1 Dead - 2 Rescued. Ferry Mows Down Boat in Fog.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Yes but not ships on the sea outside traffic separation zones in a fog without signaling nor wathing the radar ie eyes wide shut 38kn.

The fact potter didn't have time to avoid collision doesn't chance the fact they tried to..

As far as I know not you and no one else have no such knowledge. Some indication of it might be found if the wreck is so much intact that the position of the wheel and the throttle can be investigated

Dude, why don't you read what I wrote? My point all along has been that speed was not so much the issue as the fact that they weren't watching where they were going. They also weren't sounding fog signals or listening for them.

You keep saying it's a fact the potter tried to avoid the collision - where does it say that in the report? The wreck was recovered shortly after the collision, and afaik the report does not specify settings of throttle or radar, presumably because they could not be determined. Either that or it's a shortcoming in the report. I don't know if there is another agency doing an investigation or if BEAMER is producing a "final" report. It does seem reasonable that if the potter made any last-ditch manoeuvre, the two crew that survived would have said so - it would have been obvious to them.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by bewitched

He wouldn't have seen it coming...... the visibility was 20m to 30m at the time and the ferry was doing 37kts.

So the vessels were never in sight of each other until the last few seconds.....so Section 2 of Colregs does not apply.

The bigger issue is that the normal operation of the Potter, resulted in an inability to maintain a full time radar watch. (the skipper had to face the back of the boat to shoot the lines)....which was a presumably an underlying factor in the collision (according to the report).

But I have to say, I don't think the Potter ever had a chance. Assuming that his radar was set to 0.75 miles like the ferry's (this is unknown), and assuming that he had noticed the ferry as soon as it came on his screen (which presumably he didn't), he would have had to determine the course and speed of the target on his radar, determine that the target is on a converging course, determine that something doing 37 knots is going to be the give way vessel when it comes into sight, realise that the target is not giving way, cut or otherwise get rid of his fishing lines, manouver so as to avoid a collision.

All this in 1 min 20 secs.......not a chance.

The ferry had two radar displays - only one was at 0.75 miles; the other was at the 6 mile scale and both were offset. I would guess the potter's would be set at 3 or 6 miles. There is more to 'lookout' than just looking - I think it's extremely unlikely that an experienced local fisherman would not be aware that a regularly-scheduled fast ferry was due to come through the area he was fishing in. The report is lacking in respect to discussion about what if any VTS is in the area, and what radio calls were made by either vessel. All this to say that in a thick fog with 30m vis, the master of the potter should have had one eye on the radar and less time watching the deck - and that he had more than 80 seconds of warning.

[barnakiel]

80 seconds is nothing. It is only good if you are set for immediate action. There are things like decision lag and action lag that many people tend to disregard. The fisherman was not playing a computer shooting game.

b.

[barnakiel]

Was the ferry making any sound signals? Are such signals obligatory in such a situation?

I never hear a ship coming ban in the most quiet of conditions and then only if our engine is not running. But man can I hear a ships horn!

b.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I would guess the potter's would be set at 3 or 6 miles.

I guessed 0.75 nm as there was a time frame for that distance, the report guessed 1 or 2nm and a 2 to 3 minute window .... but they are all guesses. Bottom line is that even if the radar was monitored continuously, there was very little time to establish the situation, realise that the ferry was not taking appropriate action and for the potter to take action herself.

Edit: I suppose there is an argument that in those conditions, a more active role on the radar would be appropriate. Alternating between long and short range for example for early detection. Hindsight is 20/20

Originally Posted by Lodesman

All this to say that in a thick fog with 30m vis, the master of the potter should have had one eye on the radar and less time watching the deck.

I don't think that is contested. In the words of the report: The lack of a continuous radar lookout during shooting operation is a presumably underlying factor of the collision.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Was the ferry making any sound signals?

Report says no...they turned it off

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Are such signals obligatory in such a situation?

Yes. Rule 35.

[kaimusailing]

What are the AIS requirements in France/UK? An AIS alarm would have made a difference. On both vessels.

[bewitched]

AIS

The ferry is required to have one and did.

For the fishing boat, it is not a mandatory requirement and there wasn't one on board

And I agree, if the fishing boat had an AIS transponder or even a receiver, with a proximity alarm set, this tragedy may have been avoided.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Was the ferry making any sound signals? Are such signals obligatory in such a situation?

I never hear a ship coming ban in the most quiet of conditions and then only if our engine is not running. But man can I hear a ships horn!

b.

Feel free to read the report. Neither vessel was sounding fog signals - both were required to.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You keep saying it's a fact the potter tried to avoid the collision - where does it say that in the report? .

Page 23 and 64 (french,english) hand shouted the skipper...
Btw you can call me Teddy... dunno none named dude

[rgscpat]

Isn't Europe planning to implement new AIS requirements for commercial vessels? However, I don't know whether they will apply to something as small as a 10-m fishing vessel.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by rgscpat

Isn't Europe planning to implement new AIS requirements for commercial vessels? However, I don't know whether they will apply to something as small as a 10-m fishing vessel.

I have heard something of 15m (approx 45') LOA limit, I think. Fishermen. Pilots, small tugs, etc.. already have them, no matter what size.

But nobody is ever prohibited from getting a unit for themselves, no matter the size of the boat!

We have a sailing 26' boat and we have an AIS unit onboard. As soon as we can, we are going to get a transponder. Why should a 10m, working boat, NOT have one?

b.

[Hydra]

At present, the French regulations don't require fishing vessels of less than 10m to have an AIS transponder. Those between 10 and 12m must have one only if they are fishing in TSS. See Article 227-6.10:
http://www.developpement-durable.gou...7_31-07-11.pdf

The economic situation of fishermen in France is very difficult at present. I suppose that the government doesn't want to force them to buy more equipment, even if it could save lives. Fishing is the occupation that has by far the highest accident rate.

Alain

[rgscpat]

Money is a real issue for many on the water. Electronics cost thousands and become obsolete in the twinkling of an eye, and SOLAS para flares at around $50 a pop expire pretty quickly, too. Litigation, especially in the USA, probably doesn't help pricing. So I can sympathize with hard choices, knowing that all the gear for a 10-m boat with crew of three or four, complete with gumby suits and SOLAS rafts, could run 15,000 Euros/dollars or more. Somewhere there has to be a compromise between having all the stuff (and knowing how to use it!) and venturing out as unprotected as in our great-grandparents' era.

[Hydra]

My grandfather had been a fisherman on the Grand Banks, in the time of sailing ships and dories. He told me that once, a liner arrived in New York with the rigging of a schooner on its bow. In that time, liners crossed the Banks at full speed, even in fog, without any regard for the fishermen anchored there.

Alain