Near collision - two navy ships - San Diego

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

What collision ?

Shoot, I don't understand what the hell that sentence is even supposed to mean.

[requiem]

From the videos it certainly seems the primary cause was Harpers Ferry failing to comply with the Inland Rules by not keeping to the starboard side of the channel.

Of note, the audio was reported as delayed by an unknown amount, so it's unclear at what timepoint the VHF calls were made.

I'd also mention that both vessels appear able to navigate outside the channel. Harper's Ferry draws only 21', and Momsen 31'. I don't know their policies on under-keel clearance, but from a glance at a USACE survey I believe even the Momsen had sufficient clearance.

[El Pinguino]

Better vid elsewhere - seems Momsen had only just embarked her pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s18O_iAlKE

[El Pinguino]

Best I have seen yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3ttxrzu_3U

Must have been a fun moment for the pilot on Momsen as he stepped into the wheelhouse.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Despite the various admonitions to not use VHF to negotiate passings, in this case it sounds like the vhf declaration of the port turn was essential (as was the concurrence of the other vessel).

Seems to me that they made a good outcome from a bad meeting.

Jim

Jim, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a little bit of misinformation widely promulgated on the net is even more dangerous.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Shoot, I don't understand what the hell that sentence is even supposed to mean.

A collision occurred on the English Channel. The resultant crown enquiry was very definite that vhf should not be used to negotiate passing arrangements especially where those passing arrangements violate COLRegs.

The U.K. MCA then issued a strongly word directive stressing that passing negotiations should not be done by vhf. A point the crown judge stressed particularly

[requiem]

The case of Occidental & O.S.S. Co. v. Smith comes to mind; where the Oceanic was entering the Golden Gate and proposed a two-whistle pass, and despite apparent agreement she still collided with the City of Chester.

Here's a bit from the US Ninth circuit; this was written in 1896 and so predates VHF and the current set of rules...

This case affords an opportunity which should not be lost for emphasizing another important rule for preventing collisions, which must be observed by navigators. This is found in article 21 of the international rules, above referred to, and article 25 of the act of August 19, 1890 (1 Supp.Rev.St. (2d Ed.)781-788), which reads as follows: 'In narrow channels every steam vessel shall, when it is safe and practicable, keep to that side of the fair way or mid-channel which lies on the starboard side of such vessel. ' The statutes of California contain a similar provision, to which reference was made in the opinion of the district judge. This rule was violated by the Oceanic in entering the Golden Gate on the occasion of the disaster involved in these suits, and the only excuse offered for taking the north side is that it is customary for large vessels in entering to take the north side. We cannot find in the testimony or argument of counsel any attempt to give a reason for the alleged custom, and, if it be true that there is such a custom, it is bad in principle, and contrary to law, and the courts will not recognize it as affording any ground for exempting a vessel from liabilities incurred by disregarding the law.