him rather by surprise considering he was used to going faster himself where boats take an age to catch up and overtake, if they do at all.

 

[prv]

I think the fact that the ferry was on a very different heading and reasonably far away only 120 seconds before impact may well have something to do with the result.

Afraid I haven't re-read the report to identify the heading change you're talking about, but presumably this is the ferry turning somewhere east or southeast of the Calshot buoy to go from heading down Southampton Water to heading towards Cowes? If so, I hardly think someone who's been skippering a boat in the Solent for 17 years is entitled to be surprised by it.

Pete

 

[Resolution]

Separate to much other comments, how would this have ended up if the mobo had been a small sailing dingy? Or if someone had been knocked off the mobo during the colission?

Presumably you mean if someone had been hurt or killed in the incident? So not just a relatively toothless MAIB report but a manslaughter charge in the background?

 

[Dockhead]

Afraid I haven't re-read the report to identify the heading change you're talking about, but presumably this is the ferry turning somewhere east or southeast of the Calshot buoy to go from heading down Southampton Water to heading towards Cowes? If so, I hardly think someone who's been skippering a boat in the Solent for 17 years is entitled to be surprised by it.

Pete

I agree. Actually even with zero experience in that particular area.

Ships tend to follow shipping channels, and no one is entitled to be surprised by that.

 

[chrishscorp]

Afraid I haven't re-read the report to identify the heading change you're talking about, but presumably this is the ferry turning somewhere east or southeast of the Calshot buoy to go from heading down Southampton Water to heading towards Cowes? If so, I hardly think someone who's been skippering a boat in the Solent for 17 years is entitled to be surprised by it.

Pete

+1

 

[lpdsn]

I agree. Actually even with zero experience in that particular area.

Ships tend to follow shipping channels, and no one is entitled to be surprised by that.

When did the Red Funnel ferry start doing that? I used to sail and race in the Solent regularly up until a decade or so ago and it was pretty much standard for them to be outside the main channel. There is (or at least was) a secondary channel up Southampton Water that they used to follow but after that they tended to cross between the Brambles and the precautionary area. They were pretty slick at working their way through the traffic and it's a shame they got caught out this once, but fortunate that all involved came out uninjured.

Ships of course follow the main channel, except for the ones that don't. After a while you got pretty good at guessing which ones would go down the North Channel, east of Brambles, but it was still something you had to watch out for.

Of course this is an internet forum so no one makes mistakes here.

 

[Frank Holden]

Of course this is an internet forum so no one makes mistakes here.

Hands up all those who have never had a ship sneak up behind them.... no fibbing....

I don't think we will be seeing many hands....

 

[Thistle]

I'm a wee bitty surprised that no-one seems to have suggested that, as far as the ferry was concerned, this was a situation of reduced visibility where he couldn't see clearly in the direction he was going because of the sun. Perhaps someone would like to comment (a) on the accuracy of this suggestion and (b) on the actions the ferry might have been obliged to take in such a situation?

 

[GHA]

Hands up all those who have never had a ship sneak up behind them.... no fibbing....

I don't think we will be seeing many hands....

I thought the first sound signal everyone learned when starting out in the real world was 5 short...

Hands up here!!

 

[Uricanejack]

Hands up all those who have never had a ship sneak up behind them.... no fibbing....

I don't think we will be seeing many hands....

+1
Unfortunately I have to confess my hand is still in my pocket

 

[Uricanejack]

I'm a wee bitty surprised that no-one seems to have suggested that, as far as the ferry was concerned, this was a situation of reduced visibility where he couldn't see clearly in the direction he was going because of the sun. Perhaps someone would like to comment (a) on the accuracy of this suggestion and (b) on the actions the ferry might have been obliged to take in such a situation?

I thought I did. Maybe not.

Restricted visabilty is not just fog there are other causes of restricted visibility. Restricted visibility can be limited to just a small area. The requirements apply if navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility. Even so I doubt if the suns glare of the water through the bridge windows would be considered restricted visibility as defined by the coll regs. I don’t have a reference just a personal opinion.

(A) glare from the sun is real and confirmed by the camera, camera is however much more affected than the eye. I don’t bye it sounds like someone was making a lame excuse or living like a flatfish.
Most vessels have some form of sun screen which can be pulled down or put up. The Master was reported to be wearing sun shades.

(B) if you have an area ahead of the vessel where your visibility is impaired. Get off your fat ass and move so you are not looking into the glare and use the Radar.
To Alter course to steer into the glare unable to see without checking the radar is incomprehensible. Part of the reason why I doubt the accuracy of the situation described in (a)

While I personally have doubts about how severely the glare restricted the visibility. I doubt very much it restricted visabilty to the extent the power boat could not be seen visually from the bridge of the ferry. (If someone had Looked)
The power boat would be harder to see and looking into the glare would be unpleasant, irritating possibly even painfull.
The existence of the glare. If it was restricted visibility should have instigated an increase in vigilance on the bridge.

 

[Mark-1]

The idea that sunlight is 'restricted visibility' is an interesting one.

We're lucky enough to be provided with a definition of the term in the IRPCS: "The term 'restricted visibility’ means any condition in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. "

'Other similar causes' - thanks for the help Colregs!

All Cockcroft & Lameijer tell us is: "Examples of ‘other similar causes’ are smoke from own vessel, other vessels, or ashore, and dust storms."

 

[RichardS]

It seems certain to me that "restricted visibility" must refer to something that is outwith the eye of the observer and which is beyond the control of the observer and therefore impossible for the observer to ameliorate.

Glare from the sun clearly does not fit into this category and neither does "observer wearing glasses with blackout lenses" or "observer having eyes closed". :ambivalence:

Richard

 

[dom]

The idea that sunlight is 'restricted visibility' is an interesting one.

We're lucky enough to be provided with a definition of the term in the IRPCS: "The term 'restricted visibility’ means any condition in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. "

'Other similar causes' - thanks for the help Colregs!

All Cockcroft & Lameijer tell us is: "Examples of ‘other similar causes’ are smoke from own vessel, other vessels, or ashore, and dust storms."

Bearing in mind that when one rounds a bend on a road to find ourselves blinded by the sun, one doesn't reach for the case law surrounding the term 'blinded', or whether putting on ones sunglasses makes one 'cool'

 

[Thistle]

The idea that sunlight is 'restricted visibility' is an interesting one.

We're lucky enough to be provided with a definition of the term in the IRPCS: "The term 'restricted visibility’ means any condition in which visibility is restricted by fog, mist, falling snow, heavy rainstorms, sandstorms or any other similar causes. "

'Other similar causes' - thanks for the help Colregs!

All Cockcroft & Lameijer tell us is: "Examples of ‘other similar causes’ are smoke from own vessel, other vessels, or ashore, and dust storms."

These lists of conditions for "restricted visibility" are simply lists of examples. I think that there is little doubt that at the time of the collision, the visibility ahead from the bridge of the ferry was restricted. There were steps, such as putting on suitable sunglasses, that could have been taken to ameliorate the problem ... just as slowing down is a step which could be taken to reduce the problems caused by fog. Ultimately, if a step which could be taken to improve the situation isn't taken, how does this change the balance of blame?