dew

Woman dead after power boat collides with sailboat in Narragansett Bay

Recommended Posts

Reporters and others wishing to see the DEM incident report may submit a request pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act by filling out this form and emailing it to DEM.filereview@dem.ri.gov.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/assist/filerev/reqrec.pdf

TITLE 46
Waters and Navigation

CHAPTER 46-22
Regulation of Boats

SECTION 46-22-9.3

 

§ 46-22-9.3. Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death.

(a) When the death of any person ensues as a proximate result of an injury received by the operation of any vessel in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so operating such vessel shall be guilty of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death."

(b) Any person charged with the commission of the foregoing shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years.

History of Section.
(P.L. 1991, ch. 121, § 1.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically in Rhode Island, it is Open Season on anyone in the water. This is very bad. How is it that, Mr. Teixeira is not charged for, "operation of any vessel in reckless disregard of the safety of others?"

"...the person so operating such vessel shall be guilty of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death."

He should at least be tried. What the fuck is wrong with the State AG?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Reporters and others wishing to see the DEM incident report may submit a request pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act by filling out this form and emailing it to DEM.filereview@dem.ri.gov.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/assist/filerev/reqrec.pdf

§ 46-22-9.3. Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death.

(a) When the death of any person ensues as a proximate result of an injury received by the operation of any vessel in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so operating such vessel shall be guilty of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death."

(b) Any person charged with the commission of the foregoing shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years.

History of Section.
(P.L. 1991, ch. 121, § 1.)

Or could contact the investigating officer, Lt. Daniel White of RI DEM here http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/law/staff/  He is the fourth person listed.  Has a link to his EM

Share this post


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

Reporters and others wishing to see the DEM incident report may submit a request pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act by filling out this form and emailing it to DEM.filereview@dem.ri.gov.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/assist/filerev/reqrec.pdf

TITLE 46
Waters and Navigation

CHAPTER 46-22
Regulation of Boats

SECTION 46-22-9.3

 

§ 46-22-9.3. Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death.

(a) When the death of any person ensues as a proximate result of an injury received by the operation of any vessel in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so operating such vessel shall be guilty of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death."

(b) Any person charged with the commission of the foregoing shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years.

History of Section.
(P.L. 1991, ch. 121, § 1.)

can one of you ri'ers go down to DEM office and get the copy and post it here please.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cool to go after the investigator when it was Peter Neronha, the AG who determined to charges.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as sailors we are upset about this. We should be. Too bad it is exactly the same legal outcome

in the vast majority of car versus bicycle and car versus pedestrian incidents - and there are thousands

more of these. No intent, no chemical impairment == "accident."  Driving a multi ton vehicle into a

human isn't a crime unless you intend to do it. "I didn't see him/her/it" is sufficient justification for

no criminal penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, oysterhead said:

Yes, as sailors we are upset about this. We should be. Too bad it is exactly the same legal outcome

in the vast majority of car versus bicycle and car versus pedestrian incidents - and there are thousands

more of these. No intent, no chemical impairment == "accident."  Driving a multi ton vehicle into a

human isn't a crime unless you intend to do it. "I didn't see him/her/it" is sufficient justification for

no criminal penalties.

Sadly this is way too often the case. Absurd but true.

Share this post


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

Reporters and others wishing to see the DEM incident report may submit a request pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act by filling out this form and emailing it to DEM.filereview@dem.ri.gov.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/assist/filerev/reqrec.pdf

TITLE 46
Waters and Navigation

CHAPTER 46-22
Regulation of Boats

SECTION 46-22-9.3

 

§ 46-22-9.3. Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death.

(a) When the death of any person ensues as a proximate result of an injury received by the operation of any vessel in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so operating such vessel shall be guilty of "operating so as to endanger, resulting in death."

(b) Any person charged with the commission of the foregoing shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years.

History of Section.
(P.L. 1991, ch. 121, § 1.)

Apparently the state's definition of "reckless disregard" or rather the burden of proof proving that it was met to warrant charges was sufficient enough and this was no more than an accident. 

Share this post


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

You have to prove "intent" now in a vehicular manslaughter case?    Oh, sorry I didn't intent to run them down and chop her up, talk to you all later at the "trial" where I will pay $300-400 in fines, thanks all.    Or "foresaw the consequence", what the fuck is that???   I didn't foresee that I would kill them if I ran them down?!?!?!    Fucking horseshit.   He did "willingly acted recklessly knowing it COULD cause a death"....   PERIOD.

I noted the statute says "would", to me that implies certain foreknowledge, that is a pretty high bar to pass and seems to rule out negligent operation.

Share this post


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

Why is it that the state of Oregon can actually push prosecution even when nobody dies, but Rhode Island simply says, "oh, he didn't mean to kill her, it's ok."

Here's a case in Oregon:

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2018/01/chilling_video_fisherman_jumps.html

 

Worth pointing out that the elderly operator in that incident likewise seems to have evaded serious consequences.

Share this post


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

Worth pointing out that the elderly operator in that incident likewise seems to have evaded serious consequences.

I think this is a common thread.  I hear of many motor vehicle accidents where the elderly operator hit the gas peddle  instead of the brake peddle and end up causing death and injury.  They end up with a slap on the wrist.   Not sure what can be done.  

Older people like the operator of the big powerboat in the video should really not be operating boats or motor vehicles if they can't do it properly.  At least in the this accident facts came out.  In the accident which is the point of this thread there have been not details of the facts found.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Worth pointing out that the elderly operator in that incident likewise seems to have evaded serious consequences.

Yeah, he died!

Relative to the quote below, the Oregon case motorboat driver was clearly a sociopath. His son or something told of how he couldn't keep his father from looking at his phone when driving that boat. The driver was sitting and said he couldn't see--but drove 30 knots or whatever anyway! He also made a comment how there shouldn't be a lawsuit "because nobody got hurt."  (Actually there was chronic injury as well as a wrecked boat).

Sociopathic 75 year old.

11 minutes ago, robalex117 said:

I think this is a common thread.  I hear of many motor vehicle accidents where the elderly operator hit the gas peddle  instead of the brake peddle and end up causing death and injury.  They end up with a slap on the wrist.   Not sure what can be done.  

Older people like the operator of the big powerboat in the video should really not be operating boats or motor vehicles if they can't do it properly.  At least in the this accident facts came out.  In the accident which is the point of this thread there have been not details of the facts found.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something about how he was actively avoiding the judgement,  think he trailered the boat out of state and just prolonged paying until his death put an end to it. Lack of remorse doesn't a sociopath make, sometimes people are just assholes. Interesting that his son in law dimed on him, Happy Thanksgivings?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So thinking.  What kind of navigational instruments were on the vessel @last.   Could the law enforcement tell by the logs of the navigation instruments if the vessel was under autopilot at the time of the accident?   If the logs suggest the vessel was under autopilot at the time of the accident, then I would find the captain at fault.  I used to work in the marine software navigation field, so I am sure there must be some written documentation that states only to use autopilot in a safe area and also to keep a keen lookout.  If the owner of the vessel has such navigation equipment and it is in use at the time of the accident I would say that could be used against him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 6:48 PM, robalex117 said:

I think this is a common thread.  I hear of many motor vehicle accidents where the elderly operator hit the gas peddle  instead of the brake peddle and end up causing death and injury.  They end up with a slap on the wrist.   Not sure what can be done.  

Older people like the operator of the big powerboat in the video should really not be operating boats or motor vehicles if they can't do it properly.  At least in the this accident facts came out.  In the accident which is the point of this thread there have been not details of the facts found.

At least in the case of a road accident, the state can suspend/revoke driving privileges.  With boating accidents, in many states a boating license isn't needed if you were born before such and such a date, so there is very little the state can do to stop the offending person from repeating the mistake.

I think the remain question(s) are what are the facts found in this case and what is the appropriate response from the larger sailing community to this tragedy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On0/Dogballs/2019 at 10:03 AM, Bsquared said:

Watch your ass and carry an airhorn on your life vest?

 

When a powerboat decides to cross under a bridge in an unsafe manner, no air horn will save you. The helmsman, Teixeira, was negligent and stupid. The reason that he didn't see the catamaran until the last second is because he did not consider the occlusion of his view by the bridge piers. It seems he was essentially crossing a channel but with a big object in the way of his view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report doesn't make total sense to me. Casey's is south of the bridge, Potters north, they claim to have been transiting the center span headed north but ran over the F18 headed south on port tack. Claim is hit on the beam but didn't sink or capsize it, but spun it 180. If they had their kite up and Ms Tartaglino was sitting to leeward then she couldn't have seen them easily but they would'vebeen highly visible. Was McKay his wife because it says his wife called for aid. No speed stated, what were they doing if they weren't keeping a lookout, polishing the silver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"report. “I also observed a black transfer and crushed fiberglass material on the inner, aft section of the starboard pontoon.”

Whic sounds like less than 90 d otherwise they'd have hit the port hull 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sad...

FT gets 4 $100 fines, less than what it would cost to patch her mainsail that he drove through let alone the loss of life... Sounds like he did not know much about anything when it came to managing his craft....

“Once both vessels settled in the water, Byczko said he observed Tartaglino floating face down in the water with a large amount of blood around her,” the officer’s narrative said. “Byczko said that he requested that the parties aboard the powerboat attempt to bring Tartaglino aboard their vessel, but they were unable to do so, stating, ‘we don’t know how to get her up.’”

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no such thing as negligence when you're a 75 year old wealthy white guy. If he'd been 25 they would have put him under the jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear here.

Typically negligence is not criminal, it's (typically) handled as a civil matter. You seldom get put in jail for negligence you get sued for it. There are exceptions, but in most cases the negligence has to be 'gross' or repeated to become a criminal matter.

If we keep saying the guy was negligent then we are agreeing that he should not be subject to prosecution for "Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death". Because that requires that the operator was 'reckless', negligent is not enough.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok but gross negligence resulting in death has been prosecuted as manslaughter? In this case from the limited summary, be nice to read the whole report, 15 p?, it seems like he was in an open stretch between towers with good visibility. A 30' tall rig is highly visible even to a boat on a semi plane. Absolving him of gross negligence seems key to getting a reduced charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, meant to add that under the conditions it certainly sounds like he was operating in a reckless manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it’s ok to murder sailors on Narraganset Bay, shouldn’t all of the organizations setting up events threaten to abandon Newport unless this is satisfactorily resolved?  @sailnewport @usoda @club420 @nacra @laser or whatever they call it now, the list goes on

Dingy sailing alone has to leave several $million  in town each year.  

Do you want your kids sailing out there where it’s lawless?  

Our money is bigger than old fart white guy’s money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The violations include risk of collision, action to avoid a collision, responsibilities between vessels and failure to keep a look-out."

If he's guilty of those violations, then he's negligent. A person died as a result of his negligent action (failure to keep a look-out, resulting in [in]action to avoid a collision). Seems pretty damn simple to me, negligent homicide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a helpful response from Sean Flynn of the Newportri.com who points out the full report is at the bottom of the page.

Reading it I see a few things.

Conflicting statements from the operator and passenger of motorboat as to whether the sailboat had its sails up. Passenger claims to have seen nothing. Capt claims his original statement that he was on the stern at the time of collision was incorrect.

Capt statement was amended in presence of his 2 lawyers after he dropped out of contact with the police for some time. He changed his stated heading at the time from north to south, almost like his vessel made a sudden turn. Said he was transiting the bridge when they were well north of it at the time. Just a hinky kind of feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 11:43 AM, JohnMB said:

Just to be clear here.

Typically negligence is not criminal, it's (typically) handled as a civil matter. You seldom get put in jail for negligence you get sued for it. There are exceptions, but in most cases the negligence has to be 'gross' or repeated to become a criminal matter.

If we keep saying the guy was negligent then we are agreeing that he should not be subject to prosecution for "Operating so as to endanger, resulting in death". Because that requires that the operator was 'reckless', negligent is not enough.

 

 

obviously we are talking about recklessness, a step above gross negligence.  if you were driving a car while facing backwards and ran over a bicyclist and killed her, the charge is typically going to be vehicular manslaughter and the mens rea is going to come from your recklessness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bruno said:

 the full report is at the bottom of the page.

link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 12:15 PM, fastyacht said:

That's easy. The sailing boat would be burdened, fishing stand on.

But that boat that we see phootos of wasn;t engaged in fishing

and the quitation attributed to a member of the powerboat was that they were merely out "enjoying their day."

You can’t just have a license or hang poles and claim the fishing rule.  The reg is intended to protect properly lighted commercial fishing vessels with equipment deployed which impedes maneuverability. Poles don’t cut it.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it odd that at no point in any of the interviews was the powerboat operator required (nor did he volunteer) to estimate his speed at the time of the incident?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's one fo a number of troubling details and inconsistencies, course changed from north to south at time of collision is another. I'm holding back on my opinions now to hear what others think. But as a sailor and professional mariner there is much that troubles me about this investigation and decision. In Hawaii we've had a few cases of MBs running over divers, canoes, etc without any legal consequences, the pattern of not holding negligent operators responsible for the harm they cause, as much as I am anti police state and torts, is a growing problem. 

Share this post


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

Yes, that's one fo a number of troubling details and inconsistencies, course changed from north to south at time of collision is another. I'm holding back on my opinions now to hear what others think. But as a sailor and professional mariner there is much that troubles me about this investigation and decision. In Hawaii we've had a few cases of MBs running over divers, canoes, etc without any legal consequences, the pattern of not holding negligent operators responsible for the harm they cause, as much as I am anti police state and torts, is a growing problem. 

It seems to depend very largely on whether the LEOs and the DA's office like the body odor of the individual; somewhat related to but not necessarily equivalent to wealth & status.

Compare to hunting accidents. I know of a couple of fatal shootings that occurred with no legal consequences to the shooter, others with seemingly greater mitigating circumstances and manslaughter charges.

I really hate the idea of this guy walking scot-free, -especially- after doctoring his story

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think is worth highlighting are some of the physical facts reported.

Damage confined to stb inner hull aft of crossbeam and broken tiller, no damage to rudders or beam or tramp.

Ripped main but no other discussion of what sails were up, heading reported inconsistency, crew positions, even the wind direction isn't noted.

Sudden unexpected impact from blinside argues high speed, greater than reported, in clear of any visual obstruction portion of bay, not sure how that accords with captain's statement that he was at helm facing forward etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the sailing details bother me,  other than the obvious fact finding issue for cause, is that the LEOs interviewed the ultimate expert, her crew, at least twice yet seem unable to record the basic facts: what was their heading at the time (reported southerly but how does that mesh with reported heading of MB and impact?), what sqils were up, what was the crew doing, the helm, etc. Relying on Bliss, who is an obviously informed expert and friend of the deceased, to fill on the blanks is helpful but the crew knows the most. Allowing the MB owner and crew to reimagine their statements as they please without challenge is...problematic to fact finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a friend or family member I am not sure that I would feel justice is being served here. Larger issue that the message of boater safety is being lost, owning and operating a powerful craft is a privilige not a right, if you are negligently reckless you should be held to account for it. Negligence is I failed to check the mooring and the boat drifted ashore. Reckless is I was running at 20 knots across the busiest portion of the busiest bay in New England on one of the busiest boating afternoons of the year with my head down or facing aft for long periods of time without reducing my speed or delegating watchkeeping. That's reckless indifference to the safety of others due to my negligent operation of my vessel. His radar being on or not is immaterial if he isn't paying attention. If he wants to do something other than drive then he shouldn't drive a high speed through a crowded waterway. Not complicated.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that this old guy didn't mean to drop his baby grand daughter off the side of a cruise ship, either, but guess what - he just got charged with negligent homicide. The lack of intent to kill does not and should not indemnify you from being charged for acting negligent, in my opinion. Should this granddad go to jail for his mistake?? No of course not - nobody would argue that point. But should there be a proper investigation and trial to determine if there was any intent or gross negligence that could be considered criminal? Probably. And I would also argue that operating a vessel under power burdens you with a much further and higher level of responsibility to 'not kill others with you negligent actions' (can any legal eagles help my language here?) than holding your baby grand daughter does. Last time I checked there were no 'rules of the road' to baby handling, but there are plenty for operating boats.

https://news.yahoo.com/charging-grandfather-girls-cruise-ship-041407425.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 12:19 PM, Bruno said:

If I were a friend or family member I am not sure that I would feel justice is being served here. Larger issue that the message of boater safety is being lost, owning and operating a powerful craft is a privilige not a right, if you are negligently reckless you should be held to account for it. Negligence is I failed to check the mooring and the boat drifted ashore. Reckless is I was running at 20 knots across the busiest portion of the busiest bay in New England on one of the busiest boating afternoons of the year with my head down or facing aft for long periods of time without reducing my speed or delegating watchkeeping. That's reckless indifference to the safety of others due to my negligent operation of my vessel. His radar being on or not is immaterial if he isn't paying attention. If he wants to do something other than drive then he shouldn't drive a high speed through a crowded waterway. Not complicated.

This is far from over as a civil lawsuit would have a "justice served" element to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like he crossed one bridge pylon to another 'almost parallel" to the bridge hence unsighted to other vessels, dumb move

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the collision location is about 300 m or 900+' north of bridge, according to her crew's estimate and reported gps position in report. The center span in question is 1,600' wide. The idea that he had an obstructed line of sight is not a good defense, nor that the SB was hidden by his bow, it had a 30' rig with a square head main and jib up. Also from the reported impact it sounds like he made a sudden alteration in course southward, to port, as it was also bow to port (interior side of starboard hull between transom and beam) hit. The obstructed view excuse doesn't hold up under the facts in the full report.

Share this post


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

No, the collision location is about 300 m or 900+' north of bridge, according to her crew's estimate and reported gps position in report. The center span in question is 1,600' wide. The idea that he had an obstructed line of sight is not a good defense, nor that the SB was hidden by his bow, it had a 30' rig with a square head main and jib up. Also from the reported impact it sounds like he made a sudden alteration in course southward, to port, as it was also bow to port (interior side of starboard hull between transom and beam) hit. The obstructed view excuse doesn't hold up under the facts in the full report.

ok so he's toast...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the scene he said he was 'at the stern' when the collision happened when asked "where were you when the collision happened". Later, he 'clarified' that he meant his boat was 'at the stern of the F18' when the collision happened. Hmmmm.

Also, he disconnected the phone line of the number he gave to police shortly after the accident. They had to track him down again thru his passenger to get to his lawyer. Its in the report.

dont like the looks of that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know accidents happen, but i dont even like to leave the helm at idle speed. I wouldnt dream to leave the helm unmanned doing 20 kts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, given the MB involved and the crew's statement that they were struck without warning and the overtaking impact, 20 kn is my rough guess. There is no estimate of speed for MB in the report. Oddly.

SB's estimated speed is 10 kn, stated by crew in report.

Share this post


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

...There is no estimate of speed for MB in the report. Oddly.

 

They did say they recovered GPS track from the Garmin aboard the MB, so they should have the speed in there they just didnt include it in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the CG ttechs said the models they had were too old to have recoverable tracks. Maybe I missed something. What's interesting there is the timing, they had the boat in their custody but had to get a search warrant. Then had to try to serve it on Medeiros but he didn't return their call then disconnected the phone. So they marked it return service and searched the devices.

I'm not a lawyer and don't p,ay one so I looked it up. It sou ds like they got a warrant on the vessel in their custody, searched it in the presence of other officers, found nothing useful, and so npted this to the court but I could be wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wide-open throttle produced 31.5 mph at 3,900 rpm. "

Sounds like 30 kn so easy cruise at 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has an understanding of the area want to bang up one of those protest diagrams from the details we have? (Or a napkin sketch)

I suppose it would probably need to be diagrams given the stories add up differently.

Share this post


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

At the scene he said he was 'at the stern' when the collision happened when asked "where were you when the collision happened". Later, he 'clarified' that he meant his boat was 'at the stern of the F18' when the collision happened. Hmmmm.

Also, he disconnected the phone line of the number he gave to police shortly after the accident. They had to track him down again thru his passenger to get to his lawyer. Its in the report.

dont like the looks of that at all.

I've wondered about that, now I think that he said it at the time without realizing it was self incriminating, later he took advice that it was so changed his story. Question would be was he provided with a copy of his original statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bruno said:

image.thumb.png.45fd6831cbe48f7b2fe65e059d0d001d.png

diagram looks fairly accurate - except Medeiros course - what is the source? - given the impact damage to Sandra's boat was on crossbeam and inside of starboard hull (and we were all straight line reaching on Starboard at this point in the course) - I had assumed that the powerboat was headed towards the Southwest at time of impact and came up from behind and leeward - that is not a quadrant that you expect to be hit from and one that the crew on the wire is blind to.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

diagram looks fairly accurate - except Medeiros course - what is the source? - given the impact damage to Sandra's boat was on crossbeam and inside of starboard hull (and we were all straight line reaching on Starboard at this point in the course) - I had assumed that the powerboat was headed towards the Southwest at time of impact and came up from behind and leeward - that is not a quadrant that you expect to be hit from and one that the crew on the wire is blind to.....

The moboater and his wife are unreliable witnesses to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I'll bite and play devils advocate - What was the SB doing at the time - did they have an adequate lookout, did they attempt to avoid the collision.  Clear day they should have seen them coming from a distance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

OK so I'll bite and play devils advocate - What was the SB doing at the time - did they have an adequate lookout, did they attempt to avoid the collision.  Clear day they should have seen them coming from a distance. 

this aint it, chief

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cbulger said:

diagram looks fairly accurate - except Medeiros course - what is the source? - given the impact damage to Sandra's boat was on crossbeam and inside of starboard hull (and we were all straight line reaching on Starboard at this point in the course) - I had assumed that the powerboat was headed towards the Southwest at time of impact and came up from behind and leeward - that is not a quadrant that you expect to be hit from and one that the crew on the wire is blind to.....

Thanks for the eyewitness response, my diagram is based on the full report which has numerous inconsistencies and omissions. I am estimating Medeiros' course based on his statement "northerly", "transiting the span", en route from Casey's to Potters, turn to port, impact angle, and reported position of collision. I welcome any feedback from any actually present that day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, what mark were you guys fetching? Government mark or set buoy, location?

 

Sorry, mea culpa, I've been calling Frank Texeira Frank Medeiros, my regrets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Please see corrected drawing, again, my apologies.

image.png.c6be7271ac13685c90c52b9c91db2662.png

I'm confused. Don't the courses need to be nearly a right angle?

image.png.bfef99e6da6649c2cc84f49375fd065e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of impact they would need to be, yes, that's sort of the point to me. Texeira's account of his actions doesn't ring true. The impact was focused on one point, missed the rudders entirely, rode over the hull, broke the one tiller and then the boat is propelled forward. I can only envision one scenario for this, much as you drew it.

Larger question then becomes, how: how did these two vessels end up in this alignment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, there is a repeated error, see cbulger above for verification, Tartaglino's cat was on starboard tack. I believe much of the confusion arises from the fact that none of the investigating officers seem to be sailors. They were not on port, they were on starboard, sheeted in, fetching, close hauled or close reach to a mark, both on the starboard side, trapezing as the wind strength and course required. Crew is sheeting the main, driver the traveler etc.

Share this post


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

Additionally, there is a repeated error, see cbulger above for verification, Tartaglino's cat was on starboard tack. I believe much of the confusion arises from the fact that none of the investigating officers seem to be sailors. They were not on port, they were on starboard, sheeted in, fetching, close hauled or close reach to a mark, both on the starboard side, trapezing as the wind strength and course required. Crew is sheeting the main, driver the traveler etc.

Sorry. I based the sketch on this:

image.thumb.png.9f5fa5367bfa6d29cd8126285e387c03.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for those who haven't trapezed, much less double trapped, to quite grasp the rudiments at first pass. This was why I felt it needed more explaining, the scenarios detailed didn't make sense to me. Now I feel like I have a sense of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sailing back from cuttyhunk to Newport that day and heard it all go down on the vhf.   Such a sad day.  You could feel the fear and remorse in that guys voice when he reported a man overboard with a great deal of blood in the water. 
it was honking that day and I saw another boat that was about 35’  loose it’s mast. Off brenton reef. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruno said:

It's hard for those who haven't trapezed, much less double trapped, to quite grasp the rudiments at first pass.

I don't think that's the issue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the issue of the cause of the collision but the source of much of the report errors. To wit: the initial report is that they were on port tack, on opposite sides of the boat, etc, from this I wondered if they had the kite up which would've restricted their vision and maneuvers a bit. The notion that he was on the high side and she the low is instead a confusion between who was fully trapped and who was partially or crouched on the tramp, these are common experiences for double trapping but harder for nontrapeze sailors to grasp. The points of sail, wind direction, current, relative obstructions, etc, all the things we'd first put on the protest form are not well reported. Neither are the boat speeds, wind speeds, and angles of approach, all the details that inform our understanding of how the incident unfolded.

I believe this imprecision serves the interest of the motorboat captain because it lends credence to his account: he was traversing the span, piers blocked his vision, the cat appeared out of nowhere without warning in his path, there was nothing he could do, etc. These have all been proved to be false, in my opinion, so what's left? Reckless inattention to his surroundings, that's all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The notion that he was on the high side and she the low is instead a confusion between who was fully trapped and who was partially or crouched on the tramp

That's not obvious to me. FWIW, I, and I suspect many others here, have raced trap boats, too.

Here's a link to the report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxwqxJQAhe0tXzNRX01jY1VnbmtuV3Fuajh3RjB0SWY5Qm53

image.thumb.png.2b450ca54b609372a103a32b6496ecad.png

Share this post


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

That's not obvious to me. FWIW, I, and I suspect many others here, have raced trap boats, too.

Here's a link to the report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxwqxJQAhe0tXzNRX01jY1VnbmtuV3Fuajh3RjB0SWY5Qm53

image.thumb.png.2b450ca54b609372a103a32b6496ecad.png

Sorry, I am technically not competent to copy and paste a pdf, the full report is a pdf. But if you refer to the follow up interviews with Byczko (8/14 & 8/21) he says they were on starboard tack, close hauled (though there is an evident misunderstanding of this) and Sandra Tartaglino was crouched on the tramp. Why does this matter?

Well, she had good vision under the main, he had clear sight around the jib, they were on a fetch with a cat so weren't shifting course rapidly or frequently, they were sailing fairly quickly, and were blindsided by a much larger power boat from clear astern. That MB had been on a "northerly" course prior to turning to port to make their destination of Potters cove after overshooting it. There is no detail given about the speed of the boat, the rapidity of the turn, what they observed prior to the turn, after the turn etc. We know they were in a fleet of similar cats all racing towards a common objective in a bay filled with other sailboats.

So I think the details matter a lot and the MB has an interest in obscuring them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I know the MB overshot its destination and made a turn towards it? One, they said so, amending the stated turn as to port from to starboard. Two, obvious inference, why make a turn to port at all? Only necessary if they are beyond the destination and need to turn left to reach it. I am inferring that they were north of Tartaglino prior to impact as the point of estimated collision is level with or above Potters Cove. This also helps explain how the sailors were caught unawares, the MB had passed them headed north, then suddenly turned towards them and rapidly overtook them from astern. Something we usually don't anticipate unless we're being hunted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bruno said:

Sorry, I am technically not competent to copy and paste a pdf, the full report is a pdf. But if you refer to the follow up interviews with Byczko (8/14 & 8/21) he says they were on starboard tack, close hauled (though there is an evident misunderstanding of this) and Sandra Tartaglino was crouched on the tramp.

Here they are:

image.thumb.png.33119266c6efdf3b8d02eca4c3bbac51.png

 

image.png.5c23a11f9356f75ffdd37b8954c1279e.png

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2 looks about right to me based on no damage to either rudder. Not sure how much the boom extends beyond the traveler/ aft crossbeam, not much but depends on if she upgraded the rig, Bliss would know a lot more than I do.

I think the MB, of a similar beam but much larger and heavier, punched the cat forward on impact as it overrode the stb hull  based on statements and damage. I suspect the MB was going twice or more their speed from astern based on the impact pattern. Nothing else seems to fit the known facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the cartoon is not to scale. The boom and beams of an F18 don't look anything like that. One of the things that seems reasonably certain is that the mainsail got snagged. Presumably by the overhanging anchor gear and I suspect that would have started spinning the cat. Just trying to indicate something along those lines.

I don't see any way to reconcile the various versions of events.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only thing that can anchor the incident is Tartaglino's course. That was a function of wind and racecourse. I think that reconstructs something like Bruno has just suggested recently upthread--the turn to port.

Now to think how this caused it, think of the moboat going northbound with the cat obscured by the high bow, and as the moboat turns to port, it by coincidence is tracking the catamaran. Essentially a moving blind spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only tossing this up here as a F18 owner and high performance small boat sailor.  This is how I see the positioning and then the X is where the report said the power boat crushed the F18 . Given the highlighted above I think Sandra would be behind the board on the Starboard hull facing slightly backward with her legs under her on the tramp, tiller in hand with the traveler in the other,  her crew would be ahead of the raised board/shroud on the hull with his weight likely on the beam....

Either way this sucks - how do you keep a rapid moving powerboat from simply smashing into a slowly moving sailing craft with a 30 foot tall rig and huge sails indicating its position on the bay..... This old Hobie Tiger pic is as close as i could find to what i was trying to draw.

Sandra Tartaglino Memorial Fund

Sandra Tartaglino of Tiverton, Rhode Island died suddenly in a tragic boating accident on Narragansett Bay Sunday, August 11, 2019. In her memory the family wishes to promote her love of sailing, safe boating and fostering the development of young sailors.

Memorial donations may be made to the Sandra Tartaglino Memorial Fund c/o P.O. Box 491, Tiverton RI 02878.

 

Capture1.PNG

Capture2.PNG

Share this post


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

About the only thing that can anchor the incident is Tartaglino's course. That was a function of wind and racecourse. I think that reconstructs something like Bruno has just suggested recently upthread--the turn to port.

Now to think how this caused it, think of the moboat going northbound with the cat obscured by the high bow, and as the moboat turns to port, it by coincidence is tracking the catamaran. Essentially a moving blind spot.

Not sure that computes to me, it wou,d require the distance to be such that the rig would be hidden by the bow at all times.

A Not that high a bow, expect that type of boat to level out below 15 kn.

B As it closes on the cat the 30' rig would become visible.

C It assumes the driver is at the helm and keeping watch so as to be affected hy a blind spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites