Any lawyers out there???

[mangomick]

The following article was in power-boat.com

Investigations carried out by Australia's State and Commonwealth authorities after teen sailor Jessica Watson's collision with a merchant ship last week have come to nothing, as the yacht and the merchant ship were in international waters at the time, 15 nautical miles off the coast.

Jessica's 34ft yacht, Ella's Pink Lady, collided with a 225-metre Chinese bulk carrier, Silver Yang on Wednesday after she set sail for Sydney, where she had planned to start her record-breaking bid.

Andrew Fraser, spokesman for her public relations company, was quoted as saying, 'It's my understanding that nobody could be charged because it happened in international waters more than 12 miles offshore.'

OK my question is this.
If I'm fishing out at Fitzroy reef without safety gear and I'm nabbed I can get charged under Australian law so how come they are only 15 miles off shore and whoever was negligent can't get charged because it's deemed as international waters.

[Scott nthQld]

I'm assuming that there's a different set of laws for shipping.

Besides IMO it would be young Jessica that would be the one in trouble with the law, she was asleep at the helm and failed to give way to the bulk carrier, the bulk carrier has less maneovarability therefore has right of way, they wouldn't have even noticed so much as a speed bump after being hit byt the young girl so wouldn't have known to stop. AS far as I'm concerned, she was in international shipping lanes and if she's decides to leave the boat on autopilot of trundles off to sleep, well, thats just asking for trouble

[crab man]

Sounds like bullshit mate , surly they can charge somebody ! i think they have not charged anybody yet because who was in the wrong seems a little misty, Power gives way to sail although she failed to maintaine a constant watch and the bulk carrier may have been restrickted in its ability to manover so i guess nobody wants to say they were at fault ! i feel sorry for her those bloody carriers are flat out scrary and most dont speak english

[cormorant]

No law man but basic seamanship says someone must be on watch and to avoid collisions. That didn't happen so there fault by both parties up front - then allocate out who is more wrong??

The carrier says they had seen her on the radar - what action did they take?

She must have had a radar proximity warning bell herself? What did she do?

Radio? They spoke with each other after - why not before

There is a lot wrong with this story

This 12 mile thing. I thought we had teritorial waters under federal law and they administered the state laws the further you went out and international laws so I don't think you get away with no safety gear and teh fisheries blokes are out there inspecting and enforcing?. Someone must now but the media has no idea

Not enough knowns , unknowns and known unknowns to quote a USA president - I think or was it Sec of state?


I have tried communicating with a carrier an dit isn't easy with the language barrier

[FNQCairns]

Could be wrong but the old 12 mile was replaced with a 24mile international water line also we have an economic zone which is 200km??

We also have maritime borders ignorant/recalcitrant of international law as seen with our commonwealth government and boat people, pretty much they can do whatever they want, as there is no higher power with teeth.

Irrespective if you live here then all the laws apply, i do hope/think that possibly our legislated betters is going to let this lie, very often laws do more harm than good, the girl stuffed up, she is now well 'awake' to the realities and better for it.

cheers fnq

[levinge]

Makes you wonder doesn't it, The ship earlier this year that spilt all the oil around Straddie etc. He would've been more than 15Miles off the coast and yet the Government are chasing them for Compensation...

The authorities are putting ti in the "too hard basket" as it might come back to bite young Jess. Poor timing in her behalf to put herself in the busiest park of the ocean during the dark hours. I think she'll get stuff all from them and its been a big learning curve for her...

I hope she gets back to it, shame to bust a dream, so few people get to live them these days..

[Ozie_3]

on getting pinged for safetygear that far out (in international waters)....



unless you got there from FiJi or some forign land thenyoud be breaking the law getting there and back...so maybe fisheries could ping you twice....

just a thought...

[Mossy247]

Scotty's got it, what was she doing in the shipping lane having a nap. With the amount of radar equipment and GPS she didn't have any alarms going or what?

[toecutter]

It looks like it could be 24 nm according to the "Contiguous zone" at this site:
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf...riesandZones#2

...With the Jessica Watson vs ship thingy, I emit an audible groan every time I hear it mentioned that the lass collided with the ship. In actual fact the ship collided with her. The COLREGS are the rules of the sea, and nowhere in the COLREGS does it state that "the smaller vessel unconditionally gives way to the larger vessel", This would be akin to the road rules having a "rule" that says you have to stop at a green light to give way to the truck approaching the red light because he is "bigger and less manouverable" then you.

No matter how big the ship, the mere size of it alone does not restrict it's ability to manouver. The whole "restricted in ability to manouver" bit is referring to any vessels constrained by draught (as in if they change course, they run aground) or by some operation e.g. dredging, fishing or towing that, well, restricts their ability to manouver.

Some might be surprised that the COLREGS do, in fact, have a rule that states that power gives way to sail and other non motorised powered vessels unconditional to the relative sizes of the vessels. It also states that a vessel that has the right of way must "stand on". To stand on means to maintain course. Jessica Watson's boat was equipped with - from what i can gather and I could be wrong - radar and AIS so it could conceivably come out in the wash that she was maintaining lookout and simply standing on. Her one and only mistake being to leave it too late to take action to avoid a collision - quite a feasible scenario considering that at night it is extremely difficult to estimate distance and heading of vessels in open water by eye.

It may also be that Jessica didn't maintain a lookout. If this is the case neither did the ship's watch and they also failed to give way.

[levinge]

Scotty's got it, what was she doing in the shipping lane having a nap. With the amount of radar equipment and GPS she didn't have any alarms going or what?

You ever tried to wake up a teenager, short of a nuclear bomb, nothing wakes them!!!

[levinge]

It looks like it could be 24 nm according to the "Contiguous zone" at this site:
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf...riesandZones#2

...With the Jessica Watson vs ship thingy, I emit an audible groan every time I hear it mentioned that the lass collided with the ship. In actual fact the ship collided with her. The COLREGS are the rules of the sea, and nowhere in the COLREGS does it state that "the smaller vessel unconditionally gives way to the larger vessel", This would be akin to the road rules having a "rule" that says you have to stop at a green light to give way to the truck approaching the red light because he is "bigger and less manouverable" then you.

No matter how big the ship, the mere size of it alone does not restrict it's ability to manouver. The whole "restricted in ability to manouver" bit is referring to any vessels constrained by draught (as in if they change course, they run aground) or by some operation e.g. dredging, fishing or towing that, well, restricts their ability to manouver.

Some might be surprised that the COLREGS do, in fact, have a rule that states that power gives way to sail and other non motorised powered vessels unconditional to the relative sizes of the vessels. It also states that a vessel that has the right of way must "stand on". To stand on means to maintain course. Jessica Watson's boat was equipped with - from what i can gather and I could be wrong - radar and AIS so it could conceivably come out in the wash that she was maintaining lookout and simply standing on. Her one and only mistake being to leave it too late to take action to avoid a collision - quite a feasible scenario considering that at night it is extremely difficult to estimate distance and heading of vessels in open water by eye.

It may also be that Jessica didn't maintain a lookout. If this is the case neither did the ship's watch and they also failed to give way.

Toecutter, its all good to quote Colregs, but you obviously forget one crucial factor. A sail craft can alter course alot quicker than a bulkcarrier, some of these larger vessels take well over a few kilometres to alter course, escpecially at full cruise.

I dare say it is one of those situations where, she was in the wrong place at night time and as a result was ultimately placing herself in a situation that was less than safe...

Right or wrong, at the end of the day, both parties have some amount of blame....

Failing to avoid a collision (Both parties are responsible to avoid each other after initial failure to give way or stand on).

Failing to maintain a proper watch - Both vessels
Sail craft plotting course and speed for the duration of dark hours, she would've known that she would be in the Shipping Lanes and should have been prepared to either delay or maintain watch until clear of the Shipping Lane...

I don't think we will here the whole story from either party, otherwise someone will be admitting guilt and nobody is stupid enough to go down that road....

[Scott nthQld]

toecutter, in this casxe common sense and the general safety obligation prevails.

Fact, large bulk carriers can have leading blind spots of upto several hundred metres
fact, laden bulk carriers can take upto 2nm to come to a stop and upto 1nm to make course changes to maintain the ship and crew's safety.

Now, if you were in Jessica's postition what would you do, even if you WERE awake? Would you maintain your course and play chicken with a ship over 20 times your length? expecting the 225m long ship to take evasive action? OR use your much, much smaller and therefore more maneouvarable vessel to take evasive action?

Judging by your attitude, next time you're in the shipping lanes, I guess your name will be appearing in the obituaries.

Several years ago, some old bloke who lives and sails in Sydney did almost the exact same thing that jessica did, ie, assuming he had right of way and played chicken with a bulk carrier. He's sailboat was destroyed and he was lucky to be alive, he made a complaint and who got charged? he did, why? Because he did NOT have right of way, the vessel with the most maneouverability must give way to the other vessel, this is why vessel's at anchor must be given way to....they can't move, sailboat have right of way over powered vessels, and bulk carriers have right of way over everything.....its common sense, use it. And this is just another reason why i think Jessica should not be doing this around the world trip, not because she's a she, but because, she lacks the maturity to understand the rules of the sea and the common sense to know what decision to make, going to sleep in shipping lanes is one of them

[toecutter]

Scott, what would I do? I would stay the hell outta the way whenever possible. I'm a yachty that's switched back to a trailer power boat for the next few years and I learnt long ago that "Might beats Right" along with"The bigger the boat, the smaller the brain".

However sometimes keeping out of the way isn't possible and in a close quarters situation the COLREGS are there for a reason. Skippers can't make up their own rules as they go along. Going back to the road rules analogy, if you've ever been in a situation where somebody you are supposed to give way to stops to give way to you, you will realise how confusing this ad-hoc decision making can be. One of the worst things a stand on vessel can do is to start unpredictably changing course. If you are the give way skipper, you are expecting the other vessel to stand on and you manouver your own vessel accordingly. You say that the ship is big, takes longer to stop and is therefore restricted in ability to manouver. I say that my sail boat can only go a quarter of the speed of that ship at best, and needs me to go out on deck and retrim the sails for any significant change in course even before I consider possible adverse effects from the run of the current or wind direction. It only takes 20 minutes or so for a ship to appear on the horizon before reaching my position. At a speed of 3 or 4 knots, I can only travel at best around 1 nm in that time and that's assumming as soon as the ship appears I identify it as a possible collision threat. I would be thinking at this point that I would have a pretty good argument for saying that it is in fact me that is restricted in ability to manouver.

Also, ship's crews are, supposedly, professional seamen. From this one would assume that they are 1) Aware of the COLREGS and their obligation to it and 2) can identify a sail boat by it's nav light configuration at night and 3) keep a lookout (Ha!).

[Ando74]

Toecutter.

Can you use the Colreg's as an excuse when she wasn't abiding by them either? (Rule 5 - Lookout)

It's no excuse on the ship's behalf either, they were both in the wrong at some stage.

Colreg's are only applicable if there is risk of collision. If I was in the same situation, with all her you beaut electronic aids, as soon as the vessel was detected (which would be well over 20 miles away using AIS) I would make slight alteration (a course alteration of a few degrees at this distance would put the CPA out to well over a mile) and totally avoid putting myself at risk of collision.

With no risk of collision at 20 miles distance, the colregs don't apply.

[TheRealAndy]

No matter how big the ship, the mere size of it alone does not restrict it's ability to manouver. The whole "restricted in ability to manouver" bit is referring to any vessels constrained by draught (as in if they change course, they run aground) or by some operation e.g. dredging, fishing or towing that, well, restricts their ability to manouver.

The COLREGS put boats with restricted manouvariblity above that of a sail boat. Constrained by draught is different to restriced ability to manouver. The sail boat does not have right of way over a bulk carrier. You could argue otherwise in court, but your chance of winning is pretty much none.