Collision and demasting

[lwarden]

Are you say they were lying to the USCG about fishing which then would make you the stand on vessel?

You mean make them (the sail boat) the give way vessel?

 

[koliver]

With his statement in the Original post:
"I noticed Open Seas motoring up on our starboard side, which was where the rigging and sails were in the water and told them to back away so they would not get tangled up in the sails/rigging. They backed off, and then left us completely and motored away. We never were able to establish VHF communication with Open Seas and by the time we got ourselves free they were distance dot of light.", it sounds like the fishing was not happening at the time of the collision. With nets out, this maneuvering wouldn't be possible.

 

[O C Diver]

My radar stopped working a few years ago. But even back when it did work I didn't run it much on a clear night as it was power hog.

The fishing boat said he had his radar on, but it didn't pick us up. We have a LOT of metal on our boat and our 22 year radar before if died could pick out a sea buoy mile away.

We were healed and at 5 degrees at the most.

It's probably a good thing that your radar was in operable as you would be more at fault for the accident. In an accident, the investigation board assigns responsibility partly on your use of available equipment to avoid the accident. As an example, you have a working VHF radio but choose to leave it turned off, ding. You have a working radar and choose not to have it operating, ding. The Coastguard doesn't care whether it's a power hog or not. If you have used it in the past, and chose not to use it that night, ding.

Based on your extensive experience, I would have to assume if the radar were working and on, you would have picked up the big steel fishing vessel atleast 5 miles away.

Ted

 

[Davil1]

collision

Fascinating thread

The only factual information is

Two vessels in a collision course did not see each other.

 

[psneeld]

I think they are saying they were trawling for shrimp and Don was motoring- not under sail.

OK, but that make the F/V stand on then, not the sailboat whether motoring OR sailing.

 

[psneeld]

You mean make them (the sail boat) the give way vessel?

Yes...sailboats are give way to fishing vessels fishing.

 

[psneeld]

With his statement in the Original post:
"I noticed Open Seas motoring up on our starboard side, which was where the rigging and sails were in the water and told them to back away so they would not get tangled up in the sails/rigging. They backed off, and then left us completely and motored away. We never were able to establish VHF communication with Open Seas and by the time we got ourselves free they were distance dot of light.", it sounds like the fishing was not happening at the time of the collision. With nets out, this maneuvering wouldn't be possible.

Thanks for the quote, but I have read the OP over many times and have tried to weed out knowns from "can't be sures".

They could have been near the end of a haul or the beginning of one and only the people on that boat know how fast it can or willing to maneuver at any point in a trawl.

Because they just had a collision, they may have made an emergency turn to ensure the other boat was OK and turned quicker than normal.

As far as whether the boat was truly fishing or not, there is nothing I see as definitive proof to say they were or were not except the OP's word which I would believe more with some better explanation of just what makes him positive.

I posted before, I am glad to wait for the USCG investigation to reveal what they think are facts vs assumptions and not judge either party. But letting posts go by with just assumptions about either boat's actions that in my experience can be explained is my whole reason for posting. Fair is fair

 

[SteveK]

Maybe I am reading between the lines.
After the collision it seems the FV had enough time to secure the nets before attempting to offer assistance. They had already radioed the collison to CG.

A thought also occurred to me, this was as close to head on collision as you can get, last minute dodge. How close did the FV have to be, so as not to be blocked by the mast, before it started to appear on one or the other side of it?

 

[Davil1]

Maybe I am reading between the lines........

A thought also occurred to me, this was as close to head on collision as you can get, last minute dodge. How close did the FV have to be, so as not to be blocked by the mast, before it started to appear on one or the other side of it?

====================================
The mast shouldn't be an issue, because the sailboat is constantly in motion through different axis, is not a stationary pole.

The F/V was not visible to the sailboat on watch person until the last minute when she attempted to change course.

In my boat the mast is not an issue, I do have other obstructions, like the life raft, that is why I have to stand up to scan the surroundings.

Also have to take a pick above and both sides of the dodger, and that is standard procedure on most sailboats.

But again, all of these will not provide any information if the S/V was not visible to the visual checking.

There is no mention to AIS data.
And the radar issues already mentioned and discussed.

 

[Don L]

Are you say they were lying to the USCG about fishing which then would make you the stand on vessel?

I am saying exactly what I have written!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does it seem to me you are always trying to say things to disagree with what I have written? The feeling I get from your posts is that you side with the fishing boat?

 

[lwarden]

Yes...sailboats are give way to fishing vessels fishing.

I was clarifying the statement you made in post 118 where you commented that the sailboat was the stand-on vessel, and had assumed you had misspoken.

 

[psneeld]

I am saying exactly what I have written!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why does it seem to me you are always trying to say things to disagree with what I have written? The feeling I get from your posts is that you side with the fishing boat?

Exactly your problem....I have said I can't make a fault determination without a lot more facts and there are too many things that you even said that make me wonder about other things you said as IF they were facts.

Many here are assuming a lot about the F/V, but we don't' have any facts to prove or disprove what they did and only one side of all the observations.

I have found faults of the fishing vessel...such as if they saw you more than a minute or more out that they didn't sound the warning signal if they were truly the stand on vessel.

 

[psneeld]

I was clarifying the statement you made in post 118 where you commented that the sailboat was the stand-on vessel, and had assumed you had misspoken.

The way I read it is the F/V reported they were fishing. If the captain was lying about fishing then the sailboat could assume they were the stand on vessel. Thus my question and that's why I asked early on what lights the F/V was displaying.

 

[Don L]

The way I read it is the F/V reported they were fishing. If the captain was lying about fishing then the sailboat could assume they were the stand on vessel. Thus my question and that's why I asked early on what lights the F/V was displaying.

I have posted everything I know. We saw NO lights anywhere near us prior to just before the collision. NONE! To us suddenly there was fully lit up fishing boat directly in front of us.

But I feel that to you that is meaningless and that We MUST be wrong etc.

It doesn't appear to matter to you the number of people that have written of encountering a dark fishing boat, to you they don't exist.

I NEVER would ever assume I am the stand on boat while sailing and getting anywhere near a fishing boat. That is just so stupid and like arguing with a semi truck on the road.

 

[rslifkin]

I have posted everything I know. We saw NO lights anywhere near us prior to just before the collision. NONE! To us suddenly there was fully lit up fishing boat directly in front of us.

But I feel that to you that is meaningless and that We MUST be wrong etc.

It doesn't appear to matter to you the number of people that have written of encountering a dark fishing boat, to you they don't exist.

I NEVER would ever assume I am the stand on boat while sailing and getting anywhere near a fishing boat. That is just so stupid and like arguing with a semi truck on the road.

I think you guys are agreeing more than you realize. The F/V was invisible to you (for reasons unknown to us at the moment), yet they were claiming to the USCG that they were fishing and therefore stand on. Which considering you couldn't see them, you couldn't possibly have known at the time even if they were.

 

[rgano]

I don't understand the Monday-morning QB'ing here. Two boats collided - that we know. Two needles in a haystack met. We can surmise all we want but that risks whisking away a learning experience. The undertone is "obviously, someone wasn't keeping adequate watch or there would be no accident. I always keep watch, therefore this would never happen to me...." Which means nothing need be learned - everyone knows they need to keep an adequate watch.

So explain something to me: Two vessels manned by experienced mariners collided. Can anyone really say that they are somehow more careful or more experienced than the crew on those two boats?

Peter

Who vouches for the experience of the fishing boat crew? A neighbor who ran long liners from next door to my home hired people just out of jail to be deckhands. Since his mama lived on the other side of me, he ensured they arrived as the captain was warming the engine up and departed as soon as the boat was offloaded when it returned several weeks later. There can be no doubt those warm bodies were used to stand 'wheel watches."

 

[Don L]

The fishing boat report was written by the owner as a representative. It says the Master was at the helm.

Their report is marked "Yes" to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this causality?" Hard to believe they would say this considering they never got to within 100' of us. I wasn't going to even file a statement till I read that.

 

[rgano]

Peter, radar works well when level. Sailboats are often heeled over reducing forward vision, getting a good read on water on one side and sky on the other. Plus not many cockpits have waterproof room for displays.

I also wonder about night vision being affected by looking at a monitor.

The vertical beam width on small radars can be in the range of 20-25 degrees. It is unlikely that a radar monitored on Don L's boat would have been unable to see targets due to angle of heel on that night.

 

[rgano]

I suspect that historically power has been a concern for sailors, so they are less likely to use radar routinely. And they typically travel at slower speeds than power boats, so perhaps the need is less generally.

None of this power inadequacy for a radar aboard a sailboat under sail means diddly to an admiralty court. The rules say if you have it, use it effectively.

I have read this thread fairly carefully, and have yet to see Don L say whether his boat was radar-equipped. I have assumed not. Am I wrong?

 

[psneeld]

None of this power inadequacy for a radar aboard a sailboat under sail means diddly to an admiralty court. The rules say if you have it, use it effectively.

I have read this thread fairly carefully, and have yet to see Don L say whether his boat was radar-equipped. I have assumed not. Am I wrong?

Had it but it was broken...post#111.

 

[Don L]

I wish I had never posted this thread here.

 

[psneeld]

I think you guys are agreeing more than you realize. The F/V was invisible to you (for reasons unknown to us at the moment), yet they were claiming to the USCG that they were fishing and therefore stand on. Which considering you couldn't see them, you couldn't possibly have known at the time even if they were.

Thank you, glad someone sees my point about the absurdity of the whole discussion about contributory actions without established facts...which may never come out. Discussing what people do to avoid collision, track vessels at night, equipment used, lessons learned, etc...etc... all can make a useful thread.

Despite what anyone thinks, I am not defending either vessel, just shooting down ideas that there is not proof of or necessarily the only logical conclusion if I feel otherwise.

My biggest contribution seems to be pointing out the actual NAVRULES which I know most here don't know cold, not my observations or opinions...neither do I anymore, but I am pretty familiar with them as I was tested on them 3 times and taught them for 5 years or so. Plus I look them up and post them every time I think someone doesn't have them correct.

 

[psneeld]

I wish I had never posted this thread here.

My advice is to let people thrash out pros and cons in similar situations and just stop posting...unless you need to correct or dispute something pretty easy to substantiate. I can only hope they focus on issues and not blame and stop posting assumptions of who was doing what and wait for any facts to fill in the blanks.

For me, you defending yourself the way you are with only one side of the story and few facts is not really helping your case. You made your statement which doesn't make you at fault, but there's not much to corroborate everything you said.

But going back to before posting is over the dam, best thing would be to ask the mods to close the thread as soon as it has run it's course... then if vindicated by the USCG, start a new thread.

 

[rgano]

The fishing boat report was written by the owner as a representative. It says the Master was at the helm.

Their report is marked "Yes" to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this causality?" Hard to believe they would say this considering they never got to within 100' of us. I wasn't going to even file a statement till I read that.

Assuming that you are the fine and upstanding cruiser others have testified to here, despite cruising at night in busy waters with an inoperable radar and no AIS, the statement from the FV seems downright despicable and self-serving. Observing you to be drunk at a distance on a dark night with an on-going emergency in hand seems a stretch and very likely he's piling on after the chimera about being actively fishing so he could claim stand-on status. Again assuming your side is exactly as stated , I could easily believe somebody on the FV was either asleep at the switch, operating a radar with the incorrect range/video settings, absent from the helm altogether or all of the above. Or maybe drunk themselves.

I hope for your sake this does not end up in court because you will be at a disadvantage with potential liars like that opposing you.

A side note on FV practices. The FVs I see around here lower their big booms asap after getting u/w as a matter of course to get the center of gravity down and to get the paravanes out as soon as they are clear of traffic. The fact that you ran into his boom and probably inboard of the paravanes and them slipped clear of him would not be surprising. The otter boards are also rigged from those booms for shrimpers if the nets are deployed. The fact that you did not tangle any nets which may have been deployed in the water with your broken mast likely held close the the surface by your rigging is entirely unsurprising.

You have been most courageous in sharing your experience. Assuming you go forward with cruising after this, or even if not, have you considered what you would do differently the next time you are cruising at night offshore?

 

[Don L]

I hope for your sake this does not end up in court because you will be at a disadvantage with potential liars like that opposing you.

Unlikely, they didn't claim any damage. My boat is uninsured so the only injury is going to be the difference between the agreed value and the real worth. I am not sure really if I want the insurance to total the boat or repair, but it isn't like I have a choice.

 

[Don L]

Great then stop posting on the thread! I freely stated we have our share of the blame!

I am the only 1 who has given a statement to the CG who was acturally there. The owner of the fishing boat provided their statement and he wasn't even there. I tried to attach it here but it exceed the pdf file size

 

[rslifkin]

I am not sure really if I want the insurance to total the boat or repair, but it isn't like I have a choice.

Depending on how close to the dollar cutoff the damage comes in, you may have some ability to push them a little one way or the other. If it's well above or below the threshold you likely won't get any say though.

 

[O C Diver]

As a curiosity, was it ever established that it was a shrimper versus dragging a trawl net a stern?

Ted

 

[Don L]

As a curiosity, was it ever established that it was a shrimper versus dragging a trawl net a stern?

Ted

on their report they say it is a shrimper

 

[rgano]

Unlikely, they didn't claim any damage. My boat is uninsured so the only injury is going to be the difference between the agreed value and the real worth. I am not sure really if I want the insurance to total the boat or repair, but it isn't like I have a choice.

I am confused. If your boat is uninsured, why is there any discussion on agreed value vs real worth?