What a dick head!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrusty1
  • Start date Start date
Re: DAKA\'s conclusion summary

With due respect Daka, that's bollox, all that does is reiterate the provisions of the normal CR.

Kaboom Kaboom Kaboom .. I've got cannon fitted now instead of machineguns
 
Re: DAKA\'s conclusion summary

I wonder, with your obvious knowledge on the subject, plot on the chart exactly where the incident took place. If possible also a timed track of the two vessels.

Then there would be no need for an investigation as the matter of blame could be established here.
 
Re: DAKA\'s conclusion summary

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee kaboom kaboom kaboom
 
Re: DAKA\'s conclusion summary

Whatever's written, someone can pick holes in it. I read that note as meaning that Rule 9 is considered to apply throughout the Fairway. You could maybe read it as meaning that Rule 9 applies where appropriate within the Fairway - but if that's the case why write the note at all?

I'm just glad I sail in a much more laid back area. The worst we're likely to encounter is something like this ....
Cromarty_Rose-06.jpg
 
Re: DAKA\'s conclusion summary

Rule 15 - I quoted it to you last night, does not oblige the ferry to navigate in the fairway. It says:

15. Vessels entering or leaving the Harbour or Roads during the period commencing on the 1st day of March and ending on the 30th day of November in every year shall navigate within the fairway approach as shown by pecked lines on the Admiralty Charts.

(my emboldening)

The byelaws define the fairway approach separately from the fairway, and - in my view - 15 exists solely to prevent vessels approaching the fairway through the moorings and Cowes Road anchorage.
 
Was there ever an official conclusion to this event ?

Was there ever an official conclusion to this event ?
Its 2 years on, you would think the Cowes HM would have issued a conclusion or does it just get filed ?
 
Never mind picking holes in the situation with the Colregs, in Southampton water the commercial traffic has right of way, simple as that. As a Merchant Navy Officer in charge of very large and expensive cruise liners, I am absolutely appaulled at the actions of this sailor. Whilst putting himself and his boat at risk, he was also unwittingly putting the crew and passengers onboard the ferry at risk. If the ferry had collided with the sailing vessel, the blame would have been proportioned between both the OOW and the sailor, meaning that the selfish actions of the sailor would affect the OOW. Large ships take time and space to manoeuvre, so the more of both of these that you can give them the better. Even onboard the highly technologically advanced ships that I drive on a daily basis, a yacht can cause chaos, particularly in confined waters such as the solent. Remember that I am a fairly unique Officer in that I enjoy sailing as a past time, the majority of Officers wouldn't even consider going sailing or even motor boating in their time off, so what may seem a very predictable sailing manoeuvre to the average sailor, could very confuse or frighten the Officer on a large ship - think in terms of what you want to see the yacht doing if you were at the helm of such a large vessel.
 
cuppateatime said:
If the ferry had collided with the sailing vessel, the blame would have been proportioned between both the OOW and the sailor, meaning that the selfish actions of the sailor would affect the OOW.
Click to expand...

If the OOW was partly to blame, why shouldn't he take some of the blame? This was not, after all, a big tanker, calculating course changes well in advance - it was a small, manoeuvrable ferry which (as described here) seems to have thought that its obligations as stand-on vessel were fully discharged by hooting loudly.
 
cuppateatime said:
Never mind picking holes in the situation with the Colregs, in Southampton water the commercial traffic has right of way, simple as that. .
Click to expand...

Really ??? Where is that written down? Sounds more like "I've got a big ship so keep out of my way"

Maybe you are referring to the MPZ in the Area of Concern but that doesn't extend up Southampton Water.
 
MoodyNick: You are quite correct, the MPZ doesn't extend up Southampton water, my mistake - we have an escort to clear vessels out of our way in southampton water, owing to the confusion.

The incident however did not happen in southampton water, but instead 1 and half cables from the entrance to cowes, where the ferry did have right of way.

Ubergeekian: The "hooting loudly" as you say are, under the rules, the normal action to take. The ferry did not however only "hoot loudly", but also slowed down to allow the sailing vessel to cross ahead.

The ferries are manoeuvrable, however nothing compared to the manoeuvrability of the yacht, after all they are still 93 metres long and almost 4000 grt.

"A ship that is slowing down does not steer very well; it needs the propeller action on the rudder to respond. When the ship’s engines are put “full astern” its manoeuvrability will be affected. Remember that it takes time and considerable distance for a ship to stop." Yachtsman's Guide, Southampton VTS

Sadly, the blame is always portioned between both parties, so if a collision had occurred, the OOW whilst having done everything he could to prevent it occurring, would still get some blame, a tad unfair.
 
cuppateatime said:
MoodyNick: You are quite correct, the MPZ doesn't extend up Southampton water, my mistake - we have an escort to clear vessels out of our way in southampton water, owing to the confusion.

The incident however did not happen in southampton water, but instead 1 and half cables from the entrance to cowes, where the ferry did have right of way.

Ubergeekian: The "hooting loudly" as you say are, under the rules, the normal action to take. The ferry did not however only "hoot loudly", but also slowed down to allow the sailing vessel to cross ahead.

The ferries are manoeuvrable, however nothing compared to the manoeuvrability of the yacht, after all they are still 93 metres long and almost 4000 grt.

"A ship that is slowing down does not steer very well; it needs the propeller action on the rudder to respond. When the ship’s engines are put “full astern” its manoeuvrability will be affected. Remember that it takes time and considerable distance for a ship to stop." Yachtsman's Guide, Southampton VTS

Sadly, the blame is always portioned between both parties, so if a collision had occurred, the OOW whilst having done everything he could to prevent it occurring, would still get some blame, a tad unfair.
Click to expand...


Cuppateatime

There are several (further) things that I would question, but I'll just pick two:

- I don't believe these ferries rely exclusively on propwash for steerage, as you suggest

- If any sort of reasonable enquiry were to apportion some degree of blame to the OOW, then that suggests, to me, that, in the view of the enquiry, the OOW was, at least in part, culpable. Sounds entirely fair, to me (note...I am not suggesting that he/ she was culpable, I do not know any near enough about this incident to reach my own judgement).
 
NealB said:
If any sort of reasonable enquiry were to apportion some degree of blame to the OOW, then that suggests, to me, that, in the view of the enquiry, the OOW was, at least in part, culpable.
Click to expand...

It's standard practice to apportion blame, however unfair it may seem, to both parties, on the basis the collision should never have happened
 
cuppateatime said:
Ubergeekian: The "hooting loudly" as you say are, under the rules, the normal action to take. The ferry did not however only "hoot loudly", but also slowed down to allow the sailing vessel to cross ahead.
Click to expand...
It reads as if the slowing down only happened at the last possible minute, thought it may of course have been overdramatised.
Sadly, the blame is always portioned between both parties, so if a collision had occurred, the OOW whilst having done everything he could to prevent it occurring, would still get some blame, a tad unfair.
Click to expand...
Even if he was blameless?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top