Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 10:20:58 GMT
There must have been a particular reason for overtaking the Hurlingham in that location. Two bored skippers playing silly buggers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 11:49:33 GMT
But how much practical knowledge did they have? I have consistently argued that the lack of visibility is what caused this but you have to admit that Tony has got a fair point that if the passenger launch had been separated from the path of the dredger then it would have been physically impossible for the incident to have occurred. I will admit that had the Marchioness been somewhere else other than in the path of the Bowbelle then the Bowbelle would not have hit it. A bit tautological, but true. Also, if the stationary traffic queue that occurred on the A34 in 2016 had in fact not developed then the lorry which hit it (killing a mother and three children) would not have done so. Thus we can arrive at the conclusion that the villain of that tale was the traffic queue. But it did. And the Bowbelle did hit the Marchioness from astern with the skipper and crew oblivious to its presence which did result in the deaths of 51 people (and also did carry on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance). But it was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Marchioness, right? And they got what was coming. Literally. BTW, QCs and the like tend to make statements outside of their daily experience based on the testimony of expert witnesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 11:57:37 GMT
I refrain from participating in this river based thread due to lack of knowledge and experience, but am finding it very interesting. However I do have experience of Queen's Counsel @nemesis ... and I have no hesitation in saying they will say EXACTLY what they are paid to say ... and do it with great skill and eloquence too Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 16, 2020 12:00:52 GMT
I refrain from participating in this river based thread due to lack of knowledge and experience, but am finding it very interesting. However I do have experience of Queen's Counsel @nemesis ... and I have no hesitation in saying they will say EXACTLY what they are paid to say ... and do it with great skill and eloquence too Rog They got you off for a share of the profits eh? You set em up... ππππ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 13:20:22 GMT
But how much practical knowledge did they have? I have consistently argued that the lack of visibility is what caused this but you have to admit that Tony has got a fair point that if the passenger launch had been separated from the path of the dredger then it would have been physically impossible for the incident to have occurred. I will admit that had the Marchioness been somewhere else other than in the path of the Bowbelle then the Bowbelle would not have hit it. A bit tautological, but true. Also, if the stationary traffic queue that occurred on the A34 in 2016 had in fact not developed then the lorry which hit it (killing a mother and three children) would not have done so. Thus we can arrive at the conclusion that the villain of that tale was the traffic queue. But it did. And the Bowbelle did hit the Marchioness from astern with the skipper and crew oblivious to its presence which did result in the deaths of 51 people (and also did carry on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance). But it was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Marchioness, right? And they got what was coming. Literally. BTW, QCs and the like tend to make statements outside of their daily experience based on the testimony of expert witnesses. If you bring in comparisons with road traffic accidents then you arrrr getting onto thin ice. It's not a comparison at all. If you strip back the suggestion by TonyDunkley to the detail which is that no other vessels should occupy the very predictable path of large commercials with limited forward visibility during the very predictable times when they will be going through a particular area then you arrive at a very logical solution for avoiding collisions. You don't need a lookout, VHF, ais, radar or anything else because the collision would be an impossibility unless something ridiculous happened. It's the old school way of thinking. Imagine a massive bird shat on the wheelhouse glass and all the electrics went out on the dredger. They would be blind but if navigating correctly and other boats not in their predictable path the worst that could happen is a bridge collision. It doesn't specifically mean the skipper of the pleasure cruiser was at fault, that is much too easy a conclusion. It means that the systems behind qualification as a boat master have some flaws. I would suggest the real cause is a financial gain motive somewhere along the line.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 16, 2020 13:26:49 GMT
not a bad summing up Andrew
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 17, 2020 23:50:06 GMT
But how much practical knowledge did they have? I have consistently argued that the lack of visibility is what caused this but you have to admit that Tony has got a fair point that if the passenger launch had been separated from the path of the dredger then it would have been physically impossible for the incident to have occurred. I will admit that had the Marchioness been somewhere else other than in the path of the Bowbelle then the Bowbelle would not have hit it. A bit tautological, but true. Also, if the stationary traffic queue that occurred on the A34 in 2016 had in fact not developed then the lorry which hit it (killing a mother and three children) would not have done so. Thus we can arrive at the conclusion that the villain of that tale was the traffic queue. But it did. And the Bowbelle did hit the Marchioness from astern with the skipper and crew oblivious to its presence which did result in the deaths of 51 people (and also did carry on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance). But it was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Marchioness, right? And they got what was coming. Literally. BTW, QCs and the like tend to make statements outside of their daily experience based on the testimony of expert witnesses. The comparison of the MARCHIONESS/BOWBELLE collision with a vehicle, stationary on a trunk road behind a traffic queue, being hit by a lorry has to rank as one of the most idiotic posts ever to see the light of day on this forum, . . or any other ! The vehicles in the traffic queue would have been stationary or moving very slowly along the A34 carriageway due to circumstances entirely beyond the control of those driving them, the MARCHIONESS, on the other hand, was unnecessarily sharing a very narrow and clearly defined deepwater channel with a ship approximately three times it's size and which, due to it's draught and manoeuvering characteristics, particularly low speed rate of turn, would not have been able make anything but the very slightest of deviations from the track it was following. Your comment concerning BOWBELLE - "[carrying] on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance" would be faintly amusing, . . were it not so utterly and sickeningly crass ! Do you really think that the correct course of action for the crew of BOWBELLE would have been to have their 1800(+) DWT vessel stopping and anchoring, in a strongly running tide, close enough to the capsized and sinking MARCHIONESS to "render assistance" with God knows how many people already in the water and the likelihood of more trying to escape from it ? Words fail me !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 7:53:27 GMT
But why did the crew of BOWBELLE not throw any flotation devices into the water? Were they quick thinking enough to realise that it would have had no effect due to the tidal flow and that the liferings or liferafts would have been too far away from anyone who might benefit? Probably correct but would be quite a quick thought process to decide against it for that reason. I think throwing some things in would have indicated good intent even if it was pointless.
It's true that adding air to the water via reversing the propeller rotation would have been detrimental to anyone in the water nearby and throwing anything in would have been too late but did they actually realise these two things or just want to get out of the way for other reasons like breath tests ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 9:06:09 GMT
I will admit that had the Marchioness been somewhere else other than in the path of the Bowbelle then the Bowbelle would not have hit it. A bit tautological, but true. Also, if the stationary traffic queue that occurred on the A34 in 2016 had in fact not developed then the lorry which hit it (killing a mother and three children) would not have done so. Thus we can arrive at the conclusion that the villain of that tale was the traffic queue. But it did. And the Bowbelle did hit the Marchioness from astern with the skipper and crew oblivious to its presence which did result in the deaths of 51 people (and also did carry on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance). But it was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Marchioness, right? And they got what was coming. Literally. BTW, QCs and the like tend to make statements outside of their daily experience based on the testimony of expert witnesses. Words fail me !!! When?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 9:18:27 GMT
I will admit that had the Marchioness been somewhere else other than in the path of the Bowbelle then the Bowbelle would not have hit it. A bit tautological, but true. Also, if the stationary traffic queue that occurred on the A34 in 2016 had in fact not developed then the lorry which hit it (killing a mother and three children) would not have done so. Thus we can arrive at the conclusion that the villain of that tale was the traffic queue. But it did. And the Bowbelle did hit the Marchioness from astern with the skipper and crew oblivious to its presence which did result in the deaths of 51 people (and also did carry on past the scene of the accident with no attempt to render assistance). But it was entirely the fault of the skipper of the Marchioness, right? And they got what was coming. Literally. BTW, QCs and the like tend to make statements outside of their daily experience based on the testimony of expert witnesses. If you bring in comparisons with road traffic accidents then you arrrr getting onto thin ice. It's not a comparison at all. If you strip back the suggestion by TonyDunkley to the detail which is that no other vessels should occupy the very predictable path of large commercials with limited forward visibility during the very predictable times when they will be going through a particular area then you arrive at a very logical solution for avoiding collisions. You don't need a lookout, VHF, ais, radar or anything else because the collision would be an impossibility unless something ridiculous happened. It's the old school way of thinking. Imagine a massive bird shat on the wheelhouse glass and all the electrics went out on the dredger. They would be blind but if navigating correctly and other boats not in their predictable path the worst that could happen is a bridge collision. It doesn't specifically mean the skipper of the pleasure cruiser was at fault, that is much too easy a conclusion. It means that the systems behind qualification as a boat master have some flaws. I would suggest the real cause is a financial gain motive somewhere along the line. The problem with all systems is that at some point things go wrong whether through human error or equipment failure. The root cause of most aviation incidents, for example, is still pilot error. The final act in any tragedy is the response made to it. Bowbelle's reaction was to heroically stop several miles downstream where their propellers were definitely beyond any potential risk to the survivors. Chucking some flotation devices over the side may have been a futile gesture, but if it had helped one person then it would have been worth it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 9:39:04 GMT
Propeller not propellers. Single screw with a big Mirrlees unit in there. It seems karma came and dealt with the Bowbelle eventually. www.clydeships.co.uk/view.php?ref=391End year Fate / Status 1996 Sank 25/03/1996 Disposal Detail Broke in two & sank during storm while dredging off Ponto do Sol, Madalena do Mar, Madeira. All crew lost*. --- How grim *ETA other sources say 1 lost 6 saved. www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?100488
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:06:27 GMT
"When danger reared it's ugly head He bravely turned his tail and fled Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out Swiftly taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat"
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 18, 2020 17:32:31 GMT
Not affected by 6 pints?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 17:40:24 GMT
Two juries heard the FULL evidence and could not reach a verdict.
Are you suggesting the two juries were wrong based on the odd 'quote' you posted ... that the legal system is wrong which allowed that outcome ... or that some 'conspiracy' for whatever reason, sought and succeeded to ensure there was no conviction ?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:08:01 GMT
It's interesting that this was not a critical factor. Let's say a unit per hour removed from system by the body, approximately, and the start time for the drinking was for example 6pm. 6 pints of low content say Fosters would be 6x4x.568 so that's around 13.6 units overall. It would depend on when the intake started but if it started at 6pm and the accident was 1am then that's down to around 6 units which is like having 3 pints of fosters in quick succession. He might not actually have been at all pissed. To be fair. And he may not have been on the amber nectar. Could have been drinking wife beater or seΓ±orita beater. Also I think 31 years old is too young to face this sort of nightmare. Surely there should be some age limit in boatmasters. Give them a chance to get some life experience as well as boat handling.
|
|