Video from the Ady Gil Shows it was Rammed Deliberately....

[Junkdrawer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0ak

It's now clear that the Ady Gill was not maneuvering and that the Japanese Whaler closed from a great distance and rammed the Ady Gil deliberately.

No.Question

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. LOL

I like how the cut away right when they maneuver into the front of the much larger and less maneuverable video.

[Junkdrawer]

5. They "cut away" when they're rammed. Look, I didn't comment on the other threads...

because there was some ambiguity as to what happened. But this video removes all doubt.

The Japanese need to cut their losses and begin stern discipline procedures against the captain and crew of the whaling vessel or they will just lose bigger and bigger over time. Mark my words.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. No they don't.

They cut away just before the collision.

[conscious evolution]

20. Cut away ? Or did

the camera man drop the camera due to the force of impact?
I know that if I was on a vessel being rammed on the high seas I would probably drop my camera and shit my pants at the same time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. It's a cut.

It's not a camera being knocked away in a collision.

[TexasObserver]

30. I agree. This angle shows the Japanese vessel clearly rammed them intentionally.

They were sitting dead in the water. They weren't even moving. They had the right of way. The Japanese vessel built up speed, turned on the water cannon to initiate the attack and stun the smaller boat's crew, and turned right into it.

This is an international crime and should be treated as such.

I see no fault at all on the smaller vessel. If this is taken to court, the Sea Shepherd will win, and win big. Yesterday there were reports that the smaller vessel pulled in front of the larger one, but the video from the SS makes clear that did not happen. The video from the larger vessel also now makes that clear, as it shows no surging forward by the SS, but the crew hurriedly moving to the back as the Japanese ship turned hard starboard.

[Romulox]

9. Is there ANY circumstance in which you take the side of the weak against the strong?

Because every post of yours that I've observed is an apology for the rich and powerful after they've committed some fresh outrage or another. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Is there any circumstance in which you...

will take the side of the facts vs. the lies?

[Romulox]

14. So the answer is "no" then--you're the "radical" voice of the status quo.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. If I speak out against Ashley Todd, Romulox...

That does not mean I'm the voice of black muggers who carve people with knives.

[Romulox]

22. Right. But if you spoke out against Corporatism, or Poverty, say...

I think I might do a double take! :hi:

[conscious evolution]

23. Why are you siding with the liars?

The video is pretty clear as to what happened.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I'm not, exactly the opposite.

The videos all clearly show that Sea Shepard is at fault.

And they're well known to be liars.

[Xipe Totec]

31. Well known to be liars by whom?

First I've heard of it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Um, everybody?

Remember the bit where Watson claimed he was shot?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xipe Totec]

71. Let me rephrase that, Everybody is too general a term

Since it does not include me.

I was not aware, nor do I agree or disagree, that they are liars.

Therefore, everybody cannot know that they are liars.

Care to rephrase your over generalization?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flvegan]

24. Another one notices it too.

Yup, that one is indeed quite special.

[Xipe Totec]

10. How do you explain away the rest of the video?

Where you see the whaler on an aggressive direct collision course?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. It wasn't a collision course.

Not until the Ady Gil purposefully accelerated into the direct path of the Japanese.

Why were the Japanese coming in the general direction of the Ady Gil? Because the Ady Gil wanted to get hit, that's why they were just sitting there in the first place.

[Xipe Totec]

19. That's a pretty big ocean, and a very tiny ship

I don't see the acceleration of the AG you're talking about. I see the whaler overtaking the AG.

You say:

"Why were the Japanese coming in the general direction of the Ady Gil? Because the Ady Gil wanted to get hit"

If I understand you right, the AG caused the whaler to ram them by whishing it? They wanted to get hit so the whaler simply complied?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Check post #4.

There wouldn't have been a collision if the Ady Gil hadn't gunned it directly into the Japanese path.

"If I understand you right, the AG caused the whaler to ram them by whishing it?"

No, by running into the path of the whaler. These are people that intentionally, proudly ram their boats into others. They also make up false claims about being attacked.

[Xipe Totec]

29. check post #27

If you're driving a car through an intersection, and another car is about to hit you, do you:

a).- Slam on the brakes and brace for impact

b).- floor the accelerator and try to get out of the way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. If you're waiting at a stop light and a semi is crossing with a green...

do you:

A: continue waiting
B: accelerate into the intersection and pretend it's the semi's fault.

[Xipe Totec]

38. If I'm in the middle of the intersection, I floor it. n/t

[jmowreader]

160. Go to 3:14-3:15 in the video

That little stream of white froth in the lower part of the video is wake from the Ady Gil's port-side sponson--which happens when you move the boat forward.

[conscious evolution]

26. The only acceleration the video shows

is a last second attempt by the Ady Gil to avoid being rammed.

Have you even watched the video?

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. You are aware the Japanese claim is that the Ady Gil suddenly *slowed down", aren't you?

The environmental group Sea Shepherd said its high-tech antiwhaling boat, the Ady Gil, was deliberately rammed by the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2, while Japanese officials claim the collision couldn't be avoided because the activists' boat slowed suddenly in its path.
...
Japanese newspapers had a different take on the incident, with most calling it a collision between two ships. The Sankei Shimbun ran a front-page story Thursday claiming the Ady Gil had sailed too close to the Japanese vessel and suddenly slowed down, based on statements from the Fisheries Agency.
...
The Yomiuri Shimbun's headline was worded more strongly. "Sea Shepherd boat cuts into the path of a patrol vessel," it said, and the article stated "the Japanese vessels repeatedly warned the Ady Gil, but it did not stop approaching."

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100109a1.html

Japan's Fisheries Agency has blamed the crew of the Ady Gil for the crash, saying it slowed suddenly while crossing in front of the Shonan Maru.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ady-gil-collision-was-deliberate-attack-says-sea-shepherd/story-e6frfku0-1225816839610

It's pretty clear the Japanese have been lying extensively. They approached the Ady Gil, which was idling, and not doing anything anywhere near any other boat. They had their water cannons aimed at it, and made it impossible for the Ady Gil to manoevure (you do know a boat has to be travelling through the water to be able to turn, don't you?)

[tammywammy]

56. +1 n/t

[Igel]

76. If you look at the video, there's an interesting observation to be made.

There's a pretty good wake behind the bat boat for a while as they boast to each other that they slowed down the Japanese boat and "made it fucking zig zag".

Then for 10-20 seconds there's not much wake. The boat's idling. It's moving, just more slowly. It's hard to gauge absolute movement at sea without looking at a fixed point or actually seeing where the stern or bow touch the water, or the wake.

Meanwhile the whaling boat comes barreling down on them. Now, given the way it looks, you'd think the boat's moving at least 30-40 miles an hour and approaching from a great distance. It's probably not moving that quickly, and when we first see it it's probably not as far away as it looks. The video doesn't lie, exactly, but it's not telling the truth because video images don't speak. The whaler looks to have steered towards the AG, but it's far from clear that they intended to ram it. People are inferring a lot from a few seconds of video.

As it approaches, the AG crew sits there, talking. They didn't think they were in danger or in trouble for a while. They just sat there, close to where the whaler would be transiting.

When the whaler starts hosing the AG they respond. Now, uprovokedly hosing a peaceful crew just sitting there taking in the monotonous scenary seems utterly insane, except that the AG's been harrassing the whaler all day. What looks like unprovoked hosing only looks unprovoked because we see about 90-120 seconds of context out of dozens of hours of context. The video doesn't lie--again, the actual images are mute. It's our inferences that are false, and falsified by the accompanying audio, no less.

Then, if you look at other video you see that in the 2-3 seconds prior to impact the AG accelerates abruptly from idle to presumably try to dodge the whaler, but instead gets its front third lopped off. They should have thrown it into reverse. The pilot may have thought he could traverse the whaler's path before impact.

Given the relative non-chalance of the crew until just before impact, you'd almost have to wonder if that's not how the AG was making the whaler zig and zag, except this time it didn't. Or perhaps the whaler's pilot overestimated the AG's speed or the AG typically responded more quickly and failed to this time. We don't know. We don't have context. The video doesn't provide it, and the people involved aren't unbiased.

As for whether the AG slowed down--yes, it did. The video linked to clearly shows this. It's just that if you're used to thinking of 30 seconds as a long, long time you tend to think of their slowing as being so long before impact as to be meaningless.


My question is fairly simple: There's a lot of ocean there. The AG hurried and then stopped where they did for a reason, one would think. If they were done for the day they'd have returned to where they'd be overnighting--the BB. The Bob Barker wasn't too far away and was also ahead of the whaler so it's not like they needed to rest. If they weren't done their quasi-piracy for the day they'd logically take up position near the whaler's predicted route in order to continue harrassing it--to make it zig zag, to slow it down. (And, lo! The zig zagging whaler zigs--or is it zags?--towards where the AG had stationed itself.) The third option, that they merely went a distance away in a random direction to be struck down strikes me as unlikely.

Perhaps the AG didn't intend to be in the path of the boat.

[conscious evolution]

105. You do realize

that the ship that rammed the AG was not the same ship they made zigzag?The one that rammed them was following both the AG and the other whaler.Take a close look the ship shown early in the video and compare it to the one that rammed the AG.Two totally differant ships.The AG had quit the chase when they were rammed by the second ship.In order for the second ship to have rammed them they had to have deliberately set a collision course for the AG.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. I don't know that the Ady Gil was "harrassing" the Shonan Maru earlier

and I don't think that would justify the attack on the Ady Gil. The Shonan Maru is a security ship for the whalers; its purpose is to stop the Sea Shepherd boats from interfering with the whaling. The Ady Gil was indeed done for the day - at the start of the OP video, they are saying it's a shame they don't have more fuel, or they could carry on.

The SM was a fair way away, and the AG had gone down to idling, not near any Japanese ship at all. The SM made the decision to turn to go as close as possible to the AG, with the sound device and water cannon deployed. Whether they actively intended to ram it, didn't care if they did, or just intended to come within a few feet of it, we'll never be able to tell, and the Japanese (who have been lying about this extensively - they first claimed the collision happened because the AG slowed down suddenly) will of course say they just wanted to come close, whatever the truth. But with the water cannon going, there is no excuse for the SM initiating this new confrontation. Revenge for perceived harrassment earlier in the day doesn't cut it. The SM's purpose was meant to be to stop confrontations, not start one.

Perhaps going into reverse would have saved the AG; but it had been put at risk by the Japanese. The SM had turned to come at the AG; the crew of the AG had no idea if it would want to turn more and hit them squarely, and it's no use telling people "you should wait there, and see if this ship many times your size does intend to put your lives at risk"; people will try to save their own, and their shipmates', lives, naturally. And in just a few seconds, a helmsman is probably going to try to use forward momentum to steer, by instinct, rather than trying to do so backwards (because that's always more difficult).

I'm sure the AG didn't intend to be in the path of the boat - they weren't, until the boat turned. It's not 'zigging and zagging'; the Japanese closed the distance between the 2 boats deliberately, over the course of more than a minute, and that ship can change course in far less time than that. The Japanese created the situation, and endangered the Ady Gil. The AG slowed down over 2 minutes before the collision, and the Japanese decided, after it had slowed down, to turn to attack it.

[flvegan]

2. Yup. No denying it.

[FBaggins]

3. No question?

Why all the fluff leading up to the incident yet it cuts off just before the collision?

And no, there's no way to tell what the AG's motion is, you can only see the relative motion... just like the video from the bow of the whaler couldn't tell you what the whaler's course changes were.

Ever taken a look at a radar repeater as two ships converge? From the ship you're sitting on, it looks like all of the motion is coming from the other guy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. This is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQlnBfkophg

[Xipe Totec]

27. Because the larger ship tried to ram them, hosed them down, and they tried to move?

Is that your argument?

They are being power hosed, rammed, and they try to move the boat so... help me out here... :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

7. After having the front third of your ship cut off in a collision with a much larger boat...

I can't see why the crew would not continue filming...

:sarcasm:

[FBaggins]

8. Nice try

The collision hadn't happened yet.

Regardless... since the point under debate isn't covered by the video, how can it be offered as proof of anything?

One thing they likely didn't expect to give away is that the AG most definitely was NOT stopped in the water prior to the collision. You can see the wake behind the crew as they joke around.

Oops.

[Xipe Totec]

13. The wake indicates a course away from the larger ship

And the conversation on the AG does not indicate any intention to intercept the larger ship.

They seem surprised.

[hfojvt]

44. it may have been an accident but they definitely moved into it

*****************1
****************2
***************3
***************4
***************5
**************6
**************7
***********ABCD
***************9
*****************10


The Japanese ship approaches, get close, with the intent of driving the AG away. As it nears point five it seems to be pushed a little bit closer to the AG by ocean swells. It then starts to turn away when the AG quickly moves forward and causes the collision. It's clear from another one of the videos showing the AG moving forward into the collision. If they had stayed still, then there would have been no collision. No question in my mind that the AG moved into it, and this video does not show any different.

[Junkdrawer]

16. For fucks sake. The video shows the crew of the Ady Gil sitting around...

congratulating themselves when, from a great distance, the Japanese whaler comes, maneuvering to obtain a collision course several times, and ramming the Ady Gil.

All the while the Ady Gil is just sitting in shocked disbelief.

The video from the Japanese whaler was cut so as to make it look like they were repelling an attack from the Ady Gil. This video kills that case.

[girl gone mad]

41. +1

Enough already with the "don't believe your lying eyes!!1!" nonsense.

[FBaggins]

42. That's incorrect.

That "crew" is just passengers at this point. The "crew" actually conning the AG is inside... Posibly even behind a watertigt hatch. The kids on deck would have no idea what was going on ( in fact, if you've watched the show, that's the norm)

[slackmaster]

166. There is no such thing as "sitting around" when you are at sea, Junkdrawer

If you are underway you are underway and obligated to follow the rules.

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html

[thereismore]

28. A boat does not go sideways very well. It is obvious who was moving! The word glib

comes to mind.

[FBaggins]

32. It really isn't.

I don't expect those who haven't spent much time on the water (don't know it that includes you) to understand, but relative motion is a tricky thing... and the key moments are "hidden" (intentionally or not) by the camera zooming in ridiculously.

[slackmaster]

167. Neither vessel was moored. Neither vessel was disabled. Both vessels were underway.

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html

[emmadoggy]

114. Perhaps the person shooting the video

realized they were about to take a damn hard hit and decided to abandon shooting in order to grab onto something for dear life?

[TorchTheWitch]

11. direct link?

Your link only goes to the DU video page not any specific video.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0ak

[TorchTheWitch]

35. That really doesn't show anything

This one is interesting though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYxdkXlimk&feature=related

Certainly appears that the Ady Gill sped up into the path of the fishing boat. Of course the fishing boat shouldn't have been playing chicken with the Ady Gill and getting so close to it, but it definitely appears that a collision may have been avoided had the Ady Gill not sped up in the last seconds to get into it's path.

For the record, I hate these whalers and dolphin fishers, but I'll not pretend that I'm not seeing the Ady Gill deliberately sped up into the path of the fishing boat because that's sure as hell how it looks. There may have been a collision anyway without it speeding up like that and moving more into the fishing boat's path, but having done so (and it absolutely looks that way) it made a collision certain.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Ahh..for the good old days when a carefully cut Japanese video...

was all the evidence there was.

Won't.Wash

[jberryhill]

45. "Carefully Cut"?

How do you explain the sudden appearance of wash behind the Andy Gil just before impact?

To "cut" is to remove portions of a video in order to delete things.

Are you saying that the wash behind the Andy Gil was added to the video?

[Junkdrawer]

46. No, I'm saying the Japanese video didn't show the whaler closing...

on the Ady Gil but rather started with the water cannoning of the Ady Gil so as to leave the impression that the whaler was defending itself from attack.

[jberryhill]

47. It's clear they had the water cannons on, but...

...so what?

And yes, they were drawing near from a great distance.

As they are drawing near, what I'm looking at is the water directly astern the Andy Gil.

There is no wash, and it appears the Andy Gil is dead in the water.

But then, there seems to be quite a churning that starts behind the Andy Gil before impact.

That seems consistent with the sudden movement in front of the bow of the Japanese vessel, in the video taken from the other of Sea Shepherd's vessels that was posted previously.

I think the Japanese whalers have shit for brains. But the question here is how did these vessels move.

In terms of this collision, I've seen three videos posted:

1 - from one of Sea Shepherd's vessels, which, to me, looks like the Andy Gil accelerates in front of the bow of the Japanese vessel at the last moment.

2 - The one in this thread from aboard the Andy Gil, from which movement during the moments before impact can't be determined.

3 - the one from the Japanese vessel, which seems to show that the engines of the Andy Gil were throttled to full ahead, right before the impact.

When I had seen the first video, it was not from the Japanese, and it looked to me that the Andy Gil had deliberately moved in front of the bow prior to impact. So, I don't see how the source of the video matters, unless your contention is that the wash behind the Andy Gil is some sort of post-production artifact introduced into the video by the Japanese.

[conscious evolution]

50. To me it looks like they throttled up

in order to keep from being rammed.
I know that is what I would have done if I was the helmsman.

BTW,did you notice that a couple of the Adys crew had climbed out on the boats outriggers just before the ramming?No seaman would would ever put himself in such a dangerous position if they were the ones trying to ram another boat.

[Merchant Marine]

58. Boating Quiz!

Forgive the sailboats, I'm improvising here.



Two vessels are on a shallowly converging course. You are on vessel L.

Do you...
A) Go full ahead?
B) Go full astern?
C) Go hard right and full ahead?

[TorchTheWitch]

61. you'd think it would be obvious

The Ady Gil accelerated directly into the path of the fishing boat. If you're going to go full ahead to avoid such a collision you'd have to also go hard left or right - whichever takes you away from the other vessel's path... pretty clear the Ady Gil didn't try to manuever out of the path of the fishing boat but accelerated right into that path.

You don't try to avoid being hit by plowing directly into the other's path... should be a no-brainer.

[slackmaster]

74. Per Rule 15 boat W is obligated not to go ahead of boat L

Boat W would be the Japanese vessel. And in fact it DID avoid going ahead of Ady Gil - It went THROUGH Ady Gil. :D

Its apparent turn to the right at the last second, if in fact it did turn right, would have been appropriate.

Actually, per Rule 7 both vessels should have taken evasive action much, much sooner. They both had plenty of time. This was a game of Chicken that ended, as do many other games of Chicken, in neither party chickening out in time.

Both vessels were in the wrong. Both contributed to this collision. Neither is blameless.

[TorchTheWitch]

77. that's pretty much how I see it

A dangerous game of chicken both vessels played. Both were in the wrong for different reasons, but both were in the wrong.

However, as far as I know the rules of the "road" on the water is that the larger vessel has the right of way.

[slackmaster]

78. There's an unofficial but generally recognized Law of Gross Tonnage

Which states that the larger vessel always has the right of way.

The equivalent for road vehicles is the Lug Nut Rule - The vehicle with the most lug nuts always has the right of way.

Following those rules is a good way to stay alive.

[FBaggins]

79. It's not quite so "unofficial"

It has real force in these kinds of situations.

In fact... one might call it "self enforcing".


Things like this video are also taken into account. The AG spent days harassing the whaler, including dodging in front of the bow. There's no way they can claim "we was just out there minding our own business officer!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR96rKo6M7k

[GliderGuider]

83. So harassment justifies attempted murder?

[FBaggins]

84. Don't be ridiculous

But don't associate the results of stupidity with intentional actions.

There's exactly zero evidence that anyone WANTED a collision to occur.

[GliderGuider]

85. People have been saying for two days

on the basis of the previous videos that there was evidence the AG wanted (and caused) the collision. Now there's a video that categorically disputes that inference, and suddenly all the people who were sure that the AG's helmsman deliberately caused it have gone all impartial. GMAFB.

This video shows me that the Japanese did, in fact, want a collision. And it's a lot more solid inference that the character assassination that's been done on the AG's hapless helmsman. The Japanese had two and a half minutes to avoid a stationary boat in plain sight on a calm ocean. Instead they LRADed it, hosed it down and turned into it after what was probably a half-mile run in the open ocean.

Attempted murder.

[Junkdrawer]

86. +1

[FBaggins]

87. People often see what they want to see.

You, for instance, do NOT have enough evidence to say that something "categorically disputes" the claim.

This video shows me that the Japanese did, in fact, want a collision

It really shows nothing of the sort. I don't expect people with little sea experience to understand, but there's no way that's an intentional collision

The Japanese had two and a half minutes to avoid a stationary boat in plain sight on a calm ocean.

That's a false statement. She was in no way stationary. And if you think that's a calm ocean, y'er nuts. :)

The AG had been playing chicken with them for days. CONSTANTLY putting herself into a position where she had an obligation to get clear, but failing to do so. She simply does not have clean hands.

Let's put it this way. She spend days building a case for the whalers that's so strong that the whalers COULD have rammed intentionally and gotten away with it.

Just plain stupid.

[BeFree]

95. heh

"That's a false statement. She was in no way stationary. And if you think that's a calm ocean, y'er nuts."

Way to debate....NOT.

The AG wasn't stationary, but she was barely moving. A boat just drifting has no control, so any good skipper keeps a little forward motion going. There was no discernible wake from the AG until it powered up when the whaler came right at the AG, and the whaler was about 100 feet away.

The seas were not rough. It wasn't calm, but there was at most a 2 chop, and that's nothing in an open sea and nothing for a whaler, and not much for the AG to handle. The seas did not have any effect on the operations.

Now, I am not going to say, as you do, that you are just plain stupid, but you are making shit up. Why, I don't know. Maybe you hate that somebody is actually doing something against the big bad corporative whalers?

[FBaggins]

101. "A boat just drifting has no control"

In those seas and winds, it ALSO bobs up and down significantly and has it's heading box the compass.

This didn't happen... because she was NOT stationary.

There was no discernible wake from the AG until it powered up

Also untrue. She's clearly not moving rapidly, but she is under power.

The seas were not rough.

Not "rough" for that part of the world, but you can't look at the surging bow of the oncoming whaler and now see that the waves were significan't. What you likely don't understand is that the AG, when under way, is a very stable vesssel. She's designed to pierce waves rather than ride up and over them.

And I didn't say that you were stupid... I said that their actions were stupid. And they were. Whether you like what they do or not... if you've ever watched the show you know they're a bunch of people who simply don't know what they're doing. They've almost killed each other more than once while the enemy was miles away. They're also a led by a pathological liar, but you don't have to accept that (or that their tactics are counter-productive) to recognize that they failed to place more than four of their fifteen shared nautical brain cells abourd the AG that day.

[BeFree]

104. Man, oh man

Did you watch the vids on a 13 inch screen, or what?

The AG was moving at most about 3 knots. Practically stationary. There was no discernible wake until seconds from impact. Wake being wash from propulsion and parting of the water.

The surging bow of the whaler was the force on her from the turns she was making. You really need to see more of the graphical evidence and see it on something bigger than a 13 or 19 inch screen.

Question: did you see the paint from the whaler on the AG? Yes, or no?

[FBaggins]

107. "The AG was moving at most about 3 knots. Practically stationary"

Lol... now it's "practically stationary"?

You can't possibly judge speed from what we've seen... but you've now agreed that they were clearly under way. That's really all that matters.

There was no discernible wake until seconds from impact.

No discernible wake? I suppose if you're blind there isn't. What did you think the stream of white foam trailing out behind the AG was... friendly sea foam that always follows men who protect the sea?

The surging bow of the whaler was the force on her from the turns she was making

That's ridiculous, sorry. Now turning causes a surging bow? And the vessel can turn back and forth that substantially several times in thirty seconds? That's an amazingly nimble vessel. < /sarcasm>

question: did you see the paint from the whaler on the AG? Yes, or no?

Paint? I see what could be paint but is more likely splintered carbon fiber along one "wing" (or whatever they're calling their outriggers). I've seen what appears to be the whaler's water-line paint smeared across the "ady gil" logo near what once was the bow.

What relevance do you see in that? I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees there was a collision.

[BeFree]

111. Heh

With a top speed of @50 knots, yeah practically stationary.
If you saw the vid from the whaler, and if you had a large enough screen, you would see that the AG is barely moving.

You say you can't tell the speed from what "we've seen" but obviously then, you haven't seen what I've seen. The vid from the whaler shows the paint on the AG's port hull. Don't know from what pic you saw the paint but I saw it on the whaler vid, and from that vid I can see the lack of wake from the AG.

The whaler is a very nimble vessel. They use it to hunt down nimble whales. It has to be nimble to track down and follow whales until the whale runs out of steam. Makes it much easier to kill them that way. The vessel is very nimble and your lack of that knowledge is VERY telling.

When any vessel turns there is much lateral force against the side of that vessel. That's why they have pointed bows - to cut down force. Lateral forces push a boat up, sometimes even rolls them over, and it did push up the bow of on the whaler as it turned.

You obviously don't know much about boating or boats. Maybe you should give it a rest?

[slackmaster]

138. "Barely moving" with respect to what?

Obviously it is approaching the Japanese vessel throughout the video.

There is no fixed object to serve as a frame of reference in ANY of the videos.

[slackmaster]

136. You have absolutely no way to determine its speed relative to anything

You can't tell how fast the wind is blowing or in which direction, likewise the current. You don't know how fast AG was going relative to the sea or to anything else. You don't know the absolute speed or direction of the Japanese ship. You have no fixed frame of reference against which to judge the absolute speed or direction of any object in any of the videos.

All motion is relative.

[BeFree]

139. Slack is back!

Good thing you edited that. Just can't take defeat, eh?
I can tell which way your current is headed. Bwahahahaha!!

[slackmaster]

140. Answer the question or admit that you have been bamboozled

You stated that AG is "barely moving".

I ask what you mean by that - Barely moving with respect to what frame of reference?

All motion is relative. When you look at a radar scope on a ship, it appears that your ship is stationary and everything else is moving, except another vessel (or other object) on the same heading going the same speed.

Obviously the two ships are approaching each other for the full 3 minutes 20 seconds of the video. From the perspective of either one, the other is approaching. Neither is stationary.

[BeFree]

141. heh

Yeah, the whaler was moving pretty fast relative to the AG. You're right for once.

[slackmaster]

142. The AG was also moving pretty fast relative to the whaler

All motion is relative.

Answer the question! What is your frame of reference for atating that AG is barely moving?

[Junkdrawer]

148. Finally, a believable answer to Tower #7.....

the ground rose up and swallowed the building....

[slackmaster]

150. That's pretty funny, but Tower #7 can properly be said to have not been in motion

With respect to a fixed frame of reference, i.e. the ground.

There is no fixed frame of reference in any of the videos of the collision that banged up Ady Gil.

I see two ships under motor power at sea. Their absolute speed with respect to any fixed object is irrelevant. They are approaching each other.

They are on a collision course. That fact is obvious for about two full minutes. Both vessels could clearly see that a potential collision situation was imminent.

Both vessels are obligated by Rule 7 to take evasive action.

Neither vessel takes evasive action until (maybe) the last few seconds before the collision.

Both vessels are at fault. Neither vessel is blameless.

[Junkdrawer]

152. I really want to thank you for keeping this video kicked....

while persuing a non-point that anyone who views the video can see through...

:hi:

[slackmaster]

155. What's amusing to me is how easily people are swayed by propaganda

By that I am not referring to the word "RESEARCH" painted, in English, on the side of a Japanese whaling vessel that is actually doing security work to aid in an illegal commercial whaling operation. Just about everyone on Earth, except maybe a few Japanese consumers, see through that.

The entire story is oozing with pro-SSCS propaganda because they're the ones who originally reported to the media that their vessel was "rammed"; intentionally struck by a party widely regarded as a villain by people all over the world.

SSCS has become very adept at controlling the message. The Japanese whalers don't really give a crap about how they're viewed. They haven't done squat to bolster their image. Nobody believes they are doing research, and they don't care.

I guarantee you the captain of that ship didn't really want to collide with Ady Gil.

[slackmaster]

128. You're jumping to a conclusion

[Harry Monroe]

135. You're talking about "the bigger the boat, the righter the way"

And no, nowhere in the COLREGS does it say the larger boat has the right of way. There is no unofficial nor generally recognized Law of Gross Tonnage. As a Merchant Marine Office (Chief Mate Unlimited License) and a 22 year career, I think I know of what I speak. In an Admiralty Court, there would be proportinate blame assigned to each vessel.

[Merchant Marine]

110. And if boat W does not maneuver, boat L is obligated to avoid collision

n/t

[conscious evolution]

109. And how is this relevant?

This example supposes both boats are in motion.The AG was clearly sitting still.

[Merchant Marine]

116. No, it aint

If the Ady Gil was sitting still, the only physical way for the whaler to intersect her would be to point her bow at the Ady Gil. Constant bearing, decreasing range, aka the simplest maneuvering plot you'll ever do.

Now if both vessels are moving, then the video makes sense. The SM2 can make 12 knots, max, so to manage the required relative motion for collision the Ady gil would be doing 3-4 knots, a perfectly reasonable speed for keeping your bow into the waves so you don't broach and swamp.

Two vessels on a shallowly converging course. Both notice too late, then crunch. Simple.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. Again, it's clear the SM2 was not on a constant bearing

She was turning to starboard. I don't know why you keep assuming she was on a constant bearing when she wasn't. She turned to come as close as possible to the AG. The speed of the AG looks below 3 knots to me (before the gun the engine, that is), as well. Not that easy to judge in open water, but I'd say the water passing it (most visible in the video shot from the SM2) is slower than walking pace). So I think the manoeuvurability of the AG was limited. Yes, they could have started their engine 20 seconds earlier, and then their speed would have allowed them to do whatever they wanted. But the SM2 turned to cause this confrontation, and thus bears any responsibility.

[slackmaster]

130. No, that is not clear at all

The apparent turn could be a result of AG's motion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. Look at the video from the Japanese ship

It's clear the AG's speed in the water in tiny, in both videos; and the position of the Bob Barker in the far distance, relative to the SM2, shows that the Japanese ship makes a significant turn so that the AG comes within range of its water cannons. From the video taken from the AG, it's clear that this was a deliberate course change for over a minute. The SM2 decided to attack the AG.

[slackmaster]

156. The only thing that is clear from all the videos is that two vessels are on a collision course

It's clear the AG's speed in the water in tiny

It doesn't make any difference what speed she was going. The rules don't say anything about speed. If you are underway you are underway.

She wasn't anchored, moored, or disabled because of a mechanical problem; therefore both vessels had a responsibility to avert a collision.

There was plenty of time to correct courses to minimize the danger as required by Rule 7.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. It makes a difference because it shows the SM2 turned towards the AG

If the AG wasn't moving, the change from the SM2 being more or less broadside on to it to almost pointing at it can only have come from a course change by the SM2. That happened over a minute or so. Thus the Japanese were the ones that caused the collision course. If they had kept on their original heading, there would have been a hundred metres or more between the boats.

[slackmaster]

163. Once again, all the motion you see is relative - NOTHING in the frame is stationary

You CANNOT say that the apparent change of course by SM2 is the result of SM2 actually turning. Some or all of the apparent turn could be due to AG's motion. You have no fixed frame of reference to determine the absolute heading or speed of any object in any of the videos.

That happened over a minute or so.

Yes, both vessels had at least a good minute in which to take action to avoid a collision. Neither one did.

Some reading material for your education:

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. We have the almost complete lack of wake of the AG

which is obvious from the start of the video taken from the SM2, as well as that taken from the AG; we have the heel of the SM2, indicative of a turn at a fair rate; and we have the considerable change of apparent bearing (ie relative to the bow of the SM2) of the Bob Barker in the video taken from the SM2 - more than could happen from the speed in the water of the BB alone (which is at quite a distance). So, yes, we can say that that the SM2 turned through a considerable angle so that she reached the AG. Whether her captain's intention was to ram her, or just to attack her with the water cannons, we can't know.

The SM2 manoeuvred to cause the collision; the AG did not manoeuvre to avoid it.

[slackmaster]

165. Neither vessel maneuvered to avoid a collision

We have the almost complete lack of wake of the AG

That is irrelevant, for reasons I have already stated repeatedly. If you are underway you are underway.

The SM2 manoeuvred to cause the collision...

The state of mind of the pilot of SM2 cannot be determined from the videos.

[GliderGuider]

123. "Both notice too late" WTF?

The SM2 clearly seems to have known exactly where the AG was. The only failure to notice was on the part of the AG. My take on it is that the SM2 approached the idling AG at full speed with malign intent and the AG failed to notice until it was too late. The SM2 was running at somewhere around 10 knots with the LRAD and the water hoses running, the AG was making at most 3 knots, maybe less, with the captain chit-chatting.

The SM2 was intent on harm, the AG had her guard down. Simple.

[slackmaster]

129. Clear as mud

It's absolutely not certain that the AG was sitting still. None of the videos have a known stationary point of reference to establish that as fact.

[FBaggins]

64. A couple problems with that.

1) They aren't seamen. If you've watched the show you know that these kids are constantly doing things that no sane seaman would do.

2) The kids on deck haven't a clue what's going on... and the guy at the helm is nowhere near them.

[TorchTheWitch]

53. that's pretty much what I've seen

It's clear that the fishing boat came close to the Ady Gil and turned the water canons on it while the Ady Gil was sitting unmoving in the water. Legally I don't have any idea if those actions are ok or not. Had the Ady Gil remained still in the water it may still have gotten hit but probably would have been a close call instead. But it's also clear that the Ady Gil accelerated forward in the last seconds directly into the fishing boat's path making it a certainty that it would be hit.

While the Japanese boat coming so close to the Ady Gil while it remained still in the water and blasting the crew on deck with the water canons shows a pretty clear disregard for the Ady Gil and its crew, the captain of the Ady Gil accelerating into the path of the fishing boat also shows a clear disregard for the vessel and his crew... and seeing it appears that his intension was to be hit it looks like even more of a callous disregard than that of the fishing vessel.

[FBaggins]

48. They have those running any time the seashepards are in sight. N/t

[S_E_Fudd]

39. Definitive!!!

eom

[Poll_Blind]

43. Attempted murder on the high seas. Pretty sure you can get sued for that someplace.

How does that work? Anyone know? Like some court of maritime law or something? I seemed to recall that we had a few mariners here. Anybody?

Thanks for the info!

PB

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Sea Shepherd is taking the Japanese to court n the Netherlands

The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd has asked the Dutch public prosecutor to launch a criminal investigation into a clash between the group's speedboat and a Japanese whaling vessel.
...
Sea Shepherd's mother ship is registered in the Netherlands and the group's lawyer, Liesbeth Zegveld, said the group had filed a complaint there.
...
"We filed a complaint for criminal prosecution with our prosecutor, requesting the start of an investigation into what we consider to be a crime - piracy, actually - committing violence on the high seas," Ms Zegveld said.
...
Ms Zegveld says because Sea Shepherd's ship the Steve Irwin is Dutch-registered and one of the Ady Gil's crew members is Dutch, the group has a legal basis for pursuing a criminal case in the Netherlands.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/09/2788750.htm?section=justin

And I think that video is persuasive evidence that the Japanese bear the blame - they were manoeuvring to at least get as close as possible to the Ady Gil, and use the water cannon on it, and quite possibly with the view of ramming it too. The Ady Gil had been drifting, and needed some speed in the water to be able to turn (hence the attempt to go forward at the last moment); and already had the water cannon being fired at them, and so they were in no position to be able to judge how to avoid the Japanese ship that had hunted them down.

[GliderGuider]

96. As much as I love SSCS, the AG's captain bears quite a bit of responsibility for the outcome.

They could easily have avoided the attack if they had been keeping a proper watch. Instead they let their guard down and let themselves get rammed. Pete Bethune is a cowboy. While that's what Watson wants for missions like this, this is the price he paid for it.

[Merchant Marine]

54. Maritime law is much different than law on land

The first and only investigation made will be a collision report, which will summarize the collision, outline the results, assign blame and make suggestions on how it could have been avoided. The report can also recommend punishment for the involved companies, vessel and crew, which is carried out by the flag state and various NGOs responsible for other aspects of vessel registration, including the class society and licensing authority. In the USA the primary class society is the American Bureau of Shipping, and the licensing authority is the US Coast Guard. Not sure about japan.

I dunno about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Japanese to punish their own whalers.

[Merchant Marine]

51. Nope, too much relative motion

Its clear that the Ady Gil was moving too. When a moving vessel rams a stationary vessel you see Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range. That is, if the Ady Gil was stationary the whaler would have been bow-on to the Gil, not moving along a nearly parallel course.

If the whaler had been aiming for the Ady Gil the Gil should've been hit in the center or the stern, but instead she got hit in the bow. This doesn't make sense considering the Gil's acceleration before the crash. If the whaler had been attempting to ram, she'd have been aiming for the center of the Gil, and the last ditch accel should have caused the Gil to be hit abaft the beam. It only makes sense that the Gil's last surge carried her into the path of the whaler- I won't judge if this act was intentional or accidental.

The video really highlights the vulnerabilities of the Ady Gil and the poor training of the crew. The whaler was coming in from a blind spot for the crew in the cockpit- the windows are poorly placed and offer no visibility abaft the beam. The crew on deck are not keeping a good lookout; they see the whaler coming but don't inform the crew inside. The Ady Gil could have avoided the collision at any point in the video by putting her stern to the whaler and moving away with her much higher top speed. In extremis she should have gone right rull back full in stead of full ahead.

My professional opinion was that the vessels were on shallowly converging courses and that the crew in control of the Ady Gil had poor visibility and poor communications with the people topside. I sympathize because I've had a similar thing happen in simulation- I was piloting a car carrier with poor visibility astern and was being overtaken in the traffic lane by an aggressively driven frigate. He passed inside my radar minimum range and I lost the plot, so I was relying on visuals alone to avoid collision. I was on course 118, he was on 116- a shallowly converging course. To make a long story short he scraped down the side of my bow and made some angry chatter over the simulated VHF. I got an earful for that one from the instructor, but there wasn't much I could do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. The Japanese boat was turning to starboard, towards the Ady Gil

That is clear from the other 2 videos (one shot from the Japanese ship; 1 from the other #Sea Shepherd ship). That's why it's not a constant bearing. It looks like that in this video too - when they first see the Japanese ship, its motion is more from left to right, as seen in this video, than parallel to any course of the Ady Gil (and note that they were hardly moving through the water until the last moment; I think they accelerated to give themselves enough way to be able to turn).

"In extremis she should have gone right rull back full in stead of full ahead." Perhaps. This was 'in extremis' - they probably didn't think the Japanese ship was going to approach that close until the last few seconds. But how well can you steer that boat going backwards? The Japanese ship targetted the Ady Gil, either to fire the water cannon at it from point blank range, or to ram it; saying "if you'd stayed perfectly still, we'd have missed your bow by a least a metre" is hardly an excuse for them.

[Junkdrawer]

57. Exactly correct. Either this was an intentional ramming or an intentional near miss...

either of which will NOT be seen kindly by maritime authorities.

[TorchTheWitch]

117. that's not what you claimed in your OP

You claimed that Japanese vessel deliberately rammed the AG. Now you're saying that it could have equally been a deliberate near miss. Well it's been obvious all along that the whaler intentionally got too close to the AG enough so as to cause a near miss. The debate here has been whether or not the whaler intended to collide with the AG, and presumably your reasoning for providing the OP was to put that debate to rest claiming that the whaler did indeed intentionally ram the AG.

Except the evidence you presented doesn't put that debate to rest... so much so that you're now saying that it could EITHER be an intentional ramming OR and intentional near miss. And we're back where we started seeing that it's been apparent all along that the whaler deliberately got so close to the AG as to nearly miss hitting it.

Maritime authorities won't be happy with the actions of either vessel since they BOTH are responsible for the collision. They'll also take into account the video evidence that shows that the AG was harrassing the whaler for days beforehand with it's own brand of attacks. Perhaps they'll even take into account video evidence of Sea Shepherd vessels deliberately ramming whalers like this one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_b_IYQMSvM

BOTH sides in this whale war employ wretched tactics and it's arguable which side employs more evils ones. It seems apparent that both sides are escalating their attacks on each other... neither side has clean hands in how they're dealing with each other.

[Junkdrawer]

122. If a person is standing in the middle of parking lot with his back turned to you...

and you decide to drive your car at 50 mph and just miss him by a foot or two, you will be guilty of (attempted) vehicular manslaughter if you hit him.

[slackmaster]

168. There is no such thing as "standing" at sea with your back toward potential danger

http://boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html

If you're not paying attention and you become involved in a collision, you take a share of the blame.

[Merchant Marine]

59. They zoom backwards pretty good

After they've been hit. Any properly designed boat can be driven fine in reverse, it just turns a little slower. I maintain that the Ady Gil could have opened the distance at any time; the reason that they did not do so was due to poor communication and poor visibility from the cockpit. I think the driver panicked and rammed the throttles forward in clear violation of all good ship handling practices.

I am of course assuming that they wished to avoid a collision.

[Robb]

60. There is a problem with your analysis.

Every indication from that video is that the whaler, or whaling security vessel, or whatever the hell they're calling it, attempts to not hit the Ady Gil.

Boats lean into their turns. Consider, from the video:

At time 2:51, a clear horizon and mast gives a baseline. I am of course estimating with freehand lines, but you can see what it looks like underway in what we assume is a straight line:


...Now, at time 3:15, the only time (I could find quickly) that was both (a) near the impact, and (b) with a visible (if barely) horizon:


Of course these lines are rough, but I think it's pretty clear...I don't see how they can be attempting to ram a stationary vessel while turning away from it. :shrug: I have an open mind on the matter, so if I'm wrong please show me.

[Junkdrawer]

62. Oh yeah. Watching the video, it's clear that the Ady Gil chased the whaler...

:eyes:

[Robb]

65. Being a snot is a good way to convince people of your position.

You must've been on the debate team. :D

Snottiness aside, it appears from a post below yours larger vessels lean out, not in. So I stand corrected and suggest this is the best evidence I've seen yet that the whaler meant to hit the Ady Gil.

[Dead_Parrot]

63. No, they lean out

cherokeeprogressive illustrated this point in another thread, thusly:




Edit the clarify: This applies to larger vessels - I suspect it depends on the center of gravity. The coastguard vessel in the bottom pic looks roughly the same size as the whaler.

[Robb]

68. Very illuminating.

Thank you. I wonder if our merchant marine (I've forgotten the poster's name) has insight on this.

To my thinking, as I've since said, the notion that the whaler was doing anything but trying to run down the Ady Gil seems to be sunk.

Edited to add: I am a complete dingbat, as I see our merchant marine's screen name is Merchant Marine. (facepalm)

[GliderGuider]

66. I found some folks who disagree with you

From: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O225-heel.html

"A powered vessel will heel outwards, when turning at speed, through its centrifugal force, returning to the upright when the turn is over."

From the book Ship Stability for Masters and Mates:

"these two forces produce a couple which tends to heel the ship away from the centre of the turn..."

From Slide 8 of this PPT:

"The ship will heel toward the outside of a turn."

The SM was turning towards the AG in these frames, not away from it.

[Robb]

67. Quite so.

Upthread a bit I've noted as much. This is the best evidence I've seen that the whaler was attempting to hit the Ady Gil.

[Dead_Parrot]

69. Bonus points are hearby awarded...

....for standing corrected. :D

[Robb]

72. An increasingly rare position on DU, it seems.

I will of course take all points I can. :D

I would also note I have come completely 180 degrees from my position on the matter yesterday. Unless someone can convince me there's a reason large-ish Japanese ships lean the other direction in a turn. Some variation on the Coriolis effect, maybe. :rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

73. Maybe it's an ancient tradition?

:hide:

[Ignis]

81. +1

[FBaggins]

88. The problem with that is that we don't know that it's turning at all

I know it looks that way from certain angles, but it's entirely possible that the only course change is to port.

Look at how substantial the lift and fall of the bow is while shouldering those seas. If the waves aren't coming head on, the effect is to give the bow a "corkscrew" motion that can get quite significant. The helmsman will make constant adjustment to try and counteract this, but when the waves are irregular it's close to impossible to maintain a steady course. It's also true that waves likely accounted for more heeling than any turn did.

Another thing to consider is that vessels that size (though the whalers are maneuverable for their displacement... they're still comparatively large) just don't turn on a dime.

The only CLEAR intentional course change in the video is a fairly substantial turn to port. This takes place far too late and it looks like it occurs while the bow is corkscrewing to starboard (delaying the actual turn).

Had there been an intentional starboard turn that late in the events, it would have been impossible to change course back to port anywhere near as quickly as what we witnessed immediately before the collision.

[GliderGuider]

89. If it is turning it's probably turning towards the AG based on the heel. If it's not,

it was running straight at them the whole time. I don't know which possibility is more damning.

[FBaggins]

91. With wind and seas running, a heel doesn't mean that there's a turn

It also isn't clear that the AG isn't running straight in front of them (just slower).

Given the history of these engagements, I'd say the RIGHT thing for the other ship to do is to maintain as straight a course as they can. You can't tell where they're going to go next.

[GliderGuider]

90. And regarding your comment "vessels that size ... just don't turn on a dime"

They had two and a half minutes to make a turn away from the AG and avoid a collision. That's a mighty big dime.

[FBaggins]

92. The AG also had 2.5 minutes.

And is far more maneuverable.

You're trying to pretend that the rules say "I can do anything I want and you have to avoid me"... that isn't the case.

If one vessel constantly plays chicken with another and later gets hit? They won't have much of a defense. They were obviously reckless.

[GliderGuider]

93. During that 2.5 minutes the SM was under way and the AG was not.

If there was no malign intent on the part of the SM, prudence and good seamanship would have dictated more cautious behaviour regardless of the previous actions or current position of the AG. The AG was not being reckless at this point in the encounter. I suspect that an inquiry will look mostly at the specifics of this incident. After all, a captain isn't supposed to let temper or frustration interfere with his judgment while in command.

You appear to be trying to blame the AG for the SM's actions.

[FBaggins]

99. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The AG had reduced speed, but she was clearly under way.

If there was no malign intent on the part of the SM, prudence and good seamanship would have dictated more cautious behaviour regardless of the previous actions or current position of the AG.

Lol. You're asking for "prudece and good seamanship" ? Have you see ANY of the videos of this group's "missions"???

I suspect that an inquiry will look mostly at the specifics of this incident.

You suspect wrong. You can't TRY to damage another vessel... TRY to blind the crew... etc (all after years of intentional collisions and bragging that you had sunk other ships) and then claim "we were just minding our own business".

[slackmaster]

151. You have no basis for saying it was not underway.

It was not anchored.

It was not docked.

It was not tied up to a buoy.

Therefore it was underway.

prudence and good seamanship would have dictated more cautious behaviour regardless of the previous actions or current position of the AG.

Wrong. Both vessels were obligated to take action to avoid a potential collision. Both vessels had plenty of time to react. Neither did jack shit until it was too late, and there was a collision.

[Xithras]

70. I think Watson is a pirate and should be imprisoned, but you're wrong there.

And in this particular instance, the Watson has a point. The Japanese whalers just screwed up.

Boats lean into their turns. Ships heel out. The difference is the weight and center of mass. In fact, this is a classic answer to the old question: "What's the difference between a ship and a boat?" "Boats heel in when turning, and ships heel out."

The Japanese whalers are rather large ships, and they heeled out.

It looks to me like the harpoon ship was already in a turn and the pirate boat parked itself on its course. If the harpoon ship were traveling straight, then the law of greater tonnage would apply and the fault would lay with the pirate boat. Large ships have no duty to turn to avoid smaller ones while at sea, a rule that every sailor knows. In this case, however, the harpoon ship was already in a turn and had plenty of room to correct. They merely needed to adjust their turn slightly to avoid the impact, or to exit the course change entirely. The fact that the larger ships captain failed to do that and maintained his turn is a potentially criminal offense. Normally this thing wouldn't be chargeable because the larger ships captain could merely say "we didn't see them" and it would be dropped (once again, greater tonnage gets the right of way), but the LRAD and firehose targeting clearly shows that the Japanese vessel was aware of the smaller ship long before the point of impact. They maintained their turn knowing full well that it was going to result in a collision. They turned INTO the smaller boats position.

I sail, and this is a fairly blatant breach of normal navigational rules. Watsons group is guilty of violating those same rules MANY times over, so some may take the "what's good for the goose..." opinion on the whole thing, but I'm of the opinion that revenge isn't a good reason for almost killing several people. The smaller boat could have easily been rolled by that impact (I suspect that most boats would have, and only the pontoon things on the sides kept it upright), and the crew onboard could have been pulled into the props under the harpoon boat. Only luck kept that from happening.

On edit: I apparently need to type faster, because several others posted the same thing while I was hammering this out. Doh!

[conscious evolution]

106. That second shot shows the ship turning toward the AG

Not away.
Ships lean away from the turn.Not into them like a bike would do.

[MSchreader]

75. Apologies to the pro-Japanese whalers, but

You are wrong.

I've seen four different videos of this incident now, each from different angles, and listened carefully to the audio (with and without video) and watched the video (with and without audio), and here's what I pieced together:

1. At the time the Shonan Maru closed in on the Ady Gil, the Gil had its engines off and its was adrift in the water (which accounts for the very light wake behind it). You can hear the engine power down in the video linked to in the OP.

2. The Shonan Maru was clearly in an offensive posture, initiating its LRAD system and water cannons before nearing the Gil (its wake is clearly visible). On the other hand, the Gil's crew were sitting around talking when the SM made its approach; they were not even in a defensive posture, as indicated by the fact that, as the SM came closer, the crew on the outer deck were taking pictures of the ship.

3. While the video in the OP cuts off only a few seconds before the collision, this video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBKYjHUUN4Q -- shows what happened, and the reaction of the Gil crew is visible:

3a. As the SM gets closer, one member goes into the cabin of the Gil, a short time later, you begin to see the engines power up (initially, it appears there are three people above deck; then there are two just before and after the engines power up). At the point when the engines were started, there is no way that the Gil could have made a course correction away from the SM; even a full reverse would have taken some seconds to overcome the drift and natural ocean current.

3b. By the time the engines were up enough to power to move the vessel, it was too late. The SM was, quite literally, on top of it. Nonetheless, looking at the position of the crew members outside of the cabin of the Gil, it appears the pilot was attempting to make a hard turn to starboard (the pilot's right) in order to avoid the SM.

3c. After the nose of the Gil had been sheared off, the SM continued its water cannon and LRAD attack on the crew. At 33 seconds into the second video, you can see the water cannon knock one of the Gil crew into the water ... and keep on its attack.

4. Whatever one thinks of the Sea Shepherds and their tactics, it is clear from viewing the incident from multiple points that this was no accident. It was intentional. The Japanese whaling ship, the Shonan Maru, intentionally closed in on the Ady Gil with the intent to disable her crew, if not the ship itself. The nonchalance in the voices of the Japanese crew before, during and after the collision also betrays a malice of forethought to this act.

5. As someone who has been watching these skirmishes between the Sea Shepherds and the Japanese whalers, it is clear that the Japanese have been the ones who have escalated the level of aggression at every turn: from water cannons, to throwing heavy metal objects, to the LRADs, to this. I have little doubt that the next steps will be use of the whaling harpoons or even firearms against the Sea Shepherds, since they are the logical next steps for an increasingly belligerent Japanese whaling force.

6. It is only a matter of time before the Japanese whalers kill one of the Sea Shepherds with their tactics. Perhaps at that point the Sea Shepherds will begin to think more seriously about their own tactics and what appropriate measures of self-defense to take.

[GliderGuider]

80. Good analysis - I agree. One other thing struck me.

The AG engines were shut down over 2:30 before the impact. For two and a half minutes they were just sitting there (with the captain nowhere near the helm) not doing anything but chit-chatting as the SM closed on them. The SM had plenty of time to locate the motionless AG and steer clear. Two and a half minutes at, say, 10 knots meant that the SM was half a mile away when the AG cut her engines. The SM was under way and could have altered course at any time to avoid a confrontation. She chose not to, and that half mile turned into an attack run.

[rgbecker]

153. This is the best of the videos by far.....From two ships at once....

Clearly showing the Japs turning starboard to wards the Gil, then back to port as Gil tries to accelerate to cross ahead to avoid crash. Typical instance of both going to same spot thinking they would avoid the other.

[GliderGuider]

94. One other thing it shows is that the AG crew let their guard down.

They should have been keeping watch on the approaching vessel as the rules require. Instead they got so busy congratulating themselves that they didn't notice the danger until too late. I think they underestimated the anger of the SM's captain, and then completely failed to detect the danger they were in. That's a major failure of seamanship for which Pete Bethune bears full responsibility.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rules/Rule07.htm

RULE 7: RISK OF COLLISION

(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.

(d)     In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:
         1. Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change.

[BeFree]

97. One of the crew....

....was on deck. He was almost thrown overboard from the collision. You know he was caught by surprise.

So, it seems he was surprised that the compass bearing of the whaler changed, otherwise he would have gone below decks way before the incident.

[GliderGuider]

98. Granted. Still, wouldn't prudence have dictated that they keep an eye on the approaching vessel?

Rather than doing high-fives, sitting down and taking a load off? The AG could have scooted out of harm's way at any point up to ten seconds or so before impact if they'd kept a defensive stance. Instead it looks like they got caught up in their own David v. Goliath narrative and this time Goliath stomped them.

[Junkdrawer]

100. I really don't think they expected "Goliath to stomp them"....

They will from now on, but this represents a new escalation of the Whale Wars.

[BeFree]

103. Yep

They did let their guard down. I guess they thought the whaler skipper was of sound mind? Methinks they harassed the whaler a bit more than the whaler could take.

I wonder if we will ever hear if the whaler skipper gets rewarded or loses his sea card. It would be nice to know.

[slackmaster]

158. It's always risky to assume that the commander of another vessel is of sound mind

[Merchant Marine]

115. Its looking more and more like an accident on the part of both parties

It is likely that a marine inquiry will find both vessels to be at fault.


I'd like to note that 490 tons is not a very big ship. The training vessel I sail on displaces 9,132 tons, and we call her a baby ship. Even 9,000 tons moves quite a bit when you've got big swells coming in across your trackline. We'd notice course variations of 5-10 degrees with hand steering as we'd try to compensate for the forces shoving the bow around.

I maintain that the Ady Gil was underway at the time of the collision, and that both vessels closed on a shallow converging course similar to the one in the diagram I posted upthread. This reinforces the accident theory, as shallowly converging courses are the most difficult to judge by eye. The Ady Gil had no radar onboard, and was supposedly "stealth", so radar could not have been used to avoid the collision. The poor visibility from the cockpit and lack of a good lookout on the Ady Gil contributed greatly to the collision, particularly in the final seconds.

Faults of the Shonan Maru 2
- Failed to uphold the responsibilities of a give-way vessel (Rule 16)
- Did not maintain a safe speed (Rule 6)
- Did not maintain sufficient sea room (Rule 8)

Faults of the Ady Gil
- Failure to show good seamanship practices (Rule 2)
- Failure to keep a good lookout (Rule 5)
- Did not maneuver when it became clear that the Shonan Maru 2 was not upholding her responsibilities as the give-way vessel. (Rule 17)
- Ignored LRAD warning signal from Shonan Maru 2 (Rule 36)
- Failure to mount radar reflector as required of craft with poor radar signatures (SOLAS 19.2.1.7)

(Edit: Collision Regs are listed here: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm )

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. The whole strategy of SSCS is harassment.

In the maritime rules of the road, the only way you can force a course change on another vessel is to set an intercept course on a vessel from your port side. This forces the other vessel to adjust course and speed to pass astern of your vessel.

That's exactly what the Ady Gil was doing, except instead of maintaining course and speed, they'd stop and squat, forcing the whaler to turn hard to starboard. The Ady Gil hit the throttle too late for their game to end well.

Remember also that the camera onboard the Ady Gil was undoubtedly set for as wide an angle as possible. Objects are much closer than they appear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. "That's exactly what the Ady Gil was doing, except they did something totally different"

The AG was stopped, to the starboard of the SM2, which altered course to starboard to head towards the AG.

[bridgit]

108. From the clip I saw, they tried to crack it in half

[Cetacea]

112. +1

[MilesColtrane]

113. All I know is that Batman's going to be pissed.

[Qanisqineq]

118. Comment from Captain Pete Bethune

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/01/09/ady-gil-captain-we-tried-to-turn-to-starboard-just-before-impact/

We were just idling. My guy driving tried to turn to starboard at last minute but was too late. Also had a wave pick us up which carried us another metre or so into danger. In the end we had right of way. They were on our port side and they were also overtaking. So it is up to them to steer clear of us regardless. A good result for the Japanese in short term, but this will hurt them dearly in the long term I believe.”

[Hassin Bin Sober]

124. That makes sense.

That last throttle-up appeared to me to be an attempt to go hard right. With engines at idle in forward gear, that would be the only fast emergency maneuver he could make.

ANyone who says the AG deliberately got themselves run over is a f-cking idiot.

[jmowreader]

144. There's a faster emergency maneuver he could have made

Shifters to reverse, throttles to full. You steer in port with the throttles and shifters, so you KNOW he could have backed up instantaneously. Ady Gil also had at least one radar on her, so the driver should have noticed the Japanese ship and thought, "maybe I should have gotten out of here" if he wanted to save the boat.

[Robb]

125. "Had a wave pick us up"?

That's weak. I mean, I've come to the conclusion the whaler was deliberately trying to ram them. But this is a weak fucking answer from a guy who's supposed to be some kind of master seaman.

I'd like to hear from his "guy driving".

[Bonobo]

126. I've come to the conclusion that both sides have been playing a dangerous game

and that neither wants to kill the other side but wants to get as close as possible.

I think it was an accident because the margin of error is just too small for the game of chicken they are playing.

[Robb]

127. Probably a sensible conclusion. nt

[slackmaster]

132. Yes, I agree with Bonobo

It was a dangerous and stupid game of "Chicken".

[slackmaster]

131. Why were they "idling" instead of actively maneuvering to reduce the risk of collision?

:argh:

[jberryhill]

147. Watson Contradicts Bethune

In the video from the Australian broadcast, Watson claims Bethune was attempting full reverse.

Bethune says he was trying to turn starboard.

LMK when they make up their minds.

[jmowreader]

161. Watson's a liar

The Japanese video depicts turbulence coming out the back of Ady Gil, and also bow wake off the nose of his port-side sponson--both indicative of Ady Gil going forward.

If he was "attempting" full reverse, he's the worst sailor in the free world. No one leaves port without knowing which direction to move the shifters to make the boat back up.

[Vickers]

133. If the AG is so maneuverable, why didn't they try to maneuver out of the way?

:shrug:

Serious question.

I've spent a lot of time on the water (coastal Georgia), and I give the container ships and shrimpers a pretty wide berth. If I see one even *slightly* converging on my path, I immediately change course.

[Junkdrawer]

134. Because they didn't expect to be run over....

This incident represents a dangerous new escalation.

[1]

137. "dangerous new escalation?" not really. these ships have been "rubbin" each other since the get go.

that is an undisputed fact. it is the game they play, the game chosen and initiated by the sea shepherds.

the ady gil introduced a new player to the game. one ill equipped to play. that was apparent to most of us before this even began. and it proved to be true.

luckily no one was hurt. and these players will continue.

maybe next time the shepherds will bring more appropriate weapons to the fight...

[Junkdrawer]

143. Or maybe law will be brought to bear.

Legal actions in New Zealand, Australia and the Netherlands are pending. We'll see...

[1]

145. true dat. maritime commissions in seafaring nations will decide...

and how do you think they will rule?

really...

[Junkdrawer]

146. In New Zealand and Australia, politicians will want to favor the Japanese...

while seeming to be impartial. The video I linked to will make that difficult - seems it's #1 in YouTube views in both countries.

As for the Netherlands, can't say...

[1]

149. my guess...

nations that rely upon seafaring for commerce will draw upon the longstanding laws and traditions of the sea. laws and traditions that go back farther than you can possibly imagine. these nations that rely upon fishing. these nations that rely upon the sea.

youtube videos? modern protesters? if there is any doubt? eh...

if i were a betting man?

i wouldn't hold out much hope for the sea shepherds...

[slackmaster]

157. Any unbiased inquest, if such a thing is possible, will find both vessels at fault

Mark my words.

[John Kerry VonErich]

162. For as many time SS rammed whaling boats...

They should've known the consequences.