VOR boat in Fatal Collision.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

...and by not explicitly stating, yet leaving it as implied, was the intention to mislead...?

Dunno.... however

I am thinking either a disconnect between 'plotter' downstairs and watch on deck. Plotter is plotting boat A.... watch is looking at B and assuming it is A.

Or there was a second boat...

Now a long time back there was a photo of a fishing boat supposedly of the type involved.... quite large... hitting it hard enough to sink it would have caused far more damage to TV.... that damage was caused by something quite small, possibly poorly lit, and possibly without AIS.

Maybe the fishing boats thereabouts work in pairs... mothership and smaller boat running out the nets... more knowledgeable people here on CF will know the name of the type of fishing that I am speaking about.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

...Maybe the fishing boats thereabouts work in pairs...

... and the reason for Vestas website not explicitly stating this would be?

Okay, "Dunno".

[Davidhoy]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

... and the reason for Vestas website not explicitly stating this would be?

Okay, "Dunno".

Too many suppositions, what-ifs, dunnos, and so on. Just because Vestas does not state things as explicitly as we would like does not mean any nefarious intent on their part. And nobody, that I know of, has challenged their version of events. I'm sure that many lawyers were involved in crafting that public statement.

Since the HK and mainland China authorities have declined to pursue the matter means that either there is nothing to pursue against Vestas, or politics intervened. I'm inclined to believe the former, but I could be wrong. The latter would be an coverup of epic proportions, and even more epic embarrassment were it ever to become public. The Chinese don't like embarrassment.

Regardless of who is to blame, I cannot imagine that anyone on the Vestas crew will soon forget that night.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

... and the reason for Vestas website not explicitly stating this would be?



Okay, "Dunno".

Probably because there is an inquiry going on and all parties have been told not to make any more public statements.

You are remarkably opinionated based on what even you have admitted is incomplete information. Besides which, the onus to avoid collision is on BOTH vessels, not just one.

That said I personally believe the faster and more manoeuvrable vessel has the higher responsibility to keep clear, so I lean to blaming Vestas for not being careful enough. But I can’t see how you can possibly consider the death a murder?

[JPA Cate]

Don't know about NZ laws, but in the US, murder requires "malice aforethought."

Ann

[Davidhoy]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Don't know about NZ laws, but in the US, murder requires "malice aforethought."

Ann

Very true, Ann! But don't forget that this incident did not happen in US waters, so the US standard does not apply. What is the definition of murder in HK or mainland China? It was in their jurisdiction, right?

-David

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Probably because there is an inquiry going on and all parties have been told not to make any more public statements.

You are remarkably opinionated based on what even you have admitted is incomplete information. Besides which, the onus to avoid collision is on BOTH vessels, not just one.

That said I personally believe the faster and more manoeuvrable vessel has the higher responsibility to keep clear, so I lean to blaming Vestas for not being careful enough. But I can’t see how you can possibly consider the death a murder?

I think it would depend on whether the fishing boat was actively engaged in fishing.. in which case All vessels are under obligation to steer clear.. including race boats.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I think it would depend on whether the fishing boat was actively engaged in fishing.. in which case All vessels are under obligation to steer clear.. including race boats.

Correct, but it also doesn’t absolve the fishing vessel of not avoiding a collision. Both boats are always required to keep clear - I don’t believe there has ever been a ruling under COLREGs where one vessel was 100% responsible.

And to be clear, racing boats are only subject to RRS with other boats in the same race. With all other vessels they are subject to COLREGs, including I believe yachts participating in a different race.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Correct, but it also doesn’t absolve the fishing vessel of not avoiding a collision. Both boats are always required to keep clear - I don’t believe there has ever been a ruling under COLREGs where one vessel was 100% responsible.

And to be clear, racing boats are only subject to RRS with other boats in the same race. With all other vessels they are subject to COLREGs, including I believe yachts participating in a different race.

Kinda hard for a boat doing 1.5 to 3 knots with a bloody great net 500 odd metres behind him getting out of the way of a boat doing 20kts dont you think.
Funny how people out to play seem to think folks making a living on the water are a bloody nuisance..

[El Pinguino]

From the Vesta's statement...
'As we approached the fishing vessel that we had identified on AIS, the on-deck crew confirmed visual contact – the fishing vessel was well lit – and we headed up to starboard to keep clear. I was watching AIS and communicating the range and bearing to the crew. The crew confirmed we were crossing the fishing vessel when, before the anticipated cross, there was an unexpected collision'

unexpected collision with the well lit fishing vessel on AIS or an unexpected collision with another poorly lit and unseen fishing vessel... I suspect the latter.....

Where did 'murder' come into it ?

Manslaughter would be a stretch....

More likely the sort of charge you get banged up under when causing death while driving a motor car......

The inquiry most likely said '50/50 ... nothing more to see here.... move along'

Lots of collisions causing death where no-one gets locked up.....

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Davidhoy

Very true, Ann! But don't forget that this incident did not happen in US waters, so the US standard does not apply. What is the definition of murder in HK or mainland China? It was in their jurisdiction, right?

-David

How did China come into this? Why not Zimbabwe

Anyway I'm not griefing over one (or more) fisherman, anyone seen those in the south east Asia know what I mean. Just waiting to see what happens when all the robot ships take over the seas and Malaga strait.

Teddy

[Davidhoy]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

How did China come into this? Why not Zimbabwe



Anyway I'm not griefing over one (or more) fisherman, anyone seen those in the south east Asia know what I mean. Just waiting to see what happens when all the robot ships take over the seas and Malaga strait.



Teddy

The incident happened in Chinese territorial waters, on the approaches to Hong Kong, which is a semi-autonomous part of China too. That makes it a Chinese matter.

And I’m going to take your apparent lack of grief as a flippant remark, a failed attempt at humor. That’s the only way I don’t get upset with you.

[WingRyder]

The VOR course makes a major detour, going from Melbourne, to Hong Kong, Guangzhou, then back to Hong Kong, before heading south again to Auckland. It seems an wholly unnecessary detour from an actual RTW race anyway. I am curious to know how much courting the Chinese and HK government did to bring the VOR into their ports. If that is the case, they certainly wouldn't want to inconvienence the VOR, and risk having the race avoid them in the future.

I don't see why they need to take the unnecessary risk of racing through the most congested seaway on earth. Sailing directly from Melbourne to Auckland would make more sense anyway.

I would also be interested to know how strict the PRC coast guard is with vessel safety violations. Did this fishing vessel meet regulatory requirements?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Correct, but it also doesn’t absolve the fishing vessel of not avoiding a collision. Both boats are always required to keep clear - I don’t believe there has ever been a ruling under COLREGs where one vessel was 100% responsible.

1961. Freshfield and The Lady Gwendolyn.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

How did China come into this? Why not Zimbabwe

Anyway I'm not griefing over one (or more) fisherman, anyone seen those in the south east Asia know what I mean. Just waiting to see what happens when all the robot ships take over the seas and Malaga strait.

Teddy

Aw c'mon Teddy, I've seen you make sensible comments elsewhere, so why post this? Not only seen those fishermen, but invited into their homes, drank tea with them and their families - wonderful, simple, friendly, welcoming people in general.