Do a bit of research franc, while bias for the bloboater is highly apparent in your response.
Multiple news outlets in and near Kent Island repoted a 10-12 kph blow.
Anytime a mayday is reported, USCG orders all involved to Don flotation devices.
You can't know you are the stand on vessel in this case, if in fact they were fishing.
Being prudent is sometimes more important than being s pig headed bloboater that admitted to responders as I stated above in my last post. He saw them far off.
Again, I'd like to see the actual transcripts, wouldn't you?
But I guess in your mind, the bloboater was 100% not at fault. I postulate there is a mixture of fault here.
Do you have info on the final judgment or ruling by the USCG??
My position here is based on what we can observe from the photos and the narrative YOU posted. And it was you who suggested alcohol might be involved but the narrative said no, it was absent. It also said nothing about lines in the water,and none were in the photos. Finally, based on the final resting place on top of the sail craft, they weren't operating at troll speeds at time of impact. Did you even read your posted link?
!2 knt wind a 30ft sailboat could eventually generate 3 to 4 knts on a broad reach, 6 downwind with a kite. Avoiding an un skippered 30 knt power craft could be dicey. After standing on, a last second tack would likely be futile
Pictures of the sailboat show no life vest on personnel but they only are required to be "accessible." easily assumed they could be in the cockpit on the floor. The best either of us can see from the photos, the emergency was stable at the time. Life vest rules for sailboats are that they are accessible. As was pointed to me during my recent on the water inspection where mine were found properly stored under the helmsman's seat. And only underway must a child under 13 wear one on deck. It varies from state to state but that is the general CG rule.
I know this because 1) my vessel was inspected last summer and 2) I not only took the boating safety course, years ago I taught it.
Further in order to get a license in Connecticut ( where my Maxum 27 is berthed) I had to pass a proficiency seamanship course. This stand on vessel rule is on every test. The stand on vessel, with few exceptions not relevant here,
must maintain course and speed.
I don't have a bias toward power craft, I skipper one. Actually more than one as I own two 15 ft ski boats. I love sailing but my Bahama Islander 30 won't get my ass out of the water. I own a power cruiser because my son prefers to just push a throttle and try not to run into things at high speed. It also is a more appropriate vessel for overnighting on the Connecticut river. He also took the course in Connecticut as did my spouse.
Seamanship proficiency for power boat operators is no less an achievement that that of sail. I am proud both of them are competent operators of sea going vessels, both sail and power.
Could the sailor be held responsible" Perhaps on a vary narrow bit of reckless seamanship,,,, if provable. Unlikely in open water where visibility was clear and his vessel was the least maneuverable of the two water craft involved in the encounter. Open bay water with no channel buoys apparent, the power craft had ample opportunity to avoid the collision. J30 boats are relatively fast sail craft but not well known for sporadic darting about the waterway. Jet skis they ain't.
As Danang Sailor said, I'd love to see the CG findings. But I have little doubt as to the findings. I'll add that a mention of the sail crew in violation for not wearing life vests will most likely be missing from the report.
Neither you or I were actually there. "What ifs" are not evidence. Only wild speculations give rise to the possibility that the sail vessel caused the mishap.