David vs Goliath

[john540]

"I am wondering if the speed of MF through the water helped suck SB into them?" Wow, with everything else to worry about, and now this! I'm gonna have to drive slower!

[bstreep]

Like I said. Look at the LAST of the photos. Loading 17 people into that tender SHOWS that the owner of MF just doesn't care about rules or regs. Proof of arrogance, to me. In court:

"Mr. Perkins, is that your tender?"
"Yes"
"How many people were in that tender?"
"Uh. 17?"
"What is the capacity of that tender?"
"Why I don't know."
"Would it surprise you if I told you 10?"
"How many many life jackets were on that tender?"
"Well, I don't know."
"The answer is 10. Do you ALWAYS ignore maritime laws and regulations? You seem to show a pattern of it."

[imagine2frolic]

Originally Posted by john540

"I am wondering if the speed of MF through the water helped suck SB into them?" Wow, with everything else to worry about, and now this! I'm gonna have to drive slower!

I don't understand your remark. Do you not know that even a stationary object can suck you into it?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by David M

Do we know that that the stand on vessel did not alter her course radically? No. All we have are photos. No video...not much really except for written descriptions from eyewitnesses who said she tacked onto starboard. Did she tack onto starboard giving MF enough time to get out of the way?
I don't think we know that.

From the eyewitness reports, the small sailboat was pulling some radical turns right before the collision.

From the obvious direction of the wind and the reports it is clear that MF was on a port tack and SB was on a starboard tack. The lay of SB's sails corroborates this fact.

Its NOT like the small boat was on starboard for quite some time allowing MF to assess the situation to allow the small boat to pass clear.

BS! There is no way for you to make that assumption from the information given.

My guess is the small boat wanted to get right up close to take pictures like every other small boat out there, and they screwed up.

Conjecture. Their are few facts we have - 1 MF was on a port tack; 2 SB was on a stbd tack and 3 MF passed too close to SB. Anything else, including my own opinion, is purely speculative.

Kevin

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by xymotic

1) I don't think it's fair to say Perkins is an imbecile, when maltese falcon sailed into the bay he had HUNDREDS of other boats around and literally dozens within 200 feet at any given time. What's he supposed to do?

There is a difference between vessels sailing in the same direction (overtaking and being overtaken) and vessels oncoming - to suggest that 200 ft separation is safe given the size of his vessel and over 20-knot closing speed suggests to me that Perkins is an imbecile. That his 200 feet was actually closer to 50 feet makes that assumption an absolute certainty.

2) I got a different takaway from Perkin's statement. I got that MF made a correction large enough to 'try' and pass 200 feet from the guy, for whatever reason it was less than 200' but the point is MF took action to avoid collision and SB did not.

Then guy altered course into MF.

SB was the "stand-on" vessel - she was supposed to hold her course and speed unless it looked as if MF wasn't acting in accordance with the rules, then SB was required to do whatever possible to avoid or minimize the collision (as in a hard turn to starboard, that's obviously not a tack).

3) I think that having a pilot aboard, and a corroborating independant witness in the form of the photographer should carry a bit of weight in deciding fault.

For one thing, we don't know that the pilot wasn't the same one who ran Cosco Busan into the Bay bridge a few months back. You would be extremely surprised by what is the minimum required certification to be a pilot. The fact that he owns a 40 ft Beneteau is supposed to impress me - I think not. If he thinks that the passing arrangements between two 40 footers going 5 knots will work with a 300 footer going 20 then he too is an imbecile. The photographer admits to not knowing much about sailing and that he was only aware of the situation immediately prior to the collision (about the time he started snapping pictures of it); he didn't know what transpired before then, nor was he on the bridge of (or even aboard) MF so he has no idea what transpired after.

4) I can imagine that as they passed SB was not trimmed well, maybe they were already at full rudder. MF took all the wind from the jib and their main steered them up into MF. But the photog says they tacked not rounded up.

Look at the sails and tell me they were tacking - as has been pointed out, there was no-one on their sheets, so it doesn't look like they were tacking.

5)regardless of the rules, I certainly don't go out and expect a cruise ship or tanker to get out of my way when I'm out taking pictures of it. I think Falcon was in the right, and I think the other guy should be transferring assets into his kid's names like crazy. I bet his 500k or million dollar insurance policy is looking pretty meager. They might spend a mill in attorney's fees just to argue over what temperture was that day.

There's been comments about where SB's crew were facing , where their hands were on the wheel, etc etc --- has it escaped everyone's attention that neither man in the pictures has a camera????

6) Leaving the scene of an accident was a very, very bad move

.

See my previous comments about this - it's not an automobile accident; there's no need to stop and exchange insurance information. SB's first priority would be to ensure they were safe.

Kevin

[Lodesman]

Dan,

Entirely plausible and succinct - good analysis.

Originally Posted by catty

MF attempted to pass clear by 200 feet according to accounts. Mmmmmm. That's all of just over half a boat length. Is it only me thinking around half a boat-length clearance is too flaming close .WTF.

You're not alone. I agree with your other points too.

Bill Streep,

Agreed. I saw those photos and it bugged the heck out of me. I worry that the owner of Stand By is going to get railroaded in court, like he is on the forum. It seems from an outside observer's perspective, that money often buys justice in the US - I hope the powers that be act ethically and impartially.

Kevin

[dacust]

Originally Posted by bstreep

Like I said. Look at the LAST of the photos. Loading 17 people into that tender SHOWS that the owner of MF just doesn't care about rules or regs. Proof of arrogance, to me. In court:

"Mr. Perkins, is that your tender?"
"Yes"
"How many people were in that tender?"
"Uh. 17?"
"What is the capacity of that tender?"
"Why I don't know."
"Would it surprise you if I told you 10?"
"How many many life jackets were on that tender?"
"Well, I don't know."
"The answer is 10. Do you ALWAYS ignore maritime laws and regulations? You seem to show a pattern of it."

From the Pascoe Web Site.

The 7 meter is rated for 12 persons. Not much of a stretch to think a 9.5 meter might be rated for 17 or a little above. I may have the wrong model, though. That's all I could find. But what I found makes me unwilling to state that having 17 people in that boat constitutes proof of arrogance or that they don't care about regulations.

-dan

[RunningFish]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Dan,

Agreed. I saw those photos and it bugged the heck out of me. I worry that the owner of Stand By is going to get railroaded in court, like he is on the forum. It seems from an outside observer's perspective, that money often buys justice in the US - I hope the powers that be act ethically and impartially.

Kevin

So far, I've read here that Perkins is an imbecile, and that he has a small member. Seems like the prejudice and railroading is working both ways here.

[imagine2frolic]

He can't be too much of an embicile. Look at what he has accomplished........$billions

[dacust]

Originally Posted by RunningFish

So far, I've read here that Perkins is an imbecile, and that he has a small member. Seems like the prejudice and railroading is working both ways here.

Actually, the courts work in a disturbingly similar way as the discussions in here. The two sides trying to railroad the other. If you take all the posts in this thread and combine it all, it covers every side. It's only the individuals that are biased. But by being biased, they sometimes point a reasonable doubt that someone biased the other way wouldn't have thought of.

So, I totally agree with you, but viewed another way, the discussion is productive.

-dan

[imagine2frolic]

This is an example of what MF deals with. Not to take MF's side, but sooner, or later someone is going to make the BONEHEAD move, and a bad one. She is pinched between 2 non thinkers, and where would MF go in this instance? This is the day before the accident.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by RunningFish

So far, I've read here that Perkins is an imbecile, and that he has a small member. Seems like the prejudice and railroading is working both ways here.

I've made no comments on the size of his member. As to the other point, Perkins himself on a public forum stated that he felt 200 ft was sufficient to effect a safe passing. Only an imbecile would suggest that is a sufficient margin of safety, given that one vessel is 300 ft long and the vessels are closing at, or greater than, 20 knots. It is a mathematical certainty that the passing distance, that Mr Perkins estimated at 200 feet, was nowhere near 200 feet - and was probably around 50 feet. While he may be a brilliant computer scientist and businessman, I believe him to be an incompetent sailor - this is just my opinion, based solely on what he said and what I could mathematically deduce. With large yachts, the term "more money than brains" is unfortunately apropos more often than not. If we wanted to be prejudicial, we could bring up the fact that Mr Perkins has previously been convicted of manslaughter in a yacht collision.

[john540]

I wasn't there, and I don't know which rule/rules apply, but common sense and my experience sailing my boat tells me that someone the MF is either not at all to blame, or only slightly to blame. And many of the posts to the contrary here seem to be motivated by jealosy of Perkins' success/wealth, etc, not by cold rational analysis. Of the ones that aren't motivated by jealosy, many are unfamiliar with the San Francisco Bay and it's operating environment, and many are confusing racing rules and tactics with right of way rules, and right of way rules with liability. Just because someone else may be infringing on my right of way doesn't give me the right to ram them.

[imagine2frolic]

The biggest rule being that all must do everything possible to avoid harm. Obviously here someone did not do enough, but WHO?

[dacust]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

The biggest rule being that all must do everything possible to avoid harm. Obviously here someone did not do enough, but WHO?

I may be forgetting a post from somewhere, but from all the ones I recall, yours is probably the one that most accurately states what we know and doesn't venture off into speculation. Mine included.

-dan