Report on yacht collision in Ireland in 2019 (report on findings)

[Breaking Waves]

As an aside . . . . This report was likely viewed as a relatively low priority effort because no-one died, no pollution, and relatively small physical damage (in commercial terms).

[El Pinguino]

A few final points...
Appendix 7.3 clearly shows track ( from VTS) of 'Medimode' with a CMG of 000º

Yacht crew says they were motor sailing with headsail out to stbd.

If yacht had showed correct red / green and 'steaming' light the white 'steaming' light would no doubt have been sighted sooner , ship would have altered sooner... collision would not have occured ...

The rest is but detail...

Dublin MCIB office, Friday 0900.
'Morning Paddy'
'Morning Paddy, what do we have today?'
'Nothing much , have to write up a report. Yacht ran into the side of a ship... should have it done by lunchtime......'

[mikedefieslife]

It's quite amusing to read the talk of colours given that 8% of men are red-green colour blind.

AIS and/or RADAR and the collision is avoided probably 5-10 miles away without trying to line up shrouds and what-not in the dark.

Now off to a motorcycle forum so see if there are reports of road vehicle crashes to look at

[JPA Cate]

Okay, imagine the helmsperson who is supposed to be in charge of the autopilot is fatigued to the point of not thinking clearly. It is a following wind, helped by a tide going with him (he's covering more ground on his heading than he is aware of). His headsail is poled out on the starboard side. When he disengages the autopilot, he naturally doesn't want to backwind his headsail, hence the turn to port.

All easily understood just on the basis of being overtired, and perhaps not enough experience being overtired to realize he should get someone up to relieve him, even though he might lose face by doing so.

El P's imaginary conversation posted above seems to succinctly state how an accident commission would look at the incident.

Ann

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

I asked and you did not answer, and I still don't understand what you would have done here better than the investigators to get more information - with a reasonable amount of effort for the gain.

Already said. There were a lot of details missing from VE's master's account. Could have contacted them or their agents by email with follow-on questions.

If we take the watchkeeps statements at face value - the light and compass alignment questions are really moot - the ship considered themselves giveaway based on what they saw - and their significant starboard turn seems the correct action (except too late) in any of the likily scenarios (unless you believe they are lying and crossed in front of the yacht and then crossed back in front to the collision). The yacht apparently (incorrectly) did not believe there was ever a risk of collision - and their light alignment and compass alignment would not have changed that

There's no indication of the turning data for the ship or analysis of how long it would have been in the turn, but I'm going to guess
600 yards transfer in a 60º turn - or the amount they would have missed the Moody by, if they had stood on.

My understanding is that the investigators were required to share a draft with the involved parties and give them opportunity for input (this is what it says on page 39) - so it seems that the ship owner/captain/watchkeeper did not have any corrections/comments and believed the report accurately captured their understanding of the incident.

So they would have had the opportunity to ask more questions, or clarify the missing information.

IDK if a vessel like that ship would have a VDR. If it did someone (coastal authorities on the spot) should have requested a dump immediately after the incident (not the report team who would only have been assembled later). However if we take the ship incident report at face value I'm not sure what they would have gained - that report gives a pretty clear understanding of what they thought happened.

That's moot. If it did, no one grabbed the data, and it's not discussed.

You also still have not explained your 'alternate scenario' why the yacht did not hear the vhf, did not hear the 5 toots, did not consider there to be a risk of collision, and steered right into the port side of the ship on autopilot. . . .

Not hear VHF - what channel, how was the English, what was said?
Not hear the 5 toots? Both on the Moody indicated the 5 toots occurred after collision; even the VE captain said he made the toots when he saw the green sidelight at the last second. Probably doing the toots while they were colliding.
Would you prefer to believe that while asleep and not hearing 5 toots or a radio call, the fellow disengaged the autopilot and hand-steered towards the ship? The second guy on the Moody did say that the autopilot was still engaged after the collision when he came up to take the helm.

it seems pretty clear to me from that factual sequence of events they were not paying much attention. aka lying or barmy lol or more generously just fatigued and dozing off intermittently (which is the 'human factor' actually suggested in the report)

There were definitely some errors made on the Moody, but that started before fatigue set in. There were definitely errors made on the ship too.

My experience is that you when get information from people, some witnesses seem credible and others don't. And you weight their input based in part on that 'feel' and in part on what other pieces of info corroborate. It's pretty clear who the invesitagtors found credible here and who they did not. You can argue they should not make that sort of judgement - but it is done all the time in both court and these sorts of investigations.

In any case - you don't like the report . . . .well ok. I still think they outlined the most probable course of events give the information available and there was not much more fruitful they could have done.

All witness testimony is suspect - memory is fickle and understanding is rarely assured, but there doesn't seem to me to be any reason for either party to lie about the situation. Save hard evidence, the investigators should have kept an open mind towards the investigation. Of course, no deaths, no spills, no big deal. Why did they even bother making a report?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

A few final points...
Appendix 7.3 clearly shows track ( from VTS) of 'Medimode' with a CMG of 000º

Where did you see that was from VTS? I thought it might have been from the Moody's plotter. If VTS had radar recorded they would have speed information, but the report used the rather suspect assessment from VE that MM was doing 7.9kts.

Yacht crew says they were motor sailing with headsail out to stbd.

Again details, no mention of whether or not mainsail was up.

If yacht had showed correct red / green and 'steaming' light the white 'steaming' light would no doubt have been sighted sooner , ship would have altered sooner... collision would not have occured ...

Absolutely!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

It's quite amusing to read the talk of colours given that 8% of men are red-green colour blind.

Not applicable to pilots and commercial mariners.

[requiem]

IIRC the track for the ship was sourced from AIS, possibly from MarineTraffic. The track from the yacht was I think from their laptop, with the inconveniently-placed mouse cursor. Having the actual exported GPX file would have allowed for direct comparison against the AIS data, but apparently it wasn't requested or provided.

[barnakiel]

I bet guys on the sailing boat were sound asleep.


Or at least down below.


It looks a big boat, strange they did not carry an AIS or radar!


b.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

There were a lot of details missing from VE's master's account.

You are still ducking the question - Very specifically what extra information would you have asked for, which would have made a significant difference in our understanding of the situation, and which the ship watchstanders could have answered? There is ALWAYS 'missing information', some of which is not feasible to actually get and much is 'nice to have' but does not change our fundemental understanding of a situation.

or the amount they would have missed the Moody by, if they had stood on.

In essentially every collision situation, with 20/20 hindsight, if someone had made a different maneuver (or none) than they actually made, it might have caused a near miss rather than the collision. In this case who knows what the yacht actually did (did they make a port turn or not) and what they might have done hypothetically if the ship had not made their starboard turn. Hypothetically if the yacht had turned to starboard the collision would likily have been a near miss also.

What we do know is that the ship believed they had a zero cpa with the yacht, and they believed they were the give way vessel, and they saw a red light (not green to green) with radar showing confirming geometry, and they believed their turn was large enough to pass astern of the yacht (ofc not anticipating it might turn to port) - are you really suggeting in that situation (without 20/20 hindsight) they should not have turned to starboard?

So they would have had the opportunity to ask more questions, or clarify the missing information.

Yea, again as i asked above - very specifically what would have changed our understand?

The second guy on the Moody did say that the autopilot was still engaged after the collision when he came up to take the helm.

We dont know if the yacht turned or not. The report writers suggested 'there is evidence to support the assertion ...they turned to port' (and outlined that). If they did turn, it could have been done with the autopilot still on. You can change course with an autopilot you know (the 2nd guy does not seem to acknowledge this possibility). It's not uncommon on a short handed vessel especially when you might need to handle sails or something else.

In any case, what we know is . . . they did not think it was a collision situation (until potentially the last moment) and they steered their bow directly into the side of the ship. They claim under autopilot. By the ship time-line the 5 toots were at least 2 minutes befoire the collision (sometime between 2.18 and 2.20) - my personal guess is those toots were the impluse to wake up the deck crew. So they really had zero situational awareness - so little awareness yea it is certaintly a possibility they were intermittently dozing off.

I agree with the report that the vhf call was likely a mistake on the ship's part. I can understand why they made it, but agreed it wasted time and even if they had got an answer it could have created more confusion than clarity. I am guessing the ship watch keeper had sufficient english to make such a call (probably would not have made it if he did not feel comfortable). It is simply suggestive of the lack of attention on the yacht they did not have a radio watch capable of detecting such a call

There were definitely some errors made on the Moody, but that started before fatigue set in.

Well, yea, as the report recommendation said they could have had more colreg training/understanding - like a better understanding of the proper nav lights they should have run when motor sailing. And a better understanding of how to assess when they were in a potential collision situation. And I suspect but we don't know - a better understanding of the pitfalls and how to manage fateigue at o-dark hundred.
The report suggest all these.

Why did they even bother making a report?

probbaly because the financial damage amount was over some statutory minimum requiring a report.

I also guessed the picture ping mentioned came from a screen shot of the yacht plotter . . . . but it is supportive of the report's presumed geometry and crossing diagram.

.............

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

there doesn't seem to me to be any reason for either party to lie about the situation.

I suspect there might have been concern they would have a 'significant discussion' with their insurance company if the yacht crew both admitted in an official report they were intermittently dozing off while 'on watch'.

I have suspected the guy on deck has never admitted to the guy below what actually went on (dozing and panicked port turn)

[Stu Jackson]

the 5 toots were at least 2 minutes befoire the collision (sometime between 2.18 and 2.20) - my personal guess is those toots were the impluse to wake up the deck crew.

Is there not the possibility that the 5 toots were what they 5 are actually?

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

[/COLOR]


Is there not the possibility that the 5 toots were what they 5 are actually?

hmmmm . . .what? I dont understand at all what you are asking.

but it does give me the chance to indicate I probably was wrong about the toots causing the deck watch to wake up . . . . because in the time-line the ship watch says he gave the toots when he saw the yacht turn to port - which makes sense because such a turn would not have been anticipated nor undertood on the ship, and would cause the collision they had just turned to starboard to avoid.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

hmmmm . . .what? I dont understand at all what you are asking.

but it does give me the chance to indicate I probably was wrong about the toots waking up the deck watch . . . . because in the time-line the ship watch says he gave the toots when he saw the yacht turn to port - which makes sense because such a turn would not have been anticipated nor undertood on the ship.

5: I don't understand your intentions.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

5: I don't understand your intentions.

sure no doubt that's what the ship intended to communicate probably along with "in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid a collision"