Ouzo & EPIRBs

[Anonymous]

Thank you. Presumably that doesn't mean that any of the factual information within the report is not inadmissible, only the report (or, presumably, extracts). The evidence in the report will have come from formal statements and these will be admissible.

What I am thinking is that the inadmissibility of the report is really a technicality and might affect any hypotheses or speculation in the report (e.g. the scenarios) but not the actual facts. The second officer and the lookout admitted that the near miss/collision took place, and they admitted that they did not try to establish that the other vessel was safe. Of course we don't know for a fact that the other vessel was Ouzo....

 

[Bajansailor]

That is a good point, re how there does not appear to be any positive proof that the vessel 'seen' by P of B was actually the Ouzo.

Maybe the MAIB should have delayed publishing the report until all the legal issues were settled - but there again, that could take years..... and the report is very useful, as can be seen by the various opinions expressed on this forum, in that it has caused many sailors to re-assess their safety equipment and procedures.