MAIB Report Red Falcon and Phoenix collision

Told you all at the beginning. White noise and wah wah.

A while ago I had the greatest pleasure in teaching No. 1 Grandson hs Day Skipper course, Grandma taught him the theory. I did the Practical.

He is sharp. Very sharp.

When discussing IRPCS his words were 'Yup.. Dont Crash. Got it'

Thats my boy. :encouragement:

His reward was to antifoul my school yacht whilst i 'supervised'. ;)
 
Uricanejack said:
I don't look at the Colregs from a strictly legal perspective. I look at them as a set of rules providing practical guidance to help prevent collisions at sea. Rather than commandments carved in stone.
If understood and followed by 1 vessel the 1 vessel should be safe.

I do understand they are Law and are enforceable violation being an offence. This is less important than the practicality.
If some one had died in this incident. It would be very different.
Click to expand...

Thhats because you are a sailor not some pedant pants squabbler. :encouragement:
 
capnsensible said:
The rules are simple and straightforward. They are only difficult for lawyers, pedants, squabblers and ambulance chasers picking over the carcase of human mistakes.
Click to expand...

capnsensible said:
Thats because you are a sailor not some pedant pants squabbler. :encouragement:
Click to expand...

I'm greatly relieved to discover that I'm also a sailor and not "some pedant pants squabbler" 'cos the rules are certainly not difficult for me .... although I reckon that some of our fellow forumites will not be too happy about your "pants" epithet. :o

Richard
 
capnsensible said:
What colour socks do you wear? :)
Click to expand...

I've solved it. We just need a few small additions to the ColRegs.

Any vessel claiming restricted visibility in brilliant sunlight must hoist a bobble hat as a day shape. If they've only one on board this has the advantage that it'll no longer be able to fall over the helmsman's eyes.

Any vessel refuting the use of Rule 19 in said brilliant sunlight must hoist three socks in the rigging (knew I'd eventually find a use for all those odd socks).

Wind surfing rhinos must keep at least one nautical mile away from any vessel with socks in the rigging.
 
capnsensible said:
The rules are simple and straightforward. Thats why there are a tiny, tiny ammount of crashes. even by people who dont really know them.

They are only difficult for lawyers, pedants, squabblers and ambulance chasers picking over the carcase of human mistakes. Follow the money.

Oh and keep a good all round lookout. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The rules are fairly straightforwards - what we are arguing about here is who is more to blame when both parties broke the rules.
 
bedouin said:
The rules are fairly straightforwards - what we are arguing about here is who is more to blame when both parties broke the rules.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
But if these things go to court, that doesn't necessarily matter.
It only matters than the accussed party is sufficiently negligent for a conviction.
 
VicS said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have read 14 pages of this thread, only when we get to post 123, does anyone point out that the mobo entered a well charted restricted zone without looking. This is akin to stepping into dual carriageway traffic without a glance, and fortunately being hit by a cyclist not a 40 ton HGV.
50:50 in my eyes, and very unprofessional of the ferry master. - imagine WW2 lookout missing the bombers coming from out of the sun....
 
Genoa said:
I have read 14 pages of this thread, only when we get to post 123, does anyone point out that the mobo entered a well charted restricted zone without looking. This is akin to stepping into dual carriageway traffic without a glance, and fortunately being hit by a cyclist not a 40 ton HGV.
50:50 in my eyes, and very unprofessional of the ferry master. - imagine WW2 lookout missing the bombers coming from out of the sun....
Click to expand...

What is the "restriction" in the Thorn channel?

Richard
 
RichardS said:
I see. So no restrictions relating to a vessel 93m long and a small mobo. As you say, it's well charted.

Richard
Click to expand...

Quite so. How did our MoBo driver know there wasnt a vessel > 150m in the precautionary area ? Had he looked before entering he'd have seen the ferry
 
Last edited:
RobbieW said:
Quite so. How did our MoBo driver know there wasnt a vessel > 150m in the precautionary area ? Had he looked before entering he'd have seen the ferry
Click to expand...

+1

Port of Southampton 79,000 shipping movements a year, 170 cruise liners visit, 1.2M TEU shipping containers a year. Mobo failed to look over his shoulder how did he not know this was not bearing down on him ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-39882244
 
RobbieW said:
Quite so. How did our MoBo driver know there wasnt a vessel > 150m in the precautionary area ? Had he looked before entering he'd have seen the ferry
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, he failed to look or, if he did, failed to appreciate the significance of what he saw, which is why he bears 25% of the responsibility for the accident. However, just because he didn't look that doesn't give the ferry the right to ram him from behind.

If I perform a left turn in my car and don't see another car coming from the right and pull out in front of him, and then, anything more than a few seconds later, that car runs into the back of me, guess who is regarded as being 100% to blame? ;)

Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top