Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 30 March 2011, 05:47   #61
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Make: Ballistic
Length: 7m +
Engine: Yam 225
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorhandler View Post
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!
__________________

__________________
Starovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 06:08   #62
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Middlesex
Boat name: Into the Red
Make: Osprey
Length: 7m +
Engine: Etec 250 HO
MMSI: 235905932
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
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?
__________________
Gotchidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 07:12   #63
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Lymington
Boat name: rib-it
Make: Scopion
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki 250
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 100
[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
__________________
Rib-it.com

www.rib-it.com
simonnud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 09:03   #64
Member
 
Country: Ireland
Town: Ireland
Make: Lodestar 3.4
Length: 3m +
Engine: Yamaha 15hp 2 stroke
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 166
Rule 5 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972)

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
__________________
Zubenelgenubi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 09:23   #65
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: NW& wherever the boat is!
Boat name: depends on m'mood!
Make: Humbers/15-24m cats
Length: 6m +
Engine: etec130/big volvos
MMSI: many and various
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,815
http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/520579/fre...h-condor-ferry
__________________
Dave M
www.wavelengthtraining.co.uk
wavelength is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 09:25   #66
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Hamble
Boat name: Warshot
Make: Scorpion
Length: 6m +
Engine: 150 Optimax
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 44
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.
__________________
Hambleite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 10:07   #67
Member
 
martini's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Channel Islands
Town: jersey
Boat name: Martini II
Make: Arctic 28/FC470
Length: 8m +
Engine: twin 225Opti/50hp 2t
MMSI: 235067688
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,021
View from the bridge of the Condor Vitesse:

[YOUTUBE]59ZDSEkkjaw[/YOUTUBE]
__________________
martini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 10:37   #68
Member
 
martini's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Channel Islands
Town: jersey
Boat name: Martini II
Make: Arctic 28/FC470
Length: 8m +
Engine: twin 225Opti/50hp 2t
MMSI: 235067688
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,021
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
__________________
martini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 10:55   #69
RIBnet supporter
 
Erin's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Channel Islands
Town: A large rock
Boat name: La Frette
Make: Osprey Vipermax
Length: 6m +
Engine: 200 Suzzy
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,830
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.
Erin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30 March 2011, 11:02   #70
Member
 
Country: UK - Channel Islands
Town: Jersey
Length: no boat
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 15
I remember being pretty ill on the Hydrofoil a few times!
__________________

__________________
Peachy00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.