Yachting FAIL - Jessica Watson

[Christian Van H]

I'd like to state my personal opinion on this. I read the first accounts of the collision. I read her blog, and I read the news and saw the pictures. I believe her father is lying, plain and simple. He is setting a terrible example for this kid, and I believe he has dragged her into his fabrications over the actual coarse of events. Lets hope she already has the ability to see the wrong in this. Lets also hope she has learned mightily from this incident, because it seems she is going back out there again. Finally, lets hope God protects the CHILDREN of fools too... and now I will beat my own dead horse:

[sarafina]

Originally Posted by amytom

Wow! 14 pages to discuss what should be common sense.

Now tell me again why I spent the time to catch up on this? Off to buy new fenders...

Don't bother ; -)

You have summed it up in two words!

It's a commodity often lacking in humans, particularly young ones, hence the discrepancy in opinion here about Jessica and her plan.

And for the record, my finely tuned mama-bull meter is with Christian. It all sounds like a sketch. I suspect she was asleep at the time of the collision with no watch alarms set and got amazingly lucky.

But that we will never know for sure...

[osirissail]

Please people - we are discussing the marine world here and such rules and regulations that apply to navigating on water outside the boundary of rivers and other inland waters - - THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS RIGHT OF WAY!!!!!!! in the marine world. That is a land based concept. Get it out of your head and then you can understand the rules and concepts that the COLREGS embody. The COLREGS were specifically designed and written to avoid any inference of "right of way".
- - COLREGS and other marine inland rules - where written for two time related scenerios as concerns possible collisions. First there is the "before it is too late to maneuver" - and secondly, the "last ditch" requirements. All of the rules concerning avoiding collision for the first time span involve the simple concept of the boat "most able to maneuver" becomes the "give way" vessel and stays away from the boat least able to maneuver - the "stand on vessel." We simplify this concept in the real marine world as the slang expression "rule of tonnage." The bigger and heavier a vessel is, the more difficult it is for it to maneuver - and - when "very large" meets "very little" it is highly likely that visual and radar will not "see" the little boat as it becomes lost in sea clutter and large waves and swells. So under the "slang rule of tonnage" you "give way" to the bigger vessel. All the sailboat to sailboat rules follow this same "least able to maneuver" is the "stand on vessel" concept.
- - The concept of the "last minute" time span, the COLREGS are very clear - do whatever is necessary - as quoted above in the Rule 17 (and others) - to get out of the way and avoid a collision. The concepts contained in the COLREGS are simple and elegant. The language is written to keep the lawyers busy but for sailors, once translated becomes easy to follow - and they make sense!
- - In many marine collisions, all the vessels are at fault! The simple fact of a collision makes both vessels "guilty." The maritime courts only argue about the percentages of fault by each party so as to assess monetary damages. In one of the most famous cruiser versus freighter collisions many years ago in the southwest Pacific - a family of 3 or 4 - husband, wife and children - were flat out run down by a Korean freighter in the middle of the night. Husband and the children were killed outright, the wife survived. The Korean freighter was running without lights, radar turned off, and reportedly "seaman last class" was the bridge crew on watch. You don't have enough fingers to add up all those violations of COLREGS. On the sailboat the wife was on watch, everybody else was asleep. The wife went below to make an entry in the logbook and fix some coffee. She admitted to being below for 5 minutes. When returning to the cockpit she reported all she could see was black steel and then the chaos of collision. She and the freighter admitted in maritime court that the freighter made a complete circle back to the collision site but the freighter reported no visible debris or survivors so continued on to Korea. The wife was able to deploy the liferaft as her vessel sank and she drifted for a long time before being rescued.
- - Bottom line - she and the freighter were declared "equally at fault" and she recovered only a fraction of her monetary losses. The reasons - she was not "on watch" and "did not take action to avoid a collision."
- - In this case Jessica and her father both stated that she was down below and not "on watch." As soon after the collision as they could get their brains re-engaged they stopped making any statements what-so-ever about her performance at sea that would be "incriminating".
- - Sorry about "shouting" at the beginning, but anybody and everybody who takes to the oceans/seas needs to erase from their mental processes any "land-based" concepts and understand the maritime concepts contained in the COLREGS. Only then will collisions such as this incident be greatly reduced. Recapping, the vessel best able to maneuver "gives way", the other vessel is the "stand on" vessel with the responsibility to "not confuse" the "give way" vessel by making course and speed changes. As things progress - both vessels regardless of their ability to maneuver or designation as "stand on" or "give way" are required to do anything and everything necessary to avoid collision.

[speakeasy]

I feel the urge to whack it.

I don't know when COLREGS were first promulgated, but suspect that quite a lot has changed in the last half century faster than they have evolved. Sailing Vessel initially conceived within them, were most likely assumed to be working vessels hauling cargo or fishing. Recreational sailing was a miniscule part of ocean traffic until well after WWII. Now there are vast flotillas of plastic bathtubs sailing around every major port. I suspect that there has also been a geometric increase in quantity of commercial shipping traffic in the last 50 years.

I have not read COLREGS but from the exerpts cited, I've concluded that the ONLY time that I would not seek to alter course to avoid a collision with a large ship, would be while being overtaken and had radio assurance that I should stand on so the ship could maneuver around my vessel.

[roverhi]

Maritime law uses the 'General Prudential Rule' in determining fault and damages. You are required to do everything to avoid an accident even if you have right of way. If you don't, you are considered to be at least partially at fault. The damages will be reduced by the percentage that you are deemed to have contributed to the accident. Unlike US civil law, that makes those at fault, even if only incidentally, pay all the damages.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by osirissail

... All of the rules concerning avoiding collision for the first time span involve the simple concept of the boat "most able to maneuver" becomes the "give way" vessel and stays away from the boat least able to maneuver - the "stand on vessel." ...
... Recapping, the vessel best able to maneuver "gives way", the other vessel is the "stand on" vessel with the responsibility to "not confuse" the "give way" vessel by making course and speed changes. As things progress - both vessels regardless of their ability to maneuver or designation as "stand on" or "give way" are required to do anything and everything necessary to avoid collision.

Thanks for a very clear and concise summary of the intent of the COLREGS, and good maritime practice.

[S&S]

Originally Posted by speakeasy

I have not read COLREGS but from the exerpts cited, I've concluded that the ONLY time that I would not seek to alter course to avoid a collision with a large ship, would be while being overtaken and had radio assurance that I should stand on so the ship could maneuver around my vessel.

Bingo. Absent clear instructions, get out of the way.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

This thread wont die as Jessica is going again in a few days time. The 13 year old Dutch girl has just arrived in New Zealand to start from there and an 11 year old is starting from the USA!!!

I don't see any reason why a parent would want to wait until their child is practically pubescent to send them off alone on the open ocean. With GPS-integrated autopilots, AIS and satellite internet, one could rig a cradle with a squaresail and assure one's spot on the evening news. Any costs involved would be more than offset by savings in daycare.

Mike

[osirissail]

COLREGS is not quite half a century old, more like 1/3. Here is a blurp on the origin:
>>>>>The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 has been accepted by many States since it was adopted in 1972 and entered into force in July 1977. It was amended in 1981, 1987, 1989, 1993 and 2001. This new publication contains the fully consolidated text of the 1972 Convention. It supersedes the 2002 consolidated edition, which contains the text that was in force before 29 November 2003, plus the 2001 amendments, separately.<<<<
- - I like Mike's take on the younger and younger, ever younger. Great wit.
- - Some others still don't get it - there is no such thing as "right of way", COLREGS specifically rules out any such concept. If a collision occurs, every manned vessel underway that is involved has violated the rules equally. And past decisions have generally been all 50-50 on any claims made by either side. In the case I cited the freighter did not claim any damages other than removing the bottom paint of the sailboat that was smeared over its bow.
- - What is interesting is that it is an International treaty and not all countries of the world have adopted it. So you can expect that in some parts of the world there are either different regulations within their territorial waters or no regulations exist at all. That brings up jurisdictional considerations about where and when and who can be brought into Maritime/Admiralty Courts.

[John Brewer]

"

Originally Posted by osirissail

If you take the time to look at the photos of her sailboat you will see the damage done by the collision.
JESSICA WATSON YACHT CRASH | Stock Photography Photo Gallery Stock Image | Stock Photo AAP Image Australia

- - And FSMike is correct the only navigation lights are atop the mast as clearly shown in the photos.

"

I'm a little confused with this?

Picture number 8 shows a lit porthand light on the pulpit. At least that is what I see.

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by John Brewer

""

I'm a little confused with this?

You should be. It's B.S. The pulpit has both port and starboard still attached, just like mine...

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by John Brewer

""

I'm a little confused with this?

Picture number 8 shows a lit porthand light on the pulpit. At least that is what I see.

Ummmm how weird!
Yes I think you are correct.

Have a look at these photos after the publicity has started but before the boat has been painted pink. Photo 15 shows a light right on the bow, photo 17 & 18 shows no lights at all. Photo 2 shows the after crash red port light on.

I spose it does show that this boat is substantially new to Jessica and one likes to do big passages on a boat one is absolutely familiar with...

I was sure I saw post crash pics with no running lights...



Jessica Watson limps back into port after cutting short her round the world solo voyage attempt

[osirissail]

- - No confusion, it is a simple case of John Brewer has better eyes than the rest of us. The navigation lights are shown mounted on the bow pulpit in several photos. I normally see sailboats with masthead tricolor lights or on the older sailboats the lights are mounted in the hull at the bow. There is a light at the top of the mast (broken mast) but it is most likely the anchor light.
- - Anybody know if she is supposed to leave again this weekend or next weekend?

[Dreaming Yachtsman]

Until reading osirissail's post #213 today, I resisited the strong urge to comment on this thread that has gone on WAY TOO LONG already. Unfortunately this current drift would be more appropriate in another thread, specifically, Rules of the Road, Regulations, and Red Tape.

During my 20 years as a naval officer I spent many hours learning the Rules of the Road, teaching them to junior officers, and practicing them nearly every day. What osirissail asserts is misleading so I now feel obligated to try to set the record straight.

In his post, osirissail states,

Originally Posted by osirissail

THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS RIGHT OF WAY!!!!!!! in the marine world.

He may be too young to remember that the previous edition of the Rules (1954 version, I believe) actually used that term. It was the condition possessed by what is now the "stand on vessel". The other vessel (now referred to as "give way" vessel) was required to stay clear. That significant change in terminology was one of the major changes in the 1972 Rules and was reportedly implemented because vessels with the "right-of-way" felt that they did not have to maneuver to avoid a collision, "In extremis" rule not withstanding.

His further attempt to simplify the concept of "give way" and "stand on" vessels gives the wrong impression that there is some sort of sliding scale of who yields to whom depending on tonnage.

Originally Posted by osirissail

We simplify this concept in the real marine world as the slang expression "rule of tonnage." The bigger and heavier a vessel is, the more difficult it is for it to maneuver - and - when "very large" meets "very little" it is highly likely that visual and radar will not "see" the little boat as it becomes lost in sea clutter and large waves and swells.

The rules are in fact rules and are meant to be followed by ALL vessels subject to them, regardless of size. There is no "rule of tonnage" except for vessels constrained by their draft which is covered in Rule 3(h). A motor driven vessel of any size is required to give way to any size sailing vessel except when constrained by its draft. Granted, I NEVER assume that a freighter of any size will give way to me. In fact, I always assume that they won't even see me and take avoiding action early enough to prevent any risk of collision, which by itself obviates the need to implement the rules for avoiding a collision.

I was also appalled to read that some posters here had not read the Rules. If you are in that situation, by all means download them from USCG (Navigation Rules Online) and read them before you get underway again. They could save your life.

[GeoPowers]

Well put Dreaming Yachtsman. I felt the same way, but didn't have the patience or your eloquence to try and go there. I particularly agree with maneuvering early enough so that risk of collision never exists in the first place and therefore no need to implement the Rules for avoiding a collision.

There more inaccurate statements concerning the rules in this thread than there are correct ones. If you are reading this thread to learn the Colregs, please instead go directly to the source.