(Sea Shepherd's) Ady Gil loses bow to Japanese whaling vessel.

[Robb]

Run time: 00:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc   Posted on YouTube: January 06, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 06, 2010 By DU Member: Robb Views on DU: 7150

 
Looks to me like they throttled up at the last minute, perhaps thinking they were in reverse. But that little boat's not at idle in the last seconds before it gets hit. Good news: no one was killed.

Edited to add: can anyone translate?

[Richard D]

1. More

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/japanese-ship-sinks-whale-protest-boat--ady-gil-20100106-ltp4.html

[Robb]

15. Stlll more, another angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY

[MercutioATC]

2. Seems pretty clear that the Ady Gil accelerated directly into the Shanan Maru 2's path.

Extremely irresponsible, but this IS one of Watson's ships so irresponsible decisions should be expected.

[Ian David]

3. You must be watching a completely different video. n/t

[MercutioATC]

4. Hint: Look at the water BEHIND the Ady Gil.

First, the Sea Shepherd admits that the Ady Gil stopped in the path of the Shonan Maru #2

"The Sea Shepherd says the Ady Gill had stopped in the path of the Japanese vessel, but was trying to get out of the way when the Japanese went straight for it."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26558825-952,00.html

Then, If you watch the video, the Ady Gil clearly moves FORWARD, directly into the path of the Shonan Maru (as evidenced by the prop wake behind the boat immediately before impact).

[Oerdin]

12. Great link

The video in Mercutio's link clearly shows the anti-whalers deliberately caused the collision. There is no way the giant Japanese ship could have stopped and you can see the sea clowns even moving their boat a second time to get right in front of the Japanese ship.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[izquierdista]

7. Are the Russians still selling submarines?

[MercutioATC]

9. How do you explain the movement of the water behind the Ady Gil, then?

Further, how do you defend piloting a 16-ton carbon fiber and kevlar boat in the path of a 491-ton steel harpoon ship?

[wial]

6. it's clear the Japanese vessel turned towards them while they were blinded

by water and the LRAD sound cannon.

US should withdraw all protection and leave Japan to the mercy of China and whoever else feels like harpooning them. Old Japanese men are as bad as old American birthers. They are a scourge on the planet that the planet can ill afford. Whales are key to ocean ecosystems. Oceans are important to protect. Japan is not. They have shown their colors. Let them find out what the high seas are really like. The Rape of Nanjing is yet to be avenged.

I know the younger Japanese generation is not like that. I suppose they still have time to save themselves, but from the looks of the comments on youtube, they've got their backs up and it's too late for them now.

[MercutioATC]

10. Regardless, the Ady Gil moved forward, directly into the path of the Shonan Maru 2

...after stopping right in front of it.

The Ady Gil is capable of 45 knots. The Shonan Maru 2, 12 knots.


By any standard, this collision was caused by the Ady Gil.

[Skelly]

17. Boats don't steer like cars

You HAVE to be moving through the water to steer. The one link already provided http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY shows exactly what the Ady Gil was saying. They WERE at idle. The wake you see in the other video supports their version of trying at the last minute to avoid the collision. However, they would not have been in that position except that the Shonana Maru 2 veered its course directly at the Ady Gil (as seen in the video).
From a boating perspective (leaving behind any motives of either ship), both vessels were at fault. The Shonan Maru 2 had the right of way being the larger vessel. However, given the close proximity of the Ady Gil, the Shonan then had the responsibility to, at a minimum, keep their course or divert course opposite the smaller ship if possible. The video shows they actually diverted course into the Ady Gil (the Ady Gil was starboard of the Shonan and the Shonan veered starboard). That is intentional ramming. That is not defense. The street equivalent would be some scrawny punk teen going up to the oversized body builder bully and calling him names right in his face. If the bully hauls off and punches the punk teen, he would be arrested for assault.

[Robb]

18. ...Except in "trying to avoid the collision"

...the Ady Gil was throttling up in forward gear. That does not support the notion that they were trying to avoid the collision, it rather appears to have made up the difference to turn what would've been a near-miss to a collision.

To be clear, unlike some other posters, I am against whaling on principle. And on balance I like at least Watson's notion of keeping them too busy to conduct the business of whaling in a cost-effective manner. However, this was either an intentional collision by the pilot of the Ady Gil or a panic screw-up (forward instead of reverse).

[MercutioATC]

19. Idling, maybe. Not "stationary" as claimed...and they accelerate immediately before the collision.

I also don't see where you get evidence of a starboard turn by the Shonan Maru. The Ady Gil ran directly under her bow.

[Skelly]

44. Review the tape again

At about 1:31, it turns starboard right into Ady Gil position. While I am not that familiar with the Ady Gil, for most boats "idling" IS stationary. You have no ability to steer. You will also notice they accelerated immediately following the Shonan Maru course change to directly at them. It would have been almost instinct for the helmsman TO accelerate FORWARD to Starboard to avoid collision of someone coming port side behind, especially if the Ady Gil veers to port in reverse (most boats do not go directly in reverse but favor one side). If this had happened in US waters, both captains would have been cited and the Ady Gil's insurance company would sue the Shonan. Whether they would be successful would depend on the court. In my opinion, big bully's do not get to throw punches at scrawny punk kids just because they are "in their face".

[Oerdin]

11. Your right.

It's clear the asshats deliberately moved their small boat right in front of the huge Japanese ship knowing full well that a large ship is like a freight train that can't stop even if it wants to and even has a hard time changing course. That's just physics for big ships. Besides, they said all along that their goal was to keep getting in front of and block the Japanese ships so why is someone surprised the numbskulls did just that? In any event I stopped believing anything the anti-whalers say when after seeing that asshat of a captain blatantly lie on national television ("THEY SHOT ME!!!!!111!!"). Once a liar always a liar so don't whine when no one believes your claims.

[GETPLANING]

24. Shanan Maru attempted to ram Ady Gil

Looks like the Shanan Maru turned towards the Ady Gil, the Ady Gil's skipper panicked and hit the throttle in an attempt to cross the Shanan Maru, but it was too late. Or, the skipper of the Ady Gil thought he was in reverse, but was in forward. The crew of Ady Gil is lucky to be alive in any case.

[wial]

65. actually from other angles you can see the maru was aiming for the cockpit

so the ady's captain did what he had to to save the lives of the crew.

[slackmaster]

70. I can't tell what it was "aiming" for or whether or not the Gil was visible to the ship's pilot

I don't believe you can either.

[slackmaster]

68. I guarantee you the Japanese captain will say that turn was an attempt to avoid a collision

Per rule 15.

[TheMadMonk]

8. Whatever their motive. Sea Sheppard's tactics amount to piracy...

...on the high seas. And international law allows defence with deadly force and even summary execution by a ship's master under some circumstances.

Yes it does indeed look like these people/idiots deliberately drove their boat under the bow of the Japanese ship. Which is entirely contrary to the initial report (via Sea Sheppard) that had it dead in the water, waiting for refueling. Something which seems more than passingly strange given its 20,000 km range.

[Oerdin]

13. No surprise there, eh?

I mean given how often the Sea Shepard people have lied in the past it isn't surprising they're lying again now.

[Robb]

14. Well, fog of war stuff maybe

...to give the benefit of the doubt. But that pilot wasn't at idle, that's clear.

[Lars77]

23. They've done that before..

Paul Watson is still wanted here in Norway after he used his huge supply ship to ram a smaller Norwegian Coast Guard vessel in the side, blowing a hole in the side of the ship.

The world media could then report that Watson had been rammed by the coast guard. Despite Watson coming to port with a broken bow and footage of a coast guard vessel with a hole in the side.

[Iggo]

27. That's nowhere near the same thing. (n/t)

[Lars77]

29. The lies are the same..

But only god knows what they were thinking this time, cause the Japanese ship clearly maintained a constant course and speed. The skipper deliberately risked the Ady Gil and the lives of his crew but for what? A PR stunt?

[Iggo]

32. Where's the lie in your first example? (eta: cargo vs coast guard)

[Lars77]

49. Watson rammed the coast guard

as could be clearly seen by his bow being dented. But he claimed the coast guard rammed him. It should be fairly obvious that a warship shouldnt have to ram anyone if they wanted to do damage. But Watsons lies were repeated by the media, accompanied by pictures of their ship actually hitting the side of the coast guard ship. That was pretty bizarre.

[Skelly]

47. ah, yea, no.

You would have a hard time convincing a jury their acts were one of piracy. And those "some circumstances" are no where close to this situation.

[EnviroBat]

16. Does Batman know what happened to his boat yet?

He's not going to be too happy.

[trumad]

20. It is clear that the Ady Gil was stationary un til the last minute

When they throttled in reverse to avoid collision.

[Robb]

21. What??

You can't be serious. There's clear prop wash behind the pontoons of the Ady Gill that indicate it was in forward gear.

[Lars77]

30. By that logic..

the huge Japanese whaling ship moved sideways in the water to ram the Ady Gil.

[Harry Monroe]

39. You obviously know nothing about boats.

If the Ady Gil had throttled in reverse, the resulting wake would have cascaded forward towards the bow. It was obviously from anyone who has ever been on a boat, that the Ady Gil was throttling FORWARD. How you can reverse the laws of physics is beyond me!!

[NorCalDem]

22. Who cares....

the Whale Wars crew are obnoxious anyway...

"Fah-que Whale, and fah-que Dolphin!!"

[grahampuba]

25. If Sea Shepard is piracy,

Then lets not hesitate to call the Japanese poachers then.
What would you call park rangers attempting to stop elephant poachers? Mercenaries? Armed Thugs?

weight it out. one group is illegally killing animals for profit.
the other consists of people leaving their jobs to volunteer to protect these giant mammals.

yeah they might smell like patchouli and be an unorganized lot but i admire them for putting their lives on the line.

oh and for the record, that noise you hear is probably a LRAD.
slightly disorienting,


really feeling the compassion here gang.

[Iggo]

26. .

:fistbump:

[TheMadMonk]

33. They may well be. I would probably even agree with you.

However, enforcing those laws is up to my government and not a bunch of vigilantes.

I have plenty of compassion for the whales, but vigilantism for any cause is always wrong and almost invariably counter-productive in the long term.

You want Japan to stop whaling? Ignore them. They can't sell the product and their whaling program is a major financial loss. The primary reason they continue with it is because they WILL NOT be intimidated or dicated to.

Sea Sheppard's antics have turned this whole issue into one of honour and "face" and you will not win a battle on those grounds with the Japanese without overwhealming force.

[Duppers]

57. EXACTLY!!!

When governments don't do their damn jobs, someone has to step in.

These animals are sentient beings. Killing them is wrong and is in violation of international laws.

As to the Ady Gil breaking law? Our revolutionary war was breaking England's laws. I would think that progressive democrats could acknowledge that, in some cases, illegal revolts for worthy causes could be deemed just.

And remember, who has lent this country billions of dollars?? Do you think our, or any, government is going to stand up to the Japanese?

We should wait patiently for the Japanese to wipe these beings into extinction? Nonsense!!

[kelly1mm]

58. You mean like those lynch mobs in the U.S. south a few years back?nt

[Duppers]

59. Yeah, sure. Let's draw dumbass parallels here.

To extrapolate that the u.s. revolutionary war could possibly parallel or equal racists lynch mobs makes you an ASSHOLE!

[kelly1mm]

60. Nice edit after my post to make it look bad. Who is the ASSHOLE?

[Duppers]

62. my edit was 2 mins. before your post!

Even before my minor edit, my post did not deserve your remark!

Are you sure you're posting on the forum most suited to your political views?

Oh, and welcome to my ignore list.

[girl gone mad]

61. +1,000,000

My criticism of Sea Shepard is that they don't go nearly far enough.

[wial]

67. I know, I've never been more disappointed in the Internet than today.

I can't believe some of the comments I've been reading here and elsewhere.

This is a clear cut issue. On one side, bloodthirsty poachers masquerading as scientists funded by feudal criminal gangs, killing intelligent rare animals (humpbacks for instance have the most complicated brains in the world, much larger than our own, and can sing 15 minute highly mathematical songs learned in one session, transmitted from male to male for reasons decades of human research have not begun to fathom) and on the other, plucky volunteers willing to risk their lives and their futures to save said "animals" (we're more like animals relative to them), which are supposed to be protected by the Australian government in those waters but which are not.

The Ady Gil embodied breakthroughs in sustainable technology. The Maru represents breakthroughs in crowd control technology (LRAD, used against Americans in Pennsylvania last year). One of the main causes of climate change is unregulated ship engine use. The Sea Shepherds bring attention to the whole problem, not just whaling.

If you aren't as desperate as the Sea Shepherds, it's because you aren't paying attention. The Earth has about a decade (I know they've been saying that since the 70s, but now it's true) before a major extinction event starts. We need far more militants if we are to survive at all, not more pooh-poohers. I'd love to prance around wishing others would use less fuel, or snigger at the mistakes of those fumbling for the keys that may get us where we can escape the coming nightmare, but there's no time for that. It's probably already too late. Can't we at least go down fighting?

[slackmaster]

69. It's pretty hard to "sustain" a vessel made of lightweight materials...

...when you intentionally put it into the path of a large steel ship.

The Earth has about a decade (I know they've been saying that since the 70s, but now it's true) before a major extinction event starts.

I'm almost 52 years old, and I can't recall a time in the last 40 years when there wasn't someone preaching Doomsday. The Soviets are going to nuke us. There's going to be a plague. The Ice Age is coming. Don't eat the brown acid. An asteroid is going to hit us. An earthquake is going to wipe out all of California. God is going to destroy Earth to punish us for our sins.

I hope you're wrong, and fortunately everyone who has told me the end is near has been wrong so far.

[wial]

71. I hope I'm wrong too

and there are things we can do to get the carbon out of the atmosphere before the ocean gets killed by it, but we are very seriously running out of time.

The predictions of ice age caused by climate change have been borne out in a minor way by the negative feedback in the arctic since the meltdown of 2007, but to be sure even so new icecap melt anomaly records were set again last year, and even at the start of this year according to some measures.

Asteroids have hit the Earth many times in the past, and will again unless we get enough of a breather we can get into space and prevent it. A big one hit over the Mediterranean just a few years ago, at the height of one of the India/Pakistan standoffs. It exploded with the force of an atom bomb. Imagine if it had hit a few hundred miles east. It could have set off nuclear war. I saw a paper once that showed that amortized, your chances of dying from a meteor are much higher than dying from a Superfund site. the guy who showed it to me was a geophysicist expert of superfund sites.

California is overdue for a big earthquake, particularly the Hayward Fault in Oakland. Ironically, the last time it gave out it cleared a lot of land, so that's where they put the hospitals. Don't bet on getting medical care next time.

At some point Yellowstone will blow again. It goes on average every 600,000 years, wiping out land for hundreds of miles and causing global nuclear winter like conditions. Last time was 640,000 years ago. But note the "on average". There's nothing to say it will happen anytime in the next 100,000 years, there's a huge variance in that one. So your chances if you live another 50 years are 1 in 2000 you'll be safe. Yay! The dome over the caldera is swelling, yes, but last time it blew it had grown to the point of supporting glaciers, so not to worry, on that front anyway.

Of course climate change will cause more volcanoes and earthquakes due to changes in the shape of the earth caused by melting ice, expanding oceans etc, as seen already in what apparently was not a disaster according to sober standards, the Indonesia tsunami, which killed a paltry 230,000 or so.

Let alone if you happen to live in a country America decides to "liberate".

As for the Ady, it's clear as day from the footage taken from the Bob Barker the Maru aimed for their cockpit and the Ady's captain saved the lives of the crew by maneuvering at the last minute. From the speed at which the Maru turned after the act, it's clear its behavior was completely intentional.

[slackmaster]

74. Are you and I looking at the same video? The damage to Ady Gil is minor, just a little scratch

It was still seaworthy at the end of the video.

This "incident" was a simple game of Chicken. When you play Chicken, sometimes you lose.

[grahampuba]

28. upon second look..

you people are way off with your assertions that Ady Gil maneuvered into the Maru.
look at the angle of the camera when the video starts, the Ady Gil is well starboard and stationary. Id say 50 yards starboard.
The Maru then comes hard starboard to be right on top of the Ady Gil, which only at the last moment accelerates.
the camera has swung so it is looking down to the deck of the bow as before it was looking over the side.

LRAD + people moving on the Ady Gil, probably gave the driver little time to react to the Maru's actions..

[trumad]

31. Please don't tell that to the folks who applaud the Japanese

their heads will explode.

[Robb]

35. Surely you don't think I applaud the Japanese here. nt

[TheMadMonk]

34. Try again. Look to the last few seconds of the video.

Look behind the Maru. Show me the wake that would indicate a turn to starboard. What wake I can see indicates a turn to port, ie. an attempt to avoid the collision.

The move to starboard you claim to see is camera zoom. Ships of that size just plain DO NOT turn that quickly.

"...which only at the last moment accelerates"

Exactly! Accelerates in a forward direction and certain collision. An attempt to reverse away from a collision would "dig" a bloody big hole in the water under the stern, not kick up a rooster tail.

[grahampuba]

37. other videos

so your disregarding the hard starboard action of the poaching vessel then?
if the Ady Gil was placing itself in the path of the poaching vessel then you would have seen the bow of the Shonan Maru for then entire film.
the fact that the bow comes into the first video only as they are ramming shows the change in course of the Shonan Maru.
also note how far of an angle the water cannons are shooting to the starboard also.


also
watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY

ten seconds before the collision, you can see the full starboard side of the Shonan Maru ~1:22.

another perspective that demonstrates that this was 100% a maneuver of the poachers.

the above video also shows how close the boat was to becoming fully destroyed.
no way would they have put themselves in that position intentionally..

[Skelly]

73. Again, not a zoom.

Check out the water cannon. It is NOT hitting the ship at first, and it does only after the Maru veers towards the Ady. At this point, the Ady is still in idle.
As to accelerating FORWARD, that is the correct response to a boat overtaking you. In this case, forward to starboard, especially if the ship reverses to port (most boats in reverse do not go straight, but to one side or the other).

[Harry Monroe]

36. I am a licensed Merchant Marine officer and hold a USCG's Chief Mate's license

And have a career on the deep sea spanning 20 years. In this video, it is obvious by the Ady Gil's wake that she is idle at first, then she accelerates straight into the side of the Japanese whaling vessel. Furthermore, the whaling vessel, as virtue of being a "fishing" vessel, had the right of way and the Ady Gil was obligated to keep out of the way of the such vessel. The Ady Gil was a power driven vessel at the time of the collision and could not claim any other exceptions, those being: fishing, trawling, restricted in the ability to maneuver, constrained by draft or any other exceptions granted by the COLREGS. Any court in the world would find the Ady Gil at fault for her actions and for putting both vessels "in extremis"

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

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

1. a vessel not under command;
2. a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
3. a vessel engaged in fishing;
4. a sailing vessel.

(Rule 9 does not apply here)
a) (i) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(i) and Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channels or fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.

(d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow passage or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the sound signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel.


(Rule 10 does not apply here, they were not in a traffic separation scheme at the time)
a) This Rule applies to traffic separation schemes adopted by the Organization and does not relieve any vessel of her obligation under any other rule.

(b) A vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

1. Proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane.
2. So far as is practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone.
3. Normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable.

(c) A vessel, shall so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.

(d)

1. A vessel shall not use an inshore traffic zone when she can safely use the appropriate traffic lane within the adjacent traffic separation scheme. However, vessels of less than 20 meters in length, sailing vessels and vessels engaged in fishing may use the inshore traffic zone.
2. Notwithstanding subparagraph (d)(i), a vessel may use an inshore traffic zone when en route to or from a port, offshore installation or structure, pilot station or any other place situated within the inshore traffic zone, or to avoid immediate danger.

(e) A vessel, other than a crossing vessel or a vessel joining or leaving a lane shall not normally enter a separation zone or cross a separation line except:

1. in cases of emergency to avoid immediate danger;
2. to engage in fishing within a separation zone.

(f) A vessel navigating in areas near the terminations of traffic separation schemes shall do so with particular caution.

(g) A vessel shall so far as practicable avoid anchoring in a traffic separation scheme or in areas near its terminations.

(h) A vessel not using a traffic separating scheme shall avoid it by as wide a margin as is practicable.

(i) A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane.


(The only recourse the Ady Gil might possibly have is Rule 13, but by her actions, the Ady Gil as observed from the video deliberately tried to cross the path of the whaling vessel and/or ram herself into her by the acceleration of her engines, putting both vessels "in extremis", negating at least partly, the whaling vessels obligation to keep out of the way. Once the Ady Gil accelerated, it was impossible for the whaling vessel to now fulfill her obligations as an overtaking vessel)

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules , any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

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

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

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

(j) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane.

(k) A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver when engaged in an operation for the maintenance of safety of navigation in a traffic separation scheme is exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation.

(l) A vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver when engaged in an operation for the laying, servicing or picking up of a submarine cable, within a traffic separation scheme, is exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation.

Edited to add: And if you watch until the end of the video, you can see from the wake of the whaling vessel that she tried to turn to port and avoid the collision at the last possible moment. I have actually seen a few very close calls like this, and while the whaling vessels actions would have been correct in a court of law, it is actually better to turn the vessel starboard, kicking your stern AWAY from the vessel. I was in an actual situation where I had to do exactly that; fishermen in the Malacca Straits will actually take a run at you so you do not run over their fishing lines (which you cannot see and you are additionally constrained by the fact that you are in a Traffic Separation Scheme.

[trumad]

38. Do the rules say anything about a high powered water cannon

and High Pitched speakers designed to disorientate people?

[Harry Monroe]

40. In this age of piracy, vessels have a right to defend themselves.

If this vessel had deliberately come this close to one of the vessels I've served on, we would try to ward them off by any means possible. And don't you dare fucking lecture me on the rights of the Ady Gil. I've sailed on many a vessel which has transited the Straits of Malacca, the Singapore Straits, off of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden and have had to deal with the threat of piracy in these waters for a LONG time!! Only when an American vessel actually gets taken did it ever enter any American's conscientiousness and some of my friends were crewmembers of the Maersk Alabama that very same voyage. Also one of our company's ships got shot at by a Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher wielded by Somali pirates one week after the Alabama incident. Lucky no one was killed in either incident. But why don't you go ahead and explain the rights of the Ady Gil to harass a vessel on the high seas and explain why these ships do not have a right to ward off such harassment or attacks to the families of those that the Somali pirates still hold hostage?

[trumad]

41. Well---your vessel wasn't on a Killing mission.

I say fight terror with terror.

As you can see I'm a big fan of Mammals.

[Harry Monroe]

42. I can admire your passion but the Ady Gil's actions are still against the law

And they would be convicted in any maritime court in the world of such actions.

[Skelly]

51. As would have been the other ship also.

If you review the original tape, taken from the whaling ship, you can see they have maneuvered TOWARDS the Ady Gil (I am assuming they did it so their water cannons could reach their target). The other video shows this even more clearly. The Whalers changed course to starboard TOWARDS the Ady Gil. That, as you know, is a big no-no.
As you also know, once the whaling ship veered towards the Ady Gil, it was the Ady Gil's responsibility to fall away (forward to port). That may be what they were trying to do with the forward thrust but were overtaken by the whalers. If the whalers had not veered towards them in order to douse them with their water canons, the collision would have occurred. Both actions are illegal. Both ships at fault.

[Harry Monroe]

53. From what I saw of the original tape taken from the whaling ship, that manuerver you speak of...

...simply looks like a zoom of the camera. As to your assertion that the Ady Gil tried to "fall away", I saw no evidence of that from the wake. The wake, once the Ady Gil accelerated, was straight and true. And if you go back to my other posts, I have repeatedly stated why a turn to starboard in an "in extremis" situation may actually minimize impact. ("in extremis" by the way, is a term used to describe an imminent collision and both vessels need to act to avoid or at least minimize said collision). In this instance, maritime law would award a proportion of blame to each party based on the circumstances. But I'd venture to say that the Ady Gil, by virtue of her being a simple power driven vessel in this case and the whaling ship could either claim to be a fishing vessel or "restricted in her ability to maneuver" in this instances, the majority of blame for the collision would fall on the Ady Gil.

[Skelly]

72. Not just a zoom.

They moved TOWARDS the Ady Gil as seen by the footage. Their first attempts at firing at them with the water cannon fell short. If you watch the footage, they have to move towards them to hit their mark. This alone goes against all maritime law in regards to avoiding a collision. Both are at fault. If this had happened in US waters, the insurers of the Ady Gil would sue the other vessel for damages. If I put money on the outcome of a jury verdict, I would lean towards the Ady Gil side. (more realistically, a "settlement" would be reached).

[trumad]

55. Perhaps

but rebellion is always against the law.

The Sea Shepard, no matter how arrogant there are to Maritime laws, are bringing a heavy spotlight on the Japanese and their killer ships.

[one-eyed fat man]

75. The Ady Gil's mission

The aft deck of the Gil is laden with nets and ropes to foul the propellers of the whaler. Their intent was to cross the bow of the whaler and release the fouling gear in its path. You see they clearly tried to accelerate. Short answer, they Ady Gil's mission was to force a confrontation. They played chicken with 200 tons of steel and lost.

Had they suceeded they would have left the whaler adrift dead in the water. Since the Ady Gil clears has struck its colors and hoisted the Jolly Roger the conversation on the quartedeck went from, "Here, hold my beer and watch this....."
to "Holy shit!!!!!

[grahampuba]

43. barnacles eh?

by these definitions then,
The Shonan Maru would not have those rights as a "Research Vessel" then, only by fishing for commercial gain could they have protection under these articles.

and,
by these definitions,
the Ady Gil was restricted in its ability to maneuver by the poaching vessel itself. LRAD and high power water cannons directed at the helm of the Adi Gil.



I appreciate legitimate insight,but did you catch the other videos that show the maneuvering of the Shonan Maru?

[Harry Monroe]

45. The Ady Gil cannot claim a right of "restricted in its ability to manuerver"

Unless she was engaged in commerce or an activity that designated it as such. The rules of the road do not let you claim such a right under other "circumstances". A power driven vessel cannot all of the sudden claim this right instantaneously. I also did not see the proper running lights and/or day shapes that designated her claiming that right. Harassment does not give you a right of "restricted in ability to manuever". Also the Shonan Maru, being a "research vessel" does indeed have the right of a vessel "restricted in the ability to maneuver". I cannot tell you how many times I have had to keep out of the way of "research vessels" in my career, sometimes having to avoid them by 3 or 4 miles because of the equipment and sensors they may be streaming bow, stern and midships of them. So, by your assertion, if the Shonan Maru is a "research vessel" she is well within her bounds of claiming the privilege of "restricted in the ability to manuever" necessitating that that Ady Gil keep out of her way!! The Shonan Maru had the right of way in either case, if she was a fishing vessel or a research vessel and the Ady Gil was a power driven vessel at the time, nothing more nor less, and she was obligated to keep out of the way of the Shonan Maru in either way. I've got 20 years of maritime experience under my belt, what are your qualifications?

[Robb]

46. This video actually gives that "maneuvering" theory a lot of problems.

Were the whaler turning to starboard, as you contend, to strike the Ady Gil, the end of this video would show it's wake to that effect when the camera turns.

Where's the whaler wake, if you'll pardon the alliteration? Not visible, therefore it must be on the port rear or dead astern. The whaler was therefore either traveling straight or even turning to port throughout the encounter.

[Harry Monroe]

48. Actually, if you go back and read my first post, I said the whaler turned to PORT!

Which would be consistent with trying to turn away from the collision. To turn away from the collision is the standard reaction, although when the Ady Gil has put your nuts in a vise like this, what I would have done was turn to STARBOARD. I know it sounds contrary to what your instincts tell you, but it is better to pivot your stern away from the vessel you are about to collide with since said vessel will end up traveling down your starboard side, and will end up slamming into your midships section. You actually minimize impact this way.

[Robb]

50. Yep.

I grew up piloting smaller single-screws. I tell people that's why I'm so good at parallel parking. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Little of both.

Looks to me like they did turn a bit to starboard, not a direct ramming course, but maybe to get the Ady Gil in better range of the water cannons. They should not have made contact if the Gil had remained stationary, but it would have been close. Forward motion by the Gil sealed the deal. THEN the whaler turns hard to port, after contact. (A surprisingly agile move, for it's size)

[Harry Monroe]

54. Exactly!!

The collision was unavoidable the moment the Ady Gil accelerated forward. Had she remained stationary, it would have merely been a very close call or "near miss".

[Dead_Parrot]

63. Except the Maru wasn't whaling. Not even capable of it.

It's a "security vessel", with the harpoon replaced by an extra water cannon.

[Bonobo]

56. Translation when impact was made:

Japanese speaker said the "AG crashed into us". Then he said that they were in "our path and got in our way". Etc.

[Robb]

64. Thanks

I suspected it wouldn't be particularly enlightening, but I appreciate it.

[proud patriot]

66. Bob Barker is about to be interviewed on Rachel about this

BOB BARKER . :bounce: