Report on yacht collision in Ireland in 2019 (report on findings)

[sepharad]

Shrew's analysis seems spot on to me.

[Breaking Waves]

i believe this is the actual report . . . https://www.mcib.ie/_fileupload/Docu...e%20Report.pdf

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Several things about that report do not make sense:
Report said tanker altered course to starboard and that yacht kept her course.
If initially they were on intercepting courses, this alone should have avoided a collision. So why was there a collision? Tanker turned too late, too slow in turning?

Yacht assumed tanker saw her green light? Why would yacht assume that when the tanker was on her port bow? And if they did assume they were showing a green light, then they would be the give-way vessel and should have turned to port, and communicated that to the ship way before the ship could have seen them (since they could see the ship at much farther range than the ship could see them).. . .

This scenario makes perfect sense. Yacht might have been correct that the vessels were going to pass green to green. Tanker didn't like it, so at the last minute, altered to starboard. That ate up whatever CPA there was, and crunch.


Textbook case for not passing green to green in a fine on the bow situation.


Green to green is bad because vessels will not know to turn to port without being sure that the other vessel is not going to do the standard turn to starboard. That's why you should never do pass green to green in such a situation without a really good reason to, and specific agreement with the other vessel, which is hard to achieve quickly if you don't have AIS.


"Turn to port, see you in court."

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Shrew

IF the ship turned to Stbd adequately, then the yacht should have seen a red light on the ship (tanker), which would indicate that either it was going to be a port-to-port passing or the yacht was now the giveway vessel. It, at least would have indicated to anyone paying attention on the yacht that the ship had changed course. At that point, the yacht turning to stbd should have also widened the gap of the pass.

A substantial course change isn't what will make the lights change; that only happens as a result of crossing the other ship's bow.

The report mentions the ship made a 60° turn based on the AIS data, yet the yacht still managed to collide head-on into the ship's port bow.

I am wondering if the yacht actually got the colors mixed up; here is part from the report:

The watchkeeper on the ‘Medi Mode’ saw the vessel ‘Varkan Ege’ ahead and on its starboard side. The watchkeeper in his report stated a port green light was seen on its starboard bow (this is an error as a port side light is red). In his interview he stated that it was green to green at all times with the ‘Varkan Ege’. There was no radar on ‘MediMode’. Its speed was 7.9 knots.

This leads me to the suspicion that the yacht's watchkeeper had her own colors reversed in his mind, thinking it was green to green instead of green to red, and thus possibly may have altered to port with the idea of increasing the separation. (Which would explain her course change reported by the Varkan.) In the report, she is said to have been on autopilot the entire time.

[Breaking Waves]

"‘Varkan Ege’ observed a red light on its starboard side and should have determined that this was a crossing situation and accordingly should keep well clear by making a large alteration of course to starboard in ample time. The ‘Varkan Ege’ was the give-way vessel. Given the circumstances that developed and the lights which were apparent to each of the vessels the ‘Varkan Ege’ was
the give-way vessel and the ‘Medi Mode’ was the stand–on Vessel. . . . . As the give-way vessel (a vessel directed to keep out of the way of another vessel) under the COLREGs, the ‘Varkan Ege’ was required to take early and substantial action by a large alteration of course to starboard, to avoid collision. It did this, according to the Master’s statement, by altering course (note: by 60 degrees) to starboard. "

"There is evidence to support the assertion by ‘Varkan Ege’ that ‘Medi Mode’ turned to port before the collision as it collided with the port side of the ‘Varkan Ege’ in a head on mode, in spite of the fact that the AIS on the ‘Varkan Ege’ indicates that it turned to starboard approximately 60 degrees to avoid collision as per Rule 14(a)."

[Dockhead]

Rule 14 says this:


(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.
(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

"Nearly reciprocal course" covers many fine on the bow situations. Because Rule 14 is somewhat and intentionally vague -- masthead lights "nearly in a line" is somewhat subjective, AND you are required by (c) to consider the crossing a "head-on situation" if there is any doubt.


This is wise, because this kind of crossing -- 20 degrees off an exact reciprocal course is very dangerous with very high relative speed, and hard to judge by eyeball so it's right that it should be treated like a head-on situation.



So you don't just stand on in such a situation. Read Rule 16 broadly and remember (c) and just call it a head-on situation, and maneuver. You get yourself early into a red to red posture with bearing of the other vessel clearly changing, and EARLY. Then if someone misjudged, then everyone just alters to starboard and CPA is increased. That's what makes red to red safe.



If you are in a green to green posture and you are afraid that crossing his course line is dangerous or awkward, then you have to communicate and agree to carry on like that, you don't just sail on, for all the reasons stated. If you don't have AIS so can't be sure you're talking with the right vessel, then you just need to get out of there. A turn to port is ok if it's really early and really substantial, so that the other vessel clearly sees and has time to correct any possible simulataneous alteration to starboard. Obviously you need to have judged the crossing much earlier, than what was going on in this case, and made a decision much earlier.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

. . . "Varkan Ege’ was the give-way vessel. Given the circumstances that developed and the lights which were apparent to each of the vessels the ‘Varkan Ege’ was the give-way vessel and the ‘Medi Mode’ was the stand–on Vessel. . . . . As the give-way vessel (a vessel directed to keep out of the way of another vessel) under the COLREGs, the ‘Varkan Ege’ was required to take early and substantial action by a large alteration of course to starboard, to avoid collision. It did this, according to the Master’s statement, by altering
course to starboard. "

Few comments on this:

1. Rule 16 is somewhat vague, but 20 degrees from an exact reciprocal course, and in a case where no accurate means to determine the exact course of the other vessel existed, Rule 16 is likely in play. "If in doubt . . . " So there was no stand-on vessel. And even if there was a stand-on vessel [and the report does say that this is the case], in this geometry of crossing standing on is dangerous and should be abandoned very soon.

2. 4 minutes TCPA is not an "early and substantial maneuver" fulfilling the requirement to give way (at least Varkan Ege was give-way, and I would say both vessels were give-way).

3. The alteration to starboard by Varkan Edge came too late, and was a very dangerous maneuver if the vessels were in a close pass green to green. But having waited so late, an alteration to port would also be dangerous -- because one would expect the other vessel to alter to starboard.

4. If Medi Mode altered to port, it did so in the believe that the vessels were passing green to green, and that this would increase CPA. But Varkan Ege had just altered to starboard, so the alteration to port by Medi Mode cancelled any effect of Varkan Ege's maneuver.

This is a textbook collision avoidance malfunction, vessels maneuvering into each other. Passing normally, red to red, leaving the maneuver to late might not end in disaster, because the standard starboard maneuver will increase CPA no matter what. Either or both vessels doing this can resolve the situation. Green to green is f****d up, because of the likelihood of vessels maneuvering into each other.

[Breaking Waves]

lol dock . . . . you do know those are just direct quotes from the report . . . . but by all means feel to indicate that your understanding and judgement is better than those of the report writers

[Stmurray62]

Gosh, at six miles, I would have stopped/slowed down, called tanker ad advised them that I saw them and would come to PORT. Ask them to acknowledge and then proceed.
Yes, I know going to starboard is the norm.
I agree AIS would have helped a lot, but communication is still vital. Also, the rules basically “urge” to undertake whatever steps necessary to avoid collision, based on the sketch, they failed to do that.

[tarian]

Thought that was eyes were for , it would make no difference having ais as the tanker also had radar , if the person did not see a bloody great big tanker and heard on vhf what good would ais done bleep bleep bleep , seems a tired skipper may have dozed off

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

lol dock . . . . you do know those are just direct quotes from the report . . . . but by all means feel to indicate that your understanding and judgement is better than those of the report writers

Yes, I am commenting on the report.


Even if we agree with the report that it was a crossing situation, its being so close to a head-on situation means you can't handle it like a normal crossing situation. This is a classic fine on the bow issue.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by tarian

seems a tired skipper may have dozed off

my sense of the report is that without directly saying it (because they did not have facts to directly support it), is that their opinion was that yea the yacht skipper perhaps had dozed off, might have been startled awake by the 5 toots (but did not remember them) and then made a panic turn.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Y
its being so close to a head-on situation means you can't handle it like a normal crossing situation. This is a classic fine on the bow issue.

hmmmm . . . . . not sure why you would say that -

seems to me like a classic crossing issue . . . . the ship made the collision detection a bit late (because the lights of the yacht were not so bright and its radar reflection not so good and the watchkeeping was not so diligent). Then they wasted time making vhf calls. Then they made the correct large turn to starboard. If they had made that turn earlier things would have been rather better.

The Yacht does not seem to have been paying attention - did not hear the VHF nor the 5 toots, did not realize the crossing situation, screwed up light understanding, and seems (perhaps) to have made a late panic turn to port. If they had been paying attention they would not have steered right into the big damn ship.

The ship knew full well the geometry. The Yacht does not seem to have and it did not help that they did not know the lights correctly.

If either or both the vessels had been more on the ball and just followed the full crossing rules this would have been avoided.

[Breaking Waves]

does anyone know who these guys on the yacht were?

" They had taken part in many round the world voyages and competitions. "

is that bs . . .or was this like RKJ or someone?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

hmmmm . . . . . not sure why you would say that -

seems to me like a classic crossing issue . . . . the ship made the collision detection a bit late (because the lights of the yacht were not so bright and its radar reflection not so good and the watchkeeping was not so diligent). Then they wasted time making vhf calls. Then they made the correct large turn to starboard. If they had made that turn earlier things would have been rather better.

The Yacht does not seem to have been paying attention - did not hear the VHF nor the 5 toots, did not realize the crossing situation, screwed up light understanding, and seems (perhaps) to have made a late panic turn to port. If they had been paying attention they would not have steered right into the big damn ship.

The ship knew full well the geometry. The Yacht does not seem to have and it did not help that they did not know the lights correctly.

If either or both the vessels had been more on the ball and just followed the full crossing rules this would have been avoided.

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but the difference to normal crossing is geometry. The geometry of a fine on the bow crossing (which I think should have been a head-on situation under the Rules contrary to the report's conclusion) means green to green is VERY dangerous, and you can't stand on long. On top of everything else, you have virtually maximum possible closing speed, reducing time to sort it out. Requires very early maneuver. This geometry is actually more dangerous than more head-on situation.


Both vessels as you say were very lax (possibly asleep in case of the yacht). But a more perpendicular crossing would not have created this degree of challenge.