David vs Goliath

[Ex-Calif]

They say a sail was torn on MF. I reckon the sail is worth the value of the SB!

The SB also has more than just a paint scraping on the bow.

Regardless - It appears from the photo sequence that SB had rights. That SB had a chance to avoid the collision and because collision occured SB did not have proper lookout.

MF did not have rights, MF was struck by the stand on vessel because MF did not alter course in time. If MF was unable to maneuver to avoid right of way vessels, maybe she should have been going slower and carrying less sail.

They are both at fault IMO.

BTW - One of the responsibilities of operating a 300 foot yacht is knowing how to maneuver it. I am not gonna buy the idea that because the 300 foot boat is "less" maneuverable, her rights increase. Judging ny the sail she was carrying she was going way too fast for the crowded conditions on the bay.

[Chief Engineer]

Any one with a lick of sense would know not to sail that close to another vessel.

Why would you want to sail into that huge wind shadow?

Sorry, some call it "might is right"...In this case I would call it reckless, stupid on the part of the smaller vessel......ya just stay outta the way of the big boys.

[delmarrey]

and #8

Rule 7: Risk of Collision

I'll bet the SB is going to loose. Who hit who situation. The maneuverability of the SB is greater then that of the MF and the MF actually dwarfs the size of the SF bay. Heck, a 40' has to tack quit often in the bay let alone that monster.

8 (e) I can see it now. On the MF: "OK, all you ladies run up and take down the sails so we can avoid that little thing out there. I think it's a boat???"

[Pelagic]

The economic issue of who is to blame is immaterial as SB’s insurance (if they have any) may not even cover the cost of masking materials for the paint job as MF is probably using Awlgrip which cannot be patched and buffed for a spot repair.

If the paint job is 1-3 years old then their insurance would have to pay for a complete all-round paint job (no cut lines) costing around USD 800k plus… plus…plus…

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

MF did not have rights, MF was struck by the stand on vessel because MF did not alter course in time. If MF was unable to maneuver to avoid right of way vessels, maybe she should have been going slower and carrying less sail.

They are both at fault IMO.

BTW - One of the responsibilities of operating a 300 foot yacht is knowing how to maneuver it. I am not gonna buy the idea that because the 300 foot boat is "less" maneuverable, her rights increase. Judging ny the sail she was carrying she was going way too fast for the crowded conditions on the bay.

Dan if SB did indeed tack in towards MF at close quarters (by altering to port) to have a “look-see” then why do you consider MF at fault? MF’s speed would not have been excessive and I guarantee they would have had a good look-out.

Superyachts are used to other tourist yachts sailing erratic courses to get up close. Aircraft carriers and subs have that same problem which is why they use picket boats to keep them at a distance.

The Captain of MF once seeing an erratic short closing tack would have fully expected SB to tack away. Perhaps he should have sounded “Danger” but in the last 20 seconds any course change he made to Starboard might have killed those onboard SB…so he held course so as not to confuse SB and prayed that the skipper knew what he was doing.

Finally at point of impact the Captain should have turned slightly towards SB to minimize damage by not swinging his stern into SB, (which might have rolled them).

Might is NOT Right, but you have to respect them which SB obviously did not..

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Dan if SB did indeed tack in towards MF at close quarters (by altering to port) to have a “look-see” then why do you consider MF at fault? MF’s speed would not have been excessive and I guarantee they would have had a good look-out.

Facts not yet in evidence

The comment that SB "tacked" into MF is in the media and I don't know who put it there - hence my cynical "Spin City" comment. The media has also latched on to the "Little Boat Hit the Big Boat" line - which technically it did.

I am going by the photo sequence and some of the comments made. The problem with photo evidence is you don't get the just before this and just after this. In fact someone said that SB was on port tack - Which the photo shows he was after the collision.

My comment about MF speed is based on heel and wake. She's moving along pretty good. I don't know if there are any speed limits in the bay or not.

Our channel has a 5kt limit for commercial boats.

Personally - I give everything significantly bigger than me room. I look way up channel and way down channel and adjust my timing when possible so I don't have to do big course changes and neither do they. When it's close I recognize that I am vastly more maneuverable than these guys.

I make my course corrections big, obvious and early. It's better to be right than "dead right"

I also respect that I am sailing for fun and most of the bigger traffic is sailing/steaming for a living.

BTW - My prediction is that this boils down to who has the best lawyers. The guy with a $100k boat or the guy with a $190,000k boat. Wanna guess?

Life ain't fair...

[swagman]

I'm with the majority on this - was the smaller yachts helmsman blind or simply ignorant to run her so close as to collide with such a giant?
In my opinion, it was terrible seamanship on their part.

And those who infer MF should have attempted to luff right up or crash tack are not being realistic. One can see by the luff of her foresail she has gone up in an attempt to minimimse contact well before the other yacht hit, and none of us can see what might have prevented her doing more. I'd guess she had it agreed with the authorities she would sail in and judged it was safer all round to take the hit than risk loosing the rig.

Both were ultimately to blame, but the smaller guy could have avoided it if they were watching. Really really daft accident.

John

[rodney_k]

This was posted on the photo site by Tom Perkins, owner of Maltese Falcon and aboard on Saturday when the collision occured:

"The name of the 40ft boat is "Stand By."

A few minutes before this photo sequence, the Falcon had turned to port, to give the right of way to the smaller yacht, which was to leeward on the starboard tack. The "Stand By" was originally on a roughly reciprocal course to that of the Falcon. Prior to the photos shown here, "Stand By" was bearing away, and the two yachts were on safe courses to pass roughly with a distance of 200 feet separation. After the "Stand By" had sailed past the Falcon's bow, the smaller vessel suddenly rounded up, possibly to tack in order to follow the Falcon, when she lost control, and with her main sheeted hard in, the smaller boat was unable to bear away to avoid a collision.

A San Francisco Bay Pilot, was on the Falcon's bridge overseeing the Falcon's course at all times. The pilot is also an experienced sailor and sail boat owner. Because of the Falcon's tonnage, a licenced pilot is required whenever the yacht is underway, approaching, or inside the Bay.

The "Stand By" did not stop after the collision. The Falcon furled her sails and pursued the 40 footer, under power, in order to determine her name and registration number. The pilot radioed the U.S. Coast Guard who intercepted the "Stand By" and boarded her.

The accident was caused by "Stand By's" sudden change of course, which was much to quick to permit the Falcon to respond. The Falcon sustained damage to hull, capping rail, superstructure and main lower topsail, but fortunately there were no injuries to persons aboard either vessel.

Tom Perkins "

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by rodney_k

...... The Falcon sustained damage to hull, capping rail, superstructure and main lower topsail, but fortunately there were no injuries to persons aboard either vessel.

Tom Perkins "

Oooops that is going to cost

[Lodesman]

I don't really expect the owner of MF to admit to any blame on a website, even if he did share the blame. It does answer one nagging question I had - from the photo sequence it appeared that MF was altering course to port; he confirmed that. That said, I don't think the alteration was at all bold, and perhaps was not readily apparent to SB - which gives a possible reason for their last-minute turn. Note what Mr Perkins says:

Prior to the photos shown here, "Stand By" was bearing away, and the two yachts were on safe courses to pass roughly with a distance of 200 feet separation. After the "Stand By" had sailed past the Falcon's bow, the smaller vessel suddenly rounded up, possibly to tack in order to follow the Falcon, when she lost control, and with her main sheeted hard in, the smaller boat was unable to bear away to avoid a collision.

So he claims that MF is passing SB green to green at 200 ft distance and has passed their bow when SB turns 90 degrees and t-bones them. In order for that to happen, SB would need to make the hard turn then cover a distance of 200 feet while MF only moved about 150 ft forward (given the collision at about the midpoint of MF). If that is the case then MF needed to be going about half the speed of SB - complete BS!
To suggest that 200 ft is a safe passing distance given their size and speed shows to me that this guy is an imbecile.

Kevin

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I don't really expect the owner of MF to admit to any blame on a website, even if he did share the blame. It does answer one nagging question I had - from the photo sequence it appeared that MF was altering course to port; he confirmed that. That said, I don't think the alteration was at all bold, and perhaps was not readily apparent to SB - which gives a possible reason for their last-minute turn. Note what Mr Perkins says:



So he claims that MF is passing SB green to green at 200 ft distance and has passed their bow when SB turns 90 degrees and t-bones them. In order for that to happen, SB would need to make the hard turn then cover a distance of 200 feet while MF only moved about 150 ft forward (given the collision at about the midpoint of MF). If that is the case then MF needed to be going about half the speed of SB - complete BS!
To suggest that 200 ft is a safe passing distance given their size and speed shows to me that this guy is an imbecile.

Kevin

I got a different impression from reading that. I figure "roughly reciprocal course" means they were approaching each other roughly head on. After passing the bow, SB then turns into MF, presumably intending to get to a parallel course to stay along side to look or take pictures. They lost control and didn't come about as fast as they intended and made contact. During this, MF was bearing away to port to allow more room.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that the way I read MF's owner's description, I think that is what he was saying.

-dan

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by rodney_k

The "Stand By" did not stop after the collision. The Falcon furled her sails and pursued the 40 footer, under power, in order to determine her name and registration number. The pilot radioed the U.S. Coast Guard who intercepted the "Stand By" and boarded her.

"

IMHO this is an indication of who was at fault, and knew it.

[Connemara]

Have been following this and the consensus seems to be that the two boats were on parallel courses and the smaller boat tacked into MF.

The alternative view is that the smaller boat was on starboard tack and failed to alter course, thereby T-boning MF.

I think it's bad seamanship, either way.

1) if the smaller boat tacked into MF, the skipper must have been blind. Even if we assume there was some sort of issue with the tack that slowed it down, it's still dumb. If you want to go the other way in that situation a) depower your sails and wait for the big boat to get out of the way or b) jibe and take the long way round.

2) if the smaller boat was on starboard tack and just kept going, thereby T-boning MF ... well, what can you say? I guess that headsail must have obscured the skipper's view. Of a really, really, really big obstacle.

Connemara

[David M]

My guess? It will be ruled 10% MF's fault, 90% SB's fault.

The yard bill will probably be the insurance policies maximum allowable claim with Perkins coming after the owner personally to pay the difference.

That was just completely stupid seamanship for that to ever happen.

It reminds me of a squirrel running out in front of a car...its not a whole lot different.

[Chief Engineer]

Hey......squirrels have more sense....they still scare the bejeezus outta me at times.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by David M

It reminds me of a squirrel running out in front of a car...its not a whole lot different!

But what if the squirrel is the stand on vessel...