Japanese Whaler Rams SSCS Ady Gil (ex-Earthrace)

Post Reply New Topic

I like twenty mike mike.

Pretty much.

As I recall, Japan can take one hundred of the small and most common whales a year. It is a scientific study of populations, and it carries over to the large whales that are less common, not seen. The small whales are growing in number, and so are the protected large whales.

From the video clips it looked to me like the fishing vessel deliberately put their wheel over so as to ram the activists' boat, which was a seriously dangerous thing to do; large-boat-rams-small-boat-head-on kills people, they'd certainly have known that, so I'd call it attempted murder. Whoever was steering should be charged, though it won't happen.

It is Acknowledged Seamanship, that the smaller, and more agile vessel is responsible to stay out of the way, of the larger, less agile vessel, PERIOD. If you watch the Vids, the Sea State is such that the larger ship is just barely making headway. Certainly much less that its 12 Knot full speed, and from the bow movement, was having trouble maintaining what little headway it had. Yet the smaller vessel was coming up from astern, and as the overtaking vessel, was in FACT, required to maintain separation and maneuver to avoid any collision. This they did NOT do.

You would be correct in most circumstances, EXCEPT in this case, the smaller, more agile, vessel, was OVERTAKING from Astern, and that FACT, overrules the Starboard Right Of Way Rule... ANY OVERTAKING Vessel MUST Yield the Right Of Way to the Overtaken Vessel, and IS responsible for maintaining separation and collision avoidance... also it is a well recognized Rule that when vessels meet, which are very different in size, and maneuverability, it is the smaller, more agile vessel that MUST yield the Right of Way, if Collision is imminent. Motorized Vessels MUST give way to Sail Powered Vessels, for the same reason. Better Maneuverability.....

According to IRPCS, The general rule is that less maneuverable craft have priority over a more maneuverable craft. Ady Gil loses by that one.

"Nothing in the Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."
Had Ady Gil not been deliberately screwing with the whaler instead of trying to avoid it to begin with, there would have been no collision. Her master bears the ultimate responsibility, no matter how the rules are parsed.

Section II - Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18)

Rule 11 says the section applies to vessels in sight of one another.

Rule 12 states action to be taken when two sailing vessels are approaching one another.

Rule 13covers overtaking - the overtaking vessel should keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
Rule 14 deals with head-on situations. Crossing situations are covered by Rule 15 and action to be taken by the give-way vessel is laid down in Rule 16.

Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action.

Rule 18 deals with responsibilities between vessels and includes requirements for vessels which shall keep out of the way of others.

Section III - conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19)

Rule 19 states every vessel should proceed at a safe speed adapted to prevailing circumstances and restricted visibility. A vessel detecting by radar another vessel should determine if there is risk of collision and if so take avoiding action. A vessel hearing fog signal of another vessel should reduce speed to a minimum.

Section II - Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another

Rule 11

Application

Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another.

Rule 12

Sailing Vessels

(a) when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

(i)when each of them has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;

(ii) When both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;

(iii) if the vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.

(b) For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried.

Rule 13

Overtaking

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

Rule 14

Head-on Situation

(a) When two power driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights in line or nearly in line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

Rule 15

Crossing Situation

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.

Rule 16

Action by Give-way Vessel

Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

Rule 17

Action by Stand-on Vessel

(a)

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(c) A power driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

Rule 18

Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where rule 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a)A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing;

(iv)a sailing vessel;

(b) A sailing vessel under way shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;

(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing;

(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;

(ii)a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

(d)

(i)Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.

(ii) A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition.

(e) A seaplane on the water shall, in general, keep well clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation. In circumstances, however, where risk of collision exists, she shall comply with the Rules of this Part.

Section III - Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility

Could be an artefact(sic) of the position of the camera, though, I know how odd perspective is in video of races.

I would treat them like Somalis, do as you like, beyond the range of a .50 caliber. Chemical attacks, boarding on the high seas, lasers, attempting to foul the prop, ramming, are acts of war.

I wished the one rammed is the Japanese Whaler. Save our whales!

Or acts of piracy. The appropriate treatment is to hang the pirates then and there from a yardarm. Arrgggggghhh..

I'll apologize for the long-winded post. I find the politics an intrigue surrounding the ICR/Sea Shepherd conflict fascinating.

Well, he sure as hell did that,
Quote:

http://www.neatorama.com/tag/ady-gil/

So, what they're telling me is a 52 meter long, 400ton, 12 knot max speed ship cornered and ran down a 40 knot, 26ton, yacht?

Tell me again, the 400 ton 12 knot boat outmanouvered the 26 ton 40 knot boat?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
http://www.researchvessels.org/ship_...asp?shipID=368
Quote:
Range, Speed and Endurance Range: 2800 nautical miles
Cruising Speed: 11 kts.
Max. Speed: 12 kts.
Endurance: 50 days
A 12 knot, 171ft/52m, ship cornered and ran down a 40 knot, 78ft/24m, yacht?
Ain't that a bit like saying a crow was cornered in open pasture and run down by a bull?

Wait a minute, Ady Gil, is even faster - 50kt!
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=231x20052
Quote:

Captain Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd President and Founder) intends to use the Ady Gil to intercept and physically block the harpoon ships from illegally slaughtering whales.

Source: High North Web News, 26 June 1997. High North Alliance

Paul Watson:
Set Free - Served with New Indictment

Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson was released from prison on Friday, June 20, with a new indictment in his kit bag. "They handed out the charges Thursday afternoon or Friday morning," says the public prosecutor spokeswoman in Harlem, Netherlands, Tine Zwiers, to the High North Web News. The writ served to Watson just before his release, pertains to his ship's collision with the Coast Guard vessel "Andenes" in 1994.

Watson was held in custody for 80 days, or two thirds of the 120 day unconditional prison term he had been sentenced to for his participation in the attempted scuttling of the combined fishing and whaling vessel "Nybrænna" in 1992. "If Watson had served his sentence in Norway, he would automatically have been released after 80 days," Nordland County Public Prosecutor, Geir Fornebo, told the newspaper 'Aftenposten' on May 29, 1997. Norway had requested Watson's
extradition in order for him to serve his sentence. There is, however, no longer any basis for extradition and the request will be withdrawn, Fornebo told NTB after Watson was set free.

The new trial is due to take place on September 1 at Lofoten County Court in Norway. Watson can be convicted even if he does not attend the trial, police inspector Elisabeth Kaas in the Lofoten Islands told the Norwegian News Agency NTB on June 19. Norwegian authorities have had great difficulties in finding Watson and deliver the new indictment. For this reason the court case has been delayed twice.

The charges against Watson include negligent navigation which in turn led to the collision between his ship "Whales Forever" and the Coast Guard vessel "Andenes" on July 4, 1992; refusing to leave Norwegian waters on the orders of the coast guard; and transmitting false alarm signals. In addition, the Norwegian Navy will be seeking compensation to the amount of NOK 854,000 (c. US$ 120,000) plus interest.

Paul Watson was arrested at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on April 2, while travelling from Germany to the US. On March 31 he had been arrested in Germany, but was released the following day. In March, the Norwegian authorities issued a warrant for Watson's arrest via Interpol and the arrests were implemented on the basis of the warrant.

The charges against Watson include negligent navigation which in turn led to the collision between his ship "Whales Forever" and the Coast Guard vessel "Andenes" on July 4, 1992;

I still have trouble with the idea of a 400ton ship with a max speed of 12 knots cornering a 26ton yacht with a max speed of 40 knots.

Ady Gil has the speed and handiness to stay out of the way, if they so desire.
It's not like they couldn't see the Shonan Maru coming.

And then I look at this again:


Paul Watson went into the event with a stated, on the record, purpose and intent of violating navigation laws and putting his vessel in the path of the other.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard has ordered the Australian maritime Safety Authority to investigate the high seas crash between an anti-whaling ship and a Japanese vessel in Antarctic waters earlier this week.

However, she has rejected calls to send a Government vessel to Antarctica to monitor the whaling conflicts, saying it would not help.

After seeing footage of the crash, Ms Gillard said it was miraculous no lives were lost.

{AMEN to that!}

The Sea Shepherd anti-whaling organisation and the Japanese have released duelling footage of the crash, however both appear to show the Ady Gil protest boat moving slowly when the Japanese vessel switched course and headed for it.

Maritime law specialists say charges are likely to be laid over the collision, but it's too early to say against who.

AAP

Keep in mind that the Ady Gil's helmsman may have been aware of the danger even later than that. The boat's enclosed cockpit limits visibility on the aft and sides, and it's possible that he had difficulty hearing the shouted warnings from the crewmembers above over the sound of the LRADs.