- - Look at figure 4 and 3 of the preliminary report. It shows that Pink Lady was approaching Silver Yang's port side which would be showing its Red port light; Pink Lady was showing her Green bow light to the ship. This makes the Silver Yang the "stand-on" vessel and under obligation to NOT alter course or speed. The Pink Lady was the "give-way" vessel. Only when it became obvious to the Silver Yang that remaining the "stand-on" vessel was not going to work as there was no perceived change in Pink Lady's course did they alter course to starboard more perpendicular to Pink Lady to increase their effective crossing speed. Pink never altered course or speed and Silver Yang in accordance with COLREGs took dramatic action to turn hard to starboard.
- - In accordance with the COLREGs Pink Lady was almost totally
at fault. Silver Yang portion of fault results from the reality of the collision and not taking radical action soon enough to avoid the collision. The command of the Silver Yang obviously did not believe that Pink Lady would totally disregard all relevant rules and continue on the collision course. The command of the Silver Yang also did not take into consideration the distance needed to alter course sufficiently to avoid the collision.
- - And all of the other mistakes
made by Pink Lady, such as returning to sleep while the other ship Empress Heaven was within 6nm of Pink Lady and closing as reported by the Pink Lady. Assuming that any ship will maintain course and speed is not prudent, there are too many unknowns. Based on the reported SOG's Pink Lady and Empress Heaven were within 30 minutes of CPA. Would you go back to sleep when an identified ship was that close?
- - Given the reported weather
and seas, her failure to visually see a ship - Silver Yang - one mile away before returning to sleep indicates she was probably groggy and not quite awake enough from her last nap to mentally register the existence of the ship. Been there done that myself which is why I never go to sleep or back to sleep with any targets within 6 nm of me. In a head-on situation 10kts + 6 kts = 16 kts closing = about 20-25 minutes to CPA. I normally cycle the radar range out and in several times to pick up close in targets that may be "below" my radar beam's signal center. And also to confirm that the recognized target is where it really is and not a extraneous blip. It takes on average 6 minutes to do a manual radar CPA and resolve a good course and speed.
- - I can only conjecture that like the cartoon
in post #719 she reflects her generation's perception that electronics
are infallible and actually looking around is so "uncool." Like learning History
- "who cares about what old dead people did?" If she had studied cruising history
in the Pacific she would have learned that a family
of 4 was killed, except for the mother who was on watch - because the mother went below to make entries in the log and get a cup of coffee. The mother was only "below" for 5 minutes
after scanning the horizon thoroughly and checking her C.A.R.D. system. They were "T-boned" by the Korean freighter and the father, son and daughter who were below asleep were killed quickly while the mother was in the cockpit
- - Jessica was lucky and is still alive. My concern is that she did not learn from her experience as was inferred my her contesting the report and her father's statements. Maybe she did, but the amount of money
invested and commitments to the sponsors is making her continue the journey as the Brit's would say "with a stiff upper lip and into the jaws of the enemy" - the hazards of the ocean in her case.