BigBendFishing.Net

Posted at live leak on March 21, 2008

Coast Guard Auxiliary Accident

What were they thinking?

YIKES!!! Those dudes are lucky as hell!!

This was posted on another forum sometime back. I think the final outcome found the CG cutter was wrong according to the rules of navigation, HOWEVER, they were doing a rescue, and the other boats captain was also not paying attention.

I compare this to a cop on a call with lights and siren blowing a red light and hitting a car. Yeah, it was an emergency call, but you still gotta take precautions.

In my opinion, the accident was easily avoidable, and BOTH captains were not paying proper attention.

This is how you die on the water. Add a few to many , and you die quicker.

Dubble

Wow. The CG guy is probably workin' a desk job now.

Flats Rascal wrote:Wow. The CG guy is probably workin' a desk job now.

Yep, and he can't say he didn't see the other boat. If you listen close to the clip, you can hear them hailing the boat on their loudspeaker. To me, that is what tilts it more against the CG captain. With the other vessel to the guys starboard side, he could have been watching that boat and not have seen the CG boat. But I still say they BOTH share some blame.

Dubble

rules of the road. The Coast Guard Auxiliary captain was in the wrong.

Rule 15

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.



In addition It is obvious that the Coast Guard Captain also saw the other boat and should have made whatever manuver necessary to avoid a collision

RULE 7
RISK OF COLISION

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:

Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;
Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.

If the coast guard was running a blocking maneuver to keep boats from running over a man in the water, then its proper. Secondly, every boat driver is responsible to be aware of and take direction of lawful authority. Do you need to see any other legal excuses that will come up when these boys make a claim against the coast guard '-)

I just listened to it and they clearly state that the CG was blocking vessels from running through an area with a missing boater within If yer to drunk or preoccupied ta see a CG vessel cutting across yer path then you will get run over for yer stupidity and the Capt of the CG boat was a civilian volunteer, not CG personnel "also stated in the clip"

Nothing in the clip says anything about anyone drinking.

Also I doubt anyone would hear a loudspeaker over the sound of their engine, the wind and hull noise that is unless it is one of those super quiet E-Techs. I've had the marine patrol with lights and siren going behind me in the St. Marks River and not known it until I turned around to check behind me. Of course all they wanted to do was their typical safety check and to make sure I didn't have too many of those endangered red grouper.

I don't want anyone sued but I believe that there is no excuse for the Coast Guard Auxiliary running that boat over. That was poor judgement on the captains part. They sure did get his attention though.

The boating skills of the Coast Guard Auxiliary are somewhat suspect if they are anything like the ones at St. Marks. You should watch them docking. Either they slam into the dock or stop so far away that they are flailing around with a boat hook trying to get ahold of something. Quite a show.

I do appreciate the fact that they volunteer their time. The ones in St. Marks are really nice guys and I can tell they love what they do.

The Rules of the Road apply to everyone!!

Of course most boaters have no clue!

I do't care who you are or what yer doing if you can't see a boat 4 times yer size on a collision course with ya, ya don't need ta be on the water PERIOD Coming from behind is one thing, but them boys shoulda seen that coming a long way off

I think we can sum it up by saying that this is what happens when 2 totally clueless people happen to occupy the same spot on the earth.

Dubble

I

think we can sum it up by saying that this is what happens when 2 totally clueless people happen to occupy the same spot on the earth.

HOOO - RAAAA !!!

WTG Double T

wevans wrote:I do't care who you are or what yer doing if you can't see a boat 4 times yer size on a collision course with ya, ya don't need ta be on the water PERIOD Coming from behind is one thing, but them boys shoulda seen that coming a long way off

I'm with Weavans on this one. This was not a rear catch up, they driver of the small boat should have paid better attention. If I was in the water and some nut was speeding down on me, I would hope the CG would do a block. However, I would hope that it would not distract from the rescue so much that I drowned, which is what apparently happened here.

You sure are jumping to conclusions here.

You seem to think that there was someone in the water and the speedboat was about to run them down.

Don't believe the coast guard had any swimmer in view. In fact I'm sure that the coast guard only had a rough idea where there was a report of someone overboard.

You seem to think that because the coast guard boat ran down the other boat that they were delayed from their rescue and the person drowned.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The guy had probably already drowned before the search began.

Great debate! I'm lovin' it. I am new to the forum, but I just can't resist putting in a few cents.

This scene is similar to what I have come to expect at the St. Marks bird rack parties during the summer. We have all been there, and since we are alive and reading this, I assume we all have had to come off plane to avoid someone that did not see us or did not know the rules.

As for the video there is probably a lot more to this story that we don't know. However, do you think that if Mr. Oblivious in the small boat had seen the CG, he would have been staring into the camera right before the collision. Take a look, I think I see the back of both men's head. My opinion is that Mr. 'O' really did not see the CG, because he seems to have been staring (maybe even waving) at the other vessel in the background moments before impact. He was in the process of passing that vessel and he ignored his own port side. Yes, he should have seen a large CG vessel and recognized that this was no time to force the issue, but he did have the official right of way.

CG loses; if the CG new where the swimmer was, he would have been rescued already. Ramming a small vessel with two men on board to prevent Mr. 'O' from speeding into a protected area? I think the CG was running even faster? Was that somehow less dangerous? Could ramming a smaller vessel (if proved intentional) at these speeds be considered a use of lethal force? Both parties are at fault, but the CG bears the greater resonsibility.

I think Dubble Trubble and RC are right on the money. Thank y'all for your patience