Need help with a rogue 108' Sunseeker

Based on your original post, it's you who is making "accusations and saber rattling", with a copious dose of miss information for good measure.

We're just watching this chase unravel with the same intensity as the OJ white bronco get-away.

the Sunseeker website lists it a 167000lb @half load.

http://www.*************/PDF_ASSETS/Sunseeker Specification PDFs/_ENG/Predator-108_ENG.pdf

Perhaps in yours. But here it's not that black and white.

Based on your original post, it's you who is making "accusations and saber rattling", with a copious dose of miss information for good measure.

We're just watching this chase unravel with the same intensity as the OJ white bronco get-away.


Great Sense of humor, I like that"

Based on your "original" beliefs and your continuous "corrections of facts", I take your post as nothing more than matinée entertainment.

You're responsible for damage caused by your wake, but, with C.I. registry good luck collecting or even serving the owner unless that boat can be stopped in the U.S. As for having a pilot, they obviously don't care about the rules. As for building in open speed zones, airport flight paths and down wind of landfills and then complaining (suing) it's in fashion today.

i didnt' see any correction of facts...

fact 1: that boat didn't respect a NWZ
fact 2: it sent a huge make into docks and boats causing damage
fact 3: it caused some minor injuries
fact 4: it didnt' stop, kept going, and possibly turned off its xponder
fact 5: law enforcement is involved, filed numerous reports and is investigation
fact 6: the boat has been identified

so, which fact has been continusly corrected?

Just looked back and saw post #20. That was so good to read. I think everyone will agree that anyone can screw up, especially after days of long cruising. For the owner to come forward is just so right. Hopefully others will see that and man-up more often. I'd suggest to the mods that the thread be closed at this time.

I understand the path the C Spray posts have taken. Lots of additional information learned from the first post to the last post. I the first post the "deed" was in the process of occuring. The last post, when cooler heads prevail, is calling for pause untill facts can be sorted out.
That being said it would be nice if C Spray, or anyone with correct knowledge, to let the forum members know of any developments or conclusions to the event.
Thanks,
Ray

I think you'll find it in general law, not maritime law. You break it; you buy it. If an auto forces another into an accident, even if there is no direct contact between the two, the first car is liable. Of course proving cause is another matter, but that is assuming proof (video, witnesses, etc.) is there. A vessels wake is a direct result of the boat's action and the consequences are foreseeable.

No sightings of this boat anywhere yet he still MIA?

See post # 20

Post 20 just says that it's possible the owners weren't aware of the incident.

Anyone or anything can be found; it simply takes two of our most treasured commodities – time & money. The more you have of one the less you need of the other.

As soon as an entity with “standing” – an enforceable claim – steps forward to pursue this vessel, her owners and co-signs, she will be attached and prosecuted.

Her whereabouts are only a mystery to those of us who share vicarious equity in this circumstance. In my experience no vessel is ever more than 24 hours out of identity and contact.

she has to be seen somewhere for fuel, food, r&r etc. Someone will spot it eventually.

the owner appears to be the CEO of the Bombardier company. I don't think it has been published who was on board when it happend, someone mentioned he had a 135' on order. With his money and ties to the marine industry I am sure the right thing will be done, it just will take a little time but many will be interested in knowing the outcome.

I don't know how your board works here, but on the offshore boards even without help from the proper authorities we usually can identify quickly who owns something, we protect when necessary but will not let anyone get away with something that is not right. When someone is wronged, the community will come together in record time and make so much noise that the right thing usually happens.

Someone will make sure this board is informed of the outcome.

Nice site by the way and safe cruising

Wake Ignorance

The subplot in this saga is that there are those, even with "Capt" before their name, who do not seem to understand the concept that a vessel operated is indeed LEGALLY responsible for their wake. Prudent is the word used most often in prescribing proper operation of a vessel, but if the wash of your vessel damages person or property, you are liable regardless of the country. Whether this is enforced or ignored in different operating areas or those damaged seek remedy or not is a different question, but the ultimate responsibility remains.

"Regarding one's wake, vessels over 1600 Gross Tons are specifically required by Title 33 CFR 164.11 to set the vessel's speed with consideration for...the damage that might be caused by the vessel's wake. Further, there may be State or local laws which specifically address "wake" for the waters in question.

While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property (46 USC 2302). Nor do the Navigation Rules exonerate any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2), which, among other things, could be unsafe speeds (Rule 6), improper lookout (Rule 5), or completely ignoring your responsibilities as prescribed by the Navigation Rules."