Ships collide in English Channel

If you had chosen to read all my post you would have noted that I did say that I believe the majority of ships officers are concientious .

Strangely mixed in with your tirade of personal insults you also carry on to agree with me that due to all the circumstances you mention the possibility of very tired people on the bridge is high.

As yachtspeople we are not in any position to "ask questions" about manning levels, Flags , P and I clubs etc .my point is that it is dangerous to assume anything about the bridge team on a ship that is closing on you,Im sure you have heard the old one about ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Far safer IMHO to work on the idea that A,you havent been seen and B if you have been seen they may not take appropriate action.






I am willing to debate the issue with anyone who is able to keep a civil tongue in their head .
 
imho there is little to debate if one of my kith, in absentia, is accused of being drunk i/c of a vessel.
fyi many if not most vessels are now dry, the old school of die hard drunkards died out many years ago ....... about when sat phones were introduced and caught the minority of ppl with drink problems out ........
what should worry ppl is the fact that tiredness at sea is a real issue, and perhaps that there are many forged/dodgy certs of competancy in circulation now - which makes life more challenging for all aboard a commercial vessel (and those toodling around for pleasure) these days ......
the question of being overtired on watch is everyones problem, even small boat ppl ......... but I agree there is not much you can do about it, even though its the main cause of collisions/groundings/near misses ....... ask any professional sailor or read the mca accident reports
which leads me to your 'commercila sea experience' - please correct me if I am wrong but I dont feel comfy with the idea you have any, or else you would not have jumped to the immediate conclusion the bridge watchkeeper was drunk ..... of course it is possible but perhaps not as likely as the 'small boat skipper' who has infinatly more opportunity and virtually no policing followup. I have had over 2 decades of yottie experience stuff so I am fully conversant with what actually goes on in both camps.

in conclusion, outside the muddy brown waters most yotties/stinkies play in its us blue water fellahs who will come to your aid in all weathers, spot you on the horizon and offer assistance, and listen 24/7 for your cries for help

there is enough room for us all on the water and there should be enough respect in here not to print 'opinions' as facts - unless you are ready to 'defend' you stance ...... in my opinion /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Firstly at no time did I suggest that any of these contributory factors to the accident which inspired the original post.

So you can feel"comfy" ,you are correct I have absolutely no seagoing experience as a ships officer.As an outsider who has daily contact with ships perhaps I am better placed to be impartial and not adopt a Parochial attitude.

I would agree with you that drunkness would appear to be on the decline ,probably at least in part to the reasons you mention.The remaining drunks could be eliminated from British Waters were my suggestions of routine breathalysing taken up.I could list some very recent well documented examples but this is hardly the place for it.

My next point is very well covered by the Telegraph which regularilly has accounts of Seafarers with forged tickets .

Also I would argue that tiredness is as much a problem as ever due to commercial pressures manning levels etc.Every issue of MAIB reports contains incidents where fatigue is a contributing factor .

what I am trying to get across to you is that You and other long experienced ships officers agree with me that all 3 of the problems I mentioned ie tiredness alcohol and unqualified personell do exist.

Therefore from the perspective of someone in a small fragile yacht is it not wise to at least be aware that the person in command of a ship in your vicinity will be very likely to be suffering fatigue and possibly one or both of the other problems?
 
Reinforces yet again my attitude towards ships.

I allways work on the assumption that the officers on the bridge are Unqualified .Drunk or asleep.

In some cases probably all three.


Firstly at no time did I suggest that any of these contributory factors to the accident which inspired the original post.

recognise these words .......?

ah well ....... personally I dont wanna nitpick on what you wrote and what you didnt write ........

inho a conclusion was made by your good self and written as above - what do the colregs say about scanty information, maybe they apply here as well
 
As a complete outsider to the shipping community, I would have to agree with Graham. I am sure he doesn't mean to slur anybody, but has simply pointed out the fact that when it all boils down to it, you are responsible for your own safety. Always be prepared for the worst.

Its the same on a road, you never know the mental/physical state of the next driver
 
You can mix and match my words to your hearts content.

Unable to maintain any intelligent argument(you have in fact agreed with me that all of the 3 points that I raised,exist to a greater or lesser extent)you then resorted to a personal attack which was way over the top and using language completely unneccesarily aggressive.

On the subject of "rules" take a look at the terms and conditions you have agreed to in order to contribute to this site.

Im sure you have a wealth of experience that could be of value to the forum but if presented in such an agressive and personally insulting manner the value of the content will be lost.
 
I am not mixing and matching ......... you clearly and succinctly stated you always assume the officer on the bridge is unqualified, drunk or asleep, probably all three.

this is a derogatory and inflamatory statement, and I care to defend my position even if others dont.
your perceived observations are not accurate and if they go unchallenged (as I assume thay have previously) then this mith of drunken lawless incompetance on the bridge of merchant vessels will prevail

at no time did I say it was likely the oow was drunk or likely to be drunk - in fact the reverse, I did however point out that there is a problem now with false tickets and tiredness.

if you wanna check the facts more incidents were caused by tiredness than alchol but I get the impression you arnt interested in facts
as for unqualified persons actually causing maritime incidents, this is even rarer than, say, your chance of being spot checked for drinking and driving - i.e. almost nil ..... but there is a chance I guess. I cannot recount when an unqualified oow was found guilty of any accident - please enlighten me - and the others

so all in all I guess we will beg to differ, you seemingly are convinced of what you want to believe , however bigoted it is.

IMHO - all I hope is others wont be swayed by your unjustified outragous statement made, by your own admission, in ignorance, about your perception of the competance of all OOWatches on merchant ships /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
once again you are completely missing my point.I certainly did not intend to preempt the results of the inquiry into this particular collision or claim any knowledge other than that in the news article.

The odd thing is that on the 3 main topics of my post we seem to be in agreement to a greater or lesser degree.

Looking up at a ship of however many tons moving at speed I have absolutely no way of knowing how professionally she is manned.So in the name of my own vessels safety I allways presume that things may not be as they should and act with extreme caution.Yes they are probably plotting us on Radar Yes they have probably seen us visually and will act correctly for the situation BUT I would not gamble the safety of my vessell by assuming that all is rosy.For being cautious I offer no apology.

i do think an apology is in order for your OTT and agressive personal attack on me.





Personally I will continue to err on the side of caution,in any collision between a ship and a yacht the yachts crew are the ones in danger of being fatalities.
 
[ QUOTE ]
yup = sorry mate ..... you hit my achillies heel

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you missed this posted earlier

I regret sounding 'agressive' this is my attonement
 
It must be the weather ... all these "personal" attacks ... everyone getting all sensitive an unnessersary .... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
"yup = sorry mate ..... you hit my achillies heel "

Sorry missed that bit in my haste to fire off another broadside....

As fireball suggests ,lets chill a bit.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am not mixing and matching ......... you clearly and succinctly stated you always assume the officer on the bridge is unqualified, drunk or asleep, probably all three.

this is a derogatory and inflamatory statement, and I care to defend my position even if others dont.
your perceived observations are not accurate and if they go unchallenged (as I assume thay have previously) then this mith of drunken lawless incompetance on the bridge of merchant vessels will prevail

[/ QUOTE ]

I well remember listening to the VHF conversation that followed a ship hitting a well-known pier.

The incident was reported to the Coastguard by the lifeboat station on the pier. After various enquiries as to the safety of the ship and of the pier ("Is there any damage to the pier?" "Well, it's in two bits, if that's what you mean!") Coastie asked if he could speak to the captain of the ship.

"Aren't no good talkin' to 'im, mate; he's pissed!"
 
mmmm - and he was 'done' for it ........

but dont use the same brush on all is what I am saying ......

its like saying all car drivers are over the limit, all surgeons kill ppl, all hoodies are thugs, all students are lazy wastrels, all coppers are bent (well - perhaps remove that from my examples ....)
does NO ONE see the nub of argument ? grrrr (i /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gifn frustration)
 
I agree with your approach Graham. The safety of my crew and boat are my responsibility and I am not going to assume any commercial vessel, including fishing boats, are going to behave properly. I take the same approach when driving my car.
Paul
 
[ QUOTE ]

does NO ONE see the nub of argument ? grrrr (i /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gifn frustration)

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I do see the nub of your argument, and yes I do understand your frustration. Nonetheless, I will still make decisions about ships on the basis that I would rather be safe than sorry !
 
Same here. It doesn't matter if they really are pissed, incompetent, or no one on bridge at the time and it's on autopilot, or whether someone is there and keeping a good lookout. If they haven't seen you, the result is the same

I work on the assumption I haven't been seen
 
Remember this?

Exxon shipping company announced today that it has terminated the employment of Captain Joseph J. Hazelwood. The termination followed the announcement by government investigators that this employee had failed a blood alcohol test administered on the Exxon Valdez last Friday morning.
 
Re: Remember this?

quite correct, he was found over he limit and technically drunk.......
what was not revealed was that weeks before the incident they removed a deck officer from the vessel to save costs, which increased the extra workload disproportionally on the master, and of course to an extent the other mates. it was deemed to be a contributing factor during the transit in question as well as during the voyages previously.
and for the record ...... although I dont condone being pissed in charge of anything let alone a car, mobo, yacht or ship, are you telling me you have not ever been over the limit by something like a half pint of lager ?

let those without sin cast the first stone ...... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top