Sad case of deaths at sea.....not keeping watch

[Fimacca]

Can't see this one posted -

Shoreham sea deaths: Skipper David Marr jailed over trio's drowning

Lack of watch keeping. Looking at the craft hit and sunk, surprised it had any lights at all......
Such a waste of life.

 

[Trident]

About time someone took action against the recklessness of fishing boats - terrible that three people had to die. i'm surprised its not more common with the way many commercial fishermen act.

 

[Pye_End]

MAIB report here: https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/u...f-James-2-and-loss-of-three-lives-2018_03.pdf

Faults on both sides in this case.

 

[Adios]

Skipper addicted to his phone like everyone else alive now. I wonder how many road deaths and industrial accidents etc phone distraction is causing each year

edit: actually now wondering if that might not be so relevant. He sent a message when he was 1/4 mile away. Plenty of time to look out between then and the collision. I would expect the prosecution to make a big deal of it (and the media to highlight it) because a non-seafaring jury would relate it to using a phone in a car but of course boats are moving much slower. Other factors seem more causal.

 

[Adios]

MAIB report here: https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/u...f-James-2-and-loss-of-three-lives-2018_03.pdf

Faults on both sides in this case.

This makes me wonder if prison is a bit harsh. There was no stern light on and they expect the boat was stern to the approaching fishing boat, how was the skipper supposed to see them? They also say because it wasn't moving it would be very hard to see on the radar "To have observed such a small, almost stationary craft at close range on a radar screen set at a 6-mile range, the skipper would have needed to pay very close attention to the display."

Only the skipper knows how often he was scanning the horizon but even then he wouldn't have been able to see the unlit boat, unless he happened to look just at the last seconds when they were shining torches at him. The anglers had been drinking all day, were by night drinking whisky out of a bottle. Just motored out a mile and drifted across the entrance to the harbour without keeping watch. Its seems 50/50 to me and likely that the skipper had a rubbish legal defender.

A friend of mine got a boat purely as a means to fish. Had zero interest in seamanship. I suspect thats very common.

 

[Adios]

So ultimately this is why the the boat sank:



Anyone feeling saintly could print off a dozen copies of the report and shove them through the hatches of the many boats in their marina like that.

 

[MystyBlue2]

MAIB report here: https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/u...f-James-2-and-loss-of-three-lives-2018_03.pdf

Faults on both sides in this case.

Not really,...

COLREGS Rule #18A states...

A vessal MUST give way to any vessel that has limited manoeuvrability, Is engaged in fishing OR not under command.

According to Marrs statement the vessel was not moving and he could not see the smaller vessel, So by rites he should have given way and would have had ample time to do so if he had read and learned his COLREGS and kept a good lookout, Given ample and positive time to prevent a collision at sea. Basically #8a.



It is 100% the skippers fault and i suspect the scenario of "I'm bigger than you...Get out of my way...Or else"

Bus, Wagon and van drivers are are a perfect example of this to other motorists.

12 months imprisonment for killing 3 people? They want to throw away the key and NEVER let him loose on a boat again!

 

[zoidberg]

Not really,...

COLREGS Rule #18A states...

A vessal MUST give way to any vessel that has limited manoeuvrability, Is engaged in fishing OR not under command.

Rule 3 - General Definitions

(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does NOT include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.


There's a great deal of misunderstanding of this rule, both by commercial operators and sea anglers.

'....engaged in fishing' relates to periods when gear is actually deployed... and not to transiting to/from fishing grounds, as most commercial operators would have everyone else believe.
Similarly, anglers operating with rods - even if several rods are deployed - are not entitled under this Regulation to be 'privileged'. Many sea anglers presume they have that right and won't be told otherwise.

 

[dom]

In the MAIB report there is much talk of the anglers shouting and waving their torches about trying to catch the fishing boat’s attention, both before and after the close pass. Coupled with sending WhatsApp messages and “interacting with a laptop computer” a quarter of a mile before the accident, I imagine all of this will have influenced the court’s thinking.

 

[jordanbasset]

The skippers failure to even notice what was going on when he hit the other boat with a glancing boat is damning for me. Yes he was unlikely to feel much or anything, but surely he must have seen or heard something if he had been keeping any sort of look out. If he had been then it may well be the other boat would still have sunk, but perhaps all, or at least more, of it's occupants could have been saved

 

[Trident]

This makes me wonder if prison is a bit harsh. There was no stern light on and they expect the boat was stern to the approaching fishing boat, how was the skipper supposed to see them? They also say because it wasn't moving it would be very hard to see on the radar "To have observed such a small, almost stationary craft at close range on a radar screen set at a 6-mile range, the skipper would have needed to pay very close attention to the display."

The report states there were running lights and head torches on the smaller vessel and they were waving them madly and shouting as the boat bore down on them - so radar is irrelevant

Any good skipper had ample time to see the lights if he only scanned the horizon every few minutes - instead he was scanning his phone and ignoring everything around him as most fishing skippers do.

The only one I see regularly near me spends his time playing techno music, watching porn etc on his phone and is very often using class A drugs to keep awake. He also refuses to obey harbour speed limits claiming the rules don't apply to commercial operators

I have "seen" , often belatedly, many fishing boats running no lights at night. I've seen entire fleets go off course to deliberately run through a mooring field at full speed to shake all the boats (including giving a 7 year old boy asleep on the boat next to us a broken nose he was flung from bed so violently) just for fun.

Frankly this incident doesn't surprise me at all and I think all commercial fishermen should be subject to rigorous training and qualification before they are allowed out on the water and they should run a three strikes and you're out (banned for life) rule so if other boat users complain about the same boat 3 times with verifiable infractions they should be banned for life from the water.

 

[Adios]

The skippers failure to even notice what was going on when he hit the other boat with a glancing boat is damning for me. Yes he was unlikely to feel much or anything

A blow so glancing that the 26m steel fishing boat left not even a scuff on the GRP boat. That is surely then only the word of the survivor that there was a collision at all while the evidence refutes it. Unreliable witness? The cabin lights were found to be off and the engine wasn't in gear. Both these things go against the survivors claims. Unreliable witness again? If the engine had been started it seems unlikely they couldn't have got out of the way, its not that wide a vessel.

but surely he must have seen or heard something if he had been keeping any sort of look out.

Heard a non-blow or some shouting? Inside the wheelhouse with the engine running. Meanwhile the angling boat was underway with the engine off. There were 4 people on board at least 3 in the cockpit facing the direction the boat was coming, they saw it but they didn't react. It wasn't doing 60 miles an hour, it was on a strait course at them for half a mile.

"While he was in the cabin, the other sea anglers saw Vertrouwen’s deck lights. Initially, they thought the approaching vessel would pass clear of them, and they continued to fish."

They'd been drinking all day, and from a bottle of whisky while on the boat, I think we can all imagine the potential condition of 4 blokes on a weekend out by that time. They just sat there watching it coming until it was too late. If they waved torches at all it might have been as the report says when the bow was over their stern which the skipper had no chance to see:

"As Vertrouwen began to emerge over James 2’s stern as a large black shadow with two bright floodlights, the sea anglers suddenly realised the danger they were in, and called Mircea to the deck. Mircea immediately started the boat’s engine while the other three men shouted and waved torches toward the approaching vessel."

As much as I've had reasons to curse passing fishing boats I find it hard to judge this one guilty when even if he had been perfectly on watch he had bugger all chance of seeing the boat and they did bugger all to help themselves including their responsibility as a vessel underway to avoid the collision which they could easily have done.

 

[fredrussell]

I haven’t read whole MAIB report but I’m wondering why the fishermen in small boat didn’t start their engine and get out of the way quick sharp, instead of shining torches and so on?

 

[Adios]

I haven’t read whole MAIB report but I’m wondering why the fishermen in small boat didn’t start their engine and get out of the way quick sharp, instead of shining torches and so on?

In a word alcohol

 

[dom]

I haven’t read whole MAIB report but I’m wondering why the fishermen in small boat didn’t start their engine and get out of the way quick sharp, instead of shining torches and so on?

The owner/captain was in the cabin rolling a fag. The others shouted at him to come when they saw a collision was imminent.

 

[Achosenman]

The report states there were running lights and head torches on the smaller vessel and they were waving them madly and shouting as the boat bore down on them - so radar is irrelevant

Any good skipper had ample time to see the lights if he only scanned the horizon every few minutes - instead he was scanning his phone and ignoring everything around him as most fishing skippers do.

The only one I see regularly near me spends his time playing techno music, watching porn etc on his phone and is very often using class A drugs to keep awake. He also refuses to obey harbour speed limits claiming the rules don't apply to commercial operators

I have "seen" , often belatedly, many fishing boats running no lights at night. I've seen entire fleets go off course to deliberately run through a mooring field at full speed to shake all the boats (including giving a 7 year old boy asleep on the boat next to us a broken nose he was flung from bed so violently) just for fun.

Frankly this incident doesn't surprise me at all and I think all commercial fishermen should be subject to rigorous training and qualification before they are allowed out on the water and they should run a three strikes and you're out (banned for life) rule so if other boat users complain about the same boat 3 times with verifiable infractions they should be banned for life from the water.

This was blue on blue IMHO. I have almost hit a drifting small fishing boat at night in the Thorn Channel. The boat was similar to James 2. It showed no lights of any kind. We only saw it because they obscured the shore lights as the aspect changed. I do however agree with you about commercial fishing skippers, they can have a strange understanding of the Colregs sometimes. OTOH the skipper of the James 2 was playing Russian Roulette. He was ably assisted by a system that allows the unqualified and ill-equipped, to endanger themselves and their passengers. How this is permitted in this day and age, is beyond me.

 

[TernVI]

The fishing boat could easily be replaced by any of the intrepid single handed yachts of this parish.

 

[Uricanejack]

This makes me wonder if prison is a bit harsh. There was no stern light on and they expect the boat was stern to the approaching fishing boat, how was the skipper supposed to see them? They also say because it wasn't moving it would be very hard to see on the radar "To have observed such a small, almost stationary craft at close range on a radar screen set at a 6-mile range, the skipper would have needed to pay very close attention to the display."

Only the skipper knows how often he was scanning the horizon but even then he wouldn't have been able to see the unlit boat, unless he happened to look just at the last seconds when they were shining torches at him. The anglers had been drinking all day, were by night drinking whisky out of a bottle. Just motored out a mile and drifted across the entrance to the harbour without keeping watch. Its seems 50/50 to me and likely that the skipper had a rubbish legal defender.

A friend of mine got a boat purely as a means to fish. Had zero interest in seamanship. I suspect that's very common.

I'm not a fan of blame or prosecution as a means of preventing accidents.

Failure to keep a lookout, is probably the most common factor involved in collisions.
Both vessels here failed to keep a proper look out. So if you want to say who's at fault, the answer is clearly both.
The thread on a recent report, both vessels poor look out.

The world we live in today, consumption of alcohol, depends on the amount in blood level for legal impairment.
The skipper of the small boat and his two friends. May or may not have been impaired. Unknown, They kept a crap look out, 3 of them probably possibly even all 4. Had no idea about keeping a look out.
The boat, Didn't show the correct lights, No mast or stern light.
You can add lack of knowledge, training, proper gear ect.
On a boat which probably wasn't as fit for purpose as it should have been.
Unfortunately, 3 of them lost their lives. regardless of all the things they got wrong this is still tragic and very sad. 4 friends were out enjoying a night fishing.
They were just having a good time. So they had a couple of beers earlier and a drink of whisky.
They paid the ultimate price, Even with all their faults. This was still avoidable.

The Fishing vessel Skipper,
If he had just been keeping a half assed lookout with his feet up drinking tea or coffee, A, might have seen the little boat, On his radar if had bothered to look, or he might not because he didn't set it up well on the best or most appropriate range. He might still have hit the boat, because he didn't see it in time.
It might still have sunk.

My guess, The Charge's were laid due to. The Skipper of the fishboat wasn't even keeping a half assed look out. He was on his phone and using a computer. When he should have been keeping a look out. He didn't even notice he had hit something.
So he kept on going.
Result 3 people died.
The Jury found him guilty,
This has ruined his life too, which is also both tragic and sad,

I don't think the charge was unreasonable or the verdict unfair.

 

[Achosenman]

The fishing boat could easily be replaced by any of the intrepid single handed yachts of this parish.

Which one?

 

[MystyBlue2]

Rule 3 - General Definitions

(d) The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does NOT include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.


There's a great deal of misunderstanding of this rule, both by commercial operators and sea anglers.

'....engaged in fishing' relates to periods when gear is actually deployed... and not to transiting to/from fishing grounds, as most commercial operators would have everyone else believe.
Similarly, anglers operating with rods - even if several rods are deployed - are not entitled under this Regulation to be 'privileged'. Many sea anglers presume they have that right and won't be told otherwise.

Ok but any vessel not under command means ENGINE NOT RUNNING and this rule applies to all, trawler vessels, jet ski's, Tenders etc.

If the smaller boat was stationery and engine was not running it means he was "immobile" and could not get out of the way, Therefore the larger trawler skipper is at fault. No ifs or buts.
If you notice, All the COLREGS cover all scenarios, therefore someone is ALWAYS to blame amd in this scenario its easy to decide who.