Right hand down a bit No1, "quick as you can " please
- Thread starter sailorman
- Start date
pyrojames
Well-known member
Yep. Saw that this morning. Rather embarrassing for them.
sailorman
Well-known member
Gone ashore raping & pillaging
nicho
Well-known member
They claim steering failure. No sh1t Sherlock?
Iliade
Well-known member
Steering failure or failing to steer, it has to be one of the two...
Kukri
Well-known member
Not everyone knows that these ships actually run on autopilot, using an automated navigation system, rather like an aircraft’s instrument landing system, for the whole voyage. It was found years ago that the large number of precise course alterations, all made at speed, was too much for a human to cope with.
It follows I think that a sensor must have been defective and that it’s back up was also defective.
It follows I think that a sensor must have been defective and that it’s back up was also defective.
Iliade
Well-known member
So why will my autopilot not let me do just that? It always whinges about 'accept turn to next waypoint' guff. I'd much rather a random gybe and dismasting than simply running into the rock that I had planned the route to avoid...
[not actually trolling, but...]
[not actually trolling, but...]
johnalison
Well-known member
The island might have moved.
Kukri
Well-known member
It’s a very different autopilot. Yours, and mine, and all yacht autopilots, are “dumb” systems like those fitted to a WW2 bomber. Finnish and Swedish ferries threading their way through narrow channels at speed have systems more like a civil airliner’s automatic landing system.
girlofwight
Active member
I’ve been on the bridge of similar - Hurtigruten - one very bored officer and equally bored engineer, both staring into the distance!
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
I think the OOW did rather well to stick her safely ashore promptly after the automatic system failed. A crash landing, but everybody could walk away from it.
dom
Well-known member
Last edited:
LittleSister
Well-known member
If we were able to get such sophisticated autopilots for our boats, it would save all the trouble and discomfort of going aboard at all! 
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Hmmm, Jury still out, Depends on the operator.
though some operators particularly those following “The Swedish Club” often do run on auto pilot.. Virtually all the time,
The con is still usually manual, rather than automatic when in confined waters.
Not very easy to justify when it goes wrong.
which is why other operators still insist on hand steering with a QM in confined waters.
Both systems can be prone to error.
Particularly when changing between auto and manual Steering, this being a good argument to use one or the other eg hand steering all the time or auto pilot all the time.
The risks with auto pilot, Include erroneous inputs and failure to notice a failure.
in any event the response to a steering failure should include switching to hand steering and or an alternate steering.
An immediate reduction of speed even a crash stop would also be a good initial response.
followed by selecting an alternate steering system particularly when in confined water.
I would expect running into an island Is quite a long ways down the normal list of preferred options on an emergency response check list.
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-known member
It sounds like a good story for the news.
lucky it was not a lot worse, just rather embarrassing
There are only two reasons I can think of which justify intentional grounding,
one to avoid an immediate colision
Or after having damaged more compartments than the vessel is designed to survive.
Regulation for passenger vessels in 1988 were required to survive the flooding of any two adjacent compartments. Generally worst case would be engine and generator spaces.
Flooding 3 find some shallow water in a hurry. Most passage plans for regular ferry routes will have recommendations for places to possibly beaching.
After striking a rock heading for the beach may have been a good option.
if two or less compartments flooding?
edit after reflection
additionally
After coming to the realization a very significant navigation or operational error has already occurred and the vessel is now unable to avoid grounding by turning away, in which case it may be better to continue straight in limiting damage to forward area of vessel ahead of colision bulkhead instead of risking a glancing blow damaging more compartments eg concoriada.
Q of the North.
Sir Humphrey would call it a courageous decision.
One would still expect. All Possible attempts to reduce speed, Including the use of anchors.
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
It is impossible to say whether it all goes wrong more often under automatic or under the nut on the wheel.
I think if I knew I had lost one compartment, in a ferry with pax aboard, I would be inclined to stick her down safely upright, first, and think about it afterwards.
Although I do remember the Ancient Greek who flooded a hold in a collision off Singapore in poor visibility - one compartment of course - and did a nice job of beaching her, only to have all hell break loose when it cleared and he found himself just beyond the landing lights at Changi, closing the airport.
I think if I knew I had lost one compartment, in a ferry with pax aboard, I would be inclined to stick her down safely upright, first, and think about it afterwards.
Although I do remember the Ancient Greek who flooded a hold in a collision off Singapore in poor visibility - one compartment of course - and did a nice job of beaching her, only to have all hell break loose when it cleared and he found himself just beyond the landing lights at Changi, closing the airport.
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-known member
6 of one or half a dozen of the other.
As technology advances, humans find new ways to screw up almost as quickly.
Auto pilots can certainly steer better. Or more precisely than most humans. “The Swedish Club“ way was to have the vessel on autopilot with the OOW with the conduct using the auto pilot to steer while using the usual navigation aids moniter vessels position and progress.
For critical portions of the voyage a 2nd OOW monitoring or backing him up using check list ect.
possibly even the Master monitoring both the OOW and His Assistant
Idea being to catch the smaller errors before they add up to a big error.
Back in those days Auto pilots were not intergrated to Navigation systems. The Auto pilot was only capable of following the orders it was given.
Todays auto pilots can be intergrated or not it’s optional. I haven’t read more recent recommendations from “The Swedish club“
I was in a past incarnation familiar with “The Swedish Club” working for Stena Line. Many other Baltic companies use the club or they did once upon a time. Back in those days it was a well regarded system which advocated the advantages of the use of auto pilot over hand steering.
IMO ISM leaves it to company policy to determine what is appropriate. Unless National or Port regulation have requirement.
Intergrated auto pilots. Can follow pre determined route or track very precisely. including alterations at required points. At required rates of turn and allowing for set and drift.
Most can operate in three differ modes.
Heading . steer a pre set heading, pretty much what they have always done.
Course, a bit of an upgrade. Rather than a specific heading will apply set and or drift to maintain a particular course.
Or track, which will follow a Pre set ECDIS route on an ussing GPS altering course to maintain the track
Which setting is appropriate is up the OOW.
Non of the Auto Pilots I am aware of are currently approved do more than follow a pre determined set track.
This may change soon the technology for autonomously run vessels exists.
The problem being, other vessels often tend to use similar routes or tracks.
I do not know of any current auto pilots which will alter course for tracked targets.
The OOW has to be able to quickly take control to adjust as required by real world.
I would not be surprised if some auto pilots available on yachts are equally capable possibly even more capable than auto pilots currently used on ships
The primary arguments in favour of using hand steering In confined waters, restricted visibility, heavy traffic ect.
Is the ability to respond to a problem,
The secondary argument would be work load, one less thing for the navigator to be dealing with. Particularly important when things go pear shaped.
As technology advances, humans find new ways to screw up almost as quickly.
Auto pilots can certainly steer better. Or more precisely than most humans. “The Swedish Club“ way was to have the vessel on autopilot with the OOW with the conduct using the auto pilot to steer while using the usual navigation aids moniter vessels position and progress.
For critical portions of the voyage a 2nd OOW monitoring or backing him up using check list ect.
possibly even the Master monitoring both the OOW and His Assistant
Idea being to catch the smaller errors before they add up to a big error.
Back in those days Auto pilots were not intergrated to Navigation systems. The Auto pilot was only capable of following the orders it was given.
Todays auto pilots can be intergrated or not it’s optional. I haven’t read more recent recommendations from “The Swedish club“
I was in a past incarnation familiar with “The Swedish Club” working for Stena Line. Many other Baltic companies use the club or they did once upon a time. Back in those days it was a well regarded system which advocated the advantages of the use of auto pilot over hand steering.
IMO ISM leaves it to company policy to determine what is appropriate. Unless National or Port regulation have requirement.
Intergrated auto pilots. Can follow pre determined route or track very precisely. including alterations at required points. At required rates of turn and allowing for set and drift.
Most can operate in three differ modes.
Heading . steer a pre set heading, pretty much what they have always done.
Course, a bit of an upgrade. Rather than a specific heading will apply set and or drift to maintain a particular course.
Or track, which will follow a Pre set ECDIS route on an ussing GPS altering course to maintain the track
Which setting is appropriate is up the OOW.
Non of the Auto Pilots I am aware of are currently approved do more than follow a pre determined set track.
This may change soon the technology for autonomously run vessels exists.
The problem being, other vessels often tend to use similar routes or tracks.
I do not know of any current auto pilots which will alter course for tracked targets.
The OOW has to be able to quickly take control to adjust as required by real world.
I would not be surprised if some auto pilots available on yachts are equally capable possibly even more capable than auto pilots currently used on ships
The primary arguments in favour of using hand steering In confined waters, restricted visibility, heavy traffic ect.
Is the ability to respond to a problem,
The secondary argument would be work load, one less thing for the navigator to be dealing with. Particularly important when things go pear shaped.
Last edited:
HissyFit
Active member
Was Putin visiting the west of Russia? Could be the Russians messing with the GPS to protect him.
Iliade
Well-known member
I may have just figured a way to spoof 'our' autopilots into following a set route without asking for confirmation at each turn:
Set the pilot to follow wind and write a computer program to receive the heading or track offset sentence and convert it to a wind sentence.
What could possibly go wrong?
Set the pilot to follow wind and write a computer program to receive the heading or track offset sentence and convert it to a wind sentence.
What could possibly go wrong?
Achosenman
Active member
You learn something everyday. I didn't know the maritime industry used land based radio beacons to guide ships. I would have thought the limitations of an airport ILS system would not have been much use for commercial shipping.