Ouzo. Report out on 12 April

VicS

VicS

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 Jul 2002
Messages
48,740
Visit site
I just noitced this on the MAIB website [ QUOTE ]
OUZO - REPORT TO BE PUBLISHED 12 APRIL
Ouzo - report to be published 12 April The MAIB's report of its investigation into the loss of the sailing yacht Ouzo and her three crew will be published on Thursday 12 April. The yacht, which was on passage from Bembridge, Isle of Wight, to Dartmouth, went missing on the night of 20/21 August 2006. The report will be published in full on this website, with hard copies available on request from the MAIB

[/ QUOTE ]
 
That's shortly. And I'm already guessing what some of the recommendations are likely to be....

A) Small craft operators must not assume that a 'risk of collision' is extinguished until the concerning vessel is finally past and gone.

B) Small craft operators must always be prepared to take effective avoiding action, should the other 'conflicting' vessel take inappropriate or inadequate action.

C) Watchkeepers are reminded that basing 'avoidance of collision' decisions and actions solely or mostly on scanty radar information is specifically embargoed. Arrangements for effective visual lookout must be maintained.

D) Watchkeepers must not let other administration duties distract them from their primary task of avoiding collision with other vessels, large or small.

E) Fatigue caused by long duty hours, leading to a degradation of performance and consequent safety - particularly at night - must be guarded against by adequate manning and rest.

F) Masters have a duty to ensure adequate manning, crew rest, clear definition of bridge watchkeeping responsibilities, and the proper performance of company orders regarding ships' routine management while on passage.

Anything else? .....Half-an-hour till midnight. We'll soon see!


/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
I am afraid I am expecting noises about small boat sailors keeping a good lookout Only a few seconds to go!
 
Dunno, first things to strike me are - it seems the ferry did a last minute turn. If you're in a small boat there's not necessarily a lot you can do if a ship turns into you at the last moment, especially something fast moving like a ferry.

And if I understood correctly, the watchkeeper was wearing some kind of sunglasses??? (what are "glasses with photochromic lenses which stopped at 20% of light"?) /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif Gulp!
 
I guess re the ship altering course, not seeing nav lights, this is white flare time, or powerful flashlamp. But they have to be handy, and I suppose quick reaction needed.

We have white flares clipped immediately next to companionway, can be ripped out of the clips.
 
I have white flares as well, but in flare tub, which would require about 90 secs to get to in emergency, and another few secs to set off. The multi million flash lamp is always to hand though, so probably a better bet pointed straight at the other vessels crew if awake and aware.

PS moving house tomorrow, and no phone number allocated yet, so may be offline for a few days, unless I can go wireless at swmbo house etc in meantime.
 
do you have any thoughts on the prosecution of the watch keeping officer for manslaughter ?
my own view ,fwiw, no chance of a conviction with a well conducted defence - can`t see where the gross negligence lies ( always bearing in mind that well known legal maxim - no case so bad you can`t win it and no case so good you can`t lose it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
 
I don't know! I'm especially rusty when it comes to crime... And I haven't managed to read the report, only the news item. To what extent was the watchkeeper responsible for the procedures which made visibility less good (light pollution, etc.)? Bearing in mind you have to prove criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Also to what extent did the yacht contribute - how adequate were the yacht's nav lights? Can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt they complied with the regs and were even switched on (as I say, I haven't read the report)? On the other hand, wearing some kind of darkish glasses seems to me pretty extraordinary on the face of it. But we don't know all the circs.

Next aspect is whether failing to turn round and check if something had gone wrong could be cause for manslaughter. But you can't prove the 'actus reus'. The three may already have been dead by then for all we know. If I remember correctly, that was the point in a case called something like Attorney General's Refernce No.4 of 1980... where a guy tried to murder someone who he may already have accidentally killed!...

I suspect that a real problem for any prosecution though would be gathering enough evidence to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt", if half of the evidence is at the bottom of the sea. On the other hand, that doesn't stop a civil claim from relatives which only has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. But then questions of whether it's worth it, available assets to enforce against etc.

That's all wild speculation really, but I suspect they're the kind of issues that would be considered. There are so many possible factors, you can't judge it on a forum without hearing all the available evidence. Gotta goto bed now!
 
I'm sure the legal types will correct me if wrong, but surely the manslaughter charge has been entered so it can be dropped for a lesser charge once the court establishes who has the best lawyer - er sorry: once the true 'facts' have been established.
 
Of course there may be other factors not yet in the public domain but I would imagine the prosecution will rely much on the actions of the Second Officer in sailing on after the incident without checking what his ship might have done and that the crew of the Ouzo were safe. Seems the crew all survived the encounter and thus could have been saved from the sea.
Tragic, and very very sad.
 
I have now read the full report and I also find it difficult to see how a case could be made out against the officer. The failure to turn the vessel around or send a mayday seem possible but on what was in the report somewhat slim basis for prosecution. It is a case i will follow with interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top