Accident report

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by evm1024

This is most likely true - The skipper of Pastaga underestimated the closing speeds and was tardy in turning to avoid a collision. But the key factor here is that he did turn and thus was following COLREGS (stand on then if needed take action to avoid a collision). This is why his actions were not held as a 'cause' of the collision.

The failure of the skipper of What Next to keep a proper lookout was found to be the 'sole cause' of the collision.

The signing of the COLREGS 'Treaty' in the USA (and I suspect all other countries - perhaps a few not) has caused the colregs to be signed into US law.

33 USC 1601-1608 ; 33 CFR 80,81,82 et al

The point being that we all (big and small, 'pro' or not) bound to follow colregs and will be judged by those laws.

It bothers me that in a post or two a few of us have turned the victim (Pastaga) into the cause of the accident. Sure, sure, sure - Pastaga could have done many things that would have resulted in no accident but that does not change the cause of the accident. They could have not gotten up that morning. They could have on first sighting changed course. They could have ... But could haves, would haves, do not change the fact that What Next was doing near 20 kt without a lookout and had 6 minutes to identify a crossing situation.

As has been noted the skipper of Pastaga will have to live with the loss of life and ask himself what he could have done better, so will the skipper of What Next. This is true but really a topic for another thread. The difference being the skipper of Pastaga will ask himself 'what could I have done differently' and the skipper of What Next will have to ask 'why did I do that'.

correct. A court of inquiry will give Pastaga skipper a (albeit small) portion of the blame, simply because he wasn't aware enough of the situation to start his evasive maneuvers early enough.
The proof of that is he got hit, even though the What Else was continuing on his course without deviation.

Unfair? yes, I suppose so, but certainly true.

Certainly some serious lessons to be learned for all of us. Sailing in Øresund (straits between Denmark and Sweden, we get big ships going in both direction at 15-20 knots. Crossing the sound with these babies can be a bit nerve-racking - especially in limited visibility. Sometimes they are on top of you before you know it - even though you would swear you had just looked.

[Jim Cate]

Certainly some serious lessons to be learned for all of us. Sailing in Øresund (straits between Denmark and Sweden, we get big ships going in both direction at 15-20 knots. Crossing the sound with these babies can be a bit nerve-racking - especially in limited visibility. Sometimes they are on top of you before you know it - even though you would swear you had just looked.
_

I find ships to be relatively easy to deal with compared to motor yachts. Ships tend to stay on course reliably, don't (can't) make sudden turns, and mostly have good lookouts and steersmen.

Motor yachts, on the other hand, can and do make sudden and unexpected course changes. Sadly, as explored on another thread, they will sometimes deliberately come quite close to a sailing yacht, "just for a look". The competence of their crews varies wildly. They have in the past frightened me by their behavior.

In this instance, I can believe that the skipper of the Pastaga simply couldn't believe that this was not such a case, with very sad results. Yes, he is technically at fault for his tardy attempt to avoid collision, but it is sure that there, but for the grace of god, I could have gone. Had the oncoming 20 knot vessel been a ship, I reckon that Pastaga would have realized early on that he needed to take action and would have initiated an avoiding maneuver in time.

But, of course, this is conjecture...

Jim

[Grateful]

I just went to re-read the report and find that the authorities have taken it down. Wonder why?

I must say that one thing missing from this episode is VHF communication. If a give way vessel is causing me concern, I have no hesitation in hailing on Ch 16;

"Southbound motoryacht rounding Balding Head, southbound motoryacht rounding Balding Head, Weekend Warrior, Weekend Warrior. I am the 30 foot blue ketch one half mile off your starboard bow. Please state your intentions."

If I get no response, I am willing to assume that I am not seen and will therefor be prepared to take evasive action earlier. Otherwise, let's go to 68 or whatever the local favorite is to negotiate the easiest way around each other. In this day of AIS (which sadly was not available in this case) it is easier than ever.

Lately, I've been sailing in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and have to say that the tow boat operators really appreciate an early call and offer to make a slight course correction to make their lives a little easier.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I got hit, while anchored, on Nov. 20th. These stories scare me!

Hey Stu, where were you anchored?
Never mind I read that later.

[Hydra]

Originally Posted by Grateful

I just went to re-read the report and find that the authorities have taken it down. Wonder why?

The report is back online. It seems that an error has been corrected regarding the manning certificate (see page 24).

Alain

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by evm1024

This is most likely true - The skipper of Pastaga underestimated the closing speeds and was tardy in turning to avoid a collision. But the key factor here is that he did turn and thus was following COLREGS (stand on then if needed take action to avoid a collision). This is why his actions were not held as a 'cause' of the collision.

The failure of the skipper of What Next to keep a proper lookout was found to be the 'sole cause' of the collision.

It bothers me that in a post or two a few of us have turned the victim (Pastaga) into the cause of the accident. Sure, sure, sure - Pastaga could have done many things that would have resulted in no accident but that does not change the cause of the accident. They could have not gotten up that morning. They could have on first sighting changed course. They could have ... But could haves, would haves, do not change the fact that What Next was doing near 20 kt without a lookout and had 6 minutes to identify a crossing situation.

.

I have followed this entire thread from the beginning. I've not seen 'anyones' post suggesting that Pastaga's skipper was the cause of the accident. NOT ONE. Everyone has acknowledged that the skipper of the motor vessel bears the main responsibility.

But Like you also, most posters have recognised that the skipper of Pastaga misjudged when to alter course.

Your comment that the skipper of the motor vessel was judged to be the 'sole cause' however is not recorded in the finding. There was a contributing cause.

[Chas.7]

Hello,
Both captains were at fault, but this illustrates the problem with the international rules.
Silently maintaining course and speed. The sailing captain should of taken action before he reached the point of no return. They should both take training on "Rules of the Road".
Basically you will not get in trouble for preventing an accident.
Good luck,





"Consider the danger"

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Chas.7

Hello,
Both captains were at fault, but this illustrates the problem with the international rules.
Silently maintaining course and speed. The sailing captain should of taken action before he reached the point of no return. They should both take training on "Rules of the Road".
Basically you will not get in trouble for preventing an accident.
Good luck,

"Consider the danger"

well, if no answer on VHF and after 3 alteration of course, motor boat pointing at sail boat at all times during maneouvres, this is next step

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Chas.7

Hello,
Both captains were at fault, but this illustrates the problem with the international rules.
Silently maintaining course and speed. The sailing captain should of taken action before he reached the point of no return. They should both take training on "Rules of the Road".
Basically you will not get in trouble for preventing an accident.
Good luck,
"Consider the danger"

Chas.7, welcome aboard. I hope you do not take this personally, and If I offend, I also apologize. It is not my intent to make you feel bad, but to re-state the situation.

The skipper of Pastaga made a tragic error in underestimating the rate of closure between himself and What Else. That is what led to him not turning soon enough.

The skipper of What Else took out an improperly prepared motor yacht (nav system down, no AIS, no extra crew to help compensate for that), and then failed to see the Pastaga when it became visible (after he turned onto his 290 heading). The collision caused loss of Pastaga, loss of the life of Pastaga's significant other, and probably will culminate in the loss of What Else's skipper's livelihood, and give him jail time. All in all, a tragic situation, which points to the uncertainty of life.

I don't think they need more training in Colregs, because it was all human error that caused this accident, a failure on the part of What Else's skipper to keep a proper watch. I haven't spoken to him, but I'm sure he knew that, and knew that the sailboat was the stand on vessel. Had What Else's skipper maintained an appropriate watch, the situation would not have evolved so that Pastaga needed to avoid him at the last moment. The stand on vessel is burdened to maintain course and speed. It may well be that it is this burden that led him to delay turning. It's just really very difficult to judge speed and distance you have left in which to maneuver when the closing speed is in excess of 25 knots.

And you're quite right, there is always some danger that whoever is coming at you is incompetent--there's no way you can know for sure, and I sure hope I have that through my thick skull!

Ann

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Grateful

I must say that one thing missing from this episode is VHF communication. If a give way vessel is causing me concern, I have no hesitation in hailing on Ch 16...

This is a good point. What the Beamer report lacks is learning points for the rest of us. I'll add to your excellent suggestion - 5 short blasts on the fog horn, might have raised the attention of the other skipper. If relatively close and the give way vessel has not yet taken action, it wouldn't hurt to at least be prepared to manoeuvre - for instance Pastaga could have gotten his other crew on deck to handle the sheets for a tack or gybe; or he could have started the engine and had it in idle, ready to be used.

[Chas.7]

Hello,
I didn't read the accident report or the depositions on this case. I only do that when I'm investigating the case.
Generally both parties are to blame in a boating collision. What degree of blame is decided in court. I have been in many cases in federal and state courts.
If the power boat captain knew the rules, he would know he required a proper lookout and if the sail captain understood the rules, he would of known when he should depart from the rules to prevent the collision. Changes in course should at least 30 degrees.
The opinion expressed here has a degree of certainty in the maritime industry.

I was not speaking to the personal tragedy of this accident.
Thank you

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I have followed this entire thread from the beginning. I've not seen 'anyones' post suggesting that Pastaga's skipper was the cause of the accident. NOT ONE. Everyone has acknowledged that the skipper of the motor vessel bears the main responsibility.

But Like you also, most posters have recognised that the skipper of Pastaga misjudged when to alter course.

Your comment that the skipper of the motor vessel was judged to be the 'sole cause' however is not recorded in the finding. There was a contributing cause.

I did not say that the skipper of Pastaga did not have any degree of responsibility. I said that no action by that skipper preceding the collision caused the collision.

here is a definition of cause: Something that precedes and brings about an effect or a result.

So the question is: What action prior to the need to invoke rule 8 resulted in the collision?

Answer:
for What Next - not maintaining a proper lookout resulted in the collision
for Pastaga - there was no action that resulted in the collision

Thus What Next is the sole cause of the collision.

That Pastaga did not follow rule 8 and take action sooner than they did causes a portion of the fault to rest on them. But not the cause.

Regards

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

well, if no answer on VHF and after 3 alteration of course, motor boat pointing at sail boat at all times during maneouvres, this is next step

I recall that Donald M. Street was known to fire a .45 at the bridge of freighters that were not following Colregs (er trying to run him over).

Iolaire was enginless...

[Grateful]

Originally Posted by Chas.7

Hello,
I didn't read the accident report or the depositions on this case.

Which makes you altogether unqualified to comment on the incident or on anyone's opinion on it. Don't lose heart though, you're not alone on this forum.

[Chas.7]

Dear Grateful
Obviously you have little understanding of the "Rules of the Road" or court interpretations of the rules. I suggest you read," Farwell's Rules of the Road".
If you were knowledgeable on this subject you would know my post was absolutely correct.
Ignorance is bliss.
Merry Christmas