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

fireball said:
- but at the time I doubt the skipper knew exactly which course the tanker would take - this is why there is an exclusion zone.
Click to expand...

Your not seriously suggesting that a ship that size is agile enough to hoodwink a small fast yacht as to it's intentions, are you?
Racers do do silly things sometimes, I saw a yacht in a race sail under the tow between a tug and the tanker it was towing into Falmouth a few years ago! Others were going to follow but were chased off by a very angry escort launch!
 
myquest said:
Your not seriously suggesting that a ship that size is agile enough to hoodwink a small fast yacht as to it's intentions, are you?
Racers do do silly things sometimes, I saw a yacht in a race sail under the tow between a tug and the tanker it was towing into Falmouth a few years ago! Others were going to follow but were chased off by a very angry escort launch!
Click to expand...

Fireballs comment is clear to those who know this corner of the Solent well. Obviously the tanker was going to have to turn sharply to starboard, the big question was exactly when. If you look at the HMs chartlet defining the MPZ you will seeIIRC that the expected lines for differing states of the tide are shown. But these are only expected lines and not always to be relied on. Could make all the difference to deciding which side of the ship to go.
 
I'm with Myquest on this.

I know that area and the shipping movements one gets well, and there is simply no sane reason to end up wrapped around a ships' bows; yes they may turn, but as mentioned this is not an F-16 pulling 9G, and is usually predictable in that ships head into the tide.

If the moving exclusion zone is even vaguely adhered to one isn't left guessing at the last second, but it's good seamanship and courtesy to show the ship skipper one is not going to be a bother and keep clear; imagine handling that ship in that channel, even without lemmings chancing their luck.
 
And then there's rule 0: if you're stupid enough to be run down by a whacking great ship you deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
 
fireball said:
- but at the time I doubt the skipper knew exactly which course the tanker would take - this is why there is an exclusion zone.
Click to expand...
myquest said:
Your not seriously suggesting that a ship that size is agile enough to hoodwink a small fast yacht as to it's intentions, are you?
Click to expand...
No - not at all - but still a small boat skipper will not know where the ship will be - and that is why there is an exclusion zone to reflect that inability to predict the exact nature of a course change.


iirc, just prior to the turn into the thorn channel, some ships turn to PORT first ...
 
fireball said:
No - not at all - but still a small boat skipper will not know where the ship will be - and that is why there is an exclusion zone to reflect that inability to predict the exact nature of a course change.


iirc, just prior to the turn into the thorn channel, some ships turn to PORT first ...
Click to expand...

IF the tide requires...all predictable really; if they turn to port it's probably an ebb tide.

Remember small ships - a lot smaller than the orange job in question - may use the North Channel on the other side of the Brambles, on the bee line for yotties, from Gilkicker to the Hamble, if facing an ebb tide; generally ships in the Solent like to face into a tide to have steerage way rather than be carried along to whatever collision awaits.
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
IF the tide requires...all predictable really; if they turn to port it's probably an ebb tide.
Click to expand...

All predictable really - then you include a "probably" .... so in otherwords - you don't know ... and unless you're a Pilot or you study the tracks of vessels at specific tidal states then you won't know FOR SURE ... and the usual rule of "a miss is as good as a mile" goes out of the window because you can't cut it fine.

If it was simple then Pilots wouldn't be required would they ...
 
Reference the North Channel.
It's worth pointing out that the only restriction on the use of that channel is invariably draught; that means that quite sizeable, yet relatively shallow drafted ships can use it, usually to save time (shaves about 20-30 minutes off the passage) or to avoid a potential conflict with something big in the vicinity of the Brambles. The largest ships which regularly use it are 200 metres in length, 26m in width and draw around 6 metres.
 
fireball said:
All predictable really - then you include a "probably" .... so in otherwords - you don't know ... and unless you're a Pilot or you study the tracks of vessels at specific tidal states then you won't know FOR SURE ... and the usual rule of "a miss is as good as a mile" goes out of the window because you can't cut it fine.

If it was simple then Pilots wouldn't be required would they ...
Click to expand...

I said ' probably ' as I wasn't there but that's how it seems by experience; I thought you were an experienced sailor, but then you should know you're talking lawyer style rubbish.

' A miss is as good as a mile ' ? I'm glad you're not on my boat and so should you be, same goes for cutting it fine in front of ships, they are not just obstacles, people better qualified than you and me have a struggle steering the things in narrow waters for a living and could well do without smartarses in yachts thinking points for their trophy are more important than seamanship and courtesy.

What do you want, spy satellites redirected, spiritualists...

The guy was a berk, end of story; unless you'd care to show us a smart arse racing manouvre which magically gets one to within the moving exclusion zone, no doubt yelling ' Starboard ! ' and hoisting a protest flag just as you go under...

" Here Lie the bones of Mike O'Day;

He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,

Now he's as dead as if he'd been wrong "

Thing is this chap was wrong.
 
Last edited:
VicS,

I know what you mean, for example I think the current witch hunt for celebrity molesters is appalling with no evidence; however it's hard to see why a yacht should end up on the bows of a tanker right there.

If you're experienced in the Solent how would you explain it other than an arrogant / careless berk chancing his, his crews' and his boats' luck defying the rules ?
 
Seajet said:
VicS,

I know what you mean, for example I think the current witch hunt for celebrity molesters is appalling with no evidence; however it's hard to see why a yacht should end up on the bows of a tanker right there.

If you're experienced in the Solent how would you explain it other than an arrogant / careless berk chancing his, his crews' and his boats' luck defying the rules ?
Click to expand...

Maybe: sailing eastwards on starboard tack (sw-ish wind). Bore up to fill kite. Line round rudder. Oh feck. Now heading south right into the path of that orange behemoth. Can't steer either way. Crunch.

Who knows?
 
Seajet said:
IF the tide requires...all predictable really; if they turn to port it's probably an ebb tide...
Click to expand...
If they turn to port, it's more likely a flood tide - the ebb tide goes west in that part of the Solent - they don't want to be pushed back onto the Brambles. So not really that predictable then...
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
...... same goes for cutting it fine in front of ships, they are not just obstacles, people better qualified than you and me have a struggle steering the things in narrow waters for a living and could well do without smartarses in yachts thinking points for their trophy are more important than seamanship and courtesy.

What do you want, spy satellites redirected, spiritualists...

The guy was a berk, end of story; unless you'd care to show us a smart arse racing manouvre which magically gets one to within the moving exclusion zone, no doubt yelling ' Starboard ! ' and hoisting a protest flag just as you go under...

" Here Lie the bones of Mike O'Day;

He was right, dead right, as he sailed along,

Now he's as dead as if he'd been wrong "

Thing is this chap was wrong.
Click to expand...

+1
at last, another possessor of common sense on the thread!
 
Seajet said:
VicS,

I know what you mean, for example I think the current witch hunt for celebrity molesters is appalling with no evidence; however it's hard to see why a yacht should end up on the bows of a tanker right there.
Click to expand...

You seem to have an uncanny knack of getting things wrong. Today the first of the "celebrity molesters" was found guilty of all the charges brought against him. It would be surprising if the CPS brought cases where there was NO evidence - it may well be disputed, but that is what the courts are for - to decide where the truth lies.

Much the same with the case under discussion here - it is irrelevant what you think, you are not in possession of all the facts. The MCA thinks there is a charge to answer and it is now up to the court to decide which it will irrespective of all the opinion expressed here.
 
l'escargot said:
If they turn to port, it's more likely a flood tide - the ebb tide goes west in that part of the Solent - they don't want to be pushed back onto the Brambles. So not really that predictable then...
Click to expand...

That is correct. I have seen a "chart" somewhere (ABP website perhaps) that shows the different courses likely to be followed.

It's also mentioned in a video on the Cowes week website. Think it said something along the lines that on an ebbtide they begin the turn towards the Thorn channel soon after passing Prince Consort but on a flood tide not until they reach Gurnard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top