That will buff right out - boat hits ferry

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Ferry had no right of way. Simple port - stbd confrontation
(Ferry looking at a redlight)
Failure to avoid a collision (Both parties)
Failure to keep a watch (powerboat?)
The only mitigation ? Some areas have local rules concerning commercial /merchant craft .
For example constrained by there draft / no manouvering room etc
Does not seem that there was a lack of room in this case, probably PB user on auto and failing to keep a watch. Coupled with stubborn Capt on ferry ("might has right")
 
78puget-trawler said:
I watched it again and in my mind the ferry is certainly partially responsible for the collision. He was still moving ahead when it happened and more importantly he did not give full power to the forward eng until the collision, maybe a few seconds before but not nearly as soon as he should have. And he could have altered course to port but there is no indication that he did. He was assuming that the small boat was going to wake up some day. Rash assumption on his part. Its all about making the right moves early, neither did.
Click to expand...

Agreed.......My first thought was that he was more intent on blowing that damn whistle 5 times than avoiding the collision. I see nothing in that video that shows him trying to avoid that collision until the point of impact. The people on that ferry showed no signs of being bounced around by a sudden change in direction or forward motion. I am betting that that forward engine will stop that vessel pretty quickly if need be. Ego at its worst :banghead:
 
The powerboat failed to maintain watch, also failed to take action to avoid collision. He may have violated a security zone, but that won't help the ferry captain navigation rules wise.

The Ferry was burdened, took action too late by definition, had a collision and may well be in peril of losing his ticket.

Both will share responsibility, but professionally one has more to lose and that's probably proper. It's a miracle there was no loss of life.
 
ulysses said:
It was and is a protected vessel probably due to a homeland security effort that allows a safe non-encroachment zone of 1500 yards.
Click to expand...

I don't think this changes any of the navigation rules. It just says the two vessels shouldn't pass closer than 1500 feet. Stand-on and give-way vessels still have the same duties.
 
Last edited:
My experience with the WSFs is that they give way when they are the give-way vessel. Just because they are big doesn't change the rules. And most are very communicative, confirming over VHF what their intentions are, and what yours are. I expect the ferry was trying to hail the PB for some time leading up to this, but of course we don't see/hear that in the video. Regardless, the two boats should have worked this out way before they got that close, and in the absense of working it out, the ferry should have stayed clear. There is lots of blame to spread around here.
 
I love (and question) this quote, sure to ruffle a few Bayliner feathers...

"Had it been any other type of boat, a Bayliner something like that, it would've just crumbled," said Clarke Swanson the captain of the boat, 'Nap Tyme' that collided with the ferry. :hide:
 
FlyWright said:
I love (and question) this quote, sure to ruffle a few Bayliner feathers...

"Had it been any other type of boat, a Bayliner something like that, it would've just crumbled," said Clarke Swanson the captain of the boat, 'Nap Tyme' that collided with the ferry. :hide:
Click to expand...

All the have to go to show otherwise is to take there boat and let a ferry hit it. :D
 
FlyWright said:
I love (and question) this quote, sure to ruffle a few Bayliner feathers...

"Had it been any other type of boat, a Bayliner something like that, it would've just crumbled," said Clarke Swanson the captain of the boat, 'Nap Tyme' that collided with the ferry. :hide:
Click to expand...

It told me more about Clarke Swanson, the captain who leaves the helm, leaves the boat on autopilot, goes below while in a main channel in a major area of activity. I didn't care much for him before, now I like him less. Not the time to be a pompous snob.
 
Bob Cofer said:
Amazing amount of information you all have gleaned from this video! Someone should forward this entire thread to the hearing board when it convenes and save them the bother of reviewing any actual facts.

Good grief!
Click to expand...

I think the point of this discussion is we are all trying to learn from this unfortunate situation. It's more efficient to learn from someone else's mistakes, rather than your own.

The ferry's manoeuver put it at risk of collision, but there might have been limited in its options if it was at the slip. Perhaps there were other vessels the captain of the ferry was concerned about. We don't know all the details. The pleasure craft operator would not likely have put his craft at risk had he been at the wheel. You just shouldn't be that close to a ferry.

Early in my short experience operating a vessel, I sent an email to VTS in Victoria requesting clarification as to whether it was appropriate for me to use the traffic channels to arrange safe passes with vessels participating in the VTS system if I wasn't a participant. They told me I could do this. I had found that ferries often did not respond to communications on 16. I don't make a pest of myself on the VTS channels, and I try to keep communications short, efficient and professional, but I regularly contact ferries and tugs on the VTS channels if I feel it important to do so. Invariably, I am thanked for contacting them for clarification. The communication also notifies VTS that I am in the area (occasionally they join the conversation to provide additional details), as well as other "participating" commercial vessels. This is the main reason I installed a second radio at the helm.

Active Pass is a particularly busy spot and it's not unusual to encounter up to 4 ferries on any given transit. In a recent court case against a pleasure craft, BC ferries stated they believe Active Pass to represent a "Narrow Passage" and that they have restricted maneuverability in the area. This is particularly true when the two large ferries pass each other in the pass. The court agreed and found the skipper of the pleasure craft guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vessel. So don't think you are the stand on vessel in Active Pass when a BC ferry comes up on your stern. Best to get out of their way.

Jim
 
All the BC Ferries I have hailed on channel 16 respond, the last one about a month ago in Agamemnon Channel.
 
Xsbank said:
All the BC Ferries I have hailed on channel 16 respond, the last one about a month ago in Agamemnon Channel.
Click to expand...

I hailed BC ferries in the past on 16 and they didn't respond. Coast Guard directed me to hail them on the VTS channel.
 
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.
 
menzies said:
Not sure that was prop wash, I was thinking thrusters
Click to expand...

WS Ferries are double-ended, have symmetrical propulsion at each end. What you are seeing is the forward prop going full "ahead" to provide braking.
 
koliver said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
It's a longish thread and I may have missed it but where is it said that this incident will ever "hit the courts"?
 
koliver said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moby Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...


Westport 47. Long before they built super yachts.
 
78puget-trawler said:
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.
Click to expand...

This won't ever hit the courts. It will be resolved quietly.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Doesn't every collision have to be reported and doesn't every report have to be investigated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Collision and demasting
10 11 12
Replies
351
Views
24K
Old Sea Dog
Old Sea Dog
Adopo
Stability and righting ability
Replies
19
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
DavidM
Liability as Captain or Crew
Replies
21
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
C
Our 2009 Alaskan 56
Replies
4
Views
1K
Comodave
Comodave
slowgoesit
1973 30' Willard/Fales Seeker for Sale, $29,500
Replies
4
Views
3K
Jeff F
Jeff F

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom