This is the core issue, isn’t it? Why …

Comment posted 2012 Scottish Islands Peaks Race Oban to Troon – just finished by newsroom.

This is the core issue, isn’t it? Why then? Pharos does not have the sort of deadlines the CalMac ferries have to deal with. The decision to sail just then seems unhelpfully blinkered – , when earlier or 15 minutes later would have been respectful of a once-a-year unique, spectacular and highly competitive event.

Recent comments by newsroom

  • When is Council going to replace the A814′s missing warning for HGVs?
    As the article makes clear – large vehicles canot be prevented from using it because there will always be a genuine need for such vehicles to access a place or a property somewhere along that road.
    But a clear ‘limitation of use’ notice puts the onus on drivers and gives Police Scotland’s traffic division reason to stop inquire and act accordingly.
    Making the road one way for large vehicles, say south to north, would allow such access, deter casual convenience use by such vehicles and prevent stalemates when two meet.
  • State Guardians / Named Persons a situation out of control
    We accept that this latest story is correct.
    However, an earlier one – that of a family fleeing the Highlands and movong to Edinburgh had so many questions – like the age of the boy concerned; and the fact that Edinburgh is nor necessarily free of state guardians as local authorities in that area were licensed to conduct pilot implementations of the system. Since the government intention is to implement the measure across Scotland, Edinburgh – if the family are not currently living in a place where pilot state guardianships are in train, Edinburgh can offer only short term sanctuary. The boy, we understand may have now reached normal maturity. Given that the state guardian measure was introduced by statute in 2014, the family’s move cannot have taken place much before this time.
    Examples with no more than a peripheral – and even questionable – relationship to the generality of the impact of the state guardian imposition cannot serve to clarify the core abuses this system inflicts on the great majority of safe, loving and responsible families.
    We had first nighlioghtd the ‘Edinburgh move’ story but when we interrogated fully its detail e withdrew the article and made our position clear.
    Nothing gains from insecure tactical claims.
    This is not a tactical issue. It is a moral and political one and its hits at the heart of the sort of family life most of us have been fortunate to enjoy.
    There are far less needlessly damaging, more easily and less expensively achievable means of protecting the fewer [but not few children] who are at risk.
    The Scottish Government introduced covert pilot implementations of this measure despite having assured the concerned Scottish Parliament that there would be no implementations without further consultation.
    It is to the Parliament’s profound discredit that, on so serious a socially transformative matter, it did not make a sustained attempt to hold the government to account on this.
  • State Guardians / Named Persons a situation out of control
    We have used the word ‘fascist’ on some occasions to describe similar undemocratic interventions achieved by force majeure.
    People object to that as well – because everyone imagines fascism and fascists only exist elsewhere, somewhere else.
    However, you might find ‘fascist’ a more accurate and wholly defensible descriptor of your judgment of this particular intervention.
    The OED says of ;fasism’:
    ‘Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.’
  • Oban Bay Marine – and its 52 paid-up business supporters – go public for Oban’s marina
    The plan for the transit marina has kayak steps built into the town-facing shoreside rock armour, to support local kayak teaching and expedition businesses.
  • Oban Bay Marine – and its 52 paid-up business supporters – go public for Oban’s marina
    It is indeed a very serious issue.
    With public funding about to tighten again for a few years and with Argyll’s falling population and inept economic development unable to attract more substantial state funding, getting that £2m spent on the transit marina and seeing it up and working for the 2016 season really is Oban’s last chance for a decade to get new energy and an earner to carry it over and build for the future.

powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

26 Responses to This is the core issue, isn’t it? Why …

  1. The Helicopter would be landing at the Northern Lighthouse Board depot, not far from Manor House. It looks like their helicopter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Excellent reporting – but I’m mystified at the behaviour of the skipper of the Pharos; a couple of years ago I returned to Plymouth on the Brittany Ferries flaghip – the Pont Aven, 41,000 tons. It was a sunday afternoon and Plymouth Sound was infested with small boats racing. Pont Aven crawled around and through them, taking great care – and no tooting at anyone. I’d like to hear Pharos’s side of the story – surely it doesn’t need a pilot in Oban waters, or maybe a French skipper?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. I echo Robert’s view. Pharos’s performance is in stark contrast to that of the Cal Mac outer isles ferry which meets the race fleet every year just outside Dunollie and invariably keeps well clear and shows patience and the short few minutes of forebearance required. And unlike Pharos, the ferry doesn’t have dynamic positioning systems that can balance it on a penny.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. We on yacht Capricorn (Team SPIE) were the yacht right under Pharos bow when the skipper came out onto the gantry and asked us to make room in a less than polite manner including gestures.

    In strict accordance with the COLREGS he was undoubtably correct in that he was manouevering in restricted waters and so had right of way – but was his need so great to leave whilst the fleet were negotiating the tight exit to Oban Bay whilst adrenalined up to the eyeballs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • This is the core issue, isn’t it? Why then? Pharos does not have the sort of deadlines the CalMac ferries have to deal with. The decision to sail just then seems unhelpfully blinkered – , when earlier or 15 minutes later would have been respectful of a once-a-year unique, spectacular and highly competitive event.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Pharos was waiting in the bay all morning; we sailed quite close to her while jockeying for the start. Why she decided to leave when it was clear that there was going to be significant traffic in the narrows seems to require explanation. While she could argue she was stand on vessel, this give her no rights if the other boats also are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, which was the case with these sailing vessels in light or no wind in a restricted channel. I think team SPIE/Capricorn have reason to be less charitable. Pharos is funded from public money.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Pharos may claim simply colreg Rule 9, the right “not to be impeded” by sailing vessels under 20 metres length in a narrow channel.

          At nautical college, my lecturer, former NLB master of the old 1950s built Pharos as it happens, emphasised that the over-riding essence of the colregs is that you must take every action possible to avoid collision, and with all due regard for the circumstances.

          I think Rules 7 and 8 may have some relevance. Rule 7, Risk of Collision: was there a risk of collison? Most certainly, yes, many times over. Why? Because when Pharos left her berth, the channel, and indeed much of the rest of the bay, was congested, full of slow, close-hauled and tacking sailing vessels. And let’s not forget that from the perspective of the yacht skippers, there would be colregs obligations to contend with between the 50 sailing boats too.

          Rule 8, Action to Avoid Collision, “8(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.” (Or even remain at your berth for a few minutes longer?) Obligations on a right of way vessel “8(f) (iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.” The essence of Rule 8 is, don’t get into a close quarters situation, regardless of who is right, and if you do, then avoiding collision takes over from the right not to be impeded.
          Rule 13, Overtaking “13)a) … any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.” Difficult when that’s vessels x 50 to be overtaken in a narrow channel and all are constrained by draught, even assuming they’re trying not to impede you.

          Finally, Rule 34, sound signals, “34(d) When … either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle.” Since it seem as though there was a lot of failure to understand intentions or actions, perhaps the sailing vessels should have given 5 blasts when Pharos was leaving the NLB pier.

          Edit – to cut through any irony in the above, I believe Pharos should not have gotten under way if it was obvious what she was heading out into. And given the view avaialble to her from the lighthouse pier, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t crystal clear.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Thanks for that explanation. I agree that she has a right “not to be impeded” but the essence of this is that Pharos put herself in the position of claiming this right at a point in time where the yachts were already committed to the passage, and because of the light winds, unable to give way to this requirement. As a result I think Pharos at least risked breaching the rule 8 that you describe.

            Still, as discussed at the briefing, and regardless of the rules of the sea, the race rules expressly allow the use of engines in such situations, and perhaps this might have avoided a close quarters situation.

            I think both parties, and indeed all the race participants should reflect on this and learn lessons. Describing us as WAFIs in tupperware boats really risks polarising the discussion over what is a complex issue. I have had several episodes where professional seamen have not acted with credit to their profession. It does not make me want to insult the professionalism of the others by using disparaging language.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • NLB is funded from light dues gathered from shipping using our waters, and doesn’t cost the tax payer one penny. Sorry to burst your bubble. WAFIS on the other hand, use all the facilities without charge…you’re welcome.
          The wider issue is whether the opinion of leisure sailors in Tupperware boats “adrenalined up to the eyeballs” is of any value arguing about “steam” gives way to sail in a commercial shipping lane, getting in the way of marine professionals.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The only alternative to the Pharos being mildly inconvenienced was for all the competitors to disqualify themselves by starting their engines. Are you seriously suggesting this is what should have happened?

            I wasn’t there, but it sounds to me as though the skipper of the Pharos was unnecessarily and pointlessly aggressive no matter what the technical situation under the IRPCS. Hardly the behaviour one would expect of a ‘marine professional’.

            Fortunately relations between yachties and ‘marine professionals’ – whether fishermen, CalMac, tourist boats or dive boat skippers – are generally excellent in our local waters, and this incident is very much a one-off.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • yes she was on a cruise of the Clyde, saw her on monday afternoon off the cumbraes and again off Jura on tuesday afternoon her speed was very slow about 6 knts , why didn,t he leave by the south channel!!!
        Or perhaps he should have gone to SPECSAVERS !!!
        His BULLY BOY i,m bigger than you attitude stinks

        Calmac however were brilliant as ever , altering course to keep out of eveyones way

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Why can’t this event be given more advance publicity to promote public interest? The start from Oban is always worth watching, even without the Pharos!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Pingback: Impala 28 Offshore One Design » Impala wins Class 3 of Scottish Islands Peaks Race

  7. I was racing on my fathers yacht during SIPR 12, and I am disgusted at the complete arrogance of the Pharos Captain, from our view it looked as if he was deliberately trying to cause chaos. Why could the Pharos have not waited for 30 mins or leave the bay via the sound of Kerrera?

    I am looking forward to the video of the whole incidence going up on youtube for the whole world to see and make their own opinion! My personal opinion is that the captain of the Pharos, should explain his actions to not only the SIPR team but also to the NLB commissioners & why he should allowed to keep his job!!!

    It was utterly disgusting behaviour from the Pharos who should have waited or left 30 mins earlier! Something needs to be done about this before someone seriously gets hurt or killed!! The captain is a complete nutter!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Who is “Jack Aubrey”? Could there be such a coincidence that our “marine professionals” cheerleader actually has the same monicker as that murderous, belligerent, Napoleonic War nutter played by Russell Crowe? Maybe he has Aubrey-like anger issues. Or is he just a wannabe hard man? In fact, I’m beginning to see some very disturbing connections here … I surely hope he’s never given charge of so much as a kayak, far less a ship.

    Use your real name, man, and have a proper reasoned discussion if you’re capable of it. Dismantle my interpretation of the International Rules for the Prevention of Collision at Sea if you can, and BTW, your opinion might carry some weight if you wouldn’t hide behind a rather pathetic pseudonym. What happened last week was real world, not fantasy.

    Nothing in the collision regs says that commercial shipping has any rights over anyone else. If you can’t accept that then I hope you never take charge of anything that floats because you’ll plainly be a menace.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Touchy?!!
      Calm down dear, let’s keep it real. I suggest looking up “brevity” in your dictionary and apply it to your posts, which are in danger of becoming longer than the original articles.
      Lots of people had a great day despite these windy colreg explanations. As Homer would say, “blah, blah, blah”!
      Well done Forargyll and all involved, what a spectacle.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. It looks as if the Oban Times has applied the telescope to the blind eye because I see no report of this major event whatsover in today’s issue.
    Well done For Argyll for your excellent coverage.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. I was an RYA Offshore Instructor for 20 years on the West Coast. All trainees had to obey the Collision Regs. to the letter, as they had been taught during their shore based theory training – but always with the rider – never take your eyes off the other vessel- he probably knows less than you do!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Whatever the correct interpretation of the Collision Regs , it seems that at least Pharos’s master is guilty of a gross lack of manners. If she absolutely required to sail when she did , were the race organisers informed ?Did she make a general announcement on VHF , as Calmac do , that she was about to depart.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.