96030 Collision Fishing Pots
I
| Is GMDSS a Failure? |
Report No. 96030 |
A fishing vessel, "A", was on an easterly heading and engagedin hauling a line of pots which was about 1 mile long and lay in a north/southdirection off a port on the east coast. The pot line was marked at eachend by a buoy. It was daylight, the weather was fine with visibility about1 - 2 miles and a light easterly wind. The tide was setting in a northerlydirection and the fishing boat was exhibiting a basket.
A cargo vessel, "B", was approaching the harbour at about 15 knots and steering 2500T, the fishing vessel was sighted and appeared to be passing clear. The fishing vessel was concerned that the cargo vessel would cross pot line and foul one of the riser lines. The skipper called on VHF Ch 16 but received no reply. Shortly afterwards, the pot line became suddenly taught and had to be cut by a crewman to avoid injury. The cargo vessel passed the fishing vessel less than 3 cables on her port side. The watchkeeper on the cargo vessel was unaware of the incident until he was interviewed on arrival in port. He had seen the fishing vessel, which according to its heading was passing clear.
MAIB COMMENT
- Although hauling gear which was extended up to 1 mile, the fishing vessel did not show the cone to indicate that she had gear extending more than 150m. In fact the skipper was unaware of this signal (Rule 26 (c) (ii))
- When VHF contact could not be made, the fishing vessel did not sound more than 5 short blasts as per Rule 34 (d). Again, the skipper was apparently not aware of this signal.
- The skipper of the fishing boat did not appreciate that, on a vessel approaching the port, the VHF will be in regular use contacting the pilot etc.
- The fishing vessel's skipper had not appreciated that, from his vessel's easterly heading, the watchkeeper on the cargo vessel judged that she would pass clear, there being no indication of any outlying gear apart from the 14" diameter riser buoys which would have been readily visible. Even if they were seen, it would not be readily apparent that they were being hauled by the fishing vessel.
- In visibility of 1 - 2 miles, the fishing vessel's skipper should have realised that an approaching vessel would have little time to asses visually that he was hauling a pot line.
- The cargo vessel could have altered away from the fishing vessel to avoid a close quarters situation. Knowledge of fishing techniques and the degree by which the manoeuvrability of a fishing vessel may be limited would make a prudent watchkeeper allow a wider berth, given that there was sufficient sea room.
- The fishing vessel's skipper, when interviewed after the event, proved to have only a vague knowledge of the Collision Regulations.
CONCLUSIONS BY THE MAIB
This is an example where lack of knowledge of the Collision Regulationsby a fishing vessel's skipper, combined with the lack of appreciation ofhow his operations would be perceived by an approaching vessel, led to theloss of expensive equipment and could have resulted in injury. It also showshow passing too close to a fishing vessel when uncertain about her typeof operations or manoeuvrability can lead to a hazardous incident.
It underlines the importance of all fishermen having a good knowledgeof the Collision Regulations and of all watchkeepers understanding the natureof different fishing operations and the degree to which fishing vesselsare hampered. All watchkeepers should be referred to the Nautical InstituteBriefing "A Vessel Engaged in Fishing" published in October 1992.