l'escargot
Well-Known Member
Glad I'm not likely to be sailing with him in that part of the Solent - he could end up getting run down by a tanker...
Perthshire Royal Navy officer accused of negligence after Cowes Week yacht crash
- Thread starter TQA
- Start date
jrc1983
Well-Known Member
That diagram is also reproduced on Admiralty chart 2038.
lenseman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2006
- Messages
- 7,077
- Location
- South East Coast - United Kingdom
The RN skipper probably thought that her could sail in front of the VLCC but he forgot about wind shadows. Ships of that size do alter the wind dramatically when near, this is another reason why you should stay clear.
.
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
Am I the only person who finds that bit of doggerel intensely annoying?
It's used to justify some pretty crass interpretations of IRPCS and the answer is that Mr O'Day MUST have been wrong because whether you start as stand on vessel or give way vessel, all vessels must ultimately take actions (make every effort?) to avoid collision. The impression the ditty gives is of someone who steams on regardless because they are 'right'. There's no such thing because by steaming on regardless you are ultimately also in the wrong.
This is NOT a comment on the incident in question where the large vessel in restricted waters doesn't have much choice. It's more of a pop at those who think that the way yachts and ships interact in harbours etc is the way things happen in open waters.
In response to the earlier comment about plastic giving way to steel, what should I do when I meet a minesweeper? (Not engaged in minesweeping!) Hint as to the problem: some minesweepers are 'plastic'....
Talulah
Well-Known Member
My crystal ball reveals a change in plea to guilty just before the trial. Perhaps someone cold post a poll. One thing I am sure of is that whatever court result it is unlikely to change my opinion.
Last edited:
Seajet
...
Tranona,
thankyou for your flattering attention to anything I post.
If you know the Solent and the exclusion zone you will have to admit I'm right, there is no excuse for the collision discussed here.
Just because Stewart Hall has apparently proved a wrong'un this does not - should not - incriminate the rest of the people accused in what seems a very suspect witch hunt.
Now get back under your rock and think about collisions with big ships in narrow channels.
Seajet
...
Are you sure you've thought that one through ?
Ships in the Solent generally prefer to face into the tide for steerage way, and as for ' being pushed back onto the Brambles ' they're starting off down tide of the Bramble Bank on an ebb then a turn to port takes them along either the North or main shipping channels; only way they'll be pushed onto the Brambles is engine failure and being slow with the anchor.
Athene V30
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Is this man a stranger to the Solent? If he is then it is more likely that he was not aware of the exclusion zone and surprised by the route of the ship. I am not seeking to justify what happened, I suspect that what happened was a series of small errors that put him in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would have abandoned the race and fired up my engines and cleared out rather than got into this situation, why didn't he do that? Loss of face in the presence of his fellow crew? It has not turned out well. On the face of it he has NOT impeded the ship at all as it is clear to see that the ship has carried on regardless.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
I don't believe he is a stranger to the Solent. Even if he were, the race instructions cover the moving exclusion zone problem so he'd have been negligent in not reading them if that's his plea. And of course the Solent charts also mention it.
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
I agree, it is not an excuse. If he is not a stranger to the Solent then it make the whole incident baffling.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
No you're not. I think it is often trotted out when someone hasn't been able to interpret ColRegs to support their own argument in the belief that it in some way "trumps" ColRegs...
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
Yes I have - have you?
If you look at the chartlet below you will see just to the west of the Prince Consort Cardinal there is a track marked on the flood tide (not the ebb) where a ship may make a turn to port to swing round the end of the Brambles and line up for the Thorn Channel. This is in the vicinity of where the collision occurred. In the event of any loss of way they run the risk of grounding on the Brambles on the flood, the ebb would push them away.
jrc1983
Well-Known Member
That's not quite the definition of "impeded" in the spirit of the rules, as whether the vessel can carry on regardless is irrelevant.
Rule 9 states that vessels of "less than 20m in length or sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a vessel which can only navigate in a narrow channel or fairway", that means that a yacht shall not get itself into a position which impedes the larger vessel and thus forces that vessel (which can only navigate in the narrow channel/fairway) to take action.
It should be pointed out that this does not relieve the larger vessel of the obligation to avoid collision (as per rule 8-f), but for a large ship in a narrow channel this will usually require some kind of drastic reaction; trying to 'crash stop' or make a bold alteration of course in such a location could either lead to a loss of control, a further close quarters situation or even running aground, all which are of course the reasons why we have rule 9 in the first place.
fireball
Well-Known Member
No - you're talking bolx again ..
you said you could predict where the ships go ... PROBABLY ... well - I've said probably isn't good enough - and that's why there is an exclusion zone ...
Lots of leisure vessels cut it fine with other leisure vessels, racing vessels often cut it fine with anything that may be in their way. Only last night I (on port) crossed another vessel whilst racing and we had inches to spare - for that situation a miss is as good as a mile - but you won't catch me getting that close to anything else when not racing (unless I know the other skipper well and we're messing about)
Now what are you on about?
I suspect many racers get within the moving exclusion zone - temporarily - although I can't quite understand why you'd think they'd yell Starboard at a power driven vessel ...
I was joining in the discussion for "additional" rules that was suggested as being required for the Solent - I disagreed - the moving exclusion zone works for the vast majority and this is the only case I'm aware of where a racing/sailing yacht has got it so wrong that they've been hit.
Oh here we go ... right and wrong ... black and white ... I don't recall anyone on here let alone me, defending the actions of the skipper - however, he has pleaded not guilty to the charges and I'm interested to hear what his defence is.
Fortunately not quite dead wrong .. but before hearing his defence I'd agree that he was wrong...Seajet;4165332Thing is this chap[B said:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Were you born arrogant or is it acquired?
You are the one who is just plain WRONG and you can't even spell the person's name correctly. There is no "apparently" about yesterday's court decision. Not only has he admitted to the first 3 offences he was charged with, but to a further 11. If that is not an admission of guilt and justification for the investigation then I am not sure what is. It may well be that others who are also under suspicion for similar offences can disprove the allegations, or that some, or all will admit the offences or be found guilty in the courts. It is not up to us to make those judgements, but the courts. This case does not incriminate anybody else as nobody else was involved in those particular offences.
You are expressing opinions and stating them as facts. You do it regularly and are often shown to be wrong - as many other people point out.
On the subject of this thread the facts are that a collision occurred, but the two main parties involved dispute the cause. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody here is in a position to decide who is right or wrong - that is for the court to decide based on the evidence presented by both parties. It may well be (as suggested by some) that the defendant changes his plea to guilty when it comes to trial, but it seems clear at this point in time he believes that he can convince the court otherwise.
In the meantime there is plenty to discuss about the robustness of the rules and the effectiveness in preventing incidents involving big ships, narrow channels and yachts without elevating opinion to the status of dogmatic fact.
fireball
Well-Known Member
Yes I have - have you?
If you look at the chartlet below you will see just to the west of the Prince Consort Cardinal there is a track marked on the flood tide (not the ebb) where a ship may make a turn to port to swing round the end of the Brambles and line up for the Thorn Channel. This is in the vicinity of where the collision occurred. In the event of any loss of way they run the risk of grounding on the Brambles on the flood, the ebb would push them away.
Ah - I knew I'd seen the turns to port before - I do vaguely recall when I first started sailing around that area to be a little surprised by big ships tracks - but I've always kept well clear ...
Going back to the original collision - do I recall that the tanker had already had to take (some) avoiding action for other vessels? - making his course even less predictable? Just how wide is 200m ? That area can sweep pretty rapidly if the tanker is altering course.<speculation>So perhaps that's (part of) the skippers defence? He thought he was sailing clear until the ship turned to port? </speculation>
benjenbav
Well-Known Member
Without unduly wishing to bang on about golden threads, which are rapidly becoming a mighty scarce commodity, the accused might still expect the prosecution to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was, in fact, guilty as charged. Failing which he is not.
The MCA may yet come down like the wolf on the fold, with their cohorts all gleaming in purple and gold; and nevertheless - as in the Destruction of Sennacherib - find that things turn out not to be quite so straightforward.
Last edited:
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
And the sweep of 1000m can be even greater. A boat could pass well ahead and believe themselves to be well past the anticipated exclusion zone sailing safely away. The ship could then make a further unanticipated turn and place the boat firmly in the centre of the exclusion zone, steaming towards it at 15 knots with the skipper of the boat wondering what direction to head to best use his 6 knots or so to get out of the way.
I have seen the escort boat approach other boats caught in the exclusion zone and "instruct" them which way to go to get out of the way. I have always wondered what words were exchanged with the Atalanta skipper that day and I have never seen the escort boat shoot away leaving like that, without waiting to see that a boat was clearing as instructed.
jrc1983
Well-Known Member
I believe the reason that Southampton Patrol moved off to the other side of the ship was to chase away other potential roadkill - it was pretty crowded out there that day, and invariably SP were very busy.