MAIB report

Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Tony,

Perhaps you should re-read those threads and try to put what I wrote into context. I did not defend the Coast Guard boat - my point there was the blame was not theirs alone; the small boat did not adhere to the rules and therefore was PARTIALLY TO BLAME.
The same can be said for Ouzo - PoB is still at fault, in that they did not maintain a proper lookout and they failed to give way, when they were required to, but Ouzo did not take action as required by Rules 17 or 34; possibly they were not maintaining a proper lookout either, so they were PARTIALLY TO BLAME.
As to the other post, I maintain that it is wrong for yachtspersons to routinely abdicate their Rule 17 a(i) responsibility to maintain their course and speed. I fully believe a yacht can deviate from that requirement to stand-on, in accordance with Rules 17a(ii) and 17b.
I do not inherently assume all professionals to be in the right - I would assume that I've probably seen more errors made by professionals than you ever will. I've used the aforementioned rules and five short blasts far more than I care to remember (with both commercial and recreational vessels). Makes me wonder if you inherently assume that only one party can be completely at fault, and it has to be the professionals?
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

[ QUOTE ]
but Ouzo did not take action as required by Rules 17 or 34

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know that??? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Assumed - based on the report. I don't think we'll ever know with 100% certainty what action was or was not taken aboard Ouzo. Certainly the PoB's bridge crew didn't indicate a 34d signal - there's no reason to believe both would lie about that. And there doesn't appear to be a record of a VHF conversation between the two vessels. The rest of the assumption is based on the lights reportedly seen and the MAIB's swamping theory.
 
Top