Tugs pushing barges are not RAM. And if, by some weird reason, they happened to be RAM they would need to be showing day shapes for RAM, which they were not. So the whole RAM discussion here is a red herring. I am very familiar with these sorts of dock-work lash-ups and with the waters in question and there is, plainly put, no excuse for the collision and certainly no excuse for not sounding the danger signal. I commend the CG for moving this forward for prosecution.
So, I am wondering who the Coast Guard would refer for prosecution if the tugboat had been operated by an AI that was being monitored remotely. Would they have included the monitor of the vessel, the manufacturer of the software that would supposedly be smart enough to recognize the situation and do something appropriate (like sound the horn)?
Sounds like an unfortunate accident. Doesn’t sound like the captain had time to respond. They don’t have a brake pedal and can only reverse engines which doesn’t stop forward motion immediately.
Yes, they can stop. They can also take other evasive action and they can certainly signal. None of which was done. Please don't make excuses for poor seamanship.
If the barges attorney can be believed it sounds as if there was poor seamanship by the young skipper of the Hobie cat. By leaving the protection of the pack she put her vessel into the path of the barge.
As a push boat operator in the same business I would have had a lookout on top of the push boat with a clear line of sight forward to help with navigation and advise me of potential conflicts with other vessels.
Especially with children on small sailboats with no engines in the area. Failure to keep a proper watch still the leading cause of collisions on the water.
Tugs pushing barges are not RAM. And if, by some weird reason, they happened to be RAM they would need to be showing day shapes for RAM, which they were not. So the whole RAM discussion here is a red herring. I am very familiar with these sorts of dock-work lash-ups and with the waters in question and there is, plainly put, no excuse for the collision and certainly no excuse for not sounding the danger signal. I commend the CG for moving this forward for prosecution.
So, I am wondering who the Coast Guard would refer for prosecution if the tugboat had been operated by an AI that was being monitored remotely. Would they have included the monitor of the vessel, the manufacturer of the software that would supposedly be smart enough to recognize the situation and do something appropriate (like sound the horn)?
Sounds like an unfortunate accident. Doesn’t sound like the captain had time to respond. They don’t have a brake pedal and can only reverse engines which doesn’t stop forward motion immediately.
Yes, they can stop. They can also take other evasive action and they can certainly signal. None of which was done. Please don't make excuses for poor seamanship.
If the barges attorney can be believed it sounds as if there was poor seamanship by the young skipper of the Hobie cat. By leaving the protection of the pack she put her vessel into the path of the barge.
As a push boat operator in the same business I would have had a lookout on top of the push boat with a clear line of sight forward to help with navigation and advise me of potential conflicts with other vessels.
Especially with children on small sailboats with no engines in the area. Failure to keep a proper watch still the leading cause of collisions on the water.
Let’s pray that the principle owners of Waterfront Construction are not members at Mar-a-Lago or holding significant volumes of trump crypto.