British ship rams Danish vessel - Two Detained

[Vixen]

In developing news, a 30-year -old British man and a 56-year-old Croatian are currently in custody in Sweden after their vessel, a British-registered cargo ship, the Scot Carrier, appeared to have ‘run over’ a cargo vessel under the Danish flag, the Karin Høj. One person was found dead in the hull of the stricken vessel and another lost at sea after a long search, despite cries being heard from the water by rescuers.

This happened circa 3:30 in the early hours of Monday, as the two vessels traversed the 25-mile gap between Southern Sweden, near Ystad, and Bornholm Island. The Scot Carrier was behind the Karin Høj proceeding at 12kn, having loaded with timber in North Latvia, and the Karin Høj, with no load, at 6kn travelling towards Nykobing in South Denmark from Södertalje, near Stockholm.

The marine convention is that the ship overtaking has ‘right of way’ so to speak, with the other needing to give way. However, in this case, the tracking picked up by the Swedish Coast Guard seems to show the two boats running parallel before the Scot Carrier turns a sharp right, virtually directly abeam of Karin Høj, causing her to capsize and turn upside down, with one or two crew thrown into the icy Baltic waters (temperature circa 4°C). It then seemed to turn sharply again, before moving off.

A nearby vessel overheard the Swedish Coast Guard being informed by the Scot Carrier that they thought they might have hit something but weren’t sure, whereupon they were ordered to return to assist in the rescue, which the Scot Carrier proceeded to do. It is not clear how the Coast Guard was alerted of the incident. It appears Scot Carrier had proceeded forward for half an hour and almost an hour had passed by the time it returned.

The two men in custody were found to have an over-the-limit amount of alcohol in their blood stream. Both have been detained, suspected of breaking a drinking at sea law – applicable to crews on ships – gross negligence, and the 30-year-old British man alone, charged with causing death by involuntary manslaughter. This seems to suggest the British man was the person in charge on that watch. The ship is currently in the hands of the Swedish authorities, with none of those on board currently allowed to leave. A decision will be made ‘by noon’ as to whether the two aforementioned men will be formally charged. In addition, whether it is Swedish or Danish jurisdiction. As it seems to be outwith the 12-mile coastal waters limit of Sweden - more like 20 miles out and near the Danish Bornholm Island, it could be passed over to the Danes, as the victims are Danish nationals.

A couple of marine experts in Sweden and Finland have expressed the view that the Scot Carrier crew must have been drunk or asleep. More concerning is one report using the term that the Karin Høj looked like it had been ‘chased’, although that might be a foible of language usage in translation. The bow of the Scot Carrier shows a dent across the front, likely where it rammed into the Karin Høj at a near 90° angle and it then, curiously, zig-zagged back the other direction, before proceeding ahead without stopping. This indicates it knew it had hit something and raises the suspicion hinted at that it might even have been a deliberate act of folly, although the newspapers do not actually spell this out.

Quote:

A BRITISH cargo ship had sailed back and forth in the Baltic Sea on Monday night after colliding with a Danish cargo ship.

Swedish researchers and experts have come to such a preliminary understanding of what happened at night.

“Going sounds like a wild west,” Olle Rutgersson , a professor in the Department of Maritime and Marine Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology, tells the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet .

ON MONDAY , however, it was still unclear why Scot Carrier would have run into Karin Høj at all. Nilsson told Swedish media on Monday that Scot Carrier was moving hard and continued straight ahead after the collision.

<snip>

Prosecutor Tomas Olvmyr tells Swedish television SVT that he believes the cargo ships were running side by side when the British suddenly turned to the Danish side.

The same can be seen from real-time Marine Traffic data. According to the location data, the cargo ships would have first traveled in parallel towards their destinations until they collided.

After the collision, the British ship would have turned sharply to the left, then to the right, and then continued its journey further away from the scene of the accident.

<snip>

“The operation doesn’t sound normal at all,” Professor Rutgersson tells Aftonbladet.

According to him, collisions are also rare in the narrowly described Baltic Sea. Cargo ships also have equipment to detect other ships to prevent collisions.

“Ships should see each other as small dots. Surveillance must have been miserable if the crews did not notice each other. This is not normal at all. Either the crew of the [British ship] was asleep or drunk, or both, ”says Rutgersson.

Hesari

The Karin Høj is half the size of the Scot Carrier and built in 1977, whereas the latter was built 2018. Thus, one would have thought the much larger, more modern, ship would have had the prerequisite GPS, radar, navigation tools and transponders. The fact it suddenly turned abeam of Karin Høj suggest either it was taking late action to avoid her and miscalculated or for some other unknown reason owing to losing control.

Graphics credit: Helsingin Sanomat

[Reformed Offlian]

What standalone point about current events that has absolutely nothing to do with the MS Estonia are you trying to make here?

[Captain_Swoop]

Deliberate? haha that's funny.

It was dark and foggy, they probably didn't know it was there.
From the damage it looks like they over ran it and pushed it over, they will have heard and felt the bang. If it had been a bigger ship they would have certainly known they had hit another ship but with the Karin Hoej being so small they probably thought it was just debris in the water.
From the track after the collision it looks like they turned hard to port after the collision maybe to try and see what they hit or temporarily lost command.
With the other ship being turned over and riding so low in the water I doubt it was visible in the dark. They then resumed their original course.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The marine convention is that the ship overtaking has ‘right of way’ so to speak, with the other needing to give way.

No. That is not correct.

Originally Posted by Vixen

However, in this case, the tracking picked up by the Swedish Coast Guard

No, the tracks shown in your images come from web services that track AIS broadcasts from ships. Those services are not run by Swedish Coast Guard.

Originally Posted by Vixen

A nearby vessel overheard the Swedish Coast Guard being informed by the Scot Carrier that they thought they might have hit something but weren’t sure, whereupon they were ordered to return to assist in the rescue, which the Scot Carrier proceeded to do. It is not clear how the Coast Guard was alerted of the incident.

Again wrong. The nearby ship did not hear the Coast Guard, they heard JRCC, that is operated by the Swedish Maritime Administration. And it's clear how JRCC got notified - it was via the EPIRB from the danish ship.

Please go to the primary source, instead of trusting a news paper report.

Here is the Q&A from the Swedish Maritime Administration: https://www.sjofartsverket.se/en/abo...hip-collision/

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The marine convention is that the ship overtaking has ‘right of way’ so to speak, with the other needing to give way. However, in this case, the tracking picked up by the Swedish Coast Guard seems to show the two boats running parallel before the Scot Carrier turns a sharp right, virtually directly abeam of Karin Høj, causing her to capsize and turn upside down, with one or two crew thrown into the icy Baltic waters (temperature circa 4°C). It then seemed to turn sharply again, before moving off.

This is absolutely wrong. The overtaken vessel has the right of way (so to speak ), and the overtaking vessel is required to give way. Is there anything you can't make an elementary mistake about?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Deliberate? haha that's funny.

It was dark and foggy, they probably didn't know it was there.
From the damage it looks like they over ran it and pushed it over, they will have heard and felt the bang. If it had been a bigger ship they would have certainly known they had hit another ship but with the Karin Hoej being so small they probably thought it was just debris in the water.
From the track after the collision it looks like they turned hard to port after the collision maybe to try and see what they hit or temporarily lost command.
With the other ship being turned over and riding so low in the water I doubt it was visible in the dark. They then resumed their original course.

According to marine traffic, the Karin Høj was travelling in a straight line, as you can see from the graphic. It should have given way. However, the Scot Carrier running parallel suddenly turns sharply to starboard and runs over her.

Why would it have done that?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

No. That is not correct.

Yes sorry, I didn't pick up on this, it is the exact opposite, if you are overtaking it is your duty to keep clear.

If you are passing it depends on the relative courses of the ships as to which one passes ahead or astern of the other one.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

According to marine traffic, the Karin Høj was travelling in a straight line, as you can see from the graphic. It should have given way. However, the Scot Carrier running parallel suddenly turns sharply to starboard and runs over her.

Why would it have done that?

Why should it have given way to a ship overtaking it?

Scot Carrier turned to starboard because it had not noticed the other ship was there.
Bad watchkeeping.

[Silly Green Monkey]

And then immediately turned back onto its course? It's a strange deviation to make, if they didn't know there was a boat there.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

According to marine traffic, the Karin Høj was travelling in a straight line, as you can see from the graphic. It should have given way.

Again, no. Karin Høj was the slower ship, being overtaken. Scot Carrier can either be seen as the ship overtaking (so they need to give way COLREG 13), or as a ship approaching with Karin Høj on their starboard site (so they need to give way COLREG 15).

Originally Posted by Vixen

However, the Scot Carrier running parallel suddenly turns sharply to starboard and runs over her.

Why would it have done that?

One simple explanation may be - The Danish Ship was going to Denmark, so it's course would be straight ahead. The Scot ship wanted a more westerly course to enter Öresund. So Scot Carrier had planned for a course change at that specific spot, and executed that course change according to plan, but without noticing the smaller ship.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Again, no. Karin Høj was the slower ship, being overtaken. Scot Carrier can either be seen as the ship overtaken (so they need to give way COLREG 13), or as a ship approaching with Karin Høj on their starboard site (so they need to give way COLREG 15).

One simple explanation may be - The Danish Ship was going to Denmark, so it's course would be straight ahead. The Scot ship wanted a more westerly course to enter Öresund. So Scot Carrier had planned for a course change at that specific spot, and executed that course change according to plan, but without noticing the smaller ship.

You mean "overtaking" here, of course. I'm just pointing this out so anyone unfamiliar isn't confused.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

You mean "overtaking" here, of course. I'm just pointing this out so anyone unfamiliar isn't confused.

Thank you - original post has been edited accordingly!

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

...A couple of marine experts in Sweden and Finland have expressed the view that the Scot Carrier crew must have been drunk or asleep¹...

one report using the term that the Karin Høj looked like it had been ‘chased’, although that might be a foible of language usage in translation²...

This indicates it knew it had hit something and raises the suspicion hinted at that it might even have been a deliberate act of folly³, although the newspapers do not actually spell this out⁴...

one would have thought the much larger, more modern, ship would have had the prerequisite GPS, radar, navigation tools and transponders⁵...

I see you are reporting on a current event. Some questions, if I may be so bold:

1. Who? Where? Citation please.

2. Where might one find this report? Citation please.

3. Raises suspicions with whom^*? You? Journalists? Marine accident investigators? Dung beetles?

4. When you say that "the newspapers do not actually spell this out" do you mean that they imply that it may be the case without directly saying it, or that they don't mention it as a possibility at all, and it is your own inference?

5. Are you saying that it didn't? Given that you described these various devices as "prerequisite", would it not be equally likely that the older, smaller vessel would also have them? Why are their relative sizes relevant to this point, anyway?

ETA: Please note, I only ask because I am aware that your thread on the reopening of the MS Estonia investigation being moved to the conspiracy theory section upset you, and I wouldn't want this thread to be similarly... miscategorised.


^*It is very possible that I'm using the wrong word here. I've never really got my head around the whole who/whom thing.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by junkshop

I see you are reporting on a current event. Some questions, if I may be so bold:

1. Who? Where? Citation please.

2. Where might one find this report? Citation please.

3. Raises suspicions with whom^*? You? Journalists? Marine accident investigators? Dung beetles?

4. When you say that "the newspapers do not actually spell this out" do you mean that they imply that it may be the case without directly saying it, or that they don't mention it as a possibility at all, and it is your own inference?

5. Are you saying that it didn't? Given that you described these various devices as "prerequisite", would it not be equally likely that the older, smaller vessel would also have them? Why are their relative sizes relevant, anyway?



^*It is very possible that I'm using the wrong word here. I've never really got my head around the whole who/whom thing.

The who and where is in the quote provided in the OP (Hesari).

A recent up date can be viewed here:

Quote:

The owner of the M/V Scot Carrier, which was involved in a fatal collision with a barge Monday off the coast of Sweden, is offering new details about what took place on board the ship after the collision as the investigation looks into possible criminal acts.

The MV Scot Carrier, a 2018-built general cargo ship, collided with the 55-meter barge ‘Karin Hoj’ off the island of Bornholm in fog early Monday morning, causing the barge to capsize. One crew member from the barge is dead and the other is missing.

Two crew members on the British cargo ship have been found to be over the legal limit for alcohol and are in police custody.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority is reportedly investigating several suspected crimes, including negligence in maritime traffic, causing death through negligence, and marine intoxication. Some reports have also depicts the incident as a maritime hit and run.

Scotline Marine Holdings Limited, as owner and managers of the Scot Carrier, issued a statement Tuesday providing some details regarding the events following the collision. According to the company, following the collision the barge’s EPIRB system was activated, prompting Swedish authorities to contact the Scot Carrier for further information.

“The 2nd Officer, who was on the bridge at the time requested the Master to come to the bridge of the ‘Scot Carrier’ where he reported contact with the Swedish Coastguard,” the company said.

“Once all crew members had been accounted for and an initial damage assessment completed, the Scot Carrier returned to the location of the incident and launched a rescue boat to participate in the search and rescue operation. It is understood that the time between the incident and the Scot Carrier altering course to the location of the incident was under 25 minutes.”

gCaptain

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

And then immediately turned back onto its course? It's a strange deviation to make, if they didn't know there was a boat there.

From the track data, the events appear to be:

• Course = SW through the narrows.
• New course = W , intending to go around peninsula.
• Hit "debris", port turn to avoid and check.
• Further port turn.
• Slow starboard turn to resume course = W
• Receive call to assist, starboard turn to reverse course = E.
• Course N to surrender to authorities.

Reasonable navigation had the other craft was not been present.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

A recent up date can be viewed here:

gCaptain

Why do you keep on doing these kind of things? Why link to and quote a site that reports what someone else is saying, when instead you can link directly to the primary source?

The primary source in this case is at https://www.scotline.co.uk/collision...rge-karin-hoj/

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The who and where is in the quote provided in the OP (Hesari)

Oops, my apologies, I managed to miss that.

And my other questions?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Again, no. Karin Høj was the slower ship, being overtaken. Scot Carrier can either be seen as the ship overtaking (so they need to give way COLREG 13), or as a ship approaching with Karin Høj on their starboard site (so they need to give way COLREG 15).

One simple explanation may be - The Danish Ship was going to Denmark, so it's course would be straight ahead. The Scot ship wanted a more westerly course to enter Öresund. So Scot Carrier had planned for a course change at that specific spot, and executed that course change according to plan, but without noticing the smaller ship.

It could be that Scot Carrier already charted its journey to change direction at that point according to the map. The Karin Høj seems to be heading as you say downwards to South Denmark, whilst the former seems to have used that point to make a sharp right.

Having said that it didn't need to be an urgent sharp right as it could just have carried on at 12 kns to Karin Høj's 6kn as no turn was really needed before Trelleborg.

Possibly being over the limit for alcohol was just a case of having had a half pint at supper and that did it.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

And then immediately turned back onto its course? It's a strange deviation to make, if they didn't know there was a boat there.

Well, why do you think they did it?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Again, no. Karin Høj was the slower ship, being overtaken. Scot Carrier can either be seen as the ship overtaking (so they need to give way COLREG 13), or as a ship approaching with Karin Høj on their starboard site (so they need to give way COLREG 15).

One simple explanation may be - The Danish Ship was going to Denmark, so it's course would be straight ahead. The Scot ship wanted a more westerly course to enter Öresund. So Scot Carrier had planned for a course change at that specific spot, and executed that course change according to plan, but without noticing the smaller ship.

Any course change will have been done by the automatic systems on to a pre laid heading when they reached a set point. It was bad watchkeeping by the bridge crew that caused the collision.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Oops, my apologies, I managed to miss that.

And my other questions?

"The Swedish Prosecution Authority is reportedly investigating several suspected crimes, including negligence in maritime traffic, causing death through negligence, and marine intoxication. Some reports have also depicts the incident as a maritime hit and run." see above.

This is likely just the police being the suspicious persons that they are. They will be determining whether it was an accident or drunkeness leading to avoidable danger.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It could be that Scot Carrier already charted its journey to change direction at that point according to the map. The Karin Høj seems to be heading as you say downwards to South Denmark, whilst the former seems to have used that point to make a sharp right.

Having said that it didn't need to be an urgent sharp right as it could just have carried on at 12 kns to Karin Høj's 6kn as no turn was really needed before Trelleborg.

The traffic separation zones in the area kind of limits your choices:



Coming down on a SW course, you exit the traffic separation zone at that south marker, and then aim for one of the next zones, either due W or due SW.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Any course change will have been done by the automatic systems on to a pre laid heading when they reached a set point. It was bad watchkeeping by the bridge crew that caused the collision.

That is quite a probable cause. And being intoxicated does not improve watch keeping.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It could be that Scot Carrier already charted its journey to change direction at that point according to the map. The Karin Høj seems to be heading as you say downwards to South Denmark, whilst the former seems to have used that point to make a sharp right.

Having said that it didn't need to be an urgent sharp right as it could just have carried on at 12 kns to Karin Høj's 6kn as no turn was really needed before Trelleborg.

Possibly being over the limit for alcohol was just a case of having had a half pint at supper and that did it.

Any course change will have been programmed in to the ECDIS system. Modern ships don't have anyone actually at the wheel when they are at sea.
There are usually two people on the bridge for standard running, in busy sea lanes or adverse conditions sometimes extra lookouts are posted.
SC will have come on to the preplanned position and the system will have changed course. It is the job of the bridge crew to keep a lookout and intervene if needed.
They obviously didn't see the other ship and their radar and BNWAS (Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System) didn't register the other ship for some reason. maybe it was too small to pick up or someone didn't set a guard zone.
Both ships have AIS so if the crew were paying attention and the systems working as they should they should have been aware of each other.
Or maybe the bridge crew of one or both were drunk or asleep or both.
We don't know yet.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

The traffic separation zones in the area kind of limits your choices:

https://i.postimg.cc/Px8dmjhR/image.png

Coming down on a SW course, you exit the traffic separation zone at that south marker, and then aim for one of the next zones, either due W or due SW.

Yes, there is a point of 'danger' where the traffic lanes cross. Extra care should have been taken and even extra lookouts posted.
Certainly someone should have been keeping a close watch on the digital plot, any other ships with AIS would have been showing up and posting it's course and speed. On top of this, primary radar would also be overlaid on to the plot. Any contact with a 'closest point of approach' coming inside a preset 'guard zone' should have triggered a warning.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

"The Swedish Prosecution Authority is reportedly investigating several suspected crimes, including negligence in maritime traffic, causing death through negligence, and marine intoxication. Some reports have also depicts the incident as a maritime hit and run." see above.

This is likely just the police being the suspicious persons that they are. They will be determining whether it was an accident or drunkeness leading to avoidable danger.

Which of my questions is this intended to relate to?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Yes, there is a point of 'danger' where the traffic lanes cross. Extra care should have been taken and even extra lookouts posted.
Certainly someone should have been keeping a close watch on the digital plot, any other ships with AIS would have been showing up and posting it's course and speed. On top of this, primary radar would also be overlaid on to the plot. Any contact with a 'closest point of approach' coming inside a preset 'guard zone' should have triggered a warning.

Yes. But I worry that someone turned the alarms off, or set it to silent, given the amount of traffic normally along the route.

Hopefully the investigation can identify what went wrong, and we can learn from it. But it will be an expensive lesson, and it may just point to the obvious actions that you would hope that ships around you take responsibility for performing already today.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Which of my questions is this intended to relate to?

The prosecutor the prosecutor newspaper reports and possibly ships of the class Karin Høj built 1977 are exempt from the type of navigation electronics and radio communications Scot Carrier, 2018, would have had.

BTW The automatically activated EPIRB on the Karin Høj, which alerted the JRCC via the COSPAS-SARSAT did its job as required within minutes after all.

[Captain_Swoop]

Better picture of the damage.
It's a flat bottom with protected props and a shallow draught of only 1.7 meters.
Designed to 'take the ground' in shallow tidal waters.
Also it seems it uses steerable props rather than rudders for manoeuvre.



Image of the engine arrangement. Two units on the stern with vertical prop shafts like big 'outboard motors'

[Vixen]

Here's a picture of the damaged bow of the Scot Carrier.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The prosecutor the prosecutor newspaper reports and possibly ships of the class Karin Høj built 1977 are exempt from the type of navigation electronics and radio communications Scot Carrier, 2018, would have had.

BTW The automatically activated EPIRB on the Karin Høj, which alerted the JRCC via the COSPAS-SARSAT did its job as required within minutes after all.

We know the ship has AIS, radar and GPS. It seems to have an up to date nav system.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

We know the ship has AIS, radar and GPS. It seems to have an up to date nav system.

Could the Karin Høj have avoided the accident, do you think?

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by junkshop

Which of my questions is this intended to relate to?

Originally Posted by Vixen

The prosecutor the prosecutor newspaper reports and possibly ships of the class Karin Høj built 1977 are exempt from the type of navigation electronics and radio communications Scot Carrier, 2018, would have had.

BTW The automatically activated EPIRB on the Karin Høj, which alerted the JRCC via the COSPAS-SARSAT did its job as required within minutes after all.

OK, something has clearly gone awry with your first sentence. Feel free to try again. The second appears to be in the wrong thread, it is certainly unrelated to anything I asked.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by junkshop

OK, something has clearly gone awry with your first sentence. The second appears to be in the wrong thread.

No, it was the EPIRB that alerted the authorities, the buoy floated clear and as is mandatory since the Estonia sinking it automatically activated.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Could the Karin Høj have avoided the accident, do you think?

Yes, if it was aware of the other ship and had enough time to react.
Ship's aren't like cars, they don't have brakes and take a time to react to course changes.
It is possible that they were lax in their watchkeeping too.

Very big ships collide in broad daylight, it happens more often than you would think.
Unfortunately in this case one of those involved was a lot smaller than the other.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No, it was the EPIRB that alerted the authorities, the buoy floated clear and as is mandatory since the Estonia sinking it automatically activated.

True, but not something I asked Vixen about.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The marine convention is that the ship overtaking has ‘right of way’ so to speak, with the other needing to give way.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

This is absolutely wrong. The overtaken vessel has the right of way (so to speak ), and the overtaking vessel is required to give way.

Okay - this is a very common mistake that is often made when discussing collisions at sea; I've made it myself several times in the past. It's an understandable mistake.

When it comes to an impending collision between vessels at sea, there is no "right-of-way". Both vessels have a duty to take whatever course of action is necessary to prevent the collision.

What people often mistakenly infer as bestowing a "right-of-way" is the guidelines for the actions each ship ought to take, and expect the other ship to take, under specific circumstances. There will always be a "give-way" vessel, whose responsibility is to positively change course or speed, and a "stand-on" vessel, whose responsibility is to not make any changes to their course or speed.

Have you ever been in or seen a situation where two people are walking toward each other on a sidewalk or in a hallway, and they both move to step out of each other's way at the same time, but they end up moving in the same global direction so they just run into each other anyway? That's what the guidelines are intended to prevent. It's not about the stand-on vessel having some right, or any "more" of a right, to do what it's doing versus the other vessel; it's more that it has a duty to not do anything which might interfere with or defeat the other vessel's actions to avoid the collision. It's funny when two people bump into each other in the hallway, laugh it off, and carry on; it's not so funny when it's two ships in a channel.

But here's the thing; this guidance isn't some hardline law that you're expected to stupidly follow to the bottom of the ocean. If you're the "stand-on" vessel according to the guidance, but it becomes clear that the "give-way" vessel isn't positively taking action the way it ought to be, you have a moral imperative to give-way instead if that will avoid or even just lessen the severity of the collision if it's unavoidable by that point.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But here's the thing; this guidance isn't some hardline law that you're expected to stupidly follow to the bottom of the ocean. If you're the "stand-on" vessel according to the guidance, but it becomes clear that the "give-way" vessel isn't positively taking action the way it ought to be, you have a moral imperative to give-way instead if that will avoid or even just lessen the severity of the collision if it's unavoidable by that point.

Which makes me think that both vessels were unaware of each other until the collision.
If the Karin Hoej only had two crew aboard, how tired were they and how effective was their watchkeeping?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Yes, if it was aware of the other ship and had enough time to react.
Ship's aren't like cars, they don't have brakes and take a time to react to course changes.
It is possible that they were lax in their watchkeeping too.

Very big ships collide in broad daylight, it happens more often than you would think.
Unfortunately in this case one of those involved was a lot smaller than the other.

To add to that, by speculating:

On board the Danish ship, there's probably only one person on watch, the other one is sleeping. The person on watch sees the Scot ship overtaking them, a fair distance to port, and is therefore not a concern. Checking their own plan, he can see that he should continue on a straight course so no immediate course changes to handle. So now is a good time to update the log book/perform an engine check/visit the heads/read a book/relax.

The Scot ship does it's turn, and a couple of minutes later the collision is a fact.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Okay - this is a very common mistake that is often made when discussing collisions at sea; I've made it myself several times in the past. It's an understandable mistake.

When it comes to an impending collision between vessels at sea, there is no "right-of-way". Both vessels have a duty to take whatever course of action is necessary to prevent the collision.

What people often mistakenly infer as bestowing a "right-of-way" is the guidelines for the actions each ship ought to take, and expect the other ship to take, under specific circumstances. There will always be a "give-way" vessel, whose responsibility is to positively change course or speed, and a "stand-on" vessel, whose responsibility is to not make any changes to their course or speed.

Have you ever been in or seen a situation where two people are walking toward each other on a sidewalk or in a hallway, and they both move to step out of each other's way at the same time, but they end up moving in the same global direction so they just run into each other anyway? That's what the guidelines are intended to prevent. It's not about the stand-on vessel having some right, or any "more" of a right, to do what it's doing versus the other vessel; it's more that it has a duty to not do anything which might interfere with or defeat the other vessel's actions to avoid the collision. It's funny when two people bump into each other in the hallway, laugh it off, and carry on; it's not so funny when it's two ships in a channel.

But here's the thing; this guidance isn't some hardline law that you're expected to stupidly follow to the bottom of the ocean. If you're the "stand-on" vessel according to the guidance, but it becomes clear that the "give-way" vessel isn't positively taking action the way it ought to be, you have a moral imperative to give-way instead if that will avoid or even just lessen the severity of the collision if it's unavoidable by that point.

Absolutely. Having been the stand on vessel (under sail, being overtaken, on a starboard tack) with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier* powering down on us, we did the only sensible thing which was to turn sharply away. There is only one outcome in ketch vs carrier.

* At that point not constrained by draft nor restricted in ability to manoeuvre nor launching or recovering aircraft.