Idiots at Sea

V_Moth

Witnessed some absolute lunacy while on a boat making its way into Cork Harbour last night. We had just passed the Passage West ferry waiting on the Monkstown side of the channel when an unlighted pleasure boat appears out of the dark a couple of meters off our bow. He zoomed past us heading at some speed for Ringaskiddy/Haulbowline. Unfortunately he obviously did not expect the Passage ferry to appear in our wake and only just (<1m) avoided colliding with it. How this pleasure boat managed to turn in time I will never know - it was that close. Actually, I don't even know if the ferry crew ever saw this pleasure boat, as it passed pretty much underneath the front loading gate.

The danger the pleasure boat captain put himself, the ferry crew and passengers in is unimaginable :mad:.

Is there a reporting procedure for near misses like this?

ex_infantry man

V_Moth wrote: »

Witnessed some absolute lunacy while on a boat making its way into Cork Harbour last night. We had just passed the Passage West ferry waiting on the Monkstown side of the channel when an unlighted pleasure boat appears out of the dark a couple of meters off our bow. He zoomed past us heading at some speed for Ringaskiddy/Haulbowline. Unfortunately he obviously did not expect the Passage ferry to appear in our wake and only just (<1m) avoided colliding with it. How this pleasure boat managed to turn in time I will never know - it was that close. Actually, I don't even know if the ferry crew ever saw this pleasure boat, as it passed pretty much underneath the front loading gate.

The danger the pleasure boat captain put himself, the ferry crew and passengers in is unimaginable :mad:.

Is there a reporting procedure for near misses like this?

contact this government department
info@agriculture.gov.ie as they deal with marine and fisheries

goldie fish

Report it to Port of Cork also. They are responsible for traffic movements in the harbour, and often take action against those not following the rules.

jamesdiver

V_Moth wrote: »

The danger the pleasure boat captain put himself....

I wouldn't give him the satisfaction of referring to him as captain...

Did you try contacting the ferry? Maybe they saw an EI or a name. This person needs a dressing down.

Bligh

Best to report it to the port authority - Cork Port Radio on ch 12 VHF - link below to guidance notes for leisure craft in the port

http://www.portofcork.ie/index.cfm/page/guidancenotesetc?twfId=60&download=true

you can also report this sort of nonsense to the Coast Guard - Cork CG on ch 16 or phone Valentia RCC with your report and they will pass on the details to the Port Authority the MSO or the Guards who can take action under the Maine Safety Act 2005

Feckin idiots should should be confined to playing boats in the bath:D

hytrogen

Not naming names or pointing fingers in this situ, its probably as well to brush it off as a nothing happened because noone actually got hurt.
To take examples of a separate case between a tanker & some yachts racing in the harbour with what the pilot of the tanker considered a close quarters but was well more than 3cables CPA the clubs got the slap to say no racing in the harbour for the season which lasted about 5weeks in the end thankfully. Moral of the story "a closed mouth catches no flies" is better than rattling the cage and nothing better comes of it?
By all means if he impeded your safe navigation yes file a complaint & they'll catch the squirt but if you are ok the leave it out & file an AIRTS in your company's sms

LiamoSail

hytrogen wrote: »

Not naming names or pointing fingers in this situ, its probably as well to brush it off as a nothing happened because noone actually got hurt.
To take examples of a separate case between a tanker & some yachts racing in the harbour with what the pilot of the tanker considered a close quarters but was well more than 3cables CPA the clubs got the slap to say no racing in the harbour for the season which lasted about 5weeks in the end thankfully. Moral of the story "a closed mouth catches no flies" is better than rattling the cage and nothing better comes of it?
By all means if he impeded your safe navigation yes file a complaint & they'll catch the squirt but if you are ok the leave it out & file an AIRTS in your company's sms

Someone once said to me that at three cables off a yacht/fishing boat, there aims change from collision avoidance to evidence destruction

When I read **** like the above, I certainly see the point. These idiots have no idea of the stopping distances, or time it takes to start swinging a ship, particularly a loaded tanker. Theyve also no idea whether a ship can safely deviate from her course, but seem under the impression that a few cables is alright. It certainly isn't and IMO its a shame the tanker didn't hit the yacht as from my perspective, it would at least be one less idiot to worry about

hytrogen

LiamoSail wrote: »

Someone once said to me that at three cables off a yacht/fishing boat, there aims change from collision avoidance to evidence destruction

fair enough & from working on them they are like hyppo's to manoeuver so everyone should give any commercial vessel a slight bit more space to move but when the more manoeuverable vessel takes avoiding action & passes clear then what's the point in rattling the cage by filing complaints & spoiling the fun for everyone else unnecessarily??
I've found tankers deem they deserve more room to move on the grounds of carrying more 'dangerous cargoes' when in fact it's purely because they're poorly designed in hydrodynamics. The architects have this corner cut to facilitate capacity over manoeuverability which is a serious safety compromise IMO.

When I read **** like the above, I certainly see the point. These idiots have no idea of the stopping distances, or time it takes to start swinging a ship, particularly a loaded tanker. Theyve also no idea whether a ship can safely deviate from her course, but seem under the impression that a few cables is alright. It certainly isn't and IMO its a shame the tanker didn't hit the yacht as from my perspective, it would at least be one less idiot to worry about

which is the typical stupid attitude a lot, NOT all, tanker officers have and that's why the industry is bleeding personnel and standards are deteriorating in working conditions and skills in that sector. (To some extent it's no wonder they call them tanker w@%&ers)
This accountants attitude that everything MUST be documented instead of as the actual legislation says COULD be documents is really for those who have too much time on their hands.
But to reiterate my initial point, if you are affected then by all means give the shout but if everyone is hunky dorey then move on..

jamesdiver

hytrogen wrote: »

But to reiterate my initial point, if you are affected then by all means give the shout but if everyone is hunky dorey then move on..

I do see where you're coming from; but maybe for the sake of these guys, a dressing down might make them think a little about the consequences of bad seamanship, and the responsibilities they hold whenever they leave the quay wall. Im not even sure such a thing exists in the legislation.

LiamoSail

hytrogen wrote: »

fair enough & from working on them they are like hyppo's to manoeuver so everyone should give any commercial vessel a slight bit more space to move but when the more manoeuverable vessel takes avoiding action & passes clear then what's the point in rattling the cage by filing complaints & spoiling the fun for everyone else unnecessarily??
I've found tankers deem they deserve more room to move on the grounds of carrying more 'dangerous cargoes' when in fact it's purely because they're poorly designed in hydrodynamics. The architects have this corner cut to facilitate capacity over manoeuverability which is a serious safety compromise IMO.

which is the typical stupid attitude a lot, NOT all, tanker officers have and that's why the industry is bleeding personnel and standards are deteriorating in working conditions and skills in that sector. (To some extent it's no wonder they call them tanker w@%&ers)
This accountants attitude that everything MUST be documented instead of as the actual legislation says COULD be documents is really for those who have too much time on their hands.
But to reiterate my initial point, if you are affected then by all means give the shout but if everyone is hunky dorey then move on..

It's not about documenting, it's about preventing a reoccurrence. Just because one small boat took action doesn't mean the next will. What if the tanker had taken action at the same time as the yacht? What if this action was conflicting? It's only luck that there wasn't an incident. Why should some.capt/pilot/oow be hauled up to answer questions over hitting a yacht despite not being at fault? Why should they have their reputations tarnished as a result? Irrespective of who is found to be t fault, nobody escapes blame in these type of investigations

Anyway, if the wafi's obeyed the rules, specifically regarding the actions required of a giveaway vessel, this issue wouldn't have arisen

LiamoSail

jamesdiver wrote: »

I do see where you're coming from; but maybe for the sake of these guys, a dressing down might make them think a little about the consequences of bad seamanship, and the responsibilities they hold whenever they leave the quay wall. Im not even sure such a thing exists in the legislation.

Local regulations, allowed for in rule 1 of the col regs, often allow for fining small boat users