Red Funnel and Contessa Greylag MAIB report

[RichardS]

"So obvious" apart from the fact that the report clearly states that both sets of controls are always active and thus there is no switch?



Not only can be, but normally was, with the one at the leading console controlling transverse thrust on the aft rotor and the one at the trailing console controlling longitudinal thrust on both. As, again, described in the "so obvious" report.

Pete

Indeed, as I said, it is an appallingly bad design decision. For a small fee, had I been consulted, I would have pointed out the obvious flaw in this control design and could have even predicted what would be likely to happen in poor visibility stress situation.

Aircraft also have twin controls but, even though they are alongside each other and there is less ambiguity, there is a clear protocol to ensure which pilot actually has command. I would suggest that anyone who, like me, has flown a plane, would see immediately what the potential problem is with the Red Funnel system.

Next.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

I have driven - or attempted to drive - a CalMac ferry with twin Voith-Schneider units and found it very difficult indeed. My progress across Loch <omitted> was a series of ninety degree zigzags. I can quite believe that in poor visibility even experts might find it hard.

 

[chrishscorp]

I would have to agree with Richard the dual controls both live at the same time is not the most sensible design, you would want at least some visual indication that the controls were being operated at the other station

I was suprised that there was no voice recorder for the bridge, there is one fitted now the report says.

 

[john_morris_uk]

.....
I was surprised that there was no voice recorder for the bridge, there is one fitted now the report says.

They’ve fitted the capability. Red Funnel haven’t published their protocols for when it will be used.

 

[john_morris_uk]

There seem to be a few Contessa 32's on the market for about a tenth of the quoted cost!

A bit of a stretch to expect a “new, like for like replacement” after 40 years of ownership but you can’t blame him for trying. ?

Anyone know how his claim was settled?

I don’t think either of you have read this thread from the beginning. He was deprived of his boat he’d had from new and the sum quoted doesn’t buy a new boat at today’s prices. Loss of amenity and some of a sailing season is expensive... The bottom line is that he shouldn't have to accept any old boat to replace his. The actual figure he got isn’t admitted either.

 

[RupertW]

I don’t think either of you have read this thread from the beginning. He was deprived of his boat he’d had from new and the sum quoted doesn’t buy a new boat at today’s prices. Loss of amenity and some of a sailing season is expensive... The bottom line is that he shouldn't have to accept any old boat to replace his. The actual figure he got isn’t admitted either.

That’s just silly and not you at all. It’s like saying that a guy who had kept his Bay City Rollers scarf to to keep him warm ( and prevent him from moving on ) must be compensated for not noticing he has missed out on 50 years of wonderful music.

 

[PilotWolf]

I had a bad few days so not going to try quoting different posters but...

Richatd - CRM?

I cant imagine what it’s like to lose the boat you’ve owned from new - no amount of compensation can deal with that.

Many helms can’t keep a straight course with normal drives! Me included. I know of a certain vessel on auto pilot was worse than on hand steering - I even had a passenger ask if the captain was drunk.

No disrespect to non commercial crew but statically I’m at sea 10 times more hours than you I’m more likely to be involved in a incident-especially with someone less experienced.

I operated high speed ferries but there is no way I could work the RJ or WL fast cats.

Captains should ignore commercial pressure over safety but unfortunately for various reasons that doesn’t happen. I have a good few tales but due to pending legal actions I can’t elaborate.

As a commercial skipper I just ask keep a good look out in case I missed something and follow the IRPCS so that way we know what you are going to do! Or at least talk to us.

Since I moved to the US I realise how the UK is so much more disciplined and actually cares.

PW

 

[john_morris_uk]

That’s just silly and not you at all. It’s like saying that a guy who had kept his Bay City Rollers scarf to to keep him warm ( and prevent him from moving on ) must be compensated for not noticing he has missed out on 50 years of wonderful music.

With respect, yours is the silliness here. The boat is destroyed, the settlement will include loss of amenity and enjoyment while another boat is sourced. It will also include compensation for the aggravation caused.

 

[Just_sayin']

Aircraft also have twin controls but, even though they are alongside each other and there is less ambiguity, there is a clear protocol to ensure which pilot actually has command. I would suggest that anyone who, like me, has flown a plane, would see immediately what the potential problem is with the Red Funnel system.

Next.

Richard

Seriously?

I don't think First Officer Bonin got your note:

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia

"In response to the stall, first officer Bonin exclaimed " (Expletitive) [26] I don't have control of the plane, I don't have control of the plane at all!" First officer Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft.[72][73] Robert pushed his control stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his control stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered a "dual input" warning."

 

[Skylark]

I don’t think either of you have read this thread from the beginning

You’re wrong. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your (rather bizarre) interpretation it’s a bit rude of you to assert that the full text hasn’t been read ?

 

[yoda]

With respect, yours is the silliness here. The boat is destroyed, the settlement will include loss of amenity and enjoyment while another boat is sourced. It will also include compensation for the aggravation caused.

Having had my yacht written off by another yacht holing me I found that insurers are unlikely to pay out anything more than the insured value and a few expenses (emergency lift to stop it sinking in my case) Anything over and above that would have required me to take the other party to court and the advice I received at the time is that I was unlikely to get anything. I too lost a season of sailing and got nothing for the inconvienience, I'd be interested to hear if anybody ever has had that kind of compensation.

Yoda

 

[Seajet]

I have heard of several people who lost boats through no fault of their own, and were compensated for loss of use - obviously it requires a distinct type of insurance policy, and I'd imagine taking up the offer of extra legal services, well beforehand.

 

[RichardS]

Seriously?

I don't think First Officer Bonin got your note:

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia

"In response to the stall, first officer Bonin exclaimed " (Expletitive) [26] I don't have control of the plane, I don't have control of the plane at all!" First officer Robert responded to this by saying, "controls to the left", and took over control of the aircraft.[72][73] Robert pushed his control stick forward to lower the nose and recover from the stall; however, Bonin was still pulling his control stick back. The inputs cancelled each other out and triggered a "dual input" warning."

Exactly right. As well as CRM, most large aircraft have an interlock or warning systems such that one set of controls has to be identified as the command set and the other set is either disabled or the plane issues a clear warning using either display lights or vocal warnings that dual inputs are occurring to enable full control to be handed to the designated set. This is exactly what happened in the incident you have highlighted and the warning system did its job.

If course, in aircraft, both pilots are facing forward, can easily communicate with each other, and are seeing the same view and all the navigation systems are correctly aligned with the view out of the window .... and there is still the capacity for misunderstandings to arise!

Now, imagine a ferry where both helms are separated, both are also seeing exactly the same view of the bow out of their window and the navigation system is showing a conventional bow and stern image which might be either way around relative to what is being viewed through the window depending upon which way someone has flicked, or not flicked, a separate switch.

In poor visibility it is, totally obviously to anyone with a clue about control design, a disaster waiting to happen.

I could, if you are interested, knock out a specification which would solve the issue but I suspect that you are not really that interested.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

That’s just silly and not you at all. It’s like saying that a guy who had kept his Bay City Rollers scarf to to keep him warm ( and prevent him from moving on ) must be compensated for not noticing he has missed out on 50 years of wonderful music.

It may be that you like to update your tastes in music and boats constantly. That's fine. Have fun. It does not mean that the rest of us are obliged to do likewise.

 

[Seajet]

How about the bloke on the front saying into a mic or handheld " left a bit, dead ahead, right a bit " like The Golden Shot ?

 

[ryanroberts]

That’s just silly and not you at all. It’s like saying that a guy who had kept his Bay City Rollers scarf to to keep him warm ( and prevent him from moving on ) must be compensated for not noticing he has missed out on 50 years of wonderful music.

This is more like Pink Floyd being crushed by Led Zepplin surely.

 

[Tomahawk]

I came down the Orwell once in no vis as in about 50 yards!

I have EDCIS or we know her Miss Marples a Raymarine combined chart plotter radar.
It was very uncomfortable not being able to see anything. But at least the boat goes in a straight line and there is an obvious front and back

Reading the report I can understand how someone could get themselves turned round and go backwards instead for forwards.
Very unsafe design I fear.

 

[Seajet]

 

[Uricanejack]

I’ve just read the report, one of the best I’ve read in a long time.
In particular the synopsis. Brief right to the point. The next 39 pages just give an explanation of how the “Pilot Became Disoriented’ .

These types of vessel operate and in particular handle completely unlike conventional vessels. I would liken the difference to Airplane and Helicopter.
As a pilot I have flown airplanes not helicopters. Admittedly only as a PPL not commercially. So feel free to disagree.

There were a few things I thought were missing from the report.

First. There was no mention of the use of Parallel Index, Since not mentioned I presume not used.
The proper use of the Radar would have helped significantly. Particularly by the Master conning the vessel.
Even so the poor bugger was clearly not properly supported and set up for failure before he came to work in the first place.

ECS is not an ECDIS, Not fully approved, probably didn’t make a difference an ECDIS does have a few more features,

The C/O was in a very unfortunate position. He is facing the wrong @#$&*( way. To put it quite simply. Off course he is going to be a bit disoriented.

I am surprised the recommendations from the MAIB and the company of experts on ergonomics.
Did not explicitly recommend duplication of a full navigational instruments to include two radars and an independent ECDIS at both ends of the Bridge so both the master and C/O could both face the right direction and have a radar to monitor.
Which although the Nav Lights would still have been wrong would have sorted the switch over of the ECS.

Best practice for blind navigation is to have two radars being monitored by the navigator and a co navigator. Two separate ranges..
On traditional vessels both radars are fitted facing forward,
The requirements for a commercial vessel of this sise is a minimum of two radars.
This ship met the minimum requirements.
The minimum requirements are clearly not good enough for double ended vessels

Apart from all the ergonomic issues the C/O has trying to monitor the vessels progress ass backwards. His radar will almost certainly have a blind sector (astern) right in the direction of travel.

I used to to be of the Opinion a Dutch company HRP made the worst controls on the planet. I have now revised my opinion to grant this honour to
Voith Schneider

Three completely different controls to be manipulated when the average human only comes equipped with two hands, actually I think it’s 5.
Have you ever tried patting your head and rubbing your tummy?
Presumably this is why the C/O was adjusting the speed from the aft consol.
Far from ideal.

Not easy to do when things are going well, try doing it when they go pear shaped.

These kinds of drive system are easy to operate when everything is working well but incredibly difficult when things go haywire.
Being able to sort it out when it goes wrong requires a lot of hands on familiarity, experience and practice.

The Master made a critical error when he took hands on control while trying to operate blind. The report makes this clear. This is when he lost his orientation.
Very like chasing the compass when you first learn how to steer.
Even if the radar was right in front of him it would be easy to become disoriented. It was North up not head up. Even head up would have been difficult.

Part of the difficulty in operating this kind of vessel. Traditional ship handeling doesn’t work. Particularly helm orders. They don’t work the same. There is no rudder. Traditional helm orders become meaning less.
The QM is trying to steer traditionally as if it was a rudder. It’s not.

This ship can go side ways. Very easily.
Countering a set or drift, very easy on a ship which can go sideways.
When you have your paws on the controls and can see

Much more difficult to explain to someone else and have them understand what you want.
Particularly if the person you are trying to explain it to has never done or does not usually do this.
In other words there is a hell of a difference between steering in open water and using the controls fully for docking, or in an emergency.
The Master or Con needs to be able to explain clearly to a QM who understands fully how to operate the controls what he requires.
Red funnel should work on this.

I will go back to the most glaring omission.
The lack of parallel index.

The best to prepare for a blind aproach
Make the same approach as the approach in good visibility
Use both the PI and Visual references on a regular basis not just once a month,
( navigation at night ussing Radar is a very good means of practicing a blind approaching)
A good pilotage technique. Visual Marks and Radar marks match. Dead ranges which match visual helm overs.

Just winging it with a VRM is a recipe for disaster. Sometimes referred to as scanty radar information. Adding the EBL is slightly better. Still not quite good enough for tight spots.
An offset EBL can be used as a PI. It has a few problems.

One other comment.
A good learning opportunity for any navigator
The Master lost his orientation, managed to avoid the first hazards and stop.

He should have remained stopped until he had figured out which way was up or down. In and out.
This was a safe opertunity to regain his situational awareness .

After regained my his situational awareness the ship could probably have returned to the Chanel safely.
We would never have heard of this incident.m

 

[Seajet]

I thought it's a lot simpler than that - standard civilian radar would not help at such close quarters, he was pushing his luck in such poor visibility - he and Greylag didn't get away with it...