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

[Achosenman]

Don't know about unlawful as such, but it should be covered (i.e. banned) in the company's safety management system.

How about a smart phone with Navionics installed or Windy.com etc? How about reading a weather report?

I think the point is to not allow yourself to be distracted to the point of an ineffective lookout. A ban is a blunt tool and can actually create problems.

 

[Achosenman]

AIS should be fitted to all vessels that go to sea the alarms may have warned on of them soon enough to do something

AIS can easily be fitted to most vessels capable of carrying passengers. The alarm function is useful in some circumstances. Try setting an AIS alarm in a place like the Solent and see if you think it’s helpful

 

[jordanbasset]

We know it was common for small boats to be in the area concerned. We know David Marr failed to have two on watch as the official advice says. We know he had been playing on his computer and in addition sending whatsapp messages during the journey and at the time of the incident. We know he was not using his radar, or at the very least not using it correctly. We know he had the deck floodlights on facing forward. My view is that if the other boat was lit up like a Christmas tree Marr would be unlikely to have seen it.
On the other hand on a clear moon lit light with good visibility and a calm sea I believe any half decent watch would have seen the white boat, whether the disputed lights on the smaller boat were on or not
My view is that in the light it was not just one mistake but a whole series of mistakes/mis-judgements that Marr made he got of lightly with a 12 months sentence, of which he will serve about 6 months, but that was for the Judge to decide on hearing all the evidence

 

[Sandy]

AIS should be fitted to all vessels that go to sea the alarms may have warned on of them soon enough to do something

I have AIS, it lives at the navigation station in the saloon I switch it on but rarely if ever look at it. I don't use it as a primary source of collision avoidance - for that I use the Mark I eyeball, it is there for Coast Guard to know where I am and what I have been doing if I ever need to hit the wee red button. It is also for the use of friends and family so that they know where I am. The final function is for friends to get a pint in at the bar as they are usually back before me.

 

[Sandy]

We know it was common for small boats to be in the area concerned. We know David Marr failed to have two on watch as the official advice says. We know he had been playing on his computer and in addition sending whatsapp messages during the journey and at the time of the incident. We know he was not using his radar, or at the very least not using it correctly. We know he had the deck floodlights on facing forward. My view is that if the other boat was lit up like a Christmas tree Marr would be unlikely to have seen it.

May I introduce you to the Swiss cheese model

 

[MystyBlue2]

How about a smart phone with Navionics installed or Windy.com etc? How about reading a weather report?

I think the point is to not allow yourself to be distracted to the point of an ineffective lookout. A ban is a blunt tool and can actually create problems.

I use Navionics on a fone as a backup plotter as my fixed boat plotter is an old Garmin BUT it sits in a holder in a waterproof case and i dont touch it. I configure when tied up before setting off then switch off when ive tied back up at harbour.

I keep things strict and treat everything like i am behind the wheel of a vehicle as I'm PETRIFIED of being in James 2 shoes.

 

[Achosenman]

I use Navionics on a fone as a backup plotter as my fixed boat plotter is an old Garmin BUT it sits in a holder in a waterproof case and i dont touch it. I configure when tied up before setting off then switch off when ive tied back up at harbour.

I keep things strict and treat everything like i am behind the wheel of a vehicle as I'm PETRIFIED of being in James 2 shoes.

I think every iPhone from 6 onwards is waterproof. 1 meter for 30 minutes or better in some models. I don't bother with a waterproof case.

You must do what works for you. Many situations can arise whereby you must adapt, overcome and improvise. I remember doing a nasty pilotage into a challenging small harbour one day and my carefully drawn plan disintegrated in the rain as the map case sprung a leak. Navionics saved the day. The subsequent debrief from the instructor never mentioned the phone.

 

[MystyBlue2]

Well i suppose this sad story has tought us all a valuable lesson.

ALL vessel's need to have a better understanding of where we are at all times and keep a proper constant lookout regardless of size or activity taking place.

Must be well lit, all round white light, Nav lights, All appropriate safety kit WORN and stay sober.

I'm not bothered if a ship has a first mate to keep watch, it is the captains responsibility to keep proper lookout. Never trust someone else's judgement.

Stay off your phone UNLESS it is an emergency.

Training/courses will provide knowledge and make us more aware and what actions we need to apply and should be taking to keep every water user safe.

And invest as much money as practically possible in aids such as AIS, Radar reflectors etc to make us as visible as possible to other vessels.

All vessel's regardless of size and shape can be on the water, the problem arises when folk cant share that space safely and effectively.

Such a sad reality check for most i think. Back to the drawing board for me atleast, shame it has taken 3 lives lost to wake us up.

 

[Aardee]

I'm not bothered if a ship has a first mate to keep watch, it is the captains responsibility to keep proper lookout. Never trust someone else's judgement.

Genuinely curious what your point is here - Should the captain be keeping lookout at all times?

 

[MystyBlue2]

Genuinely curious what your point is here - Should the captain be keeping lookout at all times?

Well yeah seen as he is the captain and the one in charge of the vessel...yes!

I wouldn't ask a front seat passenger of a car to help me keep a watch on the road. I'm the driver its therefore soley my responsibility.

He wasn't piloting the bloody Titanic, Most vessles have good all round visibility. If he was on auto there was nothing tying him to the helm and could have easily walked the bridge to look at horizon himself.

I understand some vessels need crew to do different things but dont rely on somebody elses word.

 

[madabouttheboat]

If it wasn't james 2 it could have been another ship or rocks.

Now you are just making stuff up. The skipper, while not keeping watch properly, would almost certainly have known where he was, so rocks would not feature. Another boat? Maybe, but quite unlikely if they were lit up correctly and acting professionally themselves.

This accident is a bit like an aircraft accident, where no one thing on its own was enough to cause the accident. It is what they call the Swiss cheese model, where on the night, unfortunately, all the holes lined up.

 

[Pye_End]

So if i hit an unlit cyclist and kill him whilst being on my fone my defence lawyer can say "He was only on his fone for a few seconds your honour" and get me a reduced sentance and drop the charges from death by dangerous driving to driving without due care and attention?
Regardless if the cyclist was in the wrong in the first place, I would get HAMMERED because i was on my phone, They would use it as ammo and all other factors would be bye the bye.

Big differences in jail time between death by dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention.

Dont think the judge or the jury will be sympathetic and say "Well ok Dan we will let you off lightly this time seen as it was only a few seconds"

A crime is a crime simple as.

And IMHO the punishment does not reflect the lives lost and the crime committed.

If you are driving and not paying attention for more than 2 or 3 seconds you are likely to be in some difficulty - eg even fiddling with the radio etc.. However, on the water this figure is likely to be minutes in decent visibility and no apparent hazards. We do not know how often he was scanning the horizen. It is likely that the two vessels made no contact - so in your driving analogy it is more like driving through a puddle in the dark and the spray causing a heart attack!

Tell me, when you are on the water, you have 2 of you continually scanning the horizen? You never go below to grab extra clothing, put the kettle on, answer a call of nature, check the charts/chart plotter, write latest position in log, check the bilges etc etc. When fishing do you have 2 crew on lookout whilst 1 fishes? Who here has somebody looking 'under the genoa' when beating all the time? What you hold as good practice for this skipper should hold true for us as well should it not? I certainly do not come up to this standard, and if this means at the roll of a dice I could be in prison I find this all deeply concerning.

 

[madabouttheboat]

They could be lit up like blackpool illuminations, If hes on his fone, not paying attention he could hit ANYTHING is my point.

Day/or night if your looking at your fone, not looking where your going you can hit ANYTHING

I think you have convinced yourself that the skipper looked at his phone constantly. I don't see that in the report. It's fair to say he wasn't giving it the due care and attention it required, but I bet my bottom dollar he glanced out the window a few times. A well lit vessel 'could' have been seen, even with his poor watch-keeping protocol. A vessel not lit at all, if viewed from behind, is difficult to spot even if doing the job properly. I know, as I have had a close shave or two with unlit vessels myself. Spotted at the very last minute, and with slow speeds, I was able to avoid them, but if I had looked down at my phone, even briefly, at the wrong time, I could have hit them. This would be despite a proper watch right up until I was on top of them.

 

[Pye_End]

Well yeah seen as he is the captain and the one in charge of the vessel...yes!

I wouldn't ask a front seat passenger of a car to help me keep a watch on the road. I'm the driver its therefore soley my responsibility.

He wasn't piloting the bloody Titanic, Most vessles have good all round visibility. If he was on auto there was nothing tying him to the helm and could have easily walked the bridge to look at horizon himself.

I understand some vessels need crew to do different things but dont rely on somebody elses word.

How long can you last without a break or sleep? He was off to Grimsby not an hour up the coast! Fatigue on the bridge is a killer.

 

[MystyBlue2]

I think you have convinced yourself that the skipper looked at his phone constantly. I don't see that in the report. It's fair to say he wasn't giving it the due care and attention it required, but I bet my bottom dollar he glanced out the window a few times. A well lit vessel 'could' have been seen, even with his poor watch-keeping protocol. A vessel not lit at all, if viewed from behind, is difficult to spot even if doing the job properly. I know, as I have had a close shave or two with unlit vessels myself. Spotted at the very last minute, and with slow speeds, I was able to avoid them, but if I had looked down at my phone, even briefly, at the wrong time, I could have hit them. This would be despite a proper watch right up until I was on top of them.

So morrell of the story is match your speed to the current conditions.

Poor lighting and not good vis of horizon....he should have brought his speed down and like your scenario he may of seen James 2 at last minute and been able to just miss them.

 

[madabouttheboat]

Yes, he has both, plus a pilots licence.

I have Coastal Skipper, FM Day Skipper.

He has a boat in Spain, rarely sails it, could not reef it when I was last aboard and used the mast of a 27 metre Dutch yacht - the tallest in the Marina - as a mark to find the harbour entrance.

The Dutch yacht was moved to Menorca and he was stuffed!

I doubt he has sailed 200NM's since he got his YM.

Which was 17 years ago.

Sounds very much like a dodgy YM issued by an unethical sea school to me. When I did mine, it was very clear that if I did not exhibit the knowledge and skills that I should have accumulated through the required 2000nm 50 night hours plus the theory course, etc etc I would not pass. The exam day was long, stressful and very tough.

 

[madabouttheboat]

So morrell of the story is match your speed to the current conditions.

Poor lighting and not good vis of horizon....he should have brought his speed down and like your scenario he may of seen James 2 at last minute and been able to just miss them.

He was only doing 7 knots, so not exactly fast. He also did just miss them, I understand, although more luck than judgment. It was his wash that done for them by flooding the cockpit through a transom that was not safe for use at sea. This fact also makes me believe that their aft was facing towards the wash, ie no lights visible, as even this boat would have survived a close quarters fishing boat wash if taken bow on.

Like others I am not absolving the fishing boat skipper of blame, but I see many opportunities to avoid this accident, or even just the tragic outcome, and many of them were on the crew of the James 2.

In hindsight, I think the sentence fairly reflects the known facts.

 

[MystyBlue2]

He was only doing 7 knots, so not exactly fast. He also did just miss them, I understand, although more luck than judgment. It was his wash that done for them by flooding the cockpit through a transom that was not safe for use at sea. This fact also makes me believe that their aft was facing towards the wash, ie no lights visible, as even this boat would have survived a close quarters fishing boat wash if taken bow on.

Like others I am not absolving the fishing boat skipper of blame, but I see many opportunities to avoid this accident, or even just the tragic outcome, and many of them were on the crew of the James 2.

In hindsight, I think the sentence fairly reflects the known facts.

But that scenario happens all to often, larger vessels charging through close to shore not giving a second thought how their wash/wake will negativity effect other water users.

Its petrifying being on a small boat with HUGE vessels being the "Boy racers" and causing chaos and potential swamping and sinking of anything less than 18ft say,

There are so many small water users out there....kayakers, small day fishing boats, Jetskis, Swimmers, Paddleboarders etc.

Like said match speed to current conditions, Visibility and other traffic.

Not hard to do but bigger boats skippers tend to be either arrogant, ignorant or both....Cant decide which and use their skipper tickets to gain the hierarchy over all other vessels.

 

[penberth3]

How about a smart phone with Navionics installed or Windy.com etc? How about reading a weather report?

I think the point is to not allow yourself to be distracted to the point of an ineffective lookout. A ban is a blunt tool and can actually create problems.

I don't think a commercial operator would be relying on a smart phone for the functions you've mentioned. The issue is private conversations by someone who should be giving full attention to other things. I thought you might have guessed the context.

 

[madabouttheboat]

But that scenario happens all to often, larger vessels charging through close to shore not giving a second thought how their wash/wake will negativity effect other water users.

Its petrifying being on a small boat with HUGE vessels being the "Boy racers" and causing chaos and potential swamping and sinking of anything less than 18ft say,

There are so many small water users out there....kayakers, small day fishing boats, Jetskis, Swimmers, Paddleboarders etc.

Like said match speed to current conditions, Visibility and other traffic.

Not hard to do but bigger boats skippers tend to be either arrogant, ignorant or both....Cant decide which and use their skipper tickets to gain the hierarchy over all other vessels.

There is certainly some arrogance amongst commercial skippers, on that I agree. But in this instance, he simply did not see them, did not knwo they were there and, wrongly I admit, probably assumed there would be no small vessels drifting right outside a busy commercial harbour that late at night. In this case its more carelessness than arrogance I feel.