April WNS

[strakeryrius]

Quote:
To my mind, the skipper's decision is easy. If the diagram is to be believed, then if he stops dead in the water, then both ships will pass ahead of him so IMHO, thats the safest thing to do.

I considered that, as the diagram shows the nearer ship will pass approx 1/8th NM away. However, as this is a "busy channel" what you don't know is what other vessels are going to be behind the two that are the threat at the moment, and what vessels may be coming the other way if you just sit there in the middle of it.

The other consideration has to be what are you going to do once they are past. Will you sit there and try to check your engines in the middle of the channel? I don't think that would be safe - you want to be out of the channel while doing that, so it makes sense to start back out of the channel at the earliest opportunity. It would only be worth stopping if you were sure that you were going to press on with one engine later.

 

[wp1234]

[ QUOTE ]

Also some ship skippers have a policy of *never* giving way to small boats, even sailing boats, cos it's much simpler

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bit hard !!!

Put yourself in their shoes.
A daft motor boat doing 28 kts driven by someone with unknown and possibly no experience tries to shave ahead of two ships then slows down suddenly ,posts a question on a forum asking ‘what next’ ... what would you think !!!

 

[benjenbav]

Then a text arrives out of the blue. Deloittes have found a wizzy way to save the business. Quickly phone Amex to reinstate the wife's card. She sinks to her knees in gratitude as you say in manly tones: "Not right now darling, there's the ship and all our lives to save."

So: starboard turn; stop the dicky engine; head north back to safety and get the problem fixed.

 

[MapisM]

[ QUOTE ]
The first engine has already gone awol, very likely due to a warp around the prop

[/ QUOTE ]Naah, can't be around the prop, see: his starboard engine overheat alarm operates. He immediately throttles back that engine...
The warp obviously found its way through the seawater intake!

 

[jfm]

Just on the "Not right now darling, there's the ship and all our lives to save" thing, i don't see why he couldn't multi task?

 

[MapisM]

I understood that's what he meant by "head north".... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

[ QUOTE ]
However, as this is a "busy channel" what you don't know is what other vessels are going to be behind the two that are the threat at the moment, and what vessels may be coming the other way if you just sit there in the middle of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Thats why I suggested stopping (as opposed to turning to starboard or reversing) so that the good engine is conserved for any later manouvres such as clearing the channel or avoiding other ships. The likelihood is that the engine overheat is confined to one engine but you can't be 100% sure so the good engine should be saved for essential manouvres

 

[mjf]

By 'just' stopping it may not be completely clear on the bridge of either ship what your intentions are, certainly any ARPA plot would not immediatly show this.

An alteration of course is more obvious to observers (electronic / visual) IMHO.

 

[Nick_H]

That's why I reckoned it would be a good idea to call the cargo ship if stopping, especially as it will pass just 1/8 mile from you. However, I think this is just one of the limitations of WNS, in that if you were there you would have loads of other information, like how much other shipping, how close, how many leisure boats for the cargo ship to worry about etc., and could then make a more intuitive decision about whether to stop, turn, or head north. Not criticising WNS in this instance (hey, that's a first), as it's just not feasible to give every bit of info you'd have as skipper.

 

[TonyJones]

tcm

You've given me an idea. How about a Mega-WNS combining all the situations of the last 12 months in one fantastically complicated scenario? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[benjenbav]

Would that be seamanlike? Or semen, like? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[wakeup]

Not complicated, they all involve fendering off a classic yacht and swinging arse first onto a pile with a ton of unfeasibly long ropes.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

[ QUOTE ]
By 'just' stopping it may not be completely clear on the bridge of either ship what your intentions are, certainly any ARPA plot would not immediatly show this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I would think that it is pretty obvious to any watchkeeper on the bridge that a vessel which was previously making 28kts has now stopped and I think stopping is as decisive an action as changing course. The other options are changing course to starboard or turning around and steering away from the 2 ships. Steering to starboard still leaves doubt in the big ships watchkeepers minds because, in theory, the big ships would be the give way vessels which leaves steering away as the safest option. The trouble with that is that you might be steering into the path of other ships coming down the channel. So, as Nick H says, there really isn't enough info in the WNS scenario to make a definitive judgement

 

[MapisM]

Dunno, but for how long would you trust Deloittes' wizzy way to save the business?
I'd rather live the moment while it lasts....
/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[John100156]

Take an immediate and obvious turn to STBD and a nice wide 360 at constant speed to pass to the stern of both vessels.

Why? Because as you move to STBD the two vessels are now closing on you much more slowly. Coaster at 12-9=3 knots and container 24-9=15 knots. Gives you more time!

I was in a similar situation in Gib when doing my day skipper. Not in danger of engine failure though. But I was told by my instructor to hold-on for a while. This manouver as we closed seemed to work very well!

If you turn to port you could be in real danger, the coaster may have just seen you off his STBD bow and steered STBD to pass your stern. Now you are closing at 9+12 knots - nasty! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

[ QUOTE ]
If you turn to port you could be in real danger, the coaster may have just seen you off his STBD bow and steered STBD to pass your stern. Now you are closing at 9+12 knots - nasty!


[/ QUOTE ]

The Col Regs specifically advises against a turn to port just for these reasons

 

[mjf]

Who says anything about a ''Coaster''?

A general cargo ship was in the brief - these can be ocean going vessels requiring a Master FG ticket.

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says anything about a ''Coaster''?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right: the text doesn't specify the size of the cargo ship but the diagram shows it to be a coaster.

Best wishes
TJ

 

[tcm]

ace. So, whilst the unforgettable rope-based berthing takes place a giant container ship comes haring down the fairway determined to swing in between two piles and one of your crew chucks himself overboard and...

 

[TonyJones]

THANKS EVERYONE.

Plenty of interesting replies - see next month's issue for a selection.

This situation is not 100% clear cut - quite deliberately.

Those who pointed out that the skipper shouldn't have been crossing the container ship's bow in the first place have a good point, but his crossing distance would have been 2/3 mile which many would consider adequate, if not over generous. If he had been going round the back there would be no problem - and no WNS.

I've taken plenty of highly qualified advice on this, so the following is not merely my 'hardly ever been in a boat' opinion. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Prior to reducing speed our skipper was on course to pass clear ahead of the container ship at an acceptable distance, so there was no conflict and the question of stand on/give way did not arise. But his reduced speed changed all that and there is NOW most definitely a risk of collision. The Colregs say he should therefore stand on until it becomes obvious - IF IT DOES - that a collision 'can not be avoided by the actions of the give-way vessel alone'. At that stage he is obliged to manoeuvre to avoid the give-way vessel as best he can.

However, the dangers inherent in that course of action are obvious. Everyone thinks our skipper should avoid the possibility of a close quarters situation - one way or another.

Stopping is not a good idea as it does not indicate 'clear intentions' particularly as he is more or less directly ahead of the coaster - which may not have seen him.

Turning 180 to stbd and 'getting the hell out of Dodge' would be my personal choice, but at least one expert thinks this could lead to possible conflict with the coaster, particularly if he had already started an alteration to starboard to go behind you.

A turn to port at this range is an absolute no-no.

So the best thing would be for him to alter 90 deg to stbd and parallel the track of both ships and maintain his speed. This clearly indicates his intentions and puts both ships in an unambiguous overtaking situation. It also buys everyone a bit more time. The container ship will have a lateral clearance of 0.37nm, which the OOW would most likely find acceptable. The coaster's overtake speed is now a mere 3kt, giving him plenty of time to observe and avoid. Congrats to those who selected this option.

Following a number of so-called 'radio-assisted' collisions between commercial ships, a MGN (Marine Guidance Note) was published specifically advisihng against attempting VHF contact in circumstances like these as it can lead to confusion and distraction.

I'm sure some will disagree with the above and the debate can continue, of course. But this time it's no use slagging ME off - I'm just the messenger. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Best wishes
TJ