High speed ferry collision south of Jersey

[Starovich]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

Ohh Biffer..
Contrary to what people want to believe on here, those radar sets on the Vitesse would have been watched very attentively indeed by both the Master AND C/O.
Simon

Well, in which case how did they hit the ship!?!!

I know they SHOULD have, but I know from personal experience (i worked on a 350 pax cruise ship for and spent long periods on the bridge) that this is not always the case and I've seen times when no-one was looking at the radar or even looking forward, and were on the opposite bridge wing some 50+feet away.

I am not saying anyone on the cat did anything wrong, however, defending the position of the crew is hard when they do have all the nav aids including multiple sets of Eyes, and yet they still managed to hit something the size of a 38 ton truck!

[Gotchidad]

Without wishing to comment on the incident itself other than to express my condolences to the family of the fisherman, I am slightly surprised that no one has referred to any guidance more precise than the Colregs.

In the aviation world airlines develop their own standard operating procedures to give their pilots greater certainty between do's and don'ts in respect of weather conditions, equipment serviceability, crew currency, and sometimes destinations and routes. The procedures are often specific to an aircraft type to take account of different capabilities. All of this cannot, in the final analysis, take responsibility away from the Captain to decide what is the right course of action in marginal circumstances, but it can certainly help to bring more objectivity to difficult decisions and mitigate the influence of commercial pressures.

I would have anticipated that the Master of a sea going passenger carrying ship would have had a clearer indication of what (his employers consider) is a safe speed to be travelling, in a particular vessel, in conditions of measurable reduced visibility. Without such guidance, surely it would be extremely difficult to defend a health and safety type claim?

[simonnud]

[QUOTE=bosun;394648] In my opinion as a sailor and powerboater someone should have gone to jail for a long time for manslaughter. Three sailors drowned,all were wearing lifejackets all of which worked.
The ship was not keeping a proper lookout.

Three experience sailors managed to hit a ferry that was lit up like a Christmas tree !!

There are two sides to every story as in the case of the Ouzo we only know one side in this more recent case we will have two.

very sad story thank goodness there are survivors

[Zubenelgenubi]

Not directly related to this particular case but interesting how people have different views on similar topics in different circumstances.

http://rib.net/forum/showthread.php?...ight=yachtsmen

[wavelength]

http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/520579/fre...h-condor-ferry

[Hambleite]

Why does it always take a tragic incident such as this to highlight a dangerous situation that is blatantly obvious to anyone with a more than a gram of seamanship?

I suspect that the maritime industry could learn something from the aviation industry.

I agree with Gotchidad in that in the aviation world there are very clearly defined rules and regulations with regards to weather minima and separation (collision avoidance).

Whilst it is ok to fly down a valley at 420kts at 250ft in ‘good’ weather this would be suicidal and illegal if flown below a specific and clearly defined visibility minima. If you can’t see what you might hit, then it is illegal to fly. Simple.

In the general aviation world then flying in VFR (visual flight rules) the captain of the aircraft is responsible for his own separation. He looks out the window and sees stuff, hopefully.

If the pilot flies in weather where the minimum visibility cannot be guaranteed then, if qualified, the pilot can fly in cloud, but only under the control of a legally enforcing governing agency. This takes the separation or collision responsibility away from the pilot and onto the governing agency.

The risk of collision is not left to ‘chance’ as would appear to be the case in this sad and tragic collision.

So, an aircraft captain can’t fly safely in fog or cloud using his vision alone for collision avoidance. However, a high speed ferry captain cannot see sufficiently in from of him when travelling in fog but yet is legally (it would appear) allowed to do so. Is this allowed solely on the basis of radar as the primary form of collision avoidance?

If this is the case then why isn’t it a legal requirement for ALL vessels that carry at least one person on board to have a radar reflector that meets a specific specification? The answer is that it is not a requirement. Therefore, vessels travelling at speed, in fog, are effectively leaving their collision avoidance to chance. This is not permissible in the commercial aviation industry, why is it acceptable in the commercial maritime industry?

I’m not suggesting that it would be practical or even desirable to run Ports like commercial airports with complex air traffic control procedures. However, if this isn’t practical then SLOWING DOWN in fog would seem like a far simpler rule to enforce.

[martini]

View from the bridge of the Condor Vitesse:

[YOUTUBE]59ZDSEkkjaw[/YOUTUBE]

[martini]

There might 1 or 2 old gits like me that remember the Condor hydrofoils with great affection. I'm suprised to read that they were in service on the inter island routes up until 1994, although I remember them mostly from the early '80's Bergerac era. Day trips to St. Malo as a nipper were much more fun on these vessels, feeling them rise up several feet out of the water as they came up on the plane!

I do also seem to remember the stink of diesel fumes and the fact you couldn't hear a thing in the cabin, didn't help a lot of people's sea sickness

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=43217

[Erin]

I remember them, but I don't class myself as an old git just yet .

Obviously until we know the outcome of the inquiry it's perhaps a little wrong to speculate too much. However, it is a sad fact of life that all forms of transport can kill people one way or another. Obviously it is a matter of mitigating that as much as possible.

The reality is that the paying members of the public are the ones that are ultimately calling the shots on safety by their demands for fast cheap travel services. The only reason Condor would travel faster than is safe is to meet schedules. The only reason they do that is to maintain their service level and economy. The only reason they do that, is to keep the punters from complaining. Everyone moans when the ferry is late. No-one praises the fact that it didn't wipe out a boat en-route.

[Peachy00]

I remember being pretty ill on the Hydrofoil a few times!

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Erin

The reality is that the paying members of the public are the ones that are ultimately calling the shots on safety by their demands for fast cheap travel services. The only reason Condor would travel faster than is safe is to meet schedules. The only reason they do that is to maintain their service level and economy. The only reason they do that, is to keep the punters from complaining. Everyone moans when the ferry is late. No-one praises the fact that it didn't wipe out a boat en-route.

Trains, spring to mind

[Anchorhandler]

The reality is that the paying members of the public are the ones that are ultimately calling the shots on safety by their demands for fast cheap travel services. The only reason Condor would travel faster than is safe is to meet schedules. The only reason they do that is to maintain their service level and economy. The only reason they do that, is to keep the punters from complaining. Everyone moans when the ferry is late. No-one praises the fact that it didn't wipe out a boat en-route.

Well said also...

Simon

[wavelength]

may be true but its no defence, nor is it even mitigation. My clients want everything doing, as soon as possible, no matter what the weather. I'm the "expert", the skipper, and its on my head if I push the boundaries and the limits to get the job done. Fine if it all goes ok. If it all goes wrong they will step back and it will have been the skipper's decision - nowt to do with them m'lud!

[Steve_B]

A very sad incident caused by some form of human error, which no doubt will come out.

Before people quote other industries as shinning examples of good practice, the avaiation industry is certainly much more regulated, it is far from perfect.

The accident report into the Manx2 crash in Ireland is just out and it finds that the crew commenced an approach no less than 3 times well below their minima and elected not to divert, only to crash killing several persons. There are many more examples.

Due to the sheer volume, we see alot of minor deviations every day

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Hambleite

If this is the case then why isn’t it a legal requirement for ALL vessels that carry at least one person on board to have a radar reflector that meets a specific specification?

I take it you are not familiar with the solas requirements, or aware that in busy shipping areas vessel movements are already controlled by a remote traffic control (vts). Nice rant though. Might be interesting to see the precautions on board the fishing vessel before pointing the finger solely at the ferry.

[Searider]

Originally Posted by Polwart

I take it you are not familiar with the solas requirements, or aware that in busy shipping areas vessel movements are already controlled by a remote traffic control (vts). Nice rant though. Might be interesting to see the precautions on board the fishing vessel before pointing the finger solely at the ferry.

I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying.

Read it again.

[Erin]

Originally Posted by wavelength

may be true but its no defence, nor is it even mitigation. My clients want everything doing, as soon as possible, no matter what the weather. I'm the "expert", the skipper, and its on my head if I push the boundaries and the limits to get the job done. Fine if it all goes ok. If it all goes wrong they will step back and it will have been the skipper's decision - nowt to do with them m'lud!

Sadly the indictment of modern employment in a large organisation goes along the lines of 'if he won't do it, then we'll find another employee that will'. There's enough people wanting a job out there.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Searider

I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying.

Read it again.

OK I'll try... ...yip:

If this is the case then why isn’t it a legal requirement for ALL vessels that carry at least one person on board to have a radar reflector that meets a specific specification? The answer is that it is not a requirement.

So a quick google for the Solas requirements brings up this (which helpfully includes guidance on interpretation from MCA and RYA).

Originally Posted by http://www.crouch-sailing-school.co.uk/new-solas-rules.htm

Regulation 19.2.1.7 – Radar Reflectors All ships shall have, if less then 150grt and if practicable, a radar reflector. RYA Note: The Department of Transport and the Local Regions has given a definition of “if practicable” as, “if it is possible to use a radar reflector on your boat then you must use one”. MCA guidance says that if your boat is bigger than 15m hull length, you should have a radar reflector that complies with the IMO performance standard (ie the reflector should have a radar cross section (RCS) of 10 square metres). Check with the supplier or manufacturer before you buy. If your boat is less than 15m in length, you should fit the largest radar reflector (in terms of RCS) that you can. Whatever size your boat is, you should fit the reflector according to the manufacturer's instructions and as high as possible to maximise its effective range.

Now perhaps we're arguing about the detail - but that makes clear it is already a requirement to have a radar reflector to a stated performance standard on any vessel > 15m - and a radar should be fitted wherever possible on smaller vessels, but given that only quite large passive reflectors
meet the IMO standard then it is clearly not practical to fit them on every vessel with one or more persons on board (e.g. canoe, topper dingy - and even a SR4 would struggle to find a sensible place for an echomax).

I'm sure that the fishing boat would have had a radar reflector on board. Following the Ouzo findings I expect they will be looking at how effective it was and if the Radar equipment on the ferry was appropriately set up to detect it.

If you are operating in thick fog in areas with fast ferry's you might want to ask yourself if you want to rely on their equipment to stop you getting run down? There are three parts to that chain which can fail: (i) your radar reflector doesn't give the return you expected [which worryingly might give you false confidence that ships can 'see' you]; (ii) the ships radar is correctly operating [to pick you out from sea clutter etc]; (iii) there is someone paying attention to the radar on the bridge.

[bosun]

To the guy that implied that three sailors being run down by a ferry is somehow their fault.
They were sailing a small boat at probably 5 knots and were restricted in their ability to manouvre as they were sailing ,hence they cannot sail directly to windward.
The ferry was doing 15 to 20 knots and I believe altered course toward them being unaware of their presence.
This is like trying to row away from a rib ,perhaps you would like to try it and I'll drive the rib?
And I suppose you also think that because they were sailing and not driving a rib that their lives somehow matter less?
If the guy on watch had closed the curtains around the chart table and wore ordinary glasses then maybe he would have seen them.
And if he'd listened to the other crew that thought he'd seen something then maybe they could have been rescued.
Or if they'ed got someone with no qualifications at all but who could be trusted to look out of a window that would have been good too.
I may be over reacting but I was there.

[martini]

The Jersey Fishermans Association and local fish mongers have set up a fund to help the widow and four fatherless children that resulted from this accident.

If anyone feels they want to donate, more details here:

http://www.channel103.com/news/index.php?storyid=9721