Who should be blamed in this collision???

[Twister_Ken]

I take it you saw my PM?

Indeed. I scratched my head wondering which two?

 

[prv]

Isn't the problem here the fact that he was racing?

In all my experience of racers they have consistently demonstrated an almost suicidal desire to win. There is no excuse, a cruising sailor would never have put himself in that position. A racer will do it every time.

Nope - he was already disqualified when he went into the Moving Prohibited Zone, so he had nothing to gain by cutting across the bows. That rule exists precisely to avoid racers calculating (or miscalculating) how close they can shave the bow of a ship.

Pete

 

[andygc]

Why on Earth is there another thread on this topic? It has already been beaten to death elsewhere in these forums.

It's already been said - the skipper of the yacht was in clear breach of the byelaws and the escort boat had already told him so. There is no point in mindless speculation as to whether or not he was barking mad, stupid, a chancer, or a poor chap who made a bit of a mistake eek - or, for that matter, if he had a crew of plumbers or RN commanders. The MAIB will report and may give some insight into his decision-making, and the Port Authority will decide whether to take him to court.

 

[angelsson]

Watched this a couple of times last week.
I don't really believe this needs any form of discussion.It just highlights what a total c*ck the skipper of the yacht is.
He is lucky he didnt lose his life or the life of his crew. If there were any law where he could be charged for being a c*ck, I would like to see him charged. It is so typical of the arrogance of racers to do something like this.

Rant over. I feel better.oh, and of course it's the yachts fault. Please don't spout " motor gives way to sail" its bleedin' obvious who needed to take avoiding action.

Plus 1 what a pr..k!

 

[Heckler]

Any one who has sailed for a few years cant say they have never made a realy bad mistake, Some get away with it some dont, i have heard lots of people slating this guy. His bad luck was it happened in front of cameras, He just made a very bad call that has cost him dearly and he probably knows it. He doesnt need to be told how stupid it was.

Let the inocent writers throw all the stones. I know I cant

The problem is, I suspect, we all have come in to contact with cocks like the yot driver. They think that cos they are racing then they can do what they like!
Had one in the Dickies Regatta last year, new boat to him, he lost control of the kite, then tried to tee bone me at the mark! Was shouting at me till I told him to feck off! Mind you, SWMBO was halfway over the rail trying to get at his throat! That made him back off!
Stu

 

[Heckler]

It's very obvious who's fault it was.

However so many here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that it was wreckless chancing that put him there, rather than a misjudgement of the tanker's intentions or speed, the wind or anything else that might have put him there. Many assume that he saw the tanker and went "This will be tight, but I might win if I chance it." Rather than "I am well clear of that tanker and it will turn before I get to it / is anchored / is only going 4 knots."

One is wreckless and should be condemned, the other is a misjudgement and should be Learned from.

In the complete absence of any evidence as to the thought process etc of the skipper, I prefer to offer the skipper the benefit of the doubt and call it a huge mistake rather than "wreckless yachting".

He was a cock! IMHO
Stu

 

[l'escargot]

Why on Earth is there another thread on this topic? It has already been beaten to death elsewhere in these forums.

It's already been said - the skipper of the yacht was in clear breach of the byelaws and the escort boat had already told him so. There is no point in mindless speculation as to whether or not he was barking mad, stupid, a chancer, or a poor chap who made a bit of a mistake eek - or, for that matter, if he had a crew of plumbers or RN commanders. The MAIB will report and may give some insight into his decision-making, and the Port Authority will decide whether to take him to court.

Were you party to what was said between the helm and escort boat?

 

[Cookee]

It's very obvious who's fault it was.

However so many here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that it was wreckless chancing that put him there, rather than a misjudgement of the tanker's intentions or speed, the wind or anything else that might have put him there. Many assume that he saw the tanker and went "This will be tight, but I might win if I chance it." Rather than "I am well clear of that tanker and it will turn before I get to it / is anchored / is only going 4 knots."

One is wreckless and should be condemned, the other is a misjudgement and should be Learned from.

In the complete absence of any evidence as to the thought process etc of the skipper, I prefer to offer the skipper the benefit of the doubt and call it a huge mistake rather than "wreckless yachting".

Is there an ignore button on here? You seem to be ignoring the 1000 metre regulation leaving out room for guesswork and poor judgement in the equation - as has been said many times already - a total and absolute Co6k!

 

[flaming]

a total and absolute Co6k!

Probably.

But consider this - the yacht's course was from the western Solent, round South bramble, West Ryde, and then to the RYS line.

So when the tanker is coming from the east the initial "collision course" is pretty much head on.
So what if the yacht heats up on Starboard to go over the tanker (SW wind) and is aiming to pass the 100m clear down the port side of the tanker that he is required to - also expecting that the tanker will, at some point, be turning to Starboard. Then something goes wrong. Maybe the kite collapses and the boat loses steerage, maybe the tanker makes a small turn to port to clear the boats that we see going down it's starboard side, maybe the wind shifts under the island and the kite needs to come down but jams.

The point is that we don't know. But my strong suspicion is that in those conditions this was not a crossing situation that took ages to develop, with constant bearings etc, but one where there wasn't an issue, the boat wasn't in the zone - but then suddenly was, for whatever reason that might be.

In all likelyhood the boat ending up under the bows of the tanker because of a horrendous mistake by the skipper, but I'm not keen on calling anyone names until the facts are actually known.

 

[Oscarpop]

Probably.

But my strong suspicion is that in those conditions this was not a crossing situation that took ages to develop, with constant bearings etc, but one where there wasn't an issue, the boat wasn't in the zone - but then suddenly was, for whatever reason that might be.

In all likelyhood the boat ending up under the bows of the tanker because of a horrendous mistake by the skipper, but I'm not keen on calling anyone names until the facts are actually known.

I'm sorry, I disagree. Unless the skipper was Stevie Wonder and the yacht was crewed by Ray Charles, the skipper was being a complete c*ck and decided that winning was more important than the lives of his crew, or the safety of the boat .

It makes me cross that anyone believes that is was a "stupid mistake". We as sailors spend time trying to sway land lubbers perceptions that we are all a bunch of moronic toffs who own "yachts" and b*gger about in the Solent at weekends before heading back to the City and banking. This flaming moron has just confirmed the suspicion.

 

[flaming]

decided that winning was more important than the lives of his crew, or the safety of the boat .

Unless you were on the boat, and know what decisions were taken and why, then you have no possible way of knowing this.

 

[Oscarpop]

Unless you were on the boat, and know what decisions were taken and why, then you have no possible way of knowing this.

You are of course correct. We have no way of knowing what was going on. I can only imagine that the skippers guide dog did not manage to bark the correct number of yaps and so the skipper was unable to disenage the autopilot with his white stick .

Joking aside, he CANNOT have failed to see the tanker as a huge collision risk. From the film, it seems as if the boats were travelling perpendicular to each other. As he is flying a kite and the crew are all on the rail, we can assume that he had been on the same course ( more or less) for a while.

The skipper WOULD have seen the tanker and WOULD 100% have decided that he would lose valuable time if he were forced to pass astern.

In medicine we apply the Bolam test to see if a professional is being negligent. In a nutshell, " what would like minded professionals do if faced with a similar situation". I would like to think that once I had taken a transit and seen that there was a collision risk at 200m, then 150m I would have taken drastic evasive action to ensure that safety came before arrogance.

 

[flaming]

Joking aside, he CANNOT have failed to see the tanker as a huge collision risk. From the film, it seems as if the boats were travelling perpendicular to each other. As he is flying a kite and the crew are all on the rail, we can assume that he had been on the same course ( more or less) for a while.

That seems to be the final course, but the original closing would have been pretty much head on, as his course was from the western solent to the East, and the Ship was going west, about to turn to the North.

Given where the yacht was coming from, and where he was going to, he simply will not have been on that last course "for a while". I suspect that the final course in the video is a last desperate attempt to get out of the way, with the crew frozen to their seats.

I'll say again - I was on the water that day, and would have come through there within 10 minutes of that incident, sailing the same course. I strongly suspect that this was initially a head on incident with the yacht aiming to pass down one side or the other, NOT a crossing situation, but then for whatever reason suddenly didn't continue to keep clear.

Until the MAIB report comes back and says "the yacht skipper decided to chance a last minute crossing" or something similar, I'm going to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt that he made a massive mistake, rather than deliberately risked his crew's lives for a better result.

 

[Jegs]

You're too young to know

Gold rings on uniform? Presumably CPO Pertwee was checking the stores & left S.Lt. Phillips in charge.

John G

 

[andygc]

Were you party to what was said between the helm and escort boat?

No, I admit to making an assumption. We do have an eyewitness account:

... I about 3 cables away (admittedly with a bit on!) but the yacht was going at full pelt until about 30 sec's before the collision when they suddenly tried to spill the wind from their sails, this despite the escort boat going over to them

As someone who watched the whole incident ...
- he ignored the escort vessel - and then at the last minute realised he had made a huge mistake and tried to slow down. ...

If you know better I am happy to accept that the escort boat did not point out the danger, stupidity and illegality of his being inside the Zone, but instead had a discussion about the weather.

I wonder which is more likely.

 

[prv]

The skipper WOULD have seen the tanker and WOULD 100% have decided that he would lose valuable time if he were forced to pass astern.

But he WOULD also be disqualified for crossing ahead within 1000m, so it wasn't the straight choice between squeaking across the bow wave or passing astern that you seem to think it was.

I'm kind of with Flaming on this. He's obviously screwed up, but unless he didn't know the rules (which is possible, I guess) then the "decided to chance it" explanation just doesn't make sense.

Pete

 

[Stu Jackson]

Maybe we don't know what was going on inside the skipper's head at the time, other than the obvious, but we have the same traffic conditions here on San Francisco Bay, lots of racing boats and lots of freighter traffic.

In addition to the exclusion zones established after 9/11, well before that time all the racing committees here got together and essentially said: "Play with freighters and we will DSQ you."

Works real well.

 

[prv]

In addition to the exclusion zones established after 9/11, well before that time all the racing committees here got together and essentially said: "Play with freighters and we will DSQ you."

Works real well.

Yes, and it's the same here. The 1000m/100m rules apply to all vessels under 20m, not just racers (vessels over 20m will presumably be kept clear by VTS). That's why all the people here who think racers can take chances nipping in front of ships in the middle of the Solent are mistaken - they'd be disqualified for trying it.

Pete

 

[Oscarpop]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

If the skipper knew he was going to be disqualified, I fail to see why he was there.

 

[l'escargot]

No, I admit to making an assumption. We do have an eyewitness account:


If you know better I am happy to accept that the escort boat did not point out the danger, stupidity and illegality of his being inside the Zone, but instead had a discussion about the weather.

I wonder which is more likely.

I have no more information than you about that conversation at the moment and the poster that you quote has no more information either - he certainly wasn't in a position to hear what was said or be able to say that any advice was ignored. The exchange seemed very brief and the escort boat set of with purpose which is not the action they usually take when challenging boats in the restricted area.