Someones really p***ed of the QHM Portsmouth

[Ohdrat]

Re: What cannot be defended...

I am not defending those that are oblivious or choose to ignore rules, however I am also aware that there are actual sinkings / collisions / deaths caused by commercial traffic faulty pilotage and non adherense to the colregs too.

So I personally think (note I have no knowledge of this harbour) there seems to be an element of I'm a professional anti leisure users attitude

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[northener]

QHM = lollipop man - bunch of kids go out to play, run in front of traffic + give him lots of lip for looking out for them - IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: lights in colregs - yes

Personally I have no faith in lights in these circumstances.. everyone uses sound signals

Anyway to be honest you are more likely to hit a rock than a ship or another boat in restricted viz.. or even perfect viz see the good ship Jumbo or whatever it's called than ran aground in the Summer Isles last week.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Maybe....

...but as a regular Portsmouth Harbour user for many years there are far too many instances of yachts outside of the channel and motorboats breaking the speed limit to put up a reasonable defence as things stand.

I'm no big fan of the alliance that springs up between QHM and Southampton HM (and European HM Association) from time to time -- definitely a case of some bias and not all of it entirely fair given the oft-publicised antics of commercial traffic. I don't know if the current QHM is in favour of compulsory licensing...certainly that has been a campaigning stance of many harbourmasters in the past. All of which I find annoying because in many instances they already have bylaws in place to control behaviour but do nothing to act. What difference a piece of paper?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Going West

I'd perhaps fancy my chances of getting out, using the SSC in poor viz if I was going west. Not sure I'd want to cross the main channel without speaking to QHM on VHF.

As to holding off. You could hang around to the west of the channel but it's fairly lumpy quite a lot of the time.

Chartplotters are all very lovely but most don't show ships or other yachts. I'd think that most of your hazards would be moving.

I think the old buffer must be commended for getting his message across.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Going West

<font size=1>As to holding off. You could hang around to the west of the channel but it's fairly lumpy quite a lot of the time.</font size=1>

Yes, I was just trying to visualise a bank holiday's worth of leisure boats all pushing up against the entrance on a red, near low water springs /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[VicS]

Re: QHM

I think the QHM must be getting pretty hot under the collar about some of the things that have been said here about him, at least the 'Harbour Eye' recorded a max temperature of 650.7 C at 19:15 yesterday. Or is he burning yachtsmen at the stake.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re:Entertaining NM

NM

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[NigeCh]

Ha Ha Ha

That's one of the reasons that I gave up sailing there and departed to last months YM ongoing destination. - And it's a secret place where wilderness sailing is the norm.

Sail on,

Love you all,

Nige




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: wilderness sailing is the norm

ditto.. who wants to speand their time being castigated by officious and ineffective HMs and doopy CGs when they could be sailing the crystal waters of.............

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Maybe....

I thought the letter was an extremely inappropriate reaction by the harbourmaster. As you say he has the rules and regulations and the power to enforce them. If he really had wanted to make a difference the most effective way would have been to grab a leisure boat in the main channel in the fog without its engine running and hammer them. That would have made a difference. Not a wingey letter to a mag that most of the offenders probably do'nt read anyway.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsadler]

Re: Maybe....

I have never sailed into or out of Portsmouth Harbour.
I don't think anyone would question the apparent danger or conflict, especially in fog, or the fact that this needs to be addressed.
But I would question a few things:
The QHM has expressed his displeasure in the letters page of YM. If this is an ongoing problem, what other measures has he put in place?
The tone of the letter is not best designed to help the situation.
The banner YM headline 'Appalling seamanship in fog' might have been more impartially written as 'QHM expresses concern over bad visibility' - or something.
All IMHO obviously. In Lough Swilly, a near miss is when someone almost spills your pint of guinness.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Maybe....

presumably the qhm is concerned about the risk of collision between a large vessel and a yacht. does anyone believe that the small bulbs fitted to yacht lights would be seen in restricted vis, far enough away to avoid collision. or that the feeble fog horns we carry would be heard over the sound of a large diesel?

personally, i wouldnt go out in that vis even with my radar working since it still carries risk, and sailing in such weather isnt fun. but i still think that those who wish to go out have a perfect right to risk their own necks.

anyway, with the navy's recent record for hitting solid ground, are they in a position to advise us?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: More serious punishment...

... than a spanking.....

The rules for entry into P'mouth changed in November of last year. Prior to that, boats under 20m SHOULD enter the harbour but MUST leave the harbour through the small boat channel and under power. The wording was changed to MUST in both cases. The 2003 almanacs would have been printed before QHM changed the directions so the timing of this NM could have been better? That is the reason you would have seen yachts entering through the fairway and they would have been perfectly entitled to do so, subject to colregs, at the time. It is now a criminal offence to do so. The small boat channel is only 40-50mt wide ....


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: More serious punishment...

Probably only changed because people were taking the piss. The small boat channel is more than big enough, other than the constriction as you enter.

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[burgundyben]

Re: What happens if IPT signals introduced

There is a proposal to put a tunnel under the harbour as part of the south hants light railway, there was talk of closing one half of the harbour during construction of the tunnel, that would make the problem even worse for the period of work.

I think QHM needs to better inforce the rules that are in place, as you say, many yachts flapping about trying to tack through the entrance stemming the tide in light airs and with the distruption of the wind by buildings progress is very poor. I see it mainly as a seamanship issue for small craft users.

From the desk I'm sat at typing this I can hear the ships horns, the most common signal by far is honk honk honk honk honk.

I will print this thread and wander into his office and hand him a copy at lunch time, no point in all this being typed if he does not get to see it.



<hr width=100% size=1>Sod the Healey - I think I'll buy an E-Type.

 

[charles_reed]

Yes, the general tenor

..of the postings on the board have been pretty childish.

Still he got his message over - perhaps next time he'll arrest one of the malefactors and impound his/her boat.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Chris_Robb]

Here Here nm.

..

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[l'escargot]

Re: What happens if IPT signals introduced

A NTM has been issued this week relating to the tunnel being built.
I have e mailed the QHM about a local matter and received a very prompt and personal reply. I also know of a number of people who have had dealings with him and also found him to be very approachable.
I haven't read the letter refered to, but my experience is that he is a highly visible HM with the interest of all mariners at heart, but the bottom line is he is a serving naval officer responsible for all matters in a very busy naval port and he will regulate it as such.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qhmportsmouth]

Fog

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all your views concerning my letter to the yachting press on behaviour in fog recently in Portmsouth and thank you Pepermint for your kind words (I am indeed an old duffer actually).

I am as frustrated as most of you seem to be by the irresponsible behaviour of a few - what made me write was my surprise at the irresponsible behaviour of many one foggy morning. And before you ask how did I know what was going on, I had spent a good hour in harbour control supervising my team coping with the morning ferry departures before going on the water in a pilot boat to escort a large vessel into harbour thus I could clearly see all aspects of the problem and indeed went close by many of the yachts in question on my way out.

As to what I am doing about it - the very last thing I want to do is go round prosecuting people. My strategy is to educate and assist and thus I set up the Harbour patrol this year (see LNTM 02/03 on the website www.qhmportsmouth.com for details). Though it is not yet running 7 days a week it has already made a big difference around the harbour entrance talking to yachtsmen, handing out leaflets and twice now assisted yachts in danger/difficulty. I, or a member of my team are always happy to go and talk to yacht clubs (including cadet sections) and the new electronic notification system on the website has as of tonight 578 excellent people signed up to receive notices by e-mail. The new entry and exit rules are working very well and have markedly reduced the number of near misses at the harbour entrance. Finally I am working hard on a ground breaking new initiative which will be launched later this year or early next year targeted at improving things even more next season. Though education is the key I will prosecute if I must, particularly where rules are flagrantly ignored and I have three cases in various states with the Police or CPS at the moment.

I hope this background helps and look forward to seeing you all on the water over this glorious summer.

Oh, and by the way mikeb you do need to use your lights in fog (and sound signals)!!!

All the best

QHM Portsmouth


<hr width=100% size=1>