Sailing boat overrun by motoryacht, deadly accident

[Wotname]

........ Sailing vessels are entitled to sail and powered vessels are required to keep out of their way. .......

The statement is entirely incorrect, is not supported by the Colregs and believing it is the source of many accidents.

In any circumstance, only one vessel needs to abide by all of the rules to avoid a collision. Unless of course if one vessel is intentionally trying to ram another vessel but that is a different discussion...

Collisions occur due to poor judgement and a failure to understand (and comply with) the Colregs. The only unknown in this thread is the degree of responsibly to allocated to both parties. Given the very sparse published facts , my guess it will be 50/50.

[boatman61]

I would say 70/30... with the sailboat being the lesser.

[Don C L]

Skipper(s) not keeping watch and not even at the helm, (the AP was on,) at 30 knots, and blame will be equally shared? Am I hearing this right? Even at 70/30 I find that hard to believe.

[wingssail]

........ Sailing vessels are entitled to sail and powered vessels are required to keep out of their way. .......

Originally Posted by Wotname

The statement is entirely incorrect, is not supported by the Colregs and believing it is the source of many accidents.

I'm sorry wotname, what was wrong about that statement?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Lodesman, your contention that the sailboat should reasonably have done more is unrealistic.

Your contention that they could not have avoided a collision is unrealistic. Again I don't want to suppose what they may have done or tried to do. At this point, I think there are some plainly obvious facts, such as where the boats impacted each other, and a lot of questions. But if one is to believe that the SV was westbound and did an about-turn just prior to the collision, then it seems to suggest that either the operator of the sailboat failed to notice a risk of collision until the last moment, or he stood on too long for whatever reason, be that hopeful expectation or machismo. Then it would seem to suggest that he(?) was not checking the bearing of the other vessel, which could have prevented the collision.

So we can visualize this: a slowly moving sailboat with passengers presumably relaxing on a nice day, lazing around the cockpit chatting, and one person on the helm steering and watching where he/she is going. This is not the bridge of an ocean going commercial vessel with officer of the deck, helm person steering, and lookouts posted on all corners nor do we think it normal or required for it to have been operated in that way. They needed to look where they were going and not run into anything.

This is where we differ philosophically. When you are operating a vehicle, be that a supertanker, a Subaru, or a SUP, you are responsible for its safety and should apply yourself to that task diligently. A big deal is made of the speed difference, but if a SV sailing or motorsailing at 6 kts hits a tinny with a couple of guys fishing or a kayak, it could be just as deadly. Do you honestly believe sailors out for a jolly don't have to keep a continuous lookout? Might I point out the sailors of the MV were also out for a jolly, presumably relaxing and chatting.

At five miles you start to pay more attention, it's coming towards you and you don't need a compass to see that its bearing is not changing much. Like was proposed above, the first reaction is: "Surely they see us?". And you watch it and decide, "No, they are still coming!"

From 5 miles there was about 9 mins until the collision point - that should be more than adequate to resolve and avoid. Making assumptions like "surely they see us" is dumb. As others have indicated, one should assume everyone else is an idiot or psycho - that way you won't be surprised; and frequently you'll be pleasantly surprised. If the bearing was steady from 5 to 3 or 2, then it's probably time to turn. Before it got to 3 would have been the time to check for AIS and make a radio call. The rapid closing speed should induce an early application of Rule 17(a)(ii).

But you, Lodesman, must accept that whatever they do it isn't going to amount to much. Whatever speed they were going it is going to be slower after they suddenly turn to a new direction and the sailboat is going to gain speed slowly. Speeding up with the engine is useless, they are not going to accelerate at all. Stopping won't do it, then they are just sitting ducks.

They were not sitting ducks. If you believe they made an evasive 180, then you must realize that they had cleared the path of the MV, and still managed to turn around and hit that fast-moving target.

And we're expecting the helm's person to have lightning reflexes and make a good decision when adrenalin is flowing and time is very short. We're not talking about Top Gun fighter pilot reflexes here.

Watching and planning ahead, is a good way to avoid the adrenaline-rush.

The only thing they could have done is take action much sooner, meaning get out of the way of the powerboat even while it had sufficient time to take action itself, which seems contrary to Colregs due to the obligation to "stand on".

This is why there are no set ranges prescribed in Colregs for the actions described in Rule 17. In situations where the closing speed is very high, you have to push the ranges out. Worse case scenario, they alter course at the same time, but then they'll have time to readjust. Standing on hoping they've seen you, really limits your ability to control the situation.

I think placing much, if any, responsibility on the sailboat is pretty much a stretch too far. They were the victims, and you are blaming them.

Now let me tell you of an incident on a sailboat I was in command of many years ago, before AIS, and we didn't have radar. A 41 ft racing sloop, (not my own) with myself and six adult students on a sailing class at night in Puget Sound. I was not on the helm, I was in the cockpit. We had a genoa up and had just completed a tack onto starboard which was required due to the left turn of the passage we were following.

We did not see the ship overtaking us from astern towards whose path we'd just turned. There was a single long blast of a horn and I ducked my head around the genoa and saw the ship coming, quite close and looking to me like it would pass astern of us (I thought we were nearly on its bow and almost about to cross ahead of it). I yelled at the helm person to "turn left!!" which was wrong because the ship was itself already in a left turn. I had judged its path incorrectly, it was not passing astern of us, we were on a parallel course with it at a distance of probably less than 50 feet.

The person on the helm of our sailboat froze and did not turn. The ship passed on our left side close enough so that, looking upward, I saw part of the ship directly overhead. If we had turned left as I ordered we'd have turned right into its path.

Of course I should have seen the ship earlier but we were in our spots with our heads down working the sails and winches. If we had seen it we would not have tacked towards it, and, it was my fault for making the wrong call, I admit all of that, but I'm telling this story it is to illustrate that even while sailing with a full crew, all awake and alert, and a knowledgeable skipper, wrong decisions can be made when you are about to be run down by a ship and holding us responsible would have been, as in the case of the "deadly accident", a big stretch.

Saying that we should not sail where a powered vessel might be heading is tantamount to asking us to "keep out of its way". It's the powered vessel who should keep out of the way of a sailing vessel and the the sailing vessel should be expected to make normal maneuvers, such as tacking when that is the normal maneuver that would be expected sailing in that place at that time.

Blaming the sailing boat for not keeping out of the way or not acting sooner, or acting incorrectly at the last minute, is blaming the victim as Lake Effect says.

First I'd like to commend you for having the courage to post your story. I'm truly glad your helmsperson froze, and you're here to relate the tale. I think again we differ philosophically, since you apparently wouldn't have held yourself responsible, if you had steered into the ship. I'm curious if you would have called yourself as a "victim"?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by wingssail

........ Sailing vessels are entitled to sail and powered vessels are required to keep out of their way. .......



I'm sorry wotname, what was wrong about that statement?

The use of the emphasised words. The Colregs places different burdens (responsibilities / obligations) on different types of vessels. Sail is not inherently deserving of special privileges and power is not singularly required to keep out of the way of sail.

The simple statement implies power is required to give way to sail. This is not supported by the Colregs. The Colregs requires both sail and power to avoid each other and details the process each should follow to achieve this. Furthermore, if only one vessel follows the process, collisions are still avoided.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

First I'd like to commend you for having the courage to post your story. I'm truly glad your helmsperson froze, and you're here to relate the tale. I think again we differ philosophically, since you apparently you wouldn't have held yourself responsible, if you had steered into the ship. I'm curious if you would have called yourself as a "victim"?

No, you're wrong. I hold myself responsible for that close call and I would have always held my self responsible for any accident that might have happened. That is because I know that I failed to look behind us and see the ship overtaking us at a high speed. Had I done so there would have been no close call. I am truly thankful that we did not have a collision which would have been extremely serious.

The ship, however, could also have prevented it by travelling at a safe speed and staying farther away from our sailboat. It's clear he saw us because he sounded his horn but still he piloted his vessel to pass us within about 100 meters which, when we changed direction, brought us within about 15 meters. Why didn't he honk 5 times when he was still a couple of miles away? At that point we would have been on a port tack preceding perpendicular to his course on a nearly steady bearing and he should have signaled his concern. But no, crickets. As it was we did cross in front of him only because he was turning to port and then it was by the barest of margins. At that point we tacked to starboard and began converging with him again but we missed him, so lucky.

And I have no idea what his single sound signal was supposed to indicate.

We were idiots, but he was negligent, in my opinion.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by wingssail

And I have no idea what his single sound signal was supposed to indicate.
.

Part D - Sound and Light Signals

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

No, you're wrong. I hold myself responsible for that close call and I would have always held my self responsible for any accident that might have happened.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood when you said:

And I have no idea what his single sound signal was supposed to indicate.

Rule 34 (e)

(e)
A vessel nearing a bend or an area of a channel or fairway where other vessels may be obscured by an intervening obstruction shall sound one prolonged blast. Such signal shall be answered with a prolonged blast by any approaching vessel that may be within hearing around the bend or behind the intervening obstruction.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Are you saying that we should not have been sailing at all at night near a shipping channel?
... Is it OK for the ship to speed through the night at 20 knots on a path that would cause it to overtake within a dozen meters a vessel under sail? There were no constraints on the ship due to water depth or narrowness of the passage we both were in.

I'm curious what channel this happened in? Were there lanes? You understand rules 9 and 10?

[requiem]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

For those places where the cone is routinely used, how do they make it routinely visible?

I've only used it when the jib was furled, and in such cases the sector blocked by the main is somewhat moot as a vessel there would be overtaking and thus give-way.

But, after a bit of thought, a more practical implementation might be a cone-on-a-stick mounted just forward of the forestay.

[Franziska]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

It was written back earlier in the thread that the sailboat was not sailing, but motor-sailing, and was not displaying the motoring cone. If that is correct, that will be the factor that will cause the judge to apportion some of the blame to it.

Of course, the collision is also an exemplar of failure to keep an adequate watch, unfortunately for both.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

But honestly, suggesting that it was humans' frail bodies did the damage to the motor vessel's props seems a little over the top to me. Winches, yes. That I can believe.

Ann

On "Edit": I rather doubt the MV could have seen the cone at all, had it been displayed, until it was very close. Europeans often use the cone, and some countries routinely administer fines for failing to do so. It is the fact that for reasons unknown to us, they did not have it up, will necessarily make at least some of the responsibility fall on them.

Ann, do we really know they were motorsailing?
Or did they start motoring just very short before the collision to avoid what was about to happen.

Unlikely they would set the cone in an attempt to avoid the collision.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Part D - Sound and Light Signals

Dementia got you boatpoker, or something? Because you forgot to finish your explanation.

(but do keep in mind that I do know and understand the meanings of sound signals and that ship's single blast while turning to port in an open and unobstructed channel could not have meant that)

[Jim Cate]

^^^^

As I recall the rules, a single short blast means that the vessel is directing their course to starboard.

And back on the original subject... all this talk about making a VHF call to the oncoming vessel? He was reportedly not broadcasting AIS, so the anxious skipper, not knowing the vessel's name, would have to make a blind call, and we all know how ineffective that is. Plus, radio contact is specifically discouraged in collision avoidance. I don't think it would have helped in this situation... if there was no one keeping visual watch, why would we think there was someone standing radio watch on the VHF?

IMO, the bottom line is that the stand on vessel (the sailboat) stood on too long before taking evasive action, and then suffered the consequences of that neglect. We can't know what the watchkeeping situation on either boat really was, other than to say it was not good enough! If I were apportioning blame I'd go at least 80/20 (but I'm clearly not knowledgeable enough to do so!).

Jim

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I'm curious what channel this happened in? Were there lanes? You understand rules 9 and 10?

This occurred in what is commonly known as the East Channel between Vashon Island and the mainland of Washington State at Lat 47 deg 23N 122 deg 21W. There is from this location approximately 7 miles of unobstructed visibility to the SW and 20 miles of unobstructed visibility to the NW. The channel is 1.8 miles in width and the depth is over 600 feet. There are no rocks or reefs or other hazards.

The VTS system there occupies 1.43nm of the 1.8 nm wide body of water, from the west shoreline to nearly the east shoreline. The separation zone is .3nm and the lanes are between .37nm and .65nm in width. There is not a precautionary zone at this location.

There is no ferry crossing or other regular crossing traffic and we saw no other traffic before or after however within 1.3 nm there is a major pleasure boat marina with several hundred pleasure boats and pleasure boat traffic, mostly sailboats, frequents the area and this area is also a commonly used for sailing regattas, all of which have been granted CG marine event permits to use this area. In fact there are yachting marks on either side of the TS system and crossings of fleets of sailing craft is not uncommon, including during hours of darkness. Small fishing boats are also common at this location and both types of boats may be present in hours of darkness. Because the VTS system occupies virtually all of the navigable water it is not typically feasible for vessels not participating in the VTS system to avoid entering or crossing the VTS lanes so frequent small boat traffic should be expected and use of the VTS lanes is encouraged for for all vessels travelling between the points involved but use of the VTS lanes is not intended to supersede the applicable rules of the road.

Tidal currents are present and strong and commercial vessels are frequently observed deviating from the VTS lanes to get out of or stay in the current depending on it's direction.

Commercial traffic is not uncommon in this channel but far from heavy.

I sailed and operated sailboats and powerboats in this vicinity roughly 10-20 times a year for 20 years and during that time held a USCG Operator's license, ocean, for passenger vessels over 65 feet with a sailing auxiliary endorsement (a license which no longer is issued).

I am a little tired of a few senile powerboaters who seem to think that they are the only persons who know what they are talking about. I understand rule 9 and 10.