MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

[Mark-1]

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.

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.

As it happens I suspect Rule 19 wouldn't apply here, but I can find nothing in the rules or elsewhere that confirms that, so we'll have to wait either for a court to decide or for the IRPCS to flesh out their definition a bit.

Thanks to Thistle and UJ for kicking off an interesting digression.

 

[RichardS]

As it happens I suspect Rule 19 wouldn't apply here, but I can find nothing in the rules or elsewhere that confirms that, so we'll have to wait either for a court to decide or for the IRPCS to flesh out their definition a bit.

Thanks to Thistle and UJ for kicking off an interesting digression.

Although you're editing Thistle's post too early. He says "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...".

I therefore understand him to be agreeing with me in that although the visibility from the ferry bridge was restricted, this does not meet the ColRegs definition of "restricted visibility" because it is not outwith the eye/control of the observer and can be easily ameliorated.

Richard

 

[davidlhill]

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....

Guilty. Heading into Ouistreum many years ago in the early hours of the morning, the tide was low so I was within the buoyed channel. I looked behind me, all clear. It had been a hard crossing, two of us in a 9M yacht F5/6. Visibility was good at about 6.am

What felt to me just a few minutes later I had the thought "don't Brittany Ferries arrive here around 6 in the morning?". I looked behond me and only .5km away was a great big ferry heading down the channel.

How on earth had that crept up on me?

I turned sharpish out of the channel.

 

[bedouin]

How on earth had that crept up on me?

I turned sharpish out of the channel.

Surely you were stand on vessel

 

[davidlhill]

Surely you were stand on vessel

The purists here would argue, but I always bear these two sayings in mind in such situations:

Might is Right

and:

Here lies the body of Captain Wray
Who died protecting his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along
But just as dead as if he was wrong

 

[Joker]

Another thought about restricted visibility:

Why not have a crewman [I'm assuming that there are spare bodies around during passage] in the bows with a radio to the bridge?

 

[laika]

Here lies the body of Captain Wray
Who died protecting his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along
But just as dead as if he was wrong

And here lies the body of Christopher Green
Who preferred heeding poems to rule 17

(For clarity of course in the situation you describe getting the heck out of the channel sounds like absolutely the best course of action

 

[GHA]

Here lies the body of Captain Wray
Who died protecting his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along
But just as dead as if he was wrong

And here lies the body of Mr Magoo
Who never got round to reading rule 2..

 

[capnsensible]

And here lies the body of Mr Magoo
Who never got round to reading rule 2..

:encouragement:

 

[dom]

.....revive Rule 5 and stay alive

 

[AntarcticPilot]

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

On a tiller steered yacht, there isn't an obvious location for a chart-plotter in the cockpit, either. The helming position changes according to the tack you're on and is located at the after end of the cockpit, which must be kept free of obstacles because of the sweep of the tiller, The only useful place would probably be over the companionway, but there isn't space there.

 

[Thistle]

Although you're editing Thistle's post too early. He says "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...".

I therefore understand him to be agreeing with me in that although the visibility from the ferry bridge was restricted, this does not meet the ColRegs definition of "restricted visibility" because it is not outwith the eye/control of the observer and can be easily ameliorated.

Richard

I really don't think we're in great agreement. Although you acknowledge that there was "restricted visibility" you seem to add a rider of your own: I can't find any such rider in my copy of the ColRegs.

 

[lpdsn]

I really don't think we're in great agreement. Although you acknowledge that there was "restricted visibility" you seem to add a rider of your own: I can't find any such rider in my copy of the ColRegs.

19 (a) This rule applies to vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility.

I've added the underlining.

Anyway, how could one vessel possibly tell that the watchkeeper of another doesn't have his sunglasses on.

 

[RichardS]

I really don't think we're in great agreement. Although you acknowledge that there was "restricted visibility" you seem to add a rider of your own: I can't find any such rider in my copy of the ColRegs.

You won't find my rider in ColRegs because it's pure common sense. It would be nonsensical to suggest that restricted visibility might include:

Someone's head was in the way
A poster put in the window by the Skipper blocked my view
The pillar between the two front windows was right in my line of vision
I had a bag on my head at the time of the impact
The windows were dirty and I couldn't be bothered to go outside
The sun was glaring on the windows and I couldn't be bothered to go outside

There's a common thread linking all these "restricted visibilities", and many more.

Richard

 

[Thistle]

You won't find my rider in ColRegs because it's pure common sense. It would be nonsensical to suggest that restricted visibility might include:

Someone's head was in the way
A poster put in the window by the Skipper blocked my view
The pillar between the two front windows was right in my line of vision
I had a bag on my head at the time of the impact
The windows were dirty and I couldn't be bothered to go outside
The sun was glaring on the windows and I couldn't be bothered to go outside

There's a common thread linking all these "restricted visibilities", and many more.

Richard

Facetiousness does not help. You, in a previous post, agreed that visibility was restricted. Whether or not the restriction was caused by one of the factors mentioned in the ColRegs is, in many senses, immaterial: the key point is that if your visibility is restricted, you've got to take some action to reduce the risk in the situation. If you don't take that action, how is the burden of blame changed?

 

[Mark-1]

19 (a) This rule applies to vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility. I've added the underlining.

If one can't see the other they are not in sight of one another. Plus "in or near an area of restricted visibility" from rule 19. If you are between a vessel and the sun you probably could deduce that he can't see you very well and take appropriate action just as you would if you approached a junction in a car where a waiting vehicle was looking into the sun towards you. I see no reason why a court wouldn't conclude that was "near an area of restricted visibility".

Anyway, how could one vessel possibly tell that the watchkeeper of another doesn't have his sunglasses on.

Rule 19 makes no requirement for all vessels in the area to be aware of the visibility of the other vessels that might (or might not) be in the area. Indeed, C+L specifically list "smoke from own vessel" as a local effect a court has deemed restricted viz which wouldn't necessarily be obvious to other vessels. (Less unusually, it's entirely possible for one vessel to be in clear viz and another to be 300m away with vision completely obscured by fog/hail/heavy rain.)

Turn it on it's head. If a ship T-Boned a Yacht flat out and said "We were driving into the sun and couldn't see anything but rule 19 didn't apply so we were under no obligation to slow down and make a sound signal" how would that go down in court? Of course, if the ferry had deemed their lack of visibility meant rule 19 applied and made their sound signal the collision (probably) wouldn't have occurred.

I have no idea if rule 19 is intended to apply to vessels unable to see due to the Sun but I am very suspicious of anyone saying they do know without without quoting a case.

It would be nonsensical to suggest that restricted visibility might include:
Someone's head was in the way
A poster put in the window by the Skipper blocked my view
The pillar between the two front windows was right in my line of vision
I had a bag on my head at the time of the impact
The windows were dirty and I couldn't be bothered to go outside
The sun was glaring on the windows and I couldn't be bothered to go outside

Local factors - including all of those - would be *very* easy to explicitly exclude from the definition of Restricted Visibility, yet they chose not to. In fact a local factor has been deemed Restricted Visibility in at least one case.

 

[Mark-1]

You won't find my rider in ColRegs because it's pure common sense. It would be nonsensical to suggest that restricted visibility might include:

Someone's head was in the way
A poster put in the window by the Skipper blocked my view
The pillar between the two front windows was right in my line of vision
I had a bag on my head at the time of the impact
The windows were dirty and I couldn't be bothered to go outside
The sun was glaring on the windows and I couldn't be bothered to go outside

There's a common thread linking all these "restricted visibilities", and many more.

If you were driving a RIB at 40kts and one of the things you list happened you wouldn't feel any need to slow down because your vision wasn't restricted so rule 19 wouldn't apply? If you then wiped out a swimmer while doing that you could argue in court you had complied with the colregs because it was nonsensical to consider your visibility was restricted by having a bag on your head? ...and that's common sense.

 

[RichardS]

Facetiousness does not help. You, in a previous post, agreed that visibility was restricted. Whether or not the restriction was caused by one of the factors mentioned in the ColRegs is, in many senses, immaterial: the key point is that if your visibility is restricted, you've got to take some action to reduce the risk in the situation. If you don't take that action, how is the burden of blame changed?

It certainly does help me .... and hence my happy smiley face.

What I said in my previous post was: "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"."

If you can take personal action to promptly reduce the actual issue causing the "restricted visibility" then it is not the "restricted visibility" which is being referred to in ColRegs.

Any other interpretation would be verging on the ludicrous.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

If one can't see the other they are not in sight of one another. Plus "in or near an area of restricted visibility" from rule 19. If you are between a vessel and the sun you probably could deduce that he can't see you very well and take appropriate action just as you would if you approached a junction in a car where a waiting vehicle was looking into the sun towards you. I see no reason why a court wouldn't conclude that was "near an area of restricted visibility".



Rule 19 makes no requirement for all vessels in the area to be aware of the visibility of the other vessels that might (or might not) be in the area. Indeed, C+L specifically list "smoke from own vessel" as a local effect a court has deemed restricted viz which wouldn't necessarily be obvious to other vessels. (Less unusually, it's entirely possible for one vessel to be in clear viz and another to be 300m away with vision completely obscured by fog/hail/heavy rain.)

Turn it on it's head. If a ship T-Boned a Yacht flat out and said "We were driving into the sun and couldn't see anything but rule 19 didn't apply so we were under no obligation to slow down and make a sound signal" how would that go down in court? Of course, if the ferry had deemed their lack of visibility meant rule 19 applied and made their sound signal the collision (probably) wouldn't have occurred.

I have no idea if rule 19 is intended to apply to vessels unable to see due to the Sun but I am very suspicious of anyone saying they do know without without quoting a case.



Local factors - including all of those - would be *very* easy to explicitly exclude from the definition of Restricted Visibility, yet they chose not to. In fact a local factor has been deemed Restricted Visibility in at least one case.

The ColRegs writers could indeed use a phrase such as "restricted visibility refers 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 promptly ameliorate". However, as it's commonsense anyway, I can understand why they didn't bother.

I am certain that you will not find any decided case which contradicts that commonsense definition.

Richard

 

[RichardS]

If you were driving a RIB at 40kts and one of the things you list happened you wouldn't feel any need to slow down because your vision wasn't restricted so rule 19 wouldn't apply? If you then wiped out a swimmer while doing that you could argue in court you had complied with the colregs because it was nonsensical to consider your visibility was restricted by having a bag on your head? ...and that's common sense.

Errrrr ..... now you've lost me completely. I've no idea what any of that has got to do with the ColRegs rules relating to "Conduct of Vessel in Restricted Visibility" where the usual stand on/give way rules do not apply.

Richard