A collision situation, what does the panel think?

[quote
You turned to starboard - exactly the correct action to take.
Your thoughts quoted are exactly the thoughts of the captain of the Andrea Doria - he took the wrong decision and turned to port and had to live with the consequent loss of life for the rest of his days.
If in doubt NEVER turn to port.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he was heading for Pwhllelli, on port tack, with the wind in the NW, and a ship coming out of Rosslare, and he heads more into the wind, surely he is turning to port.

Whether sailing or motoring, he is the stand on vessel and, if a risk of collision is deemed to exist, he should do just that, and allow the give way vessel to take action.

However, if he is far enough away such that a risk of collision is not yet deemed to exist, his action was probably OK.... and it worked.

or have I got the picture completely a*se about face in my head?
 
[ QUOTE ]
You turned to starboard - exactly the correct action to take.
Your thoughts quoted are exactly the thoughts of the captain of the Andrea Doria - he took the wrong decision and turned to port and had to live with the consequent loss of life for the rest of his days.
If in doubt NEVER turn to port.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a bizarre conclusion. There are plenty of occasions when a turn to port is the best action. The obvious one being when you have a stand-on vessel approaching from your port side. A turn to port to pass astern is likely to be 'correct'.
 
Although the literature warns that most large vessels are manned by a monkey, my experience is that ferries/passenger ships are manned to a hgh standard. Having been on the bridge of ferries, as a spectator, I find they have their regular set course and deviate from it reluctantly. This is condition one.

The second factor is the extent of the course change the ferry would have had to take to pass aft of you. I have often recorded approaching vessels making an avoiding maneouvre (well, thank you Sir!) but not more than 10 degrees or so. If your situation required a major course change by the ferry you have your answer - he isn't going to do it. Think of things from his point of view - a major change takes time to effect.

If you stop or change course as he starts to manoeuvre aft of you, he then finds himself totally stuffed, with a full stop ordered! He isn't going to risk it, so he plunges on, as you noted, and leaves you to make the course correction - you have the greater flexibility even with a tide running! No doubt he has already worked his point of nearest approach on the radar and satisfied himself he will clear you, although that may not be quite so reassuring from your vantage point!

With this background, I would not have put myself in the position of thinking I could squeeze the ferry towards an obstacle: and this is exactly what you avoided by taking the course of action you did, rounding the ferry's stern. From your account the only change I would advocate is making an earlier change of course so the ferry can be sure of his ground.

PWG
 
Rubbish. If you turn to port and he correctly turns to starboard a collision could result. For f....cks sake look up what happened to the Andrea Doria. Stand on, stand off - who the hell cares YOU MUST AVOID A COLLISION!! No good arguing you were legally in the right when you or other people have drowned.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No doubt he has already worked his point of nearest approach on the radar and satisfied himself he will clear you, although that may not be quite so reassuring from your vantage point!

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, having decided that there was risk of collision, the ferry, or coaster, or whatever, would leave his alteration as late as possible so that his deviation is as small as possible. a mile, half a mile.... depends on the officer of the watch, or the skipper.

This makes it much more comforting for a small stand on vessel to make their own alteration well in advance of a situation developing.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Rubbish. If you turn to port and he correctly turns to starboard a collision could result. For f....cks sake look up what happened to the Andrea Doria. Stand on, stand off - who the hell cares YOU MUST AVOID A COLLISION!! No good arguing you were legally in the right when you or other people have drowned.

[/ QUOTE ]



Terrifying !
 
[ QUOTE ]
Rubbish. If you turn to port and he correctly turns to starboard a collision could result. For f....cks sake look up what happened to the Andrea Doria. Stand on, stand off - who the hell cares YOU MUST AVOID A COLLISION!! No good arguing you were legally in the right when you or other people have drowned.

[/ QUOTE ]

This show such ignorance that it is probably not worth pursuing. But what the heck.

[ QUOTE ]
If you turn to port and he correctly turns to starboard a collision could result.

[/ QUOTE ]


You seem to think it is always correct for any vessel to turn to stbd!

In fact I believe you are saying, in any closing situation - "never mind the colregs, just get out of there, but whatever you do don't turn left!'

I would be fun to try that on an examiner - at least it would avoid having to learn all those pesky colregs, day signals and lights!

Here is a hypothetical situation. You are in 35’ power vessel heading N. On your port side you see you a 35’ fishing vessel heading East. It is showing the lights/day signals for a vessel fishing. If no-one does anything a collision will occur.

What are you going to do?
Do you believe the fishing vessel would be correct to turn to stbd!
Do you believe you would be correct to turn to stbd!

What about if the other vessel was sailing or restricted in ability to manoeuvre ??!!

Scary!

The other colregs thread got very confused and convoluted with lots of people misreading each other’s posts. But I hope no-one took away the idea that you never turn left!
 
Whipper - you have missed the point - you wouldn't expect the fishing boat to turn to starboard because it is the stand on vessel. Power and sailing boats give way to vessels fishing. So you would slow down or turn to stbd until you could pass well behind the fishing boat.

You wouldn't pass any Yachtmaster question by suggesting a turn to port. It's a no-no. The reason for a standard response is so that everyone knows what they are doing.
 
Hmm. Well someone has missed the point!


I know a fishing vessel would be stand-on it that situation - that's why I chose it!

In that situation the fishing vessel would be utterly wrong to turn to starboard if he decided to give way - because he must allow for your actions. And if the forumites here are not fishermen, many are sailors where the same would apply.

But is there really a concensus that you never turn to port?! So in that situation I have to slow down, floor it and cross ahead (thus contravening colregs) or turn right and gill around until I can turn left (oh no!) to resume my course.

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't pass any Yachtmaster question by suggesting a turn to port.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really a commonly held belief? I am staggered.
 
Why would the fisherman decide to give way? He is stand on and therefore maintains course and speed so that the give way vessel can take appropriate action.

(when did a fisherman ever give way to anyone, fishing or not?).

I didn't write the rules but not turning to port is part of them. The purpose of the rules being to create a common understanding. If the rules said turn to stbd or port how would anyone know what the other party was going to do?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the fisherman decide to give way? He is stand on and therefore maintains course and speed so that the give way vessel can take appropriate action.

(when did a fisherman ever give way to anyone, fishing or not?).


[/ QUOTE ]

The fishing vessel should not give way. But if he decided he had to because you weren't, then he should not turn to stbd.

In fact there was deliberate irony there - a fishing vessel usually has its daymark welded to its superstructure!!



[ QUOTE ]
I didn't write the rules but not turning to port is part of them. The purpose of the rules being to create a common understanding. If the rules said turn to stbd or port how would anyone know what the other party was going to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat I am staggered. Where in the rules does it say don't turn to port??!! It says avoid crossing ahead. It says in a head-on situation - precisely defined - both parties turn stbd. Because of the power vessels crossing rule, a dodge to stbd is much more common than a dodge to port. But where has this strange idea that you never turn to port crept in?
 
Just trying to clearly understand what is being said here. You are saying that the Colregs has an item which says that the Give Way vessel always turns to Starboard?

This is a serious question cos I can't find it and would like the reference.

Dave
 
there is an old tale going back some 25+ years, when the gov were implementing certification for all commercial seafarers

one 'old man' had been master of a coaster for decades, and didnt have a cert of competency, but a cert of service. for him to remain at sea legally he had to do a bridging examination with the dot (as it was then)

because of his experience he could change his cert of service for a cert of competency (but only a limited tonnage in home trade waters) by just doing his orals

so ...... in he trots and all was going well until the rule of the road came up

every time he was presented with a situation he turned to stbd ...... the examiner asked him why and he replied he had been doing it for decades and hadnt had a collision yet













he failed /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
I think this discussion is clouding the issue, not clarifying it. In fact the only references in the colregs to not turning to port is when a stand-on vessel decides to take action because the burdened vessel does not appear to be doing so, and in that case a vessel should not turn to port to avoid a vessel on its port side. This is clearly intended to avoid a collision risk should the burdened vessel belatedly decide to take action and turn to starboard.
The head-on powered vessel situation requires both vessels to turn to starboard to avoid collision.
In crossing situations there is no requirement to turn in any direction other than one that avoids collision.
The original poster did exactly the right thing in the circumstances he described.
 
Oh thank you. I was begining to doubt my sanity.

The reason we left the original question far behind was that one person kept saying NEVER TURN TO PORT! I have encountered this myth before in inexperienced yotties, but I was horrified to see it stated (and defended) here.


[ QUOTE ]
In fact the only references in the colregs to not turning to port is when a stand-on vessel decides to take action because the burdened vessel does not appear to be doing so, and in that case a vessel should not turn to port to avoid a vessel on its port side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely! That is why I dragged the confused fishing vessel into the argument. It didn't seem to help.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In fact the only references in the colregs to not turning to port is when a stand-on vessel decides to take action because the burdened vessel does not appear to be doing so, and in that case a vessel should not turn to port to avoid a vessel on its port side.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's another reference, in section III (conduct of vessels in restricted visibility):

"19 (d) A vessel which detects by radar alone the presence of another vessel shall determine if a close-quarters situation is developing and/or risk of collision exists. If so, she shall take avoiding action in ample time, provided that when such action consists of an alteration in course, so far as possible the following shall be avoided:

(i) An alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam, other than for a vessel being overtaken;"

Not that it applies in this situation, of course, but it reinforces the general point made by others: if you are genuinely in doubt about it (rather than arguing a point on Scuttlebutt), alter to starboard. That said, I don't have any doubt that in the circumstances described here an alteration to port was appropriate.

I had a very similar passage past Tusker in a brisk NW force 6 and managed (as I remember it) 9 knots over ground with a small staysail and 2 reefs in the main. In the situation described I think I might have put in a tack (1. to make my intentions clear; 2. still making plenty of Northing on the tide; 3. peace of mind.)

Mark
 
[ QUOTE ]
There's another reference, in section III (conduct of vessels in restricted visibility):

"19 (d) A vessel which detects by radar alone the presence of another vessel shall determine if a close-quarters situation is developing and/or risk of collision exists. If so, she shall take avoiding action in ample time, provided that when such action consists of an alteration in course, so far as possible the following shall be avoided:

(i) An alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam, other than for a vessel being overtaken;"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. for a vessel forward of the beam, other than for a vessel being overtaken;

That is establishing a sort of radar-based equivalent of the head-on rule, which would otherwise be excluded by the preamble about applying only to vessels in sight of each other. Very sensible and where the Doria Gray (or whatever she was called) screwed-up.

But please let us not propogate the myth that you should never alter to port.
 
Skipper Stu,

That was entertaining wasn't it?

Re-reading your account, and adding to my reply above, there seems a chance you were either just in or very close to the TSZ. In either case the ferry could well assume you were not going to breach his right to priority use of the zone, and he would have stood on, obliging you to do whatever was required to stay out of the way - ie push your bow into the wind more and take way off by turning to port.

I wonder if other skippers have also experienced this learning curve: when I first opened the col regs years ago I saw a set of traffic instructions to be learned and obeyed to the letter.
The passage of time has mellowed this view. It is, for instance, instructive how MAIB reports on big ship collisions almost always apportion blame to both vessels, the more to one than the other, perhaps. You have to conclude that Col Regs are a guide, all things being equal - which they rarely are.

Relevant to this debate, one of the most dangerous concepts seems to me to be that of the stand-on vessel - not in itself, but in its application. How often I have read of accidents occurring because this principle was taken as a right and applied over and above the need to take all action to avoid an accident. Sail over steam is of course the classic.

I don't think any of the above debate has invalidated the action you took in the case you described. If turning to starboard had accelerated your progress and brought you closer to the track of the ferry it was, in my opinion, not the thing to do! And it's not what I would have done!

PWG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Amiable demands for money!
Replies
15
Views
815
penberth3
P
zoidberg
'This month's hot boating topic....'
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
tjbrace
tjbrace

Share this page

Top