Accident report

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Driving the superyacht at 20 knots while using the smartphone FOR ANYTHING seems analagous to driving on the highway and texting--which is flat out illegal many places!

Should be illegal everywhere !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It's only illogical if you're incapable of reading what I've actually written and make up some bizarre interpretation instead.

That hoary chestnut "just point at his stern" is usually considered for a rule 17(a)(ii) action, but would fail in this circumstance, because the wind was coming from that direction, making it impossible to follow that course as a sailboat. If he had chosen to fire up the engine and point at What Else's stern, then he would have broken rule 17(c). There are clear reasons why the rules tell you to not alter to port for a vessel on your port side. The rule does make the point "if the circumstances of the case admit" - that usually is taken to apply where other traffic or navigational hazards are present that would make a turn to starboard impossible.

Rule 17(b) implies that collision can't be avoided by the actions of the give way vessel alone, so the stand on vessel shall do whatever is required to avoid collision or lessen the impact of an inevitable one. While it might sometimes be the best option to turn to port, it is a very rare case. Turning towards the oncoming vessel increases the closing speed which decreases the time available to take action and likely increases the severity of the collision.

This point was brought up in the report.

You know it is possible to put forward your explanation without resulting to insults there is a 'be nice' rule

I won't labour the point in fear of getting more insults, but you still seem to be suggesting if he complies with 17(b) he then transgressors 17(c) because he's turned into a motor boat instead ? and yes, I understand the problem he had with the wind.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

Using that option caused the collision.

Had he turned toward the stern of the approaching vessel when first sighted he could have passed astern in a couple of minutes. He would have had eyes on for course changes. Reversing direction is the least likely change for the approaching vessel to make so going behind him was the best course.

It is a method I use constantly when meeting vessels coming on fast. Maybe not macho but prudent.

I consider the colregs a guide not a shield.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

Perhaps we read differently - The cause of the collision was the skipper of What Else failing to keep a lookout. That is the conclusion of the investigation. Everything else is secondary. What Else is at fault.

Yes, yes, things could have gone better if this or that. But that does not change the cause.

Quoting the report:

5 CONCLUSIONS
The collision between WHAT ELSE and PASTAGA is due to a combination of material and human factors:

-causal factor: interruption of the lookout aboard WHAT ELSE;

-contributing factor 1: only two crew members aboard WHAT ELSE;
-contributing factor: 2: manoeuvre to avoid collision not anticipated on board PASTAGA;

-underlying factor 1: lack of electronic identification aid, and thus of anticipated and
reliable VHF contact between both vessels heading for collision;
-underlying factor 2: iPhone used as the primary navigational means taking up, more than necessary, WHAT ELSE‘s master‘s attention

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Perhaps we read differently - The cause of the collision was the skipper of What Else failing to keep a lookout. That is the conclusion of the investigation. Everything else is secondary. What Else is at fault.

Yes, yes, things could have gone better if this or that. But that does not change the cause.

Quoting the report:

5 CONCLUSIONS
The collision between WHAT ELSE and PASTAGA is due to a combination of material and human factors:

-causal factor: interruption of the lookout aboard WHAT ELSE;

-contributing factor 1: only two crew members aboard WHAT ELSE;
-contributing factor: 2: manoeuvre to avoid collision not anticipated on board PASTAGA;

-underlying factor 1: lack of electronic identification aid, and thus of anticipated and
reliable VHF contact between both vessels heading for collision;
-underlying factor 2: iPhone used as the primary navigational means taking up, more than necessary, WHAT ELSE‘s master‘s attention

colreg relies on level of professionalism, especially from larger vessels . if that is not evident, as in above, or that ship that sunk in med when driver texting, then do not expect colreg to work. Punish offenders, including owner of that ship that allowed such level of unseaworthiness and trust may return.

However, as we all know, this will not happen.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

colreg relies on level of professionalism, especially from larger vessels . if that is not evident, as in above, or that ship that sunk in med when driver texting, then do not expect colreg to work. Punish offenders, including owner of that ship that allowed such level of unseaworthiness and trust may return.

However, as we all know, this will not happen.

You clearly have very little understanding of the Colregs. Adherence to the Colregs 'at all times', will always WORK. The problem, like the road rules is that people are not generally knowledgable of them and others choose to ignore them.

Punishment, for what is essentially an accident is not an answer. Gross negligence is another matter. Education is the key.

[Cap Erict3]

I have been a member of many incident investigations. While there are plenty of contributing factors to this calamity, the one soul that watched it go down had 6 minutes to find a way for his boat to be in a better spot.

Behind the power boat would have been my choice.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[44'cruisingcat]

If a boat is coming straight at you, how would you steer towards it's stern?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

If a boat is coming straight at you, how would you steer towards it's stern?

I don't understand this question? We 'were' talking about colision courses not 'coming head on'?

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

If a boat is coming straight at you, how would you steer towards it's stern?

Motor boat was on a 290 heading, the sailboat 180.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

Motor boat was on a 290 heading, the sailboat 180.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

Which means the Motor Boat was heading West and the Sail boat heading south.. Is that not a right angle?

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Which means the Motor Boat was heading West and the Sail boat heading south.. Is that not a right angle?

If a boat is coming my way at a right angle, especially at high speed, I steer for the stern.

Ferries are a good example.

I turn early and leave no doubt of my intent.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

If a boat is coming my way at a right angle, especially at high speed, I steer for the stern.

Ferries are a good example.

I turn early and leave no doubt of my intent.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

Yes so do most of us. 44 Cruisingcat seemed to think it was a head on incident though

[Cap Erict3]

The bottom half of the report in the op's post is in English for those that missed that point.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[Hoofsmit]

Thought I might as well join in the armchair comments

Manchel islet was maybe what he was looking for on his iPhone, it's not what I would call complex navigation
it was kinda busy last week when I did a delivery from Antigua to St Maarten, ( night passage) we had one cruise ship that shadowed us for the whole 12 hr trip same speed same rough course but weaved around behind us at one point less than two miles off our stern. We ended up with four cruise ships and a coaster plus various small craft between St Barts and Phillipsburg at dawn
One thing I have learnt from sailing in the uk to now, in the leeward islands, not many locals take the rules as seriously as in the uk.
We had one crossing vessel just 10 miles before st Barts that showed a green on the rail spotted at about 3 nm, I presumed hove to ? But we past it still with a green showing on its port side until we saw its white stern light ! ( he did shine a torch on his sail at about 5ca ! )
I personally now change course as soon as a cc is established, generally if done early enough even as stand on vessel, I would consider then maintaining the new course meets my obligations, often the other vessels responds accordingly to starboard if not I consider he hasn't seen me or doesn't know what the colregs are or thinks I am Being over cautious and we miss any way !


Sent from my iPad.......i apologise for the auto corrects !!!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You know it is possible to put forward your explanation without resulting to insults there is a 'be nice' rule

My dear friend, might I remind you of the manner in which you commented on my point -

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

That's completely illogical

... rubbish

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I won't labour the point in fear of getting more insults, but you still seem to be suggesting if he complies with 17(b) he then transgressors 17(c) because he's turned into a motor boat instead ? and yes, I understand the problem he had with the wind.

You are confusing separate ideas. Rule 17(c) has no bearing on a 17(b) action - it only applies to rule 17(a)(ii). And it only applies to power driven vessels. In this particular situation it would be impossible for the sailboat to steer towards the stern of the other vessel, unless he was under power. The assertion was made that the colregs are moot because Pastaga could have pointed at What Else's stern. Presumably this was meant to occur early in the encounter such that it would be in accordance with 17(a)(ii). But it did not consider that such an action would be impossible while Pastaga was a sailing vessel, and contrary to the rules (17(c)) if Pastaga became a power-driven vessel.

When a rule 17(b) response becomes necessary, then there is no such restriction - collision is imminent and the overriding concern is a last-ditch effort at avoidance and failing that, mitigation of the resultant crunch. Regardless, you'll have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone that reducing the distance and increasing the closing speed (by turning towards the other vessel) is always the best way to do that.