Another MCIB Report

[RJJ]

I'm not sure why it's relevant that there is no provision for green to green in ColRegs. I go "green to green" with dozens of vessels every day. The fact that it's not mentioned in ColRegs seems irrelevant.

Richard

...because COLREGS come into force in particular when there's risk of a close-quarters situation.

Yes, you go green to green perfectly safely because the intentions of both yachts are clear and also it's clear by eyeball or by bearings that you are well on track to miss each other. Also (I'm guessing) we're generally talking about small vessels that can in extremis stop in within 50m (3-4 boat lengths for most of us); if you alter course with 200m or 300m to go, there's time for the other yacht to respond and indeed change their mind four times.

If bearing is constant, COLREGS are clear and a turn to starboard is strongly advised for a give-way vessel, or for a head-to-head situation for both vessels. There's a good reason for that, which is to avoid exactly what happened in this incident.

 

[RJJ]

If you read the report given by the yacht at appendix 7.7 there is no mention of the tanker in the watch handover at 0200 ... suddenly it appears at 0210 off the starboard bow and then the collision happened 11 minutes later. There is no reference to the aspect on the tanker. I can't understand why the yacht didn't see the tanker much sooner?

I have already commented on the effectiveness of the radar reflectors. And earlier about how easy it is to see a yacht on a big ships radar, particularly in a reasonable sea.

As for my erstwhile captain, he was extremely poor in close quarters situations, before then I had spent over a year doing navigation training spending most of my time in restricted waters, so believe I had pretty good judgement.

I'm not questioning your judgment. You said he could have gone to port and not had an accident and I believe you. He insisted on going to starboard which he considered more cautious, and he didn't have an accident.

It's not the same situation as was covered in the report. The yacht was holding course, made an assumption they were passing green-to-green, and did not take bearings to confirm that was the case. There's nothing wrong with passing green-to-green if you have reason to believe you will pass safely, which they did not have.

 

[Never Grumble]

I'm not questioning your judgment. You said he could have gone to port and not had an accident and I believe you. He insisted on going to starboard which he considered more cautious, and he didn't have an accident.

It's not the same situation as was covered in the report. The yacht was holding course, made an assumption they were passing green-to-green, and did not take bearings to confirm that was the case. There's nothing wrong with passing green-to-green if you have reason to believe you will pass safely, which they did not have.

Let's say you didn't have to work for him which was a painful experience. It wasn't the only time he embarrassed himself, lets leave that there.

As far as I read the yacht crew claim they didn't alter course. But then they didn't see the tanker until 10 minutes before the accident, which I find surprising seeing range requirements of the tankers steaming lights. I wonder how many inaccuracies there are in both versions of events.

 

[westhinder]

MCA use of VHF and AIS
Para 3 of link is interesting reading wrt use of VHF for collision avoidance (and how counter productive it can/has been).

Of course you can always find examples where it has gone wrong. No one counts the cases in which it has simply worked. In my homewaters I hear it all the time as I monitor VTS and the pilots’ channel. Reading with what reluctance the concession about ‘‘pilotage waters’ is phrased, I’m afraid the document rather illustrates my point about the first decades of the 20th century.
When the first decca set was put aboard the yacht I crewed on, the skipper put a cloth over it, which was only to be removed to check our position worked out with traditional means. We have moved on from there too.
Do not misinterpret me, I am not advocating not adhering to colregs, I’m arguing for removing ambiguity and secondguessing.

 

[dom]

.................
Do not misinterpret me, I am not advocating not adhering to colregs, I’m arguing for removing ambiguity and secondguessing.

That's the point, VHF calls don't always achieve these objectives.

They have the potential to make matters worse!

The investigators in this case found VHF to have contributed to the collision.

 

[glynd]

I found in busy waters an AIS receiver (NASA Marine) at night was a very useful addition to a visual lookout, particularly when watching a VLCC with all its deck lights on the navigation lights were invisible, the hand bearing compass helped but so did the AIS.

Curious - do people here reach for a hand bearing compass 'as the book says', or look for a constant transit from something fixed on the yacht - eg stanchion, similar?
Have to say I tend to do the latter, as the HBC is down below in the chart table - plus you can deal with one or more vessels with transit type alignment without trying to remember a bunch of numbers....

 

[RJJ]

Curious - do people here reach for a hand bearing compass 'as the book says', or look for a constant transit from something fixed on the yacht - eg stanchion, similar?
Have to say I tend to do the latter, as the HBC is down below in the chart table - plus you can deal with one or more vessels with transit type alignment without trying to remember a bunch of numbers....

For me, the HBC is almost always to hand outside the Solent. In the Solent, I've given up trying to hold a steady course.

Even channel crossing, I find there's usually only one or two vessels "of concern" at a given time. If there's a crowd, it's out with the notebook.

I also usually have a couple of young and less-experienced crewmembers ( 6 and 8) who are getting very good at the HBC - it's an ideal small person task, uncomplicated and not requiring strength - but a slab of concentration. They love it.

 

[capnsensible]

Curious - do people here reach for a hand bearing compass 'as the book says', or look for a constant transit from something fixed on the yacht - eg stanchion, similar?
Have to say I tend to do the latter, as the HBC is down below in the chart table - plus you can deal with one or more vessels with transit type alignment without trying to remember a bunch of numbers....

Good question, I think. Personally I've always got a hand bearing compass on me or more often I ask one of the crew to take bearings for me. I don't often sail alone. But I'm a big fan of the HBC.

 

[rib]

Lining up a part of the boat for a bearing only works if you have a good helm. Other wise it lines up some times and not other times.. I've have also noticed my reacter lens when old work in funny ways especially for colour when coming up from a lit area on to watch

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

I use a point on the boat, but my third Autohelm hb compass is never far away if there's any doubt. (The first two were 'lost').

 

[Uricanejack]

Curious - do people here reach for a hand bearing compass 'as the book says', or look for a constant transit from something fixed on the yacht - eg stanchion, similar?
Have to say I tend to do the latter, as the HBC is down below in the chart table - plus you can deal with one or more vessels with transit type alignment without trying to remember a bunch of numbers....

Admission of guilt, Truth is you screw up, kind of hard to explain why you didn’t.
On most occasions I use the Mark 1 eyeball, I always like to have one at hand. Sometimes I use it.
Even when I have all the fancy toys, The Mark 1 eyeball, gives me the best And most up to date info. it tells me what is happening right now. All the fancy toys tell me what has already happened.

All the rough approximations can be helpful to determine where concerns are. They all have problems. Your perspective can be very different depending upon where you are standing, sitting , particularly if you move.
The visual compass bearing is independent, and surprisingly reliable.

Sometimes, when conditions are less than ideal. I use a visual bearing to help spot something I am hoping to sight.
A visual bearing, is kind of basic but can be very handy.

 

[RupertW]

Lining up a part of the boat for a bearing only works if you have a good helm. Other wise it lines up some times and not other times.. I've have also noticed my reacter lens when old work in funny ways especially for colour when coming up from a lit area on to watch

We always line up 2 parts of the boat - usually winch and a stanchion post rather than HBC, but also sail almost completely under autohelm as I agree with your point about needing a steady helm.

 

[shaunksb]

Starboard. Early.
<snip>
When you see a side-light, you cannot assume anything about the heading of the ship except that you are looking at somewhere between her bows and 122.5deg aft the beam.

I‘m sorry but that is not right.

That’s what larger ships steaming lights are for. (Visibility 6 miles)

In this case the rear one would have appeared close but slightly to the left of the front one meaning it’s heading was fine but cutting across yours.

Turning to starboard would have meant your heading would be crossing its track without any aids to tell you how fast the tanker was actually going.

___________________________________

 

[dom]

My take is somewhat different to consensus that the 'Mark-1 Eyeball' is always best -- feel free to disagree!

While we all instinctively rely on our eyesight, it is known to play tricks on us as attested to by the numerous optical illusions invented by psychologists. Low light conditions exaggerate the problem by playing havoc with perspective and heading. The problem is further exaggerated by murky conditions (such as existed that night) and tiredness which also played a role.

In this case:
Medi Mode believed (i) they would pass green to green, (ii) that they were stand-on, and (iii) that they were still a good distance away. Only (ii) was correct but their navigation psychology was likely anchored in these beliefs.

At the point the the ship began to alter hard to starboard, Medi Mode was close enough so that the lights would have begun to rapidly rise and change colour as the ship swung. The ship also sounded 5-blasts. Alarmed at how close they were, and believing that they were green-to-green, the reflex action was probably to swerve to port as a last resort. It was exactly the wrong thing to do.

My tuppence: Mark-1 Eyeball + Trusty HBC is fine and dandy for calculating angles. NOT for Perspective and Closing Speed.

Which is why Radar/AIS are great tools for such conditions.

Then, when faced with the question "What are you going to believe; the AIS/Radar or your own lying eyes?" THINK carefully and early about that one!

 

[westhinder]

That's the point, VHF calls don't always achieve these objectives.

They have the potential to make matters worse!

The investigators in this case found VHF to have contributed to the collision.

Actually they state that time was lost by the ship’s watchkeeper by trying to contact the yacht. At that point in the situation that is most probably right. But that is thinking from the perspective of the ship’s bridge.
My perspective is from the yacht’s cockpit. In general we see ships well before they see us. If for any reason we are unsure of what is happening, a call to the ship can sort that out. It will draw the watchkeeper’s attention to our presence, and a course of action can be agreed well before a close quarters situation is upon us.
Having an AIS transceiver is a great plus: it enhances the chances of being noticed early, it gives accurate information about the ship’s course and it provides you with all the details you need if you want to contact them. Actually for anyone sailing in busy waters it is a no brainer. This is the 21st century.

 

[RichardS]

Even when I have all the fancy toys, The Mark 1 eyeball, gives me the best And most up to date info. it tells me what is happening right now. All the fancy toys tell me what has already happened.

I'm not sure that is very important in the grand scheme of things. AIS updates every 30 seconds so at the distances when AIS is really useful that delay is irrelevant. By the time that 30 seconds has become important, anyone who is still looking at the AIS display rather than the target vessel which is now looming large just off their beam needs their head examining.

When you consider all the issues which the Mark 1 eyeball has when judging complex relative movements at a distance and in less than ideal conditions, I would much rather trust my AIS until the point is reached when the eyeball can be totally relied upon.

I'm with Dom on this "What are you going to believe; the AIS/Radar or your own lying eyes?"

Richard

 

[Never Grumble]

"What are you going to believe; the AIS/Radar or your own lying eyes?"

In this case it doesn't really matter the yacht didn't have AIS or Radar. They dont recall seeing the tanker until 10 minutes (roughly 2 miles) before the collision and still cant see any reference to them judging aspect on it using the tankers masthead lights.

When I learnt to watch keep on bigger vessels we had a very basic radar and compass, hence bearing + judgement was the only way to do it.

 

[dom]

In this case it doesn't really matter the yacht didn't have AIS or Radar. They dont recall seeing the tanker until 10 minutes (roughly 2 miles) before the collision and still cant see any reference to them judging aspect on it using the tankers masthead lights.

When I learnt to watch keep on bigger vessels we had a very basic radar and compass, hence bearing + judgement was the only way to do it.

And I'm sure you did it very well indeed - seriously

1. In this case however, had the yacht been fitted with an AIS tranceiver it would have almost certainly NOT been hit because they would have both seen each other.​

​

2. If the yacht had been fitted modern radar, then it would almost certainly have NOT made the mistakes it did.​

​

3. And finally, if the yacht had been fitted with a radar transponder, the collision would probably NOT have happened.​

All I'm saying is that Tech Helps -- as a backup for the purists if nothing else!

 

[Achosenman]

In this case it doesn't really matter the yacht didn't have AIS or Radar. They dont recall seeing the tanker until 10 minutes (roughly 2 miles) before the collision and still cant see any reference to them judging aspect on it using the tankers masthead lights.

When I learnt to watch keep on bigger vessels we had a very basic radar and compass, hence bearing + judgement was the only way to do it.

We don’t have that excuse these days. The best upgrade I have made to date is Quantum 2 radar. Automatic MARPA is a joy to use and is a game changer IMHO. The best bang for buck. For a busy area and multiple target situations such as crossing a VTS, it improves the situational awareness by an order of magnitude...especially at night.

 

[doug748]

Head on, the bearing is not going to change much at all, the yacht had only 12 minutes from the first sighting: to judge the situation, monitor it and decide what action to take. In their place I would be hoping to pick ships up at 5 miles, not 3 esp in the worst case head on situation.

I'm with the others, a big fan of AIS. It gives you the range, ( vital in the dark), speed and heading and you can almost instantly see any change. Without it, all of these things are problematic. If you have the predictive feature it can show you the orientation at the CPA, which is a superb thing.

.