duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Mid said:

Vestas will be apportioned a share of the blame simply for failing to avoid a collision .

Maybe it's a language issue, but in Spanish there's a big difference between blame and responsibility (or is it liability)? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Vestas might have been fullfilling COLREGS to the tee and the fishman's idea was no lights but with 10 Chinese on board at least one would be having a smoke.

Please stop the speculative crap.

So not an unsafe speed for the traffic? They hit very hard look at the tracker or the damage pics. If it was a safe speed why couldn't they avoid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

No, not to them.  To everyone else it's different.  Fuck the bean counters.

tell them that when they come sniffing around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SCANAS said:

 I posted that a few pages back too :) 

I hope you can forgive me for not reading through very attentively; there is only so much grumpy sailor badposting that I can stomach in one evening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wild Things said:

I hope you can forgive me for not reading through very attentively; there is only so much grumpy sailor badposting that I can stomach in one evening. 

I'm responsible for some of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SCANAS said:

So not an unsafe speed for the traffic? They hit very hard look at the tracker or the damage pics. If it was a safe speed why couldn't they avoid?

What traffic if you can't see the boats? An unlit boat at night is not traffic, is an accident waiting to happen.

 

And so far, we  know nothing about how the accident happened, so stop putting blames and responsibilities on people until we do.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what was lit and how at this stage.

However I would be interested to know what the relevant Admiralty Pilot/ Sailing Directions has to say about unlit fishing boats, FADs' and general unidentified floating objects in this area of the South China Sea.

Anyone with a copy and care to share if any cautions contained could relate to this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

tell them that when they come sniffing around.

There are things more important than money.  Depends on the view you take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

So not an unsafe speed for the traffic? They hit very hard look at the tracker or the damage pics. If it was a safe speed why couldn't they avoid?

Safe speed for the traffic? Vestas was probably one of the slow ones out there 50 mile offshore and further than you have been. Your normally pretty sensible Scan, now your talking shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chuso007 said:

What traffic if you can't see the boats? An unlit boat at night is not traffic, is an accident waiting to happen.

 

And so far, we  know nothing about how the accident happened, so stop putting blames and responsibilities on people until we do.

Read what Cammas said about the traffic. Or the Local policeman who sails with David Witt. Traffic is a known problem in the area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, random said:

Rule 18 : Responsibilities between vessels

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

  • (i) a vessel not under command;
  • (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
  • (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

It does not say anything about lighting of the fishing vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, random said:

There are things more important than money.  Depends on the view you take.

most things are more important than money,  but the bean counters won't be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bdu98252 said:

Randumb has no idea whether Vestas or the other fishing boat had their nav lights on. He obviously thinks that a fully crewed VOR boat 30 miles from the finish with probably all the crew on deck as they are near the finish decided not to keep a lookout and fuck up their boat on a fishing vessel. I guess the helm was driving along looking out the back whilst the rest of the crew told jokes. I can't imagine a scenario where Vestas are likely to have more of a lookout than this instance.

Almost all have on ignore, it’s easier that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems like the general consensus (echoing my personal experience) is that these sorts of high-traffic areas are fucking terrifyingly dangerous to go through at night. Is there any reasonable solution that race organizers could implement to reduce the risk without compromising the quality of the racing? I know that there are marine FLIR cameras that see use on very large commercial vessels to prevent situations just like this one. Maybe there are other emerging technologies that could help mitigate risk here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Look at the info we do have, weather, time of day, the tracker, boat speed, other race skippers description of the traffic & nets in the area, vestas damaged pictures. The HK policeman who sails with WITT describe the problems with sailing at night in Hk & the fact they rammed a fishing vessel, hit it so hard it sunk & killed a guy. You must have a different interpretation of the COLREGS to me. 

Exactly what info do you have? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jack_sparrow said:

Safe speed for the traffic? Vestas was probably one of the slow ones out there. Your normally pretty sensible Scan, now your talking shit.

Like I said the opposite of my hypothesis is they saw it & had time to avoid. Can't be wrong on both Jack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

What's the opposite of my hypothesis. Vestas lookout saw the boat, they had enough time to avoid but chose to sink them?

and that's all you have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mad said:

and that's all you have

Post yours. We'll see who's closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wild Things said:

Maybe there are other emerging technologies that could help mitigate risk here?

I'm sure there are some emerging technologies that would help.  There must be a satellite launched by SpaceX that can see 24/7 in multiple wavelengths to allow rich white guys to navigate through poor fisherman that can't even afford navigation lights FFS?  They all need to get out of the way or the sponsors will be really pissed.

I'm sure the problem is solvable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

I'm sure there are some emerging technologies that would help.  There must be a satellite launched by SpaceX that can see 24/7 in multiple wavelengths to allow rich white guys to navigate through poor fisherman that can't even afford navigation lights FFS?  They all need to get out of the way or the sponsors will be really pissed.

I'm sure the problem is solvable.

Well, what's your solution? Stop racing? Stop having required stopovers in Southeast Asia? Now we're getting somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Read what Cammas said about the traffic. Or the Local policeman who sails with David Witt. Traffic is a known problem in the area. 

And which Vestas may well have made provision for whether it be lookouts, radar surveillance (which don't work that well on low freeboard timber fishing boats) etc. 

More to the point go look at the tracker to counter again another of your brain farts. 

Name one boat who arrived in the dark 50 mile offshore and slowed down as you suggest and then look at two who tracked close to the vicinity of this incident, including Scally with local knowledge on board.

Fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

I'm sure there are some emerging technologies that would help.  There must be a satellite launched by SpaceX that can see 24/7 in multiple wavelengths to allow rich white guys to navigate through poor fisherman that can't even afford navigation lights FFS?  They all need to get out of the way or the sponsors will be really pissed.

I'm sure the problem is solvable.

Or they could just cut the headsails a little higher so the crew can actually see .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Read what Cammas said about the traffic. Or the Local policeman who sails with David Witt. Traffic is a known problem in the area. 

Of course, Vestas were just blasting around careless because they thought it was a safe place... Yawn.

At what speed did Donfeng sail those waters FFS??? Six boats went full speed there and only Vestas crashed, speed was not the issue. It's a dangerous place, risk is about odds, and Vestas was the unlucky one. The blame here, if any, is on who chose the venue and the race conditions.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

And which Vestas may well have made provision for wether it be lookouts, radar surveillance (which don't work that well on low freeboard timber fishing boats) etc. 

More to the point go look at the tracker to counter again another of your brain farts. Name one boat who arrived in the dark and slowed down as you suggest and then look at two who were in the vicinity of this incident.

Fuck me.

I never said other boats slowed down. 

I said if the lookout saw it & they were travelling at a safe speed why did they still hit it. I won't hold my breath for your answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, overlay said:

Or they could just cut the headsails a little higher so the crew can actually see .

I have worked it out ..it is a zombie thing and sunset based on Eastern Pacific Time zone. 

Where do you turnips normally reside..is it in our galaxy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wild Things said:

Well, what's your solution? Stop racing? Stop having required stopovers in Southeast Asia? Now we're getting somewhere.

Manage the risks.  So far we have crew falling overboard with no safety equipment and boats steaming through the dark in highly congested seaways. 

Any rational person could predict that if you do not wear safety equipment ... shit happens, Murphy  strikes.  If you are doing 20 knots at night in densely trafficked waters you have a high chance of collision.   Deerrrrrrrr.

Very very unprofessional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a bit of time having a look at the Hong Hong Marine Accident Investigation and Shipping Security Policy Branch site.  They provide access to reports and statistics of accidents here. Since they investigate accidents of all HK registered vessels there are accidents outside HK waters as well. But most seem to be HK waters accidents.

Like accident investigations elsewhere, they don't lay blame, and act to find facts, contributory factors,  and make recommendations. Apportion of blame is for courts. It seems that most incidents do not make it to court. In general one would expect that the public  prosecutor would need to be satisfied that there was a good chance criminal negligence was involved in order to lay charges, or that another party wanted to take civil action for damages. If either of these happened the MAISSPB report might come into play, although this is not a given. Some countries disallow reports being used in actions. I don't know about HK.

Reports of incidents seem to take about a year to complete.

Looking at a few collisions between fishing vessels and other vessels the conclusions from the investigation are pretty repetitive. Mostly they conclude that both boats failed to keep adequate lookout and thus breached the COLREGS. In most respects this is hard to duck. The investigations look at the situation and conclude that no matter what the circumstances (which might include a storm, rain, fog) both boats should have adapted to the conditions and the accident should have been avoidable.

For instance, from The collision between the Hong Kong registered vessel “Shin Chun” and the Taiwanese fishing vessel on the approaching road of Kaohsiung, Taiwan on 29 February 2016

The investigation found that the main contributory factors of the accident were the failure of both vessels to maintain a proper look-out in compliance with the requirements of rule 5 of COLREGS (Look-out). Consequently, both vessels did not realize the imminent risk  of collision before the  collision.
The fishing vessel, being the give-way vessel in a cross situation, did not take any action to avoid the collision.
The container vessel, being the stand-on vessel in a crossing situation, did not take her own action to avoid collision in  an  ample  time while the  give-way vessel did not take proper avoiding action.

Or this report, where a fishing vessel hit a smaller pleasure craft with loss of life.

Most reports have a very similar tone and conclusions.

Mostly I think this gives us a clue about what the investigation's conclusions will look like.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chuso007 said:

Of course, Vestas were just blasting around careless because they thought it was a safe place... Yawn.

At what speed did Donfeng sail those waters FFS??? Six boats went full speed there and only Vestas crashed, speed was not the issue. It's a dangerous place, risk is about odds, and Vestas was the unlucky one. The blame here, if any, is on who chose the venue and the race conditions.

 

Again, if the speed was safe & they had a lookout how did they crash? 

Rule 6 – Safe Speed of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLRegs) states that every vessel shall at all times travel at a safe speedso that it can take action to avoid a collision and be stopped with a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, overlay said:

Or they could just cut the headsails a little higher so the crew can actually see .

called a Jib Top ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Looking at a few collisions between fishing vessels and other vessels the conclusions from the investigation are pretty repetitive. Mostly the conclude that both boats failed to keep adequate lookout and thus breached the COLREGS. In most respects this is a hard to duck. The investigations look at the situation and conclude that no matter what the circumstances (which might include a storm, rain, fog) both boats should have adapted to the conditions and the accident should have been avoidable.

this

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

I never said other boats slowed down. 

I said if the lookout saw it & they were travelling at a safe speed why did they still hit it. I won't hold my breath for your answer. 

You inference clearly was with your tripe ignoring a potentially unlit boat and referencing Camas/Scally guy on the area and then that in your opinion Vestas should have slowed down...and you won't get an answer beyond that

...never argue with fools they have nothing to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the way so many discuss and argue about speculation and guesses as if they are facts.

Get a life and wait until more facts are known and published.

Facts we know...

1) There was a collision between Vestas and a fishing boat at night

2) The fishing boat sank, 9 were rescued, 1 dies. All crew on Vestas were ok.

3) the location was 50nm out from Honkers

4) Vestas was racing

 

What we don't know is pretty much everything else

1) Did the fishing boats have lights on?

2) Were they fishing or just motoring?

3) Were there other fishing boats in the area to "warn" the watch on Vestas to be extra vigilant ?  

and so on and so on.....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have worked it out ..it is a zombie thing and sunset based on Eastern Pacific Time zone. 

Where do you turnips normally reside..is it in our galaxy?

Jack, I thought you were smarter than that.

I simply don't know what sails were in use at the time. But if you think tearing around at 20 in the dark in the South China Sea with this sail combination is safe and seaman like then you Sir are the TURNIP. 

By the way where does the effective lookout position themselves?

uoqghyiuo2agchd9ysvglpnehwqhvqnrmmpnh8a4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

ILooking at a few collisions between fishing vessels and other vessels the conclusions from the investigation are pretty repetitive. Mostly the conclude that both boats failed to keep adequate lookout and thus breached the COLREGS. In most respects this is a hard to duck. The investigations look at the situation and conclude that no matter what the circumstances (which might include a storm, rain, fog) both boats should have adapted to the conditions and the accident should have been avoidable.

I always loved it on CF when solo sailing was discussed. People would quote the COLREGS about the watch without any ability to understand that it effectively take both boats to not be maintaining a proper watch to cause a collision.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Wild Things said:

So it seems like the general consensus (echoing my personal experience) is that these sorts of high-traffic areas are fucking terrifyingly dangerous to go through at night. Is there any reasonable solution that race organizers could implement to reduce the risk without compromising the quality of the racing? I know that there are marine FLIR cameras that see use on very large commercial vessels to prevent situations just like this one. Maybe there are other emerging technologies that could help mitigate risk here?

They could have a waypoint outside the congested area as the finish mark so they wouldn’t be hauling ass into traffic and would therefore be less likely to be in a devistating collision.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Looking at a few collisions between fishing vessels and other vessels the conclusions from the investigation are pretty repetitive. Mostly they conclude that both boats failed to keep adequate lookout and thus breached the COLREGS. In most respects this is hard to duck.

1 O 1 for avoiding a clusterfuck. However how many of those conclusions involve one vessel being unlit? 

Which may or not be the case here, but in my experience in this joint highly fuckin likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hoppy said:

I just love the way so many discuss and argue about speculation and guesses as if they are facts.

Get a life and wait until more facts are known and published.

Facts we know...

1) There was a collision between Vestas and a fishing boat at night

2) The fishing boat sank, 9 were rescued, 1 dies. All crew on Vestas were ok.

3) the location was 50nm out from Honkers

4) Vestas was racing

 

What we don't know is pretty much everything else

1) Did the fishing boats have lights on?

2) Were they fishing or just motoring?

3) Were there other fishing boats in the area to "warn" the watch on Vestas to be extra vigilant ?  

and so on and so on.....

 

2 minutes ago, hoppy said:

without any ability to understand that it effectively take both boats to not be maintaining a proper watch to cause a collision.  

So effectively Vestas & the fishing were both not maintaining a proper watch which caused a collision??

Doesn't that answer your number 3?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hoppy said:

What we don't know is pretty much everything else

1) Did the fishing boats have lights on?

2) Were they fishing or just motoring?

3) Were there other fishing boats in the area to "warn" the watch on Vestas to be extra vigilant ?  

and so on and so on.....

All that is kinda irrelavent except for the bean counters.

  1. Two boats collided
  2. One was sailing
  3. One was fishing

Rule 18 : Responsibilities between vessels

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

  • (i) a vessel not under command;
  • (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
  • (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Safe speed for the traffic? Vestas was probably one of the slow ones out there 50 mile offshore and further than you have been. Your normally pretty sensible Scan, now your talking shit.

Case in point.  (source Marinetraffic.com) This vessel is at approx the same location as the V11 incident and currently steaming into HKG at 21.1kts, it's 395m LOA x 59m Beam, (EDIT: add Deadweight 199,272t) takes many nm to stop, has limited steerage for such a big vessel and has poor "visibility' from the bridge.  Also, they are eerily silent, amazingly so.  These ships travel like this all over the planet's oceans.  Sometimes there are accidents.  I shudder to think how many fishing boats they mow down without even knowing it, never to be found or reported with no indication apart from a small scratch on the starboard bow.  V11's speed was not excessive or inconsistent with practice in the open ocean.

image.thumb.png.921fee51e690ab2096ea6c18748a52cf.png

Edited by Grinning Ape
Add Deadweight
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's cut the crap, this was probably nothing more than a simple visibility issue because one boat went full-retard and eschewed proper lighting. Vestas was most surely excercising typical professional diligence but that dark crate materialized out of nowhere and got hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Woods Rider said:

They could have a waypoint outside the congested area as the finish mark so they wouldn’t be hauling ass into traffic and would therefore be less likely to be in a devistating collision.  

Sigh. We have been over this. The collision was at least 30 nm out. The congested area is roughly out past the eastern edge of the Philippines. Most shipping in this area travels faster than a VO 65, and is almost insanely less manoeuvrable with stopping distances measured in miles. (See above post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Woods Rider said:

They could have a waypoint outside the congested area as the finish mark so they wouldn’t be hauling ass into traffic and would therefore be less likely to be in a devistating collision.  

Do you think that pressure from the sponsors and HK hosts for a port finish encouraged the organizers to overlook the traffic in this area? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, overlay said:

By the way where does the effective lookout position themselves

Don't know about anyone else but in Scallylucky's case (and who threaded the exact same area after dusk) they had Goughy perched on a outrigger in a T-Shirt with no Likaris.

Lightening doesn't strike twice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grinning Ape said:

Case in point.  (source Marinetraffic.com) This vessel is at approx the same location as the V11 incident and currently steaming into HKG at 21.1kts, it's 395m LOA x 59m Beam, takes many nm to stop, has limited steerage for such a big vessel and has poor "visibility' from the bridge.  Also, they are eerily silent, amazingly so.  These ships travel like this all over the planet's oceans.  Sometimes there are accidents.  I shudder to think how many fishing boats they mow down without even knowing it, never to be found or reported with no indication apart from a small scratch on the starboard bow.  V11's speed was not excessive or inconsistent with practice in the open ocean.

image.thumb.png.921fee51e690ab2096ea6c18748a52cf.png

haven't looked , are they in a designated shipping channel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mid said:

haven't looked , are they in a designated shipping channel

Nope.  Open ocean, free passage, any and every direction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

 

So effectively Vestas & the fishing were both not maintaining a proper watch which caused a collision??

Doesn't that answer your number 3?

Depends, if the fishing boat did not have it's lights on, then even if Vestas is maintaining a proper watch, the collision can occur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, overlay said:

 

By the way where does the effective lookout position themselves?

they get lashed to the bowsprit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

I spent a bit of time having a look at the Hong Hong Marine Accident Investigation and Shipping Security Policy Branch site.  They provide access to reports and statistics of accidents here. Since they investigate accidents of all HK registered vessels there are accidents outside HK waters as well. But most seem to be HK waters accidents.

Like accident investigations elsewhere, they don't lay blame, and act to find facts, contributory factors,  and make recommendations. Apportion of blame is for courts. It seems that most incidents do not make it to court. In general one would expect that the public  prosecutor would need to be satisfied that there was a good chance criminal negligence was involved in order to lay charges, or that another party wanted to take civil action for damages. If either of these happened the MAISSPB report might come into play, although this is not a given. Some countries disallow reports being used in actions. I don't know about HK.

Reports of incidents seem to take about a year to complete.

Looking at a few collisions between fishing vessels and other vessels the conclusions from the investigation are pretty repetitive. Mostly they conclude that both boats failed to keep adequate lookout and thus breached the COLREGS. In most respects this is hard to duck. The investigations look at the situation and conclude that no matter what the circumstances (which might include a storm, rain, fog) both boats should have adapted to the conditions and the accident should have been avoidable.

For instance, from The collision between the Hong Kong registered vessel “Shin Chun” and the Taiwanese fishing vessel on the approaching road of Kaohsiung, Taiwan on 29 February 2016

The investigation found that the main contributory factors of the accident were the failure of both vessels to maintain a proper look-out in compliance with the requirements of rule 5 of COLREGS (Look-out). Consequently, both vessels did not realize the imminent risk  of collision before the  collision.
The fishing vessel, being the give-way vessel in a cross situation, did not take any action to avoid the collision.
The container vessel, being the stand-on vessel in a crossing situation, did not take her own action to avoid collision in  an  ample  time while the  give-way vessel did not take proper avoiding action.

Or this report, where a fishing vessel hit a smaller pleasure craft with loss of life.

Most reports have a very similar tone and conclusions.

Mostly I think this gives us a clue about what the investigation's conclusions will look like.

Proper lookout and safe speed.

as for local knowledge..in my region small craft fish for squid at night .   Perhaps hundr ds of them .  They  typicaly only show an all round white light as they drift . 

when approaching the coast these lights are hidden by shoreline backround  light pollution.

since seaman know this,  they reduce speed, keep a sharp lookout  and only approach at night using the shipping lane,  not  the shortest fastest course. . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Depends, if the fishing boat did not have it's lights on, then even if Vestas is maintaining a proper watch, the collision can occur. 

Gold

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grinning Ape said:

I shudder to think how many fishing boats they mow down without even knowing it, never to be found or reported with no indication apart from a small scratch on the starboard bow.  V11's speed was not excessive or inconsistent with practice in the open ocean.

Yeah fuck the fishermen.  They get run over all the time so Vestas should be allowed to do the same.

Fucking cunts those fishermen, worse than Sunfish in Bass Straight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tragedy probe for race boat

Local | Jane Lam 22 Jan 2018

A sailboat that collided with a mainland fishing boat yesterday, resulting in one fatality, has docked for inspection at Hong Kong United Dockyards in Tsing Yi.

The fishing vessel collided with Vestas 11th Hour Racing, a sailboat competing in the Volvo Ocean Race 2017-18, about 24 nautical miles south west of Hong Kong, resulting in the owner's death.

The team was forced to withdraw from the fourth leg of the competition while the yacht was sent to Tsing Yi for inspection.

Yesterday, two members of the team came to examine the damage to the yacht at the dockyard. The yacht was hung 10 meters above the ground and its mast was removed. A big hole, measuring half a meter by one meter, was discovered on the left hand side of the bow.

The sailboat was participating in the Volvo Ocean Race on Saturday morning, but at 1.23am, the yacht slammed against a mainland fishing boat east of Waglan Island.

The team immediately informed the race control at the Volvo Ocean Race headquarters about the collision.

The mainland fishing boat sank almost immediately and all 10 fishermen went overboard.

Nine crew members were rescued by a commercial vessel, but the boat owner could not be located.

He was later found unconscious with a weak pulse by the racing yacht crew at around 4 am. The 50-year-old boat owner was certified dead en route to Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital by helicopter.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=191980

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10pob on a 20ft fishing boat & no one  had light? Even a torch? HK fisherman must get up to some weird shit off watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wild Things said:

Do you think that pressure from the sponsors and HK hosts for a port finish encouraged the organizers to overlook the traffic in this area? 

They probably didn’t even think about it. 

To the general public, sailboat racing is as boring as watching a card game, hence no real coverage of this incident. 

My thought is this might be a solution going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

 

So effectively Vestas & the fishing were both not maintaining a proper watch which caused a collision??

This just gets better by the minute.

images (55).jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Grinning Ape said:

Nope.  Open ocean, free passage, any and every direction.

Rule 18 : Responsibilities between vessels

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

  • (i) a vessel not under command;
  • (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
  • (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

This just gets better by the minute.

images (55).jpeg

Read Hoppy's quote, which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

10pob on a 20ft fishing boat & no one  had light? Even a torch? HK fisherman must get up to some weird shit off watch. 

We have no idea, everything is just speculation and guess work. Although I think it was established that they are mainlanders. There are not many facts known, so you might as well use them when we know them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoppy said:

There are not many facts known, so you might as well use them when we know them.

 

22 minutes ago, random said:
  1. Two boats collided
  2. One was sailing
  3. One was fishing

Rule 18 : Responsibilities between vessels

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

  • (i) a vessel not under command;
  • (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
  • (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Wild Things said:

Do you think that pressure from the sponsors and HK hosts for a port finish encouraged the organizers to overlook the traffic in this area? 

Port finish...WTF..where do you think they should have finished?? more than 50 mile offshore where this incident occured?

You lips are moving.. but that's it.

unnamed (1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Vestas were doing a speed below that of the commercial shipping traffic, had a helm and others on lookout, navigation lights on and they stumble across a boat with a cloak of invisibility due to their poor decision making. How much responsibility should Vestas take. All of the above is hypothetical give we don't have a formal investigations facts but it seems that there are some on here claiming that Vestas should have reduced speed as their actions of sailing in broadly a straight line in a highly manoeuvrable boat compared to all commercial traffic is an out rage against Colregs.

It would therefore follow logic that all other shipping should be doing say 5 knots maybe less during dark hours in case they hit cause the cloak of invisibility boat that can neither be seen by the naked eye, radar or AIS. 

Until we see the finding from the investigation we will not know the facts of the case. Maybe the fishing boat was lit up like a Christmas tree and Vestas crew were all downstairs with a rope tied to the wheel for a massive sex session. I am probably going to go with the former situation though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with the COLREGS based conclusions is that they are self defining. A "proper watch" is one that avoids all collisions. Have a collision => not a proper watch.

Which is hardly satisfactory, but where I am going to bet we end up. At least in terms of the official investigation and findings.

Going forward however, the impact on the VOR will be wider. There will not just be some mumbling about "reminder to all skippers about their responsibilities" etc.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, overlay said:

@uck me Random you've got one heck of a stutter.

Seems that you have to repeat stuff to fuckwits and deadshits.

Sometimes it gets through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone here fart? I just a wiff of a disgusting odour, a bit like rotten bacon.

Someone was droning on about colregs 18b but whilst we know Vestas collided with a fishing vessel, there has been no confirmation that it was actually engaged in fishing at the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:
  1. Two boats collided
  2. One was sailing
  3. One was fishing

 

Where is your evidence that said ship was engaged with fishing at the time of the collision?
Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ModernViking said:

Where is your evidence that said ship was engaged with fishing at the time of the collision?
Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

His head is up there looking for the evidence right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

So if Vestas were doing a speed below that of the commercial shipping traffic, had a helm and others on lookout, navigation lights on and they stumble across a boat with a cloak of invisibility due to their poor decision making. How much responsibility should Vestas take. 

Totally hypothetical pending Scan backing up his claims with his Sherlock kit on..but fuckall responsibility is my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are some deadshits here who need to be told

3 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Did someone here fart? I just a wiff of a disgusting odour, a bit like rotten bacon.

Someone was droning on about colregs 18b but whilst we know Vestas collided with a fishing vessel, there has been no confirmation that it was actually engaged in fishing at the time.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hoppy said:

His head is up there looking for the evidence right now.

Blank+_f553255da7af76d76eacc7f0d858fb2b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Port finish...WTF..where do you think they should have finished?? more than 50 mile offshore where this incident occured?

You lips are moving.. but that's it.

If you had bothered to read the comment that I was responding to, you might have noticed that yes, that was in fact where Wood proposed they finish the race.

 

You're on your own private wavelength Jack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bdu98252 said:

So if Vestas were doing a speed below that of the commercial shipping traffic, had a helm and others on lookout, navigation lights on and they stumble across a boat with a cloak of invisibility due to their poor decision making. How much responsibility should Vestas take. All of the above is hypothetical give we don't have a formal investigations facts but it seems that there are some on here claiming that Vestas should have reduced speed as their actions of sailing in broadly a straight line in a highly manoeuvrable boat compared to all commercial traffic is an out rage against Colregs.

It would therefore follow logic that all other shipping should be doing say 5 knots maybe less during dark hours in case they hit cause the cloak of invisibility boat that can neither be seen by the naked eye, radar or AIS. 

Until we see the finding from the investigation we will not know the facts of the case. Maybe the fishing boat was lit up like a Christmas tree and Vestas crew were all downstairs with a rope tied to the wheel for a massive sex session. I am probably going to go with the former situation though.

Were the fisherman in the TSS or lane? Were Vestas movements broadcast via port control? Are there any local laws / regulations which give authority? What lights / day shapes are those ships displaying. 

Rule 6

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder about the COLREGS. A fishing boat does not mean the boat was engaged in fishing. The definition is much stricter and is all about restriction of movement.

(d) The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.

At night such boats are required to carry specific lights identifying themselves as such (green or red over white.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

It would therefore follow logic that all other shipping should be doing say 5 knots

No.

Safe speed will vary from vessel to vessel.

Variables such as height of observer/lookout, quality of radar etc etc will be taken into account.

COLREGS may be worth a read.

Rule 6 (Safe speed)

 
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

(i) the state of visibility;

(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;

(iii) the manoeuvrability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;

(iv) at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from backscatter of her own lights;

(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;

(vi) the draught in relation to the available depth of water.

(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;

(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;

(iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;

(iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;

(v) the number, location and movements of vessels detected by radar;

(vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Dee, Bouwe, Xabi ao be willing to continue to keep taking this risk if nothing changes? And would the boatsponsors?

Question is quite pressing given the route of this upcoming non-scoring leg 5. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wild Things said:

If you had bothered to read the comment that I was responding to, you might have noticed that yes, that was in fact where Wood proposed they finish the race.

 

You're on your own private wavelength Jack.

Sorry if I possibly misread but the idiot traffic here is at overload..and I'm the gatekeeper when Mad is having a kip. But if I'm correct both of you are dickheads for suggesting a finish line in HK 50nm offshore or more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

Were the fisherman in the TSS or lane? Were Vestas movements broadcast via port control? Are there any local laws / regulations which give authority? What lights / day shapes are those ships displaying. 

Rule 6

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. ...

Read and look shit up, like they weren't even in HK waters, there is no TSS there you fool before posting please tell me after you prosecuting an opinion Vestas is at fault...better still have a wank in public..someone might notice and care to have you locked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Francis Vaughan said:

A reminder about the COLREGS. A fishing boat does not mean the boat was engaged in fishing. The definition is much stricter and is all about restriction of movement.

(d) The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.

At night such boats are required to carry specific lights identifying themselves as such (green or red over white.)

after years of sailing in Asia I have never seen fishing lights except blue/orange/red/yellow flashing and anything else they can buy at the local hardware store.

Tugs towing have correct lights as they are doing country to country tows, problem is most WAFI's dont know what they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites