You didnt sue them as you didnt have anything to sue them for.......

What he should have been done for is gross negligence. He failed to acknowledge an accident, nor report it. If he had done so, then those men would have been alive today.

And yes... the sailboat, should have given way.

Accident caused by the sailboat.
Deaths... by the ferry captain.

Im sure the sail boat shouldnt have given way according to proper procedings. But using half your head obviously if you were in the sail boat you would have given way.

Quote from: chrisdickoIm sure the sail boat shouldnt have given way according to proper procedings. But using half your head obviously if you were in the sail boat you would have given way.

No.

The sailboat was in the wrong.

From the International Regulations for collision avoidance at sea.

Quote9. Narrow channels
A vessel proceeding along a narrow channel must keep to starboard.
Small vessels or sailing vessels must not impede (larger) vessels which can navigate only within a narrow channel.
Ships must not cross a channel if to do so would impede another vessel which can navigate only within that channel.

QuoteA sailing vessel must give way to:
a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing.

And the final word...

QuoteAny vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.

And for the captain of the ferry.

Quote"316. No person shall—
f...... refuse or fail to give all reasonable assistance, when called upon to do so, .."

The sanction for contravention of this section is a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.

The Merchant Shipping (Safe Manning) Regulations, 1999, Annex 1 Part 1 states,

"Principles to be observed in Keeping Navigational Watch;
11. A proper look-out shall be maintained at all times in compliance with rule 5 of the annex to the collision regulations, and shall serve the purpose of —
(c) detecting ships or aircraft in distress, shipwrecked persons, wrecks, debris and other hazards to safe navigation."

Edit what I just wrote.

But

QuoteRule 18

Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where rule 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a)A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing;

(iv)a sailing vessel;

Rule 9 doesnt count, as it wasnt a narrow channel.

It was a narrow channel, that a larger ship was restricted to. The sailing vessel crossed it.

Shipping lanes = Narrow channel. They do not apply to smaller vessels due to differences in draft.

That shipping channel isnt narrow though! Its Huge. A narrow channel would be something like the Suez canal.

Quote from: chrisdickoThat shipping channel isnt narrow though! Its Huge. A narrow channel would be something like the Suez canal.

Still narrow when in comparison to the open sea.

Very true.

But it isnt a narrow channel still.

Quote from: chrisdickoVery true.

But it isnt a narrow channel still.

Its a narrow channel.

either way... what about:

QuoteAny vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.  

Ferry = a vessel constrained by her draft.

guys I seriously doubt those three men just sat there saying "well were not moving weve got right of way" - they may well have been having some difficulty with their boat - no one is going to just sit there while a frickin huge ferry is coming at you.

Yes that officer is clearly incompetent - I mean what sort of human being when involved in a situation where he might have done some serious damadge/killed someone just makes an assumption about it and decides to carry on... I guess the same sort of people who do hit and runs....

He could have got someone to check at the very least....

I mean what went through his head "erm I might have killed some people then, but probably not, ah well lets just crack on and hope it didnt happen

tis a very cavalier thing to do & when peoples lives are potentially at stake it is inexcusable

yea i dont think anyone would argue the rules
however what he did in ignoring the incident and carrying on regardless is inexcusable and there should be some kind of punishment
excuse me if i dont think the "hell have their deaths on his conscience" blurb is good enough, if he had one of those he would have done something about it

Oh yeah, I fully agree that they sail boat will and should have done something, as they were a competant crew. And that the officer of the Bilbao was an idiot!

Metalhead, well have to agree to disagree I think. As the Bilbo only had a draft of 6m, and the position it was when hit, that isnt a factor at all. The channel is easily deep enough for a draft of 20 - 30m.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: chrisdickoThat shipping channel isnt narrow though! Its Huge. A narrow channel would be something like the Suez canal.

Still narrow when in comparison to the open sea.

Outside shipping channels the solent is treacherous, I hit sand banks often, the shipping channels in the solent are not very wide.

From the flats next to me you can see the Isle of White, the Solent is not as wide as people think.

I live in Fareham.

the solent,



 I moved into  Solent Breezers at age 12, solent Breezers has its own slipway.
http://www.hampshireholidays.com/


basically the way the solent works, it a known fact shipping lanes are safe,
 we all use them to avoid sand banks
but we know of the dangers, the Solent is the busiest stretch of water in the world,
if we see a ferry we get out of his way its his lane, the yacht didnt and paid the price, the yacht shouldnt
have been there.
Lanes clearly marked out, not the ferries fault.


Edit. Our local news covered it intesly, Winchester Crown court has found the man not guilty on all charges.