A Case For Rear View Mirrors

[loafs and fishes]

This came up in the "interesting boats" thread, and rather than hijack that great thread. I thought I'd start a new one. In case you didn't see this article from Woody Boater magazine from 2012, you should read it. It describes the true story of a woody Grand Banks trawler that was run over by a freighter just a couple of miles from my home port. Absolutely gripping reading, and, a case for rear view mirrors.
A Life-Changing Journey, Part 1 – The Adventure | Classic Boats / Woody Boater

 

[loafs and fishes]

It's been posted before, but if you haven't read it, you need to.

 

[O C Diver]

Amazing story! My only thought, "you're running a boat with poor rear visibility in a commercial shipping channel and you're not monitoring your radar?" I don't go anywhere day or night without the radar and AIS on and being monitored.

Ted

 

[GFC]

That is an excellent read, but I do have a question. In the photo of the boat there is a radar at the top of the mast. Why was this not on? It would have shown the freighter coming up behind them.


Nowhere in that investigation did I see that question brought up.


Oops, Ted beat me to that question.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
One other issue I noticed. He recommends a self inflating life vest. If he had been wearing one at the time of the incident he would have had to find his way out with a device that was potentially buoying him away from an exit that may have been below him. I, in fact did buy one of these vests last spring but I specifically bought a manual vest for just this very reason.

 

[markpierce]

Article too verbose. I tuned out after the first two paragraphs. A terribly written article as it didn't hold my interest at all.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

That is an excellent read, but I do have a question. In the photo of the boat there is a radar at the top of the mast. Why was this not on? It would have shown the freighter coming up behind them.


Nowhere in that investigation did I see that question brought up.


Oops, Ted beat me to that question.

Perhaps a better question would be, why would you be running a boat from the lower helm that has such lousy rearward visibility (and I've run a number a 36' GBs over the years so I know how restricted it is) in a busy and relatively narrow channel when you could be at the upper helm with full visibility and the ability to hear what's going on around you.

Apparently nobody thought it might be useful to not only look at the radar from time to time but to look out the back window and down the sides of the boat from time to time as well.

A lesson to all. Especially those who only use or have a lower helm.

 

[Steve]

This works fine for me, it has a wide angle view, it is made to attach to a vehicle's side mirror when towing a trailer. Good for spotting fast moving sportfishers coming up on you in curvy canals or anywhere else.

 

[FlyWright]

A lesson to all. Especially those who only use or have a lower helm.

Bill, as you know, not all boats are created equal.

I'll post up some pics soon on the RPH Helm visibility tread, but suffice to say, many boats have fwd and rear visibility that equals a FB field of view.

It's all about sight lines from the helm....whichever you drive from.

If I drive from my FB helm, the side canvas prevents me from seeing aft or to port while seated. The ladder opening clears the area aft to stbd.

If I stand up, I can see better aft and to port, but to REALLY clear the way, I need to work around my FB helm bench seat. That can be a PITA with all the stuff I store in my "attic". What I need to do is remove the FB bench and replace it with 2 Capt's chairs and rearrange the rest of my FB.

I could use a mirror like Steve's mounted high enough to allow me to see 180 degrees across the stern while seated on the FB bench.

Until then, I'll continue to enjoy the drive....and the view...from below.

 

[O C Diver]

Perhaps a better question would be, why would you be running a boat from the lower helm that has such lousy rearward visibility (and I've run a number a 36' GBs over the years so I know how restricted it is) in a busy and relatively narrow channel when you could be at the upper helm with full visibility and the ability to hear what's going on around you.

The reason most likely had to do with it being cold in November. All about comfort.

Have to wonder how many minutes it took for the freighter to catch up to them. They didn't look behind them for a long time!

Ted

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Bill, as you know, not all boats are created equal.

I'll post up some pics soon on the RPH Helm visibility tread, but suffice to say, many boats have fwd and rear visibility that equals a FB field of view.

It's all about sight lines from the helm....whichever you drive from.

If I drive from my FB helm, the side canvas prevents me from seeing aft or to port while seated. The ladder opening clears the area aft to stbd.

If I stand up, I can see better aft and to port, but to REALLY clear the way, I need to work around my FB helm bench seat. That can be a PITA with all the stuff I store in my "attic". What I need to do is remove the FB bench and replace it with 2 Capt's chairs and rearrange the rest of my FB.

I could use a mirror like Steve's mounted high enough to allow me to see 180 degrees across the stern while seated on the FB bench.

Until then, I'll continue to enjoy the drive....and the view...from below.

Obviously my comment doesn't pertain to all lower helms.

Just most of them.

 

[markpierce]

Mirrors? We don't need no mirrors with their limited views. Better to look through the raised pilothouse windows.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

The reason most likely had to do with it being cold in November. All about comfort.

I'm sure you're right.

 

[Hawgwash]

The reason most likely had to do with it being cold in November.

They really were ill prepared weren't they?
You think after the spotlight in their faces a few days earlier, they would be all eyes all the time.

 

[Hawgwash]

Better to look through the raised pilothouse windows.

Without a RPH, I think I'd opt for a rear facing camera that can be on display right up there with the radar.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

They really were ill prepared weren't they?
You think after the spotlight in their faces a few days earlier, they would be all eyes all the time.

They didn't seem to be using the radar then either. Maybe it wasn't working.

 

[loafs and fishes]

I should have titled this thread, " A Case For Being Vigilant About What's Going On Behind You."

 

[O C Diver]

This may not be a fair criticism, but they were driving a car. Eyes focused forward and assuming the driver behind wasn't going to run into them. The other points that became clear were that they had very limited experience in a narrow shipping channel and didn't understand that they were required to stay clear of larger vessels. If you're goings to cruise with the big boys, understand the rules and be aware of everything going on around you.

Ted

 

[Ski in NC]

I can't stand boats with zero vis aft. Even less after reading that.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

This may not be a fair criticism, but they were driving a car. Eyes focused forward and assuming the driver behind wasn't going to run into them. The other points that became clear were that they had very limited experience in a narrow shipping channel and didn't understand that they were required to stay clear of larger vessels. If you're goings to cruise with the big boys, understand the rules and be aware of everything going on around you.

Ted

Well according to the article that should not have been the case. The owner talked liked he thought he had at least two very experienced people on board. At least one of which should have known to keep their head on a swivel with a clear unobstructed view in that kind of area.

I'm sure not wanting to be out in the cold, having been running 24/7 and it was the end of the trip were all factors that played into this.

But never mentioning the use of radar in the two situations meantioned in the article that you would thing they should be looking at it is strange. Maybe no one on board really knew how to use it.

 

[bayview]

I don't like lower helms either. In good weather I like being up top. In bad I want the best visibility.


Commercial traffic here goes about 20 KTS. Not hard to over take a slow boat.

 

[loafs and fishes]

Maybe they didn't even have radar. The picture in the article says it's a GB 36 "similar to the one" they were driving, not the actual boat.

 

[CPseudonym]

Maybe they didn't even have radar. The picture in the article says it's a GB 36 "similar to the one" they were driving, not the actual boat.

That was my take reading the article. Where does it say they had a radar not being used? That kinda information would normally be front and center in this kind of article.

 

[Marin]

I read that article not long after it came out. A link had been posted to the GB Owners forum.

The gist of the discussion that followed on the forum was that, despite the well-written account and the feeling of the folks that got run over that it was not their fault.... it was.

In addition to their not using or paying attention to their radar (assuming it worked) they were boating in restricted waters with heavy shipping and they were not paying attention to what was behind them. Poor visibility out the back of the boat is not a viable excuse in my and others' minds.

If the visibility out the back sucks, and one is smart enough to realize that in a confined area with ships and stuff rearward visibility is important to have, then you take whatever steps are necessary to ensure you have rearward visibility even if it means having someone stand out on the deck in the rain.

In the late 1970s I filmed on board Matson Lines' then-new roro ship Matsonia on its regular run from Oakland to Honolulu and Hilo for a television commercial. There was a seat in the peak of the bow with a windshield and a phone for a crewman to talk to the bridge when the ship was maneuvering into and out of a harbor and call out potential problems like small boats. As I recall, the vessel in the GB rundown was equipped the same way.

I also recall that it was either unmanned of or the fellow who was supposed to be there was distracted or not paying attention. In any event, some fault was attributed to the ship.

But the bottom line is that the GB crew was not paying attention aft when they should have been. In my opinion being tired, being in uncomfortable weather, and so on are all valid reasons for something bad happening but they are not valid excuses.

To me and my wife, the same rule applies to our boating as to our flying: know your limitations and don't exceed them. The crew of the GB didn't and did.

 

[O C Diver]

Article says the boat had an old style radar. Not sure if that means an old CRT with the rubber cone you stick your face into or something newer. Certainly didn't sound like they were using it when the bridge tuned out to be a barge and tug.

The more you analyze the story, the more it seems the delivery captain and crew weren't quite so impressive and the whole trip was poorly conceived. An 8 to 10 day trip, running 24 hours a day, on an old boat that none of them had run before, going up the NJ ICW at night, and then crossing lake Erie in November. Seems like there was a good reason that all those other delivery captains declined.

Ted

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Maybe they didn't even have radar. The picture in the article says it's a GB 36 "similar to the one" they were driving, not the actual boat.

"and we had the older-style radar equipment which came with the boat."

 

[hmason]

When transiting the AICW, we are frequently approached from behind and often at a high rate of speed. Some of the boats are not significantly Radar reflective and are often hard to discerne on the often very cluttered Radar screen. For this year's trip south I plan to augment the Radar with a rear view mirror. Any addition to safety is a plus.

When transiting areas with heavy ship traffic I stay well out of the shipping lanes. Places like Delaware Bay, the Chesapeake, and the Cape Fear River are heavily transited by big ships. The first time you encounter ships underway you will appreciate just how fast they are moving. Kind of like a building traveling at 20+ kts.

Howard

 

[Ski in NC]

Interesting that in the legal case, they found that the ship had a lapse in their bow watch, and that was where the case got some purchase. Yet the GB had no watch aft even with zero helm vis in that direction.

 

[bligh]

Great account. I read it the first time it came out and just re-read it. I agree with others. Here are the points I got from the story;
1; November or not, the fly bridge was the place to be piloting that boat from at night.
2; There was no mention of the radar other than they had an older one.
3; There was no outside watch person on the GB. who was keeping a 360 degree watch. The GB crew admitted as much that the watch was not sufficient.
4; The freighter crew had a lapse in their bow watch which contributed to the collision
5 The freighter did not signal by radio or horn which also contributed to the collision.
6 The owner praises his insurance company but the insurance did not pay for any of the recovery work. You would think a basic policy would have some sort of liability built in to it.
7 That guy was scared to death when it happened!