Napping at the wheel?

quote:
Originally posted by Phillbo

That girl sure has a potty mouth.

Click to expand...


It's not like it's an everyday occurrence you're on a ferry and a boat plows into it. Otherwise, she may have said,
Golly-Gee, lookie there...I think that boat might hit us! lol :)
 
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.

Why did he have to throw Bayliner under the bus :)
 
"Why did he have to throw Bayliner under the bus "

'cause it was a ferry? ;)
 
RULE 1 is WATCH WHERE YOU'RE GOING!!. And it doesn't matter who's "Stand On" vessel. A boat that size gets out of the way of a BIG A$$ FERRY!

As CWMS said "Graveyards are filled with people who had the right of way."
 
Rule 18 states Vessel not under command has privilege. Ferry Captain did sound danger signal and try to back down as he was blowing another danger signal before impact. This is sure not cut and dried. Percentage of blame will apply.
 
For all those saying the stand on vessel should have maneuvered and who are quick to say the small baot should stay out of the way of big boats and ferries how do you square that with the OBLIGATION to maintain course and speed. I understand in the end game avoiding collision is paramount but it seems like the obligation of the stand on vessel is not taken seriously.

"(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed."
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdoherty

For all those saying the stand on vessel should have maneuvered and who are quick to say the small baot should stay out of the way of big boats and ferries how do you square that with the OBLIGATION to maintain course and speed. I understand in the end game avoiding collision is paramount but it seems like the obligation of the stand on vessel is not taken seriously.

"(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed."

Click to expand...


In this case I expect the small vessel ...may (very small "may")... not even be considered to have standing as "Stand-On" , as the captain (sole POB?) had abandoned the helm , apparently had no clue whatsoever there was a ferry on an intersecting course, and acted contrary to his obligation to keep a proper look out, and as you say, his ultimate obligation to do his best to avoid a collision.

In any situation like this, can you really imagine that the small vessel captain would not have submitted to the so-called rational "Rule of Tonnage" and understood well enough ahead of the intersection point that the large ferry has very great inertia and is relatively much harder to maneuver quickly or stop than his own vulnerable vessel... IF... he or someone had been keeping proper watch at the helm?

There was not any good rationale for the ferry captain to think the small vessel was "not under command" , since it was underway, until it was too late. And of course he still had to consider the other vessel stand-on since an obvious alternate maneuver by the small boat remained lacking.

I suspect intentionally leaving the helm unattended with no watch while underway on A/P to visit the head in a ferry channel would not fit any arguable definition of "not under command" in terms of liability in a collision. Nothing was intentionally displayed or imparted by any other means to indicate "N.U.C." while underway.

Still the ferry was the give way vessel in a crossing situation , so as I think most all agree, both operators were at fault.

You know only an idiot or blissfully unaware would not have easily taken deliberate, sufficient (and obvious to the other captain) action to avoid the video'd "holy-potty-mouth" ;) result.
 
Well we are in a time where idiots need special consideration and support :)

Seriously though... can someone point to where the rule of tonnage can be found in the colregs because I have never been able to find it !
 
Pascal, I agree that a strict reading of the Rules would almost certainly indicate that the ferry should have altered course/speed to accommodate the smaller vessel.

That said, had i been at the helm, far ahead of any "rules checking point, I would have altered the course/speed of my much smaller vessel to avoid any possible confusion. ie: I can maneuver easily; he cannot. It is easier simply to avoid the "conflict".

"Why" you might ask. Had I ( smaller vessel ) held course/speed as in the video, I could easily have been dead right. And, as the video demonstrates, the ferry appears to have been applying "the Rule Of Tonnage" ( NOT found in any Rules ) so there would have been an issue.

Sometimes, especially in a case where there is a serious size-mismatch ( or perceived "professional" vs "recreational" situation ), the larger vessel just continues onward blithely, even when the Rules contradict such response.

I'd rather avoid the issue. Slow down, change course, pull out a camera and photograph the scenery, but anything to alter the situation so that any possible debte on the issue does not occur in real time.

SO, Do I use the Rule of Tonnage? Not officially. But avoidance of a traffic conflict is prudent, as as far as I am concerned, and comes under the ( unofficial ) Rule Zero: "Thou shalt not hit anything".

As far as this specific incident,the smaller vessel should have maintained ( he did ) and had "proper watch" ( he did not ), and the ferry should have altered course to move around the crossing vessel safely. ( He did not ).

A bad day on the water, and the Ferry crew will likely get dinged.
 
quote:
Originally posted by PascalG

Well we are in a time where idiots need special consideration and support :)

Seriously though... can someone point to where the rule of tonnage can be found in the colregs because I have never been able to find it !

Click to expand...


That ones not '72 COLREGS, that one is Laws of Physics.

We both know the NavRules well and we both know WHY they are what they are, but we also know there was little more that ferry could have done to avoid getting hit by that P/C. Video makes it look like he was backing hard. What else could he have really done to mitigate the risk of collision once the P/C put itself on a CBDR course- especially in light of the P/C failing in it's responsibility to avoid collision, failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to maintain a safe speed, and so on?

If everyone kept a lookout and communicated, these things would never happen. 9 times out of ten with these P/C vs. M/V incidents, if someone had taken the initiative to pick up the microphone and work things out like grown ups do instead of boasting to their pax about how they have the "right of way" and that several thousand ton steel beast has to give way even though it can't actually do so, but they're willing to kill everyone onboard to prove the point - most incidents wouldn't happen. Then you have the IDIOTS that go down below to hit the head while Iron Mike is steering CBDR on a target that shows up on RADAR like a several hundred foot wide by 30-50 high wall of steel generally does. Not much you can do about that kind of abject stupidity, but in my personal opinion, I wouldn't condemn ANYONE on the M/V crew for it.
 
( NC, I agree the ferry crew should not get dinged , but I think they likely will. )
 
But this is exactly why the rules are written a they are... In this case the idiot running the rec vessel was using th head but what if he had been incapacitated? The ferry should have taken action earlier to avoid the collision, you can clearly see in that he only reversed at the very last moment.

The words "rule of tonnage" are misleading... I prefer the law of common sense.:)
 
The law of tonnage will always prevail. Steel vs fiberglass will always win. Ferrys, no matter where in the world, run on rails just like trains. Every experienced recreational boater knows this rule. No matter who has right of way give way to ferrys. The view from inside a ferry wheelhouse is much more restricted than the typical small boat.
 
"if someone had taken the initiative to pick up the microphone and work things out like grown ups" November Charlie

If you learn anything from this thread, learn the above. USE THE VHF TO MAKE CROSSING/PASSING ARRANGEMENTS. MAKE THE RADIO CALL! Leave the interpretation of the Rules to the Federal District Judges, their opinion is the only one that matters.
 
I continue to think that the ferry captain should have steered to starboard to avoid the collision. Having said that suppose instead of a ferry it was the Oasis of the Seas, what rule applies and how does that work out.
 
Contributory negligence from both captains should and probably will be the outcome. As far as the question of "What else could he have really done to mitigate the risk of collision" ... Well, at the point the video starts, there is not much he could go. He waited too long. Maybe turn sharply to starboard, but likely still too late. But that's not the only question. The question should also be what could the ferry captain have done _much earlier_ in the scene, well before what we can see on video. Look at that video again. There is a long open stretch of water behind the boat. The ferry captain should have seen him coming easily from more than a mile off. The smaller boat was likely maintaining speed and heading all that way and on a projected collision course. The video shows impact 24 seconds after the start of the video. What was the ferry captain doing for the minute or 2 before that video started as the boat was approaching on collision course? He was probably _relying_ on the unofficial "rule of tonnage", counting on the boat to give way, instead of being proactive and starting to give way himself, well ahead of time. The ferry captain would have had plenty of time to steer a few degrees to starboard earlier on had he not relied upon the smaller boat to give way.

Of course the smaller boat captain failed to keep watch, and if he was at watch, he should avoid collision at all cost. That goes without saying. ... But, all too often, larger vessels are wrongly _relying_ upon the small vessel to eventually give way, even though the large vessel could have time to give way _IF_ they were proactive from a mile+ away and not relying up smaller stand-on vessels to give way.

Those are the rules and what should be done. In practice, I give those hunks of metal a wide margin to cross, even if I have to give way when I should be stand-on. But, the ones who piss me off are the sportfish battlewagons who don't give way when they are supposed to. They have no excuse. It seems the sportfishers are guilty of this even more often than the weekend yahoos in rental bow riders.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ironworks

Rule 18 states Vessel not under command has privilege. Ferry Captain did sound danger signal and try to back down as he was blowing another danger signal before impact. This is sure not cut and dried. Percentage of blame will apply.

Click to expand...


Neither of those vessels were NUC at the time.

If either was they should have been displaying the proper day shapes.
 
quote:
Originally posted by L. Keith

"if someone had taken the initiative to pick up the microphone and work things out like grown ups" November Charlie

If you learn anything from this thread, learn the above. USE THE VHF TO MAKE CROSSING/PASSING ARRANGEMENTS. MAKE THE RADIO CALL! Leave the interpretation of the Rules to the Federal District Judges, their opinion is the only one that matters.

Click to expand...


There's the rub, for all we know the ferry skipper was calling on the radio but the operator of the smaller vessel was apparently in the head so I doubt he would hear the call.

May guess is the ferry captain figured there was no way that guy couldn't see him and waited to long to do everything he could to avoid the collision not realizing until it was to late that the smaller vessel was unmanned at the time and was not going to do anything on its own to avoid the collision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top