3 killed after tugboat, pleasure boat collide in western Japan

Sounds like somebody wasn't using their equipment and/or was traveling too quickly for the conditions (fog). Sad.

It is not clear how many people were in the pleasure boat, but 3 dead out of 4 described victims makes it clear the pleasure boat was likely not using proper safety measures.

At 05:45 a.m. the occupants of the smaller pleasure craft were probably asleep. If they were in fact stationary, and moored at anchor, then it is the responsibility of the larger 19 tonne tugboat to "at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to minimize the risk of collision."

[International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea]

If they were in fact stationary, and moored at anchor,

Where are you getting this from? I run at night through the seto naikai and so do many others. If they were on anchor (there's no suggestion they were) they should have had crew on anchor watch and also been cognisant to the prevailing conditions

responsibility of the larger 19 tonne tugboat

How do you know it was larger? And what bearing does being larger have on the colregs?

but 3 dead out of 4 described victims makes it clear the pleasure boat was likely not using proper safety measures.

Nonsense

Nonsense

3 deaths out of 30 passengers is one thing, 3 out of 4 means nobody was even wearing safety vests.

Gents, the article is so vague and ambiguous that it is impossible to draw any inference as to what happened and to who was at fault.

There are hundreds of scenarios that could explain and assign fault that an MAI report in the future will hopefully narrow down.

Gents, the article is so vague and ambiguous that it is impossible to draw any inference as to what happened and to who was at fault.

This is not the only source of information, other sources like the NHK give more details, there were 4 people on the pleasure boat in total, of which 3 (including the captain and his wife) died, the one person that survived did so because he was rescued by the tugboat.

This is not the only source of information, other sources like the NHK give more details, there were 4 people on the pleasure boat in total, of which 3 (including the captain and his wife) died, the one person that survived did so because he was rescued by the tugboat

So what? None of that infers fault or bad seamanship practices on either vessel.

3 deaths out of 30 passengers is one thing, 3 out of 4 means nobody was even wearing safety vests.

Often don't wear life jackets. Especially when sleeping and showering, etc.

Pleasure boats can be anything from 5 meters to 50 meters and much much bigger, although safe manning would suggest that with only 4 persons this pleasure boat was about 30 meters max (if you assume they were all crew).

Larger pleasure boats don't require lifejackets to be worn. Foreign registered pleasure vessels all have varied rules dependent on their flag state and class (if any). Plenty of foreign registered pleasure vessels in Japan.

99% of pleasure vessels in Japan are fiberglass and relatively lightweight. 100% of tugs in Japan are steel, heavy and overpowered.

If you're below, sitting on the head squeezing out your early morning cable, then a life jacket is going to do nothing for you when the bow of a steel tug comes crashing through the bulkhead at 12 knots.

You could be right about life jackets. You might be wrong. I don't know. Nor do you.

But if I'm asleep with my mistress in the master stateroom of a 30 meter motor yacht (or producing aforesaid cable), then I'm probably not going to be wearing a life jacket.

So what? None of that infers fault or bad seamanship practices on either vessel.

So according to you this was an expected result and not something that could have been prevented? it does not sounds at all like such an inevitable result.

Larger pleasure boats don't require lifejackets to be worn

Which in no way refutes that common, easily accesible safety measures could have easily prevented the fatalities, you are not demonstrating that the safety measures were adequate or unnecessary, only that it is legally allowed for them to be ignored, which would not refute but instead only explain why they were not using these measures.

If you're below, sitting on the head squeezing out your early morning cable, then a life jacket is going to do nothing for you when the bow of a steel tug comes crashing through the bulkhead at 12 knots.

Yet the survivor suffered only minor injuries, which would indicate it was well inside of what is expected that the collision itself was not what killed the occupants of the pleasure boat.

You could be right about life jackets. You might be wrong. I don't know. Nor do you.

Which is why my comment was: "the pleasure boat was likely not using proper safety measures." not something for sure, but the esparce details surely seem to indicate this.

Also Life Jackets are not the only safety measure that should be in place for a boat in this situation, going full speed on a bay with low visibility can also be validly called not having proper safety measures.

So according to you this was an expected result and not something that could have been prevented?

Not at all. I'm saying you cannot conclude what happened based on the available data. If you have extra information then present it.

only that it is legally allowed for them to be ignored, which would not refute but instead only explain why they were not using these measures.

Wrong. Of you go on a week's cruise ship holiday you probably will never see a life jacket let along walk around with one on for 7 days. It's not always practicable, similar to many pleasure vessels. You have no idea what happened and the available released data soes not. Indicate anything at all.

Yet the survivor suffered only minor injuries, which would indicate it was well inside of what is expected that the collision itself was not what killed the occupants of the pleasure boat.

Nonsense and illogical. You have no idea of the variables that can occur in a marine accident or collision.

Which is why my comment was: "the pleasure boat was likely not using proper safety measures." not something for sure, but the esparce details surely seem to indicate this.

Wrong... The sparce details do not indicate this at all. It's impossible to say or even speculate with any accuracy with the current available data.

going full speed on a bay with low visibility can also be validly called not having proper safety measures.

Yes of course. There are many many factors that could be. Were they going full speed? Were they relying on AIS instead of more reliable instrumentation. Were either vessel making way, or not making way? Was there a proper watch system in place on either vessel? Were the proper fog procedures being observed. There are hundreds of safety factors that could be a consideration with both vessels. A professional seafare knows them all.

Suggest you leave this one to professional seafarers.

You don't know. I don't know.

Not at all. I'm saying you cannot conclude what happened based on the available data. 

I did not concluded, I said that the information clearly indicates something that you were not able to refute, instead you simply said the lack of measures were expected since they were not demanded. You support the same conclusion.

Wrong. Of you go on a week's cruise ship holiday you probably will never see a life jacket let along walk around with one on for 7 days.

This would mean I am right, a measure that could have prevented the deaths was likely not in use precisely because it is not demanded to be used. You are completely supporting the explanation that the people died because easy to procure and use things like safety vests were not in use. You have not made any argument againt the original comment, only explained why it is correct.

Yes of course. There are many many factors that could be

And that is exactly what I wrote, that this tragedy surely seems to have happened because proper security measures were not followed, by any of the boats. Your new comment only does the same, to say this is completely possible and explain why people died.

A professional seafare knows them all.

But as the deaths in accidents clearly demonstrate, knowing them all and observing them are not the same thing. If every safety measure was observed this accident would have not happened, yet it did and 3 people out of 4 in the pleasure boat died as a consequence.

Suggest you leave this one to professional seafarers.

Which professional seafarer have come here to argue? what arguments used to prove no lapse in safety happened? that this tragedy had no way to be prevented and would have happened no matter how much care was taken to avoid it? There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the details that have been already published about the accident and give an opinion about it, what is wrong is to pretend you can just force people to stop commenting instead of arguing.

We do not know what happened until an investigation and a report are published.

We do not know what happened until an investigation and a report are published.

Quite right.

Which professional seafarer have come here to argue? what arguments used to prove no lapse in safety happened?

Maritime professionals will argue that no one yet knows. It's quite simple.

It's futile trying to reason with you as you have neither the qualifications or experience to understand these things.

Your suppositions that it's "clearly this" and "obviously that" are nonsense based on the current available data.

This is like you (a seemingly qualified & informed scientific person) trying to argue with anti-vaxxers who regurgitate information they learned on conspiracy theory websites as they think it gives them a qualification, experience or understanding of the subject.

Quite right.

That there is an investigation for possible criminal negligence is the same I have been saying, the details clearly point out to safety measures not being in place causing the deaths.

Maritime professionals will argue that no one yet knows. It's quite simple.

So nobody will argue against the opinion that the details point out to things not being properly done? that is much better than your original claims.

Your suppositions that it's "clearly this" and "obviously that" are nonsense based on the current available data.

Not at all, this is not something expected, normal, inevitable as you try to misrepresent, it was a tragedy and there are measures in place to prevent it, that it happened anyway means things were not done properly and this is obvious. You are trying to make it seem like the victims died without anything that could have prevented it, that is what is nonsense, this is not a meteorite that noobody saw sinking the ship but a collision that should not have happened.

We only know what the article informs and nothing else, which is very short on details.

We only know what the article informs and nothing else, which is very short on details.

The have been several articles even from yesterday that give a little more information, but my point is that even as described here this is not something expected or that can happen when safety measures are in place. The fact that there was a collision where 3 out of 4 people of a boat died as a consequence is enough to validly suspect something was not done properly. They may have been wearing life jackets or not, either of the boats may have been speeding, etc. But to automatically consider this as expected and natural to happen is what is not justified.

validly suspect something was not done properly.

The fact there was even a collision already validates that.

That is an obvious given.

The failure of safety or navigational procedures (whatever they maybe) could be on the part of the tug or the pleasure vessel or both.

We don't know.

The fact there was even a collision already validates that.

Precisely, just a collision is enough to validly say this points out to safety protocols and measures not being followed, that it resulted in 3 deaths on 4 people on the pleasure boat supports this even more since it can't just be said that it was some mild collision.

The failure of safety or navigational procedures (whatever they maybe) could be on the part of the tug or the pleasure vessel or both.

Yes, in this you are right, without a doubt there were lapses that caused the fatalities but it is perfectly possible that the tugboat is at fault.

I checked out other media sources but no further info than what is in this article.

I checked out other media sources but no further info than what is in this article.

Really? I can find more details quite easily. For example (from nov 18)

https://www.sankei.com/article/20241118-O2OPJWFMH5LO3LP7WVVMQDL4PQ/

The Sankai article does not give much more details about why the accident happened. Why are you so obsessed with this?

The Sankai article does not give much more details about why the accident happened

It gives a lot more details than in this article, names ages, specific place and time, relationship between the viticms, what happened to the people of the tugboat, the possibility is raised about collision with the rope used to pull the barge, etc. etc.

Why are you so obsessed with this?

What obsession? you said you could not find any other details, I am commenting that it was very easy to find much more information than in this article. If anything it makes less sense to comment only about not being personally able to find any other detail.