Vic Smith wrote in
:


This sounds right for this situation. The ferry lookout's vision was
compromised to 80% by his photochromatic glasses, and additionally
by insufficient time for night vision adjustment.

You ask me to do a study to show a problem with a particular
person/group/system and guaranteed I'll find something plausible which at
least deserves a closer look but in no way should be taken as "Gospel"
cause.

The Ouzo crew had no defense but offense.
A lot to be learned from reading that report.
Not only about being run down, but proper safety gear in case it
happens.
What gets me is that the ferry lookouts have no real aft view.

and on an aft house ship they have limited forward view. What does this
tell you to do when encountering each type vessel?

On my can we always had an aft lookout posted. You'd think large
ships would post lookouts as a matter of safety for a variety of
reasons - an aft lookout spots the man overboard for one.
They rely too heavily on electronics. That their radar couldn't
pick up a 25' sailboat in moderate seas doesn't say much for
their steaming safely.

Although I might agree with your idealism, commercial ships are not run
on the basis of "safety first, screw the cost". An additional lookout
might be great for some conditions but it cost money and if the companies
can show few real benifits..... forget it..... as for an aft lookout
seeing a man overboard on some yacht astern at night.....fat chance.
As for radar picking up a small,plastic sailboat in moderate seas..... we
can argue this point of "steaming safely" for years to come.

I'm sorry, but for my 2 cents, you'd be better off concentrating on the
many possibilities of what the yacht did wrong, learning from these and
altering your own operational parameters..... for instance.... in open
waters.... never allow a ship to get within 1 mile of you....2 miles is
safer..... sure that may not always be possible if the ship is changing
course navigationally, but that possibility is something you need to
consider.

otn