Another MCIB Report

[capnsensible]

For the high percentage of small vessels that don't have AIS and radar, all the traditional technique when practiced, are clearly adequate. Otherwise there would be zillions of collisions every day....

Again, I'll say that both are great tools. But I remain unworried when I'm on a boat without either.

 

[RJJ]

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.

___________________________________

you just get to see two lights. The left-hand one as you see it should be taller. So that helps you know you're looking somewhere at the starboard aspect of the ship.

Until you have other information (working lights, silhouette or whatever) you don't know whether the lights are "close" or not. That's your assumption. I think it's safer not to make assumptions.

You've also said the ship was "cutting across" the yacht. Even if it was, you can't tell that from the lights alone. You can only tell that if the bearing is opening up, which the yacht in this case apparently didn't attend to. So you've made the same assumption as the yacht made - crossing safely "green-to-green" and no need to alter course - sadly the ship wasn't "cutting across" but was instead on a constant bearing.

The aids they had and could have used: a compass to establish a constant bearing. That's enough to tell them that a turn in either direction is required to avoid collision if the ship holds steady course. And COLREGS, which clearly state a stand-on vessel should not alter to port if there is risk of a close-quarters situation; and even less ambiguously that if it looks like a "fine crossing" or any possibility of a "head-on" situation, then both vessels should keep clear by turning to starboard. It's written that way so that if there's doubt whether it's a "crossing" or "head-on" situation, the required actions of both vessels are consistent with each other.

I agree with your earlier point - if they had turned sharply to port much earlier then all could have been well. I don't think the account of what the yacht watch saw and did is complete; but my reading between the lines is they weren't keeping an excellent lookout and therefore were forced to make a decision within the last five minutes. At that time, the prudent course was to gybe in order to avoid the situation of vessels turning into each other - which appears to have been what happened.

I'd also say given the conditions (a deep broad reach in a F5-6) if the sole fellow on watch couldn't gybe within a minute, there's something wrong with the setup. thirty seconds to heave the main in, forget about any headsails, helm over. Then, since they were motoring already, floor the throttle to get well clear.

 

[RichardS]

If you have the predictive feature it can show you the orientation at the CPA, which is a superb thing.

I often use OpenCPN as my AIS display as it provides excellent course predictions.

By coincidence I installed the latest version a few days ago and, although I won't be able to try it until I'm back on the boat, the predictive feature has apparently been beefed-up even further and now, rather than just a line, actually shows a boat graphic of where the target vessel will actually be at the CPA. I guess if the graphic of the target boat is on top of your boat, it's time to start thinking.

Richard

 

[glynd]

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.

What's the power drain like on your modern radar?
Having mostly used ancient ones, which seem to attach an electron suction pump to batteries.....

 

[Never Grumble]

And I'm sure you did it very well indeed - seriously
All I'm saying is that Tech Helps -- as a backup for the purists if nothing else!

I like to think I did OK.

Actually I have nothing against tech, indeed once I am allowed to I am going to pop down and fit an AIS transceiver to my own yacht. For me I see a transceiver as a tool allowing the bigger faster vessels to see me on their screens sooner than they will see my lights. Then hopefully and bearing in mind they have the advantage of speed if there is an issue they will make slight alteration to open up the CPA on me. As the watchkeeper on a big ship its nice to deal with potential problems early like small slow moving yachts and move onto the next.

I'd love to have an all singing and dancing modern suite of electronic kit but like many funds don't allow me to buy absolutely everything. And even if I did not sure the batteries would keep up.

 

[dom]

I like to think I did OK.

Actually I have nothing against tech, indeed once I am allowed to I am going to pop down and fit an AIS transceiver to my own yacht. For me I see a transceiver as a tool allowing the bigger faster vessels to see me on their screens sooner than they will see my lights. Then hopefully and bearing in mind they have the advantage of speed if there is an issue they will make slight alteration to open up the CPA on me. As the watchkeeper on a big ship its nice to deal with potential problems early like small slow moving yachts and move onto the next.

I'd love to have an all singing and dancing modern suite of electronic kit but like many funds don't allow me to buy absolutely everything. And even if I did not sure the batteries would keep up.

Totally agree, a chap from one of Europe's largest Shipping Co.s recently quipped -- referring to AIS receiver only sets -- that yachts for some reason like cycle across motorways with no AIS transmit and little glowworm lights

Adding an AIS tranceiver and perhaps even bumped-up LED navlights is definitely a great idea

 

[RJJ]

you just get to see two lights. The left-hand one as you see it should be taller. So that helps you know you're looking somewhere at the starboard aspect of the ship.

Until you have other information (working lights, silhouette or whatever) you don't know whether the lights are "close" or not. That's your assumption. I think it's safer not to make assumptions.

You've also said the ship was "cutting across" the yacht. Even if it was, you can't tell that from the lights alone. You can only tell that if the bearing is opening up, which the yacht in this case apparently didn't attend to. So you've made the same assumption as the yacht made - crossing safely "green-to-green" and no need to alter course - sadly the ship wasn't "cutting across" but was instead on a constant bearing.

The aids they had and could have used: a compass to establish a constant bearing. That's enough to tell them that a turn in either direction is required to avoid collision if the ship holds steady course. And COLREGS, which clearly state a stand-on vessel should not alter to port if there is risk of a close-quarters situation; and even less ambiguously that if it looks like a "fine crossing" or any possibility of a "head-on" situation, then both vessels should keep clear by turning to starboard. It's written that way so that if there's doubt whether it's a "crossing" or "head-on" situation, the required actions of both vessels are consistent with each other.

I agree with your earlier point - if they had turned sharply to port much earlier then all could have been well. I don't think the account of what the yacht watch saw and did is complete; but my reading between the lines is they weren't keeping an excellent lookout and therefore were forced to make a decision within the last five minutes. At that time, the prudent course was to gybe in order to avoid the situation of vessels turning into each other - which appears to have been what happened.

I'd also say given the conditions (a deep broad reach in a F5-6) if the sole fellow on watch couldn't gybe within a minute, there's something wrong with the setup. thirty seconds to heave the main in, forget about any headsails, helm over. Then, since they were motoring already, floor the throttle to get well clear.

Here's the COLREGS sections I was thinking of. By default, they should have assumed they were at risk of collision unless there was proper information to the contrary; if "fine on the bow" they should assume it was a "head-on situation"; if stand-on vessel, they should not have altered course to port.

They could only have altered course to port if they were confident, based on other information, that it was sufficiently early to do so and not create risk of a collision. To know that, you'd need some reason to believe the ship was at a distance.

Rule 7 : Risk of collision

• (a) .... If there is any doubt such risk (of collision) shall be deemed to exist.
• (c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information
• (d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:
  • (i) such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;

Rule 14 : Head-on situation

• (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

Rule 17 : Action by stand-on vessel

• (a)
  • (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
  • (ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
• (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
• (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
• (d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

 

[Achosenman]

What's the power drain like on your modern radar?
Having mostly used ancient ones, which seem to attach an electron suction pump to batteries.....

17W tx, 7W stby (cable) 2W sleep mode. (wifi)

Considering the battery bank is 500 amp/hrs, I don't think it matters. I haven't suffered from 12v anxiety yet. ?

 

[Gary Fox]

Sorry I should clarify - I don’t doubt the seriousness of the question but I meant I‘d be surprised if anyone would refuse to sail at night without AIS and plotter. On reflection though, I wonder if reliance on electronic aids now means that there are people who would.

There definitely are such people. I wonder if many collisions might have been assisted by their fixation with peering at little screens and fiddling with buttons, rather than looking out to sea with intact night-vision?

 

[Gary Fox]

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.

MGN 364 agrees

 

[dunedin]

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.

If there is any possibility of ship interaction one of our first actions is to switch to autopilot, if not already using it.
Almost all manual helms will be less consistent at keeping a straight course, particularly if distracted by a large chunk of metal heading their way. Autopilot gives both us and ship a better view of crossing distance etc. (We use an AIS transceiver)

However, the crew reports suggest the yacht in this report was on autopilot, and maintained steady course - which is one of the reasons I am rather sceptical of the report conclusions of relative positions and courses.

 

[chrishscorp]

A turn to port on first sighting of the commercial vessel and at distance and we would not be discussing this.

However as the time ticks by options reduce and a turn to Starboard becomes the only option.

They had no Radar or AIS
The only other asset that could have been brought into play was the skipper/crew who had gone below not 10 minutes earlier, another brain, pair of eyes and hands may have been of assistance.

 

[Seven Spades]

Two vessels going green to green in close quarters is the most difficult situation because if one vessel perceives a 0CPA it requires both vessels to cross each other bow with a turn to starboard. The issue here seems to be that the sailing vessel made a turn to port after the ship crosses their bows.

 

[shaunksb]

you just get to see two lights. The left-hand one as you see it should be taller. So that helps you know you're looking somewhere at the starboard aspect of the ship.

Until you have other information (working lights, silhouette or whatever) you don't know whether the lights are "close" or not. That's your assumption. I think it's safer not to make assumptions.

You've also said the ship was "cutting across" the yacht. Even if it was, you can't tell that from the lights alone. You can only tell that if the bearing is opening up, which the yacht in this case apparently didn't attend to. So you've made the same assumption as the yacht made - crossing safely "green-to-green" and no need to alter course - sadly the ship wasn't "cutting across" but was instead on a constant bearing.

The aids they had and could have used: a compass to establish a constant bearing. That's enough to tell them that a turn in either direction is required to avoid collision if the ship holds steady course. And COLREGS, which clearly state a stand-on vessel should not alter to port if there is risk of a close-quarters situation; and even less ambiguously that if it looks like a "fine crossing" or any possibility of a "head-on" situation, then both vessels should keep clear by turning to starboard. It's written that way so that if there's doubt whether it's a "crossing" or "head-on" situation, the required actions of both vessels are consistent with each other.

I agree with your earlier point - if they had turned sharply to port much earlier then all could have been well. I don't think the account of what the yacht watch saw and did is complete; but my reading between the lines is they weren't keeping an excellent lookout and therefore were forced to make a decision within the last five minutes. At that time, the prudent course was to gybe in order to avoid the situation of vessels turning into each other - which appears to have been what happened.

I'd also say given the conditions (a deep broad reach in a F5-6) if the sole fellow on watch couldn't gybe within a minute, there's something wrong with the setup. thirty seconds to heave the main in, forget about any headsails, helm over. Then, since they were motoring already, floor the throttle to get well clear.

I think we and colregs are in agreement and my use of the word track would have been clearer than heading.

Just for clarity.

An early turn to port would have been my preference.



____________________________

 

[shaunksb]

I still think good nav lights should be essential when night sailing.

I’ve fitted new LED ones with 2 miles visibility.

The number of crazed, grubby and old ones I see walking the pontoons worries me.

________________________

 

[Never Grumble]

I still think good nav lights should be essential when night sailing.

I’ve fitted new LED ones with 2 miles visibility.

The number of crazed, grubby and old ones I see walking the pontoons worries me.

________________________

which LED ones did you go for?

 

[shaunksb]

Osculati

Force 4 Swindlery.

______________________

 

[westhinder]

I still think good nav lights should be essential when night sailing.

I’ve fitted new LED ones with 2 miles visibility.

The number of crazed, grubby and old ones I see walking the pontoons worries me.

________________________

Of course you’re right, but we have to be aware that two miles isn’t a great distance and if that’s the earliest a watchkeeper on a ship will notice your presence, their time to react is limited, especially in a near head-on situation. With a closing speed of 14-15 knots as in this case, you have 8 minutes before impact, which may be adequate provided they immediately see you at the limit of visibility and take action. This means we should use every means available to enable us to be noticed earlier: radar reflector, radar target enhancer, AIS and dare I say it, a call in good time.