Roland Wilson Guilty!

[JumbleDuck]

All this per second stuff is just waffle, if you look at a ship anywhere near head on, a 10 degree change of aspect is very noticeable.

Not over two minutes, I don't think it is, when in any case the course the Atalanta took across the Hanne Knutsen's bows would have been giving her a changing aspect anyway. Remember that the Atalanta wasn't "near head on" until just before the collision.

I don't doubt that she was expecting the HK to turn, but I don't think it's reasonable to blame the HK for failing to meet another crew's misguided expectations. Remind me who just got found guilty and fined, and who wasn't even prosecuted ...

 

[rotrax]

Ah, right so the lack of telepathic powers is ok for pilots but no defence for yacht skippers - doesn't seem very fair to me. If as you seem to suggest, the pilot could have done more to avoid the collision but didn't , perhaps he deserves to be fined for not following the rules...

He was not the one in court though........................

 

[rotrax]

Interesting thread on the Thames Forum.
Has a little relevance to this one.
Its title is " Tidal Thames Lookout Commitment"

 

[l'escargot]

I'm sorry , that is no more of a convincing argument than this:

...Yes, the Atalanta could have done something to avoid the collision. She could have slowed down, or turned earlier, or gone to Yarmouth instead of Cowes for that matter. All these things were physically possible, but all of them would have required her crew to know much earlier than they did that the Han Knutsen was going to prat about as she did. And that would have required reading the minds of her crew...

 

[l'escargot]

He was not the one in court though........................

No he wasn't, based on JumbleDuck's argument though perhaps he should have been...

 

[JumbleDuck]

No he wasn't, based on JumbleDuck's argument though perhaps he should have been...

My argument being the one that in order to take evasive action a ship of the size of the Hanne Knutsen would have needed to know the Atalanta's intentions earlier than was physically possible?

There are a couple of you who really do seem determined to believe that the Hanne Knutsen was wholly at fault and that the Atalanta was an innocent victim. well, that's fine, but on the whole I think I'll go by the evidence presented to the court and the decision reached after days of evidence and legal argument. The man screwed up, in a modest way, and received a modest fine in punishment. The end.

 

[l'escargot]

Again, I'm sorry, that is no more of a convincing argument than this:

...in order to take evasive action the Atalanta would have needed to know a ship the size of the Hanne Knutsen intentions earlier than was physically possible?

There are a couple of you who really do seem determined to believe that the Atalanta was wholly at fault and that the Han Knutsen was an innocent victim...

The Atalanta skipper was prosecuted and found guilty. The pilot on the Han Knutsen wasn't prosecuted but if a prosecution was bought against him, it would be interesting to see whether a judge could be convinced that he was guilty of breaches of the ColRegs too - he wasn't on trial in this case but that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't commit an offence. Perhaps it was just that as an ABP employee, it wasn't in their interest to prosecute him...

 

[Capt Popeye]

Col; regs have nothing to do with this incident, do they ?

The Ship was in a Ports jurisdiction for certain and the Ports rules apply not Col Regs, don't they?

Yachties might like to debate and debate the rights and wrongs of any incident, collision, referring to Col Regs to support their claim but Real Seamen do not!

When the Port regs give a 'right of way' then that's it; full stop; Ships usually are given an operating area to manoeuvre in and that is 'their operational water' and theirs to do what they want with without restriction by other craft.

 

[l'escargot]

Col; regs have nothing to do with this incident, do they ?...

Yes they do. He was charged with (and convicted of) breaching Rules 5, 9b & 18 of the ColRegs so I am afraid you comparison of Yachties and "Real Seamen" is a load of nonsense...

 

[JumbleDuck]

Again, I'm sorry, that is no more of a convincing argument than this:

"That" being ... ?

 

[l'escargot]

"That" being ... ?

Your argument in #306 - do pay attention...

 

[JumbleDuck]

Oh, I see now. You changed the words when you quoted my posting. Very subtle.

Well no, it doesn't work like that. The Hanne Knutsen was keeping on a more or less constant course (ten degrees in two minutes is nothing), and the Atalanta was obliged to keep out of her way. There was no need for the Atalanta's crew to attempt mindreading, and indeed the whole sorry mess seems to have come about because they did so.

It's probably more sensible when a risk of collision arises to base your actions on what you can see the other vessel doing rather than on what you think they might do or on what you think they ought to have done. This is particularly important when the other vessel is stand-on.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Yes they do. He was charged with (and convicted of) breaching Rules 5, 9b & 18 of the ColRegs so I am afraid you comparison of Yachties and "Real Seamen" is a load of nonsense...

Lets just back up a wee bit; The ship and the Yacht were sailing in an area of water that a Harbour Authority have, lets say, authority over.

ColRegs part A general Rule 1 clearly states that 'special rules' can apply in areas under the control of Harbour Authorities; but wherever possible adherence to ColRegs should be made. So the Harbour Authority rules apply in this incident, do they not? I would suggest that in this case the Harbour Authority rules have precedent over the ColRegs.

Rule 2 b departure from rules to avoid a possible collision should be made early enough. Was it?

Rule 9 b Narrow Channels - give way craft should keep, as far as practical, to their Starboard side of any channel without impeding Craft with right of way due to constrained draught. Was it done?

 

[bedouin]

Lets just back up a wee bit; The ship and the Yacht were sailing in an area of water that a Harbour Authority have, lets say, authority over.

ColRegs part A general Rule 1 clearly states that 'special rules' can apply in areas under the control of Harbour Authorities; but wherever possible adherence to ColRegs should be made. So the Harbour Authority rules apply in this incident, do they not? I would suggest that in this case the Harbour Authority rules have precedent over the ColRegs.

Rule 2 b departure from rules to avoid a possible collision should be made early enough. Was it?

Rule 9 b Narrow Channels - give way craft should keep, as far as practical, to their Starboard side of any channel without impeding Craft with right of way due to constrained draught. Was it done?

Are you refering to HK or Atalanta - don't forget that HK was the give way craft (not that it really matters in this case)

 

[JumbleDuck]

don't forget that HK was the give way craft

What makes you think that?

 

[rotrax]

Are you refering to HK or Atalanta - don't forget that HK was the give way craft (not that it really matters in this case)

I believe that the fact HK was escorted, was in a clearly defined deep navigation channel, was a large vessel constrained by draught and obviously required space to manouvre-as per exclusion zone-proves the opposite.

Atalanta's crew made the wrong call-we are unlikely why this was so.

IMHO they should have taken steps to put as much distance into safe water as they could the moment the escort asked them to start the engine.

In this instance safe water was South-towards the IOW.

In situations where there is a huge ship and a dinky little yacht there is in practical terms only one give way craft...................................

IMHO, of course.

 

[bedouin]

It's probably more sensible when a risk of collision arises to base your actions on what you can see the other vessel doing rather than on what you think they might do or on what you think they ought to have done. This is particularly important when the other vessel is stand-on.

Okay - so according to you it would have been more sensible for Atalanta to hold her original course - ignoring the fact that she knew that HK had to turn, and even when HK sounded starboard she should have held her course because she couldn't see that HK was turning?

NB in this case it was Atalanta that was the stand on vessel - perhaps you ought to read Colregs

 

[Capt Popeye]

Are you refering to HK or Atalanta - don't forget that HK was the give way craft (not that it really matters in this case)

I understand that HK was in an area where she had absolute right of way due to her operating with 'constrained draught' in a narrow channel, so designated by the Harbour Authority, and so was operating under severe navigational restrictions.

Atlanta should have observed Rule 9 b and kept to the (her) starboard side of the channel. This would have meant that Atlanta would not have approached HK on her Starboard side, and so allowed HK to take / make her turn to Starboard in her own time, and unrestricted or unencumbered .

I know that this means passing Port to Port, but so be it.

 

[bedouin]

I understand that HK was in an area where she had absolute right of way due to her operating with 'constrained draught' in a narrow channel, so designated by the Harbour Authority, and so was operating under severe navigational restrictions.

Atlanta should have observed Rule 9 b and kept to the (her) starboard side of the channel. This would have meant that Atlanta would not have approached HK on her Starboard side, and so allowed HK to take / make her turn to Starboard in her own time, and unrestricted or unencumbered .

I know that this means passing Port to Port, but so be it.

I'm afraid you are wrong - Colregs are explicit on this, HK was give way vessel. HK was not entitled to be considered "constrained by draught" as she was not displaying the required day shape.

The rule stick to the starboard side of the channel only applies to vessels proceding in the channel - not to Atalanta that was crossing

 

[Capt Popeye]

I'm afraid you are wrong - Colregs are explicit on this, HK was give way vessel. HK was not entitled to be considered "constrained by draught" as she was not displaying the required day shape.

The rule stick to the starboard side of the channel only applies to vessels proceding in the channel - not to Atalanta that was crossing

Is the Day Shape a Colregs or Harbour Authority requirement? As they were sailing in a Harbour Authority area of regulation, not the open sea.

From looking at the 'track' supplied on here, it would seem to me that Atlanta was on a course along the Navigational Channel,(At impact time), the same channel that HK was in / on. That's why they approached each other bow on with Atlanta changing course across HK bows at a late stage. Result a collision.