High speed ferry collision south of Jersey

[Channel Ribs]

Originally Posted by martini

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

Well posted.

[simonnud]

Originally Posted by bosun

To the guy that implied that three sailors being run down by a ferry is somehow their fault.

Was not impling that it was there fault just that there are two sides to every story. Everyone is required to maintain a proper lookout including sailboats.

Originally Posted by bosun

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?

And i suppose that because i am on a rib forum then i know nothing of sail boats that is where you are very wrong.

Originally Posted by bosun

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.

That is for sure.

Originally Posted by bosun

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.

We have no idea and will never know if the ouzo had a radar reflector or nav lights.

Only last week the lifeboat that i am involed in rescued a sail boat at night and when the skipper was asked if he could turn his nav lights on he said that a seagul had knocked it off so he had none !!! must of been a very clever seagul as it had even taken the wiring out.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by simonnud

We have no idea and will never know if the ouzo had a radar reflector or nav lights.
.

I think if you read the maib report you'll find that ouzo was fitted with both lights and radar reflector, and there was nothing in the behaviour or experience of the crew which would suggest they were not in use. I think the report also says one of the crew did spot a red light albeit too late.

[simonnud]

Originally Posted by Polwart

I think if you read the maib report you'll find that ouzo was fitted with both lights and radar reflector, and there was nothing in the behaviour or experience of the crew which would suggest they were not in use. I think the report also says one of the crew did spot a red light albeit too late.

You are of course abserlutly right however an MCA inspector told me that a baked bean tin would have been as affective as there radar reflector ( the crew would not have known that of course)

We learn alot from accedents like this. Unfortunately it is too late for some. But we owe it to them to learn from then.

[Erin]

It will be interesting to find out whether the Incat was sounding her fog horn, which boat was the give way vessel, and whether the fishing vessel was also sounding her fog signal.

[bosun]

Simonud
You said;-

''three experienced sailors managed to hit a ferry that was lit up like a christmas tree''

Are you really that much of a shit?

Think about it.

[SDGANDER]

Originally Posted by bosun

Simonud
You said;-

''three experienced sailors managed to hit a ferry that was lit up like a christmas tree''

Are you really that much of a shit?

Think about it.

Well IF (and we will never know) the Ouzo did see it why no VHF call, apparently no signal lamp/torch, no anti-collision flares?

Also there is the fact that although they had a close quarters encounter it was brought to the OOW's trial that another ship course would have also made them (and not the POB) liable to be the vessel that hit the Ouzo.

Capt. Hubble was also cleared remember...

SDG

[Dave B]

This is a quote from another forum

"I was aboard condor Vitesse at the time of collision. They were travelling at normal cruising speed and stopped sounding the fog horn soon after leaving St malo. The sea was very calm. (Flat). Visibility was extremely poor 30-40m.
Condor crew seemed disorganised and seemed to be slow to act on passenger sightings. They posted no lookouts on outer decks or lower pods, choosing to obserb only from bridge. Passengers could hear cries for help, and saw fishermen waving on debris but Condor crew didn't seem to see them and repeatedly motored past. Condor crew failed to ready rescue boats. The rescue boats remained untouched until the vessel had been located, it took a furtehr 10 minutes to ready first boat. The second boat remained untouched until first boat had already recovered two crewmembers. I am no expert but I was say that the rescue was poorly executed by condor, although I suspect this was due to their procedures. If so they looking at, beacuse I have no doubt that the timing was an issue. There were also a large number of trainee crew memebers on board who were not on active duty. These people were not deployed to help in any way. I believe there may have also been additional deck crew who were accompanying these trainees, although this is only my assumption, having seen unfamiliar faces. I confess I was in the toilet when the impact occurred, but a friend described how immediately after the collision he looked at the way to see what appeared to be a fishing boat cut in two and sinking. I myself saw the two rescued fishermen standing on the wreckage waving through the fog.. Very haunting ! The vessel in question also had radar ! What could have possibly gone wrong? I know the Condor captain and he is a very experience fast ferry captain who has sailed this route for many years. I would have said he was an excellent captain... so what went wrong? "

http://www.simsl.com/Posters/COLREGSRule6SafeSpeed.pdf


http://www.channelonline.tv/channelo....asp?ID=493614

"C.I. news reports 37 knots in visibility down to 30m. If true, crazy. Incident was in French waters, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a manslaughter charge. "

[bosun]

All fair comments.
Just that the implication that they sailed into the ferry wound me up a bit as having spent a lot of time thinking about what happened and being aware of the conditions that night.
Knowing the fear when the ship that you think you are staying out of the way of suddenly alters course towards you in the dark and the rain when you can only do five knots.
The moment when you see the two white lights directly in line and both the port and starboard lights........
Happened to me at the mouth of the Cleddau (Milford Haven) when I hadn't been sailing long. Bloody great oil tanker doing about 20 knots.
So being nearby when that particular collision happened I'm probably over reacting!
Best forgotten now.

[simonnud]

Originally Posted by bosun

Simonud
You said;-

''three experienced sailors managed to hit a ferry that was lit up like a christmas tree''

Are you really that much of a shit?

Think about it.

I did and I will stand by what I said. It is my opinion.

No wreckage has ever been found and there is a chance that the Ouzo was possibly hit by a tanker which would of been much harder to see.

Everything I say on this forum I am prepared to say to people's face please extend the same curtsey. There is never a need for bad language we don't know who else reads the post we put up!!

[Leapy]

This saga shows no sign of abating and still precious little sign of undisputed and verified fact?

Here's some words pulled from a previous post (my bold)..."seemed disorganised...seemed slow to act...didn't seem to see...I am no expert...I suspect...I suspect (again)...I believe...there may have been...this is only my assumption...a friend described...what appeared to be..."

Conjecture, anecdote, assumption, hypothesis, perhaps, maybe, possibly... In other words, someone's opinion. It might be right, it might be something else.

I'll wait for the report from those qualified to report and in possession of facts. Why don't we all just wait for the report too instead casting accusations in every direction?

[Dave B]

I would not wish to prejudge, and a full investigation is ongoing by the French and Jersey authorities, but in the defence of the fishermen, the Incat is fitted with a very sophisticated radar that will warn the bridge crew of the course of any other vessel that is in contention and at risk of collision. Somebody must be paying attention to the radar for this to work though.

In visibility of around 30 to 40 Mts I would expect any craft to slow to around 10 Kts sound the fog horn at the prescribed intervals ( two mins if I remember) and position look outs on the bridge wings to listen for returning fog horn signals and watch for the possibility of anti collision flares.

To continue at speed in 30 to 40 Mts visibility is like driving at 70 MPH on the M6 with your eyes closed.

[Channel Ribs]

Originally Posted by Dave B

In visibility of around 30 to 40 Mts I would expect any craft to slow to around 10 Kts sound the fog horn...

Immediately after the incident visibility between the position of the incident and St Helier was 15-20 meters.

[Channel Ribs]

Originally Posted by Leapy

I'll wait for the report from those qualified to report and in possession of facts.

Well said.

We know enough to remind ourselves that doing everything possible to see and be seen is essential and that in thick fog the situation can become bad without warning or time to react, beyond that we should indeed wait for the report.

[boristhebold]

Yep I think it's good to wait for the report also, but it's still good to have an interesting debate so I find all views interesting

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by boristhebold

Yep I think it's good to wait for the report also, but it's still good to have an interesting debate so I find all views interesting

Interesting? More like disturbing

[karlT]

Obviously we all await any details but here are some facts. I could just post the entire colregs but have selected some more relevant sections.

Rule 6

Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a)By all vessels:

(i)The state of visibility;

(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;

(iii) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;

(iv) At night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;

(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;

(vi) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

(i) The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;

(ii) Any constrains imposed by the radar range scale in use;

(iii) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;

(iv) The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;

(v) The number location and movement of vessels detected by radar;

(vi) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.


Rule 35

Sound Signals in Restricted Visibility
In or near an area of restricted visibility, whether by day or night the signals prescribed in this Rule shall be used as follows:
(a) A power-driven vessel making way through the water shall sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes one prolonged blast.

(b) A power-driven vessel underway but stopped and making no way through the water shall sound at intervals of no more than 2 minutes two prolonged blasts in succession with an interval of about 2 seconds between them.

(c) A vessel not under command, a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver, a vessel constrained by her draft, a sailing vessel, a vessel engaged in fishing and a vessel engaged in towing or pushing another vessel shall, instead of the signals prescribed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this Rule, sound at intervals of not more than 2 minutes three blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by two short blasts.

(d) A vessel engaged in fishing, when at anchor, and a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver when carrying out her work at anchor, shall instead of the signals prescribed in paragraph (g) of this Rule sound the signal prescribed in paragraph (c) of this Rule.

(e) A vessel towed or if more than one vessel is being towed the last vessel of the tow, if manned, shall at intervals of not more than 2 minutes sound four blasts in succession, namely one prolonged followed by three short blasts. When practicable, this signal shall be made immediately after the signal made by the towing vessel.

(f) When a pushing vessel and a vessel being pushed ahead are rigidly connected in a composite unit they shall be regarded as a power-driven vessel and shall give the signals prescribed in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this Rule.

(g) A vessel at anchor shall at intervals of not more than 1 minute ring the bell rapidly for ten seconds. In a vessel 100 meters or more in length the bell shall be sounded in the forepart of the vessel and immediately after the ringing of the bell the gong shall be sounded rapidly for about 5 seconds in the after part of the vessel. A vessel at anchor may in addition sound three blasts in succession, namely one short, one long and one short blast, to give warning of her position and of the possibility of collision to an approaching vessel.

(h) A vessel aground shall give the bell signal and if required the gong signal prescribed in paragraph (g) of this Rule and shall, in addition, give three separate and distinct strokes on the bell immediately before and after the rapid ringing of the bell. A vessel aground may in addition sound an appropriate whistle signal.

(i) A vessel of less than 12 meters in length shall not be obliged to give the above mentioned signals but, if she does not, shall make some other efficient sound signal at intervals of not more than 2 minutes.

(j) A pilotage vessel when engaged on pilotage duty may in addition to the signals prescribed in paragraph (a), (b) or (g) of this Rule sound an identity signal consisting of four short blasts.

[Starovich]

Travelling at 30+ knots inside a bridge with bloody great jet drives running, your not going to hear any sound signals.

[karlT]

I will now post post some opinion, hypothesis, scare mongering, what ever you want to call it.

It was foggy at the scene of the incident, reported by 'witnesses' onboard. The assessment of visibility is extremely difficult, there is a photo of the fishing boat that assisted in the SAR and in MY opinion I would estimate visibility to probably be around the 50m -100 range at the time of the photo (30 mins post collision). My opinion is based on someone taking a photo, the zoom and position of the photographer is not known.

The COLREGS do need reviewing but the IMO will drag its heels until another 'Titanic' scale disaster. Safe Speed is not defined, should it be ?? I think probably not when you look at the rules above and the requirements laid down for assessing 'safe speed'.

When you look at the specifics, it could be argued that the assessment by the experienced and qualified crew, confidence from past performance of their RADAR equipment, sea state, number of targets in the vicinity / expected traffic volumes led them to believe 36knots is / was a safe speed.

(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

(i) The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;

(ii) Any constrains imposed by the radar range scale in use;

(iii) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;

(iv) The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;

(v) The number location and movement of vessels detected by radar;

(vi) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.


The witness reports that the Fog horn was switched off shortly after departing St Malo, was this normal practice. He/She does not need to be an expert to say this. Was the fishing vessel using sound signals ?? Within the rules it is clear to see they are outdated and need reviewing for modern vessel use. not more than 2 min intervals for power driven vessels. In 2 minutes modern vessels will have travelled further than the specified distance that the sound signal should be heard from.


Leapy,

Please accept peoples opinions as such, the quote from another forum quite clearly states that the person assumed etc etc.

I think this thread has so far followed a fair and informative discussion that everyone could learn from. There has not been too much assumption of blame and most people are reiterating that we all await any findings with interest. This is not a 'sick' interest but a genuine desire to improve safety and knowledge when taking friends / family to sea. One day any one of us may be the rabbit in the headlights in unusual circumstances. General discussion at least prompts people to think about the scenario and be aware of their responsibilities.


My thoughts again go out to the family and crews of both vessels.

[martini]

Condor certainly don't waste any time, Vitesse is back in service already, picking up passengers in Poole rather than come back empty.

They're only just opening the Coroner's inquest this afternoon.