That will buff right out - boat hits ferry

Would not the same perception of "admitting guilt" occur with a reassignment as with a termination?

Ski in NC said:

Would not the same perception of "admitting guilt" occur with a reassignment as with a termination?

Click to expand...

That can be explained as a temp reassignment while they investigate.

Termination might be construed as guilt, reassignment and retraining just says we have lost trust in him momentarily. See it all the time in government.

One issue that has not been discussed is the possibility that there might have been another vessel or obstruction that could have constrained the actions of the captain of the ferry. The video does not provide a full visual of the situation.

WRT radar, I believe it is important to have this most important nav aid operational at all times. Also, if you have it, you must have it operational. When you can confirm what you see out the windows with what is on the radar screen, it gives confidence in conditions of fog and darkness when you are unable to confirm visually what is present.

Jim

Ski in NC said:

Would not the same perception of "admitting guilt" occur with a reassignment as with a termination?

Click to expand...

I don't think it has to do with reassignment as much as the investigation determination. I think that would be dependent upon the earlier referenced liability split. 80/20, 60/40, whatever and whoever has the best representation. I would bet the ferry will throw up every 'reason' why NapTyme was the only one in violation. The security zone, the draft, the maneuverability, the federal exclusion zone around a ferry. All to NapTymes shot at having a good maritime lawyer, to rebut the Ferries points. The end all is: The ferry didn't do enough to avoid collision; NapTyme did NOTHING to avoid collision.

JDCAVE said:

One issue that has not been discussed is the possibility that there might have been another vessel or obstruction that could have constrained the actions of the captain of the ferry. The video does not provide a full visual of the situation.

WRT radar, I believe it is important to have this most important nav aid operational at all times. Also, if you have it, you must have it operational. When you can confirm what you see out the windows with what is on the radar screen, it gives confidence in conditions of fog and darkness when you are unable to confirm visually what is present.

Jim

Click to expand...

Your eye and mind always trump radar or anything else when it is daylight and unlimited visibility.

And no..... it has been discussed many times that radar is only required by small craft and those without a dedicated radar watch as "under prevailing conditions"....it is not required to be operational at all times.

Of course if you hit somebody, they can argue that radar could have helped...guess what...at that point it is too late if you collided and any decent expert witness or lawyer with experience can argue it's distraction isdues for a short handed watch.

I would claim based on pretty solid instructional certifications that it could be a distraction under ideal visibility. In that case, a great backup and precise measuring tool, but not critical or most important.

Colliding with things is all about awareness....hard to prove what iscwhat...but the standard is still an eyeballing lookout seems to rise to the top of the pyramid much of the time.

The part that I do agree with is run it enough to be pretty good with Radar....so when you DO need it.....

The nice thing about using radar is you can put a tag on a target, then go back to doing other stuff. Take another glance at the tag and target and you can immediately tell if bearing is constant. Gives you an accurate bearing that is not super convenient to do visually. Applies even with good vis.

Look, I am not against using micrometers to miss vessels/avoid collisions.

But in my virtually on the water all the time type lifestyle and jobs....I am 100 times more likely to collide with some small vessel on the ICW than anything else.

Avoiding large commercial traffic in New York Harbor, the Delaware, the Chesapeake, Norfolk entrance, Savannah River, Charleston Harbor, St John river, etc.... is a snap compared to avoiding other channel hogging, refusing to move, day mark zeroed in clowns on the ICW.

In broad daylight, I can't remember the last time I used radar to avoid a collision. MA y older or smaller radars don't have arpa or marpa....so just watching constant bearing decreasing range on the radar or out the window.....I know which one will keep me out of court.

All pilots learn visual flying before instrument flying...I would hope most boaters go through the same progression. How many airline pilots let full instrument touchdowns or near so in perfectly clear visual conditions?

Use radar all you want, but I hope no one thinks that a small, pleasure vessel is required to have it on all the time or that the average skipper should learn to rely on it over eyeballs and a brain.

cappy208 said:

I don't think it has to do with reassignment as much as the investigation determination. I think that would be dependent upon the earlier referenced liability split. 80/20, 60/40, whatever and whoever has the best representation. I would bet the ferry will throw up every 'reason' why NapTyme was the only one in violation. The security zone, the draft, the maneuverability, the federal exclusion zone around a ferry. All to NapTymes shot at having a good maritime lawyer, to rebut the Ferries points. The end all is: The ferry didn't do enough to avoid collision; NapTyme did NOTHING to avoid collision.

Click to expand...

This won't ever reach any type of court. There will be a settlement among the parties and their insurers. There's not enough money involved for them to turn this into a major battle and expert witnesses, even if they might threaten to do so. However, I'm pretty sure both sides want this to go away. A typical instruction to whoever is representing the Ferry company would be, "make this go away without an admission of guilt." Basically, if you have to pay a little something but the settlement statement says clearly it's not an admission of fault, then do so. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurers just decided to split the costs 50/50 regardless of fault. This is big news but small time to the insurers. All the Ferry operator cares about is getting it out of the news. The Naptyme owner, I don't know, since he just seemed proud his boat was built so well and boasted it was better than some other brands.

psneeld said:

Your eye and mind always trump radar or anything else when it is daylight and unlimited visibility.

Click to expand...

I agree. But I use both, even in clear conditions. I want to confirm my observations by sight. My biggest concern is with fast sport craft.

psneeld said:

And no..... it has been discussed many times that radar is only required by small craft and those without a dedicated radar watch as "under prevailing conditions"....it is not required to be operational at all times.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd rather not take my chance with a maritime lawyer, better versed with the Colregs than I. My interpretation of rule 7a and 7b is: if I've got radar, I better use it, but not to the exclusion of visual cues, for sure. At least that's what we were taught in Power Squadron. The radar is on in all conditions and I use it.



Jim

If whomever was at the helm of the ferry at time of collision has ANY past digressions noted by the CG, it makes it all the more likely they will want his ticket.

JDCAVE said:

Well, I'd rather not take my chance with a maritime lawyer, better versed with the Colregs than I. My interpretation of rule 7a and 7b is: if I've got radar, I better use it, but not to the exclusion of visual cues, for sure. At least that's what we were taught in Power Squadron. The radar is on in all conditions and I use it.

Click to expand...

Jim, it is 7b that gives me pause about needing to use radar. 7a is clear that the means used must be appropriate to the conditions. So if visibility is unlimited, I would contend that RADAR isn't necessarily appropriate because a bearing is easy to determine with the Mk I eyeball and compass. 7b is a bit more difficult. It all comes down to what is "proper use". Does that mean you know how to use it, or that it is used when appropriate as per 7a and Rule 5?

We can all have opinions but what I've yet to see is an actual maritime legal case that determined that a pleasure boat such as ours was found to be in violation of Rule 7b for not using RADAR in CAVU conditions. If anyone with those types of resources knows of one, it would be very informative.

I cant belive the words prevailing conditions would be used if it didn't mean anything.

But please understand that I think using backup is great...but in CAVU conditions, if you run your boat into a ferry.... you really think the Radar was going to change that?

2 huge warships or super tankers.... I agree at 20 miles it is nice to have an electronic CPA done for you and start appropriate action....because at 5 miles CPA it might get dicey if bad decisions are made. In 40 or 50 something trawlers....you shouldn't be driving one then.

I taught just the opposite about required radar as a certified USCG instructor...not sure what the credentials the Power Squadron instructors have.

Ski in NC said:

The nice thing about using radar is you can put a tag on a target, then go back to doing other stuff. Take another glance at the tag and target and you can immediately tell if bearing is constant. Gives you an accurate bearing that is not super convenient to do visually. Applies even with good vis.

Click to expand...

Exactly. In this situation, the radar is just a really good tool for measuring/observing/monitoring bearing and distance. Maybe others are much better than me, but I find visually assessing a crossing situation with much bigger boats to be very difficult. Their size, and usually faster speed become visually very deceptive. I frequently think that I will surely cross ahead of a much bigger boat, only to find my radar tells me something very different. It also makes a different how maneuverable and zippy your boat is. In a fast boat you can just dart out of the way. In a slow lumbering boat, you become a blotch on the hull.

1. Constant bearing decreasing range works for any size vessels....the slower and less bouncing around, the easier it is.

2. Not all small boat radars have marpa or arpa.

3. I can stop my trawler in several boat lengths....anyone get closer to big commercial vessels than that? Even my 20 knot sportfish could come off plane in a couple boat lengths and stop withing a couple more...anyone get within 100 feet of a collision with a large vessel in open water and can't handle it and need radar?

I hope not.

twistedtree said:

Exactly. In this situation, the radar is just a really good tool for measuring/observing/monitoring bearing and distance. Maybe others are much better than me, but I find visually assessing a crossing situation with much bigger boats to be very difficult. Their size, and usually faster speed become visually very deceptive. I frequently think that I will surely cross ahead of a much bigger boat, only to find my radar tells me something very different. It also makes a different how maneuverable and zippy your boat is. In a fast boat you can just dart out of the way. In a slow lumbering boat, you become a blotch on the hull.

Click to expand...

My radar does not have ARPA or MARPA. Upon encountering most commercial vessels, I use the forward AIS vectors to gauge risk of collision. By varying the time-vector trace on CE I can determine when our paths will cross. I say most, as not all tugs with tows in BC are on AIS. We identified 2 radar targets on the radar travelling line-astern and out of the fog comes a tug with tow. There was no risk of collision in this instance but still it was a surprise. Several minutes later we watched a fast target (he was stand on vessel) zip right across our bow. He must have been doing 25 kts in near zero visibility. We did take best steps to avoid a collision but I don't think he had any clue we were in the area. The vessel was a sport fishing charter vessel.

As noted several times constant bearing decreasing range. With or without RADAR. If in open water and I see a target with my eyes miles away I make note of the window that I am viewing the target through. If in twenty minutes its the same window and it looks closer then its time to do something different. If I am in more confined waters it is very easy to take a relative bearing. Your mind is constantly working ARPA and MARPA.

I find it easy, even in a slow boat, to avoid large vessels even in not-perfect conditions using my eyes and brain.

psneeld said:

1. Constant bearing decreasing range works for any size vessels....the slower and less bouncing around, the easier it is.

2. Not all small boat radars have marpa or arpa.

3. I can stop my trawler in several boat lengths....anyone get closer to big commercial vessels than that? Even my 20 knot sportfish could come off plane in a couple boat lengths and stop withing a couple more...anyone get within 100 feet of a collision with a large vessel in open water and can't handle it and need radar?

I hope not.

Click to expand...

I agree with #1. I'm just saying that a radar is a useful tool for doing just that.

Re #2, ARPA/MARPA is nice, but the radar is still helpful without it. An EBL line laid over the target makes for easy monitoring of it's bearing over time. Lay down a VRM and now you can monitor range and bearing at a glance. I think all radars have EBL and VRM.

Re #3, agreed, but my goal is to never get anywhere near that close.

Is radar needed to avoid a collision? No.

Is radar the only way to avoid a collision? No

Is radar helpful for monitoring another boat's position for collision avoidance? Yes, absolutely.

But if you don't care to use it, so be it. It's just another tool.

After all the back and forth about radars, sonars, electric toothbrushes, toilets etc., we are left with one inescapable conclusion. This collision was totally avoidable. Bad decisions or delayed decisions are the cause, plain and simple.

78puget-trawler said:

After all the back and forth about radars, sonars, electric toothbrushes, toilets etc., we are left with one inescapable conclusion. This collision was totally avoidable. Bad decisions or delayed decisions are the cause, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Yup. Most definitely.

78puget-trawler said:

I think the CG will take a pretty dim view of the actions or non actions of both parties here. Neither took early and decisive action to avoid the collision. CG will likely rule both at fault to some degree.

Click to expand...

I think this was pretty easy to see coming....

The ferry captain sounds like a class act. 34 years without an accident and he steps up and takes responsibility for not acting fast enough to prevent a collision with a nitwit. The powerboat operator, on the other hand, represents one of my worst boating nightmares.

The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.

angus99 said:

The ferry captain sounds like a class act. 34 years without an accident and he steps up and takes responsibility for not acting fast enough to prevent a collision with a nitwit. The powerboat operator, on the other hand, represents one of my worst boating nightmares.

Click to expand...

BruceK said:

The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.

Click to expand...

BruceK said:

The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.

Click to expand...

According to what? In the article at least there was no percentage of blame placed, both contributed to the incident. Ferry skipper lost his license albeit briefly. Him being probably the more experienced and likely only licensed party would be held to a higher standard than some boob on auto pilot taking a leak.

BruceK said:

The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.

Click to expand...

I don't want to disparage the Captain at all however, his reported statements don't really say much. He was found to be a contributing cause of the accident by both the USCG and the WSF system. At that point, he was already found to be at fault. What else is he going to say? If he wants to work again he certainly isn't going to say that he didn't agree with the judgement, particularly since he only got a two week suspension. That isn't even a slap on the wrist, more of a wink and a nod.

Those of us privilged enough to boat recreationally on the water should have a special respect for the men and women who operate commercial craft. Technically, in the case, there has been a determination of shared liability. But realistically, morally, a ferry operator should never have to dodge a vessel with no one at the helm. These operators are working people doing a difficult job. It probably wouldn't occur to me, as a ferry operator, that a vessel would be unmanned on autopilot.

I boat the San Juan and Gulf Islands frequently, and I get way out of the way of any commercial traffic. I don't arbitrarily assert right of way or maritime rules--they have a job to do, and I don't make it more difficult. In fact, I get out of the way of rude recreational traffic as well. Hopefully my reward will be in Trawler Heaven.

There is a difference between the legal, technical answer and the right answer. If we do more than our share on the water, and the commercial guys do more than their share, we can all enjoy the same waters.

78puget-trawler said:

According to what?

Click to expand...

Reading and interpreting the report.