crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 3:24 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
....
My best guess at this point would be misjudgement by SB due to the size of
MR combined with a desire to make a close pass. The degree of stern swing
in a turn of a vessel that large will enormous compared to what the SB
operator might expect thinking of her as a "sailboat". A vessel of that
size is of necessity rather shoal in proportion to length. Turning from a
reach to close hauled, it will take a while to accellerate to a speed where
the underbody is fully effective and there will be a few boat lengths of
greater leeway. ...

Well, my ship handling "knowledge" at the 290' scale is the tiny bit
of theory I read for my license and I may be standing up a bit for the
underdog on principle. Still, I have this feeling that if, as stated
by Perkins the vessels were on reciprocal courses with MF slightly to
weather just before the incident then MF's turn to port could the
primary cause of the collision.

Given that:
1) the frames are 3 seconds apart
2) reciprocal courses
3) MF is 290' long
4) MF pivots about her keel more or less at 145'
5) MF turned port 30 to 45 degrees between frames

I think if follows that:
1) CPA closed 75-100 feet in 3 seconds because of MF's course change
2) the stern of MF was suddenly moving ~15 knots faster towards SB
than it was before the start of MF turn

Now, MF claims that they were going to pass to weather of SB on the
courses they were both on and that they made their turn to open the
CPA to 200'. I take that to mean that they had a CPA of less than
200' and from the photos the turn they took was big so the CPA must
have been a good deal less than that. From SB's point of view the
stern of MF suddenly comes across their bows and the speed of closure
is roughly doubled and CPA was reduced 75 to 100'. SB is stand on.
It is clear that SB luffed her sails w/in the 3 seconds the MF began
her turn and they remained eased for the entire sequence. SB is
attempting to avoid a collision but can she? MF's stern is coming at
her in excess of 15 knots so going astern of MF is suddenly
impossible. MF's midships is still closing at MF's leeway plus SB
forward motions (say 10 knots). A crash tack may be the best bet but
even that might not be enough but the 27 seconds from MF's alteration
to crash doesn't give them much time to think about it.

Conclusion is a little strong but I suspect:
1) if MF had not altered SB would have passed safe astern of her
2) MF made a major change of course seconds before contact in
violation of Rule 8
3) SB was stand on but in extrimis attempted to avoid contact
4) MF was obligated to give way and do so with ample time.

Therefore MF is primarily at fault. While SB should have taken more
decisive action when it was clear that a collision was imminent and
certainly should have stood by after the crash she is largely
innocent.

Your witness :)

--Tom.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

"Two meter troll" wrote
most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

Ernest Scribbler wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote
most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."


I always like the term that was use years ago "Dead right"

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote
I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance.

Don't all boats' sterns go sideways in a turn, by virtue of having the
steering apparatus back there? (I thought that was what made the darn things
so hard to parallel park.)

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 11:26*am, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote

most boats dont move sideways throught the water

You've obviously never watched me sail...

These discussions are always amusing. I'm picturing a tombstone inscribed
with, "Technically, he had the right of way."

he he he ya my little 30' umiak is pretty good at sideways. the junk
rig is easy but unless the dagger board is all the way down she tends
to sail pretty well the same speed to the side as ahead.

I always assume that if it is in front of me and avoidable i avoid it,
right of way or no. of course anything within a 1/4 mile on my bow is
in front of me. takes a long, long time to stop the boat i usually
drive so i play it very, very safe.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote
You can imagine how that feature is amplified when the boat is 260
feet long, and pivots on it's keel!

The side of the MT was probably traveling faster towards the SB than
the SB was traveling forward.

Sounds like an excellent reason to stay the heck out of its way. SF Bay is
what, 2-3 miles wide?

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

On Oct 16, 12:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:17:03 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll





wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll

wrote:
ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.

its pretty simple from my stand point you dont get close to another
boat unless you are planning to come along side. you avoid
collisions.

it comes down to a simple statement: you operate your vessel safely
and well clear of other vessels when you have the option. this fella
had the option and he decided to ignore a safe working distance.

If anything, he was simply as inexperienced as you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dog you have no idea of my experiance.

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0700 (PDT), Two meter troll
wrote:

ummm......my thought was how stupid do you actually have to be to run
a 40' boat into the side of a 200' boat in day time with good
visability.
Then i read this page and yall act as if the guy in the 200' boat that
got nailed in the SIDE was at fault. most boats dont move sideways
throught the water nor do they instantly make full speed. what it
looks to me is yet another gawker was going by and was not paying
attention to the helm (I assume he was looking in a camera or
something) and smashed into some one elses boat. happens all the
bloody time.

I assure you that when the Maltese Falcon turns, her stern slides
sideways for quite a distance. It would not be that hard for someone
in a much smaller boat to misjudge how much room was needed to avoid a
collision. This is not nearly as simple a situation as you seem to
think.


Duh! It is definitely a simple situation. There are but two sailboats
involved. It's very simple to avoid a close quarters situation when there
are only two boats involved. All it takes is for both captains to pay
attention to their job and take action as needed in plenty of time to avoid
a close quarters situation. There is never any need to get close enough that
a collision occurs in open water like that. Both captains share the blame
for the collision. Neither captain took action to avoid a close quarters
situation. If either of them had there would have been no collision.

Wilbur Hubbard

crash boom bucks! Dumb question
 

wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 3:24 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
...
My best guess at this point would be misjudgement by SB due to the size
of
MR combined with a desire to make a close pass. The degree of stern
swing
in a turn of a vessel that large will enormous compared to what the SB
operator might expect thinking of her as a "sailboat". A vessel of that
size is of necessity rather shoal in proportion to length. Turning from a
reach to close hauled, it will take a while to accellerate to a speed
where
the underbody is fully effective and there will be a few boat lengths of
greater leeway. ...

Well, my ship handling "knowledge" at the 290' scale is the tiny bit
of theory I read for my license and I may be standing up a bit for the
underdog on principle. Still, I have this feeling that if, as stated
by Perkins the vessels were on reciprocal courses with MF slightly to
weather just before the incident then MF's turn to port could the
primary cause of the collision.

Given that:
1) the frames are 3 seconds apart
2) reciprocal courses
3) MF is 290' long
4) MF pivots about her keel more or less at 145'
5) MF turned port 30 to 45 degrees between frames

I think if follows that:
1) CPA closed 75-100 feet in 3 seconds because of MF's course change
2) the stern of MF was suddenly moving ~15 knots faster towards SB
than it was before the start of MF turn

Now, MF claims that they were going to pass to weather of SB on the
courses they were both on and that they made their turn to open the
CPA to 200'. I take that to mean that they had a CPA of less than
200' and from the photos the turn they took was big so the CPA must
have been a good deal less than that. From SB's point of view the
stern of MF suddenly comes across their bows and the speed of closure
is roughly doubled and CPA was reduced 75 to 100'. SB is stand on.
It is clear that SB luffed her sails w/in the 3 seconds the MF began
her turn and they remained eased for the entire sequence. SB is
attempting to avoid a collision but can she? MF's stern is coming at
her in excess of 15 knots so going astern of MF is suddenly
impossible. MF's midships is still closing at MF's leeway plus SB
forward motions (say 10 knots). A crash tack may be the best bet but
even that might not be enough but the 27 seconds from MF's alteration
to crash doesn't give them much time to think about it.

Conclusion is a little strong but I suspect:
1) if MF had not altered SB would have passed safe astern of her
2) MF made a major change of course seconds before contact in
violation of Rule 8
3) SB was stand on but in extrimis attempted to avoid contact
4) MF was obligated to give way and do so with ample time.

Therefore MF is primarily at fault. While SB should have taken more
decisive action when it was clear that a collision was imminent and
certainly should have stood by after the crash she is largely
innocent.

Your witness :)

--Tom.

All your guesses mean NOTHING. Both boats were at fault as neither boat took
action to avoid a close quarters situation. Both captains were asleep at the
wheel and negligent.


RULE 7

Risk of Collision

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If
there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational,
including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision
and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information,
especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations
shall be among those taken into account:

(i) such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an
approaching vessel does not appreciably change;

(ii) such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change
is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or
when approaching a vessel at close range.


RULE 8

Action to Avoid Collision

(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the
case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the
observance of good seamanship.

(b) Any alteration of course or speed to avoid collision shall, if the
circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to
another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small
alterations of course or speed should be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it
is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another
close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to
result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall
be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the
situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping
or reversing her means of propulsion.

(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the
circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room
for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another
vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so
as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full
regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part.
(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully
obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are
approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

I hope this helps.

Wilbur Hubbard