Yacht Crashes, Hit Rocks - Coyote Point

quote:
Originally posted by Martinez_Mitch

quote:
Originally posted by Flutterby

If he was not legally BUI, it would not be mentioned by CG. He may have tested 0.07 BA which would mean he is "legally" sober, but 0.07 can impair your judgment or slow down your reaction time.
Click to expand...

Not quite - you can certainly be convicted of a DUI if you're below 0.08 BAC. Such as if you fail the sobriety tests...that's all it takes.

The CG said alcohol was NOT a factor - so I don't think he was even drinking?
Click to expand...


Mitch, I'd like to hear a law officer's opinion on this. I think one can be arrested for D/BUI if one fails the sobriety tests, but the courts will throw it out if the BAC test is below 0.08.

I know of one instance, in a fatal auto accident, where this was the case. And I believe the boating laws mirror the driving laws when in comes to being impaired.
 
pure speculation here, but it obviously took a few hours between the accident and the time the USCG rescued everyone and were able to test the skipper, could be enough for alcohol level to drop...
 
Failing a sobriety test provides the probable cause for arrest and the authority to request the driver to submit to a blood alcohol test. The result of that test is submitted to the DA for consideration of criminal charges. If the alcohol level does not meet the standard the driver will not be charged.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Billgillespie

Failing a sobriety test provides the probable cause for arrest and the authority to request the driver to submit to a blood alcohol test. The result of that test is submitted to the DA for consideration of criminal charges. If the alcohol level does not meet the standard the driver will not be charged.

Click to expand...

Initially I posted that I stand corrected, then later I found this below. I knew I had heard from a good source that you can get a DUI below 0.08%. I found this at the DMV website:

Figure 10.1 presents a Blood Alcohol chart that you can useto estimate at what point you risk being over the legal per se limit. You could be arrested for DUI and convicted at even lower BAC levels if you are demonstrating impairment at a lower BAC level. Under the zero tolerance law, drivers under age 21 aredetained (and under some circumstances may be arrested) witha BAC as low as .01%.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/curriculum/Unit 10.pdf

UC Davis's legal website said this:

If you are 21 or older, the legal limit for your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) is 0.08
Even though the legal limit is 0.08, at a BAC of 0.04 the police can still pull you over and give you a “Wet and Reckless”. This is because at a BAC of 0.04, judgment is impaired and reaction times are slower. If you get a DUI anytime after this Wet and Reckless is issued, the Wet and Reckless will turn into a DUI.

http://safeparty.ucdavis.edu/laws/dui-bui.html
 
quote:
Originally posted by PascalG

pure speculation here, but it obviously took a few hours between the accident and the time the USCG rescued everyone and were able to test the skipper, could be enough for alcohol level to drop...
Click to expand...

Good point, as it was like 4-5 hours later, as I understood the information...
 
The skipper may have waited a couple of hours before calling for help.........
 
I have been boating in that area and I can attest to the fact that it is easy to get confused.

Towards the west the land is a low lying "shelf" that extends a mile or so before a sharp rise in the hills. The hills cast a dark shadow onto the water's edge. Add to that a large amount of very tall industrial structures a short distance in from the water's edge. A lot of bright lights on shore tend to obscure the navigastion lights. Container ships are frequently anchored out in that area waiting for their turn to offload which can hide what might otherwise be a good landmark.

I am not sure about 4:00 AM but I have been in that area at night several times just to go see the city lights. After looking at the city lights your night vision is not the best.

It can also be fairly cold. Certainly cold enough that you would be inside. You get a few people standing around in the flybridge and window fogging can be a problem.

Boats run aground in the bay all the time. Many wait until high tide and then simply float off. It sounds like this one sustained some damage that and couldn't do that. Unless I am missing something, it sounds like a typical goof, I don't see anything that indicates a complete lack or responsibility on the part of the skipper.

Rod
 
quote:
Originally posted by abdiver

I have been boating in that area and I can attest to the fact that it is easy to get confused.

Towards the west the land is a low lying "shelf" that extends a mile or so before a sharp rise in the hills. The hills cast a dark shadow onto the water's edge. Add to that a large amount of very tall industrial structures a short distance in from the water's edge. A lot of bright lights on shore tend to obscure the navigastion lights. Container ships are frequently anchored out in that area waiting for their turn to offload which can hide what might otherwise be a good landmark.

I am not sure about 4:00 AM but I have been in that area at night several times just to go see the city lights. After looking at the city lights your night vision is not the best.

It can also be fairly cold. Certainly cold enough that you would be inside. You get a few people standing around in the flybridge and window fogging can be a problem.

Boats run aground in the bay all the time. Many wait until high tide and then simply float off. It sounds like this one sustained some damage that and couldn't do that. Unless I am missing something, it sounds like a typical goof, I don't see anything that indicates a complete lack or responsibility on the part of the skipper.

Rod

Click to expand...
The fact that he didn't know where he was and his equipment was not working tells me he was negligent. Also, he stated that his GPS and Loran weren't working, but what about his radar? If he was using this with the charts, he would have had a good idea as to where he was. Or was that not working either?

Something just doesn't seem to add up. Like you said, it is very confusing out there which is all the more reason that you use the tools at your disposal and know where you are at all times. As an experienced captain, he should know this. Just going out and "winging it" won't cut it in the Bay or anyplace else for that matter.
 
whenever you have a lot of lights in the background, it's always going to be confusing.. that's no excuse. you plan for it! so his GPS was out... ok... but fog is pretty common up there so i find it hard to believe someone would not have a back up on a 50 footer... and not have a radar either! what about depth sounder? looking at the chart, it gets shallow close to shore, that shoudl have been a warning to the skipper.

And considering how close to shore that jetty is, i cant' believe that he didn't see he was in the wrong spot... and was still going fast...

bottom line, if you are not sure where you are and your nav equipment isn't working you slow down to a crawl!! AND YOU RIDE THE LIGHTS... when coming in towards land riding directly towards the lights give you plenty of reflection to even see unlit daymarker...

no excuse there...
 
Folks,

Listen again to the news story - his electronics were knocked out DUE to the crash...they failed AFTER the crash. Not before the crash...

No excuse, IMHO.
 
Speed is directly proportional to the amount of damage you can do in a boat.
When in doubt, go slow. You will look a lot better as a captain going slow
than you would as the captain that run up on the rocks.

And a good radar is cheap now days. I lost an old 20 somthing year old
radar to a hurricane. The new one picks up 6 inch PVC no wake markers
from .25 miles away for around $1500. A lot cheaper than a boat and
saves your reputation.
 
With respect to the BAC of 0.08 or more it depends on the circumstances. If you are over .08 the prosecutor does not need to show that you were impaired in order to get a conviction, it doesn't matter all they need it the test showing you were over the limit.

If you are under .08 it is a more difficult case and the prosecutor will need to demonstrate that you were impaired so they may or may not proceed with the case depending on the circumstances. For many cases they may just drop the charges but in others they may proceed. If the captain had been drinking at all the fact that the boat was grounded with 26 passengers on board and later capsized and sank would probably not help a case that he wasn't impaired. Worthwhile to keep in mind that any sort of accident in which you had measurable BAC anywhere near .08 could cause some serious problems for you. A friend of mine was on a jury (he was the first alternate juror so he did not participate in the verdict) in which the defendent was convict of DUI with a BAC of .06. In that case the person was driving a car. This was in California, Contra Costa County.

Kris
 
All rhetoric and posturing aside, I wonder who will insure him next year?

The nicest thing I can think of to say is NEGLIGENT.

Forget paper charts, forget GPS charts, forget looking out the "window" ... if my radar shows a return dead ahead, I am smart enough not to challenge it.

Nov 1972, I was a rookie Navigator in an Air Force T-29 flying from Mather AFB to Fairchild AFB (Spokane, Washington) when Oakland center started vectoring our twin engine bucket of bolts for some reason. We were at approx. 8,000 ft MSL and I had lost everything but the radar. My DR techniques could not keep up with the vectors, but on the last heading Oakland Center put us on I saw the mother of all thunderstorms. And we were in the soup. I called the pilot and gave him a new heading. He came back saying he was on a radar vector. I told him I was painting a Tstm cell dead ahead, emergency right turn to heading of xxx. He did it. After I got a radar fix (tacan was inop also), I dr'd back to the time we turned, then went to plot that Thunder Storm cloud. I called the pilot to inform him Oakland Center had vectored us into Mount Shasta at 8,000 ft MSL. The controller was given time off for stress I heard. Believe your radar folks.
Even an intermittent target would stop me. I can always try to move around the intermittent return.

P.S. Life jackets?
 
Dave, your story reminded me of something my commercial pilot son told me: always believe your instruments! period
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flutterby

Dave, your story reminded me of something my commercial pilot told me: always believe your instruments! period
Click to expand...

Great point. Infact, I heard (not sure if it's true) that most accidents when flying VFR occur from the pilot NOT believing his instruments...
 
Long ago I lived in the Bay Area and kept a boat at Coyote Point. I don't know how to attach an article here. But if you Goggle "JAL crash san francisco" the first item you should see is a well written article about a very exciting day at C-Point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top