Fail: Sea Shepherd

[CookMySock]

This time BOTH skippers misjudged.

I think the andy gils' skipper was a little taken-aback when he was so suddenly sucked under the bow of the whaler, and a little shocked even when the big burst of power and rapid application of starboard helm did little or nothing to resolve what was usually a perfectly predictable manoevre.

I suggest the person with the high-pressure hose probably should not have intentionally blinded the andy gils' crew too - the suprise on their face was palpable when they realised what was afoot.

As bikers are fully aware, accidents happen when boys are doing stupid shit and not thinking. Oops.

Steve

[Ronin]

You guys should really consider going back to school. In this particular case you are both very much incorrect. This is not an invitation for debate either. You can keep on disagreeing as much as you want, but you'll still be wrong. We are talking about a weight ration of about 38:1 - how much do you expect to be able to change the direction of a 38 ton truck in a 1 ton car? How much would you expect to be able to change the direction of a 10 ton truck by hitting it on your motorcycle? Please, grow a perspective.

The fact that the Ady Gil didn't just shatter into a million pieces is clear evidence that the forward momentum of the Ady Gil relative to the hull of the Shonan Maru 2 was negligible.

If you don't believe me, by all means do try and go out and see if you can deflect a Bayliner idling along using a sea kayak.

Attention world: The laws of physics have now been re written to allow the above post to be correct. As you can see, this is obviously not open to debate.

Lets see, I put my time and experience working on boats up against your view of events. It is impossible for the collision to have no effect on the larger vessel. Sure, if it was an oil tanker then that effect would be difficult to measure but it would still be there.

You can argue your point to try not to be wrong all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Both skippers were in the wrong for a variety of reasons.

[Skyryder]

All the posturing ignores the fact that the Ady Gill was deliberately approaching the Jap boat from starboard to force the Jap boat to turn. And what an effective way of using the rules of the Sea to disrupt the Whaler, which is much larger and slower. By the time it is back on course, the Ady Gill is ready for a new approach and can repeat this ad-nauseum.

What happened here was a game of Chicken.

This time BOTH skippers misjudged.

The Japs made little effort to avoid the Ady Gill, underestimating the resolve of the Ady Gil to get under the bows of the Jap boat.

The Ady Gill had overestimated the Jab skippers adherence to the right-hand-rule.

I have no doubt that the Sea Shepherd was being provocative and that their intention was to disrupt whaling activities. On the rights an wrongs of this I have not commented. This still does not excuse the Jap master from deliberately ramming another vessel. And that is what the vid clip shows. Some have claimed that this maneuver from the whaler was to avoid the tangling of their propellers by the activities of the Sea Shepherd.

If this is true and the whaler had to take evasive action by turning to starboard then there will be doubt as to the deliberate intention of ramming.

On this instance this appears not to be the case. The whaler had it's water cannon on. This would have obstructed the whalers view of objects in the water that the sea Shepherd may have cast adrift. Odd don’t you think for the Jap master to order his water cannon on, resticting his view, knowing there are objects in the water that may endanger his vessel.

Skyryder

[Hinny]

All the posturing ignores the fact that the Ady Gill was deliberately approaching the Jap boat from starboard to force the Jap boat to turn.

You need to look at the video shot from the Bob Barker.
This boat and the Ady Gil are stationary - dead in the water. Not, as you state, 'approaching the jap boat from starboard'.

[jonbuoy]

You guys should really consider going back to school. In this particular case you are both very much incorrect. This is not an invitation for debate either. You can keep on disagreeing as much as you want, but you'll still be wrong. We are talking about a weight ration of about 38:1 - how much do you expect to be able to change the direction of a 38 ton truck in a 1 ton car? How much would you expect to be able to change the direction of a 10 ton truck by hitting it on your motorcycle? Please, grow a perspective.

The fact that the Ady Gil didn't just shatter into a million pieces is clear evidence that the forward momentum of the Ady Gil relative to the hull of the Shonan Maru 2 was negligible.

If you don't believe me, by all means do try and go out and see if you can deflect a Bayliner idling along using a sea kayak.



Unless you raised the specific animal you do not own it. Plenty of NZ fishing boats operating in Tongan, Fijian and Samoan waters too. Most tuna eaten in NZ is flown in from Fiji. Most Marlins and Swordfish caught in NZ waters are flown off to Japan or the States - it's just how the market works.

Go to Marsden point a watch a wee little tug nudge a supertanker alongside, Pull on a mooring line of a 500T fishing boat, watch a container ship trying to berth in windy weather you'd be surprised what a little force can do to a floating object.

[Mikkel]

I pointed out earlier, its not a simple equation like two pool balls hitting on a table, there is a lot more happening than a simple collision. The relationship between vessels is much more complicated.

Indeed it is much more complicated. But if anything weight will count for even more than just the directly associated inertia, considering that the weight of the vessel is directly proportional to the volume of water displaced by the hull - and it there by follows that the cross-section in the water would be larger as well.

Add then the fact that what you are proposing is a deflection of the Shonan Maru 2 around the vertical axis - i.e. twisting a rotation of the longitudinal axis of the boat - due to the impact.

Even a 400kg Jetski can create a wake that will disrupt and rock a 2000 ton fishing boat.

Indeed, there will of course be an effect, that is true. However, that effect is could never, in this case, result in a significant change of course for the larger boat. The waves surrounding the vessels are orders of magnitude larger than the wake that the Ady Gil is stirring up.

So while your example here is valid - it is also completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

And the video appears to show that the Ady Gill had power on when it hit the Jap, so not only do you have to consider the relative weights, you have to consider the thrust of the boats as well.

The bow thruster in the Arahura weighs only 1100 kg, and it can easily move the 9000 tons of the Arahura.

Thats 1 : 8200.

That's an entirely different situation - sustained thrust versus a non-elastic impact. In order for the Ady Gil to impart any change of momentum, due to thrust, onto the Shanon Maru 2 the duration of the contact would have to be significant. Instead, what we see is an almost immediate separation of the two vessels following the impact. If the Ady Gil was imparting any momentum into the Shanon Maru 2 it would have remained in contact following the collision.

Another thing to note - as the collision occurs the people on the Ady Gil are propelled backwards this is obvious evidence that the Ady Gil is actually accelerated forward during the collision. What can we take from this? We can conclude that the Shonan Maru 2 is moving faster than the Ady Gil at the time of the impact and that the forces of the impact, on the Ady Gil, happens as much along the longitudinal axis as it does along the lateral axis.

Finally, if the Ady Gil is accelerated forward by the impact and it's direction of travel - relative to the Shonan Maru 2 - is going from Starboard to Port there is no way that the impact could have imparted any transverse momentum driving the Shonan Maru 2 towards its port side. And then it becomes rather irrelevant whether it was under power or not.

What do you think would happen if you just threw the bow thruster of the Arahura at the boat instead of bolting it to the hull?

Attention world: The laws of physics have now been re written to allow the above post to be correct. As you can see, this is obviously not open to debate.

Which is more likely, that the laws have to be rewritten or that you just have not got a good grasp of them?

Lets see, I put my time and experience working on boats up against your view of events. It is impossible for the collision to have no effect on the larger vessel. Sure, if it was an oil tanker then that effect would be difficult to measure but it would still be there.

Let's see, I will put my time and experience working with the laws of physics up against your view of the events. It is impossible for the collision to have no effect upon the larger vessel, Newton's 3rd law - action equals reaction - dictates this. However, if the ratio of inertia, between the two objects, is 38:1 then the effect upon the larger object, considering the velocities involved, would be insignificant, even though it would still be there.

You can argue your point to try not to be wrong all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Both skippers were in the wrong for a variety of reasons.

I am merely pointing out the facts to you. I hope you don't mind.

But yes, both skippers were in the wrong - on that we agree.

[Mikkel]

Go to Marsden point a watch a wee little tug nudge a supertanker alongside, Pull on a mooring line of a 500T fishing boat, watch a container ship trying to berth in windy weather you'd be surprised what a little force can do to a floating object.

Sustained thrust versus impact. The situations are not comparable.

An ant could move Jupiter given enough time...

And just for the record - tugs may be small, but they do not constitute a small force. They are the tractors of the sea. Have a look at these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tug#Tugboat_propulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard_pull

[McJim]

Brainwashed Brit. Yeah get over it - you Scots are Brits.
We have a Govt. that is similarly brainwashed so that hypothesis is not beyond the realms of possibility.
The last Nat govt. sent troops to fight an illegal war.
This one may commit the same insanity.

I used to be brainwashed - I thought there was something wrong with Whaling. Watson has opened my eyes and made me question the indoctrinated opinion of the greenies - I looked into it further and realised that the Japanese are merely harvesting a natural resource. Sea Shepherd are law breakers and as such need to be brought to justice. I agree that military and cosatguard vessels from New Zealand and Australia be deployed to attack the criminals - in this case Sea Shit-head. My family name actually originates from Belgian mercenaries who assisted Scotland circa 1170 so I'm probably not even a Brit. Nothing wrong with being a national of a country that achieved so much in history so I thank you for your kind words.

I see you ride a Honda...

[gatch]

*sigh* last time we had to nuke them to divert their attention and make them cease and desist ...

... now THAT could be fun?

The whales..

[Pixie]

As much a fish as you are.

They are mammals not fish.

There are smaller numbers of them in the oceans since they are at the top of the food chain, for the most part we are their only predators unlike most of the fish we eat.

"Did you know the whale is not really a fish? It’s an insect... and it lives on bananas and it goes hop hop hop across arable land.That is land tilled by Arabs...." -Peter Cook

[Pixie]

I, on the other hand, have little time for faceless multinational NGOs that I, as a citizen of New Zealand, have no ability to influence. Greenpeace, WWF and others are not membership-driven organisations. They are franchises controlled by the same big businesses that hippies love to hate. I give them full marks for irony. What do Keisha Castle-Hughes and Lucy Lawless know about climate change or the sustainable management of ocean-dwelling mammals?

GreenPeace International Corporation "making profit from suckers"

[Flip]

Sustained thrust versus impact. The situations are not comparable.

An ant could move Jupiter given enough time...

And just for the record - tugs may be small, but they do not constitute a small force. They are the tractors of the sea. Have a look at these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tug#Tugboat_propulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard_pull

Well it looks to me like the Earth Race boat was run down by the bigger boat. But WTF would I know about ships and engineering.

[newbould]

I used to be brainwashed - I thought there was something wrong with Whaling. Watson has opened my eyes and made me question the indoctrinated opinion of the greenies - I looked into it further and realised that the Japanese are merely harvesting a natural resource. Sea Shepherd are law breakers and as such need to be brought to justice. I agree that military and cosatguard vessels from New Zealand and Australia be deployed to attack the criminals - in this case Sea Shit-head. My family name actually originates from Belgian mercenaries who assisted Scotland circa 1170 so I'm probably not even a Brit. Nothing wrong with being a national of a country that achieved so much in history so I thank you for your kind words.

I see you ride a Honda...

The problem with whaling in my mind is the method of slaughter - which is barbaric. In earlier posts you likened whaling to killing pigs, cows etc. If we were able to humanely slaughter whales then I would agree with your comparing their hunting to the hunting of deer - an accurate bullet to the brain is a quick and humane death. A harpoon is not. Electrified harpoons were tried and when researched were found to be even more cruel. The question of sustainable management should come after the question of humane slaughter. The question of how to prevent intelligent mamals from being killed in such a fashion is most legitimate also. Sea shepards tactics have gone (IMO) too far. Green peace used to disrupt with much less risk to human life but perhaps these days less effect. The change of attitude in NZ from a country with considerable economic benefit from whaling to one who recognises the immmorality of the slaughter technique and and shortsightedness of the mass destruction of any resource is to be applauded and one reason why this Scotsman of English descent chooses to remain in the country.

[newbould]

When I first saw the footage on TV I thought the wee boat was trying to get some more biodeisel

[davereid]

This still does not excuse the Jap master from deliberately ramming another vessel. And that is what the vid clip shows.

Sort of like this clip - it gives a better view of deliberate ramming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8