Sailing boat overrun by motoryacht, deadly accident

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

If they had been on a bluewater sailboat then the outcome would have been different. I am practicing my trolling ...

C'mon !
You know it depends entirely on what kind of anchor they had.

[Rumrace]

Your Good NPCampbell.
Trolls don’t state opinions of their own they spend time undermining others with innuendo and then make factual statement previously mentioned by other people to establish some imaginary prestige.
The will spend hours insulting people to establish they are the smartest person in the room. Often talk about superior experiences to avoid talking about actual education and qualifications.
The funny part is they are often wrong and continue to make a fool of themselves

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by wingssail

You yourself has said that other sources must be studied to understand how to apply Colregs But you don't say where in Colregs these other sources are named or referenced. If you think people should be aware of these other sources please tell us where we might have run across them.

@Dockhead has previously written on this forum that there are one (or a handful) of books that describe the customary interpretation of the COLREGs that are, paraphrasing him by memory, just as important to read as the text of the COLREGs themselves to gain a deep understanding of how the rules are applied. I'll post specifics here if I come across the title.


Regarding the distances at which a give-way vessel must take action, and at which a stand-on vessel should take action if the give-way vessel has not, while situational those distances are greater than is perhaps widely believed, several miles in open water with no obstructions.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jammer

@Dockhead has previously written on this forum that there are one (or a handful) of books that describe the customary interpretation of the COLREGs that are, paraphrasing him by memory, just as important to read as the text of the COLREGs themselves to gain a deep understanding of how the rules are applied. I'll post specifics here if I come across the title.

A Guide To The Collision Avoidance Rules
AN Cockcroft and JNF Lameijer
commonly just known as "Cockcroft"
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Collisi.../dp/0080971709

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Jammer

...Regarding the distances at which a give-way vessel must take action, and at which a stand-on vessel should take action if the give-way vessel has not, while situational those distances are greater than is perhaps widely believed, several miles in open water with no obstructions.

Just out of curiosity Jammer, what reference do you cite to be able to say this?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by StuM

A Guide To The Collision Avoidance Rules
AN Cockcroft and JNF Lameijer
commonly just known as "Cockcroft"
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Collisi.../dp/0080971709

Ah! The secret book!

Well thank you StuM, but I'd never heard of this book and I have been boating all my life, have Colregs and have studied them, have been tested for CG license (master, over 65, sail) and passed and I have never heard of this book until this thread.

If reading this book is essential for knowing how to apply Colregs then we have a real problem, because I'd say that most boaters have never heard of it let alone know what it says. Is this book taught in ASA classes?

Following your link I see that it costs $61, and another book mentioned is Farwell's at $44. So we have here $100 worth of secret books and if we're told that if haven't read them and know what they say we're ignorant. Clever.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Lodesman, this is the height of arrogance. You make me angry

Maybe you should attend an anger management course.

No posters "derided Colregs"

Re-read Lake-effect's posts.

No posters "boasted loudly". No posters claimed they were "so much better at avoiding danger".

I invite you to browse through any of the myriad colregs threads in the Rules, Regs & Red Tape folder. Look for such statements as "I just stay out of the way...". "I never stand on", or key phrases such as "law of tonnage", "right of way", or any limerick containing the name Michael O'Day.

What is being said is that Colregs do not clearly say when or where a stand-on vessel can take action. If you think Colregs does the then kindly quote the rule and paragraph. I think the Colregs directive that says "when it is apparent to her, she may take action" is a wishy washy statement which leaves it entirely up to the stand on vessel to decide, meaning the requirement to stand on does not exist.

Here is a statement that perfectly sums up the previous point. Some poster loudly proclaiming nonsense about the Rules. How you can twist the rule to suggest that there is no requirement to stand on, beggars belief. I've discussed guides to the colregs already and feel no need to repeat this point. You should try to pay attention and focus on learning.

And what some other people are saying is that a sailing yacht must be ready to get moving and take action and get out of the way of a speeding powerboat and if they don't or don't do it early enough or fast enough, then they are at fault. If you think Colregs has any language which would support that concept the please quote it for us.

Note it says "any vessel", not "only one vessel in a risk of collision", not "the power-driven vessel", not "the faster vessel" -the Rules apply to all vessels, and puts requirements on all vessels to follow specific actions to avoid collisions. This includes the actions to be taken by the stand-on vessel.

Some have even said that a sailing vessel should anticipate where a power vessel might be intending to go and be sure not to get in their way. In other words, keep out of the way of the powerboat I doubt if you can find that guidance in Colregs

No poster said that. Post a quote.

You yourself has said that other sources must be studied to understand how to apply Colregs But you don't say where in Colregs these other sources are named or referenced. If you think people should be aware of these other sources please tell us where we might have run across them.

And finally you have the arrogance to say that people should pay attention in these discussions when they're being told...By who? God or just you Lodesman?

Is God posting here? What's her handle?
There are many knowledgeable posters who contribute regularly in the colregs threads. There are many posters, who we might term "enthusiastic students of the colregs" who might not have all the answers, but ask excellent questions, and contribute thoughtful analyses of various rules, or interactions between vessels, such as in this thread. These discussions are potentially excellent ways to improve our knowledge and understanding of the nuances of the Rules. Rather than being combative and obstructive, you could come into these discussions with your mind open to the possibility that you might learn something that will improve your own understanding of how to deal with similar situations.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by StuM

A Guide To The Collision Avoidance Rules
AN Cockcroft and JNF Lameijer
commonly just known as "Cockcroft"
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Collisi.../dp/0080971709

https://www.amazon.com/Colregs-Guide...ip%2C90&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Farwells-Rule...82475492&psc=1

Are two other decent guides. There are others guides available, of varying quality. Even the best guide can't give a complete understanding - this is where formal study, experience, and discussion help unfuzzy the fuzzy.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Just out of curiosity Jammer, what reference do you cite to be able to say this?

I'm paraphrasing the outcome of many discussions and do not claim to be an authority of any kind on such matters. In substantially all the near-miss/frustrations/etc COLREGs discussions on CF and elsewhere, that I have been party to, one of the most common conclusions is that the vessels involved didn't act early enough, and that in particular that the stand-on vessel waited too long with the expectation that the give-way vessel was going to take action.


My own experience differs since most of my sailing is on inland waters where there are enough bays and points and inlets and bends and so on that everything unfolds at much closer distances. In my situation it is also common for the special rules for the western rivers to apply. I also face a jurisdictional mess in that state rules and local ordinances, that differ from the inland rules, apply in some cases or are at least perceived to by some boaters. We have: "A nonmotorized watercraft has right-of-way over a motor-powered watercraft except when it is the overtaking watercraft. Motor-powered watercraft should always keep clear and pass astern of nonmotorized watercraft." Not quite the same as COLREGs.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"bespeaks"

Glad you find humour in the English language.

I'm not deriding colregs, I'm deriding your victim-blaming.

"Victim-blaming"?!?!

Caught out by logic, shrill leftists always fall back on the strategy of accusing correspondents of "victim-blaming", "racism", "sexism", or some other "ism". It's trite.

The "victims" are the two people who lost their lives. Presumably, they were passengers in the sailboat, not crew; and they had a reasonable expectation that the operator of that vessel, would have navigated the vessel in a safe and responsible manner. He/they did not, and therefore he/they share culpability with the operator(s) of the motoryacht. So, no, not blaming the victims.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

"Victim-blaming"?!?!

Caught out by logic, shrill leftists always fall back on the strategy of accusing correspondents of "victim-blaming", "racism", "sexism", or some other "ism". It's trite.

The "victims" are the two people who lost their lives. Presumably, they were passengers in the sailboat, not crew; and they had a reasonable expectation that the operator of that vessel, would have navigated the vessel in a safe and responsible manner. He/they did not, and therefore he/they share culpability with the operator(s) of the motoryacht. So, no, not blaming the victims.

Ooh, your slip is showing.

Gonna make one sincere last try, then leave you to stew in your obsession.

Your assertion if I read you correctly, is that there was a serious lapse in the watchkeeping and/or reactions of the sailboat skipper. Well, perhaps there was some things he'd now like to have done differently, but how many of us would respond perfectly to such an extreme situation? And is it not possible that he did respond reasonably, as per colregs, but circumstances, onboard problems, unhelpful actions from crew/passengers - all hindered a perfect avoidance...?

People were injured and died because of apparent gross negligence aboard the powerboat. Period. Colregs armchair lawyers might hypothesize that the sailboat response wasn't optimal, and whatever hearings might even apportion some fraction of blame to the sailboat skipper's watchkeeping or response.

We will find out, in time.

But not being perfect, vs gross negligence... is it that hard to see where the fault lies?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ooh, your slip is showing.

Gonna make one sincere last try, then leave you to stew in your obsession.

??? WTF are you on about?

... but how many of us would respond perfectly to such an extreme situation?

...
People were injured and died because of apparent gross negligence aboard the powerboat. Period.

...
But not being perfect, vs gross negligence... is it that hard to see where the fault lies?

Do you not get that if a proper lookout had been maintained, it wouldn't have become "an extreme situation"?

Open ocean. Daytime. Unrestricted visibility (if you don't count the sun). Could have been observed visually for 20 mins. Observed by radar for 30 mins. Observed by AIS for 40 mins or more.

What possible excuse could there be for not maintaining an effective watch for such a long period?
If he had plowed onto the rocks at Giglio, a la Costa Concordia, because he wasn't paying attention, you would call that gross negligence, wouldn't you?
How is driving for 20 mins with your eyes closed, into extremis any different?

[requiem]

Here is a much more affordable resource:
Collisions at Sea: Volume 1: Liability and the Collision Regulations

I hadn't realized volume two had come out until I checked just now, so I haven't read it yet:
Collisions at Sea: Volume 2: Case Studies

All of the references mentioned tend to cite the same cases, which is common when precedent has been established. They also tend to involve larger ships, as spending massive amounts of money in court tends to be done only when even larger amounts are at stake.

I think the car analogy can be stretched a bit further as well: Many drivers on the roads have only a basic understanding of the relevant laws, just as on the water, and that understanding will also include a decent chunk of myth and folklore. If a collision happens there will still be arguing over fault, and if it's significant enough to make it to court there will be a similar reliance on case law to determine how the written law will be interpreted and applied.

And, just as on the water both parties are required to do what they can to avoid a collision.

This isn't unique to vessels or vehicles; it's pretty much how anything works once the lawyers get involved. Fortunately most of the time collisions don't happen, and the basic rules of thumb or habits that people have come up with in the absence of more thorough training don't end up being dissected in a courtroom.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you not get that if a proper lookout had been maintained, it wouldn't have become "an extreme situation"??

You don't know that they didn't maintain a proper lookout, or didn't take reasonable steps. Just wait for the inquest to finally reveal all the facts.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

...
There are many knowledgeable posters who contribute regularly in the colregs threads. There are many posters, who we might term "enthusiastic students of the colregs" who might not have all the answers, but ask excellent questions, and contribute thoughtful analyses of various rules, or interactions between vessels, such as in this thread. These discussions are potentially excellent ways to improve our knowledge and understanding of the nuances of the Rules. Rather than being combative and obstructive, you could come into these discussions with your mind open to the possibility that you might learn something that will improve your own understanding of how to deal with similar situations.

Exactly.

These conversations can be learning exercises for those who wish to learn.

It always amazes me how some people will argue over certain issues. The COLREGS require time and effort to understand, and I sure as heck won't claim to understand ALL of the COLREGS, but even with a superficial comprehension of the rules, one should realize the brilliance and specificity of the COLREGS. It is very obvious that a great deal of time and effort, by some very experienced people, over a long period of time, created the COLREGS. It should be equally obvious that it takes are great deal of time and effort to really understand the rules. Looking at situations like this one helps one learn and remember the rules.

Thanks,
Dan