Coast Goard hovercraft hits unlit anchored sailboat with no radar reflector.

[deblen]

My humble opinion based on "facts" in Jackdale's first post:



1. The CGV was operating under Rule 5-proper eyeball watch of the horizon.
2. Under Rule 5,the CGV was also required to watch all of his fitted electronic aids.

3. It was dark.Therefore,the CGV was operating under Rule 6-Safe speed so as to be able to stop or maneuver in time/distance to avoid collision.
Rule 6a (1)-Conditions of restricted visibility and Rule 6b (iv)-possibility of radar not picking up small target.

4.Rule 7c. Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty radar information.
5.Since it was dark,the CGV was operating under Rule 19a-Low visibility& not in "eyesight" of the waters ahead and Rule19b-operating at an unsafe speed for conditions (of visibility).




The anchored boat was not following Rule 30-exhibit anchor light-unless he was < 7 Meters (25ft),in which case an anchor light is not required in Canada-Rule30e.


Have at me. Len

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

That's pretty clear! And yet, I find it hard to believe that anyone was maintaining a radar watch, for at short range (say <200 m) almost any radar will pick up a 26 foot frp hulled yacht with an alloy mast and s/s rigging, and at the reported speed of 8 kts, that is time enough to maneuver.

Knowing Ganges, it is rife with marker floats for crab pots and moorings, and oftentimes, logs; it is also fringed with numerous drying rocks - all of these can show up as weak targets on a well-tuned radar with relatively flat water, and could normally be ignored by a hovercraft - as it will float above them. Given that hovercraft are notoriously difficult to manoeuvre (insane lee-way and all), I would guess that any piddly radar paint that doesn't coincide with a charted hazard and doesn't have a light, would be treated as something that can be driven over.

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Knowing Ganges, it is rife with marker floats for crab pots and moorings, and oftentimes, logs; it is also fringed with numerous drying rocks - all of these can show up as weak targets on a well-tuned radar with relatively flat water, and could normally be ignored by a hovercraft - as it will float above them. Given that hovercraft are notoriously difficult to manoeuvre (insane lee-way and all), I would guess that any piddly radar paint that doesn't coincide with a charted hazard and doesn't have a light, would be treated as something that can be driven over.

That’s a ridiculous excuse and if true then why not just navigate by charts and forget the radar completely.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

That’s a ridiculous excuse and if true then why not just navigate by charts and forget the radar completely.

It's a supposition, not an excuse - I wasn't driving the bleeding hovercraft. If the visibility was clear, then it also would have been perfectly reasonable to assume they would have been driving by Mk 1 eyeball and not staring at the radar. There is a reason the rules require lights.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Knowing Ganges, it is rife with marker floats for crab pots and moorings, and oftentimes, logs; it is also fringed with numerous drying rocks - all of these can show up as weak targets on a well-tuned radar with relatively flat water, and could normally be ignored by a hovercraft - as it will float above them. Given that hovercraft are notoriously difficult to manoeuvre (insane lee-way and all), I would guess that any piddly radar paint that doesn't coincide with a charted hazard and doesn't have a light, would be treated as something that can be driven over.

It's 5:27 pm and it is dark out. I live across Satellite Channel and see Saltspring Island.

BUT...I know Ganges Harbour quite well, too. Way inside the harbour there are tons of streetlights. There is a seaplane base. There are public docks, restaurants, a big Thrifty food store, a huge hardware store painted white and well lit... You should get the message here. It is not some dark and unlit harbour.

It gets very narrow at the northwest end which is where I presume the medivac was coming from. If not, it may have been from a tad further south, still pretty well lit.

But using radar in the harbour for finding your way makes NO sense there, because there are boats all over. All over. There are legal mooring buoys on the east side of the harbour, just off the seaplane runway/taxiway. It's always eyeball navigation in that harbour, day or night. If you're looking at a screen you are NOT looking out the window.

I've had real trouble getting into the Ganges Marina simply because some bozo was coming out and not looking where he was going, taking up too much of an already-narrow side fairway at the ends of the docks, and at a turn. Think of freeway traffic congestion...

I also understand hovercraft ops. I rode one in Antarctica in the early 90s. Fun but pretty unstable at low speed.

An unlit boat in the wrong place WOULD be a hazard.

I feel sorry for the hovercraft skipper. We all know the Colregs arguments, front and back and that no accident has (almost) ever been without sharing some % of responsibility, regardless of if it's 99-1 to 50-50. Never, as far as I've ever read here 100:0.

Suggest you look at a chart to see how crazy it really is in there.

Photo is looking north to south, town is to the right (west). The boats at anchor or on mooring balls are behind the bigger motor yacht, center left of photo. Ganges Marina is the docks on the right, the seaplane base is right south of those docks.

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It's a supposition, not an excuse - I wasn't driving the bleeding hovercraft. If the visibility was clear, then it also would have been perfectly reasonable to assume they would have been driving by Mk 1 eyeball and not staring at the radar. There is a reason the rules require lights.

Look I get it and fully agree that lights should be on. My point is that if you are using radar with the mentality that you don’t react to what the radar shows then that is a fault. Radar is there to show the unexpected not the expected. Only the guys on the hovercraft know if the radar truly didn’t show the sailboat.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by GreenWave

...........................
..........................
Only the guys on the hovercraft know if the radar truly didn’t show the sailboat.

True, but how many of us have heard that FG boats don't show up on radar? And the range had to be damn close in that harbour.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I feel sorry for the hovercraft skipper. We all know the Colregs arguments, front and back and that no accident has (almost) ever been without sharing some % of responsibility, regardless of if it's 99-1 to 50-50. Never, as far as I've ever read here 100:0.

Suggest you look at a chart to see how crazy it really is in there.

A power boat hit an unlit sailboat at anchor in Shuswap Lake. The sailboat skipper left the dock knowing that his anchor light was not functioning. The sailboat owner was found completely at fault. I cannot find the report, but will post if I can.

Ganges Harbour Chart

[Oeanda]

Maybe I missed it but despite the title and the linked article I don’t see where the info comes from that the sailboat had ‘no radar reflector’.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

BUT...I know Ganges Harbour quite well, too. Way inside the harbour there are tons of streetlights. There is a seaplane base. There are public docks, restaurants, a big Thrifty food store, a huge hardware store painted white and well lit... You should get the message here. It is not some dark and unlit harbour.

....

But using radar in the harbour for finding your way makes NO sense there, because there are boats all over. All over. There are legal mooring buoys on the east side of the harbour, just off the seaplane runway/taxiway. It's always eyeball navigation in that harbour, day or night. If you're looking at a screen you are NOT looking out the window.

In a way, a well-lit harbor presents its own challenges. On the one hand I can more easily pick out movement that occludes the background lighting, but on the other the darker areas are more pronounced. SF Bay seems not particularly dark, yet I'll still run radar to have warning of things that might not be obvious to the eye. (Or to know what's really going on when a bunch of fishing boats are cruising through imitating mobile suns with their lightbars.)

[jtsailjt]

We’ll probably never know the % fault ascribed to each skipper but it sure would be interesting to know. However, I think the greater question is what exactly is a schlemozzle? [emoji6]. Actually I can tell from the context but that’s a new one on me!

[deblen]

Further to my earlier post:


I feel sorry for the CG skipper also,but he must share the blame.



The unlit sailboat was definitely a major contributing factor.


However,the CGV hit the sailboat because the CGV did not see the sailboat,either by eyeball or by electronic means.


Therefore the CGV is guilty of a poor watch and/or was operating at a speed where it was "outrunning" their view of the waters ahead-excessive speed for the low vis (darkness) conditions.



Rule 19.


Cheers/Len

[TrentePieds]

As another who knows Ganges Harbour. I consider it absolutely daft to be under way in Ganges without observing Rule 5 scrupulously, day or night, fancy electronic doodads or no fancy electronic doodads! The Mark I Eyeball rules! There isn't room for error in GH with all the "stuff", including abandoned boats, to be found there.

Here is a clip of CCG Siyay inbound to Vancouver Harbour and subsequently approaching and beaching on our principal bathing beach called Spanish Banks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JhQDSg539Q

You will see that she is not a small vessel. You will see that she must be a bitch to maneuver in tight quarters, since she has no lateral surface to speak of below the water and her steering in done by the slipstream passing over aerial rudders a la aircraft. The two rotating "cowl vents" forward serve the function a bow thruster would serve in a conventional craft.

I don't know any of her skippers, but I think we can take it as given that they are NOT ignorant men, nor careless mariners, and that they know ALL the little harbours on this coast very well indeed. And all the COLREGS! Knowing those harbours and many solitary beaches within their operating radius from YVR at the mouth of the Fraser River (where Siyay is based), is, after all, their business - their ONLY business! The sundry hovercraft have no other function than SAR!

8 knots in GH may seem exorbitant to thee and me, but I will give you odds that if you or I, doing a medevac of a critically sick or injured patient, out of GH across Trinomial Channel, out through Active Pass and across Georgia Strait to YVR, a distance of some 30 NM, we might feel the need to lean on the throttles to the extent possible. In open water, even in a chop, Siyay will do 50 knots, which is why she is often a better choice than an aircraft would be.

So having gone from White Rock to Point Atkinson at 45 knots – only once, thank God – I have some sympathy for Siyay's skipper. 8 knots was, I would judge, minimum maneuvering speed if she was to make headway at all, and there was, after all, only a suggestion of a collission because whoever was on the helm of Siyay reacted betimes to avert a major bump!

So perhaps none of us who weren't there should be too judgmental :-)!

TrentePieds

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by requiem

In a way, a well-lit harbor presents its own challenges. On the one hand I can more easily pick out movement that occludes the background lighting, but on the other the darker areas are more pronounced. SF Bay seems not particularly dark, yet I'll still run radar to have warning of things that might not be obvious to the eye. (Or to know what's really going on when a bunch of fishing boats are cruising through imitating mobile suns with their lightbars.)

SCALE is critically important.


I lived/sailed in SF from 1978 to 2016 and since moving here in 2016 have been to Ganges often.


The only thing pertinent here is background lights. Point is in the postage stamp of GH compared to SF is not a "fair" comparison unless it's ONLY background lights. GH is well lit compared to SF Bay.


Just for those who don't know both.


GH - 300-500 meters across at the N end. SF Bay is 5 kilometers "round".

[boatpoker]

I once came within a couple of feet of hitting a police boat in Lake Ontario in dense fog. Their 24' RIB did not show up on my radar til they were a couple of hundred feet away. And Yes my radar was properly tuned as taught in my 11 week radar/ARPA/MARPA course.

I didn't see any information on the hull material of the sailing vessel. If it was a wooden boat it may not have shown up til' within spitting range and if it was FRP, same thing if the bow was pointed at the radar.

Not excusing anyone, just provinding an opinion on Radar effectiveness.