Collision and Dismasting

[nofacey]

Sorry to hear about this near miss, VERY happy no one hurt.
- Everything else can be fixed.

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by Marathon1150

In addition to loving sailing I also love to ride fast motorcycles - a strange combination. Current ride is a Ducati S4r. I have been riding for about as long as sailing and I learned from reading everything available when I first started to ride that it is best to think of oneself as invisible. Other drivers don't see you or they don't understand that a motorcycle is a motor vehicle and might be moving, possibly quickly.

I try to do the same when sailing, particularly after being t-boned by a recreational fisher. I was sailing and he was trawling. I saw him and the person on watch and assumed that they would change course. By the time that it was clear that they were not changing course it was too late for me to do anything. I was wrong - the ColRegs and common sense indicate that everyone is responsible for avoiding collisions no matter who has the right of way.

Regarding AIS, I strongly agree with others that it is a low cost, high value way to avoid collisions. While sailing at night over the past 8 or so years, our AIS has several times helped us identify deep seas that might get too close to our course. Without exception they responded to a VHF call and without exception they offered to change course. I was amazed.

Another person here that enjoys going slow on a sailboat and going fast on a motorcycle. In my younger days I used to race Ducatis and my last Duc was an ST4. I’m currently riding an old Buell.
I very much agree that watch standing on a motorcycle and a sailboat are very similar. On either vehicle I always assume that nobody is paying attention but me!

Al, S/V Finlandia

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

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

On Lake Ontario, especially away from the busiest areas, night runs don't concern me much, particularly if it's not a Friday or Saturday night (even without radar). There's just not much traffic out late at night, and most of what's out there are sailboats and freighters, generally far apart and fairly predictable. But for some areas I'd need a pretty good reason to run overnight due to concern for lobster pots, traffic, etc. and in some areas I just flat out wouldn't do it without radar.

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).

I actually have trouble getting my mind around anyone other than a casual day sailor who does not have radar, AIS, and a chart plotter visible at the helm.
I do a lot of cruising up and down the East Coast of the USA where there is a fair amount of both personal and commercial traffic day and night.
I own a Nauticat motorsailer that has a helm in the pilot house and one on the aft deck. Inside the pilot house I have a chart platter, AIS, with radar displayed on the chart plotter and a 20 watt VHF all within easy sight and reach.
At the aft helm, where my sailing is normally done, I also have a chart plotter, which displays radar and AIS, and a remote microphone for the 20 watt VHF radio. On top of all that at the top of the mast, I have an active radar repeater so I know that anyone with radar on will see me.
Yes, I know that there is a lot of expense involved in my gear, but I consider it very cost-effective against the possibility of losing my whole boat, not to mention possibly my life!

Al, S/V Finlandia

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by svfinlandia

I actually have trouble getting my mind around anyone other than a casual day sailor who does not have radar, AIS, and a chart plotter visible at the helm.

I tend to agree, despite not having all of that installed yet. When I bought my boat, it only had a very rudimentary chartplotter. Historically, this boat has never had much for electronics and has never had an autopilot installed (despite the boat having been from Long Island Sound to Florida and back when it was fairly new).

I've since upgraded the and gotten things to where I can easily add AIS, so that's next on the list (hopefully this spring). Radar has been a little further down the list both due to cost, and until some other changes are made to the boat, there's nowhere to mount it. Until we get those other projects done and add radar, there are some conditions we avoid running in, even if it means being stuck somewhere for a couple of extra days.

[OneBoatman]

My view is that I've seen many captains actually have the bells and whistles onboard to make safe passages at night, but also many of them even if they know their systems well and use them, others that may put at the helm generally do not. Just the same RADAR and AIS are useful only if they can be operated and monitored by the person at the helm. It is difficult that a person sailing alone can avoid a pending collision in close quarters while at looking ahead, monitoring their RADAR, and doing whatever else is needed on deck. You must be looking at object that are at least a quarter of a mile up to several miles away well before you might collide. Receiving AIS though useful can be of value if tied to a proximity alarm set at an appropriate distance for the speed of your vessel as hopefully will allow you to take action to avoid a collision for vessels that may be going much faster.

[davil]

Just came back from the boat doing maintenance work and first checked this thread.

Cannot let go, we have very seldom have a distress event reported by a member that I remember.

Most times we have some news of an event and attracts the attention of lots of people,
most opinions based on nonfactual information and most times the thread will end on a free for all taken over by the laptop experts as well as some inappropriate comments.

This time is different, we have the facts, and will admit it takes a lot of courage to open oneself to not only the support but also some unwarranted criticism and off the wall comments.


To those following the thread, I recommend very strongly to go back to his first post, even if You have read it.

As you continue reading, there are details that may have escaped during the first read.

In any case I think with all that has been discussed, revisiting post #1 is a good use of time.

And again, having escaped without injuries in a potentially deadly accident like this is short of a miracle.

Guess Santa was late for them

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by davil

This time is different, we have the facts...

We have some facts, and the story as seen from one point of view, in a story the OP has described as "he said, he said."

But yes, a first-person POV is definitely a rare treat.

[davefromoregon]

It sure seems like the fishing boat crew said something like: “oh my goodness, there is a boat directly on our bow. Why aren’t our lights on? We better turn on our lights.”

[Bill Seal]

Since the report was written by a third party, who wasn't even there, Judge Judy would have said (in her own disdainful way, BTW) "that's hearsay, not admissable evidence!"

[davefromoregon]

Originally Posted by AA3JY

These initial reports are usually released to the press immediately..

https://www.news.uscg.mil/District-7/

..but Dec. 30 seems to be blank..just asking

Anyone know where the equivalent Canadian coastguard site is?

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

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

- they were trawling for shrimp
- they didn't see us on radar
- we didn't have on nav lights on before or after the collision
- they turned to avoid us
- we appeared intoxicated

pretty much everything damming to us and not them that was possible to say

This report is pretty concerning for me. No doubt it's all BS, but it makes you look really bad. And an insurance company could just run with it to avoid a payout

My first thoughts. They didn't see you because they could not have been paying attention. Your boat is large enough to show up well on a radar, even if you don't have a radar reflector. If they didn't see you on radar, they were not looking at the radar. If they did not see you, how do they know you looked intoxicated? How do they know your lights were not on?

No 5 blasts? That would have been an appropriate action for them to take if they did see you. At least while turning (if they did turn) if not before the collision.

Anyway, I wish you the best, and hope that you can convince the insurance company of the absurdity of the fishing boats claims. They of course are saying whatever they can to avoid having a claim against them.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by wholybee

This report is pretty concerning for me. No doubt it's all BS, but it makes you look really bad. And an insurance company could just run with it to avoid a payout

The insurance company told me today that they "going to provide collision coverage". I don't what that means, but it has to be better than "denied"

I wasn't going to even file a report till I read the fishing boats report. But I didn't think it smart to allow only their report, written by the boat owner and not even the captain, to be the only report.

In the 2 weeks that have passed we more and more believe they were running dark and not paying any attention and turned on their lights in the last moment. Nothing else can to us fits all the factors that occurred other than my wife and I are blind.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

The told me today that they "going to provide collision coverage". I don't what that means, but it has to be better than "denied"

I wasn't going to even file a report till I read the fishing boats report. But I didn't it smart to allow only their report, written by the boat owner and not even the captain, to be the only report.

In the 2 weeks that have passed we more and more believe they were running dark and not paying any attention and turned on their lights in the last moment. Nothing else can to us fits all the factors that occurred other than my wife and I are blind.

That certainly seems to be the most likely scenario. I can't think of a way they could be lit up fully with deck lights and everything and remain totally invisible until you were right on top of them.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

The insurance company told me today that they "going to provide collision coverage". I don't what that means,[....]

It means that since you have hull coverage, your insurance is paying you for your loss, less deductible.

Then they will separately negotiate a settlement with the fishing boat or their liability insurer. You will probably not be involved and will probably never know what the outcome was. In the extremely unlikely event that the insurance company recovers the entire loss, they'll pay you your deductible. If the fishing boat uses the same insurance company you do, then there won't be anything to negotiate since it would just be the insurance company paying themselves. If your insurance company and the fishing boat's insurance company are both large, it is likely that they will negotiate multiple claims as a group rather than adjudicate each one individually.

This is one of the benefits of having hull insurance. You don't have to care how the negotiations go. You don't have to care whether there's a court case or who wins. You don't have to care whether the process is fair, because you have nothing at stake.

[boatman61]

Don.. I am convinced the 123 ton FV that hit the cat I was delivering was running dark..
I had taken over the 0400 watch and did a 360 scan and saw two N bound ships on the horizon and nothing else so went to the nav station in the saloon to check course and weather (knew wind was due to go S and lessen from the current F5 gusting 6)
Less than 5 mins later there was a bang and the boat stopped.. I went to the cockpit with difficulty as the furling boom had come down on the coach roof and hard bimini squashing it.
I saw the mast had broken and fallen forward smashing the Fore beam and tearing it out of the port hull and ripping open the stbd bow.
I then saw decklights coming on ahead of me maybe 1/2km away and, believing I had only lost the mast, felt relief another vessel was so close.
I then went below to check for water ingress and found all was well and the waterproof bulkheads fwd were doing their job.
Returning topside I joined Lena who was looking at the FV which was now around 50 or so metres to our port side and went to go fwd to attend to the mast before it caused more damage as we rolled around in sea's upto 2metres.
The crew on the FV then started shouting at us to jump in the water and they would pick us up... No F***ing way!!!
So I eventually freed the rigging and deep 6'd the mast.. all the while the crew was shouting for us to abandon ship however by this time I had realised it was not a mast failure but a collision from something one of the Spaniards had said.
Anyway, as a result abandoning was not an option.. the hulls were dry, the forecast was favourable with winds dropping to 5kts and sea calming so I was prepared to chance motoring the 70nm to Viviero, in reverse if need be.
This is when the FV said they would tow us in which they did in reverse as we had nowhere to secure tow lines at the bow anymore.

They admitted they were only keeping an AIS watch despite having radar, claimed we were under motor without steaming lights and the collision was bow on..

We were in fact sailing under 2/3rds reefed Genoa only as I was trying to keep the speed below 6kts as the slamming any faster was breaking up the DIY galley and jarring teeth..
As for a a ship of 123 tons doing 10+kts and a combined speed of 16kts head on would have demolished us, cutting between the hulls despite their claim to have hit reverse a minute before the strike.
My take is they came across our bow from our port side and we struck their beam at a shallow angle and bouncing off, the shock resulting in a port shroud to fail and the mast to fall striking the beam and stbd bow.

Anyway.. we berthed around 3am the next morning and by the time I woke and got ready to walk round to the fish Dock to look at the ship they had gone, so no scrapes to photograph etc.

Another thing that threw doubt to their story was, they produced a gps track that was allegedly of the moments before and after which showed the track till the collision and after.. it was a continuous track showing that after the strike they carried on and looped back round to where we we drifting..
If they hit reverse as claimed would logic not dictate one continues backing off till clear then hold position till decisions of further action were reached... zero reason to go back into fwd and pass us then do a wide 360 to come back.
This was a large highly manouverable FV.. as demonstrated when they brought us alongside.

The insurers will reach a backdoor deal of 50-50.