# Boat hits shrimper ?



## mrsh978

Anyone hear of a sportfish hitting a shrimper the last few days in central gulf ?


----------



## mrsh978

Pics


----------



## Marshman

Yep - during the lone star shootout. Heard that a Viking had a marlin on board ( 103" reportedly) headed to weigh in, captain was in cockpit taking pics of fish, autopilot was driving. Supposed to have hit the shrimper about 30 knots, on the starboard aft quarter. Bent the gunwale on the shrimper, sank the sport fisher.

If thats all true, its kind of sad that making to weigh in in a hurry, without proper lookout on the bridge, was more important.

Hope no-one was hurt.


----------



## bjd76

That's a tragedy on several fronts. Always, always have at least one person on overwatch with autopilot. We have 2 when coming in from an all-nighter. One in overwatch and the other watching the overwatcher to make sure he doesn't doze off. Sure hope no one was hurt.


----------



## bboswell

Report I saw from a relative of one on board said no serious injuries. Helo was dispatched for 1 person but he refused treatment. 

Story was similar, Capt went down to measure the fish while on auto pilot at ~30knots....


----------



## saltaholic

What year and size Viking is that?? Hope everyone is ok thatâ€™s horrible


----------



## sea sick

You think he swapped him some shrimp for beer?
I could say you have to be a idiot to run without someone at the helm, or it was just carelessness on their part. You can pick. Good to hear no one was hurt.


----------



## rodsnscrews

52 ft Viking Got'm ON!


----------



## rodsnscrews

Taking pictures really...sounds like they where counting the money....


----------



## Spinky

rodsnscrews said:


> 52 ft Viking Got'm ON!


Is that the one out of Port A?


----------



## hilton

Yes - Port A boat. 

There is nothing good that is coming out of this - my condolences to all involved.


----------



## jtburf

Anyone have the numbers?



Too Soon?



John


----------



## rodsnscrews

61 ft Viking....


----------



## bwguardian

Apparently something was in the water as there was another cat boat that capsized...


----------



## rodsnscrews

Got'm On - One Beautiful Boat


----------



## texasislandboy

So how does insurance work on something like this.... Hope all is safe and healthy. Thats one hell of a mistake.


----------



## rodsnscrews

Insurance might get complicated...


----------



## bwguardian

That captain might think about a career change at this point...


----------



## Momma's Worry

what are the odds on this one even with no one driving ?....but it happens all the time ...even our own Navy does this collision thing with top line state of the art warships and trained crew watching it happen .....






skipper could get a pat on the back for donating to a new public reef....for the snappers of coarse


----------



## fuelish

Heard the radio chatter yesterday while out in the gulf..... spooky stuff.


----------



## Profish00

I heard they got a raise it because of the fuel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## saltaholic

Profish00 said:


> I heard they got a raise it because of the fuel
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For sure, it will be hooked up by divers and salvaged. Insurance co will auction the hull


----------



## Momma's Worry

Viking Capt'n did prove a point ....

them POS rust bucket steel hulled shrimp boat are tougher than I previously thought ...now they will be able to upgrade after the settlement couple of years from now...


----------



## BretE

Somebody enlighten me.....does autopilot just run to coordinates or will it monitor radar and warn you of hazards?.....


----------



## JFolm

Iâ€™ve only operated one and it just held a heading. Does not interface with radar. 

I believe you can set the radar to alert you of close objects.


----------



## gethookedadventures01

BretE said:


> Somebody enlighten me.....does autopilot just run to coordinates or will it monitor radar and warn you of hazards?.....


AP drives a straight line to where your heading is set. You can set a radar alarm but you wouldnâ€™t hear it over the diesels. I can barely hear it on the bridge chugging slow.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 98aggie77566

Lucky that no one is dead or seriously injured.

Crazy how fast a great day can turn to tragedy if you take things for granted.


----------



## toyakornottoyak

Craigslist

Slight water damage otherwise ...Gently used viking!

JK hope all are ok


----------



## BretE

gethookedadventures01 said:


> AP drives a straight line to where your heading is set. You can set a radar alarm but you wouldnâ€™t hear it over the diesels. I can barely hear it on the bridge chugging slow.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Note to self....invent Bluetooth early warning alarm.....


----------



## bigfishtx

saltaholic said:


> For sure, it will be hooked up by divers and salvaged. Insurance co will auction the hull


It wont be raised. I am
Pretty sure this happened in 200+ feet of water. It would cost 20x the salvage value to try to raise her up.


----------



## Drundel

__ https://www.facebook.com/mgcbc/posts/10155788433211482


----------



## bwguardian

Geez, something definitely in the water...number 3 at the Galvez jetties!


----------



## SailFishCostaRica

Dang, that last one looks like a bert? But it's hard to tell from that angle. Wow, hope all are safe, that's a lot of boat damage.


----------



## BullyARed

SailFishCostaRica said:


> Dang, that last one looks like a bert? But it's hard to tell from that angle. Wow, hope all are safe, that's a lot of boat damage.


^^^ X2. What caused any new?


----------



## bigfishtx

SailFishCostaRica said:


> Dang, that last one looks like a bert? But it's hard to tell from that angle. Wow, hope all are safe, that's a lot of boat damage.


You talking about the one on top of this page? I see some hull damage, maybe they ran up on the rocks?


----------



## Sight Cast

S


----------



## Cat O' Lies

Sad situation all around that was 100% avoidable! It was in the middle of the day and visibility was unlimited. Absolutely no reason for this to have happened. Luckily, there were no serious injuries. I do question the report that the Capt. went down to measure a marlin AFTER getting up to 30+kts and setting auto pilot for port. Wouldn't that be the first thing before actually boating the fish? I'm sure the details will emerge about what really happened.


----------



## BBCAT

On the Viking, sounds like another case of more boat than brains.


----------



## Strategery

BBCAT said:


> On the Viking, sounds like another case of more boat than brains.


Before you get on your â€œoccupy Wall Streetâ€ kill the 1%ers kick, the boat was more than likely being run by someone other than the guy with the means to pay for it. In my experience, long money is rarely paired with short brains.


----------



## Shredded Evidence

gethookedadventures01 said:


> AP drives a straight line to where your heading is set. You can set a radar alarm but you wouldnâ€™t hear it over the diesels. I can barely hear it on the bridge chugging slow.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
> 
> Not just a straight line. On mine I point to a waypoint hit "engage autopilot" and it goes to the point adjusting course as needed for current, waves and wind. My radar has alarms for possible collision courses as well as my VHF having AIS alerts for commercial vessels that are required to have AIS. There are several fail safes but nothing takes place of eyes on the water.


----------



## mstrelectricman

My only comment not knowing for sure what happened is...somebody did something really stupid...and that's for sure.


----------



## BBCAT

Strategery said:


> Before you get on your â€œoccupy Wall Streetâ€ kill the 1%ers kick, the boat was more than likely being run by someone other than the guy with the means to pay for it. In my experience, long money is rarely paired with short brains.


Not sure where the 1% stuff came from. It doesn't matter if it's a Jon boat or a yacht. The person at the helm has to be on his toes. Glad there were no serious injuries.


----------



## TrueblueTexican

*Had to have Masters 200 GRT*

Clear unobstructed view - and hit visible shrimper - someone was NOT at helm for quite some time, you would have seen that shrimper from over a mile away, 30 knots /1 mile - minutes to collision - since it was during daylight hours shrimper was on anchor and nets up --


----------



## bigfishtx

Lots of guessing going on here. The boat had a licensed captain. He was asked to leave the bridge to help with taking pictures. Visibility was poor on the gulf Saturday. I imagine the shrimper was underway, and came into the vessels path, in which case both vessels are at fault. I bet the shrimper was running on autopilot too.


----------



## Cat O' Lies

bigfishtx said:


> Lots of guessing going on here. The boat had a licensed captain. He was asked to leave the bridge to help with taking pictures. *Visibility was poor on the gulf Saturday*. I imagine the shrimper was underway, and came into the vessels path, in which case both vessels are at fault. I bet the shrimper was running on autopilot too.


I guess the pictures were not telling the whole truth. :biggrin: The visibility was crystal clear according to the pictures.


----------



## bigfishtx

Cat O' Lies said:


> I guess the pictures were not telling the whole truth. :biggrin: The visibility was crystal clear according to the pictures.


Not according to people that were in the gulf Saturday. Were you out there? I know this may not fit your narrative.


----------



## Cat O' Lies

saltaholic said:


> What year and size Viking is that?? Hope everyone is ok thatâ€™s horrible


this matches my narrative Ray Charles could have seen that shrimp boat


----------



## bigfishtx

Cat O' Lies said:


> this matches my narrative Ray Charles could have seen that shrimp boat


Visibility was around 3 miles from what I was told. I had my report from people close to the situation. You said "more details will emerge", then when you get them, you want to discount them.

If you are traveling at 30 knots and a shrimp boat is traveling at ten knots, on autopilot, he could appear off to your left and could easily not be viewed as a threat. Both vessels are responsible for altering course if possible. This is not like a shrimper was anchored in front of you and you just ran over him.


----------



## Cat O' Lies

bigfishtx said:


> Visibility was around 3 miles from what I was told. I had my report from people close to the situation. You said "more details will emerge", then when you get them, you want to discount them.
> 
> If you are traveling at 30 knots and a shrimp boat is traveling at ten knots, on autopilot, he could appear off to your left and could easily not be viewed as a threat. Both vessels are responsible for altering course if possible. This is not like a shrimper was anchored in front of you and you just ran over him.


Okay, lets get this clear. you are not the only person privy to information. I too have a friend that was in the tournament and he said the visibility was excellent all weekend. I understand if you have a personal connection to someone related to the accident but pictures do not lie. And, as is usually the case, stories morph as time goes on and the *real story* is typically not the first one out in a situation like this. I don't have a narrative, the pictures might.


----------



## Jolly Roger

bigfishtx said:


> Visibility was around 3 miles from what I was told. I had my report from people close to the situation. You said "more details will emerge", then when you get them, you want to discount them.
> 
> If you are traveling at 30 knots and a shrimp boat is traveling at ten knots, on autopilot, he could appear off to your left and could easily not be viewed as a threat. Both vessels are responsible for altering course if possible. This is not like a shrimper was anchored in front of you and you just ran over him.


How do you know the Shrimper was not on Anchor when hit?


----------



## Scott A

bigfishtx said:


> Lots of guessing going on here. The boat had a licensed captain. He was asked to leave the bridge to help with taking pictures. Visibility was poor on the gulf Saturday. I imagine the shrimper was underway, and came into the vessels path, in which case both vessels are at fault. I bet the shrimper was running on autopilot too.


So if visibility was not ideal, isn't that even more reason not to leave the bridge while running 30 knots? Just say'n....


----------



## Cat O' Lies

Jolly Roger said:


> How do you know the Shrimper was not on Anchor when hit?


The picture shows the nets are up and it looks like an anchor chain in front of it. If it were underway, the nets would be down. Just what the picture tell me. :biggrin:


----------



## Scott A

bigfishtx said:


> Visibility was around 3 miles from what I was told. I had my report from people close to the situation. You said "more details will emerge", then when you get them, you want to discount them.


So, if my math is right, three mile visibility. Assume Captain could not see shrimper when left the bridge. Boat traveling 30 knots. Covering 3 nautical miles ever six minutes. So that means the Captain was away from the helm (if that is what happened) for at least six minutes. That's a long time. Sit around and watch a clock for six minutes. Nobody driving for at least six minutes? Hardly making a good case for the Captain.


----------



## Cat O' Lies

Who leaves a boat running unmonitored on autopilot in poor visibility?


----------



## Scott A

Cat O' Lies said:


> Who leaves a boat running unmonitored on autopilot in poor visibility?


Who leaves a boat running at cruise unmonitored on autopilot at all or at least not but for a few seconds just to get a relief crew member to take over while you tend to something else?

If you have to leave helm, pull back throttles and idle while you get a relief crew member at the helm. Maybe a few more gallons of fuel to get back up to cruise but safety first.


----------



## Profish00

Three miles?










http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/cou...cle_7bacf330-9372-11e8-b248-2725a20fce20.html


----------



## Cat O' Lies

Profish00 said:


> Three miles?[/URL]


Maybe it was three miles under water? :biggrin:


----------



## gimp6969

Gross negligence on the captain of the Sport fisher. Insurance should pay for shrimp boat repairs and not the boat running with nobody at the helm. Thatâ€™s my thought, what say you?


----------



## bigfishtx

gimp6969 said:


> Gross negligence on the captain of the Sport fisher. Insurance should pay for shrimp boat repairs and not the boat running with nobody at the helm. Thatâ€™s my thought, what say you?


Lol, you guys are a hoot. You are sure the shrimp boat had someone at the helm?


----------



## Cat O' Lies

whether there was or not, it doesn't excuse the other party from negligence


----------



## sea sick

bigfishtx said:


> Lol, you guys are a hoot. You are sure the shrimp boat had someone at the helm?


Who gives a rat's behind what the shrimper was doing... by the look of the pictures, the sportsfisher hit the shrimper. Not the other way around.
Stop looking to cast blame elsewhere, other than the sportsfisher captain.


----------



## rodsnscrews

Lady Toni....Port Lavaca....Kenneth Garcia ....boat named after his mother...family has been in the shrimping business since 1952.


----------



## mstrelectricman

To try to put any amount of blame on the shrimper is ludicrous.


----------



## cmula

Pure negligence. Glad it did not take any lives and only one boat sank.
There will be a new artificial rig to fish in the future and a big lesson learned.


----------



## TUNDRA

rodsnscrews said:


> Lady Toni....Port Lavaca....Kenneth Garcia ....boat named after his mother...family has been in the shrimping business since 1952.


is that the guy that did the heb seafood department commercials???


----------



## Mizpah

mstrelectricman said:


> To try to put any amount of blame on the shrimper is ludicrous.


What if it was running (not dragging) on autopilot with nobody at the helm?


----------



## Cat O' Lies

going to be a lot of "What if"s


----------



## ding-a-ling

This could've gone from a bad day to a tragedy in an instant. 


The boat, insurance, blame, and money situation will all sort itself out. 


The main thing is there were no serious injuries or fatalities, which in itself is amazing.


----------



## Hayniedude24

Looks like he t boned him a few feet behind his out rigger. 15â€™ feet to the right and this accident would've had a much worse ending. A miracle and thank God no one lost a life.


----------



## sea sick

Mizpah said:


> What if it was running (not dragging) on autopilot with nobody at the helm?


Who hit who?


----------



## costadetexas

#1 Im glad that no one was hurt.

#2 If the captain left the helm unattended long enough for this to happen he/she is at fault. There is no excuse.


----------



## Jolly Roger

Cat O' Lies said:


> The picture shows the nets are up and it looks like an anchor chain in front of it. If it were underway, the nets would be down. Just what the picture tell me. :biggrin:


They move all the time with the nets up during the day. If they are not catching they will steam to a new location with nets up to make good time. Was more curios if someone actual knew if they were anchored.

I fish shrimp boats all the time, have shrimpers that fish with me. In my opinion unless there was a medical emergency that made the captain pass out, then it is all Sporty fault for the collision. Just curious if the shrimping was actually anchored, or if people are guessing. I do not see an anchor line out in the pics, but may be missing it or he pulled it to help the crew of the sporty.


----------



## Mizpah

sea sick said:


> Who hit who?


Given all the unknowns, I can't believe that I commented on this thread....

My point was that if the shrimper was not engaged in fishing (i.e. running with nets up), there was a crossing between the two vessels and the shrimper was the give-way vessel. It's not always as simple as "who hit who" but who caused the collision.

No excuse for running on autopilot without a lookout (same for sport fishers and shrimpers not engaged in fishing too).

I can't believe I am commenting on this thread.


----------



## sea sick

Mizpah said:


> Given all the unknowns, I can't believe that I commented on this thread....
> 
> My point was that if the shrimper was not engaged in fishing (i.e. running with nets up), there was a crossing between the two vessels and the shrimper was the give-way vessel. It's not always as simple as "who hit who" but who caused the collision.
> 
> No excuse for running on autopilot without a lookout (same for sport fishers and shrimpers not engaged in fishing too).
> 
> I can't believe I am commenting on this thread.


Haha it's all about the entertainment factor!

Regardless of who was wrong or right, the sporty was the loser in this deal. Captains fault. Coulda woulda shoulda, but but but..... had there been someone at the helm and that shrimper was cutting donuts and and the crew was surfing the wake, they could have avoided it. 
But like mentioned before... other than ego and a pocket book, no one was injured or died.


----------



## bjd76

What if both vessels were underway on autopilot (neither fishing/shrimping) and no one at either helms? Is it still the Sporty's fault? If you think the Sporty is at fault, explain your rationale as the shrimper would be the give way vessel according to rules of the road 101. If that shrimper was underway and someone at the helm, why didn't they give way? Situation could be complicated unless shrimper was not under power IMO... Facts need to come out before passing of any judgement. And, yes, I agree someone should always be at the helm. One or both may be guilty of bad judgement/negligence if helm unattended.


----------



## awesum

Mizpah said:


> I can't believe I am commenting on this thread.


Given the fact you've only made 132 posts in 14 years I too share your thought :biggrin:


----------



## bigfishtx

bjd76 said:


> What if both vessels were underway on autopilot (neither fishing/shrimping) and no one at either helms? Is it still the Sporty's fault? If you think the Sporty is at fault, explain your rationale as the shrimper would be the give way vessel according to rules of the road 101. If that shrimper was underway and someone at the helm, why didn't they give way? Situation could be complicated unless shrimper was not under power IMO... Facts need to come out before passing of any judgement. And, yes, I agree someone should always be at the helm. One or both may be guilty of bad judgement/negligence if helm unattended.


Ding ding ding ding. You won the prize!


----------



## 24/7

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sea sick

bigfishtx said:


> Ding ding ding ding. You won the prize!


Back to.....who hit who???? Just answer that simple question....can you do that???

Looks like the shrimper was HIT on the starboard side, closer to the stern than the bow.

Or do you see something different.... regardless of who was under way, shrimping, sleeping or what ever..... if the Sporty HIT the shrimp boat,,, it's that captains fault... from the looks of the PICTURES...with all that damage on the BOW of the sporty,,,,it doesnt take a wiz to figure it out.
There's your ding ding ding prize winning questions. So much for the bad visibility you threw out there as well. That dog dont hunt from the PICTURES...


----------



## Tortuga

Somewhere in a quite dark room there is an insurance salesman sweating bullets..


----------



## Jolly Roger

bjd76 said:


> Is it still the Sporty's fault? If you think the Sporty is at fault, explain your rationale


Law of Gross Tonnage comes to mind, but over all not hard to avoid anchored and slow moving shrimp boats.


----------



## sea sick

Jolly Roger said:


> Law of Gross Tonnage comes to mind, but over all not hard to avoid anchored and slow moving shrimp boats.


Don't you dare come on this thread and use common sense!! How could you!!! How dare you!!


----------



## bjd76

Me thinks me sees an anchor on the shrimper's bow shortly (?) after the collision... was she underway? Still don't know the facts... 

From Boat US: At an absolute minimum, you should always have a proper lookout, operate at a safe speed and yield or give-way to another vessel when in doubt and to always avoid a collision, even if that means breaking a Navigation Rule to save lives and property damage (supports theory that if you hit a vessel you are wrong).


And also from Boat US: The Crossing Rule. Both International and Inland Rules state that when two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her starboard side (the give-way vessel) must keep out of the way. As the give-way vessel it is your duty to avoid a collision (supports theory that give-way vessel has obligation to avoid collision).


Full disclosure, I'm not an attorney and don't know maritime law. Like I said, could be complicated and could be interesting if both vessels were underway and attorneys get involved....

Best to not be underway without a lookout and avoid situation altogether... Over and out.


----------



## mstang1988

Regardless if the shrimp boat was moving or not it's clear that this accident could have been avoided. This boat was a 62' Viking. I'm certain it had more than enough time and maneuvering capability to avoid it.


----------



## Scott A

Texashookset said:


> Looks like he t boned him a few feet behind his out rigger. 15â€™ feet to the right and this accident would've had a much worse ending. A miracle and thank God no one lost a life.


My understanding from someone who was nearby was that the Viking hit the shrimper's boom with the tower/super structure, causing the Viking to turn sharply into the shrimper. This makes sense with the damage to the shrimper. If it was a straight t-bone, I would image the Viking would have gone straight over the shrimper and ripped all of the nets etc. off, especially if the Viking was going 30 knots.


----------



## Scott A

Tortuga said:


> Somewhere in a quite dark room there is an insurance salesman sweating bullets..


Trust me, the lawyers have already started reading the policy, point by point...


----------



## Fin Dejo

anyone get the numbers for it i bet its a good fishing hole in a year or two


----------



## Dixiedream

Regardless of whoâ€™s at fault why should anyone here speculate and attempt to point fingers? If the captain of the Viking is at fault his punishment began the second he had to ditch and be plucked from the water and it will only get worse once he hits the hard. Being an armchair quarterback and arguing something that no one here knows the real truth to doesnâ€™t show any intelligence just ignorance. Any one of us that venture offshore belong to a brotherhood that Iâ€™m **** proud to be a part of and I **** sure know theyâ€™re not the first ones to make a mistake on a boat captain or not. Say a prayer to thank the good lord for everyoneâ€™s safety rather than wasting your time being critical of something you donâ€™t know the whole truth about


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Colorado1

You want to run at 30 mph in a boat anywhere, you better be prepared to glance off your bow every so often.


----------



## rodsnscrews

WOW 2 licensed Captains where on the GOT'M ON..the regular Captain K.T. and Captain Carter (whose the Captain of the 63 ft HOOK N BULL )was part of the crew...this runaway 61 VIKING doesn't pass the SMELL TEST!


----------



## sea sick

Dixiedream said:


> Regardless of whoâ€™s at fault why should anyone here speculate and attempt to point fingers? If the captain of the Viking is at fault his punishment began the second he had to ditch and be plucked from the water and it will only get worse once he hits the hard. Being an armchair quarterback and arguing something that no one here knows the real truth to doesnâ€™t show any intelligence just ignorance. Any one of us that venture offshore belong to a brotherhood that Iâ€™m **** proud to be a part of and I **** sure know theyâ€™re not the first ones to make a mistake on a boat captain or not. Say a prayer to thank the good lord for everyoneâ€™s safety rather than wasting your time being critical of something you donâ€™t know the whole truth about
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's no speculating here...there is a dumb axx for sure..brother hood or not doesn't condone you being a idiot and leaving the helm to go measure a fish running 30 knots on auto pilot....Or whatever was going on.


----------



## Snookered

thanks 24/7 for the pics.....wow! just wow!
snookered


----------



## gater

*Shrimper*



bigfishtx said:


> Lots of guessing going on here. The boat had a licensed captain. He was asked to leave the bridge to help with taking pictures. Visibility was poor on the gulf Saturday. I imagine the shrimper was underway, and came into the vessels path, in which case both vessels are at fault. I bet the shrimper was running on autopilot too.


I doubt there was anyone at the helm of the shrimp boat. If there was and he saw a boat coming head on at a high rate of speed he would have taken measures to avoid a collision unless he was at anchor and couldnâ€™t move


----------



## rvd2

Bad situation, miracle no one was killed. FWIW we were in the Gulf Saturday, visibility was definitely greater than 3 miles. 

Heard chatter of another incident today involving fishing boat and shrimper, don't know any details but I do know we have to be careful out there at all times no matter how smart we think we are or experienced we may or may not be.


----------



## FREON

rodsnscrews said:


> WOW 2 licensed Captains where on the GOT'M ON..the regular Captain K.T. and Captain Carter (whose the Captain of the 63 ft HOOK N BULL )was part of the crew...this runaway 61 VIKING doesn't pass the SMELL TEST!


Wonder if the captains of each boat passed the alcohol test! How far offshore was this and water depth?


----------



## Rufneck

rvd2 said:


> Heard chatter of another incident today involving fishing boat and shrimper, don't know any details but I do know we have to be careful out there at all times no matter how smart we think we are or experienced we may or may not be.


I heard about that as well. Supposedly the boat struck the nets or rigging or something. Next time somebody says they want to run offshore and bang the shrimp boats, I'm staying at the dock!!!


----------



## TrueblueTexican

*Yep*



Scott A said:


> My understanding from someone who was nearby was that the Viking hit the shrimper's boom with the tower/super structure, causing the Viking to turn sharply into the shrimper. This makes sense with the damage to the shrimper. If it was a straight t-bone, I would image the Viking would have gone straight over the shrimper and ripped all of the nets etc. off, especially if the Viking was going 30 knots.


Perfect storm for both boats lookouts - I imagine the shrimper deckhand was taking a siesta at that time of day - or didn't have enough time to judge that the Sportfisher was gonna make contact with their boom --

Almost gives a whole new meaning to "lowering the boom"

100% on Sportfisher though --


----------



## bigfishtx

TrueblueTexican said:


> Perfect storm for both boats lookouts - I imagine the shrimper deckhand was taking a siesta at that time of day - or didn't have enough time to judge that the Sportfisher was gonna make contact with their boom --
> 
> Almost gives a whole new meaning to "lowering the boom"
> 
> 100% on Sportfisher though --


Except the shrimper was also running on autopilot.


----------



## rvd2

bigfishtx said:


> Except the shrimper was also running on autopilot.


Fact?


----------



## sea sick

bigfishtx said:


> Except the shrimper was also running on autopilot.


Bahahahahhahahhahah


----------



## Colorado1

I wish I had a dime for every time one of those 70 foot Gulf Shrimp Boats raced into the path of an oncoming vessel. They are fast and sneaky.


----------



## fishinganimal

Shrimpers were sleeping probably. And its not like they were in the intercoastal. Just a bad deal. Miracle no deaths. Offshore is serious business but the thrill of a big fish it seems just cost a whole lot more than it would have been worth on a scale. 30MPH on Auto with nobody on the watch is a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Tortuga

Colorado1 said:


> I wish I had a dime for every time one of those 70 foot Gulf Shrimp Boats raced into the path of an oncoming vessel. They are fast and sneaky.


Agree completely.. If you think a shrimper is gonna change course just for you, you got another think coming...

Sometimes I think the inshore shrimpers deliberately change course just to aim at us...and I am sure of it in the case of oystermen , especially around Hanna's Reef,,,

Don't think that has anything to do with this collision though... Just poor seamanship....on one or both parts...:headknock


----------



## KevinA

I wonder how many times a day a shrimper looks up and sees a boat or two headed straight at them at high rate of speed and the fishing vessels come off plane at the last second and starts fishing.. probably quite a few from sunup to noon.


after a day or two I would assume the shrimpers quit worrying about it..


----------



## Jonboater

KevinA said:


> I wonder how many times a day a shrimper looks up and sees a boat or two headed straight at them at high rate of speed and the fishing vessels come off plane at the last second and starts fishing.. probably quite a few from sunup to noon.
> 
> after a day or two I would assume the shrimpers quit worrying about it..


Great point.

By the time they realized the boat was not slowing down it would have been too late.


----------



## Hayniedude24

KevinA said:


> I wonder how many times a day a shrimper looks up and sees a boat or two headed straight at them at high rate of speed and the fishing vessels come off plane at the last second and starts fishing.. probably quite a few from sunup to noon.
> 
> after a day or two I would assume the shrimpers quit worrying about it..


Very good point right there.


----------



## Strategery

They said it was a million dollar wound.....


----------



## Txjames

Strategery said:


> They said it was a million dollar wound.....


LOL....


----------



## HillCountryHurricane

Daddy, the top came off!










Too soon?


----------



## SailFishCostaRica

KevinA said:


> I wonder how many times a day a shrimper looks up and sees a boat or two headed straight at them at high rate of speed and the fishing vessels come off plane at the last second and starts fishing.. probably quite a few from sunup to noon.
> 
> after a day or two I would assume the shrimpers quit worrying about it..


I've done that 100 times here, very good thought. Those things always hold fish!


----------



## KevinA

HillCountryHurricane said:


> Daddy, the top came off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too soon?


maybe a little..


----------



## Whitebassfisher

Colorado1 said:


> I wish I had a dime for every time one of those 70 foot Gulf Shrimp Boats raced into the path of an oncoming vessel. They are fast and sneaky.


I believe this ^^^ is what is called sarcasm, but the honest truth is that on more than one occasion we had to pull anchor and move fast to keep a shrimp boat from running over us. And no, we weren't anchored midway between the jetties or channel markers.


----------



## ColeS

Saw this on the way home from Tequila today. It was quite sobering. 

Cole


----------



## ColeS

I’ll try again on that picture.


----------



## mstrelectricman

^^^any fish on it?^^^


----------



## Lostinpecos

Letâ€™s blame the autopilot companies while we are at it. 
Pretty soon we will have airbags and seatbelts on boats as a requirement. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hilton

Both vessels were underway at the time of collision.


----------



## rodsnscrews

Tom you've logged thousand's of hours in the Gulf how many times have you been on a vessel (with 2 licensed captains on board) on autopilot doing 30+kts and have the captain come down for 10-15 min picture session/high five session leaving no one on watch?
You have spent a lot of time on the No Compromise recently you think that would happen on that Yacht?


----------



## bigfishtx

hilton said:


> Both vessels were underway at the time of collision.


Shrimp Trawler may end up being negligent. I do not see any balls or cones displayed. 
Not sure the course both were on, but if the trawler crossed in front from the Sports port side he had the red light, while sporty had green. Maritime law required Trawler to display a cone if underway, correct?


----------



## Ibfurloughed

mstrelectricman said:


> ^^^any fish on it?^^^


It found it also yesterday and went by it twice about 2 hours apart thinking I'd find little Mahis on it. Nada. Was really surprised.


----------



## Category6

Sportfisher must have been on an overtaking course, coming from the starboard beam, that's the only way its tower would have been sheared off by the shrimpers outriggers is in an overtaking glancing blow, in which it careened off the side of the shrimper and lurched into the outrigger. That's my professional amateur opinion anyway.


----------



## Category6

Also if the shrimper wasn't trawling, which it wasn't, and wasn't anchored, which pics also show it wasn't, then no day shapes required under COLREGS. Vessel not under command could apply to the sportfisher however. If overtaking, even slightly, then the vessel overtaking has every obligation to stand down to avoid collision, and in every situation no vessel has absolute "right of way" such that they are not culpable in a collision if they could have avoided it, but when overtaking you better believe you are 100% culpable!


----------



## hilton

rodsnscrews said:


> Tom you've logged thousand's of hours in the Gulf how many times have you been on a vessel (with 2 licensed captains on board) on autopilot doing 30+kts and have the captain come down for 10-15 min picture session/high five session leaving no one on watch?
> You have spent a lot of time on the No Compromise recently you think that would happen on that Yacht?


Obviously there were mistakes made here, by all involved, and I feel sorry for all involved - I am not taking sides or making excuses - just an observation - it's really none of my business as I have no dog in this hunt.

If the shrimper was anchored or dragging a net, it would have been an entirely different story - since both vessels were underway, I believe the rules of the road come into the equation - one vessel has the right of way and one vessel must give way. I'm no maritime attorney, but I do believe this is a pertinent point.

And no, I have never seen the helm of the No Compromise unmanned while underway nor do I expect to ever see that happen.


----------



## hilton

Category5 said:


> Also if the shrimper wasn't trawling, which it wasn't, and wasn't anchored, which pics also show it wasn't, then no day shapes required under COLREGS. Vessel not under command could apply to the sportfisher however. If overtaking, even slightly, then the vessel overtaking has every obligation to stand down to avoid collision, and in every situation no vessel has absolute "right of way" such that they are not culpable in a collision if they could have avoided it, but when overtaking you better believe you are 100% culpable!


Could be a situation (and I wasn't there obviously) where the sportfisher was approaching from the shrimper's forward starboard side (not overtaking). This would provide the scenario where it would hit the shrimper's boom first, shearing off the top of the boat and then perhaps swinging it into the shrimper's starboard gunnel then over the shrimper entirely.

Vessel not under command could apply to both vessels?


----------



## Category6

If a deckhand driving a shrimp boat at 10 kts has a 30 kt sportfisher collide into his starboard beam from behind, I'm not sure how he could have been at fault in any way, my 2 cents fwiw


----------



## Category6

I guess that's somewhat plausible, dangit


----------



## Cat O' Lies

https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/boat-navigation-and-right-of-way/


----------



## fuelish

the radio was ablaze w chatter out there last saturday.....we were listening to it all trying to figure out what was going on.....crazy stuff


----------



## mstrelectricman

bigfishtx said:


> Shrimp Trawler may end up being negligent. I do not see any balls or cones displayed.
> Not sure the course both were on, but if the trawler crossed in front from the Sports port side he had the red light, while sporty had green. Maritime law required Trawler to display a cone if underway, correct?


Yes, you are correct in that assumption.
Look at it like this, if the shrimper would have been at anchor, his bow would have been pointed in a general 270...and the impact from an in-bound to port of POC vessel would have been on his port side...right? Pics show he(shrimp) was impacted on his star. That tells you they were both underway. Shrimp speed, below 7 knots, SP 30 knots. The sport is the craft in the wrong. To what degrees ...?

Shrimps operate in this mode often. The sport should NEVER be w
/o watch.

It's just that simple.
Period!


----------



## D-fish

Came across this Tower exactly 75 miles due SE of Freeport yesterday afternoon about 3pm. Sorry didnt think of getting coordinates, but is it the top lost on this boat possibly?


----------



## Sharpest

Yup, that looks like the top from the before pic on post 15. Nuts that its still floating!


----------



## DGAustin

Might be the top from "who's your daddys" boat. That was some scary situations over a short period of time. Very glad human damage was minimal.


----------



## offshorefanatic

My 2 cents. And take it with a grain of salt. Sportfisher was hauling tail with no one at the helm. Stupid. Case closed. Period end of story. Seriously how can you justify that? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## elgatogus

So I’m curios... wether the shrimper or the sport fisher had the right away... who cares ??? If I see a boat coming my way.. I don’t care if I have the right of way or not. I am getting the heck out of the way!!! Obviously.,, there is no excuse as of how this happened. Someone was not paying attention.


----------



## RedXCross

Good Point, and very true



KevinA said:


> I wonder how many times a day a shrimper looks up and sees a boat or two headed straight at them at high rate of speed and the fishing vessels come off plane at the last second and starts fishing.. probably quite a few from sunup to noon.
> 
> after a day or two I would assume the shrimpers quit worrying about it..


----------



## Bird

It takes two boats to have a collision. While the rules of the road are clear defining port/starboard right of way, overtaking vessel must keep clear and suggests turning right to avoid collisions, ultimately either boat is obligated to do what they need to do to avoid the collision even if the boat that was hit was the right of way vessel.


Since we are all guessing here to one degree or another, here is my guess. The only way the sporty is 100% at fault is if the shrimper was at anchor and that is fairly simple. If both boats were underway, neither were maintaining a proper lookout, both were on AP so no one at the helm, then the issue gets a lot more complicated. I wouldn't be surprised to see joint liability assigned to both parties and the lawyers argue out how much each party is at fault. A very simple example is that the sporty is 60% liable because it was the overtaking vessel and failed to keep clear but the shrimper is 40% liable because they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Maritime law is pretty complicated, a lot more so than what applies while driving your car on the road. Will be interesting to hear the facts of the accident when they finally come out.


----------



## hyperman

I have been trying not to come in on this thread, but could not let the: "not under command" discussion roll on without clarifying that rule. 
Not commanding a vessel by choice for whatever reason, (Taking a nap, going to the bathroom, stopping to fish, stopping to check the bilges, etc.... ) does not put a vessel under the "not under command" rule. 
Those are choices made by crew. 
A way to paraphrase rule three might be: "The Vessel cannot be commanded"
Here is the official wording of rule three:

"""""The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to maneuver as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.""""

the operative phrase IMO is "exceptional circumstance unable to maneuver as required" since rule 8 is to take action to avoid collisions


----------



## tngbmt

i've always thought that the more maneuverable craft have to yield right of way.
a craft traveling at 30 knots have to yield to the one traveling at 8 knots. if i run smack into the middle of a tanker at 50mph on either side .. it's my fault even if i was at the helm and he's not.


----------



## Momma's Worry

*Collision and loss ...*

once in court ...start the spin let the lying begin!


----------



## hyperman

tngbmt said:


> i've always thought that the more maneuverable craft have to yield right of way.
> a craft traveling at 30 knots have to yield to the one traveling at 8 knots. if i run smack into the middle of a tanker at 50mph on either side .. it's my fault even if i was at the helm and he's not.


 That is generally true, but not in crossing, overtaking, sailing, traffic patterns, or restricted by draft to a channel situations. 
Speed does not enter into any navigation rule that i recall. 
If none of the above situations are true (and probably more that i do not have memorized) then the right of way list goes in general (with exceptions) from least to most maneuverable, though speed is not part of any rule directly:
NUC
RAM
Constrained by draft
commercial actively fishing (gear in water)
sailing
power driven
(i probably missed something in the list, certainly there are more details than this like under 20M or rowboats)

so in theory, you have equal "rights" in a 30 CC with a 200000 ton tanker if none of the first four situations apply.
BUT... there is the DEAD right thing:
You are in a contender doing 50 across the middle of the GOM, a tanker is on a crossing course coming from your port side. 
You note that his relative bearing to you is not changing, thus there is a risk of collision. You are the stand on vessel. You have the right of way. 
IMO: You would be DUMB to NOT be the one to change course early on to avoid any possible risk of collision. 
Thus, IMO common sense and courteousness is part of being a good mariner, if you are more maneuverable why not be the one to maneuver, so in practice, what you said is a good habit, just don't wait till the other boat becomes concerned. In inland rules there are distance limitation on some the rules.

here are the simplified rules:
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=NavRulesAmalgamated


----------



## pocjetty

I didn't see this thread, or I would have commented. A friend fished that tourney, and saw the aftermath. He's usually a pretty dependable guy. I really don't want to read through 14 pages of thread, so I'll just tell you what he told me when it happened:

He said that the Viking was on A/P, and he (my friend) was really twisted that the captain put it on auto that close in. The word was that no one was at the helm of the shrimp boat at the time of the collision, but he acknowledged that people say a lot of things - he didn't know that part for 100% sure.

But... he said that the captain of the Viking got put in handcuffs. Lots of speculation about why, but they didn't handcuff the captain of the shrimp boat. I'm sure he'll have his day in court, but at the scene they believed that he was responsible strongly enough to cuff him.

I wasn't there, but I don't think this guy would just make up a story like that, and he's usually pretty good about separating what he knows from what he heard.


----------



## Haynie21T

Bottom line here is if there had been someone on wheel watch on the Viking this accident would have never happened. You ALWAYS have a responsible person on wheel watch. Even anchored at night, someone needs to be awake on watch. They were very fortunate nobody was killed....


----------



## BullyARed

Auto pilot doesn't mean you can take your eyes off. Like one puts on cruise control at 75MPH and gets to the back seat to have a quickie.


----------



## JamesAggie

BullyARed said:


> Auto pilot doesn't mean you can take your eyes off. Like one puts on cruise control at 75MPH and gets to the back seat to have a quickie.


Wait, what....?!?!? Don't take that from me!

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## bigfishtx

Haynie21T said:


> Bottom line here is if there had been someone on wheel watch on the Viking this accident would have never happened. You ALWAYS have a responsible person on wheel watch. Even anchored at night, someone needs to be awake on watch. They were very fortunate nobody was killed....


Bottom line is, both boats were on AP, both parties at fault to some degree. Shrimp boat has as much duty to operate responsibly as Sporty.


----------



## BullyARed

JamesAggie said:


> Wait, what....?!?!? Don't take that from me!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


Jame, just put that king size mattress on your long trailer and put your truck on cruise control and you are all set!


----------



## bwguardian

BullyARed said:


> Auto pilot doesn't mean you can take your eyes off. Like one puts on cruise control at 75MPH and gets to the back seat to have a quickie.


Hey, I have been known to do that in my younger days, though not in the back seat...set cruise, lay seat halfway back, and have fun!


----------



## bigfishtx

Fyi, captain WAS NOT ARRESTED. That is BS. accident occurred 40 miles out, they were not close in. 

But feel free to carry on with the rumors.


----------



## Whitebassfisher

bigfishtx said:


> Fyi, captain WAS NOT ARRESTED. That is BS. accident occurred 40 miles out, they were not close in.
> 
> But feel free to carry on with the rumors.


Someone stated he was put in handcuffs, but I didn't read the word "arrested." Not meaning to get picky, but my guess is that there are times a LEO handcuffs someone and then decides to release them without arresting them.

I am curious about what is a fact one way or another. Was the shrimp boat under power and moving, drifting, or anchored?


----------



## sea sick

bigfishtx said:


> Fyi, captain WAS NOT ARRESTED. That is BS. accident occurred 40 miles out, they were not close in.
> 
> But feel free to carry on with the rumors.


You still can't answer that question can ya??? Who hit who? 
You must lack the common sense that the sporty captain lacked as well.... carry on wishing and a hopin lol

How do you know he wasnt arrested when he made land? Or are u just spreading rumors as well? Were your there on scene and watched him drive off to the house?


----------



## bigfishtx

sea sick said:


> You still can't answer that question can ya??? Who hit who?
> You must lack the common sense that the sporty captain lacked as well.... carry on wishing and a hopin lol
> 
> How do you know he wasnt arrested when he made land? Or are u just spreading rumors as well? Were your there on scene and watched him drive off to the house?


Because I know the people involved. Hate to ruin your game of hate, but feel free to carry on. Envy is a tough emotion to control.


----------



## bigfishtx

sea sick said:


> You still can't answer that question can ya??? Who hit who?
> You must lack the common sense that the sporty captain lacked as well.... carry on wishing and a hopin lol
> 
> How do you know he wasnt arrested when he made land? Or are u just spreading rumors as well? Were your there on scene and watched him drive off to the house?


If someone runs a red kight and you hit them are you at fault? May want to brush up on things a little before you spout off again.


----------



## Bird

bigfishtx said:


> Bottom line is, both boats were on AP, both parties at fault to some degree. Shrimp boat has as much duty to operate responsibly as Sporty.


^^this is going to be the argued point in court...


----------



## pocjetty

bigfishtx said:


> Fyi, captain WAS NOT ARRESTED. That is BS. accident occurred 40 miles out, they were not close in.
> 
> But feel free to carry on with the rumors.


Slow down, Tex. I've got no dog in the fight - just trying to pass on information. I know the man who told me that. I've fished offshore with him in the last few weeks. I know he fished that tournament. I know he described seeing some of the aftermath long before anyone here mentioned it. And I was really careful about how I phrased the things I said.

If you have some solid evidence, please pass it along. As of right now, you're just one more voice to me. I didn't know this was a court of law. But since it is, let's swear you in too.


----------



## Chase This!

bigfishtx said:


> Because I know the people involved. Hate to ruin your game of hate, but feel free to carry on. Envy is a tough emotion to control.


Not sure envy is an emotion expressed in this deal. Sad and unfortunate situation for all involved.


----------



## offshorefanatic

sea sick said:


> You still can't answer that question can ya??? Who hit who?
> You must lack the common sense that the sporty captain lacked as well.... carry on wishing and a hopin lol
> 
> How do you know he wasnt arrested when he made land? Or are u just spreading rumors as well? Were your there on scene and watched him drive off to the house?


Hector seems common sense is gone nowa days. Regardless. If the shrimp boat was on ap. Underway. Yes under rules of the road they may have some accountability. But the mfin sportfisher was making 30+ knots without anyone at the helm. Hell if a tanker was under way and they hit them. They still wouldnâ€™t have enough time to react or maneuver by the time collision was imminent. How many of us zip within a thousand yards of a tanker? How many pull up to a shrimp boat and shut down 500yards away? Itâ€™s not like the shrimp boat had enough time to react. Bottom line is sport fisher effed up and they need to take full responsibility and not put blame elsewhere. Thatâ€™s whatâ€™s wrong with out society. Then messed up plain and simple. Have some integrity and take full responsibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## offshorefanatic

.


----------



## pocjetty

bigfishtx said:


> Fyi, captain WAS NOT ARRESTED. That is BS. accident occurred 40 miles out, they were not close in.
> 
> But feel free to carry on with the rumors.


I don't know what happened to my last post, but that may be for the best. It's possible that I garbaged something in the re-telling. I did my best. I can tell you that he described the damage to the shrimp boat precisely. The other thing he said was that there were two licensed captains on board. You can check your "official" source, whatever that is, and tell me if that's a rumor as well.

IF there were two licensed captains, and they really left the boat on AP for 20 minutes at 30+ mph, it's hard to make the case that both of them were needed to measure the fish.


----------



## sea sick

So you know the sporty cap that made the mistake of leaving the helm un attended. Good for you. You look like a fool trying to take up for him.
Envy huh... I'm envious of a fool that sunk a beautiful rig after ghost riding that sucker into a shrimp boat... Okayyyyy.
I'm so envious I'm guna ghist ride my rig into the jetty and cry that I had the right of way... last time I looked there weren't any stop lights in the gulf cheif....and like I said... answer 1 simple question that you keep dodging like a liberal snowflake on election night....

WHO HIT WHO?


----------



## sea sick

bigfishtx said:


> Because I know the people involved. Hate to ruin your game of hate, but feel free to carry on. Envy is a tough emotion to control.


The simple fact that you know them clouds your judgement. Makes you look foolish,lack common sense...if you think envy is tough, your stupidity is even harder to control, as you are demonstrating .


----------



## sea sick

offshorefanatic said:


> Hector seems common sense is gone nowa days. Regardless. If the shrimp boat was on ap. Underway. Yes under rules of the road they may have some accountability. But the mfin sportfisher was making 30+ knots without anyone at the helm. Hell if a tanker was under way and they hit them. They still wouldnâ€™t have enough time to react or maneuver by the time collision was imminent. How many of us zip within a thousand yards of a tanker? How many pull up to a shrimp boat and shut down 500yards away? Itâ€™s not like the shrimp boat had enough time to react. Bottom line is sport fisher effed up and they need to take full responsibility and not put blame elsewhere. Thatâ€™s whatâ€™s wrong with out society. Then messed up plain and simple. Have some integrity and take full responsibility.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I agree. It's just funny how some people act... the he dint do nuffin,,, he good boy comes out of people....its funny.


----------



## offshorefanatic

sea sick said:


> I agree. It's just funny how some people act... the he dint do nuffin,,, he good boy comes out of people....its funny.


Just like ole boy that parked that sportfisher on the Freeport jetty last year during a midnight booze cruise and hauled ***. Wasnâ€™t his fault. Dang jettyâ€™s jumped outta no where....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sea sick

offshorefanatic said:


> Just like ole boy that parked that sportfisher on the Freeport jetty last year during a midnight booze cruise and hauled ***. Wasnâ€™t his fault. Dang jettyâ€™s jumped outta no where....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE
> 
> But I knew that guy...don't be envious!
> 
> Bahahahahahaha


----------



## FREON

FREON said:


> Wonder if the captains of each boat passed the alcohol test! How far offshore was this and water depth?


 Any word on this? My understanding is that the captains of both vessels would have been required to take blood tests?


----------



## offshorefanatic

FREON said:


> Any word on this? My understanding is that the captains of both vessels would have been required to take blood tests?


I would bet we will never know. Iâ€™m sure all parties involved have probably been ordered to keep their mouths shut by their legal advisors...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Txjames

FREON said:


> Any word on this? My understanding is that the captains of both vessels would have been required to take blood tests?


The word is that no one on this thread, including me, was aboard either vessel and the posts are all conjecture, speculation or plain old everyday BS. But they do have a certain entertainment value to them. I especially enjoy the posts that indicate the author has some sort of information about the events leading to the collision but cannot tell the rest of the readers the source, it should just be taken as valid information because the author says so. To me, that increases the BS value a little higher than the self-appointed accident re-constructionist who give us the speculated details of how the collision occurred without ever having been to the scene or interviewed any witnesses. Then, of course, come the counter posts demanding an answer to the authors repeated requests for clarification of another posters speculative information that obviously cannot be answered by the â€œcross examinedâ€ party. Thus; comes the frustration of being ignored and unable to proclaim victory in discrediting the post in question. I lost count of how many posts to it took to arrive at the name calling stage, but it seems like it was around page 8. And then, as anticipated, comes the "I don't have a dog in the hunt" posts that proclaim to have information from a friend how knows a guy who once spoke to a guy who saw that vessel a few days before collision which means he likely knows what happened but yet, he doesn't. But its cheaper than cable or dish. Oh, and donâ€™t worry, Iâ€™ll get you at recess!!


----------



## justhookit

pocjetty said:


> IF there were two licensed captains, and they really left the boat on AP for 20 minutes at 30+ mph, it's hard to make the case that both of them were needed to measure the fish.


Well, this post, and your last post about the handcuffs is factually wrong. Iâ€™d stop listening to your friend.


----------



## Drundel

offshorefanatic said:


> Just like ole boy that parked that sportfisher on the Freeport jetty last year during a midnight booze cruise and hauled ***. Wasnâ€™t his fault. Dang jettyâ€™s jumped outta no where....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Whatever happened with that?


----------



## offshorefanatic

Drundel said:


> Whatever happened with that?


Again only the people on board will ever know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Drundel

offshorefanatic said:


> Again only the people on board will ever know.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I mean lawsuits, fines, jail, etc. Was the capt drunk, etc.? I remember seeing the pictures on here but that was it.


----------



## offshorefanatic

Drundel said:


> I mean lawsuits, fines, jail, etc. Was the capt drunk, etc.? I remember seeing the pictures on here but that was it.


There were a lot of speculations on that one too. Only thing I know is the Capt that was supposedly commanding the boat is still a captain and still runs boats down there. Thatâ€™s all I know for sure. Everything else would be hear say and speculation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## sea sick

offshorefanatic said:


> There were a lot of speculations on that one too. Only thing I know is the Capt that was supposedly commanding the boat is still a captain and still runs boats down there. Thatâ€™s all I know for sure. Everything else would be hear say and speculation.
> 
> Yup... there's also 1 other thing for sure. There's a viking sitting on the bottom of the gulf. Fact...
> If only someone was at the helm...


----------



## HiggsBoson

hilton said:


> Could be a situation (and I wasn't there obviously) where the sportfisher was approaching from the shrimper's forward starboard side (not overtaking). This would provide the scenario where it would hit the shrimper's boom first, shearing off the top of the boat and then perhaps swinging it into the shrimper's starboard gunnel then over the shrimper entirely.
> 
> Vessel not under command could apply to both vessels?


Looking at the pictures of the viking there was more damage to the starboard side of the viking. The tower was pushed over to port. There is stern damage on the starboard side of the viking and she was listing to starboard, indicating flooding in that area. I think your scenario fits the facts and photos better than anything else I have seen. Viking hits boom, gets the top sheared off to port and kicks the starboard rail and stern into the side of the shrimper. Rule 14, in a meeting situation both vessels should alter course to starboard and pass port to port unless other arrangements are made. In this scenario both vessels would share fault since they hit starboard to starboard in a meeting situation. It is also very likely that both vessels failed to maintain a proper lookout (Rule 5). Both vessels are power driven vessels and at the time of the accident appear to have been underway with no special circumstances (trawling, anchored, etc.) that would have given either vessel some protected status. The shrimper's anchor is visible stowed for sea, they would not have come off anchor after being hit. The nets were up so they weren't dragging, they too are a power driven vessel underway in this scenario.


----------



## Hayniedude24

I heard the sporty was running barrels of heroin and had 6 under size blue fins on board when the shrimpers ran into them.


----------



## sea sick

Texashookset said:


> I heard the sporty was running barrels of heroin and had 6 under size blue fins on board when the shrimpers ran into them.


Haha


----------



## mstrelectricman

Texashookset said:


> I heard the sporty was running barrels of heroin and had 6 under size blue fins on board when the shrimpers ran into them.


Hehehe! Yup, this thread has predictably gotten that stoopid.


----------



## offshorefanatic

Texashookset said:


> I heard the sporty was running barrels of heroin and had 6 under size blue fins on board when the shrimpers ran into them.


Waaay off base. It was several tons of pure Columbian snow. I also heard they had a dozen midget Puerto Rican prostitutes on board.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FREON

offshorefanatic said:


> Waaay off base. It was several tons of pure Columbian snow. I also heard they had a dozen midget Puerto Rican prostitutes on board.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Wished y'all would get your stories straight, cuz that is how rumors get started. The FACTS are it was only 1000 kilos pink Peruvian flake coke and there were only 3 dwarf Columbian whores.....That Viking could only haul so much.


----------



## Jolly Roger

coked up midget hookers will get you in trouble every time


----------



## FREON

Or so BOOM sayz


----------



## sea sick

FREON said:


> Wished y'all would get your stories straight, cuz that is how rumors get started. The FACTS are it was only 1000 kilos pink Peruvian flake coke and there were only 3 dwarf Columbian whores.....That Viking could only haul so much.


And Bigfishtx would come on here and say the captain had NOOO idea it was on board!! He would defend him, that the boat was way to big, he never new it was there.....cuz he knows him lmao


----------



## blaze 'em

This dairy queen gossip hasnt been deleted yet???


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## saltaholic

No matter who was at fault, everyone here needs to refocus on the fact that If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation.


----------



## elgatogus

saltaholic said:


> No matter who was at fault, everyone here needs to refocus on the fact that If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation.


Lol!!! Y'all are crazzzyyy!!!


----------



## Captn C

offshorefanatic said:


> Waaay off base. It was several tons of pure Columbian snow. I also heard they had a dozen midget Puerto Rican prostitutes on board.


Not that anyone is being really serious or accurate in this thread.....

But it's spelled Colombia....


----------



## Captn C

JamesHouston said:


> The word is that no one on this thread, including me, was aboard either vessel and the posts are all conjecture, speculation or plain old everyday BS. But they do have a certain entertainment value to them. I especially enjoy the posts that indicate the author has some sort of information about the events leading to the collision but cannot tell the rest of the readers the source, it should just be taken as valid information because the author says so. To me, that increases the BS value a little higher than the self-appointed accident re-constructionist who give us the speculated details of how the collision occurred without ever having been to the scene or interviewed any witnesses. Then, of course, come the counter posts demanding an answer to the authors repeated requests for clarification of another posters speculative information that obviously cannot be answered by the "cross examined" party. Thus; comes the frustration of being ignored and unable to proclaim victory in discrediting the post in question. I lost count of how many posts to it took to arrive at the name calling stage, but it seems like it was around page 8. And then, as anticipated, comes the "I don't have a dog in the hunt" posts that proclaim to have information from a friend how knows a guy who once spoke to a guy who saw that vessel a few days before collision which means he likely knows what happened but yet, he doesn't. But its cheaper than cable or dish. Oh, and don't worry, I'll get you at recess!!


Nice job by a rookie poster!

This post gets my vote for most creative, we'll thought out, and most accurate post!

Hilton gets most factual post! I agree with your theory!


----------



## IrishSharker

sea sick said:


> Who gives a rat's behind what the shrimper was doing... by the look of the pictures, the sportsfisher hit the shrimper. Not the other way around.
> Stop looking to cast blame elsewhere, other than the sportsfisher captain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rodsnscrews

Involved Captain is still running boats .....u mean his dad let's him take the wheel of the "Bandit" ....Steindorf never has been one to know what was going on with the Bandit!


----------



## BBCAT

It's been about 2 months since the last post on this thread. Any new info?


----------

