Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-06-2016, 04:33 PM   #81
Guru
 
dhays's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Vessel Name: Kinship
Vessel Model: North Pacific 43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by koliver View Post
It isn't likely the video would be able to show how quickly the ferry was decelerating, but since reverse propwash is visible out in front so soon after the risk of collision became evident, I think it is unlikely that could happen without the ferry being in full reverse from before the first of the 5 blast whistles.
I tend to agree. While the ferry is moving at speed, I am not sure that the prop wash would even be visible in front of the ferry. It wouldn't be until the ferry slows enough that it wouldn't be overrunning the visible prop wash. It appears to me that the ferry was decelerating from the beginning, the prop wash only visible after the camera angle changes and the ferry has slowed down enough to make it visible.

Not enough information to do on of course so I am simply making guesses.
__________________
Regards,

Dave
SPOT page
dhays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 06:16 PM   #82
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,257
When this hits the courts it will be determined that both bear some fault, and they obviously do. The ferry didn't hit the throttle hard until it was too late to avoid the collision. He should have been going astern by then, but instead he was still moving forward assuming (again) that the other guy would give way. The ferries do this sometimes, play big boy and everybody else must go around. I worked on the Sound enough to know this is true. We used to joke that all the ferries were on rails and unable to change course once set.
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 06:32 PM   #83
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,323
It's a longish thread and I may have missed it but where is it said that this incident will ever "hit the courts"?
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 08:38 PM   #84
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,257
Nowhere, just speculation.
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 09:55 PM   #85
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by koliver View Post
If I am in an area frequented by ferries, I usually track them on my Boatbeacon, and can see whether they are taking a wider course to avoid getting close to me or to other boats close to me. I now know that they will do this, even if they are the stand on vessel. I have also called them on 16 and had a quick response, most recently in Active Pass, when I asked them to ignore me, as I would stay out of their way, and advised of a pod of Orca fishing at Helen Point. I was enthusiastically thanked for both bits of information.

Re the collision, regardless of the ferry being burdened in a strict interpretation of the Colreg, the Stand on vessel admits to failing to have any lookout, let alone a "proper lookout", so will have no ability to limit his liability. From the limited evidence provided by the video, I would not conclude that the Ferry did anything wrong. It isn't likely the video would be able to show how quickly the ferry was decelerating, but since reverse propwash is visible out in front so soon after the risk of collision became evident, I think it is unlikely that could happen without the ferry being in full reverse from before the first of the 5 blast whistles.
In maritime court I've always been told that in the event of a collision, both parties are going to be found at fault. It may only be 90/10%. But it's never 100/0%.

In a strict interpretation of the rules, the ferry most certainly did not do all it could to avoid the collision.
Capt.Bill11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 09:56 PM   #86
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby Nick View Post
Anyone know the brand and model of the yacht? She would appear to be built like the proverbial brick outhouse. Our old Albin-25 is rugged, but eventually we might want a larger vessel.

Westport 47. Long before they built super yachts.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2016, 11:55 PM   #87
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale. Florida, USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 21,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78puget-trawler View Post
When this hits the courts it will be determined that both bear some fault, and they obviously do. The ferry didn't hit the throttle hard until it was too late to avoid the collision. He should have been going astern by then, but instead he was still moving forward assuming (again) that the other guy would give way. The ferries do this sometimes, play big boy and everybody else must go around. I worked on the Sound enough to know this is true. We used to joke that all the ferries were on rails and unable to change course once set.
This won't ever hit the courts. It will be resolved quietly.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 12:45 AM   #88
Guru
 
78puget-trawler's Avatar
 
City: LaConner
Vessel Model: 34' CHB
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,257
I am inclined to agree especially considering the politics of the larger participant involved, Washington State. If the CG did decide to go after a license then it could wind up in court. I was forced to participate in such an action once. Not fun.
78puget-trawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 07:14 AM   #89
Guru
 
Daddyo's Avatar
 
City: Cruising East Coast US
Vessel Name: Grace
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,420
As to damage being apparently minimal, I would have to give most of the credit to the angle of the collision and most importantly the backwash of the ferry engine effectively acted as a bumper. If the trawler had been traveling a tad slower I doubt she would have even been able to make hull contact given the thrust.
__________________
Cruiser
Esse Quam Videri
Daddyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 07:53 AM   #90
Guru
 
menzies's Avatar
 
City: Jacksonville
Vessel Name: SONAS
Vessel Model: Grand Alaskan 53
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,235
Doesn't every collision have to be reported and doesn't every report have to be investigated?
menzies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 09:43 AM   #91
Senior Member
 
rjwilliams11741's Avatar
 
City: Minden, NV & California Delta
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 200
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.
rjwilliams11741 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 10:45 AM   #92
Guru
 
DHeckrotte's Avatar
 
City: Philadelphia, PA
Vessel Name: Revel
Vessel Model: 1984 Fu Hwa 39
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,024
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...
DHeckrotte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 10:51 AM   #93
Al
Guru
 
Al's Avatar
 
City: ketchikan, Alaska
Vessel Name: 'SLO'~BELLE
Vessel Model: 1978 Marben-27' Flybridge Trawler(extended to 30 feet) Pilothouse Pocket Cruiser[
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHeckrotte View Post
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
Al is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 10:54 AM   #94
Guru
 
City: Boston
Vessel Name: Adelante
Vessel Model: IG 30
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by menzies View Post
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
SoWhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 09:14 PM   #95
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Vermont
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjwilliams11741 View Post
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.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 09:27 PM   #96
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,438
"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.
Capt.Bill11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 02:54 AM   #97
Guru
 
ulysses's Avatar
 
City: Gulf Shores, Ala.
Vessel Name: Ulysses
Vessel Model: Romsdal 1963
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Bill11 View Post
"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.
ulysses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 09:50 AM   #98
Guru
 
TDunn's Avatar
 
City: Maine Coast
Vessel Name: Tortuga
Vessel Model: Nunes Brothers Raised Deck Cruiser
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 889
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.
TDunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 12:13 PM   #99
Guru
 
City: Boston
Vessel Name: Adelante
Vessel Model: IG 30
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Bill11 View Post
"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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 12:59 PM   #100
Guru
 
City: Boston
Vessel Name: Adelante
Vessel Model: IG 30
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,608
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
SoWhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012