Don't anchor in the channel and this won't happen.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by rognvald

To Lodesman and Family Van,
Your chance of survival is decimally close to zero. .

So Rog, you made an imperical statement- unsupported by statistics I might add. I suggested my personal experience made indications contrary to your belief, and this helpful gentleman googled the statistics that you were so desperate for. Ironically, the statistics seem to more support my first hand observations, then your belief that every body is going to die.

Do you require more statistics on this subject? Is your smart phone equipped with Google? If so, feel free to Google whatever statistics you like.

Yes, somebody is collecting data on accidents where nobody dies, but as the accidents become incidents and the incidents become routine, less and less statistical information will be collected.

I had an Aunt who was pushed out of the way of a freighter on a wind surfer by its bow wake. She didn't report it because, their was no damage, she had no intention of making an insurance claim and she was embarrassed she put herself in that position.

Now I have to believe my aunt isn't the only one who has not reported a close encounter with a ship. The reality of statistics is only raw data can be manipulated to form statistics, if there is no raw data on a certain end of the spectrum the results will be slewed.

I understand statistics just fine, but if I was an accident investigator I wouldn't look at statistics, I would interview witnesses, I would analyze the technology that was present I would interview subject matter experts I would analyze the physics involved ,I would review all associated documentation and I would make my own personal expert observations.

Statistics are not the only way to determine fact.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

So Rog, you made an imperical statement- unsupported by statistics I might add. I suggested my personal experience made indications contrary to your belief, and this helpful gentleman googled the statistics that you were so desperate for. Ironically, the statistics seem to more support my first hand observations, then your belief that every body is going to die.

Do you require more statistics on this subject? Is your smart phone equipped with Google? If so, feel free to Google whatever statistics you like.

Yes, somebody is collecting data on accidents where nobody dies, but as the accidents become incidents and the incidents become routine, less and less statistical information will be collected.

I had an Aunt who was pushed out of the way of a freighter on a wind surfer by its bow wake. She didn't report it because, their was no damage, she had no intention of making an insurance claim and she was embarrassed she put herself in that position.

Now I have to believe my aunt isn't the only one who has not reported a close encounter with a ship. The reality of statistics is only raw data can be manipulated to form statistics, if there is no raw data on a certain end of the spectrum the results will be slewed.

I understand statistics just fine, but if I was an accident investigator I wouldn't look at statistics, I would interview witnesses, I would analyze the technology that was present I would interview subject matter experts I would analyze the physics involved ,I would review all associated documentation and I would make my own personal expert observations.

Statistics are not the only way to determine fact.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

FamilyVan,
No one on this Forum has been able to verify collisions/deaths with commercial ships and recreational craft statistically with a link. The below USCG statistics involve recreational boats for 2014. So, again, do you have a source to corroborate your initial remarks? I thought the ball was in your court to produce the facts/statistics? However, I'm certain that a collision with an oil tanker is no big deal. With that graceful metal plated hull, bulb and minimal wake it's probably an exhilarating experience. In fact, it could be a merit badge to add to your maritime collection of on water experiences. Perhaps you have some other personal recollections to share? However, I still believe to be true my remarks about survival being close to zero with a direct hit. Perhaps we're arguing over semantics: direct hit . . . glancing blow . . . no thanks . . . not for me in this lifetime. P.S. My now deceased grandfather once told me about a floating ghost ship he saw graze the bow of the steamship he sailed from Norway to the US. If he were alive, I might ask you for your aunt's telephone number so they could chat. Who knows what stories they could tell. Good luck and imaginative sailing. Captain Rognvald--teetering between reality and fantasy.


" In 2014, the Coast Guard counted 4,064 accidents that involved 610 deaths, 2,678
injuries and approximately $39 million dollars of damage to property as a result of
recreational boating accidents.
 The fatality rate was 5.2 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
This rate represents a 10.6% increase from last year’s fatality rate of 4.7
deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
 Compared to 2013, the number of accidents increased 0.05%, the number of
deaths increased 8.9%, and the number of injuries increased 2.2%."

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by rognvald

FamilyVan,
No one on this Forum has been able to verify collisions/deaths with commercial ships and recreational craft statistically with a link. The below USCG statistics involve recreational boats for 2014. So, again, do you have a source to corroborate your initial remarks? I thought the ball was in your court to produce the facts/statistics? However, I'm certain that a collision with an oil tanker is no big deal. With that graceful metal plated hull, bulb and minimal wake it's probably an exhilarating experience. In fact, it could be a merit badge to add to your maritime collection of on water experiences. Perhaps you have some other personal recollections to share? However, I still believe to be true my remarks about survival being close to zero with a direct hit. Perhaps we're arguing over semantics: direct hit . . . glancing blow . . . no thanks . . . not for me in this lifetime. P.S. My now deceased grandfather once told me about a floating ghost ship he saw graze the bow of the steamship he sailed from Norway to the US. If he were alive, I might ask you for your aunt's telephone number so they could chat. Who knows what stories they could tell. Good luck and imaginative sailing. Captain Rognvald--teetering between reality and fantasy.


" In 2014, the Coast Guard counted 4,064 accidents that involved 610 deaths, 2,678
injuries and approximately $39 million dollars of damage to property as a result of
recreational boating accidents.
 The fatality rate was 5.2 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
This rate represents a 10.6% increase from last year’s fatality rate of 4.7
deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
 Compared to 2013, the number of accidents increased 0.05%, the number of
deaths increased 8.9%, and the number of injuries increased 2.2%."

Why is the ball in my court to provide statistical information? You are the one who made the initial claim about the survivability of a collision with a freighter and yet you have failed to provide evidence to your claim. No personal observations, no deductive insight, and most importantly no STATISTICS.

If you understood statistics you would know that a combination of small sample size and vastly inconsistent reporting procedures would make statistics on this topic of little to no value. If you are an expert on statistics where is the evidence to support YOUR claim? Its you that needs the numbers- not me.

Concrete evidence we do have is the video that started this thread- all survived and the boat was clearly influenced by the ships bow wave.

If you want evidence, go back to the first post and rewatch the video, if you want statistics, do a study, go out in a shipping channel and see how many freighter collisions you survive, and report back here with your statistical information.

I recommend a very stifly built boat with lots of reserve buoyancy.

But don't actually, that was intended as a joke about how unreasonable it is to demand statistics on this subject.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[rognvald]

"Concrete evidence we do have is the video that started this thread- all survived and the boat was clearly influenced by the ships bow wave. " FamilyVan

Family,
Unless I was watching another video, there was NO collision . . . just a close encounter. Am I mistaken?

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by rognvald

"Concrete evidence we do have is the video that started this thread- all survived and the boat was clearly influenced by the ships bow wave. " FamilyVan

Family,
Unless I was watching another video, there was NO collision . . . just a close encounter. Am I mistaken?

No- you're not mistaken. Now take that information and analyze it. Why was there no collision? Was it the expert seamanship of the pilot alone that prevented calamity?

Or was there more at play here, if he made an alteration of course to starboard, then his stern would have swung towards the the run about, with that big propeller sucking all kinds of stuff in towards it, the most likely place for a collision to have occurred would have been the tankers stern striking the run about- but it didn't, is that because the bow wave pushed the runabout to safety? Perhaps. Why don't just Google the TSB report on this incident and get the facts? Because it was probably never reported because whatever the reason there was no injury and no need for an insurance claim. Incidents like this won't be captured by whatever it is that saved these boaters.

I'm not the type to put much faith in divine providence, I have no statistics to work with, but I do have experience and good understanding of physics, particularly hydrodynamics- so that is what I must rely on for my assessment on this topic.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by rognvald

--teetering between reality and fantasy.

I would come down firmly on a position between the two.

I was originally somewhat amazed by "conclusions" reached by some about, for example, five blasts, when clearly the video was limited in time. Glad those folks aren't accident investigators.

No one knows if the ship turned or not. Unless the videographer has a "Director's Cut."

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I would come down firmly on a position between the two.

I was originally somewhat amazed by "conclusions" reached by some about, for example, five blasts, when clearly the video was limited in time. Glad those folks aren't accident investigators.

No one knows if the ship turned or not. Unless the videographer has a "Director's Cut."

This has been my point all along. Very few facts are known. We don't know how resources were being managed. We don't know where deep water is, we don't know events leading up to the incident (sound signals? Radio com's?). I can't even tell if its a red or a green buoy!

We do know the tanker crew successfully avoided a collision, we do know the pleasure craft was in a bad place.

We know all aboard the run about survived and very likely learned something.

But for some reason some people were very eager to throw the professional mariners under the bus.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[rognvald]

"But for some reason some people were very eager to throw the professional mariners under the bus." FamilyVan

Family,
If you're referring to me, nothing could be further from the truth. The point I made initially is that given a choice between a catastrophic oil spill and saving a human's life, the choice is clear: I will save the human's life. This, I believe, is a major component of this discussion. Good luck and safe sailing. R

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by rognvald

... if one considers collision. Your chance of survival is decimally close to zero...

Originally Posted by rognvald

Great link! Actually the statistics are higher: 4064 accidents;610 deaths;2678 injuries;39 million in damages with a 10.6% increase in deaths over the previous year...

Way to swing wide of the mark!
Go to table 17 and look at the line for "collision with commercial vessel" - you can see that such collisions are relatively rare - just 19 in 2014. More importantly, comparing the fatalities to the number of such collisions, we go from a low of 1 death per 26 collisions in 2011 to 7 deaths in 19 collisions in 2014. So the odds for survival aren't great, but nowhere close to zero.

Running a tanker aground comes with no guarantee that all the crew on board will make it out alive.

[mstrebe]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Great link! Actually the statistics are higher: 4064 accidents;610 deaths;2678 injuries;39 million in damages with a 10.6% increase in deaths over the previous year. See below:

 In 2014, the Coast Guard counted 4,064 accidents that involved 610 deaths, 2,678
injuries and approximately $39 million dollars of damage to property as a result of
recreational boating accidents.
 The fatality rate was 5.2 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
This rate represents a 10.6% increase from last year’s fatality rate of 4.7
deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.

I was only quoting statistics for accidents where violations of the collision regs were a factor. Not all recreation boating fatalities.

That statistic (14 deaths) includes all recreational boats that collided with commercial shipping and resulted in a fatality. It also includes fatalities that occurred between recreational boats alone. It does not include fatalities between commercial ships alone.

So we can say with certainty that somewhere between 0 and 14 people on recreational boats have been killed in collisions with commercial ships. Since this is the closest reported data from the agency in charge of such investigations in the U.S., it's the best data that is going to exist on the subject.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Way to swing wide of the mark!
Go to table 17 and look at the line for "collision with commercial vessel" - you can see that such collisions are relatively rare - just 19 in 2014. More importantly, comparing the fatalities to the number of such collisions, we go from a low of 1 death per 26 collisions in 2011 to 7 deaths in 19 collisions in 2014. So the odds for survival aren't great, but nowhere close to zero.

Running a tanker aground comes with no guarantee that all the crew on board will make it out alive.

Lodesman
I guess it's not so dangerous after all. Based upon this information, I'll never worry about a close encounter with a cargo ship again. Thanks for the great analysis.

[MarinerJo]

From my observation, the vessel was disabled, both occupants at or near the engine, anchor on the bow. Even looked like one of them went to the helm and attempted to start the engine. In the description it even says "stalled boat".
Poor folks we're disabled and likely drifted into that spot.

[FamilyVan]

Another matter that could use addressing is the idea that insurance companies use statistics to determine fault in an accident. Insurance companies use conventional investigative techniques to determine fault in a collision, they use statistics to set rates. Its really not that subtle of a difference- its pretty significant.

Fact is determined by investigation, analyzing and interpreting evidence. Trends are determined by statistics.

Marinerjo I hope you're right about, the boaters being stricken by a bad luck break down, but I think there is more than a slight possibility (not sure of the statistical probability) that they shut the boat down to fish in the channel and then had difficulty restarting it when they saw trouble coming- they were clearly panicked, not a good state of mind for even basic mechanical repairs- like resetting the kill switch.

I'm not saying this is what happened but you do see a lot of small sport fishing boats either operating on their electric trolling motors or completely shut down and drifting, or anchored in busy shipping channels.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[mstrebe]

Fishing boats shut down and drift so their engine noise won't scare fish. They're adrift in San Diego bay's channel every weekend. When Navy vessels come and go here, they're escorted by security boats that will push them out of the way if they can't comply with an order to clear the channel because that classic '78 runabout-cum-bait-barge won't start.

We saw a sailboat cut right in front of the USS Carl Vinson as it came into the channel on Saturday when we were sailing past just outside the channel. We could hear the security boat trying to hail them on 16 as they blithely just sailed on across the bow only to get intercepted on the other side. Don't know if they had a VHF, but they did have a VHF antenna...

[Jim Cate]

Re the decision between grounding a tanker and hitting (with unknown outcome) a small craft which is stopped in a restricted channel: The outcome of the grounding may well end up with greater loss of life than if the occupants of the small craft do indeed perish as a result of the collision.

The skipper of the tanker knows this, knows that those other potential deaths may be folks innocent of any error or wrongdoing, and knows that a large environmental insult is quite likely if he grounds the tanker. The decision isn't so simple as Roganvald's "save a human life" stance suggests.

Dunno what I would do, but then, I'm not qualified to drive a tanker!

Jim