jordanbasset
Well-known member
Nails it, I think he was very lucky to get away with 12 months, of which he will serve 6
Sad case of deaths at sea.....not keeping watch
- Thread starter Fimacca
- Start date
- Status
Achosenman
Active member
None of which mentioned the physiological shortcomings of the human eye. My point stands.
penberth3
Well-known member
Only 12 months for two deaths?
MystyBlue2
Active member
It's absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.
Deaths and accidents at sea should be treat the same as the road. Just because there is water involved doesn't mean it's less dangerous or fatal.
Negligence or not being in control of a vessel should be the same punishment of that of a road vehicle.
IMO ofcourse.
Deaths and accidents at sea should be treat the same as the road. Just because there is water involved doesn't mean it's less dangerous or fatal.
Negligence or not being in control of a vessel should be the same punishment of that of a road vehicle.
IMO ofcourse.
Achosenman
Active member
I think you have a very valid point. One with which I agree
.I presume you would hold every skipper to the same standard. In aviation, for example, a PPL ( a private pilot) is required to hold a valid license before they carry passengers, which will include passing an exam in air law, meteorology, the theory of flight, airframes and engines etc. They must have a certain amount of experience before the licence is granted. Pilots must also be qualified to fly in the airspace they are in plus be qualified for night flying if they have passengers. The aircraft must have a Cof A and be in check.
Somehow I don't think this would be popular. ?
Uricanejack
Well-known member
I don’t understand this argument,
The point is he was not looking therefore not using his human eyes the Short comings of which are therefore irrelevant.
if he had been looking and failed to see, the smal boat, and hit them. then the eyes short coming would be a possible defence.
he was not found guilty of manslaughter. Or Criminal negligence. He was found guilty of a lesser charge. Not keep ing a look out.
the Judge still found as part of his sentencing the guy was grossly negligent and as a result this contributed to the deaths of 3 people.
Were higher charges considered, dropped or dismissed, possibly not due to other factors many of which you may have mentioned,
I Personally don’t think the prosecution will make the ocean safer.
I might be wrong. Maybe deterrence does work, Maybe other fishing vessel skippers will be motivated to keep a better look out.
Ultimately I don’t think the verdict or the sentence unreasonable.
It is a stiff sentence for not keeping a lookout. Why? 3 people died.
Biggles Wader
Well-known member
You make my point very well. The case you quote was one of unlawful killing as are all the others I can find(or manslaughter) but this thread is about a case of failure to keep a proper lookout, a much lesser charge presumably because there wasnt the evidence for a more serious one. Given that, the sentence seems harsh to me.
MystyBlue2
Active member
Yup i would assume every skipper/pilot etc has sat some form of training to an accepable level.I think you have a very valid point. One with which I agree
I presume you would hold every skipper to the same standard. In aviation, for example, a PPL ( a private pilot) is required to hold a valid license before they carry passengers, which will include passing an exam in air law, meteorology, the theory of flight, airframes and engines etc. They must have a certain amount of experience before the licence is granted. Pilots must also be qualified to fly in the airspace they are in plus be qualified for night flying if they have passengers. The aircraft must have a Cof A and be in check.
Somehow I don't think this would be popular. ?
Same as we all have had to sit driving tests and the theory behind it.
This will enable any accidents and fatalities to have a clearer picture of who is at fault and negligence behind the actions resulting in better punishment for not operating in the correct manner.
BUT this skipper is at fault of not keeping a good proper lookout (I accept that his viz was cut short) and sitting on auto whilst on a laptop and watsapp is completely unacceptable and for that reason tougher measures need to be in place as the death toll at sea continues to rise and at the minute people are losing their lives in similar circumstances and a pathetic sentance of 6 months is ridiculous.
Imagine being the family of the deceased. How hard would it be to find confidence in the justice system and be able to move forward with the loss when the are handing out a short stays like that.
Pye_End
Well-known member
When was his last look round the horizon, and what did it look like? I can't find anything reported on this.
A Watsapp can be written in a couple of seconds, or much longer - so care needs to be taken over the significance of this.
dom
Well-known member
83 seconds between pressing Send on his WhatsApp and 'impact':
0023:43; Mr Marr pressed send on the departure message from the Vertrouwen to fisheries monitoring
0024:22; The skipper confirmed he sent a WhatsApp message to his friend Davey Watt
0025:45; Radar traces showed the Vertrouwen and James 2 merge
Sandy
Well-known member
You will need to get a change in the law for that. Good luck.
Pye_End
Well-known member
This might be something that looks good written down, but reality is somewhat different.
I am a bit surprised to see posters assume that you can automatically see at night something that is unlit from moonlight. Sometimes, in some directions, perhaps. It is sometimes hard enough to asses and digest what you can see - never mind trying to see something else that may or may not be there!
Pye_End
Well-known member
So, when did he last look around the horizon?
MystyBlue2
Active member
But a lapse of concentration for a few seconds while he wrote a brief txt is enough for an imminent collision. Look at Titanic, a few seconds earlier, They would have missed the iceberg that sank it.
It only takes a few seconds to seal your fate.
Back to rule #5 & #8 of COLREGS
Last edited:
Achosenman
Active member
The point I'm making is that it is not certain he would have seen it. Especially since it wasn't lit. (I was not offering that as a defence, just an aside.) Of the many actions he could have taken, he should have had a dedicated watch on the bridge, especially in a high traffic area as he did his housekeeping chores. Again I don't think anyone has said the verdict is wrong, it patently isn't. I think a different sentence could have been more painful (in the wallet) to the skipper who survived, and served as a better warning to every-one engaged in the operation of boats.
Last edited:
Adios
...
In American clinics there are systems for giving the timing for when drawers are opened and dressings removed to aid in medical litigation. There is no eye monitoring system for recording when a skipper does what is required so they can only prove when he does something other than looking at the horizon. Its a bit hopeless really. They have zero proof that he didn't spend every interveaning second scanning the horizon which could amount to 90% of the time.
Achosenman
Active member
That standard does apply to every PPL and as you say, it should apply to skippers too...including the James 2's skipper.
Shall we talk about the alcohol limits next?
penberth3
Well-known member
That standard does apply to every PPL and as you say, it should apply to skippers too...including the James 2's skipper.
Shall we talk about the alcohol limits next?
Go on then, you first.......
MystyBlue2
Active member
Can you please link your source of info that states the 3 person's onboard james 2 where infact intoxicated? Or is that just assumptions?That standard does apply to every PPL and as you say, it should apply to skippers too...including the James 2's skipper.
Shall we talk about the alcohol limits next?
Just because they where in a small fishing boat that does NOT mean they where pissed, Not wearing LJ'S and acting like complete yobos.
Stereotyping?...
- Status