The MAIB report into the sinking of the yacht Ouzo with the loss of three lives will make any yachtsman, however experienced, stop and think.
Inevitably, the case has been much discussed, with many experienced yachties at a loss to know how a seasoned crew could let themselves be run down by a ferry, for the duty to keeping a good look out at all times falls equally on both vessels.
The report provides an answer: the ferry was turning at the time. How many of us have watched a set of lights for a long time, confident that there was no risk of collision, only to see the situation change dramatically as the ship makes an unexpected alteration of course?
You should, of course, always be aware of this possibility. I learned at an early stage of crossing the North Sea in darkness that you cannot rely on ships to give way according to the ColRegs - or not to act unpredictably.
Sometimes, on a clear night, you see them make an unexpectedly generous change of course to avoid you. Sometimes you wonder if there is anyone on watch at all. So in the interests of self preservation, you learn to stay out of their way, whether you have “rights” or not.
But how many of us seriously think about what we would do if the worst happened?
The crew of the Ouzo were experienced sailors with RYA certificates as well as plenty of sea miles, and yet it seems they could have done more to help their chances of survival. This would no doubt be true of a lot of us, in similar circumstances.
Most crucially, their boat did not show up on the ferry's radar. They had a small octahedral radar reflector, but it is not known whether it was hoisted. One of the recommendations of the MAIB report is that yacht owners should be encouraged to fit the best radar reflector they can afford.
A study of the capabilities of typical yacht radar reflectors will be published on the MAIB website on May 1st. I await its findings with interest. In the meantime, the message is that whatever radar reflector you've got, it should be up the mast, not in the locker.
Don't quibble about weight aloft or windage. It is probably the most important bit of safety kit on your boat, because it is far better to avoid being run down that to have to deal with the consequences.
On a similar theme, the MAIB report gives a lot of attention to yacht navigation lights. It points out that the plastic lenses are prone to crazing, due to heat from the bulb, which substantially affects their efficiency.
So if your yacht is a few years old, it is a good idea to have a critical look at them, and replace if necessary. Make sure the correct bulbs are fitted, too, and check for intermittent faults. It's in the nature of deck-level navigation lights, especially at the bow, that they are often drenched in spray, which does them no good at all!
If the ferry watchkeeper had seen the Ouzo's lights sooner, those three lives would have been saved. But was this due to inefficient navigation lights, or photochromic glasses? Research carried out for the investigation has concluded that photochromic lenses cut out a significant proportion of light at night, and therefore should not be worn by bridge lookouts at night. Presumably that means they should not be worn at night by leisure sailors either.
I wear photochromics because they are particularly good for daytime sailing - you don't have to keep swapping between sunnies and prescription specs when you go below to look at the chart. But perhaps I ought now to invest in some plain ones for night time use, to be on the safe side.
Then there's the question of survival gear. The report concludes that one of the three crew members of the Ouzo survived in the water very much longer than the others, probably due to the fact that although they were all wearing inflated lifejackets, only his was fitted correctly.
Had crotch straps been fitted to all their lifejackets, it is possible that all three crew would have survived for longer than 12 hours, says the report. This would greatly have improved their chances of being rescued. Also, none of them had lights on their lifejackets, which would have increased their chances of being seen by crew of other vessels, once in the water.
Crotch straps and lifejacket lights are demanded by offshore racing rules (and the RORC now insists that lifejackets are worn by anyone on deck during the hours of darkness) but many cruising people avoid fitting these “extras” as a cost-saving measure. Clearly it is a false economy.
The Ouzo did not have either an Epirb or a liferaft. The report says that an Epirb fitted with a hydrostatic release, which would have automatically raised the alarm when the yacht sank, would have “dramatically increased” the crew's chances of survival, and that a liferaft and hydrostatic release “would almost certainly have saved the lives of the three crewmen.”
The lesson is clear: anyone sailing offshore at night should have a liferaft or an inflated dinghy on board. Do the RYA sea survival course, too, to make sure you know how to get the best out of your liferaft, should you ever need to use it. And when you have done the sea survival course, and found out how difficult it is to swim with a lifejacket determined to float up round your chin, you won't need any convincing of the value of crotch straps to hold it in place!
The cost of a liferaft, an Epirb and lifejackets with all the extras might appear daunting. But if you ever have to use them, they'll seem a very good bargain.
The report also reminds leisure sailors of the wisdom of keeping flares, and a waterproof handheld VHF available to use, when on watch at night.
None of it is news, really. But it's a salutary reminder that three lives were lost unnecessarily. So next time you're making a night passage, remember the MAIB report into the loss of the Ouzo and her crew, and ask yourself if you've taken its lessons on board. Having read the report right through, I know I will.
The full report can be found on the MAIB's website www.maib.gov.uk
