powerboat accident Southampton water (Hamble)

[thecommander]

From reading the report conclusions, the actions of the crew do sound reckless and I welcome a 40 knot speed limit in Southampton Water.

From my experience far too many boaters treat Southampton Water like a race course.

 

[MapisM]

Would pot markers be an issue in such a boat and doing 100MPH, because there is no shortage of badly placed and badly marked pot markets in S/Water in case you are not familiar with the area, engine testing or not.

Nope, I wouldn't call myself familiar with the area, though funnily enough the only time I cruised there was also for the sea trial of a (smaller) speedboat.
Nowhere near as fast as this one, but we still made 70mph - and belts were not even an option, the boat not being equipped with them.
Incidentally, for the records, there are NON-racing boats capable of more than 150 (!) mph, with neither canopy nor harness seats.

Anyway, re. pot markers, of course they could be an issue in a boat doing 100mph - as well as with any other boat/speed for that matter - not for the marker as such, but its line can get caught by a prop.
In theory, if you see one of them on your course and you realize that steering to avoid it is too risky, the best strategy is to pull the kill cord right away, to minimize the chances to grab the line.

Are you suggesting that this is a risk they didn't evaluate properly, in those waters? I can't comment on that.

 

[MapisM]

From reading the report conclusions, the actions of the crew do sound reckless and I welcome a 40 knot speed limit in Southampton Water.

From my experience far too many boaters treat Southampton Water like a race course.

Reckless just because they were going fast? Regardless, are you suggesting that a 40kts limit as such can avoid reckless behaviors?

 

[thecommander]

Reckless just because they were going fast? Regardless, are you suggesting that a 40kts limit as such can avoid reckless behaviors?

No notification was given to the harbour authority regarding the high speed test.

Insufficient control measures were put in place to mitigate the risks to crew and passengers in the event of an accident.

Crew were not wearing harnesses or helmets for the test.

 

[jrudge]

Reckless just because they were going fast? Regardless, are you suggesting that a 40kts limit as such can avoid reckless behaviors?

They were going very fast by nautical standards - give or take 3 times as fast as most planing boats are capable of cruising at.

They left safety equipment they had on the dock and did not use safety equipment that was install on the boat.

Yes I consider that reckless.

There were really simple things they could have done with nil financial outlay that would have reduced the risk. Most boats dont do 100 mph, and they had the safety equipment available. 100 mph in a boat is VERY fast raising or no.

 

[MapisM]

Are any of these points mandatory?
If not, anyone is still free to label the crew as reckless of course, but that's just an opinion.
Oh, and @thecommander: you forgot the second (and most important) part of my previous question.

 

[thecommander]

@MapisM... I have no reason to doubt that had there been an enforceable speed limit in Southampton Water the likelihood of this accident occurring would have been reduced.

 

[Blue Sunray]

From my experience far too many boaters treat Southampton Water like a race course.

..and the majority of them are under sail.

 

[MapisM]

@MapisM... I have no reason to doubt that had there been an enforceable speed limit in Southampton Water the likelihood of this accident occurring would have been reduced.

Agreed, but that's not what I asked.
You told they were reckless, and I questioned if a 40kts limits as such (even assuming that it's respected!) guarantees non-reckless behaviors.

 

[gjgm]

Are you suggesting that this is a risk they didn't evaluate properly, in those waters? I can't comment on that.

I know nothing about such boats or driving them. The report mentioned that the turn was due to the driver believing he was heading directly into some diving markers, that subsquently turned out to be (fairly common) blue plastic pot markers. Equally common are 3 litre empty plastic milk cartons, by the way. Anyone using these waters knows this to be a frequent hazard to a normal motor boat. I was partly thinking of JFM's thought that offshore might not have been a safer location (at least for rescue), though it seems to me it might be less littered with such hazards.
In any event, this does remind us that how ever experienced the crew and however sound the boat, awful accidents could be a moment away for all of us.

 

[jfm]

@MapisM... I have no reason to doubt that had there been an enforceable speed limit in Southampton Water the likelihood of this accident occurring would have been reduced.

Really? Or is it just that the likelihood of it occurring in Southampton water would have been reduced? I suggest that a 40kt limit there would have resulted in them going further out to sea, meaning that the risk of death of the injured guy would have been greater, surely?

 

[jfm]

As regards the suggestions or recklessness, with which I don't agree, I'm struggling to see that wearing the harness would have improved matters, if the MAIB report is to believed.

First off, let's remember that no-one died and everyone made a full recovery, so to improve on that you have to do quite well.

Second, the MAIB report itself said that if untrained people were on board (into which category the two backseat guys fall, according to the MAIB report) they would be at significant risk of not being able to release themselves from their harnesses. So it is entirely concludable from the MAIB report that in this particular set of circumstances they were better not wearing the harnesses (or at least that it wasn't reckless not to do so). To say they should have worn the harnesses it to speculate (contrary to MAIB) that they would have been able to release themselves or that the driver who courageously dived to make the recovery would have been able to undo the harnesses as well as everything else that he did.

I don't agree they were reckless. Sure, hindsight is a wonderful thing but I think they behaved sensibly in the absence of hindsight and this was just an accident that didn't stem from recklessness. There is nothing wrong in voluntarily taking some risk - humans do it all the time in the pursuit of many things including pure pleasure

 

[MapisM]

The report mentioned that the turn was due to the driver believing he was heading directly into some diving markers, that subsquently turned out to be (fairly common) blue plastic pot markers.

Funny you should mention that, because I found that part remarkable, while reading the report.
I mean, pretty sure the driver knew that by hitting a pot marker he would have taken much less risks, compared to an emergency correction at speed.
But if he thought, or was just in doubt, that there could have been a diver just below the surface, the choice for him was between tightening the turn (takins some risk for himself and his crew, which unfortunately materialized) and potentially killing someone in the water.

Each to their own, but I'd rather cruise on a boat helmed by a reckless driver like this, rather than by some sunday boaters that never went above 25kts in glorious weather, and while reversing in their berth crash against other boats without even noticing... :ambivalence:

 

[MapisM]

Really? Or is it just that the likelihood of it occurring in Southampton water would have been reduced? I suggest that a 40kt limit there would have resulted in them going further out to sea, meaning that the risk of death of the injured guy would have been greater, surely?

J, I fully agree with the point you are making, of course.
But if we should just reason along hypothetical lines, actually my bet is that if there would have been a limit, AND offshore conditions were not good enough to go WOT (conditions which are pretty rare in open sea, for a 13m boat capable of 100mph), they simply would have been forced to wait for a better day.
And in this sense, it could be that the accident wouldn't have happened at all.

I don't think this makes any difference re. the reckless or not debate, though.
And by the same token, if there would be a rule establishing that boats can never exceed their hull speed, anywhere on the planet, pretty sure there would be less speed-related accidents...
...same as making illegal any car capable to exceed 50mph, sort of.
Not sure henryf (among many others around here) would agree with that!

 

[jrudge]

J, I fully agree with the point you are making, of course.
But if we should just reason along hypothetical lines, actually my bet is that if there would have been a limit, AND offshore conditions were not good enough to go WOT (conditions which are pretty rare in open sea, for a 13m boat capable of 100mph), they simply would have been forced to wait for a better day.
And in this sense, it could be that the accident wouldn't have happened at all.

I don't think this makes any difference re. the reckless or not debate, though.
And by the same token, if there would be a rule establishing that boats can never exceed their hull speed, anywhere on the planet, pretty sure there would be less speed-related accidents...
...same as making illegal any car capable to exceed 50mph, sort of.
Not sure henryf (among many others around here) would agree with that!

Paulo,

Are you honestly saying that running around at 100 mph ( which is 30% faster than a car is allowed to go in the uk) is a great idea with no "course marshals", course inspection ... looking for said pots etc is a great idea?

I appreciate no one ( fortunately) was killed but it is things like this that bring regulation, licences etc.

Hindsight or not it was not really the best of ideas to nip round the block at 100 mph covering water that had not been inspected for obstacles ( which at 30 its you dont need as the mk 1 eyeball is most effective) whilst other were using the same stretch of water.

We clearly disagree, but I simply dont think it is a great idea. As with speeding it is only a problem when either you get caught or there is an accident.

Speed is fine, do what you will, but as on a race track ( and we are talking race track speeds - In a DB9 at Silverstone i only managed to peak at 109 mph ( yes I am not the worlds greatest driver) it needs to be organised so that you are not a risk to yourself, your passengers and other innocents ( divers for example .... ).

I won't prolong the debate as we clearly disagree. He took a punt, It went wrong, he is in the wrong ( my view), luckily no one was killed, i doubt he would go out tomorrow and do the same thing.

Doing a 100 mph of Caloforte would be tricky as it is too windy!

 

[MapisM]

Are you honestly saying that running around at 100 mph ( which is 30% faster than a car is allowed to go in the uk) is a great idea with no "course marshals", course inspection ... looking for said pots etc is a great idea?

Well, on one hand it's rather obvious that it wasn't, considering the outcome... Otoh, it's easy to call them reckless in hindsight.
I guess all I'm saying is that I can think of some other VERY experienced and careful folks, which I know personally, who would have gone out the same way as these guys did.
The only caveat, as I said, is that I can't comment on the specific s'hampton conditions.
But also in the Med, I can't think of any sheltered stretch of sea where fishermen don't deploy pots.

 

[jfm]

...they simply would have been forced to wait for a better day.
And in this sense, it could be that the accident wouldn't have happened at all.

On that hypothesis, it wouldn't have happened at all on that day, because they'd have waited for a later day when offshore conditions were calm. But AOTBE, the accident would have happened on that later day, offshore.
I'm not wishing to argue with you of course, , because we're agreeing on the reckless-or-not point

 

[benjenbav]

Belts and harnesses are more complex than just: strapped-in = ok.

Two examples:

Jochen Rindt: the only posthumous F1 world champion, had an excellent harness when he died. He was disinclined to wear the crutch strap and slip under the restraint.

Last year I was at Brooklands, at Silverstone, when two vintage Bentleys touched wheels. One rolled. The driver, with no restraint, was thrown into the air like a rag doll. This meant he was able to finish the day in hospital rather than the mortuary, which is where he would have been had three tons of vintage racing truck landed on top of him as it most certainly would have had he been strapped in.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Keen_Ed]

Don't really see the relevance of cars built to ancient (or non-existent) safety standards. And tracks nowadays don't kill you if you lose it on a corner - you spin out onto the run off area. Likewise, racing cars have roll-over bars.


If you are operating at a speed which means that you can't avoid something as common as a pot marker without spinning out, I don't see how that can't be considered reckless. Poorly marked pot markers are hardly uncommon in the Solent and Soton water.

A few notices to mariners:
http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2015 No 57.pdf

ABP Southampton considers that, in the area of Southampton Water that lies to the
north west of an imaginary line between Calshot Castle and Solent Breezes Holiday
Park and to the south of an imaginary line between Hythe Pier through the Western
Shelf buoy to the Weston shore, a vessel navigating at a speed in excess of 40 knots
through the water does not comply with IRPCS Rule 6 or Byelaw 7(1) unless the master
of that vessel has conducted an appropriate risk assessment and given prior notice of
an intention to navigate at a speed in excess of 40 knots through the water to
Southampton VTS (VTSSouthampton@abports.co.uk or VHF Channel 12) or to the
Southampton Harbour Master's Office (HMSouthampton@abports.co.uk).

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2016 No 02.pdf
http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2016 No 15.pdf
http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2016 No 21.pdf
http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/NTMs/2016 No 15.pdf

 

[Solitaire]

As regards the suggestions or recklessness, with which I don't agree, I'm struggling to see that wearing the harness would have improved matters, if the MAIB report is to believed.

First off, let's remember that no-one died and everyone made a full recovery, so to improve on that you have to do quite well.

Second, the MAIB report itself said that if untrained people were on board (into which category the two backseat guys fall, according to the MAIB report) they would be at significant risk of not being able to release themselves from their harnesses. So it is entirely concludable from the MAIB report that in this particular set of circumstances they were better not wearing the harnesses (or at least that it wasn't reckless not to do so). To say they should have worn the harnesses it to speculate (contrary to MAIB) that they would have been able to release themselves or that the driver who courageously dived to make the recovery would have been able to undo the harnesses as well as everything else that he did.

I don't agree they were reckless. Sure, hindsight is a wonderful thing but I think they behaved sensibly in the absence of hindsight and this was just an accident that didn't stem from recklessness. There is nothing wrong in voluntarily taking some risk - humans do it all the time in the pursuit of many things including pure pleasure

As ever, the voice of reason! It is not unvommon for high speed runs in Soton Water. The inceident was a freak accident. The hitting of the cardinal was a freak and could not have been forseen, wrong place springs to mind! The trials were run early morning, my base is next to where the boat was launched, early mornings out in Soton Water is normally the "flatest" - that and the evenings! It was a freak accident. Shit happens! The bit we should focus on is Dad who went back down and pulled his son out and revived him through his training!