Ouzo - Radar reflector report update

Nigel, I wouldnt take too much notice of the 'headline' aspects of this - or any other - scenario. The press are always desparate to 'make' news, and any promising sounding aspect of an enquiry is going to get editors trying to make something of nothing.

How many newspaper reporters knew for example that ships carried 'black box recorders? Some editor hearing this perhaps for the first time trying to make 'news' of a minor and routine element of an enquiry that had caught the public attention?

Similarly the investigation for hull marks on PoB: IIRC PoB was one of a number of ships that was checked for evidence of possible collision with Ouzo. Only the checks on PoB were reported.

And the 2nd mate? once he had been charged there was nothing else except for the guy to go find himself a lawyer, and wait for the trial - set I believe for the autumn. Nothing else to be said and in any case his guilt or otherwise is now 'sub judice' which I understand means the press can not comment anyway.

What I find sad about the whole affair is that Ouzo is not the only yacht to have been lost presumed run down in the channel, nor were the three unfortunates aboard the first to have died as a result. The big difference is that the press latched on to this story and made headlines of it.

Sadly, unless Ouzo is found nobody will ever actually know what happened, so any report is bound to be conjectural. There is no actual evidence that the PoBs 'close encounter' was actually with the Ouzo, and not with some other boat that actually survived - the yachts lights were seen astern of the ship immediately afterwards - which was the basis for the OOWs decision not to call the skipper, or report an incident.

Maybe he was right - and poor Ouzo and crew met their end some other time and place?
 
[quoteI would add though that sailing in the Solent and X channel boats are often close to the sides of ships and a Ferry clearly passing ahead 300m away I would not have been concerned prior to learning about this incident, I would now though!!

At what point and at what distance they realised that they (the Ouzo) had to do something is impossible to guess.

I just feel for the crew and their families.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do I.... it doesnt bear thinking about.... what they must have gone through during the hours before their bodies gave up.

But, like all such incidents, boats, cars, aircraft, trains, you have to learn from it and hope that the deaths wont have been in vain.

Busy channels like The Solent are clearly a different circumstance and condition to almost open sea with lots more space to manouevre.... and not having sailed there it's hard for me to comment. i think if I was on a yacht at night, I would be favouring the very edges of the channels, or outside them in water too shallow for the bigger ships and, if I had to cross, I would be picking my moment.

Day or night, I would also expect the big ships to have a whole stack of people on the bridge... Master, 1 or 2 officers, helmsman, a lookout or 2, maybe a pilot ... and the master would have command.

In the daytime in good visibility, I would hope that everyone is keeping a better lookout than they would in open sea, and that everyone is more visible than at night.

I guess i could modify what I suggested to apply if you have the sea room.

e.g. Having left bayona towards Madeira in 2004, at about 10pm Mike asked me to go on deck to have a look at something. I went up, saw dozens of ships crossing ahead of us and said, "I've never seen anything like that before in my life".... fairly quickly established that they were all on the same track to, or from, finisterre. Rather than play stand on vessel with the Northgoing traffic, we stopped for a while, waited for a large enough gap, and nipped through. probably cost us an hour or so, but it was interesting, exiting, and we didnt get into a situation with a big ship.

PS. (I had seen things like that before, but not from a "little yacht", and not in such volume).

PPS It is a long time since I did a watch on a big ship, (1984), but having seen both sides of the fence, and keener to arrive than arrive quickly, the experience has definitely had an effect on the way I deal with some situations. I guess I ask myself what would the ships officer like me to do to help avoid a situation... one of these is to show him an aspect/colour which tells him he doesnt have to do anything to keep clear... another is to stay far enough away from him for the same reason..... another is to consider that he might not see you at 1 or 2 miles, whereas you have been watching him from 10 miles plus....... just keep out of the way.

I'm rabbiting on......
 
[quote. We are talking an Agency officer here who "came up the hawse-pipe" ... the hard way. Not as a Cadet .... Regardless of PC and all that - it is not uncommon for old-time Masters - especvially the Extra Master types ... sort of ex Commonwealth Shipping / P&O sort to look down their noses at such.
The 2nd mate is "ancient" by modern usual age standards ... and probably scared about losing his position if he called Master ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot agree less - what is your practical experience to warrant this statement

I have now served as a Master worldwide with a variety of deck officers from a variety of backgrounds for 25 years and am unable to identify any such unprofessionalism you imply by using this bold remark - and I was a b&c cadet by the way.
 
The enquiry panned the simple octahedral reflector that may have been used. OK it has limited performance but you can be reasonably sure it has that performance.
I have a Firdell Blipper which is something? inside a whitish plastic case with rounded ends.
The first time I put up the mast when I took over the boat water dripped out of the blipper. Is it corroded, does it still work? I have no idea.
 
I think perhaps we need to take a step back from this debate.

The 2nd officer will at some time probably go on trial for manslaughter, facing a possible life sentence.

Everyone assumes that the PoB hit and sank the Ouzo and repeatedly stating this could be considered sub judice.

More significantly it is far from being proven.

The crew of PoB saw a red light - initially 300m ahead and to starboard - if I remember rightly.

They then took some form of action and saw the red light clear astern - again from memory.

The link to Ouzo comes from a recording of a radar trace from VTS.

This is said to co-incide with the likely course of Ouzo.

How many yachts are there in the Solent area - thousands, none of which have the means to be positively identified by VTS from a radar trace or any other means

Sadly - no-one knows what he actual course was.

Further both sides of the debate are at one in saying that the vessel with the red light was not seen by PoB because its radar was ineffective because the vessel was lost in clutter.

If that is the case then how can evidence of a radar track from VTS "prove" that vessel to be Ouzo?

And prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The red light from the vessel was seen astern of the PoB after the incident - who can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vessel was lost because of that incident. An enormous efort went into a search for the wreck and found nothing. Had the vessel sunk immediately or shortly afterwards surely it would have been found.

The other evidence is the back trace from where the bodies were found using tidal flow calculations.

During the time between the PoB incident and being found the bodies travelled a number of miles. It is reasonable to assume that going into the water anywhere along that track at the appropriate time would have left tem to be found at the same time and place.

Again the question of where is the wreck also casts doubt upon the presumption of the red light vessel being Ouzo.

The examination of PoB found no evidence of a collision. While the round trip to Spain may well have removed such traces that is most certainly not evidence that such traces did exist.

The MAIB report seeks to find what happened and that is the most probable - a balance of probability.

This is vastly different from the requirement of the court which will try the 2nd officer of PoB. They will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the red light vessel was Ouzo, and that the man was negligent in performing his duties to the point of criminality. Even more they have to prove it to the satisfaction of a jury of people who are not seamen and women and who will need all the technical details explained to them from first principles.

Unless there is some significant evidence that is not in the public arena then I find it difficult to see how they can do this.
 
MAIB was "of the firm opinion" that the yacht in the close quarters incident with PoB was Ouzo and that Ouzo was "almost certainly catastrophically affected by a collision or near collision with a large vessel". It's hard to find any reason to disagree with those conclusions. Put them together and there is a very strong case that PoB was sunk (by direct or near collision) by PoB.

That "very strong case" may fall short of "beyond reasonable doubt" - that's up to a court/jury to decide. What is beyond any doubt is that PoB did nothing to positively verify the safety of the yacht and crew with which it nearly (or possibly actually) collided (the watch on PoB could not have been certain they did not hit the yacht - it was out of sight as it passed down the side of the ship).

Furthermore, if the yacht was Ouzo, and if it was hit or swamped by PoB, it is entirely possible, if PoB had taken appropriate action, that all of the crew of Ouzo would have been saved.

In my opinion, the conduct of PoB's watch amounted to a reckless disregard for the consequences of action (or inaction) which (morally) is as deserving of legal sanction as a "proven beyond reasonable doubt" charge of manslaughter.
 
[ QUOTE ]
it is entirely possible, if PoB had taken appropriate action, that all of the crew of Ouzo would have been saved.

In my opinion, the conduct of PoB's watch amounted to a reckless disregard for the consequences of action (or inaction) which (morally) is as deserving of legal sanction as a "proven beyond reasonable doubt" charge of manslaughter.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this I agree!

This was a classic example of hit and run. What he hit, or nearly hit, is not absolutely certain but, if it wasnt Ouzo, you would expect the yacht he nearly ran down would have come forward by now, or to have at least shouted abuse at him over the VHF.

Hard to think it wasnt Ouzo, and lots of reasons to keep well out of the way of big ships
 
Re: Ouzo & Colros - similarities?

Just one question, which I hope is not drifting too much..... as the MAIB is in the limelight here, I am wondering if they have been told (perhaps by the Coastguard?) about David on Colros.

If they were told, would they be interested?

Trouble is, there really isn't anything for them to investigate - all we know is that he set sail in December heading south from Newlyn, and simply disappeared.
I guess the logical conclusion now is that he was run down by a ship, perhaps in the same manner as Ouzo was run down.
 
I'm sure they are "of a firm opinion", but that in itself does fall short of beyond reasonable doubt.

Unless there is other evidence that is not at present available

I've not re-read the report but from memory they claim to have seen the red light astern of them.

Assuming that to be the case, to what extent that would count as verifying the safety of the yacht I don't know. I guess thats for the jury too.

"if the yacht was Ouzo, and if it was hit or swamped by PoB, it is entirely possible, if PoB had taken appropriate action, that all of the crew of Ouzo would have been saved."

Don't disagree - but thats an awful lot of "ifs" to count against beyond reasonable doubt.

Morally I would agree entirely about the conduct of the watch.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that it is about "par for the course" I'm sure there are worse cases that escape notice.

Whether the law and morality will coincide we must wait and see.

But I wouldn't bet on it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Don't disagree - but thats an awful lot of "ifs" to count against beyond reasonable doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - but that only goes to the chances that Ouzo's crew may have survived. There is no doubt that they PoB didn't positively verify the safety (or otherwise) of the yacht it hit or nearly hit and there is no doubt that PoB's watch could not be certain (or should not have assumed) they had not hit it.
 
But again you are making the assumption that the vessel involved with PoB was the Ouzo - and that has first to be proved. Again, where is the wreck?

Second, having proved that, you have to prove that the "interaction" between the Ouzo and the PoB was what proved fatal.

Having proved those 2 things you have to prove that the officer was sufficiently negligent to have commited manslaughter.

And I reiterate, you have to prove all these things to a jury of non sailors who will not readily understand, for example, the effect of a near miss on a small sailing vessel.

I have avoided running the arguments that have been exercised on these forums that there is a level of culpability on the crew of the Ouzo. No doubt this will be run as a level of mitigation for any negligence on the part of the PoB. Personally I think it better that such a line of argument be avoided.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But again you are making the assumption that the vessel involved with PoB was the Ouzo - and that has first to be proved. Again, where is the wreck?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I'm not doing (in the argument I'm making). (My opinion is that it almost certainly was, but that's another matter).

My point is that regardless of whether the yacht PoB hit (or nearly hit) was or was not Ouzo, the failure to verify its safety is as blameworthy as if it definitely was Ouzo.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, having proved that, you have to prove that the "interaction" between the Ouzo and the PoB was what proved fatal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed - to prove the manslaughter charge. But - again - That's not what I'm suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Having proved those 2 things you have to prove that the officer was sufficiently negligent to have commited manslaughter.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the real point. The negligence was not in the close encounter/collision itself - that was (in my opinion) due partly to bad judgement (but short of negligence), possibly on the part of both vessels, and partly fortuity. The real negligence is in the failure to verify the safety of a vessel that, for all the watch knew, had been hit or disabled. The problem is there appears to be no suitably serious charge (I suppose breach of colregs is a possibility but not sure what the penalties are).

[ QUOTE ]
And I reiterate, you have to prove all these things to a jury of non sailors who will not readily understand, for example, the effect of a near miss on a small sailing vessel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Expert witness.

[ QUOTE ]
I have avoided running the arguments that have been exercised on these forums that there is a level of culpability on the crew of the Ouzo. No doubt this will be run as a level of mitigation for any negligence on the part of the PoB. Personally I think it better that such a line of argument be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - no comment.
 
We cannot pre-empt the views of a jury. However, we can take from all this what the worthy MAIB inspectors would want....the lessons to be learned.

Few of us are strangers to a 'surprise' close quarters situation. Even fewer, probably, can claim perfection in our management of 'risk of collision' situations.

I study the MAIB Reports from a "What will I do differently" and "There but for the Grace of God go I" perspective. Would it not be more productive, here, to focus on what we could and should do better - in our own best interests?
 
Well said Bill.

Nobody is perfect - we all make mistakes from time to time. Most of the time these are accidental mistakes, not intentional.
We do not go around deliberately causing havoc and mayhem.

I am sure that we are all in agreement that the crew on the bridge of the PoB did not say to themselves 'Phew, that was a close shave, hope that boat is OK'.
Or something like 'Nearly got him that time'.

They are professional seafarers.

And I am sure that they analysed the situation at the time, possibly did a risk analysis (to use a popular phrase), and decided that as they could see the light behind them, the boat was OK. At least I am assuming that this was their line of thinking.
Remember, everything is possible in retrospect - there is always the question 'what if?'
And all of us are guilty of 'what if' situations.
None of us is a perfect sailor. watchkeeper, crew or skipper.
But if we all strive to do the best that we can, then we are getting there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have avoided running the arguments that have been exercised on these forums that there is a level of culpability on the crew of the Ouzo. No doubt this will be run as a level of mitigation for any negligence on the part of the PoB. Personally I think it better that such a line of argument be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where any blame has been alluded to on the part of the crew of the Ouzo?

I find it hard to believe it wasnt the Ouzo - if another yacht had survived that particular close quarters situation, they would have reported it when the publicity regarding the incident began, or at least by now.

It would seem that, if it was Ouzo, they were the right of way vessel, they were showing lights, and they probably stood on when they saw the Bilbao altering course to starboard.

Most of the reasons for the Ouzo not being seen are placed on the white lighting on the bridge, the fact that it wasnt shaded properly, and the lack of time for the lookouts' night vision to become acclimatised. More reason is placed when the Officer didnt report the incident to the Master, and didnt ensure that the vessel was safe.

There are definitely some things which can be learned in relation to equipment fitted to, or carried aboard, a small vessel, and I have also alluded to the sense of keeping right out of the way of big ships.

Lesssons to be learned, rather than blame to be attached. As you say, that is for a court.
 
I fail to the relevance of your reply to my post

my point was to raise the issue of pre-empting the OOW's actions based on his route to certification. sbc failed to mention his past career in ferries and concluded he would be hesitant to call the master for some convoluted reason

what is your point ?
 
" I find it hard to believe it wasnt the Ouzo "

Is that the same as beyond reasonable doubt

Would you sentence an man to life imprisonment on that basis?
 
[ QUOTE ]
" I find it hard to believe it wasnt the Ouzo "

Is that the same as beyond reasonable doubt

Would you sentence an man to life imprisonment on that basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have said a few times, I'm for learning from mistakes rather than blame, and it is for a jury/court to decide the above.

I once saw beyond reasonable doubt explained by a lawyer, (probably on a US TV show).

In front of a jury the lawyer held up a pen, then dropped it on the floor such that they couldnt see it. He suggested that, whilst they couldnt see it, so couldnt be absolutely certain that it was on the floor near his feet, that was where it was, beyond reasonable doubt. It was obviously possible that a mouse may have picked it up and taken it away, but it was beyond a reasonable doubt that it was by his feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 49
Replies
0
Views
851
tillergirl
T
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 50
Replies
2
Views
702
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top