[QUOTE=lm1883;193212]I never said I was ok with anything, rather I merely stated we do not have facts, just a YouTube video. Sure it’s damning, but it’s not the whole story and your assertion was that the WSF was willfully operating in a negligent fashion was over the top and unprofessional. [/QUOTE]
sure…instead of being willfully arrogant and standing on to force the other vessel to turn, the ferry bridge personnel may have been on their smart phones checking their stocks and allowed the NAP TYME to sneak up on them until that OH SHIT moment!
I am beginning to believe this is the more likely scenario.
We certainly do have the facts. The yacht’s track is clearly visible and shows that he maintained course and speed as required by CLOREGS. The FACT that the ferry did not change course and pass behind him or slow to allow safe passage ahead is also clearly visible to anyone who cares to see.
The FACT that the ferry captain chose not to change course to avoid a collision while there was ample time available is clear evidence of “negligent” operation.
I don’t pass judgement on others unless I was there, which I wasn’t, and neither were you. You were not on either vessel. You were not on the bridge. You were not anywhere but in front of your screen taking advantage of the incident to fling poo at your former employer. You don’t know for certain the master was arrogant, negligent, or anything else and won’t until some sort of report is published.
No poo slinging here, it is simply an observation of an event in which all evidence and the outcome shows the ferry captain chose not to take action to avoid a collision. Other than the video which shows the timeline and actions of the ferry captain, exactly what do you expect to come out of a hearing other than the ferry captains possible claim that he was unable to avoid the collision from the moment the yacht came into view?
I know more than one MEBA engineer who partook in questionable practices, does that mean there is a culture of arrogant, willful negligence with MEBA engineers? Of course not. Too often when incidents are discussed here there is a rush to savage judgment without facts and I find that to be unprofessional behavior that reflects poorly on our community especially given that anyone of us posting here could find ourselves in this situation.
Do you knows any MEBA engineers who failed to take action to avoid a collision when they were on the burdened vessel? Trying to use other people’s shortcomings to excuse the ferry captain is about as lame as it can get. Stick to the facts and they shall set you free of your prejudices and misconceptions about the duties of a professional mariner.
That’s the last I’ll say on it as I’ve dedicated too much of my time to a thread about a minor marine incident. I do hope you never find yourself at the The mercy of guys like you, you’ll find there is little there to work with.
I hope that if I ever screw up as badly I am judged by people like me who stick to the facts, not what they believe should be or how they want the world to work. The ferry captain had a duty to give way, he did not. It’s hard to argue otherwise when the video shows the track of the other vessel and the fact that it was T-boned by the ferry.
[QUOTE=c.captain;193213]sure…instead of being willfully arrogant and standing on to force the other vessel to turn, the ferry bridge personnel may have been on their smart phones checking their stocks and allowed the NAP TYME to sneak up on them until that OH SHIT moment!
I am beginning to believe this is the more likely scenario.[/QUOTE]
At the time the video begins, even if the ferry operator initiates a hard turn to starboard and does everything right with the throttles, he’s likely to broadside the yacht.
If he starts backing right then and there he might make it, especially with the forward prop wash helping to fend off the smaller boat. Somebody on the bridge sounded the danger signal so we know they were aware of the situation before the hit. Unless arrogance or brain freeze prevented the operator from throttling back while yanking on the whistle, the only other explanation is that they were unable to engage astern propulsion because of a control problem.
[QUOTE=c.captain;193174]continuing to place blame on the pleasure vessel operator here diminishes this thread…[/QUOTE]
I stand by my comments about licensing amateurs. They weren’t intended to draw blame away from the ferry’s captain in spite of the yachtie’s monumental stupidity.
Other than a control problem it’s hard to imagine why the ferry operator hadn’t throttled back by the time the video started.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;193235]Other than a control problem it’s hard to imagine why the ferry operator hadn’t throttled back by the time the video started.[/QUOTE]
No it’s not, the give way vessel was a WSF ferry.
You know where the yachtie really screwed up? He didn’t claim he had passed out and was lying on the deck until there was a terrible crash that jarred him back to consciousness. When he stumbled to the wheelhouse door he saw a ferry with a lot of people jumping up and down and waving at him.
The most idiotic thing he may have done was to tell the truth.
Did the ferry captain know that the yacht driver was not lying unconscious and his 8 year old grandchild was not freaking out trying to get him to wake up? Do you think the ferry captain will state that he did not take action as early as possible to avoid a collision?
[QUOTE=Steamer;193238]Do you think the ferry captain will state that he did not take action as early as possible to avoid a collision?[/QUOTE]
The ferry captain might have been able to get away with a story about taking action as early as possible if there was no video but he can’t argue against that evidence. The best he can hope for in a court proceeding is that the yachtie might be assigned a small percentage of the blame for contributory negligence based on his not keeping a proper lookout.
I’m not familiar with WSF culture but I’ve tangled with the Galveston-Bolivar ferries and from what I read here they sound the same: They make passing agreements with larger ships and everybody else can go f*ck themselves: get out of the way or get run over.
The common thread: all the licensing and training in the world can’t stop vessels from colliding with one another when people, on all sides, just can’t bring themselves to do their duty. This wasn’t exactly a dark-n-stormy night with poor visibility and heavy traffic. If this wasn’t avoidable, what the hell would be?
Anyway, it reminds me of a similar circumstance with a much worse outcome. Anybody remember the Eklof tug Houma failing to give way to the F/V Heather Lynne II off Cape Ann back in '96? Three men died, and the tug’s mate never would acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all, even though the Houma was unequivocally the give-way vessel.
The regular news reporting on this was mostly a load of shite. Check out Kate Yeomans’ excellent “Dead Men Tapping” for a critical and sharper-eyed account. Amazon.com
Regardless of the failures of the amateur or semi-pro mariners operating the stand-on vessels (no lookout or watch-stander while running on autopilot, failure to act in ample time, or at all, etc.), at the end of the day we are still tasked with doing whatever it takes to avoid the collision, period, no excuses, no matter what the other party does or doesn’t do. That isn’t always easy, but such is life.
Sounding a few rounds of 5 short blasts and calling it a day is clearly insufficient.
[QUOTE=DeepSeaDiver;193115]I am learning from you guys. I have a few mentors these days and c.captain you are one of them. I am into this stuff. I do understand Nap Tyme actually had the stand on position. I also understand the “security zone” as listed above is a different issue. It’s my opinion Nap Tyme made no attempts to avoid the collision that’s why after the collision his autopilot tried to bring him right back on course. In addition, he should become familiar with Rule #34. By the way, he did not sound his horn as he was standing watch, and was not sure of the action’s of the larger tonnage vessel in his path, that’s because he again did not follow Rule #5 and is in violation of the COLREGS to failure to stand watch. The little boat captain admitted he was not even at the helm. He should consider a pee cup. Get his little boat fixed and be thankful it was not worse, and moving forward be more careful so this stuff does not happen again which can put all boaters safety at risk.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;193110]Yep. Most ferry captains operate this way, adhering to the “tonnage rule”. I’m sure they can justify it by saying that if they stopped for every Tom Dick and Harry crossing in front of them in their little boats, their schedule would fall apart and their passengers would raise hell. Unfortunately for them, there are no exemptions for ferries in the right of way rules.
In this instance however, the wreckcreational boater shares some responsibility for failure to keep a proper lookout. There’s no excuse for not stopping the boat if he was going to use the crapper for that long in an area where there is traffic.[/QUOTE]
the tonnage rule attitude is reckless seaman ship the bridge crew that thinks this way should be relived of there duties not only does it endanger the vessel and its crew along with inserting the word ferry means passengers . there is also a rule for safe speed does anyone remember the term prudent mariner i am sure the magistrate is going to have some harsh words for the so called pros. every one involved here is at fault. and the licensed crew should know better .slow down just cause it will make 15knts doesn’t mean you have to sail full speed just remember if your early or on time nobody going to talk good so save your license and the lives of the passengers and crew and make it home to your family with reputation and safety record in tact. Captain, Rick Byers .
[QUOTE=piratescabin;193292]the tonnage rule attitude is reckless seaman ship the bridge crew that thinks this way should be relived of there duties not only does it endanger the vessel and its crew along with inserting the word ferry means passengers . there is also a rule for safe speed does anyone remember the term prudent mariner i am sure the magistrate is going to have some harsh words for the so called pros. every one involved here is at fault. and the licensed crew should know better .slow down just cause it will make 15knts doesn’t mean you have to sail full speed just remember if your early or on time nobody going to talk good so save your license and the lives of the passengers and crew and make it home to your family with reputation and safety record in tact. Captain, Rick Byers .[/QUOTE]
What exactly is the “tonnage rule”?
Say you’re on a large ship slowing down to pick up a pilot, good water all around. Your turning radius is about 3 ship lengths.
A man wearing a bathing suit and flip flops on a jet ski is approaching your stbd bow at 25 kts, on collison course. At what point would you take action?
What about the same scenario but the jet ski is on the port bow?
It is fortunate that the CG and NTSB consider this sort of relevant fact over the bias that has dominated this thread. WSF=guilty, damn the circumstance!! LOL look elsewhere for expert opinion.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;193295]What exactly is the “tonnage rule”?
Say you’re on a large ship slowing down to pick up a pilot, good water all around. Your turning radius is about 3 ship lengths.
A man wearing a bathing suit and flip flops on a jet ski is approaching your stbd bow at 25 kts, on collison course. At what point would you take action?
What about the same scenario but the jet ski is on the port bow?[/QUOTE]
says the “mouthpiece” for the WSF! are you and Im1883 twins separated at birth or something?
now, have you ever read the COLREGS? here are three you might want to study
Rule 15. Crossing situations: When two power-driven vessels are crossing, the vessel which has the other on the starboard side must give way and avoid crossing ahead of her.
Rule 16. The give-way vessel: The give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear.
Rule 17. The stand-on vessel: The stand-on vessel shall maintain her course and speed, but she may take action to avoid collision if it becomes clear that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action, or when so close that collision can no longer be avoided by the actions of the give-way vessel alone. In a crossing situation, the stand-on vessel should avoid turning to port even if the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action. These options for the stand-on vessel do not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligations under the rules
what a douche
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;193295]What exactly is the “tonnage rule”?
Say you’re on a large ship slowing down to pick up a pilot, good water all around. Your turning radius is about 3 ship lengths.
A man wearing a bathing suit and flip flops on a jet ski is approaching your stbd bow at 25 kts, on collison course. At what point would you take action?
What about the same scenario but the jet ski is on the port bow?[/QUOTE]
can you stick to the pertinent situation between the ferry and the pleasure vessel please? you and I could develop a thousand special cases here but these are two power driven vessels in a basic crossing per the COLREGS…nothing more and nothing less
[QUOTE=Juan Cadiz;193296]It is fortunate that the CG and NTSB consider this sort of relevant fact over the bias that has dominated this thread. WSF=guilty, damn the circumstance!! LOL look elsewhere for expert opinion.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;193295]What exactly is the “tonnage rule”?
Say you’re on a large ship slowing down to pick up a pilot, good water all around. [/QUOTE]
Nah, let’s talk instead about a small ship watching a smaller vessel slightly forward of its stbd beam approaching in a crossing situation. The small ship sees the smaller vessel in broad daylight, clear visibility and tracks it for several minutes while noting a constant bearing - a collision course for the navigationally challenged readers.
The small ship is required by the navigation rules to take action to avoid colliding with the smaller vessel. The smaller vessel is required by navigation rules to not change course or speed because - for the navigationally challenged readers - doing so could very well create confusion and possibly contribute to a dangerous situation.
The master of the small ship makes the choice to not take any action to avoid a collision with the smaller vessel until the last moment by which time it is impossible to prevent a collision and rams the smaller vessel midships.
The master of the smaller vessel failed to take action to prevent a collision when it became apparent that the master of the small ship was failing to perform in accordance with the navigation rules.
Those are the facts. Those are the only facts that can be used to decide fault. Everything else is daydreaming and wishes that it worked some other way.
With regard to post #71, did the small ship master know that the master of the smaller vessel was even on board? Did he know that the smaller vessel master had not fallen overboard and the vessel was unmanned? If he did know such a condition existed, would that give him the right or duty to ram the smaller vessel rather than make a timely effort to avoid the hazard presented by that vessel?
[QUOTE=Steamer;193309]Nah, let’s talk instead about a small ship watching a smaller vessel slightly forward of its stbd beam approaching in a crossing situation. The small ship sees the smaller vessel in broad daylight, clear visibility and tracks it for several minutes while noting a constant bearing - a collision course for the navigationally challenged readers.
The small ship is required by the navigation rules to take action to avoid colliding with the smaller vessel. The smaller vessel is required by navigation rules to not change course or speed because - for the navigationally challenged readers - doing so could very well create confusion and possibly contribute to a dangerous situation.
The master of the small ship makes the choice to not take any action to avoid a collision with the smaller vessel until the last moment by which time it is impossible to prevent a collision and rams the smaller vessel midships.
The master of the smaller vessel failed to take action to prevent a collision when it became apparent that the master of the small ship was failing to perform in accordance with the navigation rules.
Those are the facts. Those are the only facts that can be used to decide fault. Everything else is daydreaming and wishes that it worked some other way.
With regard to post #71, did the small ship master know that the master of the smaller vessel was even on board? Did he know that the smaller vessel master had not fallen overboard and the vessel was unmanned? If he did know such a condition existed, would that give him the right or duty to ram the smaller vessel rather than make a timely effort to avoid the hazard presented by that vessel?[/QUOTE]
all fine Steamer but do not negate the possibility that the small ship FAILED to see that smaller vessel until very late in the crossing situation…of course still DAMNING for the watch personnel on that small ship but I do honestly have to wonder if this is a more likely scenario. People on ship bridges these days truly are addicted to their handheld devices and I would not be surprised if this was why the small vessel was not seen till too late. How many trains have crashed in recent years because the engineers at the controls were distracted? far too many!
arrogance or inattention but the people piloting the ferry are at fault here and cannot be exonerated for their failures. Personally, I would hope that it is a failure of maintaining attention because that is not such a willful act as standing on when mandated to give way. Maybe .0001% more forgivable perhaps?
I can’t say if the bridge crew was blinded by the fog of smart phones or not, that should be pretty easy to discover if WSF or the CG really cared … which I cynically suspect they don’t.
I do know the probability that the engine control room watch was deeply submerged in the Wall Street Journal or the internet is extremely high. That might have increased engine room response time but even if propulsion was fully under bridge control, we have all seen that the choice to take evasive action was made far too late to change the outcome.
How anyone can claim that WSF is not burdened (pun intended)with the greatest portion of responsibility for this event is beyond comprehension. My personal view is that there is a cultural bias within the WSF system that was a contributing, if not causal factor in this event.
My God! 81 posts on this already?! The ferry OOW screwed up. The pleasure boat skipper screwed up. Investigation done! For once I wish I lived in Ombugge’s beloved Singapore. If this had happened there both parties would have been caned. Maybe the head of the WSF, too. Then everyone would go on their merry way and sin no more, case closed! Gcaptain forum should return to its rightful purpose as a fantasy outlet for Deep Sea Diver in whatever minimum security prison he’s locked up in…
[QUOTE=freighterman;193315]My God! 81 posts on this already?! [/QUOTE]
it is because that the WSF people are believed by many of us (including myself) to be a bunch which operate in a rarefied atmosphere where they receive high pay and the best benefits possible for their service which frankly is EASY work so we expect the HIGHEST standards of professional performance. Certainly these people do not work anywhere near as hard that your people do for much higher pay and get to go home each night. Why should we NOT hold them to an expectation that they pilot their vessels with 100% COLREGS compliance and not pillory them when they don’t?
furthermore, not too many of us here feel the pleasure boat community to be one which any of us believe to operate to professional standards so we are much more prepared to not jump all other them for their follies. however in this case, the appearances from the video show two power driven vessels in sight of eachother and that the ferry was the burdened one tasked with the actions to avoid collision which they do not appear to have taken until too late. The pleasure vessel operator’s failure was to have gone below which placed him in violation of the COLREGS but that fact in no way exonerates the ferry’s personnel to have not done what the rules mandate. Yes, the pleasure vessel operator shares blame for this but only a small percentage…perhaps 10 to 15% His failure only was made apparent because of the ferry’s failure and not independent from it.
what would you say if there had been fatalities on the pleasure vessel? there would be screaming at the lack of attention or wilful violations of the COLREGS on the ferry’s part. The yacht was only lucky the collision was not a severe one.
[QUOTE=c.captain;193317]it is because that the WSF people are believed to be a bunch which operate in a rarefied atmosphere where they receive high pay and the best benefits possible for their service which frankly is EASY work so we expect the highest standards of performance. Certainly these people do not work anywhere near as hard that your people do for much higher pay and get to go home each night. Why should we NOT hold them to an expectation that they pilot their vessels with 100% COLREGS compliance and not pillory them when they don’t?[/
So like you c.captain to play the Reality Card in every discussion…