Missing yachtswoman in South west.

[snowleopard]

Official passage plans

I was discussing this with a Master a few years back. She told me that to do a full MCA-approved passage plan was so onerous that they didn't bother at all. Presumably she thought it better to have no plan than a partial one that could be picked apart at an enquiry.

 

[chanelyacht]

I was discussing this with a Master a few years back. She told me that to do a full MCA-approved passage plan was so onerous that they didn't bother at all. Presumably she thought it better to have no plan than a partial one that could be picked apart at an enquiry.

The Guidance Note for this is pretty lose for private vessels :

For small vessels and pleasure-craft the degree of voyage planning will be depend upon the size of vessel, its crew and the length of the voyage. The MCA expects all mariners to make a careful assessment of any proposed voyage taking into account all dangers to navigation, weather forecasts, tidal predictions and other relevant factors including the competence of the crew.

I can't see anything there that everyone shouldn't do anyway. There's no requirement for it to be written.

 

[Searush]

In so far as I ever do passage plans, my cruising area demands that I write down all the tide gates (earliest & latest possible passage) that I will meet - and that could be for 3 or 4 different places on a 20 mile cruise around the corner. I must also consider flow rates or I may well be travelling backwards if I pick the wrong times. Pretty well everything else except wind strength & direction is on the chart anyway & winds to tend to change during the passage with local conditions not necessarily reflecting the forecast.

So much depends on personal circumstances, capabilities, local knowledge, the vessel, its equipment, etc etc etc. But, with all my experience in rocky tidal coastlines & even with a well found & well known boat I would not have tackled that passage on my own at night. In fact my insurance would not cover me on it.

EDIT: But that doesn't mean that others more capable than I would not or should not have done it. However it does make me wonder if the posession of a long outdated Day skipper ticket might have given a confidence that may not have been fully underpinned by capability.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Concerning passage plans, what about the days when I go out and don't decide where we're going until I see what it's like once out of the shelter of the dock? The weather forecast around the Clyde isn't a reliable guide to local conditions, which because of the mountainous terrain are frequently VERY different from the regional forecast. I've had lovely days out when the forecast said force 8, and awful days out when it said force 3-4! My wife and I often don't even decide where we're heading until we're out. Then passage planning takes the shape of "Let's go to X", "OK, but how about Y?", followed by a discussion of amenities and attractions, wind direction and shelter available. But in general it doesn't happen in any final form until we're out! Longer trips will be planned a bit more seriously, but our usual sailing is pretty ad-hoc.

One thing that worries me about passage plans is the potential for them becoming a goal that must be adhered to. There is a well-known accident causing syndrome that arises from people becoming focussed on an inappropriate goal. This has cost lives; I know of examples in the Antarctic. For example, a party sets out for a place with shelter and food. They arrive safely, planning on returning the following day. The following day, the weather has started to deteriorate. Sensible thing is to stay put in a safe location until the weather improves. But their goal was to return; they know they have things to do back at base, they regard the base as their home. So, they become oriented on the goal of returning to the base, and so set off in deteriorating conditions. Of course, odds are that once in a while people will die from that - and it has happened.

And I am reluctant to declare a passage plan unless there is a good reason to - precisely because the fact that I've told someone official that I'm going to do such and such reinforces the goal-orientation that is such a danger; it would make me more likely to try and hang on to an inappropriate plan when it started to go pear-shaped.

 

[maby]

In so far as I ever do passage plans, my cruising area demands that I write down all the tide gates (earliest & latest possible passage) that I will meet - and that could be for 3 or 4 different places on a 20 mile cruise around the corner. I must also consider flow rates or I may well be travelling backwards if I pick the wrong times. Pretty well everything else except wind strength & direction is on the chart anyway & winds to tend to change during the passage with local conditions not necessarily reflecting the forecast.

So much depends on personal circumstances, capabilities, local knowledge, the vessel, its equipment, etc etc etc. But, with all my experience in rocky tidal coastlines & even with a well found & well known boat I would not have tackled that passage on my own at night. In fact my insurance would not cover me on it.

Watch it! I got heavily criticised for suggesting that her real error was to attempt to do it single-handed! There's no question that it is a passage which a reasonably experienced sailor should be able to complete in a Moody 31, but attempting it single handed in an unfamiliar boat is leaving you with very little safety margin should anything go wrong.

 

[jimi]

Watch it! I got heavily criticised for suggesting that her real error was to attempt to do it single-handed! There's no question that it is a passage which a reasonably experienced sailor should be able to complete in a Moody 31, but attempting it single handed in an unfamiliar boat is leaving you with very little safety margin should anything go wrong.

Bear in mind that if she was fully crewed then depending on the circumstances they might all have disappeared. You're implicitly drawing a conclusion as to the cause of the tragedy and proposing a solution. You're diagnosis may be wrong.

 

[dt4134]

Concerning passage plans, what about the days when I go out and don't decide where we're going until I see what it's like once out of the shelter of the dock? The weather forecast around the Clyde isn't a reliable guide to local conditions, which because of the mountainous terrain are frequently VERY different from the regional forecast. I've had lovely days out when the forecast said force 8, and awful days out when it said force 3-4! My wife and I often don't even decide where we're heading until we're out. Then passage planning takes the shape of "Let's go to X", "OK, but how about Y?", followed by a discussion of amenities and attractions, wind direction and shelter available. But in general it doesn't happen in any final form until we're out! Longer trips will be planned a bit more seriously, but our usual sailing is pretty ad-hoc.

One thing that worries me about passage plans is the potential for them becoming a goal that must be adhered to. There is a well-known accident causing syndrome that arises from people becoming focussed on an inappropriate goal. This has cost lives; I know of examples in the Antarctic. For example, a party sets out for a place with shelter and food. They arrive safely, planning on returning the following day. The following day, the weather has started to deteriorate. Sensible thing is to stay put in a safe location until the weather improves. But their goal was to return; they know they have things to do back at base, they regard the base as their home. So, they become oriented on the goal of returning to the base, and so set off in deteriorating conditions. Of course, odds are that once in a while people will die from that - and it has happened.

And I am reluctant to declare a passage plan unless there is a good reason to - precisely because the fact that I've told someone official that I'm going to do such and such reinforces the goal-orientation that is such a danger; it would make me more likely to try and hang on to an inappropriate plan when it started to go pear-shaped.

Does a plan have to be that rigid? I'm planning to go out this weekend. Not even sure where we're going yet, but I've eliminated the destinations where the tides are particularly inconvenient and documented (scribbled on a bit of A4) those where there are constraints.

There's already waypoints in my GPS and on the charts as I'm not considering going anywhere I haven't been before.

So apart from weather and actually getting the crew to turn up on time I've pretty much done my planning. Weather and crew will determine where we actually go.

As I've already said a dozen posts above or so I can spend a couple of weeks on a plan for an offshore race with the potential for significant inshore elements. Longer trips would include plans for getting into ports of refuge that I'll almost certainly never have to use. Other trips might be somewhere between these.

 

[maby]

Bear in mind that if she was fully crewed then depending on the circumstances they might all have disappeared. You're implicitly drawing a conclusion as to the cause of the tragedy and proposing a solution. You're diagnosis may be wrong.

Of course that is possible, but in most scenarios the presence of a companion would improve the chances of survival. The catastrophic and near instantaneous destruction of the boat would, of course, put both occupants in risk, but less dramatic equipment failure, MOB, illness or simply getting lost would all be far more surviveable with another person on the boat.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Does a plan have to be that rigid?

The accident causing syndrome isn't because the plan starts out being rigid, but because our psychology tends to become goal-oriented, so that a plan beomes THE PLAN. Once we have a goal, it is quite difficult to decide to abandon that goal, even if that would make sense!

As I say, people have died from this psychological tendency, and it is a big part of the safety training for Antarctic Field-work that you be aware of the dangers of getting trapped in a particular mind-set. Our field training gave several real-life example, some of which ended in fatalities, from within the organization. It is not something that might happen, it is something that does happen, and must be guarded against.

I have first hand experience of how difficult it is to force yourself to change plans when unexpected situations arise. We were heading for Portavadie, and off Ardlamont Point, the wind was dead foul for where we were heading. As it was pretty uncomfortable there, we decided to start the engine and get out of the rough patch. After a few minutes, the engine stopped, and wouldn't re-start. It was a real struggle to decide NOT to attempt to continue to Portavadie, which would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to enter without the engine, and would have involved a long and arduous beat to windward. I remember how hard it was to even try and broaden my thinking to look at alternative plans. We were in no danger; the boat was sound and the sails worked! But changing the goal was psychologically very difficult, even though it was the sensible thing to do.

 

[alant]

I'm not.

It's amazing how quickly, and over how big an area, a small amount (a yacht is only small after all) of wreckage can be spread - as we see regularly.

Of course, playing devils advocate, the lack of a body may be explained by an elaborate Reggie Perrin....

Thought it was all in Sennen, not dispersed.

 

[alant]

In so far as I ever do passage plans, my cruising area demands that I write down all the tide gates (earliest & latest possible passage) that I will meet - and that could be for 3 or 4 different places on a 20 mile cruise around the corner. I must also consider flow rates or I may well be travelling backwards if I pick the wrong times. Pretty well everything else except wind strength & direction is on the chart anyway & winds to tend to change during the passage with local conditions not necessarily reflecting the forecast.

So much depends on personal circumstances, capabilities, local knowledge, the vessel, its equipment, etc etc etc. But, with all my experience in rocky tidal coastlines & even with a well found & well known boat I would not have tackled that passage on my own at night. In fact my insurance would not cover me on it.

EDIT: But that doesn't mean that others more capable than I would not or should not have done it. However it does make me wonder if the posession of a long outdated Day skipper ticket might have given a confidence that may not have been fully underpinned by capability.

According to reports, she was Coastal Skipper level.

 

[sailorman]

According to reports, she was Coastal Skipper level.

more quals than me

 

[dt4134]

The accident causing syndrome isn't because the plan starts out being rigid, but because our psychology tends to become goal-oriented, so that a plan beomes THE PLAN. Once we have a goal, it is quite difficult to decide to abandon that goal, even if that would make sense!

As I say, people have died from this psychological tendency, and it is a big part of the safety training for Antarctic Field-work that you be aware of the dangers of getting trapped in a particular mind-set. Our field training gave several real-life example, some of which ended in fatalities, from within the organization. It is not something that might happen, it is something that does happen, and must be guarded against.

I have first hand experience of how difficult it is to force yourself to change plans when unexpected situations arise. We were heading for Portavadie, and off Ardlamont Point, the wind was dead foul for where we were heading. As it was pretty uncomfortable there, we decided to start the engine and get out of the rough patch. After a few minutes, the engine stopped, and wouldn't re-start. It was a real struggle to decide NOT to attempt to continue to Portavadie, which would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to enter without the engine, and would have involved a long and arduous beat to windward. I remember how hard it was to even try and broaden my thinking to look at alternative plans. We were in no danger; the boat was sound and the sails worked! But changing the goal was psychologically very difficult, even though it was the sensible thing to do.

That all makes sense.

Ironically, I had a similar situation recently with the engine getting ropey just as we approached a rocky channel. Only took me a couple of seconds to say no way and turn round and sail back to my home port where it was much safer to anchor off and fix the engine. Psychologically it was just easier to say get away from the rocks even though it meant another four or five hours at sea and a bit of cold night sailing.

 

[jimi]

Of course that is possible, but in most scenarios the presence of a companion would improve the chances of survival. The catastrophic and near instantaneous destruction of the boat would, of course, put both occupants in risk, but less dramatic equipment failure, MOB, illness or simply getting lost would all be far more surviveable with another person on the boat.

Again you are drawing conclusions as to causes. Simply having crew is unlikely to avoid navigational errors unless the crew is competent and taking an active part in the nav. A gas explosion would just blow everyone up.

 

[Alan ashore]

It's all about probability...

... and while I believe it would be wrong to assert confidently that Mrs Unwin should not have attempted this passage single handed (at night, in an unfamilar boat, etc...), I think it would be bordering on the absurd for anyone to maintain that she would not have significantly reduced the risks by embarking a crew.

I'm not sure anyone has maintained that, but some comments suggest that people think that people have maintained that.......

A.

p.s. regarding the gas explosion scenario, I think the probability of a dangerous gas situation developing would be reduced by having 2 people on board. Not perhaps by much, but reduced nonetheless.

 

[jimi]

... and while I believe it would be wrong to assert confidently that Mrs Unwin should not have attempted this passage single handed (at night, in an unfamilar boat, etc...), I think it would be bordering on the absurd for anyone to maintain that she would not have significantly reduced the risks by embarking a crew.

I'm not sure anyone has maintained that, but some comments suggest that people think that people have maintained that.......

A.

You need to be more specific on what risks would have been reduced.

eg MOB yes, illness yes, gas explosion debatable, nav error debatable, getting run down by ship possibly increased.


Befiore you can draw that conclusion you need to know the competence of the companion.

eg If YM with 30,000 miles under belt indubitably, if the local darts player from the pub, then the risk of incident probably increases.

 

[Alan ashore]

Will Jimi, I accept the point about the darts player, but I notice that you do say only that he would "probably" increase the risk.

But I stand by my view that on the balance of probability, and without needing to enumerate scenarios, two handed sailing in general carries a lower risk than single handed sailing.

A.
(Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea from this post on its own, I'm quite comfortable with anyone choosing to accept the higher risk of sailing single handed, and I do so myself)

 

[Seajet]

You need to be more specific on what risks would have been reduced.

eg MOB yes, illness yes, gas explosion debatable, nav error debatable, getting run down by ship possibly increased.


Befiore you can draw that conclusion you need to know the competence of the companion.

eg If YM with 30,000 miles under belt indubitably, if the local darts player from the pub, then the risk of incident probably increases.

Though as I've said I don't think this lady took a great risk, I'd much rather have a companion - such as 'the darts player from the pub' than nobody !

If told 'keep a 360 degree lookout !' how does having such a chum aboard decrease ones chances of being run down ?!

 

[jimi]

Though as I've said I don't think this lady took a great risk, I'd much rather have a companion - such as 'the darts player from the pub' than nobody !

If told 'keep a 360 degree lookout !' how does having such a chum aboard decrease ones chances of being run down ?!

I think I said "increase" not "decrease", if you had any experience at all you must be aware of the remarkably common problem of even relatively experienced people not being aware of CR and /or losing sense of distance and direction partic at night. If one was having a snooze whilst such was on the helm then very quickly a close quarters scenario can develop and even the input from such can confuse and delay the mental data collection and decision making process. So yet again depends on the competencies of your companion as to whether it reduces or increases risk.

 

[maby]

Again you are drawing conclusions as to causes. Simply having crew is unlikely to avoid navigational errors unless the crew is competent and taking an active part in the nav. A gas explosion would just blow everyone up.

I think that having even a relatively inexperienced companion on a night crossing would reduce the risk of a navigational error. We are talking about quite a small boat with limited navigational equipment. If the skipper is "doing it the man's way" with paper charts, taking bearings and plotting estimated positions, they will be having to work at the chart table (at night, at least). I'm not saying that it is impossible, but it simply has to be safer to be able to put someone else at the helm with instructions to steer a specified heading and keep an eye out for other boats than it is to trust to a basic tiller pilot while you go below to consult the charts.

In almost all circumstances other than a catastrophic destruction of the boat, a companion is likely to improve the chances of surviving an incident.