To stand on, or not to stand on

[PilotWolf]

There's a lot about it we don't know. What we do know is that the ship didn't see it either visually or on radar in time to avoid hitting it or was even aware that it had. Much of what has been said on here relies on the assumption that you've been seen and are being tracked. I'd prefer to trust my life to my own eyes and judgement thanks. It's all very well believing that you'll pass comfortably ahead until the day that you get a rigging failure, a rope round the prop, a man overboard or some other unexpected crisis just at the crucial moment. Then a CPA of a mile could disappear in three minutes. That's when you'll wish you'd slowed down and let it pass ahead of you.

Pretty sure the court didn’t agree with that.

The OOW will never work again whether or not it happened.

There wa clearly not enough to convict him or prove the POB was responsible.

I spent time on the bridge of the POB and I really have my doubts they were responsible for the loss of the Ouzo.

Just IMHO.

PW.

 

[Refueler]

Wasn’t he outbound?

My old engineer had friend who was crew in the escort boat but I still
cant remember their call sign!

We used to run down just outside the channel but on the correct side.

The Solent is a nightmare as a professional mariner.

W.

No ... he was about to make the turn to stbd - the video was taken from Cowes ....

 

[Refueler]

There's a lot about it we don't know. What we do know is that the ship didn't see it either visually or on radar in time to avoid hitting it or was even aware that it had. Much of what has been said on here relies on the assumption that you've been seen and are being tracked. I'd prefer to trust my life to my own eyes and judgement thanks. It's all very well believing that you'll pass comfortably ahead until the day that you get a rigging failure, a rope round the prop, a man overboard or some other unexpected crisis just at the crucial moment. Then a CPA of a mile could disappear in three minutes. That's when you'll wish you'd slowed down and let it pass ahead of you.

Don't disagree.

 

[Refueler]

Are you sure about that? No explicit mention of those words in what you quoted. I mentioned CPA in the context of if I were stand on vessel and I saw a CPA of 30m on my AIS I'd be planning in advance (*before* any close quarters situation arose) what I'd do if the give way vessel apparently did nothing

Corrected Post #117

If I had any info saying 30m ................. I know EXACTLY what I'd do ... Get the feck out of it !!

 

[Refueler]

Pretty sure the court didn’t agree with that.

The OOW will never work again whether or not it happened.

There wa clearly not enough to convict him or prove the POB was responsible.

I spent time on the bridge of the POB and I really have my doubts they were responsible for the loss of the Ouzo.

Just IMHO.

PW.

The 2nd Mate on watch was what we term a Professional 2/Off ..... he was near 60 yr old and unlikely to ever be promoted. There were many in the latter years of Brit MN ...

To say he will never work again ... where did you get that from ? As I understand it - he was landlocked for a significant period but then went back to sea for a different company ...

I knew a lot of P&O and Stena guys in those days - I lived next door to one in Fareham ...

I was coming out of Calais on an Acid Tanker when the other ferry turned turtle ... lot of BS talked about that as well ...

As I recall - the PoB was investigated because time slots coincided and the routes were close to each other. On examining bow of PoB - they found a mark that MAY HAVE BEEN caused by collision with smaller object.

I too have doubts about PoB ... but that's only because having taken interest in the Report that came out at the time then - found it lacking in real hard facts.

 

[PilotWolf]

I don’t think he’ll work again just because companies will see his name and associate it with the incident.

Other vessels were also in the area.

I don’t know. I never met the guy but the multiple times I spent up there I d be surprised if they employed someone Incompetent- maybe a mistake. I don’t know we weren’t there.

As said just IMHO.

PW

 

[Catalina36]

Pretty sure the court didn’t agree with that.

The OOW will never work again whether or not it happened.

There wa clearly not enough to convict him or prove the POB was responsible.

I spent time on the bridge of the POB and I really have my doubts they were responsible for the loss of the Ouzo.

Just IMHO.

PW.

I didn't mention the PoB, I said "the ship". What's not in dispute is that something hit the Ouzo and on the assumption that it didn't do so deliberately it's a reasonable assumption that it didn't see it. Perhaps we're not always as visible as some would like to believe.

 

[Robin]

I didn't mention the PoB, I said "the ship". What's not in dispute is that something hit the Ouzo and on the assumption that it didn't do so deliberately it's a reasonable assumption that it didn't see it. Perhaps we're not always as visible as some would like to believe.

IIRC there were comments made re the OOW wearing reactolite glasses . plus an enquiry ifollowed nto the effectiveness or not of small boat radar reflectors.

 

[awol]

These stand-on vs headless chicken threads were so much more fun when Daka added his own peculiar take on IRPCS. Is he still with us?

 

[Robin]

These stand-on vs headless chicken threads were so much more fun when Daka added his own peculiar take on IRPCS. Is he still with us?

quite possibly with the many reincarnations

 

[webcraft]

I came late to this thread, but my observation is that this was almost certainly an unnecessary AIS-assisted panic.

- W

 

[Pye_End]

As I recall - the PoB was investigated because time slots coincided and the routes were close to each other. On examining bow of PoB - they found a mark that MAY HAVE BEEN caused by collision with smaller object.

That, and - 'After being alerted to the presence of the yacht, the second officer saw a cluster of bright white lights when he came out of the chartroom. He was then busy trying to swing the bow and then the stern away from the yacht. He did not actually see the yacht or positively confirm how close it had passed by. '

 

[RobWard]

I'm not very experienced but last year skippered a boat from Corinth to Athens. I was anxious - of course - but in the event it was straightforward. It seemed to be fairly obvious where the ferries were going from and to, and you stayed out of their way. Simples.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I came late to this thread, but my observation is that this was almost certainly an unnecessary AIS-assisted panic.

- W

Along with unnecessary time wasting trying to raise the ship on VHF.

 

[peter gibbs]

Wrong! Rule 1 one is obey the rules. See Pilotwolfs reply below.


Exactly! (Except I quite like decent coffee)

My only other comment is that I’ve been on a minor warship in Greek waters and even for a big grey thing of five thousand tonnes, the ferries were a law unto themselves. Almost without exception they seemed to ignore IRPCS a lot of the time. My CO was red eyed and seriously sleep deprived from the OOW continuously having to call him for yet another potentially close quarters incident developing.

Stand on vessel hails from the days of windjammers. Dangerously redundant but RYA courses still plod through it all.

As all matelots know it take a few years for ColRegs to resemble life as it is. This is a reg that is dangerously overdue for the bin.

In perfect conditions as in this video there is virtually no chance of a collision if the sailing vessel holds its course and shows clear intent, as many have commented.
An oncoming motor vessel will change curse, if it intends to do so, not less than a mile off and will usually pass behind the sailing vessel. If that moment passes without a good clearance move by the vessel, the yacht goes to heave to and slaps on a bit more sun protection whilst it passes. job done.

Some people should not be in charge of a small vessel, because this is all common sense.

PWG

 

[Babylon]

Stand on vessel hails from the days of windjammers. Dangerously redundant but RYA courses still plod through it all.

As all matelots know it take a few years for ColRegs to resemble life as it is. This is a reg that is dangerously overdue for the bin.

So, what are the RYA courses supposed to teach?

If a local ferry has absolute right of way (I use the term knowingly) then it will state so in the pilot book etc. If a ferry doesn't then one needs to apply the international rules as they currently are.

Here's a picture of the Brittany Ferries vessel well outside of Plymouth Harbour - as I recall from the Almanac in 2012 its right of way extends seaward for some distance beyond the harbour itself.

 

[Topcat47]

I ALWAYS turn towards the ship and run parallel as soon as there's a chance I'll get close to a ship's course. Then once the ship is passing, I'll turn towards it's stern and get back on course. In a yacht vs ship situation there's no way the yacht will come off best and you're just as dead whether you have right of way or not.

It helps that I don't have AIS. Keep out of their way is my mantra.

I have been told by a Pro Skipper that you should always turn to Starboard when turning away, but I've forgotten why.

 

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo]

Because if you turn to port and the other vessel turns to starboard at the same time to avoid a potential collision then you are both turning towards each other which somewhat defeats the objective of charging course

 

[jordanbasset]

Whatever happened to the king of colregs threads Tim Bartlett?

 

[Stingo]

I have been told by a Pro Skipper that you should always turn to Starboard when turning away, but I've forgotten why.

Turning to Starboard means you pass port-to-port