What happened to the Prowler?

Status
Not open for further replies.

theclayishone

theclayishone
Jan 19, 2005
325
10
Rancho Santa Margarita
Name
Clayton
Boat
none
Wow, just awful news. Look at that damage! I heard there was heavy fog last night. RIP to the angler that died and speedy recovery to all affected.

View attachment 975154 View attachment 975155
Looks like the yacht didn't completely t-bone the Prowler but hit more at an angle. I think it if had t-boned it straight into the side there would be much more damage and it probably would have sunk.
 

MYNomad

Heading South
Dec 12, 2007
3,565
3,454
Pacific Northwest / West Coast Mexico
Name
Rick
Boat
Yes
Most, if not all sportys turn there units off, gotta keep there locations secret. That shit needs to change.
I just don't get why they would keep it off when headed IN to port, especially when they are just a few miles out? Also, it is important to recognize that having AIS on may well not have prevented the collision. Whatever caused Attessa to not set (or worse, ignore) its ARPA collision alarms -- probably that there was so much traffic, the alarm was going off to the point of distraction -- would have caused it to not set (or worse, ignore) its AIS collision alarms. Bottom line, there is really no excuse for not using all available means to avoid collisions, as required by ColRegs.
 
Last edited:

Done_Deal

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Sep 10, 2004
570
247
Santa Monica
mysite.verizon.net
Name
Joe
Boat
19' Home Built
Yep - this sounds about right unfortunately.
Another reason why all commercial passenger carrying boats should be required to have AIS. The current law only requires boats 65' or longer to have it. The vast majority of commercial sportboats are under 65' by an few inches. I do not know why the size limitation but if the purpose of AIS is safety, government really screwed up, as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevina

mowitlow

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Apr 5, 2010
350
23
So Cal
Name
Ron
Boat
21 ft. Mastercraft
Wow!
im amazed it wasn't worse!
hope the injured people make it !

.
 

swami 805

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Mar 9, 2016
3,364
4,106
65
805
Name
Bill
Boat
sunk it
Just such a sad situation for all involved. So many things would have to go wrong for that to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: makairaa

svue

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Sep 7, 2004
1,491
892
Huntington Beach
Name
Vue
Boat
Everglade 290
They all have AIS, whether they are turning it on, that's another question. let's wait for more information before laying blame. The ocean has a mind of her own, she will make you pay the minute you disrespect her, no matter how ready you are.
 

Bill W

tunaholic
Jan 12, 2006
5,056
5,892
66
Chino Hills, Ca.
Name
Bill Walsh
Boat
Red Rooster
Buzz picked a good time to sell the boat. And thanks, cause i only read the LR forum here...
 

MYNomad

Heading South
Dec 12, 2007
3,565
3,454
Pacific Northwest / West Coast Mexico
Name
Rick
Boat
Yes
Maybe at this point it would be best to stop and think how would you have avoided the collision, if you were operating either vessel. A clear, simple description of your intentions, addressed on the VHF with the other vessel, is always good practice.
Either vessel could have avoided the collision, and most likely, neither saw it coming until it was too late. Marine Traffic shows Attessa on a constant heading, until it turned to port, possibly to avoid the collision, but more likely as a result (with Prowler's starboard, while Prowler was apparently headed north -- so not an overtaking situation). If Attessa did turn to avoid, it turned too late.
So, building on your thought of how to avoid this, both vessels should have used AIS and ARPA collision avoidance alarms -- we do and NEVER pass less than 1 nm in front of another vessel's bow in circumstances like these, regardless of whether we are stand on or burdened. But, if they had both intended a port to port crossing, they may each have been satisfied with as little as a quarter mile separation. They may even have made VHF contact to confirm those intentions. Even so, it has happened to me that, after agreeing on port to port, the other vessel crosses my boat, requiring that I take evasive action. It is conceivable that, even assuming I am following all of my normal best practices, a collision like that could happen to me. I think I will keep more separation in port to port crossings.
 
Last edited:

MYNomad

Heading South
Dec 12, 2007
3,565
3,454
Pacific Northwest / West Coast Mexico
Name
Rick
Boat
Yes
Another reason why all commercial passenger carrying boats should be required to have AIS. The current law only requires boats 65' or longer to have it. The vast majority of commercial sportboats are under 65' by an few inches. I do not know why the size limitation but if the purpose of AIS is safety, government really screwed up, as usual.
I am not sure more governmental regulation is the solution -- even boats that are required to have it don't use it. And if you have it, there is already regulation requiring that you use it. The free market approach would be to expect that insurers require it, as they easily could -- no AIS, no coverage. Seems like a no-brainer. I know my insurer scrutinized my equipment list and required that I add a second anchor, for example.
 
Last edited:

Tunahead

Long Time Tuna Abused Member
Aug 11, 2006
8,008
2,041
Costa Mesa
Name
Ron
Boat
several
OUCH...amazing with all that high tech radar, gps, and more those two
could collide, even in fog?. Wonder if it was foggy? Bummer!
Hope all on board will be fine. I'll wait for the CG report. Quite a collision. Damn.
Spent many a day and night on Prowler with Buzz. Sorry to hear about this.

Sorry to hear the person critically injured didn't survive. Very Sad events. RIP
 
Last edited:

CAPTAIN DAV

Well-Known "Member"
Oct 28, 2003
47
1
48
Newport Beach
Visit site
Name
Dav
Boat
Looking for a new boat to drive
Another reason why all commercial passenger carrying boats should be required to have AIS. The current law only requires boats 65' or longer to have it. The vast majority of commercial sportboats are under 65' by an few inches. I do not know why the size limitation but if the purpose of AIS is safety, government really screwed up, as usual.
I agree that all passenger vessels of all sizes should have at minimum Class B AIS functioning at all times while underway, but I feel that even all the small pleasure craft owners should think seriously about having it as well. There is no excuse for these two vessels to collide from the pictures of clear visibility and a basic proper watch and radar operator., This could and has easily have happened to a small CC or boat. I have had a few occasions where small boats were hard to see in the sea state at night visually behind swells, or where the radar clutter was so prevalent that I couldn't tell a 20' boat from radar noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbsurfer

el Toro

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Feb 19, 2003
9,146
1,613
Point Loma
Name
Nate
Boat
Artemis
Why is AIS even an issue in this discussion? AIS is relatively new and we did just fine before its inception. And what about thousands of smaller boats out there that don’t have AIS? To me, the question here is why wasn't someone watching the damn RADAR? Not whether AIS was on or not.
 

DC61

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Dec 28, 2011
968
1,215
Dana Point
Name
Paul L.
Boat
33’ Blackfin
AIS or not, each boat would have been very visible on the radar. These are both big “targets” and would have been very visible to one another.

I can’t speak for the yacht’s speed, but I suspect the Prowler’s speed to be 10 knots or less.

Both Captains are responsible for maintaining a watch and regardless of how the accident occurred, the Coast Guard will likely find fault with both sides.

It’s not hard to understand the human element that contribute to these situations. Even tho the speeds are relatively slow, it’s not uncommon to take your eyes off the radar for a few minutes. I am not implying who was at fault, rather just having spent a fair amount of time on the water this is not totally surprising.

I am saddened for how this will change the lives of everyone involved. Certainly for the person who lost their life as well as everyone on both of these boats.

Lastly, for the respective Captains this will be a life changing event for both of them.

Sad story from multiple angles.
 

MYNomad

Heading South
Dec 12, 2007
3,565
3,454
Pacific Northwest / West Coast Mexico
Name
Rick
Boat
Yes
Why is AIS even an issue in this discussion? AIS is relatively new and we did just fine before its inception. And what about thousands of smaller boats out there that don’t have AIS? To me, the question here is why wasn't someone watching the damn RADAR? Not whether AIS was on or not.
Why? Because both boats should have had and used AIS, which would have prevented this collision -- regardless of the fog and more reliably than radar. And because those of us who go offshore, especially at night, want to learn everything we can to be safe and prudent boaters. And one of the main lessons here is that prudence, as well as ColRegs, requires the use of AIS in these circumstances. And because AIS makes it much easier to hail a collision course vessel -- you know its name and MMSI.
 

el Toro

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Feb 19, 2003
9,146
1,613
Point Loma
Name
Nate
Boat
Artemis
Why? Because both boats should have had and used AIS, which would have prevented this collision -- regardless of the fog and more reliably than radar. And because those of us who go offshore, especially at night, want to learn everything we can to be safe and prudent boaters. And one of the main lessons here is that prudence, as well as ColRegs, requires the use of AIS in these circumstances.
Of course, But you can’t say it would have certainly prevented this tragedy. By that logic all the sub 65 foot boats out there on any given night don’t matter? My point is, I would prefer not to worry about the other guy out there turning on his transponder. I’d rather rely on my radar, which doesn’t lie. To me, the functionality of radar is definitely more reliable and far exceeds AIS since it shows ALL boats (and other targets). You can’t turn it off.
 

Killerskiff

The end is near
Jul 5, 2008
201
244
Hootervillle
Name
JD
Boat
Obliviousone
This is like child abuse and there is absolutely no excuse! Sleeping behind the helm and not being at the helm is pretty much the same thing. Most likely both vessels were on collision course (auto pilot) and obviously nobody was monitoring the radar, a tragedy that should have not occured that's 100% the captains fault. And all others aboard the Prowler are very fortunate because it could have been a lot worse.
 
Last edited:

MYNomad

Heading South
Dec 12, 2007
3,565
3,454
Pacific Northwest / West Coast Mexico
Name
Rick
Boat
Yes
Of course, But you can’t say it would have certainly prevented this tragedy.
That is exactly what I am saying -- the proper use of AIS by both boats would absolutely have prevented this collision.

By that logic all the sub 65 foot boats out there on any given night don’t matter? My point is, I would prefer not to worry about the other guy out there turning on his transponder. I’d rather rely on my radar, which doesn’t lie. To me, the functionality of radar is definitely more reliable and far exceeds AIS since it shows ALL boats (and other targets). You can’t turn it off.
You are twisting my logic to support your contention that AIS doesn't matter. The fact is that its proper use would have been a better tool than radar to prevent this tragedy. If you don't have, and don't have significant experience properly using AIS, you probably can't appreciate its value as compared to radar. If you do understand its value, then you must also understand that both boats should have had it and properly used it, and that's why many of the comments focus on AIS. None of that is to say, however, that both boats should not also have properly used radar, as that, too, could easily have prevented this collision.
 

Reel_Fishy

Well-Known "Member"
Nov 5, 2011
89
51
San Diego, California
Name
Brian
Boat
center console Ranger Bahia 220
I was out in SD Bay hooping last night on my 23 foot skiff with radar and AIS on at all times, and we saw the Atessa pass us. You would think a $250 million dollar 330 foot yacht would not be easy to miss, but with the super heavy fog rolling in, I was surprised how close we were to it before it became visible to the eye. Radar and AIS picked them up way before of course, but I was thinking that somebody has to be paying attention to that information or unfortunate things like this can happen. Feel just terrible for all parties involved and especially for the poor soul who lost their life. Prayers for their families.
 

makairaa

I've posted enough I should edit this section
May 1, 2005
4,462
3,654
Tustin CA
Name
Philip Hunkins
Boat
17 starcraft
Another reason why all commercial passenger carrying boats should be required to have AIS. The current law only requires boats 65' or longer to have it. The vast majority of commercial sportboats are under 65' by an few inches. I do not know why the size limitation but if the purpose of AIS is safety, government really screwed up, as usual.
You could add all the regulations and safety equipment you want, until autopilots have the ability to steer around objects it still requires someone to monitor everything. Obviously the human factor failed again here.
 

el Toro

I've posted enough I should edit this section
Feb 19, 2003
9,146
1,613
Point Loma
Name
Nate
Boat
Artemis
That is exactly what I am saying -- the proper use of AIS by both boats would absolutely have prevented this collision.


You are twisting my logic to support your contention that AIS doesn't matter. The fact is that its proper use would have been a better tool than radar to prevent this tragedy. If you don't have, and don't have significant experience properly using AIS, you probably can't appreciate its value as compared to radar. If you do understand its value, then you must also understand that both boats should have had it and properly used it, and that's why many of the comments focus on AIS. None of that is to say, however, that both boats should not also have properly used radar, as that, too, could easily have prevented this collision.
No twisting, we are basically agreeing with each other ultimately. I have extensive experience with both, AIS and radar. If I had to pick between one or the other, hands-down, radar! AIS is useful, sure, but until ALL boats have to use it and leave it on at all times, it’s benefit is seriously minimized, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.