"Orca" MAIB report

[Talulah]

The report also quotes the Col Regs
Rule 5 of the COLREGs requires that every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means, which includes radar when fitted.

But this is not the current version of the ColRegs
Rule 5 Version 9.4
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

 

[prv]

I wondered that earlier on in the report but I then understood that they actually asked the skipper whether he was expecting his wife to keep a look out and he said not. That has to be conclusive.

I don't think it does. The man's just lost his wife, probably blames himself, and almost certainly wouldn't want to say anything that might imply it was in some way her fault. Even if he now genuinely believes he wasn't expecting even a casual lookout from her, is that really what he was thinking at the time? Thoughts aren't always rational, and memory is not infallible.

Pete

 

[Bluebird]

The poor young girl who died recently in the speedboat accident at Poole also got trapped by a auto lifejacket trapping her under the boat if I recall correctly?

I must admit mine is self inflating, makes me wonder if that is the best choice.

Then again, like everything, it's an odds game. Are you more likely to be knocked out when going over board, in which case the auto option would be best or are you more likely to be blow decks, in which case removing the jacket or going for a manual one would be best. In our case with a small cuddy I'll stick with auto.

Do you mean the accident in Brixham - I don't think there's been such a fatality in Poole? If it is I thought it was reported that she was wearing a buoyancy aid.

 

[colingr]

You could be right about it being Brixham. Wherever, the small speedboat overturned. A buoyancy aid would have the same effect as an inflated LJ so the same argument applies to a point. Perhaps an argument to not wear such things if inside a cabin.

 

[prv]

I may consider a 'no jacket required' policy when going below after reading this.

Personally I reckon there is far less risk of a sudden catastrophic accident (basically it has to be collision with a ship or the keel falling off) while you happen to be below, than there is of you rushing on deck in response to a sudden emergency (or even just coming up casually and forgetting) and then ending up in the water without your jacket on. Even back in the 70s Heavy Weather Sailing warned about people rushing on deck unprepared, to avoid being seasick in the cabin.

Be wary of knee-jerk reactions to single events.

Pete

 

[lw395]

Personally I reckon there is far less risk of a sudden catastrophic accident (basically it has to be collision with a ship or the keel falling off) while you happen to be below, than there is of you rushing on deck in response to a sudden emergency (or even just coming up casually and forgetting) and then ending up in the water without your jacket on. Even back in the 70s Heavy Weather Sailing warned about people rushing on deck unprepared, to avoid being seasick in the cabin.

Be wary of knee-jerk reactions to single events.

Pete

Wise words.
Avoid tailoring your safety too closely to the crisis you think you might be going to have...

 

[YachtAllegro]

Thanks for the link to the BBC report on the officer of the watch's trial. Does anyone else think its a bit disproportionate that he gets a (suspended) jail sentence while the leisure skipper gets no sanction at all? I'd have said fault was fairly equally distributed between the two of them. Obviously the Shoreway's officer of the watch was doing it commercially, so it wouldn't be suprising for him to lose his job, but the law is surely meant to treat everyone equally, is it not? If there's going to be criminal sanction in this case it should applied to both or neither, surely? (And I think I'd have assumed neither).

 

[jordanbasset]

From my reading of the report the yacht skipper checked the course of the dredger compared to his own course and saw (correctly) there was no risk of collision on the current course. He then went down below to use the heads. While down there they dredger altered course so that the two boats were now on a collision course. No check was made of the radar or a visual check, which would have revealed the yacht.
Yes you can argue the yacht skipper should have stayed up top the whole time and kept a watch out but he was very unlucky. I personally do not think in any way can he be described as equally liable for the collision and certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[flaming]

Thanks for the link to the BBC report on the officer of the watch's trial. Does anyone else think its a bit disproportionate that he gets a (suspended) jail sentence while the leisure skipper gets no sanction at all? I'd have said fault was fairly equally distributed between the two of them. Obviously the Shoreway's officer of the watch was doing it commercially, so it wouldn't be suprising for him to lose his job, but the law is surely meant to treat everyone equally, is it not? If there's going to be criminal sanction in this case it should applied to both or neither, surely? (And I think I'd have assumed neither).

Arguable. However the ship was the give way vessel.

The poor Skipper of Orca only really made one mistake in not ensuring his wife was at least glancing around from time to time, and has paid such a high price. I really feel for him.

 

[jordanbasset]

Arguable. However the ship was the give way vessel.

The poor Skipper of Orca only really made one mistake in not ensuring his wife was at least glancing around from time to time, and has paid such a high price. I really feel for him.

Agree

 

[bedouin]

Thanks for the link to the BBC report on the officer of the watch's trial. Does anyone else think its a bit disproportionate that he gets a (suspended) jail sentence while the leisure skipper gets no sanction at all? I'd have said fault was fairly equally distributed between the two of them. .

I disagree, it was Shoreway that altered course to leave the shipping lane and put it onto a collision course with Orca, and Shoreway was giveway vessel. So the blame is more on the Give way vessel than the leisure skipper.

Also the courts do tend to treat professionals more seriously.

 

[sailorman]

Arguable. However the ship was the give way vessel.

The poor Skipper of Orca only really made one mistake in not ensuring his wife was at least glancing around from time to time, and has paid such a high price. I really feel for him.

Agreed & what actual use was the Orca`s fixed radar reflector, in this case none

 

[Bru]

Agreed & what actual use was the Orca`s fixed radar reflector, in this case none

Well, Orca was clearly visible on the radar in Shoreway according to the MAIB report therfore the reflector was doing its job

If the watchkeepers don't bother looking at the radar screen (as is stated to have been the case), the qualities of the radar return from the yacht is rather irrelevant!

 

[Skylark]

Thanks for the link to the BBC report on the officer of the watch's trial. Does anyone else think its a bit disproportionate that he gets a (suspended) jail sentence while the leisure skipper gets no sanction at all? I'd have said fault was fairly equally distributed between the two of them. Obviously the Shoreway's officer of the watch was doing it commercially, so it wouldn't be suprising for him to lose his job, but the law is surely meant to treat everyone equally, is it not? If there's going to be criminal sanction in this case it should applied to both or neither, surely? (And I think I'd have assumed neither).

Take a look at page 14 as it shows the tracks of the two vessels. The sailing boat, a stand-on vessel in the circumstances, was outside the channel and he saw a power vessel inside the channel heading out to sea. He set the autopilot and went to the loo.

I think the skipper got quite a few sanctions. Knocked unconscious, nearly drown, lost his wife, a dog and his boat.

 

[Bru]

Take a look at page 14 as it shows the tracks of the two vessels. The sailing boat, a stand-on vessel in the circumstances, was outside the channel and he saw a power vessel inside the channel heading out to sea. .

I think it's important, especially for us East Coast sailors who regularly cross those waters, to realise that Orca was not outside the channel. She was South of the deep water channel however she was inbound well within the defined, and clearly marked on the charts, outbound South Channel routinely used by commercial vessels that do not require the deepest water

Whilst the Orca was not acting illegally, it has to be wondered whether it was wise (it was certainly not necessary) to be where they were especially given as they were out on a day sail rather than passage making

(This is a point that was not, to my surprise, brought up in the MAIB report)

 

[lw395]

I think it's important, especially for us East Coast sailors who regularly cross those waters, to realise that Orca was not outside the channel. She was South of the deep water channel however she was inbound well within the defined, and clearly marked on the charts, outbound South Channel routinely used by commercial vessels that do not require the deepest water

Whilst the Orca was not acting illegally, it has to be wondered whether it was wise (it was certainly not necessary) to be where they were especially given as they were out on a day sail rather than passage making

(This is a point that was not, to my surprise, brought up in the MAIB report)

Is it normal in that place to remain on the 'wrong' side of the deep channel to avoid crossing it?
Or is it designated as one-way?
I.e. is there effectively a two-way small craft channel either side of the deep?

 

[pvb]

Take a look at page 14 as it shows the tracks of the two vessels. The sailing boat, a stand-on vessel in the circumstances, was outside the channel and he saw a power vessel inside the channel heading out to sea. He set the autopilot and went to the loo.

I think the skipper got quite a few sanctions. Knocked unconscious, nearly drown, lost his wife, a dog and his boat.

Yes, he got sanctions, but I still can't believe that any sensible skipper planning to go below for 5 minutes or so wouldn't have said to his wife "just keep an eye out and shout me if you think there's a problem".

 

[Bru]

Is it normal in that place to remain on the 'wrong' side of the deep channel to avoid crossing it?
Or is it designated as one-way?
I.e. is there effectively a two-way small craft channel either side of the deep?

It's fairly normal to see yachts bimbling about all over the place to be frank.

For shipping, there is a central deep water route (bi-directional) with an inbound North channel and an outbound South Channel

The recommended track for yachts commences (on the chart) to the South of the South channel about 1NM outside the so called "goalposts" (the passage between the Cork Sand and the Cork Sand Yacht beacons)

There is no specific compulsion on yachts to avoid these channels beyond the normal requirements of Colregs

 

[Capt Popeye]

Yes, he got sanctions, but I still can't believe that any sensible skipper planning to go below for 5 minutes or so wouldn't have said to his wife "just keep an eye out and shout me if you think there's a problem".

Somewhat agrees with my earlier comments about involving the 'crew' in all matters and especially 'watch keeping', heaven forbid if the 'skipper' does go overboard leaving the 'crew' to carry on 'sunning themselves' whilst the craft sails on

 

[maby]

Yes, he got sanctions, but I still can't believe that any sensible skipper planning to go below for 5 minutes or so wouldn't have said to his wife "just keep an eye out and shout me if you think there's a problem".

I'm sure many of us have left the helm unmanned with the boat on autopilot and no lookout for a few minutes - I certainly have. On the other hand, I've never done it with any other vessel close enough to become a threat within the period that I anticipate being away. If another boat is close enough to you that it could conceivably hit you in the next five minutes given the right change of course, then you need someone on watch and, preferably, qualified to alter course and take evasive action.