MAIB report

Re: AIS and the MAIB report

I have read the report closely, 3 incidents in 7 years including the Ouzo is hardly making a habit of it!

How many cars have had near misses and/or accidents with Tesco (example only) lorries? Would 1 every 1.3 years make you reach a similar conclusion?

PW
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

[ QUOTE ]
I have read the report closely, 3 incidents in 7 years including the Ouzo is hardly making a habit of it!

How many cars have had near misses and/or accidents with Tesco (example only) lorries? Would 1 every 1.3 years make you reach a similar conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If Tesco lorries ran down 3 bicycles in 7 years I bet someone would be taking action, particularly if they did it without stopping (as Ouzo and Wahkuna).
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Agreed but why single out Tesco (P&O), what about Sainsbury, Waitrose, etc (Brittany Ferries, Wightlink, etc)?

And it's a similar thing with the size issue - thinking that you did't hit them as you saw the bike 40ft behind/astern of the trailer?

Whatever your view the PO Officer has already been tried and hung by the media - despite the disclaimer about the MAIB report not being admissible as evidence I think it was unfair to publish the report before his trial.

W.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

I agree about the publication of the report.

I suppose the argument will run that the MAIB report will not be read by the general public and so will not prejudice the jury.

Personally somewhat unconvinced, and since little else is going to happen until after the trial I don't see what is to be gained by publication now.

I don't understand how it can be inadmissable - it purports to be fact and the facts will be stated in court, suppose they will simply call the cast of the report to give evidence in person.

It will be interesting to see how the court views the boundary between normal practice and criminal negligence.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

I have two points to make about the report/incident.

1. I bet that the court will not find 100% in favour/against either vessel but apportion blame.

2. And for this I'll probably get flamed but - what chance did the P&O crew stand - wind F4+, yacht showing a single white light dipping and bouncing around, yacht has got a radar reflector (one of a type fitted to every other yacht) but undetectable by both radar sets on the bridge of the P&O vessel. However the P&O vessel is showing more lights than Blackpool seafront - so is easily seen by the yacht crew, they (the crew) having seen it decided that it wasn't a problem to them and then ignored it rather than "see" it through them until it was definitely not a problem - unfortunately for them the P&O vessel made a course change that was not detected by the yacht.

So when push comes to shove in court, both parties will be found negligent under the ColRegs because neither maintained a good "look out".

The moral of the story is - even if you have lights and radar reflectors fitted to the ColRegs standard don't assume that you can be seen by the "big boys" and always keep a good look out????

Peter
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Wind F4 - hardly a hurricane is it? Clear night, good viz. Nav lights showing on the yacht. PoB had been sailing a course to clear Ouzo, but began a slow turn towards her, one that wouldn't have been immediately obvious to Ouzo. On the bridge of the PoB, white lights. Look out wearing tinted glasses and hasn't been on watch long enough for his eyes to have attained anything like full night vision. By the time the poor guys in Ouzo realise PoB is pointing straight at them their options are practically zero. All they can hope is that PoB sees them. It does. What happens? Hard astern? No. Emergency turn to port? No. Bugger all is what happens, except the OOW fiddles with the autopilot and affects no course change whatsoever, runs them down (or swamps them) then carries on as if nothing happened. And you want to blame the crew of Ouzo?
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

You seem to forget.

The court in question is the one that will try the 2nd officer for manslaughter.

Percentages do not come into this - guilty or not guilty.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

[ QUOTE ]
By the time the poor guys in Ouzo realise PoB is pointing straight at them their options are practically zero. All they can hope is that PoB sees them.

[/ QUOTE ]

PoB was on a steady course for 4 minutes prior to interraction with Ouzo. What were Ouzo's options? - Alter course, sound 5 short, VHF call, shine spotlight, fire flare. Did they do any of the above? It wasn't one single error that caused this tragedy, but a combination of errors by the OOW, the lookout and the crew of Ouzo. Maybe some comfort can be taken from knowing that the lessons learned from this incident will save lives in the future.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

I don't think the collision itself is really the biggest issue in this case. For one reason or another there was an incident, and we've seen enough yacht vs big ship incidents recently to know that they do happen alarmingly frequently.

What really disgusts me is the failure to assertain the safety of the other vessel.
What that report states is very simply that had the ferry taken even the slightest action it is very likely that at least one of those men would still be alive.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Actually I am surprised how widely the main points of this repoprt have ben quoted and do wonder if the defence can make the claim that it has prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial.

Personally I find the report impressive reading and if many make a few changes to their equipment and procedures it may save many lives in the future.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

Yes

You see what you are doing is to shift some element of responsibility onto the Ouzo.

By any reading of Colregs it was PofB's responsibility to take action to avoid the Ouzu

Everyone and his brother (including you) seems united in the view that radar systemically fails to detect 3 or 4 tons of boat in what are quite normal sailing conditions.

But no-one allows for this failure or takes any action to overcome the problems that it causes - and you support them in ignoring this known failure, and seek to move part of the blame onto the victim.

One does not need to be a clairvoyant to expect small sailing vessels to be at sea in the area of the Isle of Wight. There is probabaly a greater density of such vessels there than anywhere else in Europe.

Yet, as TK points out they still rely on looking at a radar screen which they have partially disabled to avoid clutter knowing that in doing so:

They will hide the returns from small vessel

They are breaching the companies rules on how radar should be used

This is precisely what I was so indignant about on the parallel thread to this. Its the thin end of the wedge in shifting responsibility for collision avoidance from the ship to the yacht.

And if this does happen you will see an even greater lack of responsible seamanship than is occasionally seen today. Never forget for all the criticism P&O are at the top end of the market in shipping. Look what happens down market from the likes of P&O - they'd love a slackening in the regs, it'd save them a wage or two.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

By any reading of the Colregs, the responsibility to avoid collision is shared by both vessels.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

[ QUOTE ]
the responsibility to avoid collision is shared by both vessels

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely....

"Here lies the body of Mike O'Day,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"


...is it Eric and Susan we have to thank for that?



/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

So being a power vessel overtaking a sailing vessel means nothing at all then.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

" (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

I suppose this is the clause in question.

The immediate question is at what point would it be be apparent to Ouzo that fullfilling her requirement to maintain course and speed would create a situation that the give way vessel (P of B) could not avoid a collision.

Is it reasonable to expect the crew of a small yacht in a sea rough enough to render modern professional quality radar ineffective, to be able to recognise such a position when the well qualified and professional crew were unable to do so.

Particularly when the turn made by the ferry, deliberately made in a slow and gradual way to avoid discomforting the passengers, would also have the effect of making it even more difficult for the crew of the yacht to recognise.

There is no evidence to suggest that the skipper of the Ouzo in any way "died defending his right of way" and really I think it is somewhat below the belt to suggest that was the case.

Para b of course should always be read in conjunction with para d

"d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way."
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

You really don't need to quote the Rules; I do know them and I'm sure everyone else can read them. But do you understand them? BTW you left out rule 17 a(ii) - Ouzo had the option of taking action as soon as it was apparent that PoB was not taking proper action. 17 a(ii) and 17b specifically relieve the stand-on vessel of its requirement to stand on course and speed, in just such a case where the give-way vessel has not seen the stand-on vessel. To be fair, Ouzo would have been a lot more difficult to spot than PoB. Her stern light only had a required range of visibility of 2 NM, which the report suggests could have been much less due to physical degradation of the lamp and/or heeling. In contrast PoB would have shown two masthead lights visible at 6 NM, and one or both sidelights visible at 3 NM; not to mention, as a ferry it was probably lit up like a small city. The report indicated that PoB was steady on its course (that is it completed the turn) 4 minutes prior to interracting with Ouzo. That means the turn was started before Ouzo should have been visible. If I saw that I was now dead ahead (or very fine on the stbd bow) of a large vessel only a mile and a half away, I would very conspicuously announce my concern. Notwithstanding the failings on board the bridge of the PoB, the Rules take account of human fallibilities and have given us Rule 34d.
 
Re: AIS and the MAIB report

But in an earlier thread you were arguing that amateur yachtsmen should stand-on when the other is the give-way vessel. Your point then was that evasive action by the stand-on vessel introduces confusion and makes it more difficult for the give-way vessel to keep clear.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/1408785/an//page/0/vc/1

Taken together with a still earlier thread where you were the only one defending the US coastguards ramming a motorboat, makes me wonder whether you just inherently assume that the professionals must be in the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top