Perthshire Royal Navy officer accused of negligence after Cowes Week yacht crash

[prr]

If Mr.Hornblower has enought witnesses to prove that because of tangled gear he was 'Not Under Command' he could base his defence on rule 18d maybe? Hope he gets away with it anyway. It was Cowes week !......

 

[Fantasie 19]

I find it odd that he is pleading not guilty. If there were just witnesses then a barrister would challenge them, but there is a video that proves he broke COLREGS. How on earth a skipper that could see a huge ship on a track to be in front of him and not take avoidance action beggars belief.

Exactly.... it's so clear cut that the fact he has pleaded not guilty implies to me (at least) that there are some extenuating circumstances that we're not aware of yet...

 

[bedouin]

It's the "failing to keep a proper lookout" that gets me - are they really saying he didn't see the 120000 tanker

Perhaps he had intended to tack/gybe away when he came to the edge of the 100m exclusion zone and something went wrong - 100m does give you very long to get it sorted out so perhaps he has either a complete defence or at least mitigating circumstances

 

[Bosun Higgs]

What a bizarre statement! I guess you were not in the Navy John, as the passmark at Dartmouth for IRPCS/Rule of the Road/Colregs which (unless things have changed, which I doubt, every Officer Cadet has to take) is 100%. This compares with 80% for the RYA iirc. Quite how this leaves RN Officers not knowing anything about them is beyond me.
All watchkeeping officers than have to maintain that standard through regular checks, so I can't imagine where your statement came from..

He's absolutely right. I thought like you that they would all know all about colregs and navigation then I did a YM theory course for a serving engineering officer on a nuke. He did not know the colregs and wasnt required to do so ( as he told me) and to my surprise he didnt have a clue about navigation either. Ironically he hit some rocks with his keels and his boat sank at her club mooring.

A thoroughly nice chap as it happens.

Everything changes. Pongoes from the local barracks are scruffy these days with unpolished boots and long hair and the female soldiers are unbelieveable.. No doubt the navy has gone down the similar equal opportunities sloppy route.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

However the most important point is that nothing I was saying was supposed to mitigate the guilt of the RN (RNR?) young officer. It appears to have been an example of very poor seamanship which also appears to have no defence. My comments were supposed to try and balance some if the silly swipes people were making against the services. Some were misdirected and ill informed.

I am less sure of this. The man concerned is really a civiian playing at Navy so in effect just another yottie. I can very much understand:

This is a very pertinent case for all those of us who sail into or from Cowes, especially the racers. Even with full knowledge of the moving prohibited zone / precautionary area rules it can be hard to judge the distances required, and very much harder to gauge exactly when the ship is going to make its turn around West Bramble. I am afraid that using phrases like " small craft must...use seaman-like anticipation of its route and the sea-room required when turning" is just an inadequate cop out.
I think that Southampton harbour authorities need to be more pro-actively responsible. At weekends or in Cowes week they know that the central Solent will be full of small craft. On these occasions why don't they send out two pilot cutters to hold station approx 200 metres apart and 1000 metres ahead of the ship? They will know the precise route the ship is taking, and if they don't have instrumentation to measure the 1000 metres then how can we be expected to?
Then it would be a simpler matter for small craft to see where the ship will be going (as opposed to its current heading) and to decide which side to clear off to.

What really seems to have happened here is that he breached the zone like many other boats do. Then he got his spinny stuck and maybe thought he could just make it on that jibe rather than on the other. He didnt but here is the crucial point - the accident went viral on you tube and so the authorities had to make an example of him. When it was revealed that he was RNR and a member of RNSA then it just had to be good media material.

I feel a bit sorry for him. A misjudgement and he ends up hung out to dry. Have you never made such a misjudgement John Morris and by sheer good luck its not been noticed / you got away with it? Of course you have.

 

[l'escargot]

It's the "failing to keep a proper lookout" that gets me - are they really saying he didn't see the 120000 tanker

Perhaps he had intended to tack/gybe away when he came to the edge of the 100m exclusion zone and something went wrong - 100m does give you very long to get it sorted out so perhaps he has either a complete defence or at least mitigating circumstances

I think a significant point is that it is a "moving" exclusion zone, not a static one, it has to be anticipated.

When he initially reached the position where he was hit, it wasn't in the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone was around the tanker that was coming towards him. He either didn't anticipate that it would reach him or he couldn't move out of the way for some reason - a total misjudgement as opposed to a deliberate entering of the zone.

So I don't think the "failing to keep a proper lookout" is saying he didn't see the tanker at all, that is unbelievable - just that having seen it, he then didn't see what was going to happen and he didn't take the required actions for whatever reason.

 

[bedouin]

I think a significant point is that it is a "moving" exclusion zone, not a static one, it has to be anticipated.

When he initially reached the position where he was hit, it wasn't in the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone was around the tanker that was coming towards him. He either didn't anticipate that it would reach him or he couldn't move out of the way for some reason - a total misjudgement as opposed to a deliberate entering of the zone.

So I don't think the "failing to keep a proper lookout" is saying he didn't see the tanker at all, that is unbelievable - just that having seen it, he then didn't see what was going to happen and he didn't take the required actions for whatever reason.

The video I've seen gives no real idea of how he came to be in that position and what his intentions were - if he was trying to cross ahead that is a very different matter to if he had intended to turn away but been prevented by gear failure (to hypothesise). At 10 knts the time between entering the exclusion zone and collision might be as little as 20 seconds - that is not a lot of time to sort things out.

I wonder if the "failure to keep a proper lookout" means they think he was so busy trying to sort out whatever had gone wrong that he took his eye off the tanker and didn't realise how close he was getting.

 

[Daedelus]

The charges are, "failing to keep a proper lookout" and "impeding the passage of the 830 ft tanker".

Since he clearly knew it was there and you can see the mad panic as they realise they've cut it a bit fine and as far as I can see from the video the tanker wasn't impeded in the slightest: it just kept on going with no noticeable effect I'd say he has no case to answer.

If they claimed he should have kept out of the way in the restricted zone then fair enough.

 

[TQA]

I think a significant point is that it is a "moving" exclusion zone, not a static one, it has to be anticipated.

When he initially reached the position where he was hit, it wasn't in the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone was around the tanker that was coming towards him. He either didn't anticipate that it would reach him or he couldn't move out of the way for some reason - a total misjudgement as opposed to a deliberate entering of the zone.

So I don't think the "failing to keep a proper lookout" is saying he didn't see the tanker at all, that is unbelievable - just that having seen it, he then didn't see what was going to happen and he didn't take the required actions for whatever reason.

My understanding is that the moving zone extends 1000 m to the front and 100 m to each side. It will be pretty hard to argue that he was not at least careless about entering the zone. Then having realized that he was about to do so does he make any effort to turn away.

The only defence that might fly would be steering failure IMHO.

Anyway getting more popcorn and looking to see if I can find any recordings of the Navy Lark on the net.

 

[Resolution]

What really seems to have happened here is that he breached the zone like many other boats do. Then he got his spinny stuck and maybe thought he could just make it on that jibe rather than on the other. He didnt but here is the crucial point - the accident went viral on you tube and so the authorities had to make an example of him. When it was revealed that he was RNR and a member of RNSA then it just had to be good media material.

.

Let me fly a kite or two:

1. Are we certain the collision took place in the Precautionary Area (Thorn Channel)? (starts at the line between S Bramble and Prince Consort).
2. Even if it did, how long was it between the ship entering the Precautionary Area (and therefore inlaw the creation of the Moving Prohibited Zone, see Harbour Byelaws 2003 Byelaw No.11) and the collision?
3. Was this time enough for a small vessel to move out of what had become an MPZ?

Maybe we will find out in court this week.

 

[l'escargot]

My understanding is that the moving zone extends 1000 m to the front and 100 m to each side. It will be pretty hard to argue that he was not at least careless about entering the zone. Then having realized that he was about to do so does he make any effort to turn away.

The only defence that might fly would be steering failure IMHO.

Anyway getting more popcorn and looking to see if I can find any recordings of the Navy Lark on the net.

That's my point, he didn't necessarily enter the zone - when he arrived at that position he may have been 5000 yards outside of the exclusion zone. The zone came to him. I am sure he didn't plan to be occupying a bit of water that tanker was going to pass through.

I think the argument is going to be about why didn't he anticipate that he would end up in the exclusion zone and could he reasonably be expected to anticipate that? And once he realised he was going to be in that zone, did he make all reasonable efforts to leave it in order to avoid a collision?

I don't think the fact he was a serving naval officer is of any relevance. I think I shall go and watch the trial but I don't think the magistrate will approve if I take popcorn...

 

[Bosun Higgs]

and what about the role of the two guard boats that were there if indeed the skipper had problems

 

[Seatrout]

I was out a 2011 on the Saturday (my first time seeing cowes week fromt he water) and it was SOO crowded out there. I was suprised to see so many ships coming in that afternoon and wondered if ABP were pushing luck a little as it is only one weekend of the year. They could have timed movements a little more sympathetically.

So commerce has to give way to leisure? I don't think so.

 

[Uricanejack]

The charges are, "failing to keep a proper lookout" and "impeding the passage of the 830 ft tanker".

Since he clearly knew it was there and you can see the mad panic as they realise they've cut it a bit fine and as far as I can see from the video the tanker wasn't impeded in the slightest: it just kept on going with no noticeable effect I'd say he has no case to answer.

If they claimed he should have kept out of the way in the restricted zone then fair enough.

Ha Ha Very good points +1

 

[Seatrout]

Reading this thread makes me uncomfortable when posters are trying to justify or mitigate the yacht's position.

Wood and Plastic give way to STEEL.... that is all, there is no other argument.

 

[Resolution]

Reading this thread makes me uncomfortable when posters are trying to justify or mitigate the yacht's position.

Wood and Plastic give way to STEEL.... that is all, there is no other argument.

A simplistic attitude that might work in the open spaces of the Clyde but not in the extremely busy waters off Cowes.
Down here we need more complex rules to enable us all to use the waters safely.
In this instance there has been a collision so there has obviously been a failing, either in the rules or in their observance.

Apart from some video and some photos we do not yet know all the relevant facts, so whilst it is interesting to speculate on what went wrong, it is too early to make judgement.

 

[Uricanejack]

This chaps going to be quite famous regardless of the outcome of this trial which will be far from a straight forward he’s guilty. The English legal system is the basis for much of the worlds court systems and still has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The powers that be have decided to send a message by making an example of him as a warning of sorts to the rest of the sailing community.
He is a Navy Officer makes a good headline. In reality he was just a yachtsman out for a sail with friends and taking part in a race. Who happens to be in the navy.

To prove negligence the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had the knowledge and expertise as a fully qualified and competent skipper and intentionally chose not to bother to carry out or completely disregard his duty.
Its not easy to prove negligence. An error of judgment or lack of knowledge or Understanding. Is not negligence.
If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is properly trained and qualified. And he did not bother to keep a lookout. And he knew but chose to not pay any attention to the Collision Regulations he will be found guilty And he made no attempt to avoid the collision.

At the end of the day it will only answer one question Guilty or Not Guilty.

He was not single handed, there were other sailor presumably experienced to varying degrees on board. Did they just blindly an willingly go along with the plan without saying anything? Are they innocent?

The Tanker Pilot OOW and Master while not charged are far from innocent. Not enough evidence not guilty.

I just don’t think a trial is going to prove anything we don’t already know.

He was a ploncker.
The trial lets the other ploncker's go unnoticed. Some of them may be called and find it a bit embarrassing

 

[l'escargot]

So commerce has to give way to leisure? I don't think so.

There is no differentiation between commerce and leisure when it comes to the rules.

During the start of the RTIR there is provision for commercial boats to make allowance for the race.

Reading this thread makes me uncomfortable when posters are trying to justify or mitigate the yacht's position.

Wood and Plastic give way to STEEL.... that is all, there is no other argument.

And what, disregard all the other rules? There would be havoc in the Solent

 

[Twister_Ken]

To prove negligence

He's not being accused of being negligent.

"Wilson, of Stanley, Perthshire, Scotland, today denied one charge of failing to keep a proper look-out and two charges of impeding the passage of the 830ft long tanker."

 

[Seatrout]

A simplistic attitude that might work in the open spaces of the Clyde but not in the extremely busy waters off Cowes.
Down here we need more complex rules to enable us all to use the waters safely.

I would argue that you need simpler rules such as I suggested, NOT more complex rules.

Having sailed down your gaff I was stressed and unrelaxed. My yacht is insured as a 'pleasure craft', and that was not pleasurable, so my assumption is that the insurance was thus invalidated?