Collision and Dismasting

[Kolchac]

It might help you with your fight:

The sailboats almost always have rules of the road "stand-on" against motor vessels.
Exceptions have motor vessels, which cannot maneuver. In this case, they have to inform you with a special combination of lights at night or special signals during the day.
I know the small commercial fishing boats do not bother.

[sailorboy1]

Far as I know, from the report, the FV had no damage. Unless you count the flakes of rust that flew onto my deck from the collision.

I will say it again, even if I could prove the FV was running dark, under the rules we still bare a share of the blame became there was in fact a collision between 2 boats in open water. While we are stressed, traumatized, and mad as hell the most we can now hope for is that the insurance company treats us right. What goes on between the FV and our insurance I could care less unless I could somehow get some "revenge" for some useless degree of satisfaction.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by boatman61

They admitted they were only keeping an AIS watch despite having radar, claimed we were under motor without steaming lights and the collision was bow on..

Wow they admitted they weren't maintaining a proper watch. Other than that your story is very similar to mine, except the FV in your story didn't just leave you out in the water. I bet in the FV world they have whole lessons on what to say in these events.

BTW the FV says we under motor when we sailing on a first reefed main They also said we didn't have our lights on, which we know were on as we checked to be sure when we turned on and while driving out the pin for the head sail I was sitting 1 foot away from the bow light that used as light to see waht I was doing.

[Kolchac]

I might not be clear enough. I'm talking about not regular navigation lights, but special navigation lights, which are required on boats with limited maneuverability like three vertical lights, I do not remember the color. 90% they did not have it.

[Ungvar]

Originally Posted by davefromoregon

Anyone know where the equivalent Canadian coastguard site is?

Canadian Coast Guard wouldn't do an investigation, that would be Transport Canada and if it's serious enough, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Both have web sites under those names.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Wow they admitted they weren't maintaining a proper watch. Other than that your story is very similar to mine, except the FV in your story didn't just leave you out in the water. I bet in the FV world they have whole lessons on what to say in these events.

BTW the FV says we under motor when we sailing on a first reefed main They also said we didn't have our lights on, which we know were on as we checked to be sure when we turned on and while driving out the pin for the head sail I was sitting 1 foot away from the bow light that used as light to see waht I was doing.

According to the HM in Viviero (a really nice guy) collisions between FV's and other vessels in S Biscay is not uncommon at all.. in the many times I have crossed during the last 27yrs I have often seen FV's go dark, more so since the advent of AIS.. one minute they're there then they're not, only to pop up a few miles away half an hour later.. or not.
Sadly on this trip we only had Mk1 eyeball on a black moonless night..
Hope things go faster for you, it took from September 2019 till May 2022 before our day in court to give evidence.
No clue on outcome and recompense to the owner.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

...
BTW the FV says we under motor when we sailing on a first reefed main They also said we didn't have our lights on, which we know were on as we checked to be sure when we turned on and while driving out the pin for the head sail I was sitting 1 foot away from the bow light that used as light to see waht I was doing.

I would suggest writing down all of the "inaccuracies" in the FV's report. It would be very easy to poke huge holes in what they are saying and show they were not truthful.

For instance, they said you were under motor. How did they know this if you were running with no lights? Did they see you motoring cone?

Not sure who you would show the list too other than the insurance company.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by dannc

I would suggest writing down all of the "inaccuracies" in the FV's report. It would be very easy to poke huge holes in what they are saying and show they were not truthful.

For instance, they said you were under motor. How did they know this if you were running with no lights? Did they see you motoring cone?

Not sure who you would show the list too other than the insurance company.

Already done. But other that it is just their word aganist mine. For me the only thing is to not do/did something to invalidate my insurance coverage. After that it is up to my insurance to chase this down if they want.

I need to move forward with things I have some control over and not pick at a wound.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Already done. But other that it is just their word aganist mine. For me the only thing is to not do/did something to invalidate my insurance coverage. After that it is up to my insurance to chase this down if they want.

I need to move forward with things I have some control over and not pick at a wound.

Good. While it is a your word against theirs, it would seem to be easy to see who is more accurate in their report.



Yeah, it is best to move on as best one can. These things can really drag one down and burn up lots of energy and time. Been There Done That.

[skipperpete]

Originally Posted by dannc

I would suggest writing down all of the "inaccuracies" in the FV's report. It would be very easy to poke huge holes in what they are saying and show they were not truthful.

For instance, they said you were under motor. How did they know this if you were running with no lights? Did they see you motoring cone?

Not sure who you would show the list too other than the insurance company.

It makes no difference in this incident whether the yacht was under sail or power, the “responsibilities between vessels” remain the same under colreg 18b.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

It makes no difference in this incident whether the yacht was under sail or power, the “responsibilities between vessels” remain the same under colreg 18b.

Well the insurance company says they will have a "liability decision" Friday. I have taken the above position from the start, even though I feel I was powerless to have prevented.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

It makes no difference in this incident whether the yacht was under sail or power, the “responsibilities between vessels” remain the same under colreg 18b.

The issue of being under power highlights how believable one finds the FV report. Among other statements made by the FV.

[Mr. Kevin]

And a really good reason to post a watch, lights, etc. Thanks for this story. You have an excellent writing style sir. Military precision.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Kolchac

It might help you with your fight:

The sailboats almost always have rules of the road "stand-on" against motor vessels.
Exceptions have motor vessels, which cannot maneuver. In this case, they have to inform you with a special combination of lights at night or special signals during the day.
I know the small commercial fishing boats do not bother.

Good grief. You shouldn't dispense advice on the rules, until you've read them. This site will be useful for you: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/navigati...es-amalgamated

If the vessel was trawling as claimed, it would have been showing all-round green over white lights and sidelights. And they would be the stand-on vessel - rule 18.

I really don't see why a fishing vessel would be dark - it makes no sense. Nor does it make sense on seeing a vessel ahead to first go to the light panel to switch on the lights rather than trying to steer out of the way. What does make sense is that in a trawler under 50m, the visible range of all the navlights is 2NM, meaning they're not terribly bright, and might not have been obvious at the turnover. 20 mins at 6 kts is 2NM. Just sayin'

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Good grief. You shouldn't dispense advice on the rules, until you've read them. This site will be useful for you: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/navigati...es-amalgamated

If the vessel was trawling as claimed, it SHOULD have been showing all-round green over white lights and sidelights. And they would be the stand-on vessel - rule 18. Suggested edit, substitution of the word "should" in place of "would".

I really don't see why a fishing vessel would be dark - it makes no sense. Nor does it make sense on seeing a vessel ahead to first go to the light panel to switch on the lights rather than trying to steer out of the way. What does make sense is that in a trawler under 50m, the visible range of all the navlights is 2NM, meaning they're not terribly bright, and might not have been obvious at the turnover. 20 mins at 6 kts is 2NM. Just sayin'

Lodesman is correct, Rule 18 is applicable to these circumstances, assuming the fishing vessel was displaying proper light signals for a vessel that was trawling for shrimp and thus restricted in her ability to maneuver.

INTERNATIONAL—
Steering and Sailing Rules

RULE 18
Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible,
keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

(d)
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel
restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the
case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained
by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular
caution having full regard to her special condition.

(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels
and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk
of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.

(f)
(i) A WIG craft shall, when taking off, landing and in flight near the
surface, keep well clear of all other vessels and avoid impeding their
navigation;
(ii) A WIG craft operating on the water surface shall comply with the
Rules of this Part as a power-driven vessel.