Lost Yacht

[matt h]

I heard they found the yacht that was apparently sunk of the south side OF the Isle Of Wight in August, it was eventually found today or yesterday in or near Haying Island,
my thoughts go out to their friends and family in this tragic event!! does anyone know how it got sunk???

[jackeen]

A sad story that one.



K & P

[codprawn]

I think that's the one they think MAY have been hit by the Pride of Bilbao.

[Nos4r2]

Some news reports.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/5366434.stm
http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/Vie...icleID=1911713

[AndyB007]

Yacht debris washed up on the Hampshire coast is "unlikely" to be from the missing yacht Ouzo, police have said ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/6206122.stm

[Bern Hanreck]

http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/.../2007/ouzo.cfm

The report highlights many safety concens from which we can probably all learn . Whilst it's true that incident relates to a yacht travelling at night , it confirms that whenever things do go wrong , they tend to go wrong very quickly . If you haven't got time to read it all ( 49 pages ) , read the last four . There are comments about ( amongst others ) navigation lights , night vision ( photochromic spectacles ) , radar reflectors and well-fitted life jackets ( with crotch straps ) . Very sad loss of three lives .

[codprawn]

Read the report last night. I think it's rather harsh to be trying to prosecute the watch officer for manslaughter. Accidents happen. The crew of the yacht made mistakes as well.

For once the MAIB couldn't moan about lack of lifejackets. It is horrific to think they were in the water so long with no chance of being rescued despite being so close to land. It was August and the sea was as warm as it gets - 18C - and yet they eventually died of hypothermia /drowning.

They had plenty of safety gear but it's no use in the cabin. There are many similarities here with the sinking of the fishing boat I was attacked over earlier.

One thing that is pretty obvious is that big ships should be avoided at all costs - they often just don't see a small vessel on radar - even if you do have a reflector.

The most valuable lesson from this is that it is VITAL to carry some form of comms with you at ALL times because you never know what could happen. Ideally a waterproof VHF but also something everyone carries in their pocket - a mobile phone. Something as simple as putting it in a plastic bag could easily save your life. Some flares in your pocket could also be a good idea BUT the thought of them going off accidently doesn't bear thinking about.

Thoughts obviously go to the poor familes - it's bad enough knowing someone has died but knowing they were in the water so long must be unbearable.

[Stoo]

An interesting read with interesting findings. With the unfortunate loss of the lives of the yacht crew, their "side" of the story will never be known. In spite of the many findings, I still can't help but wonder why the yacht didn't contact the ferry on VHF as they approached. I supect that they simply didn't see it coming either because their view was blocked by sails or other factors. Even though the ferry involved is very large, I know from experience how quietly these ships approach. At night, I can understand how the yacht crew simply would not have seen, nor heard, the ship coming, especially if their watch-keeping was relaxed.

I live across the harbor from where a 105m ferry docks. In the summer, watching it come and go is a favorite passtime from my front porch. It constantly amazes me at the number of small boats that try to "beat" the ship as they come into the harbour. The sound of "5 or more blasts" on the ferry's horn is heard frequently.

Because "our" ferry crosses the lake four times daily in the summer, it is a regular sight when we are on the water. At cruising speed, she runs about 22 knots I believe. Needless to say, that's a lot faster than many would assume.

Since this particular accident happened at night, I think even if the yacht had seen the ship approaching, it would have been difficult to judge her speed and distance accurately. Sound practise would suggest that a radio contact would have been dictated, which to me suggests again that the yacht crew didn't see the ferry at all.

I feel badly for the crew of the ferry, even though there is clearly room for improvement in their proceedures. What I find difficult to understand though, is why they wouldn't have established radio contact with the yacht following the "near miss" and if they were unable to do so, they should have come to a full stop and initiated a search while notifying the Coast Guard.

In my opinion though, the yacht must share some of the blame for their fate.

Incidently, as someone who spends a lot of time searching for wrecks (albeit with much less sophisticated tools than were used in this case presumably) I don't find it at all suprising that the yacht hasn't been found. I couldn't tell from the charts in the report how deep the water is, but presumably it's pretty deep! A small "plastic" yacht would be a challenging target in any search.

Very sad tale none the less and lessons to be learned for all...

[codprawn]

To be honest I don't see how they can have missed the pride of Blibao - it's HUGE!!!

At night it's lit up like a funfair - which makes it difficult to see out - light pollution is terrible but that should make it pretty easy to spot from another boat.

These photos were taken 3 yrs ago when I was last on the Pride of Bilbao - the other ferry is a sister ship of a similar size.

The things that really scare me are the fast cat ferries - some of them do almost 50kts cruising these days!!!

[mdt]

According to the “debate” on Radio 2 today the watch keepers reactor-light glasses are being highlighted as one possible reason why he did not see the yacht approaching.

Yes power gives way to sail but we always switch on the motor and move when ever there is any doubt when the ferry and or tankers are coming up, just as you say they are quicker than you think when you are only doing 4-5 knots.

[Aidan]

Originally Posted by mdt

According to the “debate” on Radio 2 today the watch keepers reactor-light glasses are being highlighted as one possible reason why he did not see the yacht approaching.

Yes power gives way to sail but we always switch on the motor and move when ever there is any doubt when the ferry and or tankers are coming up, just as you say they are quicker than you think when you are only doing 4-5 knots.

I would suggest that rather than using the Power gives way to Sail (assuming the ship is not constrained by her depth and some other exceptions) does not work. If I may I suggest that Glass fiber gives way towood givs way to steel works a whole lot better.
Having sailed a good bit at night at that, it defies logic that they didnt see or hear the ferry. Furthermore and whilst I didnt read the report, the ferry would be on a regular run which will be ether a shipping lane or a well defined route, either way, it defies logic that they didnt know or see the boat.
Assuming that they were under sail it still defies logic that they did not make a significant deviation in their course so as to be very obvious on Radar.

Normally when faced with a collision course which one determines based on the angle between both headings remaining constant thus convergance, both parties bear off so as to avoid colliding. Whilst I am rusty on the rules and given that ships that are not constrained by their depth pass port to port so I am guessing that they bear of to Starboard. This action (of avoiding a game like chicken) should be deliberate and obvious so as to appear on radar so the larger ship has due notice. Failure todo this can end up with left right left right etc then smack in the middle.

Finally, I do not understand why they did not have an EPIRB device for night sailing. This device will have their location down to 18 feet in North Atlantic within 40 min.

I was faced with a similar situation myself and without going into too much info, I had advisd the Captain (I was mate) of this Navy based sail training yacht, that he was in teh wrong because A: his motor was running when he mentioned about Right of way and B: that we had 14 Young trainees asleep below in their bunks who trusted our judgement as I then advised him that I was standing by with my knife to cut loose the holding strap on the Liferaft and about to wake the crew. Eventually I got through to him when I head clearly the engines of the Coaster several hundred meters ahead. Crikey what a plonker. Suffice to mention that I made som eadjustments in the Watch system to single out the skipper as watch leader advising him that he was too important to be a WL and that he should just fly loose on Watch.

No use to those 3 men at this stage.

[Stoo]

Originally Posted by mdt

Yes power gives way to sail but we always switch on the motor and move when ever there is any doubt when the ferry and or tankers are coming up...

I call that "Right of Weight". Years ago I used to race sailboats in Hamilton Harbour. This harbour is frequented daily by several 600' lakers servicing the steel mills there, as well as a number of "salties". Access to the harbour is through a "ship-wide" canal, with a lift bridge. To maintain steerage, the ships enter about 8 - 10 knots.

I used to regularly see entire FLEETS of sailboats racing across this canal ahead of an approaching ship... a ship with no ability to steer away or stop. Nothing like risking life and limb for a little tin cup and a pennant.

I don't meant to suggest that the crew of the boat in question here didn't appreciate such things. I don't know if the inquiry looked at sail position or not, but I wonder if the crew's view might have been obscurred by the headsail...

Cod, I don't disagree with you. "Our" ferry, the M.S. Chi-Cheemaun is similarly lit at night. It really is hard to imagine missing it, so I maintain that it was more likely a case of misjudging speed and/or direction. I know that with the "Cheech" as we call it, the nav lights are somewhat lost with all of the deck floods...

Our Chi-Cheemaun (Ojibway for "Big Canoe")

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Aidan

Having sailed a good bit at night at that, it defies logic that they didnt see or hear the ferry. Furthermore and whilst I didnt read the report, the ferry would be on a regular run which will be ether a shipping lane or a well defined route, either way, it defies logic that they didnt know or see the boat.
Assuming that they were under sail it still defies logic that they did not make a significant deviation in their course so as to be very obvious on Radar.

Well go and read the full report in detail before speculating on what they did or didn't do/see?

The report (which is at least based on evidence reviewed over weeks/months rather than your instantaneous thoughts) suggests that it is likely that the crew of Ouzo did see the PoB. On her original course Ouzo would have cleared PoB easily and there was no close quarters/collision situation developing. However, PoB had reached a waypoint in her course not long before the collision and then initiated a slow turn (as opposed to a distinct change of course) which MAY have gone unnoticed to the crew of Ouzo until it was too late (in fact it may even have led the crew of Ouzo to believe the PoB was taking avoiding action so as to give her a "wide berth".

The MAIB suggest that white flashes observed by the crew of PoB immediately before the collision/swamping were either the crew of Ouzo opening the cabin to alert colleagues or attempting to draw attention to themselves - too late.

Ouzo was not visible on the ships radar (from the voyage data recorder). Experiments with a similar vessel showed that even with the type of radar reflector Ouzo carried she was unlikely to be visible on radar at that particular course.

A number of factors MAY have contributed to the crew of PoB not seeing Ouzo's lights. One factor which was shown to have an effect was as referred to above the reactalight glasses worn by the look out. However the MAIB also seems to believe that white lights on the bridge contributed to a loss of dark adaption in the wathkeeper and look out's eyes.

As well as raising a potential safety concern regarding reactalight glasses the report briefly highlights that many older leisure boats have nav lights lenses which have become crazed over time - and thus less efficient. That could apply to RIBs too - and there may be a lesson for us there.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Aidan

Finally, I do not understand why they did not have an EPIRB device for night sailing. This device will have their location down to 18 feet in North Atlantic within 40 min.

Hindsight Aidan is a wonderful thing. EPIRBs cost money and like all safety kit and insurance policies are usually considered quite expensive until you need them.

Crotch straps on life jackets and lights for lifejackets are much cheaper - and they didn't have these either. They would be higher up my priority list for night sailing.

[thorper]

I think the key is having some way to all of these kind of incidents is being able to communicate with whatever is attached to your person at the time of sinking (handheld VHF, epirb, PLB etc). If nobody knows you sank then it doesnt matter how long you stay afloat for (certainly in this case).

I suspect the criminal charges are due to the failure to stop and check rather than the actual cause of the accident. Also maybe to do with supposedly poor choice of last minute avoidance technique.

[Alan]

...for saving me typing exactly the same thing!

If you read the report thoroughly then you will see that the informed conclusion (as no-one will ever know what exactly happened) is that the slow rate turn made by autopilot to avoid passenger discomfort may have lead the crew of the yacht not to realise until too late how close they were going to be to the ferry. I say how close, because further speculation in the report is that the yacht didn't make contact with the ferry but was swamped by the wash. Similarly when the watchkeeping officer did see the yacht he turned by autopilot rather than direct rudder control. In actual fact this meant that the change in course was minimal and thus probably did little or nothing to prevent the collision/swamping.

The utterly damning thing in my mind is the failure of the watchkeeping officer to make postive identification that the yacht was OK. A VHF call. Stopping the ferry and conducting a search etc. Had he done that then the crew may well been picked up alive.

It's interesting to see the increased fitment of VDR's (an IMO requirement for all vessels in international trade over 3000GRT by 2010) providing more definitive data on a ships movements, crew actions etc. Hopefully this will lead to continued improvement in safety processes for all of us.

[Aidan]

Of course Alan and Polwart are correct and i guess if I cared enough I would read the report. However, given that I have been in such a situation I know exactly what I am talking about and whilst I have the night time sea going experience, I have a good idea what went worng.
It is too sensitive an issue for me to get my teeth stuck into and people are dead. It is very important that it doesnt happen again but you know that it will. It is like a Greek Tragedy except that on water and that of a ferry, so every few years one will happen.

Its appaling that it happened and given that the rules of teh road/sea exist, I am pretty sure several were broken. It is not unknown for Coasters to have close shaves (every day)...any way, if out sailing at night, be careful, normally its what you cannot se that causes the damage.

One of the most important pieces of equipment that a yacht should have is a radar reflector that works. Failing that haul up a few pots and pans up teh mast as an emergency. Flares are useful too...
If teh first few dont work shoot the rest of them at the oncoming boat bridge.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Aidan

i guess if I cared enough I would read the report. However, given that I have been in such a situation I know exactly what I am talking about and whilst I have the night time sea going experience, I have a good idea what went worng.

aidan - you have a bit of an bizzare attitude - almost as though you are so experienced/knowledgable/wise that this could/would never happen to you (in spite of suggesting it nearly did). If you care enough to spend the time typing here - at least read the bloody bulletin for leisure boaters .

Sadly I think that whilst there were a number of individual contributing factors each on its own was probably not grossly negligent or unusual. In that regard the actual incident itself was largely an accident (in the same way as there are accidents on our roads all the time - and whilst there are often people at fault - there is also often no single massive error of judgment)

The only matter which really might have been wholely unreasonable at the time is failing to establish the safety of the yacht after the close quarters situation. A jury will ultimately determine if it was reasonable of the OOW not to further investigate the safety of the other vessel. I think that is going to be a difficult call for a jury of laymen who are acting in hindsight.

[Aidan]

[QUOTE=Polwart;194867] aidan - you have a bit of an bizzare attitude - almost as though you are so experienced/knowledgable/wise that this could/would never happen to you (in spite of suggesting it nearly did). If you care enough to spend the time typing here - at least read the bloody bulletin for leisure boaters .

Yeo Polwart, Its not that I do not care, of course I do, its just that I know that the answer is not within the report. if it was, you fellows would have picked it up by now. I have a pretty good idea what can happen and what he causes are and I have a vivid imagination of the events unfolding in my mind.
It doesnt matter tho, the circumstances were as they were and what happened obviously happened. As it happens I do have what I would deem as sufficient experience as I have well over 10 k at sea crusing with alot of noght experience and the only reason that it was a near miss is that I did not wish to commit a Mutiny or upset the idiot of a skipper any more than I needed to, i was in control of the situation and was near to cutting the tiedown of the life raft where by then I would have taken control of the helm.

I only take over when needed. Furthermore we were ona 50 ft yacht of which I had much experience and was not concerned as to the wash.
I also never took my eye off the other boat and was fully aware of what needed to be done. The same coaster had radar and did not answer their radio. Finally I would not have been surprisd if the OOW was as pissed as a fart with the ship on auto. At the bery least I assumed this to be the case.

With several hundred yards to go I pulled a hardturn to Starboard of more than 90 degrees with the engine in full drive to make our intentions most obvious on any Radar. Once the Coastr had passed safely (though I could clearly hear its engines throbbing off into the night), I made a further turn toPort tothe original course to take any wash head on. We were hanked on for Night Watch post Tabs and Colours down as was the rules.

Finally dear Polwart, I am not a man to take chances with life or limb. Do let me know if the report has anything new in it please. I doubt it.
As mentioned before, I had oft 16 bodies under my care and my job was to return with 160 fingers (inc Thumbs) working intact.
Not withstanding, I have been known to be bizzare on more than one occasion. I will have a look at this site though as you recommend it "strongly"

I am not new to boats and I have been boating/yachting since before the advent of the Mirror Dingy.
I am often amazed though at the arrogance of people buying new boats and heading of to sea as if it were a car. I can see why you may be slightly irked at people being unaware of any dangers.