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

[prr]

not possible to be "not under command" when under sail I'm afraid. Guilty therefore.

Rule 3. Definitions

Rule 3f. The term 'Vessel Not Under Command' means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules & is therefore unable to keep out of the way of enother vessel.

 

[Poignard]

As 'naval blunders' go, this is a pretty tame incident.

For a real cock-up the collision organised by Admiral Sir George Tryon RN takes some beating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)

 

[benjenbav]

As 'naval blunders' go, this is a pretty tame incident.

For a real cock-up the collision organised by Admiral Sir George Tryon RN takes some beating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)

Pah! I see your Admiral Tryon and raise you a Cloudesley Shovell.

 

[BobPrell]

Pah! I see your Admiral Tryon and raise you a Cloudesley Shovell.

Hey! No string betting allowed!

 

[lw395]

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...

There certainly are, at least in the rumour mill of Solent yacht club bars.....
It was a long time ago now, and the versions I have heard from various sources seem to have developed over time.
At one point 'actions by stand on vessel' were being questioned.
At other times I've heard that more than the two vessels were involved in the incident.
One or two other points which I won't repeat on a public forum without proof.

It's all too easy to condemn on the grounds of a bit of video, like that oft-used photo which shows a dayboat apparently in front of a tanker, but in reality the dayboat is in 7ft of water so unlikely to be an issue.
On the other hand, I don't have a particularly high regard for RNSA types.

Will I have faith that the outcome is actual justice? I remain to be convinced....

 

[Uricanejack]

Precisely what would you have expected them to do in this circumstance? They would not have been able to stop or take effective avoiding action in time.
Do you know what it's like to take a large vessel through the Cowes week regatta with hundreds of craft around you, them all heading in different directions? Collision avoidance in such situations is effectively reactionary as you're simply unable to make any assumptions or anticipate what those small craft will do, even those which appear to be moving clear (not that you can do that anyway, even in open waters).
By and large the only effective way to get through is to plough on, sounding the whistle and hope Southampton Patrol can chase off the nearest 'bogies'. Zig zagging all over the channel, or slowing down/stopping with a tide running is simply not an option.

What would I have expected them to do.
No point in being precise I was not there.
In general terms make an attempt to avoid the collision.

Starting with the sounding of at least 5 short.
Seeing no immediate response a reduction of speed.
I would expect the bridge team on the tanker to monitor the approach of any small vessel and to take action BEFORE it came close enough the tanker could not avoid the collision. The tankers action to avoid the collision if any was to little to late.
For reasons as yet unknown to me they left it to late. Perhaps their expectation the racing yachts would approach to the exclusion zone then alter at the last minute lead them to make an assumption about this yachts action which when it did not occur left them unprepared to act in time.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Seems to me, from the varying 'points of view' and 'points of navigation rules' that prevail on here, that Cowes Week should be banned, as there are not enough Yachties around who can be trusted to sail in such congested waters safetly and use 'common sense' in such conditions, to avoid collisions with other craft.

Back to basics, with sailing, go for uncrowded waters and anchorages.

 

[Capt Popeye]

And think himself jolly lucky not to be hauled up in front of "The Lounge" in the Comfy chair

Err, should that not be 'the naughty step'?

 

[onesea]

What would I have expected them to do.
No point in being precise I was not there.
In general terms make an attempt to avoid the collision.

Starting with the sounding of at least 5 short.
Seeing no immediate response a reduction of speed.
I would expect the bridge team on the tanker to monitor the approach of any small vessel and to take action BEFORE it came close enough the tanker could not avoid the collision. The tankers action to avoid the collision if any was to little to late.
For reasons as yet unknown to me they left it to late. Perhaps their expectation the racing yachts would approach to the exclusion zone then alter at the last minute lead them to make an assumption about this yachts action which when it did not occur left them unprepared to act in time.

Thats like saying that as a car driver in rush hour it is a car drivers responsibility in slow moving traffic to stop the motor cycle courier riding into him. There will be times where there is nothing the car driver can do about it.

I am not sating the ships staff/ port management have NO blame but the skipper of the yacht is certainly in the firing line. As normal in these incidents allot of things could of prevented it, you just have to hope the correct lessons are learned...

 

[Iliade]

Just as a matter of interest, how quickly could the tanker shed, say, one knot? Also, given the draught, how far could they deviate from their intended course?

Many years ago we delivered a 100 ton iron barge to the upper reaches of the Thames. The coxed eight which tried to come in the opposite direction through the same span of bridge as us would have had zero chance of being avoided if it were down to us... (constrained by width and deceleration limited by mass v. power)

 

[Uricanejack]

Thats like saying that as a car driver in rush hour it is a car drivers responsibility in slow moving traffic to stop the motor cycle courier riding into him. There will be times where there is nothing the car driver can do about it.

I am not sating the ships staff/ port management have NO blame but the skipper of the yacht is certainly in the firing line. As normal in these incidents allot of things could of prevented it, you just have to hope the correct lessons are learned...

You just have to hope the correct lessons are learned is just the point. Unfortunatly a trial will just answer one question. Is Rolly guilty or not guilty which is pretty much useless for learning leasons.
Tarring and Fethering Rolly or Put him in stocks in Cowes to rotten veg at him isn going to change anything.

I am not sugesting the bridge team should be blamed or tried. I am just sugesting there were some errors of judgment on thier part which also contributed to this incident being a collision rather than just an angry Pilot and Captain complaining about egits in sail boats and near miss.

In order to find the correct answers for the correct lessons. you have to ask the right questions in a manner where those involved will speak freely and oppenly without fear of the consequence.

Unfortunatly it would appear the MAIB have not conducted an investigation. Perhalps the Port Authority or RYA did. If so unless they make it public its not much use.

 

[Poignard]

Pah! I see your Admiral Tryon and raise you a Cloudesley Shovell.

Ah yes - good call. And wasn't he the one who hanged someone for having the imperence to tell him he was making a mistake?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Just as a matter of interest, how quickly could the tanker shed, say, one knot?

Very quickly indeed if she had a tug attached astern. One of the Williams Shipping managers, at an afterdinner in a YC, said that their tugs were powerful enough to stop a big boat in one of the big boat's ship's lengths.

 

[fireball]

Very quickly indeed if she had a tug attached astern. One of the Williams Shipping managers, at an afterdinner in a YC, said that their tugs were powerful enough to stop a big boat in one of the big boat's ship's lengths.

and then what ...

It's ok missing one vessel - but what's the knock on effect? Are they going to end up with a beached tanker?
Many many years ago I ran over a rabbit whilst driving the car - to avoid it would've meant a sudden swerve and quite likely a roll or similar accident ... So for me it was me (& my sis) or the rabbit ... I'm glad that was all it was!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Fireball.

Agreed, a stationary tanker, in a tide-swept narrow channel, and with considerable windage, doesn't seem the greatest idea. Simply that someone asked how quickly the tanker could have lost a knot.

 

[DJE]

I am not sugesting the bridge team should be blamed or tried. I am just sugesting there were some errors of judgment on thier part which also contributed to this incident being a collision rather than just an angry Pilot and Captain complaining about egits in sail boats and near miss.

There was virtually no chance for the tanker to change course or speed without serious risk of grounding. The ABP pilot at the safety seminar after the accident explained this. For large vessels like that the pilot will have picked a spot somewhere between Prince Consort and Gurnard where he has to put the rudder hard to starboard. If he doesn't hit that spot and apply full rudder with enough speed to achieve the required rate of turn, then he may well miss the Thorn Channel without the intervention of the escort tug.

 

[fireball]

Fireball.

Agreed, a stationary tanker, in a tide-swept narrow channel, and with considerable windage, doesn't seem the greatest idea. Simply that someone asked how quickly the tanker could have lost a knot.

Indeed - then how quickly could they have lost the lot!

That is an ultimate question though isn't it ...

If you were pilot in charge of a tanker coming through a busy area surrounded by AONB/wildlife sanctuary and you have the choice of running down a yacht or polluting the area with your cargo - what is your decision? (assumes you have control to avoid the yacht or the impending disaster, but not both!)

 

[benjenbav]

You just have to hope the correct lessons are learned is just the point. Unfortunatly a trial will just answer one question. Is Rolly guilty or not guilty which is pretty much useless for learning leasons.
Tarring and Fethering Rolly or Put him in stocks in Cowes to rotten veg at him isn going to change anything.

Rowley might stand a chance if he is represented by the QC of the same name or, perhaps, if he deploys Rowley Birkin's famous line: I was very, very drunk at the time?

 

[Seatrout]

I'm staggered, reading this thread, at the general ignorance expressed by some.

I had heard stories of prats on the Solent who continue to believe that steam gives way to sail, but until now, I simply didn't believe there could be such stupidity within the leisure pastime I share with you all.

No wonder both the MCA and Merchant Fleet refer to us yachtsmen and women (discreetly) as WAFI's.

 

[gjgm]

You just have to hope the correct lessons are learned is just the point. Unfortunatly a trial will just answer one question. Is Rolly guilty or not guilty which is pretty much useless for learning leasons.
Tarring and Fethering Rolly or Put him in stocks in Cowes to rotten veg at him isn going to change anything.

/QUOTE]
Well it might. It might mean idiots in charge of leisure boats pay more attention.
Whatever or however, a sailing boat cant sail right into the bows of a 870ft tanker in a narrow channel and claim none of it is his fault.He might be so stupid that he gets himself into a position that he cant avoid it, but that isnt the point.