Being right does not help the dead

When Helen Fretter shared for Yachting World how a Class40 was smashed in half during a race by a cargo ship, it triggered this response by Peter Kelly of Fareham, England:

What an extraordinary story of incompetence and arrogance, and an even more incomprehensible response from those involved. Appalling seamanship has been demonstrated by all concerned.

The actions of the charge ship Master are taken away unforgivable, especially their blatant disregard (at several levels) for human life. Aside from the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (IRPC), they need to remind themselves of the most fundamental tenet of seamanship passed through generations of seafarers and codified by the SOLAS regulations in which:

“The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance….”

To continue on their way, knowing (or even suspect) that a collision had occurred, leaving seafarers in extreme jeopardy, is a complete disgrace.

Please, can I also suggest that Cédric de Kervenoaël and Thomas Jourdren (and indeed the entire Class40 fleet) go away and quietly contemplates the IRPC and especially Rules 17(a) and 17(b):

Rule 17(a)(i): Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
Rule 17(a)(ii): The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
Rule 17 (b): When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

By dint of the fact that a collision has occurred, Kervenoaël and Jourdren have apparently failed to apply the full remit of Rule 17.

And the others in the fleet who say they did nothing wrong should look at themselves in the mirror and contemplate for a long time… Remember guys, “…as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action…” which in this instance was a long time before the collision.

I sail short-handed in those waters a fair bit and regularly cross the shipping lanes at night. We track the shipping on AIS, usually from at least 10 miles out. Our basic assumptions are:

• The shipping will treat us as a power-driven vessel even when we are sailing;
• The standard of watch-keeping and seamanship is very low.

At our cruising speed of 6 knots, we apply rule 17(a)(ii) at a minimum of three miles range and will always be able to maintain a separation of one mile. If I’ve ever got to apply Rule 17, something has gone very wrong.

Speaking to ships on the radio is a waste of time and energy that could be much better applied to taking action to avoid a potential collision. And when it comes to preventing collisions, cracking off a degree or two is worse than useless. Change course by at least 30º or change speed by a factor of at least two (e.g. reduce speed by half) to make your intentions clear.

If necessary, you can always stop! It’s not a race-winning strategy, but it might be a life-saving one. It’s not always easy to pass behind every ship, as the waters are sufficiently congested that passing astern of one may put you ahead of another. But aiming to narrowly cross ahead? That’s madness.

My life and the safety of my crew are always going to be more important than the need to get home ten minutes sooner – even in a race situation. You may be in the right, but that won’t help you if you are dead.