That will buff right out - boat hits ferry

[rjwilliams11741]

In my opinion the ferry had the right of way based on the issue is maneuverability. We've know of other folks who have put there vessels on autopilot and gone below - both lost there boats and both were out in open ocean not in a congested bay.

 

[DHeckrotte]

Let's see: calm seas, bright sunny day, lots of visibility in a place I've surely been before, tootling along near some ferry and other commercial docks, think I gotta' pee - often true, think I'll leave the boat on autopilot and take care of it - not! A male friend of my wife's parents often had the need when docking his 50 footer in the '50s; he had a #10 tin can at the helm.

So, my questions include: How much could the ferry skipper see from where he was? It's possible that Nap Tyme was close enough to the docks that she was out of site when the ferry was throttled up and began to move. How much time did he really have to react? How much time does it take to throttle down, shift and throttle back up?

I'll bet that Nap Tyme has a fair amount of concealed damage, casework, tabbing, etc. And, that name isn't gonna' fly well during any investigation...

 

[Al]

Let's see: calm seas, bright sunny day, lots of visibility in a place I've surely been before, tootling along near some ferry and other commercial docks, think I gotta' pee - often true, think I'll leave the boat on autopilot and take care of it - not! A male friend of my wife's parents often had the need when docking his 50 footer in the '50s; he had a #10 tin can at the helm.

Nailed it!! Everything else discussed is far and away secondary.

Al

 

[SoWhat]

Doesn't every collision have to be reported and doesn't every report have to be investigated?

I am sure WSDOT and USCG will conduct investigations but there was no loss of life or significant damage so a formal report such as those issued by NTSB won't be forthcoming. You would have to submit a FOIA request to obtain any reports.

Marine Accident Reports

 

[twistedtree]

In my opinion the ferry had the right of way based on the issue is maneuverability. We've know of other folks who have put there vessels on autopilot and gone below - both lost there boats and both were out in open ocean not in a congested bay.

The "restricted in maneuverability" provisions in the regulations pertain to things like dredges, buoy tenders, etc. It doesn't afford privileges because one boat can turn faster than another, or one boat can stop faster than another. It's up to the two boats to sort that out, and a prudent mariner will take it all into consideration when negotiating passes.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

"Rule 3. The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel"

A ferry under normal operationing conditions would not qualifying.

 

[ulysses]

"Rule 3. The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel"

A ferry under normal operationing conditions would not qualifying.

One might also add that a vessel so restricted in her ability to maneuver would also be exhibiting the lights and/or day shapes as required. The ferry is a double ended, 6,000 hp, steerage and flanking rudder equipped vessel. Probably more nimble than you could imagine. Furthermore, what ferry operator would build or operate a ferry that would be considered restricted in her maneuverability other than the ancient ones on cables ? Their insurance would not allow it. You can not just designate your vessel as being restricted in maneuverability.

 

[TDunn]

Washington state ferries are a bit more complex in terms of propulsion than most boats. They are double ended with two engine rooms and propellers at both ends. A sudden, unplanned, stop requires powering down the aft propeller and powering up the forward propeller. I believe the ferry in question (M/V Chetzemoka) is diesel propulsion which would require starting the forward engines for a crash stop, although since that particular ferry run is short they may leave the forward engines idling which would allow faster power up.

It is also worth noting that the ferry involved (M/V Chtzemoka) could have been carrying anywhere up to 750 passengers. I am sure the captain has to balance risk to passengers during a full power crash stop against risk from a collision.

Also, no matter how nimble a ferry is, it takes time and distance to stop a 275' 2,500 ton vessel.

 

[SoWhat]

"Rule 3. The term "vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" means a vessel which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel"

A ferry under normal operationing conditions would not qualifying.

Your statement is based upon an extremely narrow interpretation of federal rules. Read 33 CMR 83.03(g). Note the words "but are not limited to". I suspect a 3rd year law student would have no problem convincing a judge that a 274' long vessel weighing 2400 tons has limited maneuverabilty.

"The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which, from the nature of her work, is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but are not limited to:

(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable, or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying, or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

 

[SoWhat]

Interesting report on collision between Victoria BC ferry and power boat in Sep 2000.
I'm sure there was a civil suit but I can't find a cite.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Marine Investigation Report M00W0220

 

[78puget-trawler]

Your statement is based upon an extremely narrow interpretation of federal rules. Read 33 CMR 83.03(g). Note the words "but are not limited to". I suspect a 3rd year law student would have no problem convincing a judge that a 274' long vessel weighing 2400 tons has limited maneuverabilty.

"The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which, from the nature of her work, is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but are not limited to:

(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable, or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying, or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

All of which means what? Is it your opinion that the ferry bears ZERO responsibility in this collision? Pretty sure the CG will see it otherwise.

 

[BandB]

Interesting report on collision between Victoria BC ferry and power boat in Sep 2000.
I'm sure there was a civil suit but I can't find a cite.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Marine Investigation Report M00W0220

In our brief time in the area we observed quite a few different things regarding the various ferries. Probably not a lot different than what they might observe with pleasure boats. However, we did see a couple of situations that definitely mirror the report above, especially on shorter run ferries, where the ferry did act a bit like it owned the waterway and while no collision we wondered if it could have avoided an accident had the pleasure boat not given way. The only communication we heard on vhf with ferries and pleasure boats was that which we initiated. On the other hand, when communicating with them, we found them most pleasant to deal with. Our primary communication was discussing our desire to pass and in all cases they were helpful and professional. We also did notify them when we intended just to follow them for a long period of time. On several longer runs that were ferry routes, we chose to follow in their tracks.

I'd never seen so many ferries as we saw in the PNW, and on into Alaska. On the East Coast, the operators that scare me and I keep a big distance from are some of the tour boats. While some are professional, I've encountered several that acted like they owned the waterway and everyone else should get out of their way and I've observed lack of professionalism and skill on the part of some of their operators. Now I don't mean to say by any means all of them, just a few.

In relation to some wake threads, I've not seen ferries or tour boats care at all about what their wakes did or the size of them.

 

[BandB]

All of which means what? Is it your opinion that the ferry bears ZERO responsibility in this collision? Pretty sure the CG will see it otherwise.

I would expect a report to read somewhat like that which sowhat linked to, and that is commenting that neither boat did their part in avoiding a collision. The accident reports then generally point out fault on all sides but don't assign primary fault, leaving that to the courts to resolve. When lives are lost on a pleasure boat, then that pleasure boat will have an extreme advantage in a court case if there is shared responsibility. It's the nature of juries. In a case like this one where no one was hurt, no lives lost, minimal damage, a jury would be likely to split responsibility but really is unpredictable as to what they'd do. They'd hear the various citations of rules and laws in different ways. I would say a case like this one is not worth a trial and neither side would really want one. Two results are most common. One is for both insurers just to pay their own. The other is a small sealed settlement with no admission of wrong.

One thing we haven't seen in all this is the damage to the Ferry. I would think there is some and by the time you consider cost of repair and of boat out of service for repair, likely as much or more cost than the pleasure boat.

 

[dhays]

One thing we haven't seen in all this is the damage to the Ferry. I would think there is some and by the time you consider cost of repair and of boat out of service for repair, likely as much or more cost than the pleasure boat.

I doubt that there was any damage at all to the ferry. Keep in mind that these ferries dock by litterally running into the piling dolphins. Hitting a pleasure boat such as Nap Tyme wouldn't even scratch the paint.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Yeah, at most perhaps a slight ding in the steel guard of the ferry and if there is rubber up there it wont be anything.

 

[Northern Spy]

Coffee stains on the carpet.

 

[twistedtree]

Your statement is based upon an extremely narrow interpretation of federal rules. Read 33 CMR 83.03(g). Note the words "but are not limited to". I suspect a 3rd year law student would have no problem convincing a judge that a 274' long vessel weighing 2400 tons has limited maneuverabilty.



"The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which, from the nature of her work, is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but are not limited to:



(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable, or pipeline;

(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying, or underwater operations;

(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway;

(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;

(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;

(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

Unless the small boat suddenly appear from around a corner in such a way that the ferry couldn't possibly carry out its responsibilities as the give-way vessel, I don't see how this applies. These ferries regularly alter course for correct passes according to the rules and/or negotiated crossings. My boat turns slower than yours, or stops slower than yours simply isn't an excuse for not observing the rules.

I still think that neither the ferry operator nor the small boat have any excuses in this situation. Both f-ed up badly.

 

[koliver]

In relation to some wake threads, I've not seen ferries or tour boats care at all about what their wakes did or the size of them.

In BC, We had a small fleet of 3 "Fast Ferries" built at scandalous cost a few years ago. When put into service, they found that the stern wave from one hull and the bow wave from the second hull climbed on top of each other, creating a very tall and steep wave, when they ran at design speed. This was noted early on, and the Ferry Corp took decisive action, reducing their speed to that of the rest of the fleet. This eliminated the advantage of speed, sped up the bad publicity and the ultimate downfall of the project. Those ferries are no longer part of our fleet. So yes, sometimes they do care.

 

[kchace]

Let's see: calm seas, bright sunny day, lots of visibility in a place I've surely been before, tootling along near some ferry and other commercial docks, think I gotta' pee - often true, think I'll leave the boat on autopilot and take care of it - not! A male friend of my wife's parents often had the need when docking his 50 footer in the '50s; he had a #10 tin can at the helm....

A Pee can! When I was 6 years old my father taught me the use of one on board. He always used a 1lb coffee can. Sufficient for the purpose.

Ken

 

[BruceK]

Hard to imagine a vessel more restricted than one where the solo(it seems)operator:
is navigating(in the very broad sense) in an area frequented by other vessels
is using autopilot
has gone below for a leak or dump, for as long as it takes
has set a course crossing a known ferry route
has no one on watch
Hopefully that`s not what the legislature had in mind for "restricted".

 

[Capt.Bill11]

One might also add that a vessel so restricted in her ability to maneuver would also be exhibiting the lights and/or day shapes as required. The ferry is a double ended, 6,000 hp, steerage and flanking rudder equipped vessel. Probably more nimble than you could imagine. Furthermore, what ferry operator would build or operate a ferry that would be considered restricted in her maneuverability other than the ancient ones on cables ? Their insurance would not allow it. You can not just designate your vessel as being restricted in maneuverability.

Exactly. Very good points.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Your statement is based upon an extremely narrow interpretation of federal rules. Read 33 CMR 83.03(g). Note the words "but are not limited to". I suspect a 3rd year law student would have no problem convincing a judge that a 274' long vessel weighing 2400 tons has limited maneuverabilty.

"The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which, from the nature of her work, is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but are not limited to:

(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable, or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying, or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

A first year law student would see the clear pattern in the above quoted text and come to the conclusion that a ferry under normal circumstances is not "restricted in its ability to maneuver ".

And as has been pointed out, if it was, it should have been displaying the proper day shapes.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Washington state ferries are a bit more complex in terms of propulsion than most boats. They are double ended with two engine rooms and propellers at both ends. A sudden, unplanned, stop requires powering down the aft propeller and powering up the forward propeller. I believe the ferry in question (M/V Chetzemoka) is diesel propulsion which would require starting the forward engines for a crash stop, although since that particular ferry run is short they may leave the forward engines idling which would allow faster power up.

It is also worth noting that the ferry involved (M/V Chtzemoka) could have been carrying anywhere up to 750 passengers. I am sure the captain has to balance risk to passengers during a full power crash stop against risk from a collision.

Also, no matter how nimble a ferry is, it takes time and distance to stop a 275' 2,500 ton vessel.

I would be surprised if they shut down and restart each set of engines as needed.

To much unnecessary wear and tear I'd think.

Plus the fact they may not start when needed.

 

[BruceK]

"Ejusdem or Eiusdem Generis Definition - Duhaime.org

Duhaime.org Law Dictionary and Legal Information › Legal Dictionary


Ejusdem or Eiusdem Generis Definition: Of the same kind or nature. A rule of interpretation that where a class of things is followed by general wording that is not itself expansive, the general wording is usually restricted things of the same type as the listed items."
This definition nicely nails the scope of permitted similar factors giving rise to protected "restricted" status.

 

[BandB]

Wifey B: Just curious. Seems the point that the boater went below to pee and left it on autopilot in a congested area is not getting enough comment. The fact is if you're going down to pee you should stop and get out of the way. The boat does have a neutral. If you're driving a car and need to pee, you don't leave it on speed control while you turn to pee in something. You pull off the road. You pee. You should pull out of the channel, stop, pee. Then resume. You either hold it or you take five minutes to stop the boat and do it.

 

[BandB]

Wifey B: This comes back to the whole Autopilot discussion. Autopilot isn't to replace a human. It is a tool to allow the human to not spend their time handling the wheel and spend it watching what's ahead, behind, around, under, everything. It's not an excuse to go places on the boat that you can't see from. I personally think it should be illegal not to have a person at the helm while underway.

 

[angus99]

Wifey B: Just curious. Seems the point that the boater went below to pee and left it on autopilot in a congested area is not getting enough comment. The fact is if you're going down to pee you should stop and get out of the way. The boat does have a neutral. If you're driving a car and need to pee, you don't leave it on speed control while you turn to pee in something. You pull off the road. You pee. You should pull out of the channel, stop, pee. Then resume. You either hold it or you take five minutes to stop the boat and do it.

Totally agree. Despite the armchair sleuthing, nobody actually knows the entirety of what the ferry boat operator did or didn't do. On the other hand, the power boat captain's conduct is unambiguous. There is almost zero chance that the accident would have occurred if he hadn't left the helm . . . to pee or whatever. I really hope there's a CG investigation.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
So what size pee can is AYBC compliant? Does it have to be color coded as per AYBC "rules"? Will the ever useful Tang can work?

Will a foil Tang envelope work in a pinch?

 

[ulysses]

Your statement is based upon an extremely narrow interpretation of federal rules. Read 33 CMR 83.03(g). Note the words "but are not limited to". I suspect a 3rd year law student would have no problem convincing a judge that a 274' long vessel weighing 2400 tons has limited maneuverabilty.

"The term vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver means a vessel which, from the nature of her work, is restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel. The term vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but are not limited to:

(i) A vessel engaged in laying, servicing, or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable, or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying, or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions, or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mine clearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course."

Probably the second thing the 3rd year law student would do would be to glance at the Certificate of Inspection necessary for larger and smaller passenger vessels and issued annually by the Coat Guard if the vessel maintains compliance under 46 CFR subchapter T or H depending upon tonnage. No COI are issued to vessel that are restricted in their ability to properly maneuver in order to avoid collision. A short review of either subchapter H or T will easily show the numerous items and equipment that is inspected not just annually but from the time the keel is laid to successful operations of an inspected passenger vessel of U.S. registery.

 

[Al]

5 gal Deck bucket!! In rough seas, you need spray protection.

Al