That will buff right out - boat hits ferry

[BandB]

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.

Yes, but he would have been highly unlikely to maintain that course. You see something a hundred times your size ahead and in your line of travel and, unless you're either high or drunk or peeing or suicidal, you surrender and yield. And if you see it and don't back or turn away then just get your share of fault too.

 

[menzies]

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

His/Their investigation in an internal one to that organization and not the official CG result, correct?

 

[SoWhat]

His/Their investigation in an internal one to that organization and not the official CG result, correct?

Correct. I am sure they were very thorough and interviewed both the Master and the Helmsman. Doubt WSF would ever admit to any liability.

USCG will investigate but I don't believe they issue public reports. You would have to submit FOIA request.

 

[Ski in NC]

Could absolutely be that steps were underway to stop well before video started. From here we just don't know. We are just throwing what-ifs around. Still a good education for all of us.

 

[twistedtree]

Yes, but he would have been highly unlikely to maintain that course. You see something a hundred times your size ahead and in your line of travel and, unless you're either high or drunk or peeing or suicidal, you surrender and yield. And if you see it and don't back or turn away then just get your share of fault too.

The way I see it, each boat gets two demerits. Both get one for not doing whatever is needed to avoid the collision. Were the small boat captain actually at the helm, he might have been able to avoid the collision. The ferry captain tried, but failed.

The second demerit for each boat is different. The small boat gets one for not maintaining an effective watch. The ferry gets one for failing to give way in the first place.

Take away any of those transgressions and accompanying demerits and the collision probably wouldn't have happened. But it doesn't mean the other transgressions didn't occur or are excusable.

 

[twistedtree]

Could absolutely be that steps were underway to stop well before video started. From here we just don't know. We are just throwing what-ifs around. Still a good education for all of us.

Of course if other info surfaces, it could change everything, and our arm-chair tribunal would surely revise it's verdict. But for now, bailiff, whack his pee pee.

 

[menzies]

Of course if other info surfaces, it could change everything, and our arm-chair tribunal would surely revise it's verdict. But for now, bailiff, whack his pee pee.

Who's pee pee though?

 

[twistedtree]

Who's pee pee though?

OK, whack their pee pees. Both of them.

 

[78puget-trawler]

The WSF statement is commonly referred to as CYA, no more, no less. The Master followed all protocol except for one. Avoid a very avoidable collision.

 

[Portage_Bay]

It will take some time for the investigations to be completed. We won't need to file a FIOA.

We'll be able to find the USCG investigation results here:

USCG Maritime Information Exchange Incident Investigation Reports

The National Transportation Safety Board investigation (if it goes that far) here:

National Transportation Safety Board Marine Accident Reports

The WSF internal investigation will most likely turn up in news media. I don't know if the WSF is required to report their investigation results but given all the press coverage of this one I'm confident it will turn up.

I think the statement issued buy Brian Mannion "...the captain followed all protocol..." is a statement to the press and not the results of WSF's internal investigation.

 

[SoWhat]

It will take some time for the investigations to be completed. We won't need to file a FIOA.

We'll be able to find the USCG investigation results here:
USCG Maritime Information Exchange Incident Investigation Reports

The National Transportation Safety Board investigation (if it goes that far) here:
National Transportation Safety Board Marine Accident Reports

The WSF internal investigation will most likely turn up in news media.

"Due to the ongoing USCG investigation, we are unable to release any details at this time" or "Due to pending litigation..."

Did you read any of the USCG Incident Investigation Reports?
Hilarious. Our government at work.

INCIDENT BRIEF
Incident Brief Under Review

Safety Alerts
No Recorded Data

Involved Facilities
No Recorded Data

REFERRAL FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION
No Recorded Data

All the reports have been completely sterilized. FOIA request at your District USCG base would probably be a lot more productive once the investigation is complete.


Freedom of Information Act

Additionally, Sector Puget Sound’s Investigations Division processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests
Freedom of Information Act requests MUST be in writing. The request should be prominently marked "FOIA". The request should be addressed to the office at which the records are located. The request MUST reasonably describe the information that is sought.
Written Requests
FOIA requests may be submitted in writing via mail or overnight carrier to:
Commander
USCG Sector Puget Sound
Attn: FOIA Officer
1519 Alaskan Way S.
Seattle, WA. 98134

 

[BandB]

"Due to the ongoing USCG investigation, we are unable to release any details at this time" or "Due to pending litigation..."

Did you read any of the USCG Incident Investigation Reports?
Hilarious. Our government at work.

INCIDENT BRIEF
Incident Brief Under Review

Safety Alerts
No Recorded Data

Involved Facilities
No Recorded Data

REFERRAL FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION
No Recorded Data

All the reports have been completely sterilized. FOIA request at your District USCG base would probably be a lot more productive once the investigation is complete.

The real accident investigation responsibilities fall on NTSB. Often the extent of the USCG job is data collection unless they feel there is something for them to really gain by going further.

 

[psneeld]

Pretty sure the USCG would investigate whether the NTSB did or not. In this case, the ferry was the main ingredient why the NTSB got involved I would assume.

The determination of criminal charges and actions against licensed mariners would fall to USCG jurisdiction unless there has been some major changes lately that I missed.

The assignment of blame in percentages I believe is done in maritime hearings, not investigations...but the USCG investigation should clearly delineate what they think was done correctly and incorrectly.

 

[Cigatoo]

The results will show up here when available.

Marine Accident Reports

Interesting reading by the way.

 

[BandB]

Pretty sure the USCG would investigate whether the NTSB did or not. In this case, the ferry was the main ingredient why the NTSB got involved I would assume.

The determination of criminal charges and actions against licensed mariners would fall to USCG jurisdiction unless there has been some major changes lately that I missed.

The assignment of blame in percentages I believe is done in maritime hearings, not investigations...but the USCG investigation should clearly delineate what they think was done correctly and incorrectly.

It's not going to be a high priority investigation for anyone. No injuries, no deaths, minimal property damage. Likely collection of some data and very little beyond.

Percentages are in civil trials and sometimes maritime hearings. USCG simply reports what they know. NTSB, if involved, will determine probably cause but in a case like this one it would probably not be much different than the one I quote here:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collision between the P. B. Shah tow and the Dewey R tow was the impact of distraction upon the decision-making and recollection of the captain of the P. B. Shah. Contributing to the collision was the failure of both captains to monitor the progress and effectiveness of the meeting proposal and take appropriate action to avoid the collision.​

There have been many similar ferry incidents over the years and fortunately most haven't had serious consequences. Often Ferry Captain is terminated, but overall practices don't change. As to the pleasure boat, I doubt the operator has any grasp yet of how wrong his actions were or how close to death he came and not sure anyone else is deterred from doing the same as he did. If you were stupid enough to leave it on autopilot in a crowded location and go below, you're still stupid enough to do so.

 

[dhays]

There have been many similar ferry incidents over the years and fortunately most haven't had serious consequences. Often Ferry Captain is terminated, but overall practices don't change. As to the pleasure boat, I doubt the operator has any grasp yet of how wrong his actions were or how close to death he came and not sure anyone else is deterred from doing the same as he did. If you were stupid enough to leave it on autopilot in a crowded location and go below, you're still stupid enough to do so.

I went back to view the video again as I had not recalled any other boats in the video. This is often a stretch of water that has plenty of boats, pleasure cruisers, sailboats, fishing boats, and commercial traffic. It is west of the designated traffic lanes going into to the Port of Tacoma but is still pretty busy. However, it is not busy on a winters afternoon. There are not any other boats underway in view if the camera. Pretty rare in my experience in this piece of water. So I would not call this crowded at the time of the collision. This may actually be a contributing factor. The pleasure boat captain obviously thought that it was pretty empty. He just failed to spot the ferry before he went below. If the ferry was still in dock before he went below, then he was below a very long time since the collision occurred much closer to the Vashon side.

One other thing that I noted this time when I reviewed the video is that the ferry was turning away to the West. No way to tell how long the ferry had been trying to make the turn.

 

[ulysses]

One of my worst and earliest commercial marine experiences was pulling the victims from the Ferry George Prince out of the LMR. There was an empty bottle of Seagram Seven found with the Capt.'s body in the wheel house. The sick humor of New Orleans created a drink named the George Prince, Seagrams and River water.

 

[grahamdouglass]

There is something missing here

Most of the conversation has assumed that the skipper of the pleasure craft and captain of the ferry have equal obligations and duties. I would think that during an inquiry the captain of the ferry will be held to a higher level of duty.

On the one hand you have a pleasure boater of unknown competency piloting of boat of unknown quality.

The ferry on the other hand is a highly regulated and maintained commercial passenger vessel. The Captain has a professional license, years of experience and a watch officer and quartermaster steering the boat. Three experienced mariners with decades of experience between them. The Captain also has a duty to safe guard his passengers, crew and vessel. And not crash into a pleasure craft on a sunny day, with plenty of visibility and no restrictions in movement.

In this case the pleasure boat skipper was not keeping watch and was down below taking a pee. But what if he was medically distressed by a stroke or heart attack. What if the boat sunk?

All the ferry Captain knew is that he had a pleasure craft on a collision course who was not answering his radio. He had a duty to avoid a collision.

I think the result of an inquiry will be 80/20 blame with the Ferry captain getting 80% of the blame and probably losing his job.

 

[grahamdouglass]

B.C. Ferry Collsion with the Ruby Star

Band B made reference to a collision between a BC Ferry and the Ruby Star.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Marine Investigation Report M00W0220.

Just this September I was in Colburne Passage, between Piers Island and the Saanich Peninsula. At the same place that the Ruby Star had been hit. I had passed Swartz Bay to my port side and was heading in a westerly direction towards Cowichan Bay. I had my radio tuned to channel 16.

When I was in the channel, 5 to 10 min past Swartz Bay, I was hailed on my radio by one of the Spirit class ferries. This is the largest of the B.C. Ferries. When they leave Swartz Bay they transit Colbourn Passage before turning hard to starboard to head to Active Pass and then Tsawwassen. He had just left Swartz Bay, which was now to my stern.

It was a friendly courtesy call, that he was passing on my port hand side and to maintain my course to the starboard side of the channel. Whether his call was a result of standing instructions to call pleasure vessels that are being overtaken in Colburne Passage or not I do not know. But I found it very nice of him to give me a call and warning.

 

[BruceK]

I think the result of an inquiry will be 80/20 blame with the Ferry captain getting 80% of the blame and probably losing his job.

On the little I know, I`d reverse that.
No one on watch, boat under power, preset course crossing a ferry track, a recipe for disaster. Add to that the reasonable expectation of the ferry any other vessel in the vicinity will be manned while under way, responsive to a situation, even responsible in its responses.
Not even sure I give the ferry as much as 20%...

 

[twistedtree]

I think the irony here is that the small craft, totally by accident and neglect, properly carried out his duties as the stand-on vessel. At least up until the point where it became clear than a collision was still a risk, at which point he should have take evasive action regardless of his stand-on duties.

In contrast, it appears that the ferry intentionally and consciously ignored it's duties as the give-way vessel. It did ultimately take evasive action, but it was too late.

I still think there is a lot of blame to go around.

I also don't think that one vessel's mistake, like not being at the helm, negates the other vessels mistake, like not performing give-way duties.

The other observation reading this thread and the thread on Cruisers Forum, is that most people don't understand the most basic navigation rules. Things like "the rule of tonnage", and "commercial boats have right of way", and "if you are participating in VTS you have priority over non participants", and "the ferry is restricted in maneuverability", and "a ferry on a published route has right of way", and "the safety zone around a ferry gives it right of way" are simply and plainly wrong. It's another example why I think some form of mandatory licensing should be required.

 

[ulysses]

I think the irony here is that the small craft, totally by accident and neglect, properly carried out his duties as the stand-on vessel. At least up until the point where it became clear than a collision was still a risk, at which point he should have take evasive action regardless of his stand-on duties.

In contrast, it appears that the ferry intentionally and consciously ignored it's duties as the give-way vessel. It did ultimately take evasive action, but it was too late.

I still think there is a lot of blame to go around.

I also don't think that one vessel's mistake, like not being at the helm, negates the other vessels mistake, like not performing give-way duties.

The other observation reading this thread and the thread on Cruisers Forum, is that most people don't understand the most basic navigation rules. Things like "the rule of tonnage", and "commercial boats have right of way", and "if you are participating in VTS you have priority over non participants", and "the ferry is restricted in maneuverability", and "a ferry on a published route has right of way", and "the safety zone around a ferry gives it right of way" are simply and plainly wrong. It's another example why I think some form of mandatory licensing should be required.

I think you left out the ones concerning constrained by draft and narrow channels. I do not think the mandatory licensing is the answer though. It would seem that most of these false assumptions are being made by individuals that probably did attend some form of training school. Probably a 8 hour state safe boating class and learned just enough to be dangerous. Hence it is my belief that an instructor said something like always stay out of a commercial vessels way, or the rules say you are responsible for your wake and these people took it for fact.

 

[BandB]

The other observation reading this thread and the thread on Cruisers Forum, is that most people don't understand the most basic navigation rules. Things like "the rule of tonnage", and "commercial boats have right of way", and "if you are participating in VTS you have priority over non participants", and "the ferry is restricted in maneuverability", and "a ferry on a published route has right of way", and "the safety zone around a ferry gives it right of way" are simply and plainly wrong. It's another example why I think some form of mandatory licensing should be required.

Wifey B: I definitely agree with mandatory licensing but in the states with it, we still don't have knowledgeable boaters in many cases.

I think the rules are a part of the problem too. There's a lot of, this unless, then this, but then this other exception and if you are A then this but if B then this. Roads are easy, they have lanes. Even markings then they have lots of lanes. Arrows painted and signs overhead. However, get people at a 4 way stop or worse a 6 way and omg they all think the rules are different, and they may be from state to state. Or you go to a state or city that doesn't allow right on red, now that gets some people.

I agree with the fact you read so many crazy things after an accident like this and wonder where some of it came from. However, I don't think rules or lack of knowledge contributed to this accident. The pleasure boat operator just did something stupid to start with. It's, in my opinion, in violation of the rules but it's also in violation of common sense. Then there's the macho ferry. I'm the big boy, I'm the ferry, they sure as heck better get out of my way because I'm coming through. Maybe it wasn't that bad but certainly wasn't "driving defensively." Good operators don't assume others will follow all the navigation rules. In fact they assume they won't, that they'll do something stupid so they better be prepared. I regularly give way to other boats when it should be the opposite, but they show no tendency toward acting as the stand-on vessel.

On the road, I always assume that when my light turns green, some bozo from the side road will run on through the red light so I better look before proceeding. On the water, I assume that the boat I'm about to overtake doesn't know one sound from two, port from starboard. That's why I use the radio. That's also why, if they don't answer, I assume that they may not know and right as I start to overtake, they may cut right in front of me.

I see some boaters who know the rules extremely well, can quote every rule, section and verse. It's their "Bible." They may remember more than I do, things I might have to double check. However, they use their knowledge of the rules to assert a position, in a show even of arrogance or superiority. In doing so they overlook their primary obligation to avoid a collision.

I'm for hanging both operators. Ok, not hanging. Maybe paddling very hard? No. While I think Mr. Pee Boy was most responsible, they both did things that caused the accident. See, everyone doesn't have to do the right thing to avoid accidents, just one out of two was all it would have taken. It's my job on the water that if you screw up, I look out for us both and hope when I screw up you'll be looking out for me.

Very seldom does a boat collision happen just because of one operator. Allisions do, but collision means more than one party involved. Most of the time, even the one with the rules on their side, could have prevented the collision. On the water we can generally see all that is developing in front of and around us. Not like a blind intersection on the road. Now we have blind areas but they aren't blind to our electronics. If someone runs into the side of my boat doing 60 knots, then I likely couldn't prevent that, but otherwise I can most of the time and that's my most important rule, is to do so. I know perhaps I sound like a .....well, can't use that word...but you know...but if someone wants the water that is rightfully mine, you know what? I'll let them have it.

 

[twistedtree]

I think you left out the ones concerning constrained by draft and narrow channels. I do not think the mandatory licensing is the answer though. It would seem that most of these false assumptions are being made by individuals that probably did attend some form of training school. Probably a 8 hour state safe boating class and learned just enough to be dangerous. Hence it is my belief that an instructor said something like always stay out of a commercial vessels way, or the rules say you are responsible for your wake and these people took it for fact.

Maybe we should just call it "effective training". And I agree that a 1 day boater safety course isn't enough. Not that USCG licensing for everyone is the right answer, but by comparison the course work for the most basic USCG license is 8 days (OUPV), compared to 1 day for most state courses.

 

[CPseudonym]

Where do you folks think the overwhelming majority of pleasure boating takes place? Not much commercial traffic on small local lakes.

You can argue quite effectively that one day of training is not enough. For every one person boating at the level discussed on this forum there is multiple dozens perhaps even hundreds or thousands whom will never know what an auto pilot or chart plotter is for. For them the one day required is far more than they'll ever comprehend needing.

 

[psneeld]

Where do you folks think the overwhelming majority of pleasure boating takes place? Not much commercial traffic on small local lakes.

You can argue quite effectively that one day of training is not enough. For every one person boating at the level discussed on this forum there is multiple dozens perhaps even hundreds or thousands whom will never know what an auto pilot or chart plotter is for. For them the one day required is far more than they'll ever comprehend needing.

Absolutely true...and it is amazing how some think graduating from that to long distance cruising an a 40 plus something should be no big deal.

While simple coastal cruising shouldn't be life threatening...I am not so sure it doesn't take take a lot of experience to make sure it doesn't. Luck sure does play a big factor on surmount ingredients the learning hump.

 

[Ski in NC]

Reminds me a bit of shopping carts in the supermarket. Somehow in all that chaos, the instances of carts banging into each other is remarkably low. And no rules!!!

Folks naturally try to avoid collisions and are pretty good at it. As long as they are watching!!

I'm not sure educating people about the rules would be very effective. Everyone on boats knows one rule by instinct: Don't run into stuff.

 

[pearlwindham]

What in the hell are you thinking

Got one guy on camera showing a total lack of judgment and Some wanting to add more bureaucracy and regulation. The cost of freedom is all people get it that includes the judgmental impaired. Your wanting fix it is the problem not that People die from poor judgment. We all participate in stupid behavior. I don't need your help or want it! No matter what happens at this point I can guarantee you at this point forward those people at both helms will be thie most diligent and traffic safety conscious people on the water.

 

[tinped]

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.

I used to work on the staten island ferry, which has a similar double ended propulsion, and the prop wash is Definitely visible when the forward motor is engaged.The props on the boats were about 10 feet,and the prop wash was actually a huge wave of white water when engaged.

 

[Ski in NC]

We don't know how long it would take to get the fwd motor on line and making thrust. That is tech stuff not easy to know from the webs. Command for thrust might have come well before wash was seen, it may have taken time.