Report released on Condor ferry crash

[alant]

what irritates me is the apparent assumption that watching a radar screen is sufficient watchkeeping. there must be many boats out there that do not show up like a metal hull. ie most of ours without radar reflectors etc

(in addition to the other points raised above)

What else do you suggest in poor/bad/no viz?

 

[alant]

If you apply that rule to the channel and Western Approaches, then the larger ships would always need significant visibility to proceed.

I can understamd the argument to reduce speed to allow for thinking time, but the idea that ships need to proceed only if they can manoever in the distance they can see is never going to happen. Can you imagine a bank of fog mid channel, and 100 ships requiring to anchor in the middle of a TSS till it cleared?

It would be interesting to know the incidence of accidents that occur in good and poor visibility. Doesn't happen very often as far as I can tell. How does it compare against other risk factors should also be suitably managed by legislation - eg single handed; poor weather; RCD category or boat; minimum standard of gear on board etc etc. If you personally don't want to take the risk of going out in fog, then like all other risk factors, you don't need to do it.

Its not just fog that reduces viz.

Even at night, from behind a bridge window its difficult to see anything, particularly if its wet.

 

[bikedaft]

What else do you suggest in poor/bad/no viz?

obey the colregs. ie slow down or stop.

as antartic pilot mentioned, we should obey the colregs first, then commercial pressures second.

if legally it is felt that we can proceed in zero visibility relying on radar only, personally i think that the colregs should explicitly address this point.

and if you cannot see out your wheelhouse windows in rain better get outside of them then etc. agreed vis can be very poor at night/and or rain, but again is a radar only watch acceptable?

the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it may be that a radar watch only is felt to be acceptable by most people. (tho not by me). but the colregs (to me anyhow) suggest otherwise.

 

[guernseyman]

Several times in my cruising life, out of sight of land, maybe with the Autohelm powered up, another boat has appeared on the starboard horizon, looming closer and on a collision course, no it can't be, yes it is, I have to change course to avoid it.

In broad daylight at 5 or 7 knots it's amusing and a distraction for a while. In fog, travelling at 30+ knots, it's manslaughter.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Coming out of Cherbourg a few years ago within about 20 seconds, the fast cat was alongside us and gone in very poor viz.
At that time I had no AIS, radar or good radar reflector.
Hearing the cat, I did call them up to ask if they had seen us but by that time they were ahead and out of sight.
I now have a duo band active radar reflector, AIS and radar.
Seeing another thread about home comforts aboard...... the above come way before heating, carpets and tv as my '1st comforts'!

 

[alant]

obey the colregs. ie slow down or stop.

as antartic pilot mentioned, we should obey the colregs first, then commercial pressures second.

if legally it is felt that we can proceed in zero visibility relying on radar only, personally i think that the colregs should explicitly address this point.

and if you cannot see out your wheelhouse windows in rain better get outside of them then etc. agreed vis can be very poor at night/and or rain, but again is a radar only watch acceptable?

the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it may be that a radar watch only is felt to be acceptable by most people. (tho not by me). but the colregs (to me anyhow) suggest otherwise.

In a perfect world!

 

[pugwash94]

Its a very interesting, and damning document. The outcome for the officers on watch will not be good. There is an important point that needs to be reinforced to all however - and its not very well written in the report.

To any sailor in charge of the watch
2/ That the notion of stand-on vessel does not apply as long as the type and the activity
of the vessels are not identified.

Roughly interpreted - there are no stand-on vessels in restricted visibility. Forget all notions of "steam gives way to sail" etc... The onus is on everybody equally to keep a good lookout, and to act accordingly. I'm fairly sure that the blame will not be laid 100% on the Condor for this very reason, but, understandably, will be very substantially weighed against her.

CC

Was the fishing boat travelling at a speed at which they could avoid a collision with a vessel travelling at a reasonable speed - answer - probably yes.
Was the ferry? Clearly not.

So what about sound signals. Could the crew on the ferry have heard any sound signals made by the fishing boat. No!

I am always struck by the fact that when I pass a commercial ship in fog there is no look out on the bridge wings and the doors all seem to be closed.

When I'm in fog, if I have the engine on somebody goes forward away from the engine in order to listen.

Same problems in most MOBO's, everybody inside, so when I sound my foghorn the only people who will here it are other sailing boats and fishermen working on deck - and we will see each other before we hear one another.

IMHO
Were the fishermen doing everything right? Probably no. Would it have made any difference if they had - probably no! Had the ferry been conducting a proper look out and travelling at a safe speed would it have made a difference? Yes, without doubt!
Ferry 100% to blame

 

[pugwash94]

Its not just fog that reduces viz.

Even at night, from behind a bridge window its difficult to see anything, particularly if its wet.

Then get out onto the wings - or do you think killing someone is less important than personal comfort.

 

[neale]

Were the fishermen doing everything right? Probably no. Would it have made any difference if they had - probably no!
Ferry 100% to blame

Not quite correct. Had the fishing boat being keeping a proper radar lookout they would have seen the ferry approaching on a collision course and could have taken some avoiding action. Ferry was mostly to blame by the sounds of it but it is very very rare for 100% of the blame to be apportioned to one side in a collision and I don't think this will be any different.

 

[Robin]

Then get out onto the wings - or do you think killing someone is less important than personal comfort.

From the bridge wings you might even see half way to the bows, woopee.

The fishing boat WAS visible on radar, just that nobody seemed to notice it, I think the report even said that it first appeared on the screen at 8 miles. The pictures in the appendix show a clear enough return on the screen.

Then again the fishing boat also had radar, but no good unless monitored 100% and a casual glance doesn't work. An AIS receiver on the fishing boat (it didn't have one) would also have helped and especially with CPA alarm set on that and a guard alarm set on the radar.

Hindsight is wonderful, but the professionals on both ends of this crunch didn't excel and especially not on the bridge of Condor Vitesse.

 

[pugwash94]

If you apply that rule to the channel and Western Approaches, then the larger ships would always need significant visibility to proceed.

I can understamd the argument to reduce speed to allow for thinking time, but the idea that ships need to proceed only if they can manoever in the distance they can see is never going to happen. Can you imagine a bank of fog mid channel, and 100 ships requiring to anchor in the middle of a TSS till it cleared?

It would be interesting to know the incidence of accidents that occur in good and poor visibility. Doesn't happen very often as far as I can tell. How does it compare against other risk factors should also be suitably managed by legislation - eg single handed; poor weather; RCD category or boat; minimum standard of gear on board etc etc. If you personally don't want to take the risk of going out in fog, then like all other risk factors, you don't need to do it.

If you are travelling at a speed that gives nobody any chance of avoiding you should you fail to spot them than you are acting completely irresponsibly.

I do not expect ships to stop in fog. I have found myself in thick fog North of Alderney on a number of occasions. I attempt to sail a course that would allow me to turn away from a vessel travelling in the likely direction as they exit the separation scheme. I then accept the risk of meeting a large commercial vessel traveling at a reasonable speed.

I would have no chance of avoiding one traveling at 30+knots.

 

[Cruiser2B]

if legally it is felt that we can proceed in zero visibility relying on radar only, personally i think that the colregs should explicitly address this point.

Read in their entirety, the Colregs do address this point. Ships are not expected to rely on radar only - they are to maintain a lookout by all means including listening - the report didn't address that aspect other than to say the bridge crew were in a closed and insulated bridge without an external listening device; no discussion of whether it was possible to post an external lookout or open bridge windows, or what company policy is. Then again would it matter, as Marquises wasn't sounding a fog signal?
Also would it be possible to post a lookout at the bow; the report mentioned a camera system but didn't go into detail - is it mounted forward and could it have been used to spot Marquises in time, given 30-100 m vis?
There are other parts of Colregs, like slackening/stopping for a unidentified sound ahead that are applicable. As has been stated, there is no reason for all shipping to grind to a halt when a fog rolls in, but there are rules to follow - unfortunately Condor and Marquises failed to do so.

 

[alant]

Then get out onto the wings - or do you think killing someone is less important than personal comfort.

So, you think someone is likely to eyeball a target when outside, better than using Radar inside, then so be it.

 

[pugwash94]

So, you think someone is likely to eyeball a target when outside, better than using Radar inside, then so be it.

So you, presumably, think the larger vessels have one man on the vessel. Of course not! Put one person on the radar and one outside!

As we have seen from several recent collisions of large vessels it appears that radar is frequently not functioning properly and the crew appear to be in ignorance of the fact.

When someone is on radar watch he should be dedicated to the screen and no one should be talking to him.

One of the points that was being made in the French report appears to be that because the watch keepers are cacooned in a nice warm bridge they do not get the point that things are different - hence the "business as usual" remark.

 

[Seajet]

Standard practice

As soon as I heard about this accident I shuddered...

I travelled on the Condor hydrofoil ( it was a fair while ago, about 1983ish ) from St Peter Port to St Malo.

It was thick, solid fog, virtually all yachts were staying well put - less radars in those days.

I was stunned when the thing went to VERY high speed, and slalomed 'Space Invaders' style as fishing boats and yachts appeared as they went past ( I couldn't see forward, whether anyone could from up front either was very much on my mind !

When we disembarked I made a point of looking at the radar scanners, in case they were some special wonder-kit to allow this behaviour; nope, bog standard as fishing boats of the time used

I can understand going slowly in a hydrofoil is expensive etc, but so is running people over, and this accident wasn't a hydro' anyway; I hope Condor get very severely knobbled.

 

[dt4134]

So, you think someone is likely to eyeball a target when outside, better than using Radar inside, then so be it.

Well these guys did!

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Admiral Blake_Boxford_Web_Report.pdf

Mind you, the processing unit connected to the Mk I Eyeball didn't perform that well.