TowBoatUS tows sailboat into bridge

The tow boat captain should've asked and known the sailboats air draft before taking it through a bridge with around 56' of clearance IMO. I've been through that bridge many times and the air draft is/was on the side of the bridge. It seems to me that the towboat captain forgot to ask, on the other hand the owner should've made it clear as well.

Plus, we only have a self-serving statement of the owner saying it. A self-serving statement can only be construed against you, never for. The parts that work for you are automatically discounted. That's why lawyers always tell their clients to shut up. I didn't read where they stated the sailboat's destination. Maybe the boats owner told him that that's where they're headed which would lead to the automatic assumption that the owner must know if he'll fit the bridge or not, since going through there was his plan. Lots of gray areas. This is not to say that the tow operator doesn't share liability in this. He does. The question is what %? They're in the hardball stage of negotiations now where the boat owner is threatening th company with bad publicity and the tow operator is telling him to go fly a kite. If nobody blinks then a court will decide who pays what. For now we've directly or indirectly been used by the boat owner to garner sympathy for his cause. I'm not sure he got what he was hoping for.

A new mast, possibly?

Hi,

Am I missing something here?

Shouldn't the sailboats insurance co take care of the sailboat and then deal with the Towboat insurance?

Yes, why not? Sailboat insurance companies can take Towboat insurance. Mostly reputed insurance companies can take all type of insurances, if your insurance company limited your insurance verticals, then you need to consider moving. I am having only one insurance company that taking care of all of my boats.

That assumes everyone is insured, and still leaves the deductables to deal with (which can be quite substantial). It may also apportion fault which could affect rates and coverage going forward. Apparently, this owner doesn't feel he has any responsibility in this, or at least doesn't want to accept his share.

insurance

I read somewhere that the tow started off Fort Lauderdale after the boat encountered engine problems coming over from Bimini, I guess that is not correct.

I also read that the sail boat owner/captain said he was approaching the bridge from the NW channel and had little time to note the air clearance, so assuming the tow started off Palm Beach inlet (Lake Worth) surely the tow boat would have used the main channel and then the inter-coastal waterway to appraoch the bridge and not the other channel up past Sailfish Marina. This other channel would have him aproaching the bridge from the SE side which runs parallel to the bridge and that way there would indeed be very little time to see the air clearance board on the side of the bridge.

Then again if he new the tides were exceptionally high the tow boat operator may have reasoned that there was plenty of water in that channel past Sailfish to go that way. Assuming that he would be a professional Captain he should know that when there are high tides that affects the air draft so ?

So who is at fault, that will be up to the courts by the look of things but if the tow boat company did not report the incident to the Coast Guard they are looking at a fine for that. If the facts keep getting mixed up like they appear to be on here it could be that and those facts can be proven to come from either the owner or the tow boat these can all be used for or against them.

There are some things I would be asking though, a foriegn vessel coming to america surely they would have insurance. A vessel "destroyed" and crew injured, I doubt very much, if that was the case the coast guard and marine patrol would be all over that. Anybody injured would be suing the tow boat and the boat owners insurance, some insurance company would pay out and then go after others especially with injuries involved

so it all sounds that very stange, slanderous libel who can say, to prove them is very difficult, telling the true facts is not grounds for a case and we had all better be careful what we say on here

NYCAP123, are you sure you are not a tow boat operator up north

Nope, and although I've recieved local knowledge (and fuel twice) from commercial operators, I only recall being placed under commercial tow once, and it was a unhappy experience (I feel we got ripped off royally). So I'm not even a fan. I simply call 'em as I see 'em.

But once the tow commences the sailboater is no longer the master. The towboater is. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that the tow is under the control of the tug (or towboat). Unless there is an affirmative defense it is highly unlikely that the sailboat had control of his vessel during the tow. Clearly, if the facts of the case indicated that the sailboater made control inputs (e.g., a sudden, sharp turn) and a collision or allision resulted, then the towboat operator would have a likely defense to the charges.

Pedantic, but sure.

What we don't know fills libraries. The sailboat's operator (he/she is not the master when under tow) may or may not have had knowledge of the local area. There's no way for this forum to know. But, I have a hard time believing that the towboat operator (a) didn't know and in any case (b) he/she should have known. This is supposed to be a professional mariner. A professional mariner ought to know the overhead clearance at any bridge he/she is navigating under.

Agreed.

I'm sure that you'd agree that clipping an antenna is of an entirely different order of damage than that represented in this incident.

As a professional mariner I daily navigate through a city with 14 (soon to be 15) bridges on one river and 6 on another. At times during the year many of them need to be opened and at other times only one. But, I have never navigated under a bridge without knowing the overhead clearance. If there's less than 5' of clearance then a slow bell or opening is required. Going under a bridge without knowing that you have the clearance to safely navigate the passage is, by definition, reckless.

Libel, not slander. But, seriously?

The Towboat Captain is the master of both vessels, and takes control of them. He should know the clearance of the bridge and the boat being towed (air draft), the towboat Captain assumes all liability once the tow bridle is hooked up. Also once hooked up, there's no way anyone could take the bridle off of the cleats with that much tension on it.

Okay, this is a bit silly. How on earth could you possibly know what the tow captain would have done at any point? I don't understand how you defend what from basic observation is indefensible. I'm not excusing the sailboater. But I won't give quarter to the tow captain. He's the professional. He's the one in control of the operation. He's the one who almost certainly has local knowledge.

Unless there is some information you are not sharing, you have no way of knowing the sailboater's intentions or local knowledge were when they started their trip. They may not have trip planned for this particular passage and reasonably relied on the (apparently) local tow captain's expertise and professionalism. Should they have paid more careful attention? Clearly. Will the blame fall most squarely on the shoulders of the professional? You bet it will.

Any prudent mariner will use the readily available information to complete safe passage of their trip. A professional *must* access that information.

So, you think that it's exactly the same to clip a $150-300 antenna as it is to clip what I have to imagine is a repair/replacement in the multiples of thousands of dollars? Poppycock. An error of a few inches which damages a minor, easily replaceable, and relatively inexpensive part is *not* the same as taking several feet off an expensive, difficult to replace one. I've had a couple captains take antennas off with little repercussions. If anyone ever did this kind of totally avoidable and hugely expensive damage they'd be long gone.

Could he (the sailboater) have used more care? You bet. But he reasonably relied on the professional because the professional is (presumably) licensed and when they hook up the towline they take (legally) all responsibility for the safe completion of the voyage.

Not sure how you think you know what I deal with, but for the record I deal with bridges that are fixed, swing, bascule, and lift vertically. Some have and others do not have ledgers; ledgers are rarely trustworthy if it's close. The non-fixed range from MLLW of 26' (Steel Bridge) to 64' (Burnside Bridge) and fixed bridges from 39' up. I regularly operate vessels with clearances from 16-42' on a regular basis. They all have published clearances that are available in a variety of publications including charts and the Coast Pilot. I can assure you that I have frequently asked for an opening when it was "inches" because, as a professional, I know that to fail to do so would be reckless.

While I generally agree with you, Capt J, it actually is possible to release the tow while underway in most cases. Dangerous and foolhardy, but possible. There is enough play in the line that even if being pulled hard you can get enough slack to clear the cleats.

Hi,

Why risk your hands in a line under load, there is an essential piece of emergency equipment available at most good hardware stores that will take care of any pesky towline in a flash.

http://www.newagearbor.com.au/shop/images/ab078003.jpg

We all keep a knife handy don't we (mine's always on my hip on board or on land)? But actually, when I said "He also could have disconnected from the tow at will." I was talking about his authority to say "Cut me lose. I don't trust your judgement." The rest of it is the court case. They'll be rehashing and rehashing those arguments in settlement confrences and possibly before a judge for a long time. We don't need to do it here, where nothing will be resolved. Cap, you're down there. Update us when it all shakes out.

I highly doubt he was towed at 5+ knots unless the tide was still coming in- which means it was not high tide. I've never seen a tow boat towing that fast- and "my" boat's slip is on the outside floating dock at Sailfish Marina. It could happen, but in light of the other things he said- like these statements-

There is no "NW" channel from Lake Worth Inlet to the Blue Heron bridge.
Lake Worth Inlet is not a "narrow" inlet, especially considering he had come from the Bahamas. Chub Cay or West End is a narrow inlet.

- I place little faith in his version of the events


NYCap has it right- we have one side of the story, and the courts will decide. Anything else is pure speculation, conjecture and assumption IMHO.

I found this picture and think this is the way they entered, north and west and north, which certainly gives you little time to read the tide. Here it says 60 ft clearance at high tide and I read elsewhere that 65´ is at low tide, a bit confusing...?

http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/11472.shtml
The bridge is listed as 65' at Mean High Water. Never heard of a bridge where clearance was posted at low tide. http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/learnnc_bridge.html

Good, but I read somewhere that this information is wrong.

If one pays attention while cruising the ICW they'll find that many, if not most of the bridges seem to be shorter than advertised. If I had less than a 10% (maybe even 20%) margin for error I'd be real careful. For the boats I run that means a guy standing at the bow ready to signal me to reverse.