ouzo - the complete report. Change colregs?

[Bat21]

I have experianced similar incidents on two occasions.
Once at Night on passage from Sicily to Malta where a bulk carrier which was overtaking us about a mile clear altered course to avoid a tug and tow. His new course meant that he was closing our stern at over 20kts, there was absolutly no way we could have avoided him. A call on VHF a white flair and a light shone on our sails and then his bridge resulted in a further course alteration but no acknowledgment.

The second occasion was a surfaced submarine, he was on a paralel course about 2 miles behind but coming up fast he then altered course onto what I calculated would be an intercepting course he then dived at about 1000 yds.
/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Stoshak]

I didn't need a sermon, and I don't understand foreign regulatory authorities.
The current arrangements do not work. Big ships are not compatible with little yachts.
So inovative new thinking is required.
Such as -
What other means can we use to sparate ships and yachts.
Why is traffic not controlled in favour of small vulnerable craft, with areas prohibited for large or fast craft. Leading towards separation of the two.
Why is the CGA not sponsoring the development of better reflectors or transponders?
What is the RYA up to?
And so on.

 

[landaftaf]

it wasnt intended as a sermon

with the increase in leisure craft its inevitable more will run the risk of collision.

they are separated when possible - hence 'guard boats' escorting large vessels in confined waters

highlighting the fact that a yot is a dot on the ocean until it gets close would help the small boater appreciate the overall picture from a vessels bridge

and as has been said already, ais and an epirb shouldnt be thought as an expensive luxury but as basic safety items like a lifejacket.

so it cost more money ...... ok, you cant spend it if you are dead /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[JayBee]

There is no doubt that there is always room for improvement in watchkeeping standards, but before calling the integrity of professional mariners into question, it should be acknowledged that if a yacht can not be seen, a ship is not going take any action to avoid a collision.

I doubt if many yachtsmen realise how difficult it often is to see a yacht from the bridge of a ship. At night a yacht’s normal navigation lights do not show up well even at close range. By close range I mean within a distance that a merchant ship will commonly cover in about 10 minutes – say less than 2 miles. The problem becomes worse where there is a background of shore lights or in heavy commercial traffic.

To enhance the yacht’s visibility keep a powerful 12v searchlight in the cockpit and shine it briefly, at short intervals, in the direction of the ship’s bridge. This will usually get the watchkeepers’ attention and unless the ship is almost on top of the yacht, will not destroy their night vision.

By day, a white hulled yacht with white sails, in breaking waves and sunshine, in the space between the horizon and the ship’s bridge, is almost perfectly camouflaged.

For a variety of commercial reasons, many reputable shipowners register their fleets under flags of convenience A FOC does not automatically indicate "rogue vessel".

“Nobody on the bridge” is a common yachtie observation. Given that a merchant ship bridge usually extends for the full width of the vessel and that the watchkeepers are probably somewhere in the middle, close to their instruments and controls, it would be amazing if they could be clearly seen from the deck of a yacht.

Substantial course alterations are easily and quickly made by the largest ships in open and deep water. Reducing speed and stopping are not so generally so easy and are less used by ships for collision avoidance.

Having experienced the problem from both sides, I assume that I can not easily be seen in my yacht and attempt to make my presence more detectable – radar reflector, searchlight, VHF etc.

If at all possible, do not get into close quarter situations with ships.

 

[Stoshak]

I thought that was a very reasonable assessment of the current state of affairs, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is not much room for improvement given the current culture (big fast ships trying to avoid small slow yachts using col. regs ).
So I was advocating a bit of a rethink of the whole situation using a clean sheet of paper rather than tinkering with what we have at present.
As a matter of interest, how do they do things in the USA where they probably have a huge population of leisure boats and a Coastguard who may be sympathetic towards the little chap

 

[Sailfree]

After a sea survival course I fitted our lifejackets with divers stobe lights as I was told they can be spotted by Helicopters from 12mls.

If all small boats fitted them then big ships would turn to avoid me in the water instead of coming to rescue me!

I think a stobe for people in the water and Small boats requiring assistance a great idea.

The way forward for small boats must be brighter LED masthead tricolours approved by MCA.

 

[Sailfree]

[ QUOTE ]



what do you suggest is implemented - deck officers and ratings forming part of a navigational watch are regularly checked for fitness, including sight.
they are certified as competent by regulatory authorities - part of which is a through working knowledge of the the Col Regs









[/ QUOTE ]

I would be surprised if this was not a current requirement. I am just renewing my Yachtmaster commercial endorsement and the medical and sight testing is part of that (in fact the form is a lot more complicated now than it was 5 yrs ago!)

Like others I have always been wary of ships when going Xchannel but felt confident (which I now realise was misplaced) of ferrys.

Up to now my judgement of Ferries is based on the those that we had met X channel, the Cowes ferries that are facing weaving through lots of small boats and that it was the observant watch keeping officer on the Xchannel ferry that spotted the liferaft and saved the crew from the Wakhura. Remember on that occasion there was no distress call and had no reason to be looking for them and IIRC they were spotted at 8mls so lets be more balanced in our criticism of Ferries, certainly the Pof B watchkeeping etc left lots to be desired but this may not be a fair general criticism of others.

 

[fisherman]

Many fishing boats have orange 'recovery vehicle' type rotating beacons. These have a strobe effect and are for extreme circumstances only, just to get the attention. Good even in bright sunlight, and cheap.
I think technically they indicate a sub on the surface or an air cushion vehicle.

 

[JayBee]

Yes - anything that will attract attention, without being actually illegal.

...and fishing vessel working lights are always visible at huge distances - long before the nav lights!

 

[jimbaerselman]

[ QUOTE ]
The accident has shaken my faith in the integrity of professional mariners as a whole.
I look at the huge number of vessels roaring up and down the Channel, registered under all sorts of flags of convenience, and I wonder which ones I can actually trust to comply with the Col Regs. I can't distinguish between the good ones and the bad.


[/ QUOTE ] Do you feel this way when you're driving a car? You should; your risks of collision are far greater. And how do you think they feel about your knowledge of colregs?

There's pretty gross lack of perspective in much of the discussion that has taken place. First, there are very few sailing areas in the world where traffic is so dense, and visibility so poor, that collision risks are high. Vulnerable areas are defined by TSS with special rules for those under 20m. And these rules are questionable in their utility, because those using TSS don't know the size of vessels crossing . . .

Someone recommended strobe lights. They are specifically forbidden in Colregs, excepting for air cushion vehicles ('cos where they're pointing is not necessarily where they're going) and pairs trawling purse seine netters. (Heaven knows where IOW high speed ferries get their authority to use them).

And someone has proposed that small vessels should keep out of the way of big vessels. If they travelled at similar speeds, this idea may have some merit. But when one vessel (irrespective of size) is travelling at three to five times the speed of another, the faster vessel can pick his course 'to miss' much easier than the slower vessel. Think of how a 30kt power boat plots his route through a crowd of sail boats. To him, the sail boats are relatively static. No point in telling the slow boats to keep out of the way.

 

[Guest]

a) Complete report ? As I read it is the report of findings leading to loss of Ouzo ... but not conclusive - if it was then there would be no need for the "riding comment" about not for Judicial use.
b) Much is re-iterated about radar reflectors etc. - but if thst the case then why can Soton VTS say they had target exit Bembridge and go off screen edge at about time of Ouzo departure - that indicates IF Ouzo - that they were radar visible.
c) Many comments, opinions of Experts about safety gear etc. are in the report, padding it out.
d) Photochromatic lenses .....

I agree with many that the actions of the 2nd Mate are questionable and sadly so.
One item that is not mentioned is the possible concern of that man for his job .. he is over normal seagoing retirement age, he is an agency appointed person, he worked up from the deck ... all sadly factors that may affect his judgement in that he doesn't want to create a stir and lose his job ... which sadly for Ouzo has been fatal. As we consider based on this report.

The report as with other Marine Casualty reports I have had the misfortune to be involved with has many aspects of circumstantial evidence, and little real facts. But that is based again on a report that I consider flawed and padded out.

I realise that some of you will resent my post here in this way and comments, but I think an element of bring back to the real report needs voicing.

Read it again ... read it looking for real hard cold facts. Discount supposition and calculated probables. What do you have then ? IMHO only a few lines.

I feel so sad for the family's and others involved in this tragedy. I feel this report does not really answer or bring comfort ... not even a solution to prevent it happening again.

Now shoot me ...

 

[Lizzie_B]

In the States I haven't found it too much of a problem. I think watch keeping varies from ship to ship like in any other country.

I think the one thing I FEEL is different is that the big ships seem much more ready to talk on the radio.

Eg, coming into Tampa Bay at night, lots of shoreside light pollution, including stupid anti terrorist lights on Bridge pillars, which destroy night vision, a 34,000 ton bulk carrier still managed to pick out my stern light and called me up on VHF to let me know which channel he was going to take and confirm my intentions.

Thick fog in Cheasapeake Bay. Large vessel heading south, general warning on VHF of position and intentions and the helpful info that he was going to stay in at least 60 feet of water. It is not difficult to find water shallower than 60 feet in Chesapeake Bay.

Had interesting talk from Maryland Pilots Guy in April. He reconned his worse problem was the Annapolis Yacht Club's President's Cup Race. when the will to win seemed to drive the will to live out of some people's mind!!

Also so gave useful info about the directions different types of traffic tended to use, eg under the bridge, southbound large ships will head East when you expect them to go south, tugs and push barges will come over to the west side of the bay in contrast.

I don't know, how often do Solent Pilots send reps to talk to yacht clubs in the area? Any one know?

 

[jonjo]

[ QUOTE ]
b) Much is re-iterated about radar reflectors etc. - but if thst the case then why can Soton VTS say they had target exit Bembridge and go off screen edge at about time of Ouzo departure - that indicates IF Ouzo - that they were radar visible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Think seastate, as mentioned in the report. By the time of the collision the ebb tide had kicked in and they were fully exposed to a brisk SW wind.

Would the auto declutter setting on the PoB's radar have tuned itself to eliminate false targets generated by the overfalls off St Catherines just north of Ouzo's position?

 

[Lizzie_B]

I agree with you Nigel. The whole incident is a tradegdy made up of so many 'what ifs'. What if PoB hadn't been delayed, what if Ouzo had got the earlier tide, what if the look out had been on the starboard side of the bridge, what if the bridge blackout procedures had been better used, etc.

At the end of the day no one will ever know if any factors would have made a difference. Not only will friends and relatives be living with the 'what ifs' but so , most likely, will the second officer be.

At the end of the day, to err is human, and considering the business of the area it is actually surprising that so few incidents occur.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
The accident has shaken my faith in the integrity of professional mariners as a whole.
I look at the huge number of vessels roaring up and down the Channel, registered under all sorts of flags of convenience, and I wonder which ones I can actually trust to comply with the Col Regs. I can't distinguish between the good ones and the bad.
This insecurity leads me to believe that we have to assume that none of them is keeping a proper watch for small vessels.
So I intend to navigate in future on the basis that there is no one on the bridge.
What else can one do?
I would like to see a bit more support for the leisure sailor in this respect from CGA and MAIB. I see lots of fragmented advice leading us towards Seeme, liferafts, and so on , but no top down approach aimed at preventing these sorts of accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I am hearing a bit more sensible comment .... apart from the faith in pro mariners ... Flag of vessel literally has no bearing on nationality or experience of persons on board these days ...

Best way to look at any sistuation yacht / ship - regard it as no-one sees you and make yourself safe.

Like driving a car ..... regard all other drivers as idiots and don't put yourself or vehicle in position that action of the other alone is required.

The rules are good and well enough if all do the correct thing ... but unfortunately we are not robots - that incl. ships OOW and Watchman.

 

[Stoshak]

Well, that doesn't seem a very constructive response.

The tired old argument about more dangerous doing the ironing at home than being at sea., with no statistical support.

It's a good job the aviation chaps don't use traffic accident rates as their target.

Do you have any positive ideas for improvement - we could have a bit of a brain storm session.

 

[jimbaerselman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any positive ideas for improvement - we could have a bit of a brain storm session.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. I have put them across in these fora from time to time. There some considerations to be tackled within colregs. One is to remove the ambiguities which arise between sail and power caused when it is uncertain whether vessels are not (or are) within sight of one another. Another is to remove the ambiguity about whether or not the vessel due to alter course is going to do so. Another is about relative speed. The points about 'attention getting' are obvious.

1. Leisure sailors should spend the minimum possible time in areas busy with commercial traffic. To that end, paths used regularly by commercial vessels should be published as advisory information (in addition to compulsory TSS).

2. Leisure sailors should use as powerful a range of attention getting devices as they can afford or manage in their vessel. (Flares, powerful lights, radar relflectors, radar transponders).

3. In known traffic zones, visibilities less than 5nm, if a sailing vessel has no radar to detect oncoming traffic, it should furl the jib, and cross the direction of traffic at 90 degrees under engine, showing the appropriate shapes/lights.

4. An addition to colregs should be considered, in which all vessels making a course alteration to avoid another vessel should always make the appropriate sound signal.

5. Within colregs, vessel speed should be considered, with the possibility of defining 'high speed craft', which (when colregs require them to make an alteration of course in good time) may define 'in good time' to be 5nm (or 10 min) to be accompanied by the appropriate sound signal as above

 

[keelbolt]

The Colregs are fine as they are. POB's decision to alter course by small increments, highlighted in the report, is probably one of the main contributory factors. Colregs require course changes to be obvious (Rule 8). Her decision not to stop was wrong, and that is highlighted in the report too. It is not the regulations that were at fault.

KB

 

[jimbaerselman]

I agree with you about the causes of the incident. I was replying to someone who wanted some constructive comments about possible changes to colregs. Many of the above have been discussed from time to time among the commercial ticket examiners who make proposals for colreg changes and discuss anomalous situations.

 

[JayBee]

There are two issues here.

The slow course alteration, which was initiated when PoB reached her waypoint was NOT in contravention of Rule 8, as the ship was reportedly unaware of Ouzo's presence - hence NOT in a collision avoidance situation under the Rule.

The last minute attempt to avert collision when the lights of Ouzo were sighted, using the rate of turn limited autopilot, is a separate issue and would have been too little, too late under the circumstances.