powerboat accident Southampton water (Hamble)

[jfm]

@Keen-ed #79, you're only quoting there something that is self evidently nonsense...

​

ABP Southampton considers that, ... 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 ... given prior notice of an intention to navigate at a speed in excess of 40 knots through the water to Southampton VTS

Giving notice just cannot have any relevance to whether Rule 6 is obeyed or not. I mean it just can't, intrinsically. The fact that something is written by a government department doesn't make it right.

 

[paultallett]

Solitaire, you've just hit on the point I was going to make.

I'm not going to get in to the whole reckless or not argument. Accidents happen, some could of be prevented, some just because of bad luck. I'm sure for all involved lessons will have been learnt........ And the gent who had to pull HIS OWN SON out and spend the following few days agonising over if he's going to survive and what he should have, could have, done differently will make him, the team, much safer for the future.

Thank god it didn't become an awful tragedy.

 

[gjgm]

The high speed runs up and down the main channel is one thing;turning towards the mouth of the river ,accelerating towards 100mph towards the bouys (ish) and over shallower water seems to me to be a slightly higher risk.
Having said that, I am sure the driver knows more about handling boats than I ever will. I just note that you do not get pot markers and diver markers in the main channel where they seem to have run the main test; you certainly do get them outside the channel.

 

[sorabain]

Regarding being strapped in: is the assumption that it's statistically safer to be strapped in during a race, because if it all goes badly wrong and you get stuck upside down strapped in a sinking craft that there'll be safety boats (or other competitors) nearby to get you out pretty quickly? Being strapped in during a race seems different to being strapped in during an informal run, although admittedly a risk assessment might identify that the crew should be strapped in and accompanied by a safety boat for such an eventuality.

 

[rbcoomer]

It's always going to be safer to go out with company in a boat, but not always practical/desirable. I think it's also fair to say however that they would have deemed the run as low risk. Whilst to most of us a 100mph run would be deemed risky, these guys do it frequently and by consequence the risks diminish accordingly as to some extent risk rises with inexperience. Nobody could say these guys were inexperienced. Would I have worn a harness/helmet? Yes, probably - (as I think most here might) but do I always wear a seatbelt in a car? No. When off-road I rarely (if ever) wear one. We all make our own assessment of risk and just because theirs doesn't conform to what some here think, doesn't make it wrong. As others have intimated, sometimes by mitigating a perceived risk, we introduce other, sometimes unknown, risks. They were unlucky but thankfully nobody died and that may not have been the outcome had they have been wearing a harness - we'll never know that.

The matter of alerting HM seems wise, but if they had no requirement to, then hardly a failing. Who knows, alerting HM over VHF may have attracted the odd spectator and that too could have added a new risk!

The pot markers are however a real and present danger to all water users and HM should have the authority to prosecute. They're fairly prolific around South Devon too. As already said, if it was obviously a pot where a small correction would have avoided, then he'd likely have taken less abrupt action than he did under the perception it could be divers in the water - where a much wider clearance (and thus bigger course correction) was required. All this said, I would echo the comments that this is (thankfully) a hero story not a blame game in my eyes...

 

[highbridgeflyer]

Interesting thread with some very valid points raised.
I'm not overly familiar with the area, but from what I can see a suitable time was chosen when the likely hood of "congestion" was low and the water conditions good enough for a high speed run.
However, I do agree and believe that if the fitted harness had been worn and adjusted correctly, all individuals concerned would have made it out the boat.
From what I have read from the report and interpret, the injury sustained by one of the crew was down to being thrown around when the boat went "inverted".
Full / enclosed canopy race boats are (I believe) allowed to use full harness equipment, have watertight hatches. Full canopy race boats are also required to have breathing apparatus in the event the boat goes inverted, Open race boats are not allowed harness. The theory being that you are thrown clear in the event of the boat going over and the life jacket does the rest.
Figure 2 photo in the report clearly shows the cylinder and regulator adjacent to the r/h shoulder wing of the seat. It also shows the type of harness fitted to the boat and the simple "lift" release buckle which even the most un-educated person could figure out how to release.
Now I have never been in a race boat of any form (I am open to offers!!), but I have been in various race and rally cars over the course of time. If I had wanted to "test" my rally car after engine overhaul and naturally want to test to its full capability I would be wearing Harness and helmet (and under new regs, a HANS device) and so would the occupier of the co-driver's seat. To me, this was a test of a fully functioning race boat and therefore all relevant safety equipment should have been used imho. This may have prevented injury to Peter Dredge's son. I speak from personal experience of "inverting" a rally car at speeds in excess of 100mph. If I had not worn a harness and helmet, I might not be here typing my waffle!!!
As to the recommended 40kt speed limit........Really!!!!! That section of water either has or has not a speed limit. To me, the authorities should make a clear decision. That said, I do agree with Mr JFM, that had there been a speed limit, then this accident would have happened further offshore and the outcome be different than it was.
Just my opinion

 

[MapisM]

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

Yep, all understood.
I was just following the train of thought that in open sea some obstacles might have been unlikely, but that's all speculation/hair splitting.
A winter forum debate after all, 'innit?

 

[MapisM]

It was a freak accident. Shit happens!

Amen to that. :encouragement:

 

[Ian h]

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!

WE all love a bit of speed, with increased speed comes increased risk, How many of us can honestly say we never exceed the speed limit for the road we are on. Be it 30mph or 70mph. I do not know of a modern car that has a top speed of less than 100mph. Most performance cars are limited to 150mph. Given the chance we all like to put our foot down.
My boat has a top speed of 48 knots but I have been out in Hunton's doing 75mph that feeling of wind in the hair is great. We take the risk but get away with it 99.9% of the time. As JFM says this was an accident . Peter Dredge saved his son and this event will live with him. Will it put him of racing .....NO, Going for an engine test early in the morning was far better than high speed runs during the day at the weekend when Southampton Water is far busier .

 

[Dab]

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!

I disagree with a lot of this. I am not going to enter into the reckless or harness debate but the collision was not a freak accident but a pretty avoidable one. Lots of posters have commented on the how experienced the crew were, and quite a few have commented on the prevalence of pot markers in Southampton Water. A simple risk assessment of the hazards that might be encountered during a high speed run (pot markers, debris in the water, slow moving craft not used to high speed runs, navigation marks, marker buoys for divers) none which you would want to run in to, and all of which would involve avoiding action would suggest to me the most sensible course of action would be to recce the route of the run to check for hazards before hand. If they had done that they would have seen the marker they tried to avoid (and realized they wouldn't have room to avoid it due to the proximity of the mark they collided with) and shifted the planned line of their test run to avoid them.

 

[MapisM]

the collision was not a freak accident but a pretty avoidable one

Well, any accident is avoidable at the end of the day, with the noticeable exception of death (eventually).
I mean, those folks could spend their life in a pub, rather than waste time and money with race boats.
I would still have two kidneys, if it weren't that as a teenager I enjoyed motocross.
The list goes on...

 

[oldgit]

The MAIB do not allocate blame when investigating any marine accident.
Their report cannot be used as evidence in any prosecution,it is merely a report of the incident and usually suggestions of how to prevent similar events.
Suspect that the chap concerned is very capable of reading the report and appreciating the suggestions are for the benefit of all.

 

[Pennpromo]

Gents,
Very interesting thoughts on our accident. We have eagerly awaited the MAIB report, and had advance sight as they publish a draft for all those involved to comment. I take on board all the points that they raised and feel that it was probably fair, although as some have said possibly a bit naive.
Interestingly I agree, with hindsight, with many of your comments, but I would point out that whilst 100 MPH is very fast on water we are experienced at doing these sorts of speeds. As some have pointed out in the States they run 150, even 170 plus with no canopy and safety gear, admittedly on millpond smooth water.
We took a view on the helmet/ harness issue, the two guys in the back had not done "dunk tests" in which you are trained to escape from harnesses and to use air if necessary, so we deemed it OK to go unharnessed. Various thoughts about whether Simon would have had worse injuries, if Peter could have got him out if he was harnessed in: all conjecture.
On the subject of the speed limits, we tested early in the morning, midweek to get quiet water, there were few boats around. I can see that some sort of restriction may be necessary but worry that this is the start of more draconian powers.
The pots were only seen at the last second, we were at least two boat lengths from the body, you could never actually recreate what appended it was a very unfortunate event that fortunately has not had serious lasting effects for any of the four of us.
Whilst many would disagree I would tend to lean towards a freak accident and not an avoidable one, albeit with certain provisos the consequences may have been greater or lesser.
I do recall thinking, as we were rolling over: why me, why now, this is going to hurt and I even had time to shout an expletive to Peter: " we are going to hit the f***ing bouy"!
It has made me think: I will be more safety conscious in the future; regarding risk assessments surely every skipper continuously risk assesses all that he does for the safety of his ship and crew ?
The Hamble Harbour Master was informed of the test well in advance, that he chose not to inform ABP was out of our control: should we have informed ABP; maybe ?
The fact that another boat had been limited to 40 knots was irrelevant to us at the time as there was then no formal requirement for us to inform ABP. As I think JFM correctly pointed out if we were say off the Needles the emergency services would have taken far longer to get to our aid. On the subject of which they were excellent, the heli paramedic immediately took charge of the situation and got us all stabilised and to hospital as quickly as possible.

 

[oldgit]

The fact that this event is being discussed on the forum,may well mean that an audience unlikely to read MAIB reports may become aware of the incident and take note.

 

[MapisM]

Pennpromo,
first of all many thanks for giving us your first hand view, which FWIW is pretty much in line with my "on paper only" understanding of the accident dynamics.

Now, considering that eventually the outcome was not as bad as could have been, I hope you don't mind if I suggest to consider the subject completely done by now, and move on to a more interesting one: care to tell us more about that beautiful boat of yours, and how she runs?
Oh, and I for one would die for a clip with the sound of those V10 screaming, if by chance you've got one! :encouragement:

 

[rbcoomer]

Pennpromo,
first of all many thanks for giving us your first hand view, which FWIW is pretty much in line with my "on paper only" understanding of the accident dynamics.

Now, considering that eventually the outcome was not as bad as could have been, I hope you don't mind if I suggest to consider the subject completely done by now, and move on to a more interesting one: care to tell us more about that beautiful boat of yours, and how she runs?
Oh, and I for one would die for a clip with the sound of those V10 screaming, if by chance you've got one! :encouragement:

+1 to that - especially the soundtrack!

I can't help with audio except to say they sound fantastic! Pics below should whet the appetite - taken off Brixham as the came in from Lyme Bay on the Cowes to Torquay.

 

[thecommander]

According to media reports, Vector is currently taking legal advice regarding the information contained in the document and they added, “As this is a legal matter, it is not appropriate for us to make any further comments.”.

 

[KINGFISHER 9]

I disagree with a lot of this. I am not going to enter into the reckless or harness debate but the collision was not a freak accident but a pretty avoidable one. Lots of posters have commented on the how experienced the crew were, and quite a few have commented on the prevalence of pot markers in Southampton Water. A simple risk assessment of the hazards that might be encountered during a high speed run (pot markers, debris in the water, slow moving craft not used to high speed runs, navigation marks, marker buoys for divers) none which you would want to run in to, and all of which would involve avoiding action would suggest to me the most sensible course of action would be to recce the route of the run to check for hazards before hand. If they had done that they would have seen the marker they tried to avoid (and realized they wouldn't have room to avoid it due to the proximity of the mark they collided with) and shifted the planned line of their test run to avoid them.

There you have it ... the operative word is 'recce'. I'm all for powerboat racing and I know Southampton Water has been used for 'speed runs' for probably 100 years but I'd have thought that informing ABP, or checking that the Hamble HM had done so, might have been an idea ... most importantly though, knowing they would be doing these speeds, checking the course thoroughly should have been the first priority. Harnesses and helmets is a different story and has been explained by Pennpromo. I don't think a knee-jerk reaction will help but maybe some organisation in future would be good ... and maybe a couple of guardboat ribs on the course.

 

[Pennpromo]

According to media reports, Vector is currently taking legal advice regarding the information contained in the document and they added, “As this is a legal matter, it is not appropriate for us to make any further comments.”.

I don't work for Vector so can't comment on their stance, I was only telling it from my perspective in the port front seat.
The feeling of running one of those large Marathon boats is very special, although I have to say that from a personal point of view I do prefer open boats such as Cinzano in which I was privileged to have had a lot of fun.

 

[MapisM]

I do prefer open boats such as Cinzano in which I was privileged to have had a lot of fun

And I can see why. Hats off to that aluminum work of art, and to CUV who built it!
Incidentally, we just mentioned in another thread Mazzari, one of the protagonists of the Viareggio boating industry who sadly is not with us anymore, and Bergamini - the CUV founder - also passed away last year... They don't make 'em like this anymore