Skipper of Atalanta Guilty.....

flaming said:
How pleasant. And how totally devoid of any factual basis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-wn1DM0NYE

His mark is the one just to the north west of South Bramble.

Perhaps you, or anyone else wishing to characterize this as a racing skipper pushing his luck, could explain how sailing away from the mark fits that description?

Looks very much to me like he was trying to get out of the way, mostly of the tanker's expected turn to the north, he just fundamentally misjudged the situation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the vid. Pushing his luck doesn't begin to describe his stupidity. Even if he wasn't racing at the time, clearly he wanted to head for his mark because he turned to starboard in an easterly direction ignoring the fact that he was heading towards the oncoming Hanne Knutsen in an exclusion zone. He seems to have been expecting the Hanne Knutsen to pass north of his track to round the Bramble Bank right up until the collision, a fatal miscalculation. I have read that he also ignored the Patrol launch's instructions to start his engine. As I say, he seems to have got the sentence he deserves
 
Deleted User said:
Thanks for the vid. Pushing his luck doesn't begin to describe his stupidity. Even if he wasn't racing at the time, clearly he wanted to head for his mark because he turned to starboard in an easterly direction ignoring the fact that he was heading towards the oncoming Hanne Knutsen in an exclusion zone. He seems to have been expecting the Hanne Knutsen to pass north of his track to round the Bramble Bank right up until the collision, a fatal miscalculation. I have read that he also ignored the Patrol launch's instructions to start his engine. As I say, he seems to have got the sentence he deserves
Click to expand...

He clearly didn't want to keep racing and head to his mark. If he'd done so at pretty much any stage in the proceedings he'd have avoided the collision. It can be clearly seen in the video.

He just seems to have completely lost the plot (situation awareness) and become fixated in turning to starboard and passing port to port as an avoiding action. He also seems to have assumed that the HK was going to turn sharply to starboard, was even capable of tuning sharply to starboard, in a couple of ships lengths. Bad errors of judgement for anyone, never mind a naval officer, but there doesn't seem to have been any plan to push his luck as part of racing.

I still think the instruction to start his engine was wrong - he was better placed to get out of there under sail in a boat like that.
 
So a slap on the wrist for the misjudgment, and a big kick in the nethers for not fessing up straight away?
 
Keen_Ed said:
So a slap on the wrist for the misjudgment, and a big kick in the nethers for not fessing up straight away?
Click to expand...
On the face of it, but guidance to judges is that they shouldn't impose costs greater than a defendant could reasonably be expected to pay in a year and they aren't meant to be an additional punishment. So the judge must be confident that he has the funds available without too much detriment - I would guess good insurance...
 
Deleted User said:
Our fellow forumite Daka should be dancing a jig this afternoon:)
Click to expand...

:)

The only reason I am happy is that he tried to defend.
If he had pleaded guilty a few Arrogant raggies ( the demand the right to stand on to the death) would have always maintained he did nothing wrong and he should have defended.
At least now there is absolutely no doubt.

Apart from Flamming ;)

never_give_up_stork_and_frog_tile_coaster.jpg
 
DAKA said:
:)

The only reason I am happy is that he tried to defend.
If he had pleaded guilty a few Arrogant raggies ( the demand the right to stand on to the death) would have always maintained he did nothing wrong and he should have defended.
At least now there is absolutely no doubt.

Apart from Flamming ;)
Click to expand...

Do you even bother reading what I wrote? I've never, ever, said he was anything but utterly in the wrong. I can't even conceive of a situation where you could wrap a perfectly functional yacht around the front of a tanker in the Solent and NOT be utterly in the wrong.

All I said right from the start was that I didn't think it was a case of an arrogant racer pushing for extra places, and I think that's born out by the video of him sailing AWAY from his next mark. I made that initial judgement based on having sailed against him and judged that boat and crew to be cautious in nature. As far as I'm aware every other poster on these boards is only judging him from that one youtube video. I remember when I first realised what boat it was I was really surprised, it just didn't fit with my previous impression of that boat and crew.

Ironically in this case if he'd ignored the tanker and just sailed at his mark from the start he probably wouldn't have even infringed the exclusion zone.

Clearly he got it totally and utterly wrong, but those who claim that they couldn't possibly make such a mistake are deluding themselves. Some of us are actually trying to work out how he got into that situation so we can avoid doing so ourselves!

You of course have the benefit of being able to open the throttles at any point. We mere mortals who are significantly slower than the ships have to plan ahead a bit more. Watching that video, and seeing his clear fixation with staying on its port side is very interesting, and I for one would love to sit down with a member of that crew and try and understand why. Rather than just slagging them off and deriding them as prats on the internet.
 
Your last sentence seems to explain the simplest way of avoiding colliding with these Ships.


Searush said:
Just be grateful it wasn't "you"* that made the error &, constrained by the pull of a chuffing great Spinnaker, ended up getting hung out to dry.

* this is a generic "you" and relates to no specific poster. Personally, I'm glad I wasn't in charge of that boat at that time & having to make those decisions. It certainly emphasises my desire to stay well clear of large walls of steel.
Click to expand...
 
flaming said:
Do you even bother reading what I wrote? I've never, ever, said he was anything but utterly in the wrong. I can't even conceive of a situation where you could wrap a perfectly functional yacht around the front of a tanker in the Solent and NOT be utterly in the wrong.

All I said right from the start was that I didn't think it was a case of an arrogant racer pushing for extra places, and I think that's born out by the video of him sailing AWAY from his next mark. I made that initial judgement based on having sailed against him and judged that boat and crew to be cautious in nature. As far as I'm aware every other poster on these boards is only judging him from that one youtube video. I remember when I first realised what boat it was I was really surprised, it just didn't fit with my previous impression of that boat and crew.

Ironically in this case if he'd ignored the tanker and just sailed at his mark from the start he probably wouldn't have even infringed the exclusion zone.

Clearly he got it totally and utterly wrong, but those who claim that they couldn't possibly make such a mistake are deluding themselves. Some of us are actually trying to work out how he got into that situation so we can avoid doing so ourselves!

You of course have the benefit of being able to open the throttles at any point. We mere mortals who are significantly slower than the ships have to plan ahead a bit more. Watching that video, and seeing his clear fixation with staying on its port side is very interesting, and I for one would love to sit down with a member of that crew and try and understand why. Rather than just slagging them off and deriding them as prats on the internet.
Click to expand...

Come on the stalk was funny ;)
The first post I read of yours I found very sensible.
It was clear you thought him at fault.
I even congratulated you on not defending him.
As the threads on scuttlebutts grew longer your posts appeared to start to find excuses for him, I bit my tongue on numerous posts of yours, I am very pleased to hear the impression you gave of sympathy wasnt intended.


either way ...........if he was going to push his luck OR if he was getting concerned the kite should have been removed and engine on .


I didnt call the guy a prat, this is far more serious , this should open the topic of MIA, standing on to power and organised dinghy racing in chichester/hamble river, its all linked !
 
DAKA said:
Come on the stalk was funny ;)
The first post I read of yours I found very sensible.
It was clear you thought him at fault.
I even congratulated you on not defending him.
As the threads on scuttlebutts grew longer your posts appeared to start to find excuses for him, I bit my tongue on numerous posts of yours, I am very pleased to hear the impression you gave of sympathy wasnt intended.


either way ...........if he was going to push his luck OR if he was getting concerned the kite should have been removed and engine on .
Click to expand...

Not excuses DAKA, just reasons as to what happened so that those of us who might find ourselves at the start point of that video know what it was that caused him to reach that ending... In my opinion any solent yachtie who thinks that could never happen to him is not being honest with himself.

If you can't understand the difference...

I didnt call the guy a prat, this is far more serious , this should open the topic of MIA, standing on to power and organised dinghy racing in chichester/hamble river, its all linked !
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
 
I think anyone who sees this as a "standing on" or "I'm racing" incident hasn't made any effort to understand what was going on. If he had taken exactly the same action a couple of minutes or a couple of hundred yards earlier the world would not even know who he was.
 
l'escargot said:
I think anyone who sees this as a "standing on" or "I'm racing" incident hasn't made any effort to understand what was going on. If he had taken exactly the same action a couple of minutes or a couple of hundred yards earlier the world would not even know who he was.
Click to expand...

He was far too close .




Ships arent soft race marks, they need respect, large space.


200 yds as you say can be lucky or unlucky ...............

so increase it and stay alive, its not rocket science !
 
DAKA said:
He was far too close .




Ships arent soft race marks, they need respect, large space.


200 yds as you say can be lucky or unlucky ...............

so increase it and stay alive, its not rocket science !
Click to expand...
If he'd increased it to 400 yards Pete, he would have needed wheels because he would have been driving down the esplanade...;) it is quite usual, and safe, to pass 200 yards abeam of ships there and you can see many yachts and motorboats doing so in the video. I would think that was his intention initially.
 
l'escargot said:
it is quite usual, and safe, to pass 200 yards abeam of ships there and you can see many yachts and motorboats doing so in the video. I would think that was his intention initially.
Click to expand...

Not safe to pass 200 yards a beam when the ship is about to turn (if it wasnt you Mark there would be an adjective here).

Thats why there is a huge precautionary area on the map (if it wasn't you Mark there would be a sarcastic silly face or image here).

The guy has been convicted, I dont understand how we can still be arguing on his action being safe (if it wasnt you mark there there would be a retaliation post on scuttleburks for that one).

Time and time again I see raggies far closer to ships than stinkers. (oh enough of this Mr Nice guy, remember how scuttlebutts thought this was safe, he should have been fined too !
IMG_8978.jpg
 
DAKA said:
Not safe to pass 200 yards a beam when the ship is about to turn (if it wasnt you Mark there would be an adjective here).

Thats why there is a huge precautionary area on the map (if it wasn't you Mark there would be a sarcastic silly face or image here).

The guy has been convicted, I dont understand how we can still be arguing on his action being safe (if it wasnt you mark there there would be a retaliation post on scuttleburks for that one).

Time and time again I see raggies far closer to ships than stinkers. (oh enough of this Mr Nice guy, remember how scuttlebutts thought this was safe, he should have been fined too !...
Click to expand...
i don't think anyone is arguing that what he did was safe but if he had passed 200 yards down the port side like a lot of other boats, he would have been safe. If 200 yards isn't safe there, then those anchored motorboats were in the wrong, and Cowes Harbour had better move the row of moorings...

That picture is about as relevant as the racing dinghies in Chichester it isn't even in the area of concern and certainly isn't 400 yards off Egypt Point. It raises totally different questions but clearly the authorities didn't think it warranted prosecution.

Did you read that post on SA that I linked to? I think that chap gives quit a good description of the possible thought processes that lead up to it all going wrong.
 
l'escargot said:
That picture is about as relevant as the racing dinghies in Chichester it isn't even in the area of concern and certainly isn't 400 yards off Egypt Point. It raises totally different questions but clearly the authorities didn't think it warranted prosecution.
Click to expand...

Didn't warrant prosecution of whom for what? Someone owning a half sized model of a frigate and getting close-ish to a couple of yachts? Or someone taking a photo of a real one with a telephoto lens and then using the photo with distorted perspective to troll on the internet? Not sure either are a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top