Yachting FAIL - Jessica Watson

[osirissail]

- - DSC radios have been around since year Y2K - All new models of radios after that date have to be DSC radios. For emergency use it is the "knat's butt" - There is a button behind a little red plastic cover. Lift the red cover, depress and hold the button for a count of 5. Every vessel with a DSC radio within a radius equal to the maximum radio range of your radio - will sound an ear splitting alarm and self-channelize itself to your current channel. If you have a GPS hooked into the DSC radio your current Lat/Long will be displayed on everybody's radio. You need only to start talking and everybody around you will be listening unless they turn off their radio. That procedure is for real emergencies or MayDay situations. If your situation is of a lesser status, establish contact and then switch to another channel.
- - There are a half dozen other things the DSC radio will do for you, but some of them require an awful lot of button pushing and knob turning. One of the really nice - non emergency - features of the DSC radio is the selective calling (similar to speed dialing a home telephone). You enter your friend's MMSI or Ship's Identity Number (in block 9 of your FCC Ships Station License) into your radio's memory along with an identifier word (like, Bob or Catman or whatever - just like a speed dial setup). Then when you want to contact your friend, you set your radio to a working channel and press the "call" button; select your friend's name/handle and press the "call" button again. If his radio is turned on, it will be automatically re-channelized to your selected working channel and a "telephone ringing" sound will come from his radio. Then you just start talking to him after he "picks up." Really neat, and avoids all those blind calls on "net channels". You radio will display a message if he is not there or busy on another channel.
- - Using DSC to try to call an AIS identified ship is do-able but it takes some time to type in the 10 digit number and turn and punch the buttons. An identifying call on Channel 16 is quicker.

[Reefmagnet]

I know I am far from the most experienced sailor here, but after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm a little confused. I've read the colregs front to back many times over the years and my recollection is that, as ridiculous as it seems, there is nowhere within these regs that says that a smaller boat has to yield to a bigger boat in the conditions and location in which this mishap occurred. Some of the comments about Jessica Watson have been quite harsh bordering on brutal and suggest that she was totally responsible for this event, but to me it seems that the ship's on watch crew must surely be burdened with the majority of fault assumming no extenuating factors? After all they too were in a busy shipping lane and its probably reasonable to assume that they weren't the only two vessels in the area that night.

My interpretation would be that the sailboat stand on and then only take avoiding action once it became clear that the other vessel was not yielding. To me this presents a number of questions

• If the colregs are the rules of collision avoidance, why do so many basically condone ignoring them?
• If everyone makes up there own rules wouldn't this lead to increased risk of collision rather then decreased? I mean if I am the captain of a ship closing on a sailboat shouldn't I expect it to stand on as per the colregs and plot my course change accordingly or should I rather expect it to dart around in front of me like a cockroach when the lights go on?

Of course I'm not thinking in terms of being 50 or even 500 yards in front of the ship, more like say 5000. Now personally, I keep well away from the big iron, but I would like to think if and when things get a little close that everyone is following the same rules??

Whats the collective opinion on this?

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

, there is nowhere within these regs that says that a smaller boat has to yield to a bigger boat

Yes it does. The whole basis of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are to prevent collisions at sea... NOT who has the right of way.

Any vessel must proceed at a safe speed, which she can to take action to avoid collision

Note that: ANY
Not just the vessel who does not have the right of way. ANY vessel MUST avoid the collision.

17 The stand-on vessel The stand-on vessel may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action.

"may" would be read as "must"

From another source:

(b)When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

and finally

A sailing vessel must give way to:

• A vessel restricted in ability to maneuver

Any 65,000 ton vessel can not be expected to manouver in the last 200 meters.

No no matter how wrong the ship was the other vessel is also wrong because:
1) it didn't avoid a collision;
2) it was going at an unsafe speed because it hit something;
3) it (finally) didn't give way to a vessel restricted in ability to manouver.


These nuances of law are just life at sea. Thats why I don't think kiddy-winks should be allowed on the open oceans in this manner.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Yes it does. The whole basis of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea are to prevent collisions at sea... NOT who has the right of way.



Note that: ANY
Not just the vessel who does not have the right of way. ANY vessel MUST avoid the collision.

"may" would be read as "must"

and finally [/LIST]Any 65,000 ton vessel can not be expected to manouver in the last 200 meters.

No no matter how wrong the ship was the other vessel is also wrong because:
1) it didn't avoid a collision;
2) it was going at an unsafe speed because it hit something;
3) it (finally) didn't give way to a vessel restricted in ability to manouver.


These nuances of law are just life at sea. Thats why I don't think kiddy-winks should be allowed on the open oceans in this manner.

Can you point me to the relevant clauses?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Whats the collective opinion on this?

That I believe is an oxymoron.

Seriously, the COLREGS are a brilliantly written set of rules that more than anything clearly define in order of priority, the responsibilities of every person who uses those Rules and the limitations inherent in following an incomplete understanding of the Rules.

That is why right near the beginning we have this very important Rule as the primary guidance in preventing “at sea lawyers” who attempt to use the |Rules

Rule 2

Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Mark is incorrect “may” does not mean “must” or “shall” it means “may” and the decision takes on multilateral issues that the mariner needs to make based on Rule 2

The only “failure” in Jessica’s case is that noting a closing situation with an approaching vessel, she failed to closely monitor and keep clear. It appears the ship was guilty of the same thing and equally is at fault.

[surfingminniwinni]

FACT!

4 to 5 people die on Australian roads every week, not to mention serious injuries. 15 to 24 year olds make up 26% of the deaths and injuries.
Perhaps Jessica should cancel the trip, drive around with her friends, smoke pot, get drunk, drop a few eckies. Or maybe even get run over by a bus.

Yes I'm sure she would be much safer on land.

Give the kid a break. At least she has got off her ass and had a go, I'm sorry but I thought that's what the Aussie spirit is all about!

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Can you point me to the relevant clauses?

No worries Theres enough leagaleeze to make 100 lawyers rub their hands together in bliss!

Doenload it here in the format you most like ComLaw Legislative Instruments - Marine Orders - Part 30: Prevention of collisions, Issue 7 (Order No. 4 of 2005) (No. 4 of 2005)
Thats Australian.

Rule 6

Rule 6

Safe speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.


Rule 17

Rule 17

Action by stand-on vessel

(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b)When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

Rule 18

Responsibilities between vessels

(b)A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;

[Reefmagnet]

Well this is why I am confused. Mark quoted a figure of 65000 tons and restricted in ability to manouver, yet Colreg rule 3 defines:

(g) The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" shall include but not be limited to:

(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigational mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) A vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) A vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) A vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) A vessel engaged in mineclearance operations;
(vi) A vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

(h) The term "vessel constrained by her draft" means a power driven vessel which because of her draft in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

Rule 18
(a)A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;
(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv)a sailing vessel;



(b) A sailing vessel under way shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;
(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing

Rule 16
Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

Rule 17

(a)

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

When I worked in engineering a long time ago, there were substantial legal differences between the terms "shall" and "may"

I'm still confused here guys

[MarkJ]

When one is 200 meters from a 65,000 ton ship the ship has limited manoeuvrability then the small boat must get out of its way.

When action has not been taken early enough then the boat 'in the right' has got to get the hell out of the way.



The ship may be in the wrong, but so is the sail boat.... you just can win... the colregs are about preventing collision at sea.. not justifying who is right or wrong.






And surfingminniwinni, I agree we need to cut people some slack, but feel this is important that the benefit of the doubt may not be given, but people doing this should have a reasonable understanding of (at least) seamanship. Perhaps even a Yachtmasters ticket or something to certify competency.

If this was an 8 year old you would be bleating why was the person allowed. Well soon, if there is no sane laws, it could be.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The only “failure” in Jessica’s case is that noting a closing situation with an approaching vessel, she failed to closely monitor and keep clear. It appears the ship was guilty of the same thing and equally is at fault.

Of course one vessel would have been an ever increasing presence and eventually have filled the skippers field of vision (if she was awake) and been a huge blip on the radar.

The yacht may not have been visibly noticed from the bridge of the coal carrier and the radar image would have been a tiny blip if anything at all.

[surfingminniwinni]

Hi Mark,

I thought you would be out enjoying asia, is it to hot outside?? Hope your having fun.

Cheers,

Glenn

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by surfingminniwinni

Hi Mark,

I thought you would be out enjoying asia, is it to hot outside??
Glenn

Sloooooowly aclimatising. We just had a thunderstorm so thats cooled things down a bit.
I have to keep up the fluid intake!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by cat man do

The yacht may not have been visibly noticed from the bridge of the coal carrier and the radar image would have been a tiny blip if anything at all.

Sorry Cat Man Do… I don’t buy that excuse for the deep sea.

They are professionals. They are expected to know that when coasting past a large city, the chance of small craft interaction is very high ….. so one or two lookouts besides the watch keeper is SOP.

I use IMO standard radars all the time. S and X band interswitched to 2 x 27” displays.

One display is on 12 mile acquisition the second is usually at a 3 mile range and tuned to pick up a seagull. That is what you are trained to do and practice in simulators.

Also according to Jessica, she actually called the ship but had language problems.

No excuse for a ship’s crew that did not keep a proper look-out

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The only “failure” in Jessica’s case is that noting a closing situation with an approaching vessel, she failed to closely monitor and keep clear. It appears the ship was guilty of the same thing and equally is at fault.

I don't think it is clearly established that she noted the ship - regardless of what she and others are saying after the fact.

What is also in record is that she said, "Time to turn on the radar, get something to eat and take some cat naps."

Clearly at some point she had intent to go to sleep in a very busy area.

Many think that she should have planned to stay awake through the night watch or at least until clear to seaward.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Also according to Jessica, she actually called the ship but had language problems.

No excuse for a ship’s crew that did not keep a proper look-out

I still suspect in my cynic mode this later assertion that she tried to hail the ship is a fabrication.

I agree the ships crew should have a look out.

I sail around big ships all the time. If in fact she had the ship in sight, and had been trying to hail them. Why didn't she take evasive action? Missing the ship is easy for her if she is tracking it.

At the time collision became imminent, only she had the maneuverability to avoid the collision.

At that point the ship can still be at fault but she is clearly at fault for not avoiding the collision.

Scenario 1 - She was asleep - both her and ship probably at fault.

Scenario 2 - She was awake and aware of the ship, tracking it and arguably had the last chance to avoid the collision. Same rsult - both her and ship probably at fault.

[amytom]

Wow! 14 pages to discuss what should be common sense. No wonder politicians can't get anything positive done. (Note I said positive)

Whatever colregs state doesn't mean anything if you're dead. Get out of the way.

She's 16 now, I was living on my own at 15 and fighting a war at 18. I turned out okay (but by the grace of God) With that said, I wouldn't send my kids out to do it as I haven't done anywhere near as good a job raising them as my Dad did for me.

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