WSF Hyak collision update.

[Captain Bligh]

I was aboard the Hyak last week and talked to one of the crew about the accident. I was told that the 2nd mate was on the bridge (maybe at the helm). An order was given for right rudder and the helmsman went to port and that is how the accident occurred. I could have the right/left thing backwards but that what I heard. I also beard the officers involved will lose their jobs.

Thats all I have.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Captain Bligh

I was aboard the Hyak last week and talked to one of the crew about the accident. I was told that the 2nd mate was on the bridge (maybe at the helm). An order was given for right rudder and the helmsman went to port and that is how the accident occurred. I could have the right/left thing backwards but that what I heard. I also beard the officers involved will lose their jobs.

Thats all I have.

Since they ran over a sailboat from the stern, it's hard to imagine another outcome.

[Paul Elliott]

I'm not trying to excuse the crew of the Hyak, but I ride on those ferries quite often and I can see myself getting confused about right/left/port/starboard. These things have no fixed bow or stern, have wheelhouses at both ends, have two sets of nav lights, etc, etc. Sometimes "End A" is the bow, and sometimes "End B" is.

Actually, I rode on the Hyak yesterday afternoon. It's probably a good thing I wasn't steering!

[senormechanico]

I was on the Mukilteo ferry the other morning.
We had left the dock in heavy fog and had been underway for about 5 minutes.
I stayed in the car (aft in the center of the boat) while my wife went topside.
All of a sudden, the boat throttles went to idle and immediately went into full reverse.
A woman's voice gave a terse announcement over the intercom saying, "BRACE FOR IMPACT !"
The throttle stayed at full reverse for about 20 seconds before going to idle.
We didn't hit, but my wife saw the boat we almost hit.
She said it was a blue work boat, about 60 feet long with an arch across the stern.
She estimated that we were about 30 feet away from a collision.
There were no horns sounded from either vessel.
Even if the other boat didn't have AIS, wouldn't you think the ferry crew would have been watching their radar???

Eventually, the same voice came on the intercom and said, "Don't worry folks, everything's OK and we'll resume our crossing in a few minutes."

(after I change my underwear??? ) my thoughts...



Here's a story about it from AP


Updated: 4:02 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013 | Posted: 4:02 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013

Near collision for Washington ferry in fog

• 0 0 0 New

The Associated Press
SEATTLE —
The Coast Guard says a Washington state ferry nearly collided with a fishing boat in the fog Thursday morning near Clinton.
Spokesman Jordan Akiyama in Seattle says the ferry Cathlamet had just left on its Puget Sound crossing to Mukilteo, about 10:35 a.m. when it nearly hit the 60-foot fishing boat near the Clinton terminal because of the poor visibility.
He says ferry passengers were told to brace for impact. The 328-foot ferry made a hard turn to avoid a collision then continued on its way.
Akiyama says the fishing boat was in the wrong and did not have the automated identification system the Coast Guard uses to monitor vessel traffic.

Copyright The Associated Press

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I was on the Mukilteo ferry the other morning.
We had left the dock in heavy fog and had been underway for about 5 minutes.
I stayed in the car (aft in the center of the boat) while my wife went topside.
All of a sudden, the boat throttles went to idle and immediately went into full reverse.
A woman's voice gave a terse announcement over the intercom saying, "BRACE FOR IMPACT !"
The throttle stayed at full reverse for about 20 seconds before going to idle.
We didn't hit, but my wife saw the boat we almost hit.
She said it was a blue work boat, about 60 feet long with an arch across the stern.
She estimated that we were about 30 feet away from a collision.
There were no horns sounded from either vessel.
Even if the other boat didn't have AIS, wouldn't you think the ferry crew would have been watching their radar???

Eventually, the same voice came on the intercom and said, "Don't worry folks, everything's OK and we'll resume our crossing in a few minutes."

(after I change my underwear??? ) my thoughts...



Here's a story about it from AP


Updated: 4:02 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013 | Posted: 4:02 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 24, 2013

Near collision for Washington ferry in fog

• 0 0 0 New

The Associated Press
SEATTLE —
The Coast Guard says a Washington state ferry nearly collided with a fishing boat in the fog Thursday morning near Clinton.
Spokesman Jordan Akiyama in Seattle says the ferry Cathlamet had just left on its Puget Sound crossing to Mukilteo, about 10:35 a.m. when it nearly hit the 60-foot fishing boat near the Clinton terminal because of the poor visibility.
He says ferry passengers were told to brace for impact. The 328-foot ferry made a hard turn to avoid a collision then continued on its way.
Akiyama says the fishing boat was in the wrong and did not have the automated identification system the Coast Guard uses to monitor vessel traffic.

Copyright The Associated Press

One would hope they were watching the radar, but if they came within 30 feet, clearly not. Not encouraging.

[Captain Bill]

Did they really say that the fishing boat was in the wrong because it did not have AIS? Being under 65 feet it was not required to have AIS. Is the CG going to start blaming accidents on boats without AIS even if they aren't required? It sounds to me like the ferry crew was not watching the radar which they are required to do if they have it on board.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Did they really say that the fishing boat was in the wrong because it did not have AIS? Being under 65 feet it was not required to have AIS. Is the CG going to start blaming accidents on boats without AIS even if they aren't required? It sounds to me like the ferry crew was not watching the radar which they are required to do if they have it on board.

I don't think so. That's how I read it at first, but careful parsing of the statement

Akiyama says the fishing boat was in the wrong and did not have the automated identification system the Coast Guard uses to monitor vessel traffic.

tells me they meant this:
1) The fishing boat was in the wrong.
2) Also, the fishing boat didn't have an AIS transponder.

AIS is not required for the fishing boat, but it might have been useful in this case.

[Captain Bligh]

Latest news. Ferry at fault.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2013/11/Hyak_111313.htm

[Paul Elliott]

Here's the report from the Board of Inquiry: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres...portforWeb.pdf

[Captain Bligh]

Yeah. Its a good read. Very informative. Its amazing how quickly that situation developed. There was no room for error. Unfortunately an error occurred.

[goboatingnow]

One feels sorry for the capitain. It shows how lack of situational awareness can develop quickly into an incident. Noteworthy despite the debate here the yacht shares no blame at all.

Dave

[gloriax]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

One feels sorry for the capitain. It shows how lack of situational awareness can develop quickly into an incident.
Dave

...How much can I sue him for?...ahahaaaa

That can only happened in America, probably in some other "Gordon Gekko" countries. they can not wait to sue for compensation and try to milk as much money as possible. There is no collision, nothing happened, no casualties, if that happened somewhere in the med perhaps even in northern Europe no one would even mention it.

this happened in croatia couple of a years ago. they all went to the first pub to have a drink, crew and pssengres together. there wasn't one single crew member sacked, or passenger pressed charges against company.

[gloriax]

Originally Posted by gloriax

...How much can I sue him for?...ahahaaaa

That can only happened in America, probably in some other "Gordon Gekko" countries. they can not wait to sue for compensation and try to milk as much money as possible. There is no collision, nothing happened, no casualties, if that happened somewhere in the med perhaps even in northern Europe no one would even mention it.

sorry, I should mention it. my post is reply for

"Near collision for Washington ferry in fog

[Maine Sail]

I find it interesting that in earlier reports the rudder command was stated as turn LEFT not turn to PORT yet the report only mentions a "non-specific rudder command of port"?

I find it confusing what a non-specific turn to port is; “come to port and sound the whistle if you deem it necessary.” command? I suppose non-specific means how much rudder to port...?

Am I alone on the earlier reports that the bridge command was "Turn left and sound the whistle of you deem it necessary."......

Are they attempting to diminish something by saying "non-specific port command" vs. "The Captain gave a non-specific order to turn left".......?

How does a paid professional mistake port for starboard? This stuff is so engrained in the brain that it would seem unrealistic for a mistake like this to happen.......?? I can see where "left" might cause that sort of momentary lapse to someone expecting to hear PORT or STARBOARD, but port is port on a vessel and starboard is starboard.......... This is Play-Doh & Lego level elementary learning......

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Noteworthy despite the debate here the yacht shares no blame at all.

On that point, it is an internal investigation - WSF's own look at how they went wrong and how they can improve. I think a USCG investigation would probably include a little more information about the yacht, and would look at the watch kept and actions taken/not taken.