Pauhia ferry crash

[Island Time 1,278]

Does not matter what electronics you have. The colregs say you must keep watch by all available means - so sight, radar and AIS if you have it etc. People who have radar and "oh I hardly ever use it" risk issues if there is a collision. It's amazing on a boat with modern radar and AIS how often the electronics see stuff the crew  on deck dont!

[harrytom 671]

The ferry being the stand on vessel must also try to avoid collision too. Turned to stb may of been more of a gunnel to gunnel contact. But it will come out in 18 months. 

[waikiore 438]

Very true IT, I am reminded of the unfortunate Northland Coastguard crash about 15 years ago when the crew carried on at pace but did not know where they were till hit NZ . The plotter on board showed an absolutely accurate course. 

[Rats 43]

On 14/04/2023 at 8:03 PM, Ex Machina said:

It’s a trophy not a Boston whaler and not a launch either .  Heavy solid boats and it shows when you look at the difference in damage to either vessel .

 

 

The vessel is a Boston Whaler Conquest 305 and it would appear the boat is built like the proverbial brick out house considering the relative damage to the vessel compared to that of the ferry.

I am guessing there may be some delamination below that gel coat though.

[syohana 37]

17 minutes ago, Rats said:

The vessel is a Boston Whaler Conquest 305 and it would appear the boat is built like the proverbial brick out house considering the relative damage to the vessel compared to that of the ferry.

I am guessing there may be some delamination below that gel coat though.

Looks like the anchor sticking out on the bow did most of the damage like a battering ram. I'm not so sure the boston whaler was especially well built, it just hit head on. Triangles of any material are very strong, the triangular bow of the launch hit the flat side of the ferry and easily swept off the wheelhouse which was non-original, non-structural, lightweight and just tacked on top of the ferry.

If it had been the other way around then I'm sure the triangular bow of the ferry would have destroyed the flat side of launch quite effectively.

The lack of damage below the waterline is actually testament to how strongly built the ferry was. Pretty impressive that the hull below water stayed intact even with the beam shelf and top of the frames smashed in. Such a shame that nobody bothered to tow her to the haul out before she sank but I guess nobody wanted to be blamed for sinking her if she sank while being towed.

Presumably the sinking was was just due to plank seams and the wakes splashing into the hole from all the boats coming to have a look. Bilge pumps would have kept up until the battery died.

As for suggestions the ferry could have done something to avoid collision, it was effectively almost stationary compared to the launch and had no idea which way the launch might turn at the last moment. Any avoiding action the ferry took would have been as likely to make things worse - turning to starboard could have caused the launch to hit the passengers rather than the wheelhouse.

There was only one thing the ferry could do - the ferry should have been sounding their horn in a continuous series of short blasts to alert the launch of the impending collision from the moment the skipper became aware of the launch on collision course. Apparently this was not done, either the ferry skipper never saw the launch coming or his horn was not functioning, so there does appear to be a small technical fault on the part of the ferry but overwhelmingly the launch was at fault. It was probably too noisy on the launch to hear the horn so this is purely academic.

Sadly MaritimeNZ will probably focus on trying to find some kind of technical fault like that with the commercial vessel (however minor) and will largely ignore the leisure vessel because their jurisdiction is primarily over commercial vessels. It will be hard to find a suitable offence to charge the leisure vessel skipper with. Manslaughter would be appropriate if someone had died but fortunately nobody did die (hoping the ferry skipper makes a full recovery) so there are very limited options to hold the launch skipper criminally accountable. Assuming they had insurance then their insurance company will end up footing the bill and there may be no consequences for them personally.

[Ex Machina 381]

4 hours ago, Rats said:

The vessel is a Boston Whaler Conquest 305 and it would appear the boat is built like the proverbial brick out house considering the relative damage to the vessel compared to that of the ferry.

I am guessing there may be some delamination below that gel coat though.

Yeah sorry my bad . It Certainly won the conquest in this situation 

[Black Panther 1,672]

I'm sure MNZ will want to know if they were all wearing life jackets. 

[Hamish 4]

23 hours ago, harrytom said:

The ferry being the stand on vessel must also try to avoid collision too. Turned to stb may of been more of a gunnel to gunnel contact. But it will come out in 18 months. 

On Sunday night there was a doco about the Sydney Harbour 2008 tragedy. A bunch of pissed up kids collided with a fishing boat and 2 in the morning, but your point came into my mind watching this, as the kids (and a little older) got the book thrown at them, the fishos walked away. 

 

[Romany 162]

 crazy ivan moves are pretty hard to avoid. 

 

[Zozza 319]

The punk on the powerboat needs the book thrown at him.

He can defend himself in court, no problem with that -- we are a modern democratic nation with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing as much as sometimes we feels things are cut and dried

However, no matter what evasive action the ferry "shoulda coulda woulda" taken, the stinkpot was obviously exceeding the confined waters speed limit which massively contributed to the eventual impact collision with the resultant life threatening injuries to the ferry skipper.....if found guilty there just has to be some very serious consequences if not jail time.

[grant 44]

Section 65 of the Maritime Transport Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0104/latest/DLM335758.html casuing unnecessary danger or risk to any other person.  It is the section of the Act that is used in relation to recreational craft, and, although not often, it does get used .

[syohana 37]

2 hours ago, grant said:

Section 65 of the Maritime Transport Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0104/latest/DLM335758.html casuing unnecessary danger or risk to any other person.  It is the section of the Act that is used in relation to recreational craft, and, although not often, it does get used .

That does seem to cover it, though the maximum sentence is rather low.

I wouldn't be surprised if Maritime NZ say the launch isn't a commercial vessel so they will leave it to the police to prosecute (and perhaps MaritimeNZ decide to prosecute the ferry on a technicality because it's commercial). ....Meanwhile the police say it's under the Maritime Transport Act, they'll leave it to Maritime NZ to prosecute. .....Meanwhile the deadline to file charges slips by.

[harrytom 671]

The call for regristration not nessacary. The insurance companies could say"no day skipper corse or better. no insurance" one way getting people to know basic rules.?

Currently you can purchase near any size vessel in NZ with no idea about rules etc.When was the last time a dealer/broker said"heres a booklet on rules of the sea?"

[grant 44]

12 hours ago, syohana said:

That does seem to cover it, though the maximum sentence is rather low.

I wouldn't be surprised if Maritime NZ say the launch isn't a commercial vessel so they will leave it to the police to prosecute (and perhaps MaritimeNZ decide to prosecute the ferry on a technicality because it's commercial). ....Meanwhile the police say it's under the Maritime Transport Act, they'll leave it to Maritime NZ to prosecute. .....Meanwhile the deadline to file charges slips by.

MNZ have prosecuted recreational craft under this before. 

[Frank 157]

18 hours ago, harrytom said:

The call for regristration not nessacary. The insurance companies could say"no day skipper corse or better. no insurance" one way getting people to know basic rules.?

Currently you can purchase near any size vessel in NZ with no idea about rules etc.When was the last time a dealer/broker said"heres a booklet on rules of the sea?"

That idea has merit, and maybe if you are successfully prosecuted under maritime law then your insurance claim is denied, maybe that is already in the contract small print.

[aardvarkash10 1,056]

58 minutes ago, Frank said:

That idea has merit, and maybe if you are successfully prosecuted under maritime law then your insurance claim is denied, maybe that is already in the contract small print.

Insurance contracts almost universally exclude cover where the insured claimant is grossly negligent or knowingly breaking the law.

[Steve Pope 253]

10 hours ago, grant said:

MNZ have prosecuted recreational craft under this before. 

I seem to remember a large motor boat that hit and sank a Classic yacht, injured the yachts crew, in Auckland Harbour, Wasn't he found not guilty???

[waikiore 438]

Umm Large yacht actually , he said all the right things and the innocent crew said all the wrong things. 

[kiwi_jon 27]

St Clair-Brown was fined $200 which is the maximum fine the Harbour master can give 

[Steve Pope 253]

1 hour ago, kiwi_jon said:

St Clair-Brown was fined $200 which is the maximum fine the Harbour master can give 

BUT no charges from MNZ or of them using Health and safety as a back up?