Big ships v small boats at night

[Impaler]

I have just experienced my first voyage on a large ship at night and it has given me pause for thought about sailing at night in shipping lanes or indeed anywhere where ships move. I work on an FPSO (Floating Production Storage & Offloading vessel) that has the ability to disconnect from an oilfield and sail away from typhoons as happened last week where we are in the South China Sea. We are 253 metres x 42 metres and 103,000 tonnes deadweight and at the moment loaded with about 420,000 barrels of crude. So we are not small or manoeuvrable.

Having been on the bridge at night it is virtually impossible to see anything outside the windows. The bridge console display of radar screens, engine controls etc give so much light that unless you were positioned as a lookout well outside the bridge then virtually nothing forward is visible. Going out onto the bridge wings is not much better as we have so much deck lighting particularly aft of the bridge where all the oil production systems are that nothing outside the arc of light is visible.

The bridge was manned by a watch keeper and look out but they relied virtually entirely on the ship’s AIS and radar. Steaming in bad weather produce masses of ‘clutter’ on the screen but adjustments can be made to reduce this and hence eliminate small targets.

My point is that it seems that big ships at night no matter how well equipped and manned are pretty well flying blind as far as small boats are concerned.

I do not sail at night but if I did I would never expect anything to see me and I think my eyeballs would be scanning through 360 every few minutes. I would assume that any ship you may see has no idea that you exist unless you have AIS and the best radar reflector money can buy.

More experience merchant seaman may disagree with me but as a yachtsman who only potters about I certainly had my eyes opened.

 

[wotayottie]

Yes I had my eyes opened in a similar way on a container ship in an F6 when breaking waves made it very difficult to seperate white sails from white water. And as you say, radar was unreliable.

That said your ship is of very poor bridge design and it wouldnt help you as an excuse if you ran someone down. If you cant see with deck lights ion they should be turned off - someone's life is more important than your production costs.

 

[charles_reed]

Couldn't agree more with your conclusions.

However Mk I eyeball is of little use in poor vis - own radar is essential.

 

[capnsensible]

You should send your comments directly to the company. I am sure they will act on your advice with immediate effect.

 

[Impaler]

We are a properly DNV certified tanker for oil with DP class1 so all the boxes are ticked. Our bridge is well forward, 29.7 metres from the bow to be precise! Production costs don't count as when we are under way we are disconnected from the oil field. Deck lighting is mandatory for the safety of on shift crew and it is recommended under our ISPS regs that we should be lit up to deter pirates.
All that aside I thought I'd try to make the point that if you see a ship at night don't ever assume he can see you. Mind you I dread to think how many poor fishermen get run down out here without trace.

 

[Dyflin]

Pretty disturbing reading your conclusions. The bridge is very poorly designed and operated if the lights from instruments are causing disturbance to the OOW and look out to loose the ability to carry out their job to a satisfactory level.

Regarding the deck lights, it's clearly comes under the colregs;
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(iv) At night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that it seems that big ships at night no matter how well equipped and manned are pretty well flying blind as far as small boats are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

The is manifestly not true, I have picked up nav lights long before they have become visible targets on the radar. The only time I ever got a real shock is when a yacht emerged from a line squall and was completely obliterated both on the radar screen and through the binoculars due to the torrential rain.

As someone who has stood watch on ships off all shapes and sizes, the reasons you gave about the particular ship you work on are very troubling indeed and I am relieved she spends most of her time made fast!

 

[Seagreen]

My conclusions, when sailing with an old Merch. Navy mate, were that no matter how good the lights on a yacht, they would no be seen due to background bridge lighting just as you describe. Anti collision white flares are a bit last ditch, so we've used a powerful spotlight - the handheld 3 million candela variety- to flash "U - you are standing into danger" directly at the bridge of any encroaching vessel. Repeating this early has always been very effective.

I've never found Radar on yachts to be that effective but I think that passive AIS really helps smaller yachts. When they become more affordable I may well get an AIS transponder if I do more cross-channel cruising next year.

 

[mithril]

[ QUOTE ]
someone's life is more important than your production costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly not true. Nowadays lives have a financial value, values differ as to where the life is; motorways, kerb, supermarket etc but all are valued by actuaries (I think). So in a given situation a business says "which costs me most, that persons life or my lost production" most times the life is of lower value.
Regarding the first post; its good to hear of the true situaton on a big shps bridge. Thanks for that.

 

[MarkJohnson12345]

It is frightening isn't it.

But just confirms that us little boats have to keep a good look-out and keep out of the way.

In the Bristol Channel we only get low volumes of big shipping, so little problem.

Off Brittany, the traffic is much larger, and you just have to keep your eyes open.These big ships are constrianed by their size and manouverablility, never mind forward vision at night.

Its not a 'safe' envuirroment. But risks can be mitigated.

Just my 2p worth

 

[Cornishman]

[ QUOTE ]
sailing at night in shipping lanes

[/ QUOTE ]

Vessels of less than 20 metres or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power driven vessel following a traffic lane (Rule 10 (j))

So don't worry, we won't ram you if you are in a traffic lane within a designated traffic separation scheme!

 

[SirSnoozalot]

Manouverability is an issue, too.

Even as the give way vessel, it's quite astounding how some small vessels think you can turn on a sixpence in order to avoid.

 

[rogerdog]

Agree - when I have been on the bridge of the support ship(a good few years ago when I worked on oil rigs) the lack of visibility and the difficulty of spotting anyting is quite frightening to think about.

Now the way at it look at it is ... I'm a few tons -they're 20,000 tons(or whatever) they hit me - I may put a small mark on their paint . they will utterly annihilate me. Focuses the mind when keeping a lookout is getting cold, wet and boring !

 

[Danny Jo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never found Radar on yachts to be that effective but I think that passive AIS really helps smaller yachts. When they become more affordable I may well get an AIS transponder if I do more cross-channel cruising next year.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. Radar tells me no more than I am on or near the path of a ship if it chooses to maintain its course and speed, doesn't really help me choose what avoiding action to take, if any, and scares the s**t out of me. A cheap and cheerful AIS receiver allows me to determine sooner and with greater certainty a ship's heading, speed, and changes in heading and speed. But best of all, it tells me the ship's name, so I can call her on Ch16 to check that she's seen me.

On passage from Puffin Sound, Anglesey, to Campbelltown, Argyll, earlier this year I was approaching Chicken Rock off the Isle of Man about an hour before dawn. I was close hauled on port tack, just making, with the help of the engine, enough westing to clear Chicken Rock by 3 miles. The area seemed to be alive with fishing vessels and ferries. A ship ahead was showing me a red light, but changing bearings indicated that it would pass well ahead. Looking again a few minutes later, the ship was showing a red and green side by side. "Bl**dy hell, she's coming right at me!" I dash below and the AIS tells me that she is still 4 miles off and that her heading is changing rapidly, altering course to round chicken rock and head up the Southeast coast of IoM. No problem from that one, but another ferry coming up behind on my starboard quarter, also 4 miles off, appears to be crossing my intended track. She is more than 22.5 degrees abaft my beam and my radar transponder is switched on, but I am far from sure that (a) she has seen me and (b) she regards me as the stand on vessel, so I call her up. "Ocean Thunderer, this is Yacht Freestyle, three and a half miles on your port bow." On this occasion I found the reply a little unhelpful, if not actually defensive: "You are three and a half miles on my port bow - so what's your problem?". Did he mean (a) that he had me on his radar and that his course would take him clear of me, or (b) that he expected me to take action as the give way vessel? Okay, I was nonplussed, but also greatly reassured that he was aware of my existence. (So I said that I wanted to ensure that I did not interfere with his passage and he told me his plans.)

I have since learned the correct protocol for this exchange. It takes this general form: "M.V. Giveway, this is M.V. Standon. I am 4 miles off your starboard bow. Are you happy with my course?" (Translated into plain English, this reads: I am not happy with your course. You don't appear to be taking adequate steps to avoid me. What the dickens are you up to?) "M.V. Standon, this is M.V. Giveway. Affirmative. I am about to alter course to pass astern of you." (Translated into plain English: Oops, sorry.)

 

[machurley22]

[ QUOTE ]
"M.V. Giveway, this is M.V. Standon. I am 4 miles off your starboard bow. Are you happy with my course?"

[/ QUOTE ]
That's very good. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[EdWingfield]

You are expecting a lot if you want the officer of the watch to take avoiding action at 4M. He knows that sail boats have fluctuating speeds. He might be best to wait until the distance closes before making a change of course decision.

 

[BrianH]

My own experience this year in the Adriatic faced with my AIS receiver showing a 33 knot ferry headed intermittently (the course was wavering) straight for me and only 1nm away:

"Cris M, Cris M, Cris M, this is Curlew, Curlew, Curlew. I am the sailing yacht one mile ahead and fine under your starboard bow. Can you confirm you will be altering course to avoid me? Over."

The only response was an instant change of course to starboard by the ferry but nothing on channel 16 - nor to my subsequent transmission acknowledging the change and now safe course that would clear me.

 

[2nd_apprentice]

Find all this slightly worrying. AIS seems like a nice thing but could trick you. The cheap sets only receive on one frequency so you won't see 50% of the transmissions. How bloody useful!
So called "multiplex" receivers alternate between 161.975 MHz and 162.025MHz which sounds much better. They switch over every 6 minutes. In this time PoB will have sailed 2nm.
Naturally the "parallel receivers" are the most expensive but probably the only ones worth bothering.
Sure, better than nothing and certainly a nice aid to safe navigation but could trick you into a false sense of security.

 

[Woodentop]

[ QUOTE ]
........... breaking waves made it very difficult to seperate white sails from white water. And as you say, radar was unreliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The AWB/WPS (Average White Boat/White Plastic Sloop) is built with "stealth technology" or curbed plastic surfaces.

Then it is coloured so as to be invisible in anything above a breeze.

I saw a yacht where the top third of the mainsail and mast were florescent orange - thought it was rather a good idea.

(and I also accept that anything that enhances the radar target is also a good idea)

 

[BrianH]

[ QUOTE ]
The cheap sets only receive on one frequency so you won't see 50% of the transmissions. How bloody useful!
[ .......]
Naturally the "parallel receivers" are the most expensive but probably the only ones worth bothering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the cheaper engines are both channels but not simultaneous, they alternate between the two.

Manufacturers are cagey about admitting that their dual channel units are not simultaneous receivers and I suspect that my San Jose Navigation AIS-2 receiver is not, although I have seen both Channel A and Channel B LEDs blink on together sometimes.

With reference to the alternate channel reception, I would be interested to learn which AIS receivers "switch over every 6 minutes" as I was under the impression that channel switching was driven by signal strength - but, as above, manufacturers don't always divulge a full specification data sheet.

 

[BrianH]

I really have to do some research on this subject. I now see I had a basic misconception regarding the two channels - both do carry separate data - I did not know that.

So the important point of a non-simultaneous (parallel) receiver is the switching frequency and if the positional data is contained in both channels, because the software will need that for threat display.

If it is indeed 6 minutes and positional data and speed is in only one frequency transmission then you are right to question the usefulness of such a receiver.

However, I have a fairly inexpensive unit and my reports seem comprehensive and timely - other than static data that can take time to appear, but that is due to those telegrams not being sent as frequently as the dynamic data.