duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, hoppy said:

I guess you still believe that Santa Claus, UFO's, easter bunny, tooth fairy and honest politicians exist.

I believe in UFO's. I've seen them on the dinghy anarchy page! ;)

Share this post


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

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

If you call it a contributing factor, then you 

32 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

infer this accident would might never have happened if a NtM had been issued. 

Do share...

33 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I know of the communication practises adopted by commercial fisherman in that area for a variety of things incl NtM's.

This thread has become a desperate witch hunt

burn-at-stake.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I found a bit odd when looking at the Hong Kong notices, was that they had notices for the Round Island Race, and for today's start. But no notice for the arrivals. One would guess they felt that with a spread out fleet arriving there was no value - but it did strike me as odd. I would hope there is a revision of this in the future.

http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/notices/notices.html

And, the VOR have stuffed up. There is nothing amending the start time in the published notices. The VOR have unilaterally changed the start and the value of the notice is wiped out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jethrow said:

I believe in UFO's. I've seen them on the dinghy anarchy page! ;)

And they have foils which are very dangerous to sail which also explains this new increase in sailing injuries.... or so I read somewhere

Hang on .... I'm on the wrong thread.... I'll get my blazer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Simple you and others are jumping to the conclusion that Vestas was not keeping a proper lookout and Vestas shares a large slab of responsibility for this incident. 

However you went even further indicating they were not up to keeping a proper lookout physically, inferring they were shirking that responsibility.  That is just plain wrong.

Hence the chimney.

Other than that what you said was an interesting read and befitting your extensive experience, though and like many, still only concentrating on  Vestas to argue cause and solutions. 

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

Rant over.

By definition, if you hit a reef that is clearly shown on charts because you didn't zoom in far enough it is operator error and your fault.

By definition, if you hit something you would have seen had you been looking in the right direction you are not keeping a proper lookout. It seems to me that clearly Vestas has to share some of the responsibility at least.

Not up to me to say legally whether or not the crew was shirking their responsibility - I am sure that will be addressed in the enquiry/inquiry, if anyone ever hears about it.

I am not trying to lay blame on these guys - they face enormous challenges and I am sure they were exhausted at the time, pushing hard for the finish.

And indeed, the fishing boats do not make it any easier, with incorrect lights and a considerable disregard for other traffic.

Many years ago coming back to HK from a highly entertaining fishing expedition to Pratas Reef (when there was a lot less action out there) sailing on Starboard at night and looking under the foresail occasionally, one of the three other people on board suddenly panicked and crash tacked the boat.

We watched in amazement as a 70 foot wooden sailing junk on Port passed right through where we would have been without the tack. Their green sidelight may have been a ten watt bulb - we could barely see it from a boat length away.

To suggest that a NOTAM would have made any difference to the fishermen's habits is laughable as anyone who has sailed in Asia would appreciate. The fishing fleets, especially squidders, often operate in vast flotillas, some of the bigger vessels (motherships) carrying AIS, but lots of the smaller boats not. If and I say IF,  it was a squidder they  hit then either the squidder was running dark (and should have seen the yacht) or they missed seeing a boat lit up so brightly it can be seen on satellite photos. I don't know.

Trawlers can have 10 men crews as well, but they are much bigger, mostly steel hulled boats these days and if Vestas had hit one of them at 20 knots it would have destroyed the yacht - and they all have AIS.

If it was a tender to a purse seiner it would have not had ten guys on board.

I am not concentrating on Vestas to argue causes and solutions and I look forward to reading an official report if it ever sees the light of day.

I am simply speculating - isn't that what a of of SA is about - other than being quick at unnecessarily insulting others of course.:P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be rude but all of what you have written has been canvassed over and over and over again up thread.

Find a new topic in another thread.

Share this post


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

....There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect......

+100. A properly conducted inquiry won’t apportion blame just between Vestas and the fishing boat. VOR and HK maritime authorities will cop some too. More than you might think..... Hence all the silence about the whole thing.

What special measures did they take for the seven rocket propelled missiles, some/possibly most arriving at night? None that I know of, and even if they did, they were clearly inadequate, as was the lookout on both boats party to the incident.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sidecar said:

+100. A properly conducted inquiry won’t apportion blame just between Vestas and the fishing boat. VOR and HK maritime authorities will cop some too. More than you might think..... Hence all the silence about the whole thing.

I thought that it happened in Chinese waters controlled from Beijing, not HK, so HK won't cop anything.

I would not be surprised if Beijing is not interested in a witch hunt as VOR is a prestigious international event visiting their shores. Accidents in the fishing fleets is probably a regular occurrence and maybe behind the scenes VOR has forked up cash for the victims family and the boats owner and it's case closed. This might also be why there was going to be an American inquiry to keep the world outside of China happy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep this thread going for the remainder of the race so all of this bull shit has a place to land.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sidecar said:

+100. A properly conducted inquiry won’t apportion blame ...

Actually the sentence can be cut here.

Properly conducted inquiries don't apportion blame. They will find facts, and make recommendations. What happens after that is a different problem, and blame may well be part of later action. But the investigation's result might not even have any part to play in that.

If you look at the US National Transport Safety Board, its terms of reference on accident investigation are very clear:

To ensure that Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety, the Board's analysis of factual information and its determination of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law.

The Australian authority, the ATSB is the same. Investigations are no-blame.

The Australian Transport Council recognised the value of no-blame safety investigations at its May 2011 meeting. It agreed that no-blame safety investigations are an integral part of an effective national maritime safety system,

In Hong Kong it is the same again: It is not the purpose of the investigation or the report to apportion blame or to take disciplinary action.

The grandfather clause is this - from the International Marine Organisation, Casualty Investigation Code

25.4 Where it is permitted by the national laws of the State preparing the marine safety investigation report, the draft and final report should be prevented from being admissible in evidence in proceedings related to the marine casualty or marine incident that may lead to disciplinary measures, criminal conviction or the determination of civil liability.

I don't know if China adheres to this or not. I would be really interested if someone with a knowledge of Chinese law - or who can just find read and translate the appropriate information - could enlighten us.

But the IMO is pretty clear about what a properly conducted investigation is - and it isn't about blame - it is about preventing further accidents. They take the responsibility of determining causation of an accident sufficiently seriously, and thus the ability to reach a valuable conclusion of causality and make recommendations to prevent accidents, that they request that any participants are protected for further action that might result from the report. This is not a trivial thing. It is retribution and punishment versus the future safety of other mariners. The IMO prefers future safety, and most countries agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

There are many other contributing factors which will no doubt come out, including the strong possibility as outlined by Shang, that Hong Kong and the RO did not inform Beijing that seven rocket propelled missiles would be traversing these waters, resulting in no Notice to Mariners being issued to that effect.

Rant over.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stief said:

Peter Rusch, tweeting!

 

Fortune Cat is known as Maneki Neko in Japanese, which means “beckoning cat.” The cat has its paw raised as if it’s waving in good fortune for its owners. Other common monikers include Lucky Cat, Money Cat and Welcoming Cat.

There’s actually a meaning behind which paw the cat is holding up. If it’s the left paw, this is supposed to attract customers. If the right paw is raised, this invites good fortune and money.

They both sound pretty good to me, which is why sometimes you can find a Fortune Cat with both of its paws in the air. Two paws up can also represent protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have watched the raw after all. 
Anyone got a copy? If so it will be fun to compare the next version. A bit too high profile to kill of the program.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Fortune Cat is known as Maneki Neko in Japanese, which means “beckoning cat.” The cat has its paw raised as if it’s waving in good fortune for its owners. Other common monikers include Lucky Cat, Money Cat and Welcoming Cat.

There’s actually a meaning behind which paw the cat is holding up. If it’s the left paw, this is supposed to attract customers. If the right paw is raised, this invites good fortune and money.

They both sound pretty good to me, which is why sometimes you can find a Fortune Cat with both of its paws in the air. Two paws up can also represent protection.

Thanks--didn't know that. From here? http://www.catster.com/lifestyle/maneki-neko-fortune-cat-5-interesting-facts

(aside: just for you https://twitter.com/AlexNeveAmnesty/status/961711290329784322 ) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAW show is back:

 

No idea how (or if at all) the edit changed. 10 second mention of the collision, just that it happened and that they retired.

 

Wonder if there will be a boatfeed episode.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chasm. Some new stuff here (from memory), but can't comment on differences from the RAW taken-down.

--Had't seen the AKZO team meeting in Melbourne;

--the SHKS on-board decisions about the reef (no mention of the RC email) were more detailed

--MOB footage is also more detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now