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

[Adios]

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 had time to pass a knife around to cut fenders off to cling to, but not the presence of mind to grab the 4 life jackets that where in the cabin.

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.

Why assume the worst of the skipper? Could be right but could also be someone scanning the horizon every 20 seconds while entering some stuff on his laptop. If the little boats nav lights had been correct the MAIB said it would have been visible immediately the fishing boat got out to sea. I fully expect at some point from leaving the harbour to the collision the skipper will have scanned the horizon at least once. If the boat had been lit he could have seen it. The more I think about it the less I can blame the skipper.

He didn't even notice he had hit something.

He can't have hit it. I'm surprised that idea made it past them finding not even a scuff on the boat. Clearly thats the first thing they'll try to determine in a sinking. "Was there a collision?" And there wasn't. If the little boat had been anything like seaworthy, if they'd been wearing lifejackets, they would not be dead.

 

[Gary Fox]

6 months in an open prison isn't much of a penalty for recklessly killing three people. 6 years would be better. I haven't seen whether Marr lost his skipper's ticket, can that even happen? I certainly hope so.
People who use social media while on watch are vermin.

Professional mariners are obliged, morally if not legally, to keep a look out for the casual amateur small-boat users, who *we all know* are out there, especially inshore, along that coast. We know they are likely to be there, and we know their lights may not be up to scratch. Everyone has a duty to look out for such people, and expect them to pop up unexpectedly.

 

[Gary Fox]

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.

NUC doesn't mean 'engine not running', look it up.

 

[Adios]

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.

Definitely not as simple as that. They were not anchored so were underway, whether they had the engine on or off is irrelevant to their responsibility to avoid a collision, they could have easily started it and moved out of the way. If they were unable to manoeuvre there are specific lights they should have shown but they didn't even have any light showing aft. But even if they had been anchored with an anchor light its still not simple: The Obligations of an Anchored Vessel to Avoid Collision at Sea | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core

 

[Trident]

Why assume the worst of the skipper?

Mr Cojocariu told the court the crew had seen the Vertrouwen from about 1km (0.6 miles) away, and all four had been signalling "like mad" as it approached
The evidence showed that he would have been able to see the lights on the boat for six minutes before the near-miss, yet he continued to sail directly towards the boat with tragic consequences


So no assumption at all - the evidence in court is pretty conclusive and obviously the court found it to be so

 

[Trident]

Definitely not as simple as that. They were not anchored so were underway, whether they had the engine on or off is irrelevant to their responsibility to avoid a collision, they could have easily started it and moved out of the way. If they were unable to manoeuvre there are specific lights they should have shown but they didn't even have any light showing aft. But even if they had been anchored with an anchor light its still not simple: The Obligations of an Anchored Vessel to Avoid Collision at Sea | The Journal of Navigation | Cambridge Core

I may be wrong but I think they were too small a vessel to have to have specific lights for being unable to manoeuvre

 

[Adios]

People who use social media while on watch are vermin.

I'm certainly aware of the menace of mobiles. Seems its quite deadly.

But everyone on watch will be doing things other than constantly scanning the horizon. Its a matter of degrees. This skipper sent a message when he was 1/4 of a mile away still. He would have been able to see the boat the entire time he was at sea if it was lit so keeping a constant watch wouldn't have been essential to avoid this collision only the lights were missing not his watch keeping unless he didn't look out at all.

 

[Adios]

I may be wrong but I think they were too small a vessel to have to have specific lights for being unable to manoeuvre

I was talking generally but I would think the lights to signal something specific would be for any vessel

 

[Pye_End]

Hard to see a boat at night with no lights facing your direction.

As to the torches etc. - I wonder if that was when the trawler was right upon them. It has a big bow, and there must be a zone in front that is impossible to see from the bridge, just like a ship. If the fishering boat was visible for a few seconds, it is not long enough. Even if the watch keeper was doing a complete sweep of the horizon at the time, he could have missed it.

A couple of seconds on the engine would have seen the fishermen clear. They did just about everything wrong that they could have done and paid the price.

Couldn't see any mention of radar in the report, unless I missed it. Not sure why not. Would have been the only way to see a dark object.

I think the trawler, on this occasion, was hard done by.

 

[dom]

6 months in an open prison isn't much of a penalty for recklessly killing three people. 6 years would be better. I haven't seen whether Marr lost his skipper's ticket, can that even happen? I certainly hope so.
People who use social media while on watch are vermin.

Professional mariners are obliged, morally if not legally, to keep a look out for the casual amateur small-boat users, who *we all know* are out there, especially inshore, along that coast. We know they are likely to be there, and we know their lights may not be up to scratch. Everyone has a duty to look out for such people, and expect them to pop up unexpectedly.

Although bear in mind that the skipper and vessel owners will now both face a raft of protracted civil actions with a substantial risk of consequent bankruptcy.

 

[MystyBlue2]

NUC doesn't mean 'engine not running', look it up.

My bad i was wrong thanks for clearing that up

 

[dom]

....A couple of seconds on the engine would have seen the fishermen clear. They did just about everything wrong that they could have done and paid the price.

Couldn't see any mention of radar in the report, unless I missed it. Not sure why not. Would have been the only way to see a dark object.

I think the trawler, on this occasion, was hard done by.

I think one has to be cautious about criticising/second-guessing a court's decision on the basis of limited evidence.

And that is all we have here. The MAIB report on which we are heavily relying is specifically not intended to support blame assignation. That was for the court to do, which it now has.

At the very least, one would need to first study the available court records and judgement in detail.

 

[Trident]

He would have been able to see the boat the entire time he was at sea if it was lit so keeping a constant watch wouldn't have been essential to avoid this collision only the lights were missing not his watch keeping unless he didn't look out at all.

The evidence showed that he would have been able to see the lights on the boat for six minutes before the near-miss,

It was lit - he wasn't looking - end of story. A court of law has looked at every detail and determined that the skipper was not looking and had he done so he would have seen the lights for 6 minutes before the near miss.

 

[Adios]

Mr Cojocariu told the court the crew had seen the Vertrouwen from about 1km (0.6 miles) away, and all four had been signalling "like mad" as it approached

The MAIB report was done much sooner after the accident and said this

"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. 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."

I would say the earliest testimony is the more reliable and the new version of events seems tainted, its possible with a desire for compo or he'd been coached (just a possibility not an accusation). The survivor will probably now get an out of court settlement with the boats owners which he would not if the boat skipper was not found at fault.

The evidence showed that he would have been able to see the lights on the boat for six minutes before the near-miss, yet he continued to sail directly towards the boat with tragic consequences.

So no assumption at all - the evidence in court is pretty conclusive and obviously the court found it to be so

That evidence from the MIAB investigation was to show that the larger boat would have been able to see the smaller IF it had lights on which it didn't. The CPS spokesperson gave that out of context. Other than no nav lights the unreliable witness claimed the cabin lights were on but they were found to be switched off by the MAIB. Unless the boat skipper had the presence of mind to turn off the cabin lights before abandoning ship but not grab the lifejackets while he was there I'm going with the evidence from the MAIB that the cabin lights were off and the testimony that they didn't signal until the they were under the ships bows.

 

[Pye_End]

I think one has to be cautious about criticising a court's decision on the basis of limited evidence.

And that is all we have here. The MAIB report on which we are heavily relying is specifically not intended to support blame assignation. That was for the court to do, which it now has.

At the very least, one would need to first study the available court records and judgement in detail.

Indeed, often hard to judge without being there. Would be interesting to read a more in depth account.

However, of the two, the MAIB was supposed to come out with the relevant information with why it happened, by people who are expert/experienced in that field. It would be interesting to know what experience they had in the court, or how they attached weight to certain bits of information, or whether there was some sort of legal oddity.

 

[Adios]

The evidence showed that he would have been able to see the lights on the boat for six minutes before the near-miss,

It was lit - he wasn't looking - end of story. A court of law has looked at every detail and determined that the skipper was not looking and had he done so he would have seen the lights for 6 minutes before the near miss.

The MAIB report on that says NOT lit. The theoretical distance and time he could have seen it was assuming it was lit when the report says it wasn't. What can I say but something sounds off doesn't it.



Juries in courts of law are not unknown to be overturned at appeal for good and obvious reasons. Its not that definitive.

 

[Pye_End]

The evidence showed that he would have been able to see the lights on the boat for six minutes before the near-miss,

It was lit - he wasn't looking - end of story. A court of law has looked at every detail and determined that the skipper was not looking and had he done so he would have seen the lights for 6 minutes before the near miss.

The fisherman had no stern light, and was orientated away from the trawler - see 8b. The fisherman would have been dark.

 

[Stemar]

From what I can gather, both boats got it wrong. The trawler clearly wasn't keeping a proper lookout, the little boat wasn't showing appropriate lights, though if the trawler wasn't looking, having them wouldn't have helped. What is relevant is not wearing lifejackets, glugging a bottle of whisky, which very probably left their judgement impaired and a lack of general good seamanship. I don't know about you all, but if I'm drifting around fishing and I see something heading for me, I'm going to get the engine started PDG, just in case. Not colregs, unless it's a stand-on vessel taking action because give way isn't, just a desire to stay alive. We've all seen video of the little fishing boat run down by a planing mobo. It's like driving. I was taught always to assume that the other guy is going to do the stupidest thing possible and be ready for it. It's called defensive driving. I try to practice defensive sailing.

There is certainly a problem with fishing boats not keeping a proper lookout, so the jail sentence is probably less about retribution than it is about sending a message to other negligent fishermen, which is not to say all are, by any means, but it only takes one to make a tragic headline.

 

[Stemar]

The fisherman had no stern light, and was orientated away from the trawler - see 8b. The fisherman would have been dark.

But they were waving lights, had headlights on, etc. They should have been seen if someone was looking out for them.

 

[Gary Fox]

But they were waving lights, had headlights on, etc. They should have been seen if someone was looking out for them.

Exactly, they were waving torches, as you would, and the MAIB report specifically mentions that they had working torches on board. The man who killed them was sat down in his wheelhouse, facing aft, writing on a laptop.