stelican
Well-Known Member
How can you answer this so soon, Have you superior knowledge?
April WNS
- Thread starter TonyJones
- Start date
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the freighter would 'ram you up the arse'
[/ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't happen at all if you turned around and reversed your track a few hundred yards. Still, the experts have given their judgement so I'll know what to do if it happens to me
[ QUOTE ]
It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the freighter would 'ram you up the arse'
[/ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't happen at all if you turned around and reversed your track a few hundred yards. Still, the experts have given their judgement so I'll know what to do if it happens to me
stelican
Well-Known Member
Are you absolutely shore
Wiggo
Well-Known Member
Probably, yes. Mike's got some serious miles under his keel on big (really big) stuff. I'd bow to his experience on this.
JackBartlett
New Member
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you, I don't usually get involved in WNS (well, maybe a bit more often than you do)
[/ QUOTE ]Don't be shy, 64% of your posts so far are WNS-related. I didn't check TJ record because it would take longer, but I wouldn't be surprised if even his percentage would be lower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh! And it seems like only yesterday that the YBW mafia were rubbishing anything I wrote on the grounds that I was a "newbie".
And, by the way, four WNS posts out of a total of 11 sounds to me more like 36% than 64%. Is that a "clever calcky thing"? Or did you just get your calculation upside down?
Re various others:
IIRC, Ouzo was an 26ft boat, under sail, in quite rough conditions, within (at most) a few tens of metres of the ship.
This scenario is a 45ft boat, under power (reduced, but still power) in calm conditions, and the ships (if the skipper turns 90 to starboard) at worst several hundred metres away.
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base? Sounds much more appealing to me than going back where he came from, possibly having to deal with an unfamiliar engineer, pay visitors mooring rates, and having to faff about with ferries and stuff to collect the boat next weekend when the weather might not be so good?
Bon voyage, mes amis!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like you, I don't usually get involved in WNS (well, maybe a bit more often than you do)
[/ QUOTE ]Don't be shy, 64% of your posts so far are WNS-related. I didn't check TJ record because it would take longer, but I wouldn't be surprised if even his percentage would be lower.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh! And it seems like only yesterday that the YBW mafia were rubbishing anything I wrote on the grounds that I was a "newbie".
And, by the way, four WNS posts out of a total of 11 sounds to me more like 36% than 64%. Is that a "clever calcky thing"? Or did you just get your calculation upside down?
Re various others:
IIRC, Ouzo was an 26ft boat, under sail, in quite rough conditions, within (at most) a few tens of metres of the ship.
This scenario is a 45ft boat, under power (reduced, but still power) in calm conditions, and the ships (if the skipper turns 90 to starboard) at worst several hundred metres away.
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base? Sounds much more appealing to me than going back where he came from, possibly having to deal with an unfamiliar engineer, pay visitors mooring rates, and having to faff about with ferries and stuff to collect the boat next weekend when the weather might not be so good?
Bon voyage, mes amis!
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]which is basically what I said on page 1 of the thread. Why? Because raggies crossing the channel have to do this on on a regular basis. If we turn through 180degs everytime there is a ship coming, we would never get to the other side.
Serious tip - never assume that anybody on the bridge has actually seen you, and are watching you change course.
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.
[/ QUOTE ]which is basically what I said on page 1 of the thread. Why? Because raggies crossing the channel have to do this on on a regular basis. If we turn through 180degs everytime there is a ship coming, we would never get to the other side.
Serious tip - never assume that anybody on the bridge has actually seen you, and are watching you change course.
strakeryrius
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
Quote:
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base? Sounds much more appealing to me than going back where he came from, possibly having to deal with an unfamiliar engineer, pay visitors mooring rates, and having to faff about with ferries and stuff to collect the boat next weekend when the weather might not be so good?
You have made some awfully big assumptions. The scenario doesn't say whether the skipper is going to the island from the mainland or vice versa - just that he is heading North - South. It also doesn't say anything about whether he is going out on a trip or is already heading for home. Unfortunately this means that your argument against doing a 180 so that he can get home doesn't make any sense unless all your assumptions are true.
Re Moody Nick Quote: If we turn through 180degs everytime there is a ship coming, we would never get to the other side
While I can see that this is how raggies do it cross-channel, this is a different situation entirely. An OOW of a cargo/coaster will be expecting raggies to do this. He won't be expecting a mobo to do it. Given that the question is "How should he manoeuvre to avoid confusion" then I would suggest that he will wonder what the mobo is up to and there is more potential for confusion in turning only 90 than in turning 180. IMHO.
Quote:
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base? Sounds much more appealing to me than going back where he came from, possibly having to deal with an unfamiliar engineer, pay visitors mooring rates, and having to faff about with ferries and stuff to collect the boat next weekend when the weather might not be so good?
You have made some awfully big assumptions. The scenario doesn't say whether the skipper is going to the island from the mainland or vice versa - just that he is heading North - South. It also doesn't say anything about whether he is going out on a trip or is already heading for home. Unfortunately this means that your argument against doing a 180 so that he can get home doesn't make any sense unless all your assumptions are true.
Re Moody Nick Quote: If we turn through 180degs everytime there is a ship coming, we would never get to the other side
While I can see that this is how raggies do it cross-channel, this is a different situation entirely. An OOW of a cargo/coaster will be expecting raggies to do this. He won't be expecting a mobo to do it. Given that the question is "How should he manoeuvre to avoid confusion" then I would suggest that he will wonder what the mobo is up to and there is more potential for confusion in turning only 90 than in turning 180. IMHO.
John100156
Well-Known Member
Well, as skipper of my boat, as I have said above, it would be an immediate and obvious turn to STBD and a complete and easy 360 to pass their sterns.
Others will immediately undertsand what I am doing, their OOW's can go back to sleep, it will get me back to my original heading faster and at 9 knots I would rather take their wakes on my bow rather than beam as they speed by!
Oh well, it seems I still have a lot to learn! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Others will immediately undertsand what I am doing, their OOW's can go back to sleep, it will get me back to my original heading faster and at 9 knots I would rather take their wakes on my bow rather than beam as they speed by!
Oh well, it seems I still have a lot to learn! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
strakeryrius
Well-Known Member
Hi John
I can see your point and its valid if you are determined to press on - but the question that I would ask myself is "do I want to continue immediately across a busy shipping channel with only one engine at 9 knots - is it safe?"
I would want to get myself into a position where I can stop and make a better assessment of my mechanical situation than I can while still in the shipping lane.
I can see your point and its valid if you are determined to press on - but the question that I would ask myself is "do I want to continue immediately across a busy shipping channel with only one engine at 9 knots - is it safe?"
I would want to get myself into a position where I can stop and make a better assessment of my mechanical situation than I can while still in the shipping lane.
John100156
Well-Known Member
Hi
Mmmmm You can stop after a short while when you have passed the stern of the other two vessels if you like, I would probably keep going on for as long I can to clear the area, otherwise you are likely to be rocked all over the place - and you have such a nice boat too! /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Mmmmm You can stop after a short while when you have passed the stern of the other two vessels if you like, I would probably keep going on for as long I can to clear the area, otherwise you are likely to be rocked all over the place - and you have such a nice boat too! /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
gjgm
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn
*****
and that of course is OK;surely these WNS illustrate different things people would do.
For me, if I was motoring along in an empty sea and the alarm went off, I d take a look out to see nothing was in the vicinity, then start looking to see what the problem is.
The fact that in this case there are two approaching ships would mean that
1. I d want to get well out of the way
2.then see whats up.
I dont think anyone is suggesting returning to the north harbour;just getting some distance. Are you saying that you'd motor on with one engine and have a look only when back at home port? Surely not?
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn
*****
and that of course is OK;surely these WNS illustrate different things people would do.
For me, if I was motoring along in an empty sea and the alarm went off, I d take a look out to see nothing was in the vicinity, then start looking to see what the problem is.
The fact that in this case there are two approaching ships would mean that
1. I d want to get well out of the way
2.then see whats up.
I dont think anyone is suggesting returning to the north harbour;just getting some distance. Are you saying that you'd motor on with one engine and have a look only when back at home port? Surely not?
mjf
Well-Known Member
VHF use to known targets
Oh!
TJ not so fast please!
Firstly as you say there is no 'correct' answer to this stuff, and i agree a dialogue is great to learn and to review other peeps ideas.
i think it is dangerous here (earlier response) for you to say ''You are arguing not with me but with highly expert opinion'' you have now indicated that you have superior advice a couple of time without qualifying who or what.
In the case of use of the VHF - I very co-incidentally- saw a DVD yesterday produced by a leading P&I Club (that insures a large number of very well known shipping groups for third party liablity and pollution risks). It was produced in association with MAIB, MCA and the Nautical Institute its called ''Collision Course''. It is presented by admirality high court judges, leading maritime lawyers and some leading industry respected master mariners. Interesting there is a part covering VHF use as a aid to avoid collision it is used almost exactly in the same scenario as you describe. The advice is that VHF forms part of good watchkeeping, and the proventions of collisions at sea. A positive statement of intention to known targets is RECOMENDED.
I will get you a copy if you want.
Oh!
TJ not so fast please!
Firstly as you say there is no 'correct' answer to this stuff, and i agree a dialogue is great to learn and to review other peeps ideas.
i think it is dangerous here (earlier response) for you to say ''You are arguing not with me but with highly expert opinion'' you have now indicated that you have superior advice a couple of time without qualifying who or what.
In the case of use of the VHF - I very co-incidentally- saw a DVD yesterday produced by a leading P&I Club (that insures a large number of very well known shipping groups for third party liablity and pollution risks). It was produced in association with MAIB, MCA and the Nautical Institute its called ''Collision Course''. It is presented by admirality high court judges, leading maritime lawyers and some leading industry respected master mariners. Interesting there is a part covering VHF use as a aid to avoid collision it is used almost exactly in the same scenario as you describe. The advice is that VHF forms part of good watchkeeping, and the proventions of collisions at sea. A positive statement of intention to known targets is RECOMENDED.
I will get you a copy if you want.
mjf
Well-Known Member
Not sure if or why this is address to me??
Just pleased in this case managed to get the 'boy' to deploy the fenders when on the cruise at 20kn+ before the engine busted........
Just pleased in this case managed to get the 'boy' to deploy the fenders when on the cruise at 20kn+ before the engine busted........
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base?
[/ QUOTE ]
.. but you suggest turning 90 degs to stbd and not slowing down, so you're going 5 miles in the wrong direction until the cargo ship overtakes you, and you will then be several miles further from your destination than when the engine failed. So you're going to travel another 13 or 14 miles to get to your destination, which is about the same as returning to where you started, fixing the engine, then doing the whole trip again!
edit: and of course your way takes much longer 'cos you have to do it all at 9 knots
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't see the big appeal of the 180 turn. Assuming (no info, so we can't tell) that the 5mile wide channel is in the middle of the 10 mile passage, then our skipper has already done 4 miles of his passage. Why turn back now? Why not carry on for the last six miles home and get it fixed back at base?
[/ QUOTE ]
.. but you suggest turning 90 degs to stbd and not slowing down, so you're going 5 miles in the wrong direction until the cargo ship overtakes you, and you will then be several miles further from your destination than when the engine failed. So you're going to travel another 13 or 14 miles to get to your destination, which is about the same as returning to where you started, fixing the engine, then doing the whole trip again!
edit: and of course your way takes much longer 'cos you have to do it all at 9 knots
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well, as skipper of my boat, as I have said above, it would be an immediate and obvious turn to STBD and a complete and easy 360 to pass their sterns.
Others will immediately undertsand what I am doing, their OOW's can go back to sleep, it will get me back to my original heading faster and at 9 knots I would rather take their wakes on my bow rather than beam as they speed by!
Oh well, it seems I still have a lot to learn! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
[/ QUOTE ]All very sensible and definitely real options IMO.
What I am saying, badly, is that to be going at 9knots approaching a shipping lane is 50% faster than the average yacht with no broken engine !!
So we are accustomed to giving way to big fast ships who aren't looking where they are going, on a regular basis.
Turning to starboard and maintaining a parallel course is common practice as is doing a 360 and going behind them. What I was opposing on other posts, is turning 180degs and motoring back in the wrong direction.
In reality, it depends on winds, tides, sea states, etc, so there is no single correct answer.
Well, as skipper of my boat, as I have said above, it would be an immediate and obvious turn to STBD and a complete and easy 360 to pass their sterns.
Others will immediately undertsand what I am doing, their OOW's can go back to sleep, it will get me back to my original heading faster and at 9 knots I would rather take their wakes on my bow rather than beam as they speed by!
Oh well, it seems I still have a lot to learn! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
[/ QUOTE ]All very sensible and definitely real options IMO.
What I am saying, badly, is that to be going at 9knots approaching a shipping lane is 50% faster than the average yacht with no broken engine !!
So we are accustomed to giving way to big fast ships who aren't looking where they are going, on a regular basis.
Turning to starboard and maintaining a parallel course is common practice as is doing a 360 and going behind them. What I was opposing on other posts, is turning 180degs and motoring back in the wrong direction.
In reality, it depends on winds, tides, sea states, etc, so there is no single correct answer.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
Tony, FWIW I strongly disagreee the proposed solution too. The plainly safe answer is the 180deg to starboard, for reasons well set out above by others. From the facts in the question the skipper should assume 9kt speed wont be maintained and that stbd engine WILL seize in about 1-2 minutes if not shut down. Then he's in much more trouble. (when the exhaust alarm triggers you likely lost cooling water about 5 seconds ago. Engine temp is now creeping 80-90-100deg and so on. Likely it will soon seize but until it does it'll run fine. Safe assumption is that the 9knots will not last)
One important point of principle though, if I may. You set a lot of store by the fact a YMI agreed/invented the 90deg turn to starboard idea and so it must be more right than anything uttered by a non YMI. You ought to study the theory of comparative advantage before falling for that one. Summarising it hugely, "comparative advantage" says each person does (as a job) the thing that he or she does best, in the economic sense. So it is entirely feasible (in fact it happens) that folks who are smarter and cleverer and better boat navigators than a typical YMI do not become YMIs.
Imagine Mr A. He's really smart, [--word removed--] hot business owner who can make a few £mill a year doing his business stuff. He is also skilled with his hands and he can plaster a ceiling to perfection. He choses business as his day job, not plastering. Then there's Mr B. Nice guy, not the smartest chap, no big business instincts but good with his hands and has enough skill (just) to do plastering well. He gets a white van and is a successful in-demand plasterer. Applying your principle TJ, if there was ever a forum question on plastering you'd rate Mr B's view a long way above Mr A's. That is completely failing to see comparative adavantage theory, which says that the fact someone does something for a living and/or is qualified to do it does NOT mean he/she must be better at it than someone else who doesn't do it for living/have qualifications and instead does something quite a bit more demanding.
Hope you get my drift. Sorry to rant here, but this argument "it must be right cos a YMI said it" or the implied "whatever a YMI says about nav must be better than what a non YMI says" is an obvious fallacy.
Good WNS though - you got 2 camps, the 90deg-ers and the 180deg-ers, so much to discuss/debate
Tony, FWIW I strongly disagreee the proposed solution too. The plainly safe answer is the 180deg to starboard, for reasons well set out above by others. From the facts in the question the skipper should assume 9kt speed wont be maintained and that stbd engine WILL seize in about 1-2 minutes if not shut down. Then he's in much more trouble. (when the exhaust alarm triggers you likely lost cooling water about 5 seconds ago. Engine temp is now creeping 80-90-100deg and so on. Likely it will soon seize but until it does it'll run fine. Safe assumption is that the 9knots will not last)
One important point of principle though, if I may. You set a lot of store by the fact a YMI agreed/invented the 90deg turn to starboard idea and so it must be more right than anything uttered by a non YMI. You ought to study the theory of comparative advantage before falling for that one. Summarising it hugely, "comparative advantage" says each person does (as a job) the thing that he or she does best, in the economic sense. So it is entirely feasible (in fact it happens) that folks who are smarter and cleverer and better boat navigators than a typical YMI do not become YMIs.
Imagine Mr A. He's really smart, [--word removed--] hot business owner who can make a few £mill a year doing his business stuff. He is also skilled with his hands and he can plaster a ceiling to perfection. He choses business as his day job, not plastering. Then there's Mr B. Nice guy, not the smartest chap, no big business instincts but good with his hands and has enough skill (just) to do plastering well. He gets a white van and is a successful in-demand plasterer. Applying your principle TJ, if there was ever a forum question on plastering you'd rate Mr B's view a long way above Mr A's. That is completely failing to see comparative adavantage theory, which says that the fact someone does something for a living and/or is qualified to do it does NOT mean he/she must be better at it than someone else who doesn't do it for living/have qualifications and instead does something quite a bit more demanding.
Hope you get my drift. Sorry to rant here, but this argument "it must be right cos a YMI said it" or the implied "whatever a YMI says about nav must be better than what a non YMI says" is an obvious fallacy.
Good WNS though - you got 2 camps, the 90deg-ers and the 180deg-ers, so much to discuss/debate
JackBartlett
New Member
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
.. but you suggest turning 90 degs to stbd and not slowing down, so you're going 5 miles in the wrong direction until the cargo ship overtakes you, and you will then be several miles further from your destination than when the engine failed. So you're going to travel another 13 or 14 miles to get to your destination, which is about the same as returning to where you started, fixing the engine, then doing the whole trip again!
edit: and of course your way takes much longer 'cos you have to do it all at 9 knots
[/ QUOTE ]
*WARNING* "Clever calcky thing" (i.e. simple mental arithmetic) coming up.
The container ship is a mile away, doing 24kts, overtaking the motor boat doing 9kts. At a closing speed of 15kts it will be past you in 4 minutes, during which you will have travelled 0.6miles to the west.
If we say (for the sake of argument) that this is happening 6 miles from your original destination, you could then reach your intended destination by steering 170 instead of your original 180. And (I did need a calculator for this bit) the distance to go would be 6.03 miles instead of 6.0 miles.
Re: homeward bound?
The only reason I assumed that we were homeward bound rather than outward bound was because so many others had made the opposite assumption to justify the U turn. It wasn't specified in the original scenario.
Re:VHF?
On the bridge of the container ship, the ARPA alarm has just gone off. Personally, I would like the guy on watch to look first at his radar (to find out why) and then out of the window. I don't want him distracted by the VHF and someone babbling on in what (to him) is probably a foreign language.
And whatever the objective or provenance of mjf's DVD may be, MGN324 is an up-to-date official document which specifically discourages the use of VHF for collision avoidance.
only one engine and 9 knots
I've covered a fair few thousand miles with only one engine and at less than nine knots, as do thousands of others -- professionals and amateurs alike. Doing it for maybe an hour to get home really isn't that scary, and probably preferable and quicker to rummaging about in a hot engineroom at sea. And overheating is not infectious: one engine won't overheat just because the other did!
I have to get on with some proper work, now.
Bon voyage
[ QUOTE ]
.. but you suggest turning 90 degs to stbd and not slowing down, so you're going 5 miles in the wrong direction until the cargo ship overtakes you, and you will then be several miles further from your destination than when the engine failed. So you're going to travel another 13 or 14 miles to get to your destination, which is about the same as returning to where you started, fixing the engine, then doing the whole trip again!
edit: and of course your way takes much longer 'cos you have to do it all at 9 knots
[/ QUOTE ]
*WARNING* "Clever calcky thing" (i.e. simple mental arithmetic) coming up.
The container ship is a mile away, doing 24kts, overtaking the motor boat doing 9kts. At a closing speed of 15kts it will be past you in 4 minutes, during which you will have travelled 0.6miles to the west.
If we say (for the sake of argument) that this is happening 6 miles from your original destination, you could then reach your intended destination by steering 170 instead of your original 180. And (I did need a calculator for this bit) the distance to go would be 6.03 miles instead of 6.0 miles.
Re: homeward bound?
The only reason I assumed that we were homeward bound rather than outward bound was because so many others had made the opposite assumption to justify the U turn. It wasn't specified in the original scenario.
Re:VHF?
On the bridge of the container ship, the ARPA alarm has just gone off. Personally, I would like the guy on watch to look first at his radar (to find out why) and then out of the window. I don't want him distracted by the VHF and someone babbling on in what (to him) is probably a foreign language.
And whatever the objective or provenance of mjf's DVD may be, MGN324 is an up-to-date official document which specifically discourages the use of VHF for collision avoidance.
only one engine and 9 knots
I've covered a fair few thousand miles with only one engine and at less than nine knots, as do thousands of others -- professionals and amateurs alike. Doing it for maybe an hour to get home really isn't that scary, and probably preferable and quicker to rummaging about in a hot engineroom at sea. And overheating is not infectious: one engine won't overheat just because the other did!
I have to get on with some proper work, now.
Bon voyage
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
four WNS posts out of a total of 11 sounds to me more like 36% than 64%. Is that a "clever calcky thing"? Or did you just get your calculation upside down?
[/ QUOTE ]6 posts with WNS in their subjects, plus the one I was replying to.
Sounds like a genuine 7 out of 11 WNS-related posts, doesn't it?
With apologies for the clever calcky I made in rounding 63.6% to 64%.
[ QUOTE ]
four WNS posts out of a total of 11 sounds to me more like 36% than 64%. Is that a "clever calcky thing"? Or did you just get your calculation upside down?
[/ QUOTE ]6 posts with WNS in their subjects, plus the one I was replying to.
Sounds like a genuine 7 out of 11 WNS-related posts, doesn't it?
With apologies for the clever calcky I made in rounding 63.6% to 64%.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Re: total rubbish
[ QUOTE ]
Good WNS though - you got 2 camps, the 90deg-ers and the 180deg-ers
[/ QUOTE ]Aarumph...! I claim a third camp.
My initial suggestion of a 85° course (hence turning 95° to port) was there for a reason: make it even clearer to the coaster that it could plough on safely. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Anyway. As I already admitted, the 180 turn is obviously the safest option. And we must recognise that TJ told it would have been also his own choice, to be honest.
Nice application of the CA theory btw, but wasn't it mainly cost/efficiency (rather than quality/effectiveness) driven?
[ QUOTE ]
Good WNS though - you got 2 camps, the 90deg-ers and the 180deg-ers
[/ QUOTE ]Aarumph...! I claim a third camp.
My initial suggestion of a 85° course (hence turning 95° to port) was there for a reason: make it even clearer to the coaster that it could plough on safely. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Anyway. As I already admitted, the 180 turn is obviously the safest option. And we must recognise that TJ told it would have been also his own choice, to be honest.
Nice application of the CA theory btw, but wasn't it mainly cost/efficiency (rather than quality/effectiveness) driven?
TonyJones
Well-Known Member
Re: VHF use to known targets
[ QUOTE ]
The advice is that VHF forms part of good watchkeeping, and the proventions of collisions at sea. A positive statement of intention to known targets is RECOMENDED.
I will get you a copy if you want.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes please. Sounds like officialdom doesn't agree completely on this.
Best wishes
TJ
Not really here after my Wrap post...
[ QUOTE ]
The advice is that VHF forms part of good watchkeeping, and the proventions of collisions at sea. A positive statement of intention to known targets is RECOMENDED.
I will get you a copy if you want.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes please. Sounds like officialdom doesn't agree completely on this.
Best wishes
TJ
Not really here after my Wrap post...
