Giggitoni
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,097
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Mahalo Moi
- Vessel Make
- 1986 Grand Banks 42 Classic
...it Depends...
I personally think it should be illegal not to have a person at the helm while underway.
I would be surprised if they shut down and restart each set of engines as needed.
To much unnecessary wear and tear I'd think.
Plus the fact they may not start when needed.
Says both should have taken action to avoid the collision.Rule 2(b) (b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
It is. You have to maintain a effective watch at all times. I think the small boat operator proved that going below to pee did not constitute an effective watch.
Yeah, on that event the skipper was showing a gal friend how cool it was to get close to things, like reefs!
Some of the longer runs are 50 minutes(Seattle-Bremerton) and shutting down saves fuel.
There has been instances when the engines didn't start as needed resulting in a crash into the ferry dock.
That's right, I forgot about the gals house being the object of a closer look!Speculation ran amok about the mystery woman for several days til sh held a rollicking funny press conference to explain she was not "the siren of the San Juans". Apparently the captain thought it a good idea to show her a different view of her house. She had advised him that she knew what her house looked like; didnt need his assistance, to no avail.
I've looked into that cove, seen the grindstone; not tempted to risk my 41-footer, but what do I know?
Then there was the boat that departed Edmonds (?) suddenly with a recent vintage Mercedes half aboard.
Wifey B: I would agree, but it's far too common and we've had members here endorse it as acceptable in the past. That's why I say effective watch is subject to debate as to meaning. I'm saying define it more specifically and stricter.
Wifey B: I would agree, but it's far too common and we've had members here endorse it as acceptable in the past. That's why I say effective watch is subject to debate as to meaning. I'm saying define it more specifically and stricter.
Then there was the boat that departed Edmonds (?) suddenly with a recent vintage Mercedes half aboard.
Right? Don't get me going about multi-day single handed passages....
That said, I admit to going pee when on watch, running down stairs to make a cup of coffee, etc. But only in open water with nothing anywhere close. In that situation the biggest risk is debris in the water, and it is a risk.
Another consideration is that under federal law there is 500 yard safety zone around a moving ferry. Within that zone the law requires all vessels to slow to the minimum speed required to maintain safe course. Furthermore there is a 100 yard exclusion zone around a ferry unless it is moored. No vessel is legally allowed within that exclusion zone without specific authorization from the CG, on scene law enforcement or the ferry captain.
So when the Nap Time came within 100 yards of the ferry it was in violation of federal law and had no right to navigate there. So I figure Nap Time is 100% in the wrong.
What the WSF will do to the ferry captain remains to be seen, but since hitting pleasure vessels is bad for publicity I suspect he/she will be penalized in some way.
Just like the captain of the Costa Concordia.Yeah, on that event the skipper was showing a gal friend how cool it was to get close to things, like reefs!
Well again, the way the CG will likely look at this is that,,, if both vessels were dong everything right, there is no collision. So both vessels were doing something wrong proportionately. The ferry waited way too long to take serious action to avoid the dust up. Obviously the maroon on the Nap Tyme is I would guess predominately at fault here, but the ferry wont escape some blame.Another consideration is that under federal law there is 500 yard safety zone around a moving ferry. Within that zone the law requires all vessels to slow to the minimum speed required to maintain safe course. Furthermore there is a 100 yard exclusion zone around a ferry unless it is moored. No vessel is legally allowed within that exclusion zone without specific authorization from the CG, on scene law enforcement or the ferry captain.
So when the Nap Time came within 100 yards of the ferry it was in violation of federal law and had no right to navigate there. So I figure Nap Time is 100% in the wrong.
What the WSF will do to the ferry captain remains to be seen, but since hitting pleasure vessels is bad for publicity I suspect he/she will be penalized in some way.
Wifey B: Actually the biggest risk may be a fall or something else happens to you on the way. Regardless, it's an unnecessary risk.
I believe you would be referring to the security zone for the WS ferries established under 33CFR 1317. This does not apply to "all ferries". You might also note that within that code section (e) does not relieve the ferries of compliance with Nav. Rules. I feel as though the ferry will be held somewhat accountable for the accident even though the smaller vessel was encroaching on the ferry exclusion zone, wasn't maintaining watch, etc...Another item is that someone will suffer from the investigation and/or publicity. It is a lot easier to impose a sanction against an employee, or someone you have issued a license to than it is to just a guy in his own boat.
A brief anchoring would have completely avoided(?voided)the problem.
How can the ferry be imputed with knowledge the boat is unmanned, on autopilot, and be required to respond accordingly? IMO it can`t be, has to be one of the last possibilities for a boat in that area, and even then, probably comes too late.
I would still argue that the ferry made a gross navigational error by not carrying out it's duties as the give way vessel. It seems the effect of the security zone is that the vessels should not pass closer than 100 yards.
The ferry cant have known those things, but that is not the issue. The issue is the ferry was either not paying attention to all traffic around him, or chose to ignore a potential for collision until it was too late. All about the timing of the ferry's response to imminent collision, which was slow. I agree with the above, 80 and 20 fault division.A brief anchoring would have completely avoided(?voided)the problem.
How can the ferry be imputed with knowledge the boat is unmanned, on autopilot, and be required to respond accordingly? IMO it can`t be, has to be one of the last possibilities for a boat in that area, and even then, probably comes too late.
If I was judge and juror, I would assign blame 80/20 with 80 to the pleasure boat. It's just a stretch to me to expect the Ferry to anticipate there is no one operating the pleasure boat. Now, after the horns and no response, I guess he did become suspicious. I've seen times Ferries seemed to barrel their way through and act like they owned the waterway, but I cannot assign the major blame to one in this situation. The proximate cause was no one operating the pleasure boat. The other causes are all secondary to that.
What if the pleasure boater was actually behind the wheel paying attention? Steady course and speed, stand on vessel. And simply asserts his standing with regard to the rules. Ferry blows horn because he does not WANT to follow the rules as written. Ferry likes to follow the rule of tonnage, which is not a written rule, but certainly works in most cases.
So in my hypothetical, at the last moment the pleasure boat stops to avoid a collision. Could he not make a complaint against the ferry cap'n? Still 80/20 to p-boat?
Not trying to defend the p-boater, just trying to sort out where responsibility is. Seems more clear to me that the ferry was blowing off the rules and asserting based on size.
The ferry cant have known those things, but that is not the issue. The issue is the ferry was either not paying attention to all traffic around him, or chose to ignore a potential for collision until it was too late. All about the timing of the ferry's response to imminent collision, which was slow. I agree with the above, 80 and 20 fault division.