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

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

More confusing are some of the comments from the Moody pilots. One suggested the foresail would have blocked the combined lamp on the top of the mast. Made a comment about "aviation colregs" - WTF is that?

'Aviation Colregs' - it would seem - have a 3rd dimension.....

These chaps were lucky they didn't discover the 3rd dimension in the maritime rules....

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by jmschmidt

Simple. Outlaw masthead running lights on all boats especially sail boats.

Yes, however I don't know how that would have made a difference. The sectors for red and green are the same on a masthead light as on normal sidelights.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

'Aviation Colregs' - it would seem - have a 3rd dimension.....

These chaps were lucky they didn't discover the 3rd dimension in the maritime rules....

Hah! I just took a glance at 14 CFR 91; some here would love the right-of-way rules there!

Originally Posted by wingssail

Yes, however I don't know how that would have made a difference. The sectors for red and green are the same on a masthead light as on normal sidelights.

Apart from "masthead" referring to the steaming light and not the combined lamps or the "red over green" configuration, the "red over green" configuration does present a risk: If the lower all-round green were masked by the foresail, another vessel might interpret the still-visible red as a sidelight.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

These chaps were lucky they didn't discover the 3rd dimension in the maritime rules....

Made me chuckle

[El Pinguino]

A pretty poorly written report.....

So what lights was the yacht showing?
According to the report 'The vessel was motor sailing on autopilot with navigation lights and steaming light showing from sunset.'
and yet it then says the yacht's lights were..
'A combined white, red, green masthead all-round light. Range 1 mile. Visible arc of green and red 112.5 degrees. In addition to the masthead lights ‘Medi Mode’ has port, starboard and stern lights at deck level. These were not in use at the time of incident.'

And the ship only saw a red.....

Further on in the report..
'Neither vessel took compass bearings of each other to determine if there was a risk of collision.'....
The written statement from the ship's master states..
'He just found its echo on radar and realized that the red light from sailing vessel which moving with 7,9 kts (sic). According to radar details CPA was 0.....'
So while he didn't wander over to the gyro repeater on the stbd bridge wing... enclosed bridge so probably a window frame in way of the light anyway... and stand there for 6 minutes watching the bearing he did ascertain that there was a steady bearing and a CPA of 0 using the radar...

So he had ascertained that risk of collision existed... which makes a non sense of the quoted line in the report....

[El Pinguino]

And also.... yacht WK says ship was showing green and was on their stbd bow.

Yet they state that they were steering 000º.... (was this true , magnetic or compass? Local variation is maybe 4º east so that is neither here nor there) while we know the ship was steering 161º.

It would be impossible for the pair of them to be steering those courses, the ship to be on the yacht's stbd bow and for the two of them to collide.

We know two of the three are true therefore the third is not... in this case the ship was not on the yacht's stbd bow......

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

It would be impossible for the pair of them to be steering those courses, the ship to be on the yacht's stbd bow and for the two of them to collide.

Ping, they do include a diagram showing 'the actual fact' and that yea the ship was in fact not on the stb bow. My reading is that without being able to state it they tried to communicate to the reader they thought the yacht crew did not know what was going on.

I'm not defending the clarity of the writing, because it does have a sloppy poorly edited feel to it . . . . . but I was on several accident investigation panels writing several of these sorts of reports and you can be a bit challenged to write a clear report when one of the parties is saying nonsense. Especially when that party has hmmm . . . hinted at threatening a lawsuit if the report ventures into 'opinion' rather than pure facts. In that case, if nothing greater is at stake, the team often just defaults to punting on the effort to put together a really good report.

I was on a team investigating a case where a yacht with 5 crew, in a race, ran right into a well charted island which even had a big light on it. The yacht had radar and a chart plotter running. We pretty much all knew that the yacht had put the autopilot on and the 'watch' had dozed off . . . . but we could not say that (because there were no actual hard facts that that was true) nor focus on recommendations related to preventing that . . . so we had to ask ourselves then really what was the point then of putting a whole ton on 'polish' on the report.

I'm curious, but I guess we will never know, what the yacht's insurance company decided/did (I presume there was one). I am guessing they did not try to go after the ship owner to pay for (part of) the yacht repairs (which they might have done in other circumstances). There was no damage to the ship so perhaps there was really no real decision to make. IDK, that would have been where the 'rubber met the road'.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Ping, they do include a diagram showing 'the actual fact' and that yea the ship was in fact not on the stb bow. My reading is that without being able to state it they tried to communicate to the reader they thought the yacht crew did not know what was going on.

My take is that with wind and wave on the quarter, the Moody would have been yawing around a bit and probably making some leeway right of its heading. It's entirely possible that the ship would have appeared periodically on the Moody's stbd bow - but certainly not steady, so wish the report dug down on that.
I also suspect the tricolour was not perfectly aligned, but the investigators apparently didn't check that. IMO, the investigators assumed the crotchety old fart fell asleep at the helm, and didn't think critically about resolving the conflicting testimony - bias is the enemy of good reporting.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

the Moody would have been yawing around . . . . so wish the report dug down on that.

We can be sure it was yawing some. It would have needed to be yawing rather more than +-20 degrees to get the ship on starboard. I personally would suspect not that much given the weather conditions (remember they were motoring). And really in any case 'airline pilots' should have understood that the ocasional extreme yaw does not define steady state closing geometry.

But my question for you (having been is somewhat similar report writing situations) is what exactly you suggest the investigation team might have done to dig into that further? There don't seem to have been any data or hard facts available (no gps or instrument data stored). In theory they could have charted an identical yacht and gone out sailing in an identical situation and recorded the gps and instrument data . . . . but I guess most investigative teams would not consider that a worthwhile use of their time for a moot point.

I also suspect the tricolour was not perfectly aligned, but the investigators apparently didn't check that.

Why do you suspect or assume either of those things?
They might well have checked and concluded that the tricolor was aligned enough to not have made any difference. It seems moot because the ship (apparently) understood the geometry and saw the correct colored light. No light instalation is ever 'absolutely perfect' but I personally doubt the tricolor was even 10 degrees off (based on having inspected quite a few race boat lights).

You prior question about the correct lights to have been showing while under power was I think a better criticism of the report . . . . but actually moot because the ship already considered themselves give way. They seem to suggest (in section 4.1 where they review the rules compliance) that both vessels were compling with the lights rules, but it is a bit unclear. It seems again moot because the ship already understood they were give way.

IMO, the investigators assumed the crotchety old fart fell asleep at the helm, and didn't think critically about resolving the conflicting testimony - bias is the enemy of good reporting.

I totally agree with the last point . . . . .but I personally guess they did think quite hard about the conflicting testimony and in fact reached the right conclusion about its cause** but were left with no hard facts to 'prove' it one way or the other. (I mean . . . they did not hear the vhf call, they did not hear the 5 toots, they did not know which side of their bow the ship was on, and they steered their bow right into the ship . . . what is the most likily conclusion?). An indication of this is their very careful statement about 'some evidence to suggest the yacht turned port'. That is an important (and not moot) point in the assessment and they very clearly tried to resolve that point of conflict.

** I mean . . . they did not hear the vhf call, they did not hear the 5 toots, they did not know which side of their bow the ship was on, and they steered their bow right into the ship . . . what is the most likely conclusion?

as I agreed in post above . . . the report writing was sloppy and not well edited.

......

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

..We can be sure it was yawing some. It would have needed to be yawing rather more than +-20 degrees to get the ship on starboard. I personally would suspect not that much given the weather conditions (remember they were motoring). And really in any case 'airline pilots' should have understood that the ocasional extreme yaw does not define steady state closing geometry.

But my question for you (having been is somewhat similar report writing situations) is what exactly you suggest the investigation team might have done to dig into that further?

As others have indicated, they haven't clearly defined the nature of the Moody's course - true, magnetic, compass??? The respondent indicated the ship was at about 1 o'clock - to the right of the foresail, but no indication of trim, or for that matter from where the observation was being taken. With the sail trimmed flat and the observer sitting on the stbd side,the ship might have been within 5º stbd of the bow - thought continues below

I also suspect the tricolour was not perfectly aligned, but the investigators apparently didn't check that.

Why do you suspect or assume either of those things?
They might well have checked and concluded that the tricolor was aligned enough to not have made any difference. It seems moot because the ship (apparently) understood the geometry and saw the correct colored light. No light instalation is ever 'absolutely perfect' but I personally doubt the tricolor was even 10 degrees off (based on having inspected quite a few race boat lights).

When I got the chance to check the lights on my then new-to-me boat, the tricolour was at least 20º skewed. Even perfectly aligned,red tends to show better than green, so the overlap sector might have tended to the red side of the spectrum.

You prior question about the correct lights to have been showing while under power was I think a better criticism of the report . . . . but actually moot because the ship already considered themselves give way. They seem to suggest (in section 4.1 where they review the rules compliance) that both vessels were compling with the lights rules, but it is a bit unclear. It seems again moot because the ship already understood they were give way.

In 4.1.15 they state Medi Mode was not complying with the rule 25(e) but figure it made no difference in the end.

An indication of this is their very careful statement about 'some evidence to suggest the yacht turned port'. That is an important (and not moot) point in the assessment and they very clearly tried to resolve that point of conflict.
....

This is the point - they don't indicate what bearing the yacht was from the ship, other than "stbd bow". So assume the yacht is telling the truth and the ship was on their stbd bow - if their actual heading was roughly reciprocal to the ship, it could have been a close green/green; ship saw overlap or misalignment red sector of tricolour; turns 60º to stbd right in front of the yacht; yacht plows straight into side of ship without turning to port. At least from that point they should have ruled out these possibilities and stated so in the report.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

[COLOR="Blue"]This is the point - they don't indicate what bearing the yacht was from the ship, other than "stbd bow".

They the ship had radar and a target . . . they in fact know what the geometry was.

At least from that point they should have ruled out these possibilities and stated so in the report.

By including the diagram of the crossing as a fact found they did rule out these possibilities. And they did state in the text that the yacht was wrong about the light/bow side.


If you want to agure that they found wrong - that perhaps the ship radar understanding was wrong . . .well ok, pretty much nothing in life can ever be proven 100% absolutely true (that's something you learn writing these reports) . . . but I would suggest the preponderance of facts support their findings. I personally think they reached the best conclusions they could with the facts they had (other than poor writing/editing)

note: we once had someone argue that we should consider the possibility of alien abduction (and pirates) in an incident report, and yea we could not prove that was not the case, but no we did not include it lol.

the comment about rule 25 is specifically stated as 'no cone' right? its not no steaming light?

..........

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

......They the ship had radar and a target . . . they in fact know what the geometry was.

And yet not mentioned in the report. I contend they don't have that info. In fact they made repeated excuses about Varkan Ege not being in their jurisdiction for a full investigation.

By including the diagram of the crossing as a fact found they did rule out these possibilities. And they did state in the text that the yacht was wrong about the light/bow side.

They created that diagram as indicative of their assumptions - that differs from "fact."

the comment about rule 25 is specifically stated as 'no cone' right? its not no steaming light?....

Yes - just pointing out they've made it clear that MM was motorsailing. It was an earlier complaint about the report that they didn't comment on the nav-lights other than at 2.1 where they said the tricolour was used - clearly they were lit as a sailing vessel, not a PDV as required.

[Breaking Waves]

Well . . . if you want to question the yacht's light and compass alignments (which they may have checked - we don't know), and the Ships radar understanding . . . then all you are left knowing is that the yacht hit the ship on its port bow, and the ship track to that point (including a large turn to starboard) from their ais track. And the fact that the yacht crew did not seem to understand which side which lights were on. Yes, that is one way to approach an incident analysis here but it does not leave you with much to work with.

You would conclude that the ship may have tried to do the right thing but too slow too late, and you would know nothing at all about what the yacht did or did not do except that it steered right into the port side of a lit commercial ship (and that they did not understand nav lights)

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Well . . . if you want to question the yacht's light and compass alignments (which they may have checked - we don't know),

Right. We don't know. Hence my problem with the report.

and the Ships radar understanding . . . then all you are left knowing is that the yacht hit the ship on its port bow, and the ship track to that point (including a large turn to starboard) from their ais track. And the fact that the yacht crew did not seem to understand which side which lights were on. Yes, that is one way to approach an incident analysis here but it does not leave you with much to work with.

Not correct. We have the testimonies of the watchkeepers. They could have emailed for clarifications from the VE's skipper and watchkeeper, but apparently didn't. They did get clarification from the MM's crew - you seem to be stuck on the light, which they explain as a typo. Don't know when his statement was made, but if it was the morning after an all-nighter bringing his broken boat into a port of refuge in deteriorating weather, after having had a collision with a ship, I might be inclined to cut him some slack. I have a hard time believing a commercial pilot doesn't know the difference between red and green - planes have the same-colour sidelights.

You would conclude that the ship may have tried to do the right thing but too slow too late, and you would know nothing at all about what the yacht did or did not do except that it steered right into the port side of a lit commercial ship (and that they did not understand nav lights)

I would not conclude that. If you mean the investigators don't understand nav lights, I agree.
VE's WK made a decision based on scanty radar information - now where have I heard that term before....
Nowhere does it require them to alter stbd for a rule 18 avoidance of a sailboat, which is ostensibly what they were doing based on the light they saw. It was close to stbd, and I contend if the bearing was drawing right, they would have seen it turn from red to green and that's why they assumed MM turned to port. Not defending MM - my criticisms of them are recorded here, but not impressed that the investigators have concluded they're either lying or barmy, and based their whole scenario on the incomplete description of about 4 minutes interaction. Talk about scanty information

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

. Talk about scanty information[/COLOR]

I asked and you did not answer, and I still don't understand what you would have done here better than the investigators to get more information - with a reasonable amount of effort for the gain.

If we take the watchkeeps statements at face value - the light and compass alignment questions are really moot - the ship considered themselves giveaway based on what they saw - and their significant starboard turn seems the correct action (except too late) in any of the likily scenarios (unless you believe they are lying and crossed in front of the yacht and then crossed back in front to the collision). The yacht apparently (incorrectly) did not believe there was ever a risk of collision - and their light alignment and compass alignment would not have changed that

My understanding is that the investigators were required to share a draft with the involved parties and give them opportunity for input (this is what it says on page 39) - so it seems that the ship owner/captain/watchkeeper did not have any corrections/comments and believed the report accurately captured their understanding of the incident.

IDK if a vessel like that ship would have a VDR. If it did someone (coastal authorities on the spot) should have requested a dump immediately after the incident (not the report team who would only have been assembled later). However if we take the ship incident report at face value I'm not sure what they would have gained - that report gives a pretty clear understanding of what they thought happened.

You also still have not explained your 'alternate scenario' why the yacht did not hear the vhf, did not hear the 5 toots, did not consider there to be a risk of collision, and steered right into the port side of the ship on autopilot. . . . it seems pretty clear to me from that factual sequence of events they were not paying much attention. aka lying or barmy lol or more generously just fatigued and dozing off intermittently (which is the 'human factor' actually suggested in the report)

My experience is that you when get information from people, some witnesses seem credible and others don't. And you weight their input based in part on that 'feel' and in part on what other pieces of info corroborate. It's pretty clear who the invesitagtors found credible here and who they did not. You can argue they should not make that sort of judgement - but it is done all the time in both court and these sorts of investigations.

In any case - you don't like the report . . . .well ok. I still think they outlined the most probable course of events give the information available and there was not much more fruitful they could have done.