Rach {L_WROTE}:
From that blog post above, some pretty strong evidence against Sea Smooth's captain:
{L_QUOTE}:
Maritime rules dictate that when two vessels are about to experience a head-on collision, each are supposed to turn starboard, or right, thus avoiding a crash. While the Lamma IV altered its course 13 degrees starboard, Mr. Pryke noted that the Sea Smooth captain turned 16 degrees to the left-hand port side, instead.
Such a move, he said, was done “in an apparent attempt to cross ahead of Lamma IV.”
While the Lamma IV could have done more to avoid a collision, including by being more attentive to radar readings, Mr. Pryke—whose analysis relied on radar tracking information and other evidence provided by Hong Kong authorities—said that the fault was mostly the Sea Smooth’s.
“Even at the very last moment she could have very easily avoided contact with a small alteration of course to starboard,” he said. The Sea Smooth, he said, “was primarily responsible for the collision,” and human error was “undoubtedly” responsible for the crash—error perhaps fueled by the fact that the captain had been alone in the wheelhouse.
Yes, when I received my captains license I did an 80 hour course in Lieu of test. At the course we where taught that you always change course to starboard to avoid collision in a crossing situation. Several students came up with various scenarios of why you may wish to turn port in order to better able to avoid collision. The experienced captains teaching the course warned us, "If you EVER turn to port to avoid a collision, and ANY collision still happens, you had better be able to defend in court WHY you made that move. And you will have an uphill battle no matter what."
This is exactly what I thought (and even more so now beleive) would be the final determination. I think there are no surprises yet.
Sea Smooth will still not bear 100% of responsibility. The rules also require you to operate you vessel in a speed and manner reasonable to conditions and to take whatever actions need to be taken to avoid collision. The fact there was a collision (in almost all cases) show that BOTH captains did not do this, for if even ONE of them did, there would have been no collision.
Since Lamma IV could see Sea Smooth, saw they were on collision course, and did not alter her course to starboard or reduce speed in time, regardless that she had right of way over Sea Smooth, at least a portion of the blame still rests with Lamma IV.
Sea Smoth altering course to get ahead of a boat that has rights over her, and Lamma IV's (apparent) refusal to give way when she had rights is a situation I have witnessed more than 20 times in my 15 months on Lamma. It is still going on on a regular basis, I have seen it several times since 1 OCT.
I HAVE noticed one difference, vessels do now occasionally slow down! WOW! Before they would just make drastic course changes at the last minute, never back off the throttle, and challenge each other for who was going to have that water. It is a (single) step in the right direction. But it needs to continue to improve.
The quote also speaks of the captain being alone in the wheelhouse. I know there are complaints on here of the crew piling in the pilot house. A vessel like either of these would require a MINIMUM of 2 persons on the bridge, 3 would be more realistic, and in our crowded waters 4 is even better. As long as they are doing what they a supposed to and not distracting each other with lunch and idle chatter.
I think duties in the pilot house while underway at speed would look like this (ideally)
1 at the helm
1 on port side watch
1 on starboard side watch
1 Master to navigate, monitor radio and radar, make the decisions, and make sure everyone is on task
How big is the entire crew? and when you approach the berth at least 2 need to head down to handle the lines.
Also radar would have provided early clear warning of a collision course. These ferries do not normally operate radar although it is REQUIRED. The night following the accident I stood on Lamma Pier and watched as two ferries in a row came in with no radar operating in the dark. I did not witness the accident so I do not know if either had their radars on, but I bet $100 HKD they did not. Vessels are more often running radars now, according to my informal survey (looking at everyone I get my eyes on)
AIS location systems have been required for several years on these vessels and would also provide early clear warning of a collision, even giving you information on WHEN it is likely to happen. I wonder if they turn on those or even use them properly?
My prediction is that it will be 80/20. 80% to Sea Smooth 20% Lamma IV.
I think the real solution is holding the operators accountable for their reckless operation. And having them KNOW that when they push these limits there will be penalties. Why are the minor collisions so easily let go, there is rarely a small fine or letter issued when these boats have minor collisions. How about suspended without pay (captain for sure and maybe the crew too) for a month if there is ANY touching of commercial passenger vessels?
Lets hope some real, and lasting, changes happen. If not it is only a matter of time before another accident.