Yottie convicted over collision

[howardang]

Jim, in my view, having a tug made fast aft, together with the 90 degree turn round Bramble Bank into a narrow channel just ahead are just two of the reasons why the tanker was severely hampered in its ability to take avoiding action, not to mention the many yachts that were racing in the area. The moving prohibition zone was established so that these scenarios can be avoided as much as possible. Your contact quite rightly points out that avoiding action taken by the tanker might also have jeopardised the safety of the tug (and its crew) which could have been dragged over very quickly.

 

Howard

Edited November 20, 2013 by howardang

[The Pipe]

Jim, in my view, having a tug made fast aft, together with the 90 degree turn round Bramble Bank into a narrow channel just ahead are just two of the reasons why the tanker was severely hampered in its ability to take avoiding action, not to mention the many yachts that were racing in the area. The moving prohibition zone was established so that these scenarios can be avoided as much as possible. Your contact quite rightly points out that avoiding action taken by the tanker might also have jeopardised the safety of the tug (and its crew) which could have been dragged over very quickly.

 

Howard

My contact actualy put a time scale on it in anchor handling cases of his ship ending up side on to the line at less that 10 seconds to react or you're over. There has been more than one gone over in the North Sea that I know of and many tug accidents in sheltered waters as well.

[howardang]

My contact actualy put a time scale on it in anchor handling cases of his ship ending up side on to the line at less that 10 seconds to react or you're over. There has been more than one gone over in the North Sea that I know of and many tug accidents in sheltered waters as well.

It's a well understood problem which is know in the towing (and supply vessel) industry as "girting" or sometimes "girding" .

 

Howard

[George94]

Nothing to do with being self-righteous, just looking at it from a different viewpoint.

 

Howard

 

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

 

ETA: The points you make are all valid. It's just that the penalty exacted might well have destroyed this man. Just because he was the skipper, doesn't mean he owned the boat.

What 'pack' george94???

 

Why the interest, Dog? Been thrown out of your pack, have you?

Edited November 20, 2013 by George94

[Guest]

 

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

 

Why the interest, Dog? Been thrown out of your pack, have you?

 

And you just wanting to start a(nother) spat are you?

 

You referred to 'self righteous pack', a rather derogatory term when what in fact all it it was was a number of people all saying the same/similar thing.

[howardang]

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

 

ETA: The points you make are all valid. It's just that the penalty exacted might well have destroyed this man. Just because he was the skipper, doesn't mean he owned the boat.

 

 

 

Who actually owns the boat has nothing at all to do with it. He was the skipper and therefore responsible, including putting the lives of his crew at risk.

 

Howard

[George94]

Who actually owns the boat has nothing at all to do with it. He was the skipper and therefore responsible, including putting the lives of his crew at risk.

 

Howard

 

You clearly didn't understand my meaning, so let me spell it out for you.

 

If he was the owner of this presumably expensive racing yacht, then a fine and costs in excess of £100k may well have been within his means to pay.

 

But if he wasn't, then the penalty might conceivably have bankrupted him.

 

My point here, and all along, has not been to defend the man, but to say that the penalty was high.

 

And you just wanting to start a(nother) spat are you?

 

You referred to 'self righteous pack', a rather derogatory term when what in fact all it it was was a number of people all saying the same/similar thing.

 

It takes two to tango, Dog.

 

You are already known to be one of the more argumentative types on here. Now it seems I must add hypocrisy to your list of personal shortcomings.

 

Toodle-pip.

[Guest]

 

It takes two to tango, Dog.

 

You are already known to be one of the more argumentative types on here. Now it seems I must add hypocrisy to your list of personal shortcomings.

 

Toodle-pip.

Indeed, however on this occasion I'm declining your offer of a dance,

[George94]

Indeed, however on this occasion I'm declining your offer of a dance,

 

The best way to decline, old chap, is to say nothing.

 

But I know that's not in your nature, so being a kindly feller, I shall permit you the last word. Make the most of it.

[Guest]

The best way to decline, old chap, is to say nothing.

 

But I know that's not in your nature, so being a kindly feller, I shall permit you the last word. Make the most of it.

No it seems sometimes things have to be spelt out very slowly and clearly to you as demonstrated by your sheer lack of understanding of the actual issues in this thread..hence I simply felt the need to be 100℅ clear.

[Arducius]

On the roads I work on the basis that size rules

Thankfully the law doesn't see things this way.

[carlt]

 

 

I don't tend to join the pack of the self-righteous. Here or anywhere.

 

 

Isn't that a bit of a self-righteous thing to say?

 

Also, isn't self-righteous pack a bit of an oxymoron.

[AMModels]

Thankfully the law doesn't see things this way.

Unfortunately the law of survival definitely does.

[Machpoint005]

Quite so. I'd far rather be alive and wronged than dead right.

[bigcol]

this is why I love this forum

 

Such a interesting post, full of admiration of the pilots especially in the Solent, and off course in Cowes week.kept me on the computer out the way of the grandkids.

 

I remember having to keep in between the por, starboard and cardinals to keep of the brambles bank. Ive heard a few years ago they use to play cricket on the bank,

 

AS you look south from Southampton water towards the entrance of the Medina Cowes its looks so easy to just zip across.

 

Wasn't there a fatal collision with the po ferry pride of Bilbao at night just of bembridge

but the ferry kept going apparently they thought they hit something but wasn't sure??

 

thanks for one of the most interesting threads so far

 

 

col

[Ray T]

 

Wasn't there a fatal collision with the po ferry pride of Bilbao at night just of bembridge

but the ferry kept going apparently they thought they hit something but wasn't sure??

 

thanks for one of the most interesting threads so far

 

 

col

 

Courtesy of Wiki:

 

Possible connection to deaths of yachtsmen[edit]

Detectives and officers from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) and Hampshire Constabulary investigating the deaths of three yachtsmen examined Pride of Bilbao when it arrived in Portsmouth on 29 August 2006. The ship is one of at least 5 that the MAIB will inspect as part of their investigation. It is thought the ferry or one of the other ships in the area may have collided, or had a near-miss, with the 25-foot (8 m) yacht Ouzo off the Isle of Wight on 20 August, leading to the deaths. All of the men died from drowning. The MAIB and Police inspected the hull for damage and studied paperwork. P&O Ferries had previously handed over information from a data recorder on board the ferry which led to the follow-up inspection of the ship. The ship was inspected again on arrival in Portsmouth on 7 September 2006. After offloading passengers and vehicles from Bilbao the vessel was turned to allow the MAIB to inspect the port side and stern.

On 20 September 2006 a P&O Ferries employee from the Pride of Bilbao was arrested by police on suspicion of causing manslaughter through gross negligence. He was released on bail pending further inquiries,^[7] and then re-arrested and charged in February 2007.^[8]

The MAIB report into the sinking of the Ouzo was released on 12 April 2007. It concluded that the sinking of the yacht was due to the Pride of Bilbao colliding with her, or passing so close that she had been swamped or capsized by the vessel's wash.^[9]

On 28 October 2007 the trial of Michael Hubble, second mate of the Pride of Bilbao started at Winchester Crown Court in Hampshire. The prosecution alleged that Hubble, in sole charge of the ferry at the time of the alleged incident, failed to act properly in charge of a vessel. For example, he failed to inform the captain of the incident, failed to stop the ferry and failed to launch a search vessel – all actions it is claimed could have saved the lives of the crew of the Ouzo. All crewmembers had life-vests, and at least one of the crew survived for 12 hours after the incident. The defence contended that lights were visible astern of the ferry, encounters with yachts were common, and the Ouzo was not the vessel involved in the near miss. Hubble was cleared of manslaughter on 12 December 2007, with the jury accepting the defence case that the Ouzo was not the vessel involved.^[10] The following day he was also cleared of all charges of misconduct under the Merchant Shipping Act.^[11]

[George94]

It is highly unlikely that a search vessel launched at night would have found anybody, even if it was dead calm and there was a full moon. By the time the vessel was launched, the ferry would have been five miles away.

[Phil Ambrose]

Highly unlikely or not, every effort should have been made.

Phil

[The Pipe]

It is highly unlikely that a search vessel launched at night would have found anybody, even if it was dead calm and there was a full moon. By the time the vessel was launched, the ferry would have been five miles away.

A search helicopter will probably find them even at night if they still have any body heat.

[George94]

Highly unlikely or not, every effort should have been made.

Phil

 

The court didn't think so. As you weren't in court, you are in no position to argue that the court was wrong..

 

The Channel is full of all sorts of floating debris, including containers. If ferries stopped every time they felt a bump, they'd never get anywhere.

 

Note that the accused was acquitted of EVERY charge.

[Maffi]

 

Surely a prosecution was entirely appropriate - he was a serving naval officer at the time and should have known much better.

 

How so -

 

We can't condemn the whole of the Royal Navy on the foolhardiness of one individual surely?

 

 

.

No you are right but when they had the nb 'Andrew' they demonstrated on many occasions that the Navy and boats on inland waterways are not a good thing.

[Guest]

I was (three months ago) talking about the folly of condemning all naval officers on the basis of the incompetence/inability of a single naval officer.

 

I have no idea of what the NB Andrew reference is about.

[Phil Ambrose]

 

The court didn't think so. As you weren't in court, you are in no position to argue that the court was wrong..

 

The Channel is full of all sorts of floating debris, including containers. If ferries stopped every time they felt a bump, they'd never get anywhere.

 

Note that the accused was acquitted of EVERY charge.

I see you are off again , were you in court yourself?

Phil

Edited January 5, 2014 by Phil Ambrose

[howardang]

I was (three months ago) talking about the folly of condemning all naval officers on the basis of the incompetence/inability of a single naval officer.

I have no idea of what the NB Andrew reference is about.

The reference to NB Andrew is that it is the name of one of the RN narrowboats which cruise the canals recreationally. The Andrew is a nickname for the Royal Navy.

 

I don't remember anyone critisising RN officers in general in the earlier discussion; rather asking about the one in question.

 

Howard

[George94]

I see you are off again , were you in court yourself?

Phil

 

The court found the accused was innocent of all charges, including failure to launch a search vessel. I think they are in a better position than me to know what happened, so I am not arguing with them. You, on the other hand, ARE arguing with them.

 

But I suspect you were really just trying to pick another fight with me, for reasons only you and the Almighty can guess at

 

Ho hum.