Wightlink Ferries taking over the Solent ?

[l'escargot]

The following Local Notice to Mariners (No 44/02) was issued by the The
Queen's Harbourmaster, Portsmouth on 30 July 2002 :

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a safety assessment has been completed of the
operating procedures for Wightlink vessels navigating in the area between
Wootton Beacon and the Fishbourne Linkspan.
2. Mariners are advised that Wightlink vessels may operate outside the
confines of the indicated channel and mayalso conduct "green to green"
passing operations within the confines of the channel.
3. Mariners in the Wootton area are advised that all ferry manoeuvres have
been considered in the wider context of safety for all users of the channel
and fairway.
4. In accordance with The International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea Rule 9, vessels of less than 20 metres in length and
sailing vessels are not to impede the safe passage of vessels which can
safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
5. These operating procedures are subject to a regular review.

There have been a number of instances of "aggressive navigation" of
Wightlink ferries outside of the channel this year and this notice would
seem to indicate that they want absolute priority everywhere. In the event
of a collision with a smaller "stand on" vessel, would (2) negate a defense by Wightlink
under (4)?

It would be interesting to know who did the safety assessment-I doubt if it
was small boat users around Wootton. (The situation at Wootton is somewhat unique, in as much as Wightlink are also the Harbourmaster and can grant themselves permission for all manner of things).

Anyone like to comment? I would be particularly interested in any personal
encounters with ferries in the Solent and in particular the Fisbourne/Wooton
area.

Regards
_________________

www.wootton-creek.freeserve.co.uk
_________________

 

[charles_reed]

I happened to cross on the Wightlink ferry to Fishbourne, last month, and was struck by the lack of consideration/care shown to other vessels (including a freighter).
I'm afraid it's a case of:- my business is more important than yours and if you don't like it you can go and play somewhere else.

Perhaps a good cause for the RYA/yachtie journals to take up.

PS For sheer blind arrogance you should see Royal Maroc ferries - Wightlink are positive gentlemen in comparison.

 

[Will]

in their defence....

I think you have to experience first hand the perils of aiming a ferry across somewhere like the solent before you can really criticise too much. Of course "aggressive navigation" is unacceptable, but you must appreciate that the skipper may cross the path of 30 or more vessels on this route. He will not only be taking into account the one immediately in front of him, but also constant bearings on other vessels that may not seem significant to a yottie, bearing in mind the different size and manoevrability. (How the hell do you spell that??????).
These new regs may simply be aimed at clarifying the situation - if we know that in a certain area we have to keep clear of the ferry, then at least it avoids the confusion that can so easily lead to a collision.

Just my opinion.

 

[ccscott49]

Re: in their defence....

I'd stay out of their way anyway, on principle!

 

[peterb]

The problem with local regulations like these is that visitors will not be aware of them. It's particularly surprising that this one should be issued by the QHM, because a recent MAIB investigation of a near miss just outside Portsmouth put a lot of the blame on to a belief in 'local custom and usage'.

 

[ToMo]

Re: in their defence....

I got no principles just a healthy respect for anything thats bigger than me!

TôMö

 

[ccscott49]

Re: in their defence....

I meant on the principle that the bas....d may sink you!!!

 

[oldharry]

Firstly, on my rare visits to Wooton, I have assumed the ferries to have an overall right of way because of their size relative to the channel the have to operate in. ' Vessel consrained by draft and size' regs must surely apply here, and if anyone is stupid enough to demand right of way over St Cecilia and her sisters in that channel then IMHO they are asking for what they are going to get...


As to the accusation of 'agressive navigation' in open waters - it seems to vary enormously. Caught yesterday off Ryde with a Spinnaker that had done the twist with the forestay, I was relieved to see that my struggles had been observed by an approaching ferry which kindly altered to give me plenty of room. Thanks Wightlink. This time.

Not last time: at the end of last season, just after IFOS I was on a run under sail heading west when I crossed the ferry track. I had observed St C outbound for Wooton, and clearly on course for a close pass. Always - and I mean always over 20 years - they have altered sufficiently to clear in this situation. There were no other boats around, but St C held her course, and passed so close across my bows that had I not done an emergency gybe, I would have undoubtedly collided with her. As it was, i reckon my boom missed the side of the ferry by less than 10 feet.

A bridge officer was clearly visible watching the proceedings.

I still regret not having reported the episode to MAIB.

 

[tome]

This is pretty much in line with my own experiences. I've been sailing 25 years in the Solent and have always found the Wightlink ferries well mannered and willing to alter course - real gents.

Until a couple of months ago when I was running in 35+ knots of wind and the St C passed so close ahead that I had to gybe to avoid them. This was mid Solent with nothing else about.

I'm still puzzled by why they did this and hope it isn't the start of a new regime. As for keeping clear of them in confined waters, this is common sense.

 

[l'escargot]

>Firstly, on my rare visits to Wooton, I have assumed the ferries to have an overall right of way because of their size relative to the channel the have to operate in. ' Vessel consrained by draft and size' regs must surely apply here,<

Would not (2) suggest that this assumption is no longer correct?

 

[l'escargot]

It has been suggested that 2 new skippers are in particular responsible for the new tactics and attitude, hence the varied experiences.
Reports to Wightlink generally meet the standard response along the lines of "We would expect our skippers to take whatever action they deem safe in the circumstances...."

 

[tome]

Interesting. I met one of the (long term) skippers in a local pub a while back, perhaps I should seek him out and have a chat.

 

[l'escargot]

It would be interesting to dispel or confirm the suggestion. Some recent activity would be more at home around the Greek islands than the IW.

 

[oldharry]

Good point L'escargot. It could be quite an interesting one to have tested in court by the insurers. If a large vessel which could be assumed to have right of way in a restricted channel, leaves the channel, then my guess would be that it has forfeited its right to priority under the Col Regs, as its actions would then be completely unpredictable to other vessels, creating an extremely dangerous and potentially life threatening situation.

However, not with MY boat, thanks very much....

Incidentally - not having a chart to hand, does Wooton come under QHM or VTS Southampton? If it is VTS, what do they have to say? No doubt commercial interests will as usual override those of the leisure boater, leaving us to get out of the way whatever, and at serious risk.

Have you checked out the RYA's legal department to see if they have anything to say?

 

[l'escargot]

Wootton does come under QHM. Incidentally I have just come back from a few days sailing and during a stopover in Lymington I watched the ferries in and out of there - a totally different ball game. They could not be faulted, picking their way through cadets races outside the Royal Lymington, and a disabled motor cruiser, in particular - without the prolific use of sound signals so popular in Wootton.
I wonder if this is the effect of an influential yacht club and an independant HM? I can't see a similar notice to mariners (or the 10 knot speed limit they allow themselves) for the Lymington river, passing without comment.
I believe the matter will be explored with the RYA and I am interested in "(5). These operating procedures are subject to a regular review." - I wonder who by and when?

 

[l'escargot]

For some reason, the website linked in the signature of the above post has become "unavailable". There is a mirror site at the website below - have a look soon in case this one disappears too. Could it be that someone objects to the content?


____________________

http://freespace.virgin.net/sailing.boats/index.html
____________________

 

[l'escargot]

Wightlink Ferries - trying to silence opposition?

and now, probably for a limited period, here:

______________

http://www.creek-wootton.freeserve.co.uk/
______________

 

[l'escargot]

Update

Local Notice to Mariners (No 48/02) was issued by the The Queen's Harbourmaster, Portsmouth on 28 August 2002 :

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the pile in position 50 44 389N 001 12 720W on Admiralty Chart 2022 H marking rocks that lie to the west of Wootton Creek channel IOW, is missing.

2. A temporary floating mark has been laid in it's place.

3. Description; Yellow Unlit sherical 4' 8" buoy

4. Position 50 22 510N 001 12 420 W


Wonder what hit that then?

___________

http://homepages.rya-online.net/wootton-creek/
___________

 

[davel]

Re: Update

Must have hit it with some force'cos the position given for the temporary buoy is 20 miles from the old one !!

Dave L.

 

[l'escargot]

Printing error!

Should have put my bacon butty down when typing

Correction

4. Position 50 (44) 510N 001 12 420W