"Orca" MAIB report

[30boat]

I try to avoid bellowing on the boat

Oops

 

[JumbleDuck]

I seem to remember that was in part caused by the ship starting to turn, then stopping the turn, then turning again

That was suggested, but I don't think it did. The umbrella made an assumption about what the Big Red Thing would do, and didn't react when it didn't, if you see what I mean.

I don't envy you lot having to play with so many big things. We get a few on the Clyde, but a week's traffic here is probably a quiet Sunday afternoon's worth on Southampton water.

 

[ProMariner]

The Cowes week crash was a completely different kettle of fish. That crash was because of information overload by all parties. This one was 2 watch keepers both feeling so far inside their comfort zone, assumptions weren't challenged. The rabbit was caught snoozing, the truck driver was paying scant attention. The rabbit always looses.

 

[bedouin]

But would you go below while passing at that range? At that passing range, I'd be thinking I'd have to watch for potential wake from the large boat.
The MAIB report doesn't address rule 8 at all - I think it's pertinent:

(my bold)

Even if your action is to "stand on", the rules still require this.

I would suggest that in the mind of the skipper the risk of collision never existed - otherwise he would not have gone below when he did.

To be honest I can see myself doing much the same thing in my own home waters - I am so used to sailing there that I "know" what the ships are doing and so automatically discount them

 

[JumbleDuck]

To be honest I can see myself doing much the same thing in my own home waters - I am so used to sailing there that I "know" what the ships are doing and so automatically discount them

I know what you mean. If the Rothesay ferry went unexpectedly (i.e. in nice weather) to Gourock instead of Wemyss Bay, it would surprise me a lot, and I suspect many other people. We're so used to it that we hardly even see it.

 

[maby]

I would suggest that in the mind of the skipper the risk of collision never existed - otherwise he would not have gone below when he did.

To be honest I can see myself doing much the same thing in my own home waters - I am so used to sailing there that I "know" what the ships are doing and so automatically discount them

You may do it, but this accident indicates strongly why you shouldn't. You simply can't make assumptions about the behaviour of other boats in range - you have to assume the worse. It is never safe to leave the boat on autopilot without a lookout for a longer period of time than you are sure the boat is safe given the proximity of other craft. The approaches to Felixstowe are busy and the situation can change pretty quickly - as this event demonstrates.

 

[Cruiser2B]

You may do it, but this accident indicates strongly why you shouldn't. You simply can't make assumptions about the behaviour of other boats in range - you have to assume the worse. It is never safe to leave the boat on autopilot without a lookout for a longer period of time than you are sure the boat is safe given the proximity of other craft. The approaches to Felixstowe are busy and the situation can change pretty quickly - as this event demonstrates.

+1 You can't know what could happen - steering gear fails, auto-pilots fail, humans fail, etc. When passing any vessel or object at close range, it's not the time to go below and have a cuppa.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I have to wonder if when the skipper went below he really expected to be as long as he was.

But the skipper assumed the dredger would stay within the buoyed channel - I do the same when sailing in the Solent, if I see a ship I assume it will stay in the buoyed channel and would have no concern getting within 100yds provided I was outside the channel.

Humm, do not know what Dredgers do in your waters and channels, but down here in the River Teign the Channel and approaches would appear to being dredged most of the time, any day of the week. The dredgers are constantly changing direction, crossing the main channel, dredging both direction alternately, rarely are they to be seen Navigating the Main Channel for any duration, with the exception of going to the 'grounds' and returning later.

Would suggest that Commercial Traffic sometimes has other priorities to other Traffic entering or leaving Ports, so at no time assume you know their intentions, (remember the Sand Barge tale)

 

[Resolution]

That was suggested, but I don't think it did. .

IIRC the tanker started its turn to starboard pretty much as usual but a motor boat was in the way with some sort of engine or propulsion problem, so the tanker turned slightly to port, then dead ahead, then turned again to starboard. All clearly shown on its track as published. Not sure that sound signals were used correctly either. The net effect of course was that their course was further West than usual, and the yacht was unable to squeak in front of its bows.

 

[JumbleDuck]

IIRC the tanker started its turn to starboard pretty much as usual but a motor boat was in the way with some sort of engine or propulsion problem, so the tanker turned slightly to port, then dead ahead, then turned again to starboard. All clearly shown on its track as published. Not sure that sound signals were used correctly either. The net effect of course was that their course was further West than usual, and the yacht was unable to squeak in front of its bows.

I can't find the report on the MAIB website, so perhaps they have pulled it, but I don't see any port-starboard-port wiggle here

It's a while ago, though, and my memory could be faulty.

 

[Capt Popeye]

I can't

It's a while ago, though, and my memory could be faulty.

Err a touch of the 'Basil' then ?

Seriously though, the Yacht racing along was in the wrong totally,no question, at all

 

[Resolution]

I can't find the report on the MAIB website, so perhaps they have pulled it, but I don't see any port-starboard-port wiggle here

It's a while ago, though, and my memory could be faulty.

http://http://www.ukmpa.org/downloads/xcH_jksi_Cfsg_s23/court_judgment_mca_v_roland_wilson.pdf
In his summing up the judge stated "In order to avoid crushing the power boat the tanker arrested his turn to starboard by applying port helm of 10 degrees." Presumably this had been stated earlier in evidence to the court. The you-tube clip you show is I think the reconstruction put together by some experts to illustrate the prosecution case. It did not include any info on the broken down powerboat that caused the change in turn of the tanker.
My memory wins!! (A rare victory.)

Anyway, enough thread drift for now.

 

[JumbleDuck]

http://http://www.ukmpa.org/downloads/xcH_jksi_Cfsg_s23/court_judgment_mca_v_roland_wilson.pdf
In his summing up the judge stated "In order to avoid crushing the power boat the tanker arrested his turn to starboard by applying port helm of 10 degrees." Presumably this had been stated earlier in evidence to the court. The you-tube clip you show is I think the reconstruction put together by some experts to illustrate the prosecution case. It did not include any info on the broken down powerboat that caused the change in turn of the tanker.
My memory wins!! (A rare victory.)

I think the video is AIS positions, or maybe radar. In any case, some port helm wouldn't necessarily stop a starboard turn, so we might both be right. In any case, the Atalanta simply should not have been anywhere near the Big Red Thing.

Anyway, enough thread drift for now.

Agreed!