That will buff right out - boat hits ferry

[Giggitoni]

...it Depends...

 

[twistedtree]

I personally think it should be illegal not to have a person at the helm while underway.

It is. You have to maintain a effective watch at all times. I think the small boat operator proved that going below to pee did not constitute an effective watch.

 

[TDunn]

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.

Some of the longer runs are 50 minutes(Seattle-Bremerton) and shutting down saves fuel.

There has been instances when the engines didn't start as needed resulting in a crash into the ferry dock.

 

[Portage_Bay]

This continues to be an interesting thread. It has caused me to dredge my memory of WSF ferry accidents and see what I can "Google".

Sept 2013 ferry Hyak collides with sail boat and sinks the boat. The capt is found at fault and fired, the mate on watch resigns. State fires ferry captain for sailboat accident

June 2008 ferry Cathlamet crashed into Mukilteo dock. The captain was found at fault by the ferry system and fired. Ferry captain blamed in Mukilteo crash.

July 1996 ferry Elwah is taken off course and runs around. Ferry System Fires Elwha Captain For Marijuana Use.

It appears the ferry system takes a dim view of screw ups and deals with them regardless of CG findings.

What remains to be seen is if the findings indicate the Chetzemoka's captain screwed up enough to warrant termination.

I've watched the video a few times. What I note is that the ferry had slowed to a near stop by the time of the collision. This is evident to me by the relatively easy bump when Chetzemoka hit Nap Tyme. Yes, I say relatively easy. Had the ferry been anywhere near it's cruise speed of approx 18 kts the outcome would have been completely different. Possibly fatal.

The other thing of note, and it has been brought up earlier in the thread, is the amount of prop wash. All of the WSF car ferries are double enders with a prop and rudder at each end. I've ridden the WSF ferries hundreds of times. As they approach their slip and back down it takes a long time for the ship to slow and an even longer time before the prop wash is seen ahead of the bow.

These together tell me the Chetzemoka captain had tried to stop and was using a great deal of power to attempt to stop. The problem being the capt did not start backing soon enough. I'd guess by about 10 to 30 seconds.

The capt of Nap Tyme did nothing to avoid the collision.

Rule 2(b) (b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Says both should have taken action to avoid the collision.

As others have said, both captains are to blame. I suspect the CG findings will put much of the blame on the capt of Nap Tyme. I also suspect that should the WSF sytem internal investigation find fault with the Capt that Capt will be terminated.

There has been in this thread considerable mention of the restricted in ability to maneuver rule. I do recall many years ago, 70's? 60's? Way back so I am unable to find an online reference, a sail boater challenged a WSF ferry as it approached the slip. Intentionally hitting the ferry broadside. Then taking the WSF to court. The admiralty judge ruled the ferry was to be considered operating in a narrow channel and unable to maneuver out of the way of the sail boat. If my memory is correct there is at least on case where the ferry approaching the dock has special privileges. But as I said, that is just from memory and it was a very long time ago.

A couple of posters have stated the WAS ferries are highly maneuverable and have flanking rudders. On two runs the ferry must back out of the slip and turn end for end before proceeding. Or prior to landing turn end for end. When I ride these ferries I see that that are reasonably maneuverable, not highly maneuverable. It takes a fair bit of time and distance for the maneuver.

One last point. The WSF ferries do not have flanking rudders. I've seen a large percentage of them in dry dock. Below is a pic of the Chetzemoka in dry dock showing off her single prop and rudder.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Yeah, the WSF system is a never-ending source of amusement. I've been astonished at the number of masters willing to hazard reputation and livelihood for absolutely avoidable "reasons".

Foremost among these has to be the incident in the 80s when the superferry (Elwha?) limped into Friday Harbor down by the bow and pumping furiously after an unreported grounding in ...wait for it...Grindstone Harbor!

 

[78puget-trawler]

Yeah, on that event the skipper was showing a gal friend how cool it was to get close to things, like reefs!

 

[BandB]

It is. You have to maintain a effective watch at all times. I think the small boat operator proved that going below to pee did not constitute an effective watch.

Wifey B: I would agree, but it's far too common and we've had members here endorse it as acceptable in the past. That's why I say effective watch is subject to debate as to meaning. I'm saying define it more specifically and stricter.

 

[AlaskaProf]

Yeah, on that event the skipper was showing a gal friend how cool it was to get close to things, like reefs!

Speculation ran amok about the mystery woman for several days til sh held a rollicking funny press conference to explain she was not "the siren of the San Juans". Apparently the captain thought it a good idea to show her a different view of her house. She had advised him that she knew what her house looked like; didnt need his assistance, to no avail.

I've looked into that cove, seen the grindstone; not tempted to risk my 41-footer, but what do I know?

Then there was the boat that departed Edmonds (?) suddenly with a recent vintage Mercedes half aboard.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Some of the longer runs are 50 minutes(Seattle-Bremerton) and shutting down saves fuel.

There has been instances when the engines didn't start as needed resulting in a crash into the ferry dock.

Learn something new every day, Thanks!

 

[78puget-trawler]

Speculation ran amok about the mystery woman for several days til sh held a rollicking funny press conference to explain she was not "the siren of the San Juans". Apparently the captain thought it a good idea to show her a different view of her house. She had advised him that she knew what her house looked like; didnt need his assistance, to no avail.

I've looked into that cove, seen the grindstone; not tempted to risk my 41-footer, but what do I know?

Then there was the boat that departed Edmonds (?) suddenly with a recent vintage Mercedes half aboard.

That's right, I forgot about the gals house being the object of a closer look!

 

[menzies]

Wifey B: I would agree, but it's far too common and we've had members here endorse it as acceptable in the past. That's why I say effective watch is subject to debate as to meaning. I'm saying define it more specifically and stricter.

In a busy waterway?

Who?

 

[twistedtree]

Wifey B: I would agree, but it's far too common and we've had members here endorse it as acceptable in the past. That's why I say effective watch is subject to debate as to meaning. I'm saying define it more specifically and stricter.

Right? Don't get me going about multi-day single handed passages....

That said, I admit to going pee when on watch, running down stairs to make a cup of coffee, etc. But only in open water with nothing anywhere close. In that situation the biggest risk is debris in the water, and it is a risk.

 

[twistedtree]

Then there was the boat that departed Edmonds (?) suddenly with a recent vintage Mercedes half aboard.

Funny story related to that...

A few years ago we were cruising on the St Lawrence and were hearing a security call about a sunken car in Remouski. I figured someone must have driven off the edge of a pier, at least until I plotted it on the chart. It was dead center in the entrance channel.

Turns out the last car hadn't been secured, and as the ferry approached clear water the waves picked up, and the ferry sped up, and the car slid off the back of the deck.

 

[TDunn]

Another consideration is that under federal law there is 500 yard safety zone around a moving ferry. Within that zone the law requires all vessels to slow to the minimum speed required to maintain safe course. Furthermore there is a 100 yard exclusion zone around a ferry unless it is moored. No vessel is legally allowed within that exclusion zone without specific authorization from the CG, on scene law enforcement or the ferry captain.

So when the Nap Time came within 100 yards of the ferry it was in violation of federal law and had no right to navigate there. So I figure Nap Time is 100% in the wrong.

What the WSF will do to the ferry captain remains to be seen, but since hitting pleasure vessels is bad for publicity I suspect he/she will be penalized in some way.

 

[BandB]

Right? Don't get me going about multi-day single handed passages....

That said, I admit to going pee when on watch, running down stairs to make a cup of coffee, etc. But only in open water with nothing anywhere close. In that situation the biggest risk is debris in the water, and it is a risk.

Wifey B: Actually the biggest risk may be a fall or something else happens to you on the way. Regardless, it's an unnecessary risk.

 

[menzies]

Hmpf. It's alright for you that just pee in your Depends and change later.....

 

[ulysses]

Another consideration is that under federal law there is 500 yard safety zone around a moving ferry. Within that zone the law requires all vessels to slow to the minimum speed required to maintain safe course. Furthermore there is a 100 yard exclusion zone around a ferry unless it is moored. No vessel is legally allowed within that exclusion zone without specific authorization from the CG, on scene law enforcement or the ferry captain.

So when the Nap Time came within 100 yards of the ferry it was in violation of federal law and had no right to navigate there. So I figure Nap Time is 100% in the wrong.

What the WSF will do to the ferry captain remains to be seen, but since hitting pleasure vessels is bad for publicity I suspect he/she will be penalized in some way.

I believe you would be referring to the security zone for the WS ferries established under 33CFR 1317. This does not apply to "all ferries". You might also note that within that code section (e) does not relieve the ferries of compliance with Nav. Rules. I feel as though the ferry will be held somewhat accountable for the accident even though the smaller vessel was encroaching on the ferry exclusion zone, wasn't maintaining watch, etc...Another item is that someone will suffer from the investigation and/or publicity. It is a lot easier to impose a sanction against an employee, or someone you have issued a license to than it is to just a guy in his own boat.

 

[Nightsky]

Yeah, on that event the skipper was showing a gal friend how cool it was to get close to things, like reefs!

Just like the captain of the Costa Concordia.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Another consideration is that under federal law there is 500 yard safety zone around a moving ferry. Within that zone the law requires all vessels to slow to the minimum speed required to maintain safe course. Furthermore there is a 100 yard exclusion zone around a ferry unless it is moored. No vessel is legally allowed within that exclusion zone without specific authorization from the CG, on scene law enforcement or the ferry captain.

So when the Nap Time came within 100 yards of the ferry it was in violation of federal law and had no right to navigate there. So I figure Nap Time is 100% in the wrong.

What the WSF will do to the ferry captain remains to be seen, but since hitting pleasure vessels is bad for publicity I suspect he/she will be penalized in some way.

Well again, the way the CG will likely look at this is that,,, if both vessels were dong everything right, there is no collision. So both vessels were doing something wrong proportionately. The ferry waited way too long to take serious action to avoid the dust up. Obviously the maroon on the Nap Tyme is I would guess predominately at fault here, but the ferry wont escape some blame.

 

[twistedtree]

Wifey B: Actually the biggest risk may be a fall or something else happens to you on the way. Regardless, it's an unnecessary risk.

Yes, good point. Wifey T gets mad at me when I leave the helm for any reason, so I guess I have to admit to her that she's right.

 

[twistedtree]

I believe you would be referring to the security zone for the WS ferries established under 33CFR 1317. This does not apply to "all ferries". You might also note that within that code section (e) does not relieve the ferries of compliance with Nav. Rules. I feel as though the ferry will be held somewhat accountable for the accident even though the smaller vessel was encroaching on the ferry exclusion zone, wasn't maintaining watch, etc...Another item is that someone will suffer from the investigation and/or publicity. It is a lot easier to impose a sanction against an employee, or someone you have issued a license to than it is to just a guy in his own boat.

I would still argue that the ferry made a gross navigational error by not carrying out it's duties as the give way vessel. It seems the effect of the security zone is that the vessels should not pass closer than 100 yards.

 

[BruceK]

A brief anchoring would have completely avoided(?voided)the problem.
How can the ferry be imputed with knowledge the boat is unmanned, on autopilot, and be required to respond accordingly? IMO it can`t be, has to be one of the last possibilities for a boat in that area, and even then, probably comes too late.

 

[BandB]

A brief anchoring would have completely avoided(?voided)the problem.
How can the ferry be imputed with knowledge the boat is unmanned, on autopilot, and be required to respond accordingly? IMO it can`t be, has to be one of the last possibilities for a boat in that area, and even then, probably comes too late.

If I was judge and juror, I would assign blame 80/20 with 80 to the pleasure boat. It's just a stretch to me to expect the Ferry to anticipate there is no one operating the pleasure boat. Now, after the horns and no response, I guess he did become suspicious. I've seen times Ferries seemed to barrel their way through and act like they owned the waterway, but I cannot assign the major blame to one in this situation. The proximate cause was no one operating the pleasure boat. The other causes are all secondary to that.

 

[ulysses]

I would still argue that the ferry made a gross navigational error by not carrying out it's duties as the give way vessel. It seems the effect of the security zone is that the vessels should not pass closer than 100 yards.

I would certainly agree with your arguement. The ferry was indeed the "give way vessel". The exact point that I was making was that the exclusion zone does not mean the ferry did not have to comply with the Nav. Rules.

 

[78puget-trawler]

A brief anchoring would have completely avoided(?voided)the problem.
How can the ferry be imputed with knowledge the boat is unmanned, on autopilot, and be required to respond accordingly? IMO it can`t be, has to be one of the last possibilities for a boat in that area, and even then, probably comes too late.

The ferry cant have known those things, but that is not the issue. The issue is the ferry was either not paying attention to all traffic around him, or chose to ignore a potential for collision until it was too late. All about the timing of the ferry's response to imminent collision, which was slow. I agree with the above, 80 and 20 fault division.

 

[porman]

So here's my Washington State Ferry story. Several years ago my wife and I were enjoying lunch at Anthonys in Bremerton. It was August and a beautiful sunny day (yes, we have those in Washington). There was a Chris Craft rendezvous across the inlet at Port Orchard marina and a line of old wooden boats headed that way. There was also a small tugboat towing a barge headed the same direction closer to my shore. Here comes a ferry headed the same way towards the Bremerton ferry dock. He was slightly to the right of his normal course because of the wooden boats. He had the choice of slowing down a little until the tug cleared the ferry dock,and then turning 90 deg to starboard, or maintaining speed and trying to beat the tug. He did not slow down. Instead, he carried too much speed into his turn towards the dock and spun out. He ended up facing the direction he came from and had to wait there until the tug and barge passed by. Then he had to turn another 270 deg to enter the dock. Lunch and a show. Very entertaining.

 

[Ski in NC]

If I was judge and juror, I would assign blame 80/20 with 80 to the pleasure boat. It's just a stretch to me to expect the Ferry to anticipate there is no one operating the pleasure boat. Now, after the horns and no response, I guess he did become suspicious. I've seen times Ferries seemed to barrel their way through and act like they owned the waterway, but I cannot assign the major blame to one in this situation. The proximate cause was no one operating the pleasure boat. The other causes are all secondary to that.

What if the pleasure boater was actually behind the wheel paying attention? Steady course and speed, stand on vessel. And simply asserts his standing with regard to the rules. Ferry blows horn because he does not WANT to follow the rules as written. Ferry likes to follow the rule of tonnage, which is not a written rule, but certainly works in most cases.

So in my hypothetical, at the last moment the pleasure boat stops to avoid a collision. Could he not make a complaint against the ferry cap'n? Still 80/20 to p-boat?

Not trying to defend the p-boater, just trying to sort out where responsibility is. Seems more clear to me that the ferry was blowing off the rules and asserting based on size.

 

[BandB]

What if the pleasure boater was actually behind the wheel paying attention? Steady course and speed, stand on vessel. And simply asserts his standing with regard to the rules. Ferry blows horn because he does not WANT to follow the rules as written. Ferry likes to follow the rule of tonnage, which is not a written rule, but certainly works in most cases.

So in my hypothetical, at the last moment the pleasure boat stops to avoid a collision. Could he not make a complaint against the ferry cap'n? Still 80/20 to p-boat?

Not trying to defend the p-boater, just trying to sort out where responsibility is. Seems more clear to me that the ferry was blowing off the rules and asserting based on size.

No, at that point I evaluate it more carefully and start at 50/50 until I uncover further information or witnesses that might move it either way. A macho fight over space I am offended by both of them. Stubbornness gets you nowhere in my court room and I rule against both for not taking steps to avoid the accident. I just can't see it even though in the actual situation because I see the pleasure boat captain's behavior as so egregious.

 

[twistedtree]

The ferry cant have known those things, but that is not the issue. The issue is the ferry was either not paying attention to all traffic around him, or chose to ignore a potential for collision until it was too late. All about the timing of the ferry's response to imminent collision, which was slow. I agree with the above, 80 and 20 fault division.

I'd take it a step further. They ferry wasn't paying attention and/or ignored a vessel that was the stand-on vessel, ignored his/her responsibilities as the give way vessel, and assumed the smaller boat would stand down counter to the rules. And he/she failed to take whatever action was required to avoid a collision regardless of the rules.

I'd probably give it 50/50 responsibility.

The small boat:

1) Failed to maintain a watch, and did so in an active waterway.

2) Failed to monitor his VHF. I'm presuming this, but have to believe the ferry was trying to hail the small boat.

3) Failed to take whatever action is required to avoid a collision.

The Ferry:

1) Failed to carry out his give-way duties

3) Failed to take whatever action is required to avoid a collision.

Both lists are really bad, but one interesting test is to ask how things would be different if the small boat captain had been at the helm the whole time, yet maintained exactly the same course. If that were the case the collision would have been almost entirely the fault of the ferry.

 

[SoWhat]

WSF Brian Mannion has already announced the conclusion of their investigation. The master "...followed all protocol..."

I am sure a number of the TF jury will disagree with that conclusion. I don't.
I am not prepared to apportion any responsibility to the Master based upon a short slice of video that does not show all the actions of the Master who may well have taken a number of steps prior to the beginning of the video.

The Master was probably trying to hail Nap Tyme on VHF, may have sounded the danger signal prior to the video, and most likely had the boat in reverse. It can take 60 sec or more to stop a 274' 2400 ton vessel.

The large prop wash we see just after the collision is probably the forward prop finally engaging. The Chetzemoka normally has the bow articulating rudder locked, both engines running (a legacy of problems starting engines on older ferries) the forward prop freewheeling, and the eng shaft to the reduction gears locked. If the Chief Engineer was in the engine room, it would have taken him a unknown but finite amount of time to reconfigure things so that the bridge had control over gear and speed.

100% to Nap Tyme