"Orca" MAIB report

[lw395]

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 struggle to imagine that needing to be said.

 

[haydude]

Indeed, it is important to involve also passengers into keeping a good lookout at all times, especially when the skipper goes down below for a few minutes. We all do it and when I have inexperienced passengers as a minimum I ask them to stand up and pay attention whilst I am not in the cockpit with the instruction to call me.

And this could start another thread on the effectiveness of Radar vs AIS. With RADAR the acquisition of a target is manual. With AIS it is automatic and the proximity alarm sounds regardless. The Dredger had both RADAR and AIS, but RADAR was NOT being actively monitored.
Had Orca had at least an AIS receiver the skipper could have been alerted of the imminent collision even down below. Had Orca had an AIS transponder both vessels would have been alerted by the alarm and chances are at least one would have taken notice.

 

[Skylark]

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.

If I ever go to court for any of my (many) momentary errors of judgement I hope that many of the posters on here are not on the jury or I'll be hung drawn and quartered for "walking on the cracks in the pavement" (credit Not the Nine o'clock news).

The report said that he was effectively single handed, his wife was not crew. I can relate to that. Hypothetically, say that the skipper had an enlarged prostrate gland. The need to use the loo is immediate and quite painful.

 

[pvb]

Had Orca had an AIS transponder both vessels would have been alerted by the alarm and chances are at least one would have taken notice.

It's likely that in such a busy area, the ship would have turned Class B alarms off.

 

[prv]

With RADAR the acquisition of a target is manual.

With modern ARPA, which the ship will have had, it can be automatic. Presumably they had it turned off for a short passage in busy waters and good visibility, where the system would have been alarming all the time. Same reason they may well have turned off AIS alarms.

Pete

 

[YachtAllegro]

If I ever go to court for any of my (many) momentary errors of judgement I hope that many of the posters on here are not on the jury or I'll be hung drawn and quartered for "walking on the cracks in the pavement"

If that was directed at my comments earlier about the evenhandedness of the law (or lack of it) I should emphasise I wasn't in any way suggesting the skipper should have been prosecuted - far from it, my sympathies go out to him. I was actually expressing suprise that the watchkeeper of the dredger was prosecuted for what seemed to me to be a systems failure - he couldn't see the Orca to give way to because of the design of his ship. Now I guess its true that he should have been keeping an eye on the radar, and he could presumably have posted bow lookouts to cover the blindspot, but the MAIB report went out of its way to state that the blindspot is not referred to in the ship's standard operating proceedures, therefore it seemed slightly unfair to me that he received all of the blame.

 

[maby]

If that was directed at my comments earlier about the evenhandedness of the law (or lack of it) I should emphasise I wasn't in any way suggesting the skipper should have been prosecuted - far from it, my sympathies go out to him. I was actually expressing suprise that the watchkeeper of the dredger was prosecuted for what seemed to me to be a systems failure - he couldn't see the Orca to give way to because of the design of his ship. Now I guess its true that he should have been keeping an eye on the radar, and he could presumably have posted bow lookouts to cover the blindspot, but the MAIB report went out of its way to state that the blindspot is not referred to in the ship's standard operating proceedures, therefore it seemed slightly unfair to me that he received all of the blame.

"davidjackson" quoted my post when he wrote his - which seemed a little unfair to me - I think mine was pretty measured.

 

[Tranona]

If that was directed at my comments earlier about the evenhandedness of the law (or lack of it) I should emphasise I wasn't in any way suggesting the skipper should have been prosecuted - far from it, my sympathies go out to him. I was actually expressing suprise that the watchkeeper of the dredger was prosecuted for what seemed to me to be a systems failure - he couldn't see the Orca to give way to because of the design of his ship. Now I guess its true that he should have been keeping an eye on the radar, and he could presumably have posted bow lookouts to cover the blindspot, but the MAIB report went out of its way to state that the blindspot is not referred to in the ship's standard operating proceedures, therefore it seemed slightly unfair to me that he received all of the blame.

But it was no just the blindspot, which he should have known about as he had been on the ship for some time. He also broke the Port rules on having more than one look out on the bridge while in harbour authority controlled waters. Add to that not keeping a watch on the clearly visible radar just compounded the basic error. Usual thing of minor errors leading to a disaster.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Had Orca had at least an AIS receiver the skipper could have been alerted of the imminent collision even down below. Had Orca had an AIS transponder both vessels would have been alerted by the alarm and chances are at least one would have taken notice.

I regularly sail in that patch of water and I find that the density of AIS transponders means the alarm goes off too often for me to consider it to be of much use so is usually switched off.

 

[Capt Popeye]

The report said that he was effectively single handed, his wife was not crew. I can relate to that. Hypothetically, say that the skipper had an enlarged prostrate gland. The need to use the loo is immediate and quite painful.

Err, lets get this right, HIS WIFE was a passenger then ? surely his WIFE was on talking terms with HIM ? so not a word passed their lips just before the collision then ? in trying not to be too forthright on this particular incident it becomes impossible when someone posts comment like that URG ; so a wife becomes a passenger, for which the Skipper is qualified and so insured to take passengers ?

 

[maby]

If I ever go to court for any of my (many) momentary errors of judgement I hope that many of the posters on here are not on the jury or I'll be hung drawn and quartered for "walking on the cracks in the pavement" (credit Not the Nine o'clock news).

The report said that he was effectively single handed, his wife was not crew. I can relate to that. Hypothetically, say that the skipper had an enlarged prostrate gland. The need to use the loo is immediate and quite painful.

Hypothetically, it could be argued that such a medical condition is sufficient to disqualify you as a single-handed skipper - if it really is that severe.

 

[sailorman]

Err, lets get this right, HIS WIFE was a passenger then ? surely his WIFE was on talking terms with HIM ? so not a word passed their lips just before the collision then ? in trying not to be too forthright on this particular incident it becomes impossible when someone posts comment like that URG ; so a wife becomes a passenger, for which the Skipper is qualified and so insured to take passengers ?

I would assume the shipper was taking the blame rather than off loading that responsibility onto his Late wife

 

[pvb]

I would assume the shipper was taking the blame rather than off loading that responsibility onto his Late wife

The report says that his wife wasn't a sailor, had mobility issues, and was sitting in the cockpit facing aft. I'd have still thought it wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to have asked her to keep an eye on what was going on around them, but I won't stress the point as I've already been criticised for mentioning it.

 

[sailorman]

The report says that his wife wasn't a sailor, had mobility issues, and was sitting in the cockpit facing aft. I'd have still thought it wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to have asked her to keep an eye on what was going on around them, but I won't stress the point as I've already been criticised for mentioning it.

Had she not had & was recovering from a recent medical Op.

 

[pvb]

Had she not had & was recovering from a recent medical Op.

Yes, I believe the report mentioned that. However, if she was well enough to climb on to the boat in the first place, presumably she would have been able to turn round and look forwards for a few minutes.

 

[sailorman]

Yes, I believe the report mentioned that. However, if she was well enough to climb on to the boat in the first place, presumably she would have been able to turn round and look forwards for a few minutes.

Quite so, hence my suggestion in post 52
Just because the lady preferred to travel to holiday destinations rather than sail to them on the yacht,doesn't make her "just a passenger" . Not all wives are made of the same stuff as Claire Francis

 

[Tranona]

Err, lets get this right, HIS WIFE was a passenger then ? surely his WIFE was on talking terms with HIM ? so not a word passed their lips just before the collision then ? in trying not to be too forthright on this particular incident it becomes impossible when someone posts comment like that URG ; so a wife becomes a passenger, for which the Skipper is qualified and so insured to take passengers ?

That is not a proper reflection on the situation. The report clearly states that his wife did not have any crewing duties. He does not need any qualifications or additional insurance to carry non participating people on board his private boat. If he was charging her for the passage then it is an argument that the voyage was commercial, but it wasn't - just a normal family outing where the husband runs the boat and the wife enjoys the scenery.

So don't make out that something untoward was going on. None of has any idea whether there were any exchanges between them prior to the collision as nothing has been reported.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I would assume the shipper was taking the blame rather than off loading that responsibility onto his Late wife

Humm, thanks sailorman, thoughts of similar nature are going through my mind as well, not a 'good place' be in at any time for a Skipper, but rather not speculate on the many possible scenarios available.

 

[BrianH]

The report says that his wife wasn't a sailor, had mobility issues, and was sitting in the cockpit facing aft. I'd have still thought it wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to have asked her to keep an eye on what was going on around them, but I won't stress the point as I've already been criticised for mentioning it.

I agree, it seems illogical to go below without asking even a 'passenger' to move from facing aft and keep a lookout forward and call him for anything untoward, after all, 5 minutes is not a brief absence. Particularly so with an approaching commercial vessel on a reciprocal course (Orca 260°, Shoreway 090°) with not that much distance between the set courses, when going below.

It may have been because the area was so familiar and the expectation was that the Shoreway would keep to the channel - we all get a little bit complacent in our home waters ... and in such fine weather, what could possibly go wrong?

A sobering read that we can all learn from.

 

[Skylark]

Hypothetically, it could be argued that such a medical condition is sufficient to disqualify you as a single-handed skipper.

Better not to question RKJ or Ellen Macarthur or any other long distance sailor, then. How do they meet the obligation of keeping a lookout at all times?

If that was directed at my comments earlier .

"davidjackson" quoted my post when he wrote his - which seemed a little unfair to me - I think mine was pretty measured.

I didn't mean to offend with my posts, if I have I apologise. However, I think both of your comments are equally unfair to the skipper, unless you know something not contained within the report. At least you have both exercised your right to reply. Let's remember that the court decided upon no action.

Err, lets get this right, HIS WIFE was a passenger then ?

According to page 19 of the report, yes. I chose to accept the report on face value, not to second guess something else.