David vs Goliath

[swagman]

All v interesting stuff and good fun to see the arguments develop, but clearly views are being given by people who were not on either yacht on the day. Seems views are being aired based on what each chooses to read into some pictures, some third party comments, and sadly some obvious David v Goliath type views (ie David is always right).

Sticking with the facts and ignoring the assumptions usually works better even if it is not as much fun.

Maltese Falcon apparently had a San Fran Bay Pilot in charge.
A Pilot officially replaces the skipper.
A crew of two took their smaller yacht close to Maltese Falcon.
Contact was made.
The smaller yacht headed off.
Maltese Falcon (still under it's pilot) followed.
The smaller yacht did not respond to calls to stop.
The smaller yacht stopped and was boarded by Coastguards.

So with these facts, there's one lesson I've learned.

It's for completly different reasons, to stay right away from either of these yachts if I ever met them on the water!!

The rest - lets wait for the inquiry.

JOHN

[catty]

Originally Posted by dacust

Your first sentence gave me a high option of your objectivity. But your second sentence negated that fairly rapidly. Then your third sentence takes it even further down. Can you spot that "repair evidence" in any of the previous photos? I can't. But I can see it from the distance in the photos immediately after the impact.

Then, your last paragraph, while saying things I don't buy, at least goes back to reasonable objective reasoning. I thought the owners statement was implying more like the MF was steering to attempt a course to expand the gap to about 200ft, not steering a course to attempt to narrow it to that. In other words, due to SBs movements, they were steering away, and what they managed to acheive was a 200ft gap.

As for leaving, it'd take a lot of apprehension to make me leave the scene of an auto accident because I know I'd have to defend my actions to the police. In a boat, if I were scared for some reason, I think I might go off a reasonable distance and then wait, or radio the CG and tell them of my actions.

So, even though I dissagree with your conclusions, I say your second paragraph shows objectivity because it's possible there's some merit there and objective thought requires us to consider those types of possibilities. Same goes for the possibility that MF might have been purposely closing to 200ft.

It doesn't bother me when people take sides on scanty information. (The following applies mainly to other posters above, but it applies to some of your statements, as well.) However, it DOES bother me when people use strong, abusive or accusatory language towards one party or another, when they know they don't have all the facts. That is why I try to say "I think", and "If what they say...", and "If I was in that situation, I think I would" etc.

Oh, and from my understanding of how it works to be a pilot, the captain remains in control and the boat is still operated by the crew. The pilot is on board just as an advisor and observer. The pilot doesn't steer the boat. Their arse wouldn't be in a sling for the crews actions, but it'd certainly be in a sling for not reporting the facts accurately and truthfully. Sure, they could be lying (bribe?), but in court I bet the pilots words will carry weight somewhere between a statement from a licensed captain and a law officer. If I am wrong in a pilots duties, I hope someone will post a correction for me.

I got to run to work, so I haven't edited this post as carefully as I normally do, so I hope it expresses what I meant to say.

-dan

Dan, open your eyes and look like a women.




Falcon's cap rail and a little bit of her hull took the brunt of the damage from Stand-By's bow.
Photo Latitude / Richard
© 2008 Latitude 38 Publishing Co., Inc

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by john540

I wasn't there, and I don't know which rule/rules apply, but common sense and my experience sailing my boat tells me that someone the MF is either not at all to blame, or only slightly to blame. And many of the posts to the contrary here seem to be motivated by jealosy of Perkins' success/wealth, etc, not by cold rational analysis. Of the ones that aren't motivated by jealosy, many are unfamiliar with the San Francisco Bay and it's operating environment, and many are confusing racing rules and tactics with right of way rules, and right of way rules with liability. Just because someone else may be infringing on my right of way doesn't give me the right to ram them.

Sorry, I've been too blinded by jealousy to realize that Rule 12 is different in San Francisco. Give me a break! Please tell me how your vast experience sailing your boat tells you that MF was not to blame. Please give us the cold rational analysis

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by swagman

Sticking with the facts and ignoring the assumptions usually works better even if it is not as much fun.

Maltese Falcon apparently had a San Fran Bay Pilot in charge.
A Pilot officially replaces the skipper.

Well let's get the facts in order, shall we. Pilots do not necessarily have charge - sometimes they are there only in an advisory capacity. I'm not that familiar with San Francisco's pilotage regs - perhaps someone can add to this.

A crew of two took their smaller yacht close to Maltese Falcon.

Or a crew of umpteen(the give way vessel) took their yacht close to Stand By (the stand-on vessel).

The smaller yacht headed off.

That's speculation.

Maltese Falcon (still under it's pilot) followed.

Heresay.

The smaller yacht did not respond to calls to stop.

That's not entirely clear. Are yachts required to monitor or even have VHF on SanFran Bay? Maybe they reported it by phone, or maybe they were heading in to report the incident.

The smaller yacht stopped and was boarded by Coastguards.

So what? That proves nothing. "Oh officer, thank goodness you're here; we were just heading to the CG station to report that we were run down by a large sailing yacht."

So with these facts, there's one lesson I've learned.

It's for completly different reasons, to stay right away from either of these yachts if I ever met them on the water!!

I hope you know to stay away from all yachts on the water.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by RunningFish

So far, I've read here that Perkins is an imbecile, and that he has a small member.

OK, if I can inject some humor (humour) here:

- The size of a sailor's "member" is inversely proportional to the size of his boat (everyone knows this, right? )

- I have a 47 foot boat.

- My member is smaller than average (from all of the unsolicited emails I get, I've come to the conclusion that this is correct...)

- ergo, Perkins MUST have a small member!

[swagman]

C'mon Lodesman, give the guy a break.

It's clear whatever the causes you're with the smaller guy simply because you see them on stb and MF on port. That's fine, its your view, but why not wait and see how they got into the situation before anyone starts calling anyone an imbicile or we all start swinging handbags at each other on the site?

And Catty, re pilots. I understand just who has bridge authority or who take responsibility will vary dependent not just on what the pilot is doing at the time but also on local authority pilot regs - so sorry, don't have answer for SF Bay.

Maybe a local pilot or indeed commercial skipper can clear this up for us all?

FWIW our local UK pilot regs states a pilot "on duty" to mean "being on the navigating bridge of the vessel and having control of the vessel, or being on the navigating bridge of the vessel and assisting the master or navigational officer." So even here it could mean both.

Either way, I'm pretty sure they would not allow a vessel to do the wrong thing.

And I don't go with conspiracy theories either.

JOHN

[swagman]

Hi Lodesman,

Just saw your last post. I'll agree with you on one thing - it's all hearsay to you and me.

But then I'm not the one calling the MF skipper an imbicile.

Let it go - wait for the inquiry.

If MF is in the wrong I'll acknowledge you read the situation correctly.
If MF is in the right maybe you apologise to the MF skipper?

That's plenty enough from me on this one.
Goodnight.

JOHN

[44'cruisingcat]

I can't help wonder if people's view of this incident would be different if MF were a regular cruise liner or cargo vessel rather than a luxury yacht.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by catty

Dan, open your eyes and look like a women.

Here are two cropped images showing detail area. The image names appear to be parsed like this:
20081004_142350_2600

• 20081004-Date
• 142350-Time
• 2600-Sequential number. This number gives a jump. Probably changed out a memory card?

Both these were cropped from images © Copyright 2008 Lyons Imaging. I have the original links posted below.

Before: In this photo I don't see any hint of a blemish in the impact area.
Image name from original site: 20081004_142350_2600 - 2:23pm


After: In this, I see it quite clearly.
Image name from original site: 20081004_155416_4331 - 3:54 pm if I am decoding it correctly. About 1-1/2 hour later.


For the original photos I pulled these details from:

• Before
• After

Vessels meeting with that much mass can create unusual looking results depending on the materials involved. I can see how it might look like sanding or grinding, but I can also see it being produced by a large mass being pressed against it with a few tons force, pushed forward trying to ride up over the rail and then dragging back down, along with some side-to-side action. Doesn't seem far fetched to me at all.

Oh, and I have a Halloween photo of me dressed as a hooker. Fish nets, very short, tight dress, waist length black wig. The ladies at work were mad at me cause they said my legs looked better than theirs. I definitely looked like a woman. Well, maybe except for the full beard and mustache.

-dan

[Chief Engineer]

while might does not necessarily equal right

ya just don't push the right of way rules (if any apply) and put your crew, vessel, others and self in harms way.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by dacust

Vessels meeting with that much mass can create unusual looking results depending on the materials involved.

dan,

Please look at these photos: Lyons Imaging :: Our Galleries- powered by SmugMug

Lyons Imaging :: Our Galleries- powered by SmugMug

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by swagman

But then I'm not the one calling the MF skipper an imbicile.

Let it go - wait for the inquiry.

John - this statement was attributed to Mr Perkins: "Prior to the photos shown here, "Stand By" was bearing away, and the two yachts were on safe courses to pass roughly with a distance of 200 feet separation. After the "Stand By" had sailed past the Falcon's bow, the smaller vessel suddenly rounded up, possibly to tack in order to follow the Falcon, when she lost control, and with her main sheeted hard in, the smaller boat was unable to bear away to avoid a collision."

Do you honestly feel 200 feet is a safe passing distance in this circumstance?
If those were not his words, then I offer my profound apologies to Mr Perkins. However it remains that the person that made that statement is an imbecile and likely a liar. That of course is only my opinion.

Kevin

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

dan,

Please look at these photos: Lyons Imaging :: Our Galleries- powered by SmugMug

Lyons Imaging :: Our Galleries- powered by SmugMug

Ah yes, those look more like you'd expect a collision to look. Thanks, Lodesman. I also say the photo in the catty post could be showing collision damage, as well.

-dan


EDIT: And going back to the photos, the collision appears to have been at 2:33 pm.

So:

2:23 - photo with no obvious damage
2:33 - photo of collision
2:35 - closeup of damage here
3:54 - damage showing from similar distanve as first photo

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I can't help wonder if people's view of this incident would be different if MF were a regular cruise liner or cargo vessel rather than a luxury yacht.

My view would only be different insofar as the rules that apply are different. If the cruise liner or cargo vessel was the give way vessel and planned to pass a small sailboat by only 50 feet, while at speed, then I would hope that the captain, the pilot and the watch officer would be keelhauled.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

My view would only be different insofar as the rules that apply are different. If the cruise liner or cargo vessel was the give way vessel and planned to pass a small sailboat by only 50 feet, while at speed, then I would hope that the captain, the pilot and the watch officer would be keelhauled.

I agree totally. IF, they intended to pass that close as opposed to, during avoidance 50ft was all they could attain. That goes for 200ft, as well. I'm not saying I have an opinion whether it was planned or not. Or 50ft or 200ft. I'm saying I don't think I can know from the information given. My only opinion is that, with the information given, I don't think any of us can know.

Once again, though, I totally agree with what you posted.