Collision and Dismasting

[davil]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

I have some of the same thoughts, although it depends on location.

Agree


For the 2 on watch thought, that idea has shaped my plans for electronics improvements a bit. Radar is on the to-do list at some point and that will come with another MFD at the helm so it can have a dedicated display (I've got a good spot for a second one). Also in the plans is an additional MFD at the nav station next to the helm to allow some workload to be offloaded to the admiral in busy areas (the helm seat has a better view around the boat without having to stand up and move around, so I'd rather offload some of the navigation and radar watch duties than visual watch).

======================================
here is my take on the electronics.

carry several cell phones (old not in cell service I kept)
One cell is connected wifi to my wifi depth finder
One Samsung tablet dedicated to AIS (My Vesper transponder installed by the nav station below), the tablet is on hand in the cockpit

Second tablet,has Aquamap and Navionics.
This allows me to double check course and any changes.
Yes one crew changed course without consulting.

My MFD on the steering station has a Garmin chart plotter/radar. Available to the helm person.

Choose not to integrate AIS in the MFD to not overcrowd info.

This last season I observed the second watch was spending time looking at all the gadgets and less time for actual visual check and scan of the surroundings, could not get myself to sleep, eventually was in the cockpit to complement.

Even then, had some tight moments.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

You know what?

The report from the fishing boat wasn't even written by someone who was on the boat. It was written by the boats' owner and says the Master was at the helm.

Their report marked YES to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this casualty". They never even got within 100' of me, how did the owner back on shore come up with this I wonder?

This is the part of the story that makes my blood boil, and I bet yours too.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

You know what?

The report from the fishing boat wasn't even written by someone who was on the boat. It was written by the boats' owner and says the Master was at the helm.

Their report marked YES to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this casualty". They never even got within 100' of me, how did the owner back on shore come up with this I wonder?

All of the above is in your favor if insurance, USCG, etc starts digging into the incident.

Later,
Dan

[Ungvar]

So, you were running in a busy area at night with no AIS and no operable RADAR on autopilot keeping watch behind a dodger. The fishing boat didn't see you and you didn't see the fishing boat. Two boats failed to keep an adequate look out and ran in to each other. The steel fishing boat came out on top.

[AA3JY]

Personally I'd becareful on what is said here as social media can be 'mined' and possible used in both civil and criminal proceedings..just say'n..

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ungvar

So, you were running in a busy area at night with no AIS and no operable RADAR on autopilot keeping watch behind a dodger. The fishing boat didn't see you and you didn't see the fishing boat. Two boats failed to keep an adequate look out and ran in to each other. The steel fishing boat came out on top.

Didn't see where this was mentioned. Did the OP not have AIS? Did they not have radar, or did they have radar and not use it?

[davil]

Originally Posted by AA3JY

Personally I'd becareful on what is said here as social media can be 'mined' and possible used in both civil and criminal proceedings..just say'n..

=============================



beat me to it

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by AA3JY

Personally I'd becareful on what is said here as social media can be 'mined' and possible used in both civil and criminal proceedings..just say'n..

MUCH more likely to be used as fuel here for people behind the safety of their computer.

[Ungvar]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Didn't see where this was mentioned. Did the OP not have AIS? Did they not have radar, or did they have radar and not use it?

Check with the OP, I might have read it on the trawler forum. Sounds like there was a RADAR on board but it hasn't worked in a couple of years.

[h20man]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I wouldn't know. When I asked the inspectors about getting report copy they said I would have to file Freedom of Information request.

An incident you were involved with requires an FOI to get the report? Something sounds not quite right.. Did you do an electronic report?

[h20man]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

So I saw the report from the fishing boat today. They say:

<snip>
- we appeared intoxicated

<snip>

(SARCASM ALERT)

I guess they could smell your breath easier then seeing a radar return...
(END SARCASM ALERT)


This level of detail is almost damming to them.

[skipperpete]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have no knowledge of how the US coast guard and commercial vessels interact regarding marine casualties BUT here in Australia, there are very strict guidelines concerning incident reporting. The report must be made within a specific time frame on the official AMSA document ( online or hard copy) and can be submitted by the master, owner or responsible person. Its an official legal document and is not publicly available unless by agreement. The document requires the qualifications of the crew, the survey details of the vessel and has pages for diagrams an explanation and possibly photographs of the incident. This is not something you might do after an incident, it’s mandatory.
I also saw NO mention of “busy area” in the OP.
The mention of alcohol is a remarkably stupid implication by the trawler crew, if proven it automatically frees the insurance company of its obligations...... but again, this might be different in the US.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

The mention of alcohol is a remarkably stupid implication by the trawler crew, if proven it automatically frees the insurance company of its obligations...... but again, this might be different in the US.

The collision was the evening of Dec 30. The morning of the 31st the CG told us on the phone they were going to talk to and inspect the fishing boat. We met the Coast Guard at our boat morning of Jan 2. One of the last things they asked us was if we had been drinking, which we hadn't been. The fishing boat report saying we appeared intoxicated was signed by the owner on Jan 3.

Everything is a he said/he said.

My wife said something today she hadn't said before when we talked about the collision. She said she was looking forward and it just darkness and then suddenly there was a fully lit up boat right in front of us. I think that probably means she saw the fishing boat just before they turned on their lights and just doesn't realize that the was the "darkness".

I have freely admitted we have blame in the collision because we in fact had it. But I truly believe the fishing was running dark until right until they realized we were in front of them and turned on their lights and that is when we saw them. But I have no way to prove this. They say we didn't have our nav lights on and I 110% know we did because we checked when we turned them on and when I was knocking out the pin for the forestay I was sitting right next to it and it was on.

[sailorboy1]

The only ones who are going get screwed here is my wife and I. Even if the insurance fixes the boat we are out of cruising as she is out of it now. If the insurance totals the boat we are out at least $25k difference between the payout and the low end of what it is worth.

But except for my tailbone we didn't get hurt.

[Knotical]

SB, I am kind of surprised the CG didn’t interview the boats’ crew right after the incident happened, it would have taken a lot of “he said/she said” out of the equation. I appreciate you admitting some blame for the collision but the FV crew is not playing fair, especially their statement regarding alcohol and nav lights, would have wished they were interrogated right after the incident to check if they were drunk themselves, since they left the scene so quickly; think about what would happen after a road accident.

I hope it never happens to any one of us but if it does I am requesting a swift inspection by the CG, at least some things can be quickly ruled out.

Another intervention I am thinking is a live cam, similar to dash cams on cars nowadays, can delete the footage after successfully making to port to save space. If one could prove they were going dark it could mean continued rather than end of cruising life for you and tens of thousands of dollars.

Like I said before, still pretty bummed for you.