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

[Gary Fox]

Reading the MAIB report, one of the things that is mentioned is the guidance for watchkeeping at night is that there should be 2 people on watch yet Vertrowen (and many other vessels) only had one, the skipper. So not only was the skipper totally distracted by administrative tasks and his social media feed, he ignored the opportunity to tell one of the 3 other men on board to stand watch with him on a rolling pattern.
His habit of not turning off the deck lights impacted on his night vision and ability to see beyond his own vessel: that in itself prevented him keeping a good lookout. His indulgence in spending time on social media rather than monitoring his radar or looking out of the window simply reinforces his lack of care.
All that said, the other boat was slow to react, wasn’t well suited to the trip it was making and all 4 folks on board had been drinking.
Whilst you can argue the toss about the division of blame here, Marr wasn’t charged with manslaughter but with failing to keep a lookout. It’s not impossible that the skipper of James 2 could also have been charged with the same offence if he had survived.
You may recall that the Pride of Bilbao v Ouzo incident led to the bridge crew being charged with manslaughter and being found not guilty. I’ve often wondered what the verdict would have been if they’d been charged with failing to keep a lookout.

The Pride of Bilbao's officer on watch was punished though, a big fine IIRC. Both that bridge team, and Marr, got off too lightly in my personal opinion.

'There was fault on both sides'? Well sort of. It is totally unreasonable to hold casual anglers to the same standards as professionals.

'Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
But teach him how to fish, and he'll go out in a dory and get pissed' is a truism because it's true, and people need to use their imagination: ' If there was a small fishing boat ahead, would I, or my crew, see it in time?'

 

[Capt Popeye]

Guess that its Incidents like this that will eventually mean stricter Rules and Conditions for Boating in general

Might mention that it appears that the Tourches refered to were actually Head Worn devices with very very very little output at all; if so doubt ghat a Skipper would have seen them at all, so there are missleading statements in the Reports; vis Prosecution ver Defense

Might mean that Anglers (NOT FISHERMEN by a long chalk) should have a RYA or similar certificate ?

 

[Achosenman]

Guess that its Incidents like this that will eventually mean stricter Rules and Conditions for Boating in general

Might mention that it appears that the Tourches refered to were actually Head Worn devices with very very very little output at all; if so doubt ghat a Skipper would have seen them at all, so there are missleading statements in the Reports; vis Prosecution ver Defense

Might mean that Anglers (NOT FISHERMEN by a long chalk) should have a RYA or similar certificate ?

Long overdue IMO. We don't accept drivers on our roads without a licence, why are boats different?

 

[Gary Fox]

[QUOTE="Athomson, post: 7599600, member: 182151 I wonder if its ever safe for trials of this nature to be heard by a non-seafaring jury. Things aren't the same as on land
[/QUOTE]
Yes the average jury can't visualise what it's like at sea and don't understand the words.
How would a 'seafaring jury' work in practice? Is there such a thing? (Not a board of Enquiry, a jury).
Who would qualify, I thought juries were meant to be ordinary folk.
Not meaning to sound flippant, but: If skateboards were involved, would the jury need to be a skateboarding jury? The jargon is at least as obscure as the nautical, and most people don't know what it feels like, etc.

 

[MystyBlue2]

The Pride of Bilbao's officer on watch was punished though, a big fine IIRC. Both that bridge team, and Marr, got off too lightly in my personal opinion.

'There was fault on both sides'? Well sort of. It is totally unreasonable to hold casual anglers to the same standards as professionals.

'Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
But teach him how to fish, and he'll go out in a dory and get pissed' is a truism because it's true, and people need to use their imagination: ' If there was a small fishing boat ahead, would I, or my crew, see it in time?'

Not all folk in small Dory-type boats are overconfident piss artists though.

There are a few small boats in my local harbour and people i know are, very respectful, respect the water and other water users.

Yes it only takes one idiot to give the rest a bad name but i for one have a small dory and if you scour through my previous threads ul soon find im nothing like your describing.

Bigger vessels "Bully" Alot of the time.

 

[MystyBlue2]

Here is an example from 2 weeks ago. We where fishing on the drift on a wreck when this monstrosity came along and made NO ATTEMPT to call me on the radio, or make any attempt to prevent a collision. He blatantly pushed forward and pushed me out of the way.

Vis was good, weather was calm sun was shining and my boat is BRIGHT WHITE and with a radar reflector of 4NM range he DEFINITELY seen me he just chose to bully me to move or he would cut me in 2.

You can clearly see the water disturbance where my wake WAS.

If I'd stayed put, This would have been yet another report.

 

[Adios]

="Athomson, post: 7599600, member: 182151 I wonder if its ever safe for trials of this nature to be heard by a non-seafaring jury. Things aren't the same as on land

Yes the average jury can't visualise what it's like at sea and don't understand the words.
How would a 'seafaring jury' work in practice? Is there such a thing? (Not a board of Enquiry, a jury).
Who would qualify, I thought juries were meant to be ordinary folk.
Not meaning to sound flippant, but: If skateboards were involved, would the jury need to be a skateboarding jury? The jargon is at least as obscure as the nautical, and most people don't know what it feels like, etc.

The case was a technical one of whether he'd kept a proper watch. No one is expected to keep a perfect 100% of the time watch so really the trial was if he had kept a reasonable and professional level of watch. What is a reasonable level of watch is not something easily ascertained by someone with zero experience of keeping watch on a ship. In my profession if there is a misconduct case it is heard by a panel of peers in the same profession. If there is a court marshal in the military it is by a panel of peers from the same force. A bit like farming vs city folk I imagine seafaring is another world to people who don't go there. Very little cross over. In practice there could have been a tribunal of experienced seaman and then if guilty passed to the crown court for sentencing.

In this trial all the prosecution had to do is imply that there can never be an excuse for hitting anything, as clearly if you were watching fully attentive you'd have spotted it. The jury had no reason borne of real world experience to doubt that line of thinking. They wouldn't know what's reasonable below a 100% level of watch. Are some indirect lights in a cabin really so visible that there is no excuse for not seeing them? Should he be able to hear someone at sea level shouting from within a wheelhouse with engines running? I doubt the jury had a night time sea trial to get an impression of these things. Instead both sides will have brought conflicting experts paid to make their case for one side or the other. Give me a dispassionate panel of experts any day over 12 angry vegans from Brighton who view all fishermen as evil murders already.

I do hope I'm not playing devil's advocate for a lazy arse who just put his feet up with the paper.

 

[zoidberg]

I refer the Hon. Gentleman at #20 to a proper copy of the IRPCS.... and to a reputable course of study of same.
Not worth further comment.

 

[Achosenman]

Here is an example from 2 weeks ago. We where fishing on the drift on a wreck when this monstrosity came along and made NO ATTEMPT to call me on the radio, or make any attempt to prevent a collision. He blatantly pushed forward and pushed me out of the way.

Vis was good, weather was calm sun was shining and my boat is BRIGHT WHITE and with a radar reflector of 4NM range he DEFINITELY seen me he just chose to bully me to move or he would cut me in 2.

You can clearly see the water disturbance where my wake WAS.

If I'd stayed put, This would have been yet another report.

A bit of context would help. I can see you were fishing because I think I see a rod bottom left of the picture. Where were you fishing and what do the Colregs say?

 

[jordanbasset]

We know there should have been two on watch
We know it was a clear night with good visibility
We know the convicted skipper was on social media during the time of the incident
We know either the radar was not turned on, he was not watching it or did not know how to use it

Even without any other evidence I think it shows a failure to keep a proper look out

 

[rotrax]

Here is an example from 2 weeks ago. We where fishing on the drift on a wreck when this monstrosity came along and made NO ATTEMPT to call me on the radio, or make any attempt to prevent a collision. He blatantly pushed forward and pushed me out of the way.

Vis was good, weather was calm sun was shining and my boat is BRIGHT WHITE and with a radar reflector of 4NM range he DEFINITELY seen me he just chose to bully me to move or he would cut me in 2.

You can clearly see the water disturbance where my wake WAS.

If I'd stayed put, This would have been yet another report.

I am going to play Devils Adcocate here.

Do you consider it wise to fish on what is pretty obviously a recognised ferry route? After all, that is a Ferry you have pictured.

If you do, be prepared to move. IMHO, of course.

After all, on the drift, all you need to do is reel in and engage gear and away.

You may well be in the right, but, as you have found out, bigger working vessels push the envelope.

Right or wrong, in the event of a collision you would be in the water or dead.

 

[MystyBlue2]

A bit of context would help. I can see you were fishing because I think I see a rod bottom left of the picture. Where were you fishing and what do the Colregs say?

Besides the point. He could clearly see me, its common curtesy to respect other water users regardless of size, he would have been able to see me from miles away given the height of his wheelhouse. And he also would have been able to tell i was not in motion as the lack of MY wash/wake is a massive give away.

He definitely should have given me a wide birth and had ample time to do so, If not for an imminent collision for swamping smaller vessels atleast. It wasn't like he was restricted in movement by an enclosed harbour. He had about 450Nm of space yet the arse decided to bully.

Typical of larger vessels.

 

[Achosenman]

No, it isn't beside the point.

 

[duncan99210]

The Pride of Bilbao's officer on watch was punished though, a big fine IIRC. Both that bridge team, and Marr, got off too lightly in my personal opinion.

Er, no he was acquitted of both charges brought and thus had no punishment imposed as he was innocent. See here for analysis of the trial https://www.6pumpcourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PRIDE-OF-BILBAO-PAPER-DECEMBER1.pdf

 

[Adios]

Here is an example from 2 weeks ago. We where fishing on the drift on a wreck when this monstrosity came along and made NO ATTEMPT to call me on the radio, or make any attempt to prevent a collision. He blatantly pushed forward and pushed me out of the way.

Vis was good, weather was calm sun was shining and my boat is BRIGHT WHITE and with a radar reflector of 4NM range he DEFINITELY seen me he just chose to bully me to move or he would cut me in 2.

You can clearly see the water disturbance where my wake WAS.

If I'd stayed put, This would have been yet another report.

Looks like the same boat or class that swamped some fishermen when it came out of Harwich too fast. The ferry was found at fault IIRC.

 

[MystyBlue2]

No, it isn't beside the point.

It absolutely is!

I know theres no official "Right of way" and that is the wrong way of looking at it BUT, What gives him the right to make me move and put the shits up me and my passengers?

Because he is bigger?

Because he gets paid to be a skipper and i dont?

Common curtesy costs nowt, pure ignorance i say.

 

[MystyBlue2]

Looks like the same boat or class that swamped some fishermen when it came out of Harwich too fast. The ferry was found at fault IIRC.

Yup backing up my theory of "I'm bigger, Move or else"

 

[Achosenman]

It absolutely is!

I know theres no official "Right of way" and that is the wrong way of looking at it BUT, What gives him the right to make me move and put the shits up me and my passengers?

Because he is bigger?

Because he gets paid to be a skipper and i dont?

Common curtesy costs nowt, pure ignorance i say.

I'm getting the impression that the gentleman in post #68 is correct.

 

[Seven Spades]

I think the most important fact in this case is that the fishing vessel has two wacking great floodlight forward facing and switched on. The reflected light alone from his own hull would have made it utterly impossible to see the cabin cruiser even if it did have lights. This is in my opinion his biggest failure. The radar set at 6 miles would not have helped him but I find it hard to condemn him on this alone. I am sure he was multi-tasking and glancing at AIS and radar and his pone and lap top. If his deck flood lights were not switched on and he was looking he might have seen what for all intents and purposes was an unlit vessel. I would guess he was relying on both AIS, radar and mk1 eyeball to spot bigger vessels and had no expectation of encountering a small unlit cabin cruiser.

A huge portion of the blame must be passed on the the skipper of the cabin cruiser, he did everything wrong and if you are not showing the correct shapes or lights you are not considered NUC. I would say the skipper of the fishing vessel was 50% to blame for the collision and the skipper of the cabin cruiser 100% responsible for the deaths. Accordingly I do not think he deserves greater punishment than he has received.

in general I agree with the tone of the thread here that fishermen are reckless to the safety of others as they show incorrect shapes and lights and expect to be stand on. I am not sure that this applies here.

 

[Adios]

Yup backing up my theory of "I'm bigger, Move or else"

It was a wash issue with that one. Here's the report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c7177e5274a4290000137/purdy.pdf

Well found 10m boat. Without checking through I think the issue was they were fishing over a shallow sand bank so the wake started breaking. But the ferry was going faster than they should have at that point