Would not the same perception of "admitting guilt" occur with a reassignment as with a termination?
I don't think it has to do with reassignment as much as the investigation determination. I think that would be dependent upon the earlier referenced liability split. 80/20, 60/40, whatever and whoever has the best representation. I would bet the ferry will throw up every 'reason' why NapTyme was the only one in violation. The security zone, the draft, the maneuverability, the federal exclusion zone around a ferry. All to NapTymes shot at having a good maritime lawyer, to rebut the Ferries points. The end all is: The ferry didn't do enough to avoid collision; NapTyme did NOTHING to avoid collision.Would not the same perception of "admitting guilt" occur with a reassignment as with a termination?
Your eye and mind always trump radar or anything else when it is daylight and unlimited visibility.One issue that has not been discussed is the possibility that there might have been another vessel or obstruction that could have constrained the actions of the captain of the ferry. The video does not provide a full visual of the situation.
WRT radar, I believe it is important to have this most important nav aid operational at all times. Also, if you have it, you must have it operational. When you can confirm what you see out the windows with what is on the radar screen, it gives confidence in conditions of fog and darkness when you are unable to confirm visually what is present.
Jim
I don't think it has to do with reassignment as much as the investigation determination. I think that would be dependent upon the earlier referenced liability split. 80/20, 60/40, whatever and whoever has the best representation. I would bet the ferry will throw up every 'reason' why NapTyme was the only one in violation. The security zone, the draft, the maneuverability, the federal exclusion zone around a ferry. All to NapTymes shot at having a good maritime lawyer, to rebut the Ferries points. The end all is: The ferry didn't do enough to avoid collision; NapTyme did NOTHING to avoid collision.
Your eye and mind always trump radar or anything else when it is daylight and unlimited visibility.
And no..... it has been discussed many times that radar is only required by small craft and those without a dedicated radar watch as "under prevailing conditions"....it is not required to be operational at all times.
Well, I'd rather not take my chance with a maritime lawyer, better versed with the Colregs than I. My interpretation of rule 7a and 7b is: if I've got radar, I better use it, but not to the exclusion of visual cues, for sure. At least that's what we were taught in Power Squadron. The radar is on in all conditions and I use it.
The nice thing about using radar is you can put a tag on a target, then go back to doing other stuff. Take another glance at the tag and target and you can immediately tell if bearing is constant. Gives you an accurate bearing that is not super convenient to do visually. Applies even with good vis.
Exactly. In this situation, the radar is just a really good tool for measuring/observing/monitoring bearing and distance. Maybe others are much better than me, but I find visually assessing a crossing situation with much bigger boats to be very difficult. Their size, and usually faster speed become visually very deceptive. I frequently think that I will surely cross ahead of a much bigger boat, only to find my radar tells me something very different. It also makes a different how maneuverable and zippy your boat is. In a fast boat you can just dart out of the way. In a slow lumbering boat, you become a blotch on the hull.
1. Constant bearing decreasing range works for any size vessels....the slower and less bouncing around, the easier it is.
2. Not all small boat radars have marpa or arpa.
3. I can stop my trawler in several boat lengths....anyone get closer to big commercial vessels than that? Even my 20 knot sportfish could come off plane in a couple boat lengths and stop withing a couple more...anyone get within 100 feet of a collision with a large vessel in open water and can't handle it and need radar?
I hope not.
After all the back and forth about radars, sonars, electric toothbrushes, toilets etc., we are left with one inescapable conclusion. This collision was totally avoidable. Bad decisions or delayed decisions are the cause, plain and simple.
I think this was pretty easy to see coming....I think the CG will take a pretty dim view of the actions or non actions of both parties here. Neither took early and decisive action to avoid the collision. CG will likely rule both at fault to some degree.
The ferry captain sounds like a class act. 34 years without an accident and he steps up and takes responsibility for not acting fast enough to prevent a collision with a nitwit. The powerboat operator, on the other hand, represents one of my worst boating nightmares.
The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.
According to what? In the article at least there was no percentage of blame placed, both contributed to the incident. Ferry skipper lost his license albeit briefly. Him being probably the more experienced and likely only licensed party would be held to a higher standard than some boob on auto pilot taking a leak.The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.
The effectively unmanned powerboat on autopilot,"Nap Tyme"(well named eh?) gets primary responsibility, the ferry gets some for late response. I agree with Angus, the ferry captain was noble in readily accepting some responsibility.
Reading and interpreting the report.According to what?