WSF Hyak collision update.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

So far I have read three different stories as reported to first responders by Jack Gray the sailboat operator.




I think the the ferry and the tug and tow and the other sail boat were all on watch in collision avoidance mode. Gray was not concerned as he seems to have a disregard for the WA Ferries. He was not standing a proper watch for the circumstances. His distractions caused his vessel to veer into the path of the Ferry.



The normal Helmsman on the Ferry was standing watch on the opposite end of the commanding bridge, and failed to report Jack grays vessel, bc he didn't feel it was a concern.


The Captain had her nose in the radar, said radar is located high enough that the Jack Gray vessel may of not registered as a consistent target.


These facts set up the impending collision, by error of the Ferry Bridge, and the fact the Jack Gray was not on watch, he could not thereby take any action as required under the Color Regs to avoid the collision.


If Jack had been on a proper watch I think things would of had a different outcome.


Lloyd

What utter rubbish. A sailboat doing 5 knots was run over from astern by a ferry doing 18 knots driven by a captain that allows her vessel to get within a few score feet from a small vessel and who puts someone at the helm who can't tell port from starboard.

There has been no portion of blame placed on Mr. Gray for the simple reason that no competent mariner could reach that conclusion.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Delfin

What utter rubbish. A sailboat doing 5 knots was run over from astern by a ferry doing 18 knots driven by a captain that allows her vessel to get within a few score feet from a small vessel and who puts someone at the helm who can't tell port from starboard.

There has been no portion of blame placed on Mr. Gray for the simple reason that no competent mariner could reach that conclusion.

Was this not just a WSF internal investigation? I thought the USCG one was yet to come. There may well be a portion of blame assessed towards the sailboat.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

Was this not just a WSF internal investigation? I thought the USCG one was yet to come. There may well be a portion of blame assessed towards the sailboat.

It was a WSDOT report that would be expected to be most favorable to the ferry. The circumstances in this case were so egregious that even they were unable to find perfume for the pig. The skipper could have been below working on a mechanical issue or asleep or puttering with his radar - it would make little difference to the apportionment of blame. When a highly maneuverable high speed vessel runs up the backside of a slow moving vessel in clear conditions as a result of turning into the victim, the burdened vessel has no excuse. The Coast Guard will find no differently, since the sailboat can not be faulted for not anticipating having a ferry suddenly turn and run him over.

[FlyingCloud1937]

As I said the WSDOT report was refreshing, bc it looked only at own ships fault, exclusively. Much like M&M Rounds at your local Hospital.

"We learn wisdom from failure much more than from success; we often
discover what will do, by finding out what will not do; and probably he who never made a mistake never made a discovery."

Samuel Smiles

USCG, is tasked with accident investigation on US waters, as well as apportioning blame, into the various causes.

All ships become burdened when an eminent collision is close at hand. It requires situational awareness by all skippers.

morbidity and mortality rounds it's what stops the same mistakes from becoming common place, or excused because it was some others fault.

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Delfin

It was a WSDOT report that would be expected to be most favorable to the ferry. The circumstances in this case were so egregious that even they were unable to find perfume for the pig. The skipper could have been below working on a mechanical issue or asleep or puttering with his radar - it would make little difference to the apportionment of blame. When a highly maneuverable high speed vessel runs up the backside of a slow moving vessel in clear conditions as a result of turning into the victim, the burdened vessel has no excuse. The Coast Guard will find no differently, since the sailboat can not be faulted for not anticipating having a ferry suddenly turn and run him over.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

As I said the WSDOT report was refreshing, bc it looked only at own ships fault, exclusively. Much like M&M Rounds at your local Hospital.

USCG, is tasked with accident investigation on US waters, as well as apportioning blame, into the various causes.

All ships become burdened when an eminent collision is close at hand. It requires situational awareness by all skippers.

morbidity and mortality rounds it's what stops the same mistakes from becoming common place, or excused because it was some others fault.

Lloyd

If as was stated the sail boat skipper was not maintaining watch , how that is proved remains to be seen and coupled with the fact that the COLREGS do require all parties to prevent collision, it could be judged that the sail boat skipper was negligent , but the apportionment of blame will go almost entirely to the ferry. Whether is 100:0 or 90:10 doesn't make a lot of difference to the poor ferry capitals career.

Dave .

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

As I said the WSDOT report was refreshing, bc it looked only at own ships fault, exclusively. Much like M&M Rounds at your local Hospital.

USCG, is tasked with accident investigation on US waters, as well as apportioning blame, into the various causes.

All ships become burdened when an eminent collision is close at hand. It requires situational awareness by all skippers.

morbidity and mortality rounds it's what stops the same mistakes from becoming common place, or excused because it was some others fault.

Lloyd

So, exactly what could the sailboats skipper have done that would have avoided the collision?

He was bound to maintain course and speed until it became apparent that the Hyak was on a collision course. This was apparently not the case until the helm was turned in the wrong direction, and by then the great disparity in speeds would have prevented any maneuver by the plodding yacht avoiding the collision.

Seems like even though the skipper of the yacht should have been more situationally aware, being so aware would not have altered the outcome.

Poor bugger...

Jim

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, exactly what could the sailboats skipper have done that would have avoided the collision?

He was bound to maintain course and speed until it became apparent that the Hyak was on a collision course. This was apparently not the case until the helm was turned in the wrong direction, and by then the great disparity in speeds would have prevented any maneuver by the plodding yacht avoiding the collision.

Seems like even though the skipper of the yacht should have been more situationally aware, being so aware would not have altered the outcome.

Poor bugger...

Jim

Which is precisely the point. When this first came up, I was pretty surprised that there were those that thought that a ferry running over a sailboat under power, where the sailboat had every right to be where they were, could somehow have blame attributed to the sailor. Now that the report has come out with an admission that the reason the collision occurred is because the Captain allowed the ferry to get dangerously close to the victim, then gave an order to an inexperienced helmsman who promptly executed it 180 degrees bass ackwards and ran the guy over, it is even more remarkable that anyone could think the sailor bore any responsibility at all. On that theory, if you are motoring along at 25 miles an hour, and a semi doing 80 comes up behind you and runs over the top of you, you're partially responsible because you didn't see him coming!

The entire idea of the burdened vessel is that it is the one that is supposed to do the maneuvering, not the overtaken vessel. The privileged vessel should stay its course so that corrective action taken by the burdened vessel can actually correct the situation. Yes, if the sailor had seen the ferry, and could anticipate that they would suddenly turn into them he could have tried to avoid a collision with a ferry doing 16-18 knots. Doubt it would have been successful, and trying may have made the situation worse, but as the privileged vessel the correct thing to do up to the point of eminent collision is to keep doing whatever you were doing. Which you can do whether you're paying attention or not. Once the collision was eminent because the ferry turned into him, there was nothing he could do to mitigate the situation and consequently will be found to bear no responsibility at all, even if the CG report provides some boilerplate about the importance of keeping an adequate watch.

[senormechanico]

If the guy on the motorsailor had been watching he may or may not have had time to be hit but not sunk.
Theoretically at least, he could have punched the throttle, turned away and scraped down the side of the ferry.
I don't even pretend to know that for a fact, but saying there was NOTHING he could do to mitigate the situation is (imho) a bit of a stretch.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

If the guy on the motorsailor had been watching he may or may not have had time to be hit but not sunk.
Theoretically at least, he could have punched the throttle, turned away and scraped down the side of the ferry.
I don't even pretend to know that for a fact, but saying there was NOTHING he could do to mitigate the situation is (imho) a bit of a stretch.

If you look at the report, the testimony was that the turn command was given and the sailboat was hit within seconds. Since the ferry was traveling at 30 ft per second, and based on testimony it could have been around 300 feet away when their turn began, which would give the skipper of the sailboat 10 seconds to absorb the situation and apply helm, assuming he had the reflexes of a Ninja. Speeding up wasn't an option because he was already going hull speed, or near to at 6.5 knots. If it was you or me, we'd be standing there slack jawed saying to ourselves WTF for the 10 seconds before getting run over.

Asserting that when someone gets run over that it is somehow part their fault because they didn't see it coming makes no sense.

[senormechanico]

Delfin,

That make sense. Thanks.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If you look at the report, the testimony was that the turn command was given and the sailboat was hit within seconds. Since the ferry was traveling at 30 ft per second, and based on testimony it could have been around 300 feet away when their turn began, which would give the skipper of the sailboat 10 seconds to absorb the situation and apply helm, assuming he had the reflexes of a Ninja. Speeding up wasn't an option because he was already going hull speed, or near to at 6.5 knots. If it was you or me, we'd be standing there slack jawed saying to ourselves WTF for the 10 seconds before getting run over.

Asserting that when someone gets run over that it is somehow part their fault because they didn't see it coming makes no sense.

Rule 17(a)(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.

Ferry was going to pass very close (less than 300' apparently) at 18 kts - I think that qualifies as a reason to take the appropriate action. If he had been keeping a proper lookout, he could have gotten out of the way before it was too late.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Rule 17(a)(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.

Ferry was going to pass very close (less than 300' apparently) at 18 kts - I think that qualifies as a reason to take the appropriate action. If he had been keeping a proper lookout, he could have gotten out of the way before it was too late.

Not sure what your point is. Since the word "may" does not mean "must" what this rule tells us is that the privileged vessel can dodge and weave if they decide to without a rule violation. And the problem wasn't that the ferry did "not take appropriate action in compliance with" the rule, but rather than it turned and ran over the guy. The sailboat skipper had a few seconds to react, and if he had, he may have avoided collision, just as I may avoid collision with a drunk driver who crosses into my lane. If I fail to do so, I won't have any share of liability, anymore than this poor fellow will.

But, no need to debate. Let's see what the CG report says, and if it says anything about the sailboat at all, it will be boilerplate on the need to keep a vigilant watch at all times, without apportioning the slightest blame.

These ferries pass me all the time within 300' or so, but I doubt I would be held responsible if I assumed they weren't going to suddenly turn in my direction because the helmsman can't tell her right from her left.

[bobconnie]

Ive never been in comand of a vessel as large as the ferry in this accident, but have comanded serveral 200 ton vessels, both in the waters of this accident, and open oceans. And on all the vessels Ive comanded the helmsmen repete the commands IE. port 15 eye or starbord 10. Even hard port rudder ect! Ive always thought this was commen pratice on any larger vessel with a wheel house crew! Are ferrys different?? just wondering !!

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

From the actual accident reort to the USCG, made by the Captain.

"As we were starting to overtaking the small vessel on 'the Hyak's starboard side, the helmsman (second mate) said small boat is getting. closer. I gave the order to "Come left, and blow the whistle if you feel it is necessary". I was training the Second Mate as helmsmen, and as such, provided her direction in how to deal with this scenario.

The Second Mate did not blow the whistle at this time. I looked over to check the Second Mate (Helmsman) to ensure that she had followed my directions; and saw that She had hard right rudder on. I immediately, in a raised voice said, Hard .left rudder, you're on hard right rudder!"' She responded

"Oh, you mean my other left." She then went full left rudder,

Given the lack of the whistle, and the fact that I saw she had not followed my directions regarding the rudder direction, I immediately took action to attempt to avoid the impending collision and to minimize any damage.

I ran between the radar and the steering console and saw the small boat turning to port to cross our bow. I knocked the second mate (helmsman) out of the way and went full astern, I sheered the rudders to veer away from vessel.

I looked to see where the small boat was and saw it disappear under our starboard rub rail. The regular quartermaster was watching the small boat, and I heard it hit. "

This statement sounds like conn confusion to me: "and saw the small boat turning to port to cross our bow." .
It sounds as if the Captains perceived sense of a course change by the small boat (which so far as we yet know, did not maneuver) may have actually been that of a sharp own vessel movement, first to starboard, then to port, coupled with full astern deceleration.


I frequently travel aboard the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_A...m_Port_Aransas Port Aransas, Texas ferries, and navigate their same waters, so this has been a most interesting thread.
Riding the ferry you sure get the feeling of how clumsy they handle, and I am assuming that they have thrusters too.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Tx J

"As we were starting to overtaking the small vessel on 'the Hyak's starboard side, the helmsman (second mate) said small boat is getting. closer. I gave the order to "Come left, and blow the whistle if you feel it is necessary". I was training the Second Mate as helmsmen, and as such, provided her direction in how to deal with this scenario.

The Second Mate did not blow the whistle at this time. I looked over to check the Second Mate (Helmsman) to ensure that she had followed my directions; and saw that She had hard right rudder on. I immediately, in a raised voice said, Hard .left rudder, you're on hard right rudder!"' She responded

"Oh, you mean my other left." She then went full left rudder,

Given the lack of the whistle, and the fact that I saw she had not followed my directions regarding the rudder direction, I immediately took action to attempt to avoid the impending collision and to minimize any damage.

I ran between the radar and the steering console and saw the small boat turning to port to cross our bow. I knocked the second mate (helmsman) out of the way and went full astern, I sheered the rudders to veer away from vessel.

I looked to see where the small boat was and saw it disappear under our starboard rub rail. The regular quartermaster was watching the small boat, and I heard it hit. "

This statement sounds like conn confusion to me: "and saw the small boat turning to port to cross our bow." .
It sounds as if the Captains perceived sense of a course change by the small boat (which so far as we yet know, did not maneuver) may have actually been that of a sharp own vessel movement, first to starboard, then to port, coupled with full astern deceleration.


I frequently travel aboard the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_A...m_Port_Aransas Port Aransas, Texas ferries, and navigate their same waters, so this has been a most interesting thread.
Riding the ferry you sure get the feeling of how clumsy they handle, and I am assuming that they have thrusters too.

The captain's statement that the struck vessel was crossing her bow from starboard to port is, as you say, a relative judgment since at the time the ferry was turning from port to starboard. It is also a pathetic effort to suggest that the sailboat was responsible for the collision while making herself out to be a hero and deserves contempt. Her career as a ferry boat captain should be over on that basis alone.