john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
I shouldn't take so long to type my replies - we seem to agree!
A yacht can be too careful!
- Thread starter dom
- Start date
shmoo
Well-Known Member
thanks landaftaf.
Useful post. Actual numbers; real experience. Really helpful.
Learning about the practices of big ships should not have to be like a wildlife program on the box - "not a lot is known about the behavior of this particular species...."
Useful post. Actual numbers; real experience. Really helpful.
Learning about the practices of big ships should not have to be like a wildlife program on the box - "not a lot is known about the behavior of this particular species...."
Oldhand
Well-Known Member
In my experience of the English Channel shipping lanes, you over simplify the problem by assuming there is only a single ship "of concern". There is often a "stream" of ships and a change of course to safely pass astern of the first can sometimes put you on a collision course with the next or third one coming along. If you have changed course to go astern of the first, you then have to be consistant and change course to go astern of the next and possibly the the one after and your initial 15 minute addition to you voyage rapidly multiplies. However, if you are not stand on vessel, there isn't much you can do about it unless you are in a position to make a big change in speed.
Every situation has to be assessed individually and any proposed course of action assessed for affect with other vessels which are at least in radar range, say 12nm, remebering many large vessels travel at up to 26kt, so what you can see may be less than half an hour away. Thus the only "fixed" distance at which avoiding action must be taken is that determined by your maximum "escape" speed, hopefully more than 5kts under engine on most reasonably modern yachts. In saying that, I don't suggest for a minute getting into a situation where such escape is necessary.
Every situation has to be assessed individually and any proposed course of action assessed for affect with other vessels which are at least in radar range, say 12nm, remebering many large vessels travel at up to 26kt, so what you can see may be less than half an hour away. Thus the only "fixed" distance at which avoiding action must be taken is that determined by your maximum "escape" speed, hopefully more than 5kts under engine on most reasonably modern yachts. In saying that, I don't suggest for a minute getting into a situation where such escape is necessary.
rwoofer
Well-Known Member
Too true. I have definitely encountered processions of ships with some overtaking others etc. I had seven in visual sight once. In this instance if I hadn't waited until quite late and therefore smallish distances I would have undoubtedly have confused the ships and probably ended up turning around altogether.
How many times has it been when you are crossing in front of a ship and you start worrying about whether you will make it cause you can't see the other side of the bow. Quite late on you see that you have passed it's front, so there is relief allround. When you then look back and wait until it passes your wake you realise that CPA was at least half a mile, even though it felt much closer when the ships bow was facing you.
How many times has it been when you are crossing in front of a ship and you start worrying about whether you will make it cause you can't see the other side of the bow. Quite late on you see that you have passed it's front, so there is relief allround. When you then look back and wait until it passes your wake you realise that CPA was at least half a mile, even though it felt much closer when the ships bow was facing you.
G
Guest
Guest
CPA of half a mile while "in front" of a ship. You obviously have absolute confidence in your main halyard, engine and steering. My boat is too imperfect for that.
I prefer to read the name on the stern. Some how it seems to calm the crew to talk about the blunt end, as opposed to the sharp end.
I prefer to read the name on the stern. Some how it seems to calm the crew to talk about the blunt end, as opposed to the sharp end.
S
Skyva_2
Guest
The MARPA on my radar has shown CPA in quick succession as 1 mile, 0.1 mile and 0.5 mile. It is better when Course Up, but I would not rely on it within a mile.
Richard10002
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I prefer to read the name on the stern. Some how it seems to calm the crew to talk about the blunt end, as opposed to the sharp end.
[/ QUOTE ]
ditto, but sometimes you cross ahead of big ships.... not sure if I would be comfortable with half a mile, either as the yacht, or the ship.
If something is happening which makes my bum twitch, it's something I shouldnt be doing, (except going alongside and leaving a berth /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif)
I prefer to read the name on the stern. Some how it seems to calm the crew to talk about the blunt end, as opposed to the sharp end.
[/ QUOTE ]
ditto, but sometimes you cross ahead of big ships.... not sure if I would be comfortable with half a mile, either as the yacht, or the ship.
If something is happening which makes my bum twitch, it's something I shouldnt be doing, (except going alongside and leaving a berth /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif)
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
I agree with Landaftaft's response, but feel it needs some context. The rules require action to give way to be readily apparent and done early. Typically small boats are only visible at around 5 miles give or take (visually and by radar); at that point aspect and course is not yet determined. It then takes about 4 minutes roughly to get a handle on whether or not a risk of collision exists, and what rules apply. Then it takes a few moments to determine the best course of action, looking for and taking into account: other shipping and navigational restrictions, requirements to call the Master, etc. If you work it out, it's not surprising that the required action is taken between 2-3 miles. I would not typically close on a steady bearing to a fixed range of, say 2 miles then make a bold turn, unless required to avoid another close-quarter situation or navigational hazard. IMO of course.
VictorII
Well-Known Member
A general rule of thumb is to wait with avoiding action until you see the lights of the approaching ship reflected in the water. In normal swell it will at that point be between a half and one NM away. For smaller vessels this is more difficult, but avoiding them will be easier. With these, I usually wait until I can tell the bridge lights from the deck lighting. With binoculars you can at that point see whether anybody is watching you.
When a fishing boat is on a collision course, whether fishing or not, I always give them a wide berth as they will only be on the lookout for larger ships (and their fishfinders!).
Oh by the way, when I used my rule of thumb in gale conditions, we were only just half a NM away when we altered course. So still enough room but it wasn't a reassuring sight. Visibility was perfect (the moon) which allowed us to wait, in worse conditions we would have altered course earlier.
When a fishing boat is on a collision course, whether fishing or not, I always give them a wide berth as they will only be on the lookout for larger ships (and their fishfinders!).
Oh by the way, when I used my rule of thumb in gale conditions, we were only just half a NM away when we altered course. So still enough room but it wasn't a reassuring sight. Visibility was perfect (the moon) which allowed us to wait, in worse conditions we would have altered course earlier.
TradewindSailor
Well-Known Member
"I am beginning to think the VHF radio should be banned or taxed to prevent its misuse, because if you do what you suggest:
1. You might have quite a few ships who are able to hear you. Twenty, thirty maybe more some days?
2. I cannot imagine any ship admitting on open channel that he is 'unable to avoid you'. Much of the radio traffic, ships positions etc is recorded and NO-ONE is going to admit they can't comply with the rules.
3. Many of the watchkeepers don't speak English as a first language and I don't belive that they are going to always plot where you are and assess their position relative to you. They look at the radar and out of the bridge window and try to stay awake - sometimes unsuccessfully"
You've missed the point. By communicating my position I have indicated what my boat is, my position, speed and direction. It doesn't stop me from commanding my boat or obviate me from keeping watch. What it does do is let ships know that I am there.
Also I am not suggesting that this is done all the time ..... but surely it's a whole lot better than keeping quiet and being lost in the jungle of radar blips on a cold, wet and horrible night.
Where's the misuse in that anyway?
With a ship travelling at 15 to 30 kts .... sometimes 45 kts for a fast ferry ... a yacht at about 5kts just isn't going to manage to move much.
We can signal our position several ways ....... including lighting up the sails. The important thing is not to manouvre into another ship's path whilst avoiding another.
As for your point about watch keepers. I thought that the radio officer was REQUIRED to understand English ..... ?
1. You might have quite a few ships who are able to hear you. Twenty, thirty maybe more some days?
2. I cannot imagine any ship admitting on open channel that he is 'unable to avoid you'. Much of the radio traffic, ships positions etc is recorded and NO-ONE is going to admit they can't comply with the rules.
3. Many of the watchkeepers don't speak English as a first language and I don't belive that they are going to always plot where you are and assess their position relative to you. They look at the radar and out of the bridge window and try to stay awake - sometimes unsuccessfully"
You've missed the point. By communicating my position I have indicated what my boat is, my position, speed and direction. It doesn't stop me from commanding my boat or obviate me from keeping watch. What it does do is let ships know that I am there.
Also I am not suggesting that this is done all the time ..... but surely it's a whole lot better than keeping quiet and being lost in the jungle of radar blips on a cold, wet and horrible night.
Where's the misuse in that anyway?
With a ship travelling at 15 to 30 kts .... sometimes 45 kts for a fast ferry ... a yacht at about 5kts just isn't going to manage to move much.
We can signal our position several ways ....... including lighting up the sails. The important thing is not to manouvre into another ship's path whilst avoiding another.
As for your point about watch keepers. I thought that the radio officer was REQUIRED to understand English ..... ?
whipper_snapper
Well-Known Member
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mgn_324.pdf
Use of VHF as Collision Avoidance Aid
7. There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous.
8. At night, in restricted visibility or when there are more than two vessels in the vicinity, the need for positive identification is essential but this can rarely be guaranteed. Uncertainties can arise over the identification of vessels and the interpretation of messages received. Even where positive identification has been achieved there is still the possibility of a misunderstanding due to language difficulties however fluent the parties concerned might be in the language being used. An imprecise or ambiguously expressed message could have serious consequences.
9. Valuable time can be wasted whilst mariners on vessels approaching each other try to
make contact on VHF radio instead of complying with the Collision Regulations. There is the further danger that even if contact and identification is achieved and no difficulties over the language of communication or message content arise, a course of action might still be chosen that does not comply with the Collision Regulations. This may lead to the collision it was intended to prevent.
10. In 1995, the judge in a collision case said "It is very probable that the use of VHF radio for conversation between these ships was a contributory cause of this collision, if only because it distracted the officers on watch from paying careful attention to their radar. I must repeat, in the hope that it will achieve some publicity, what I have said on previous occasions that any attempt to use VHF to agree the manner of passing is fraught with the danger of misunderstanding. Marine Superintendents would be well advised to prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct their officers to comply with the Collision Regulations."
11. In a case published in 2002 one of two vessels, approaching each other in fog, used the VHF radio to call for a red to red (port to port) passing. The call was acknowledged by the other vessel but unfortunately, due to the command of English on the calling vessel, what the caller intended was a green to green (starboard to starboard) passing. The actions were not effectively monitored by either of the vessels and collision followed.
12. Again in a case published in 2006 one of two vessels, approaching one another to involve a close quarter’s situation, agreed to a starboard to starboard passing arrangement with a person on board another, unidentified ship, but not the approaching vessel. Furthermore, the passing agreement required one of the vessels to make an alteration of course, contrary to the requirements of the applicable Rule in the COLREGS. Had the vessel agreed to a passing arrangement requiring her to manoeuvre in compliance with the COLREGS, the ships would have passed clear, despite the misidentification of ships on the VHF radio. Unfortunately by the time both vessels realised that the ships had turned towards each other the distance between them had further reduced to the extent that the last minute avoiding action taken by both ships was unable to prevent a collision.
13. Although the practice of using VHF radio as a collision avoidance aid may be resorted to on occasion, for example in pilotage waters, the risks described in this note should be clearly understood and the Collision Regulations complied with.
Use of VHF as Collision Avoidance Aid
7. There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous.
8. At night, in restricted visibility or when there are more than two vessels in the vicinity, the need for positive identification is essential but this can rarely be guaranteed. Uncertainties can arise over the identification of vessels and the interpretation of messages received. Even where positive identification has been achieved there is still the possibility of a misunderstanding due to language difficulties however fluent the parties concerned might be in the language being used. An imprecise or ambiguously expressed message could have serious consequences.
9. Valuable time can be wasted whilst mariners on vessels approaching each other try to
make contact on VHF radio instead of complying with the Collision Regulations. There is the further danger that even if contact and identification is achieved and no difficulties over the language of communication or message content arise, a course of action might still be chosen that does not comply with the Collision Regulations. This may lead to the collision it was intended to prevent.
10. In 1995, the judge in a collision case said "It is very probable that the use of VHF radio for conversation between these ships was a contributory cause of this collision, if only because it distracted the officers on watch from paying careful attention to their radar. I must repeat, in the hope that it will achieve some publicity, what I have said on previous occasions that any attempt to use VHF to agree the manner of passing is fraught with the danger of misunderstanding. Marine Superintendents would be well advised to prohibit such use of VHF radio and to instruct their officers to comply with the Collision Regulations."
11. In a case published in 2002 one of two vessels, approaching each other in fog, used the VHF radio to call for a red to red (port to port) passing. The call was acknowledged by the other vessel but unfortunately, due to the command of English on the calling vessel, what the caller intended was a green to green (starboard to starboard) passing. The actions were not effectively monitored by either of the vessels and collision followed.
12. Again in a case published in 2006 one of two vessels, approaching one another to involve a close quarter’s situation, agreed to a starboard to starboard passing arrangement with a person on board another, unidentified ship, but not the approaching vessel. Furthermore, the passing agreement required one of the vessels to make an alteration of course, contrary to the requirements of the applicable Rule in the COLREGS. Had the vessel agreed to a passing arrangement requiring her to manoeuvre in compliance with the COLREGS, the ships would have passed clear, despite the misidentification of ships on the VHF radio. Unfortunately by the time both vessels realised that the ships had turned towards each other the distance between them had further reduced to the extent that the last minute avoiding action taken by both ships was unable to prevent a collision.
13. Although the practice of using VHF radio as a collision avoidance aid may be resorted to on occasion, for example in pilotage waters, the risks described in this note should be clearly understood and the Collision Regulations complied with.
G
Guest
Guest
I agree. I have heard too many ships negotiating their doom. However, this should not be interpreted as a ban on VHF. It was a dangerous statement that has caused the real use of VHF to be miss-understood.
All I ever ask is: "Have you seen me? I am the sailing yacht ...". NO negotiation.
It is a statement of fact to trigger the colreg rules.
This is the real use of VHF, pro-actively, and with adequate time to only those ships that could sink you with minor course changes. I do everything I can, not to surprise ships.
All I ever ask is: "Have you seen me? I am the sailing yacht ...". NO negotiation.
It is a statement of fact to trigger the colreg rules.
This is the real use of VHF, pro-actively, and with adequate time to only those ships that could sink you with minor course changes. I do everything I can, not to surprise ships.
iangrant
Well-Known Member
Indeed in open waters the watchkeeper is often bored, offshore we'd often have a chat with a passing ship but it was hardly busy where we were. They often said don't worry we've seen you, we'll alter course, lovely night etc...One guy asked about our families etc... long natter.
Wouldn't do it in the channel though!
Ian
Wouldn't do it in the channel though!
Ian
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on that. I have often had a chat with passing ships. It's helped pass my watch as well as helping pass theirs.
I am talking about open ocean here though. The sort of passage where you go days without seeing anything. The English Channel is like the M25 on a bad day compared with most of the world's seas.
I am talking about open ocean here though. The sort of passage where you go days without seeing anything. The English Channel is like the M25 on a bad day compared with most of the world's seas.
G
Guest
Guest
Sorry the English channel is easy compared to other places of the world.
When did I ever say I nattered to ships. I have only ever done that to ships that ask ME questions: mostly navy ships. This is my life and crew's life we are talking about there is no time for cluttering the VHF.
Firstly the channel has buoys and separation lanes. By constraining the ships, the job of a sailor is made easier. Firstly there is a safe bit in the middle. You can also hide behind buoys and everyone goes sensible ways. It divides down the problem and with patience, makes it simple.
Singapore is way worse for shear density of traffic. Melaka Straits is madness with the pirates and thunderstorms. Same for the Straits at the bottom of the Red Sea. You have 3 different routes merging; Djibouti, Red Sea and India Ocean traffic. One sailor hit the reef, keeping out of the way of the traffic.
How about the Indian Ocean complete mayhem. Even the ships were yelling at each other. 3 of them started haranguing another one for being stupid. There is absolutely no control and many converging routes for the bottom of India.
Give me the English Channel any time. In fact on the last crossing I called only one ship, a P&O ferry for bad overtaking CPA. It was thick fog and everyone else was on the ball and attentive.
On the other hand my fear is the Solent. Absolute stupidity in my 3 trips through it. Nowhere in the world are sailors so mad as the Solent. Even San Francisco bay on a race day is much more polite.
When did I ever say I nattered to ships. I have only ever done that to ships that ask ME questions: mostly navy ships. This is my life and crew's life we are talking about there is no time for cluttering the VHF.
Firstly the channel has buoys and separation lanes. By constraining the ships, the job of a sailor is made easier. Firstly there is a safe bit in the middle. You can also hide behind buoys and everyone goes sensible ways. It divides down the problem and with patience, makes it simple.
Singapore is way worse for shear density of traffic. Melaka Straits is madness with the pirates and thunderstorms. Same for the Straits at the bottom of the Red Sea. You have 3 different routes merging; Djibouti, Red Sea and India Ocean traffic. One sailor hit the reef, keeping out of the way of the traffic.
How about the Indian Ocean complete mayhem. Even the ships were yelling at each other. 3 of them started haranguing another one for being stupid. There is absolutely no control and many converging routes for the bottom of India.
Give me the English Channel any time. In fact on the last crossing I called only one ship, a P&O ferry for bad overtaking CPA. It was thick fog and everyone else was on the ball and attentive.
On the other hand my fear is the Solent. Absolute stupidity in my 3 trips through it. Nowhere in the world are sailors so mad as the Solent. Even San Francisco bay on a race day is much more polite.
