COLREG Survey - Familiarity with sailboat day signals

[srm]

Orange shapes might be more visible but I suppose the reason it is black is because in the days when the ColRegs were first compiled, orange paint would not have been readily available whereas black paint or tar would have had its place in any boatswain's locker.

Sorry, but no. In the current ColRegs (which date from 1972, plus later amendments) all day shapes are black, presumably so they appear as silhouettes. However, the previous set of rules had coloured day shapes. One of my first jobs on joining a seismic ship as a student about '69, or '70. was to repaint the RAM shapes: the colours matched the lights, red, white, red.

 

[Poignard]

Sorry, but no. In the current ColRegs (which date from 1972, plus later amendments) all day shapes are black, presumably so they appear as silhouettes. However, the previous set of rules had coloured day shapes. One of my first jobs on joining a seismic ship as a student about '69, or '70. was to repaint the RAM shapes: the colours matched the lights, red, white, red.

Well there you are Capt Popeye, there's your answer.

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

I can see some logic in the requirement for a motoring cone in some conditions, and I can see lots of sense in using an anchor light, but unless I happen to be anchored in a fairway, the need for an anchor ball escapes me.
If someone entering an anchorage can't see that I'm at anchor, then the chances are that he won't be able to see an anchor ball either.

If you hoist a cone you are giving away your status as the stand on vessel. I can't think of any situation where this would help. Wouldn't it be easier and clearer to all other vessels to simply tack if you wanted to achieve this?

 

[Capt Popeye]

IRPCS : International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea or, less formally, the ColRegs.

Orange shapes might be more visible but I suppose the reason it is black is because in the days when the ColRegs were first compiled, orange paint would not have been readily available whereas black paint or tar would have had its place in any boatswain's locker.

Hi yes thats my thoughts on the Black in Colour ; blimey suppose that Burning a Tar barrel was in vouge then ? perhaps we could stsrt a post on whether Barells of Tar are normally carried on board vessels
Yes I am aware of the ColRegs infomation , but not as IRPCS though L I am Home Waters Skipper though , 'going foreign' has little attractions for me (to bloody old now?)

Just to clarify the Regulations , as I understand them , in Harbour Authority waters their regulation trump the ColRegs {#


Thank you Skipper P

 

[Capt Popeye]

Well there you are Capt Popeye, there's your answer.

Yes thank you Skipper P , much appreciated by self

Suppose though , what colour did (does) the burning Barrel of Tar make then ?

 

[Poignard]

...

 

[Neeves]

Where did you get the idea that we are collecting your e-mail address? No one is asking for your e-mail address. You are not required to log in anywhere. Survey is completely anonymous. Anonymous means that the author or origin is unknown to us. We have no idea who gave what answer.

On the survey I looked at it gave my email address as part of the form and specified which of my 2 email addresses I was using to reply, had I done so. The address appears only and exclusively on your questionnaire - on no other reply I make on YBW and I thus assumed it was part of your form.

No matter - I don't understand why you are unable to divulge what you represent - given the topic there seems no need for secrecy. The absence of transparency is 'odd'. I have no intention of being rude - unless querying who you represent is considered rude - in which case I am guilty.

But I will ask again - who do you represent? and if you can confirm possibly you could justify your desire for anonymity at the same time. Frankly I do not find it 'rude' to ask nor wonder why anyone should be upset.

Jonathan

My email address appears immediately after this introduction and immediately followed by the word 'required' (in red)

Research on the familiarity and use of day signals on sailing vessels
Please take a minute to complete a questionnaire that aims to test your knowledge of Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea regarding the use of day signals on sailing vessels.

The Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea These Rules are adopted in order to maintain adequate level of safety of navigation at sea and they show that the day shapes required by these Rules are the integral part of sailing rules, and seafarers should always obey them during their stay at sea.

The research is conducted anonymously, and we would ask you to answer the questions honestly. It will only take you a few minutes to fill out the questionnaire. We sincerely thank you for your participation and time.

So - email address here XXXXXXX - yes it does state the email address will not be divulged (but does not explain why it is automatically on the questionnaire.). It also states I can switch email addresses.

and followed by 'required', in red

Don't blame me for being puzzled and asking for your identity.

 

[NormanS]

Like Jonathan, I was astonished that my email address appeared on the questionnaire. Particularly as the address was one that I have never given or used on this site. Indeed this particular address was only set up a couple of weeks ago for one exclusive purpose, and has not been used for anything else. I am concerned about how it came here.
I declined to complete the survey.

 

[Poignard]

...

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Like Jonathan, I was astonished that my email address appeared on the questionnaire. Particularly as the address was one that I have never given or used on this site. Indeed this particular address was only set up a couple of weeks ago for one exclusive purpose, and has not been used for anything else. I am concerned about how it came here.
I declined to complete the survey.

Google Forms, which the survey is formatted in, will detect you from the data used to access the form when you click on the link. It then places your google email address into the form. If you have multiple google emails it asks which one you want to use. If you have set up an account in google you can also link non gmail emails to the Google account, which is why none gmail emails will show.
While you may be astonished, you should not be, as your whole on line presence is monitored extensively to make your experience (whether you want to or not) more efficient for whatever reason, marketing, cross platform access purposes. Don't have a google account, you may have used a google account for buying stuff on line at some point and used an email address there, hence it is now linked with IP addresses, this place, that place, lots of place. This type of monitoring is compliant with privacy rules because no one else sees you, it is only for joining up the digital dots.

 

[Poignard]

That sounds alarming to a layman like me and I'm not sure I really understand it but if this survey is bogus, what has been achieved?

Is matching an email address to a username on a moribund yachting forum going to yield anything of much use to anyone?

 

[ylop]

Some time ago, I worked out the visibility of day signals. Basically, a day signal of a size that most yachts can carry is not distinguishable at any meaningful distance. Further, it will be obscured by the mast or rigging over a small but not insignificant part of the circle.

"The human eye has an angular resolution of about 1 arcminute (0.02 degrees or 0.0003 radians) which enables us to distinguish things that are 30 centimetres apart at a distance of 1 kilometre."

That's distinguishing two adjacent points, not distinguishing shape. I doubt very much that the shape of a typical day shape can be distinguished at distances much over 500m, PROVIDED it isn't obscured by the mast or the shape distorted by (say) a furled jib. I am ignoring the use of binoculars, because a vessel is unlikely to be examined with binoculars unless it has already attracted the attention of a watch keeper.

In terms of our interaction with commercial vessels, day shapes aren't distinguishable at long enough distances to be useful; a ship that's within a kilometre of me is already committed to its track, and can't react to whatever day shape I'm exhibiting. Others have reported that if they are aware of a ship altering course for them, it is at a distance of several nautical miles. In terms of our interactions with each other, we can under almost all circumstances successfully predict each other's movements without needing to know the information given by day shapes.

The presence or absence of sails is a far better indicator!

I’m not sure your logic is correct. Perhaps it works for a static image but not a moving object or something - but I frequently see boats displaying motoring cones (mostly training boats!) and they are visible at >500m with the naked eye.

I also think it’s wrong to assume watchkeepers don’t use binoculars. The purpose of the cone is not to grab attention, but once a watchkeeper notices you he can decide if you are motoring or not. Bins might be a good idea for that. I think there seems to be a weird, and flawed assumption that if you are sailing under mainsail alone people should assume you are motoring. This assumes the watch keeper knows anything about sailing, but also seems naive that legitimate use of main alone is never likely - when other vessels might then expect me to give way if they assume you are motoring.

Where did you get the idea that we are collecting your e-mail address? No one is asking for your e-mail address. You are not required to log in anywhere. Survey is completely anonymous. Anonymous means that the author or origin is unknown to us. We have no idea who gave what answer.

well they would get that idea from the survey which lists your google email address. Whilst I appreciate English may not be your first language - your priorities should be to make sure you know how the technology you are using works and make your target users happy with that. Your response comes across as hostile. I do think it is entirely reasonable for people to expect you to disclose details of your organisation, and the officers within that organisation we can turn to if we

If you hoist a cone you are giving away your status as the stand on vessel. I can't think of any situation where this would help. Wouldn't it be easier and clearer to all other vessels to simply tack if you wanted to achieve this?

I’m not sure tacking identifies you as a stand on vessel. You may just look like a yacht who is sailing! In situations where motoring comes are likely to be useful you may well be changing course from risk of collision with ship A and as a result now being on a course with powerboat B. Does B need to think about getting out your way or can he expect you to make another course adjustment in a few minutes when clear of A.

I’m not saying a always use a motor cone, but I think it is helpful to others to make clear you are the stand on vessel and you know it.

Google Forms, which the survey is formatted in, will detect you from the data used to access the form when you click on the link. It then places your google email address into the form. If you have multiple google emails it asks which one you want to use. If you have set up an account in google you can also link non gmail emails to the Google account, which is why none gmail emails will show.
While you may be astonished, you should not be, as your whole on line presence is monitored extensively to make your experience (whether you want to or not) more efficient for whatever reason, marketing, cross platform access purposes. Don't have a google account, you may have used a google account for buying stuff on line at some point and used an email address there, hence it is now linked with IP addresses, this place, that place, lots of place. This type of monitoring is compliant with privacy rules because no one else sees you, it is only for joining up the digital dots.

The astonishing thing is not the survey respondent being unaware of this - it is the surveyor who has the legal responsibility for the user’s data seemingly not knowing.

 

[dunedin]

Google Forms, which the survey is formatted in, will detect you from the data used to access the form when you click on the link. It then places your google email address into the form. If you have multiple google emails it asks which one you want to use. If you have set up an account in google you can also link non gmail emails to the Google account, which is why none gmail emails will show.
While you may be astonished, you should not be, as your whole on line presence is monitored extensively to make your experience (whether you want to or not) more efficient for whatever reason, marketing, cross platform access purposes. Don't have a google account, you may have used a google account for buying stuff on line at some point and used an email address there, hence it is now linked with IP addresses, this place, that place, lots of place. This type of monitoring is compliant with privacy rules because no one else sees you, it is only for joining up the digital dots.

Yes it does seem to be a Google Forms thing with it picking up the email address used on your device to login to Google.
In my case it says "Not Shared" beside the email address.

When creating a different Google Forms survey I had the option of collecting email addresses or not collecting the email addresses. I chose not to collect the email addresses.

I don't know which option the originator of the survey used. Presumably Google Forms should warn if collecting such addresses. is there anybody who has used Forms surveys more who could confirm precisely how these options work, and how the submitter is advised (and hopefully asked for consent)?

 

[Neeves]

That sounds alarming to a layman like me and I'm not sure I really understand it but if this survey is bogus, what has been achieved?

Is matching an email address to a username on a moribund yachting forum going to yield anything of much use to anyone?

There is no suggestion the initiator of the survey is bogus.

So the survey catches all our email addresses but the identity of the initiator of the survey is 'anonymous'.

This forum is established to help each other, you scratch my back and if I have the skills I'll scratch yours. Some people give much more than others - and commonly they are knowledgable and altruistic. In general the forum frowns on people using the forum to enhance their commercial activities in the 'real' world. A maritime survey, like the one on orca attacks, could be interesting - anyone who is interested can simply keep in touch with the initiators of the survey. Here the survey offers nothing in return as we have no idea who is behind the survey. Comment has been passed on the 'quality' of the survey suggesting it is not conducted by a professional survey organisation (which might suggest a school, college, university project (and all power to them - but why not be transparent).

I find it 'interesting' that though I have 'rudely' asked for the identity of the initiating organisation this has so far been declined.

I do wonder why it is a secret. I'm not suggesting, I have no reason to, that the motives are not honest - I just happen to like transparency. I actively encourage the sharing of knowledge (I have this little catch phrase - 'knowledge is on no value unless shared' - but I dislike opacity - and sorry if this is deemed rude.


It seems I am not alone in querying......or being 'rude'

I confess that I had never associated 'rudeness' with a request for transparency

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Yes it does seem to be a Google Forms thing with it picking up the email address used on your device to login to Google.
In my case it says "Not Shared" beside the email address.

Well that seems to stretch honesty just a little bit - why collect it if not shared. It may not be shared with the initiator of the survey but I am fairly confident it drops in to a nice big data base - and is shared.

Jonathan

 

[Sandy]

This has me thinking. I often see sailing schools in the summer with a rib towing a 'snake' of small dinghies carrying even smaller children. Never seen any day signals displayed.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

This thread has me thinking.
Fishing vessels often have their day signal permanently mounted. But they are frequently transiting to and from their fishing ground at which point they are not engaged in fishing.
I often have to use my binoculars to look for evidence of fishing (lines out) but it's only when close that the truth is revealed and as such I'm rather cautious unless it's very obvious that they are in transit.
This is the same quandary as not flying a motoring cone and as such I think I'm going to switch to using one rather than thinking "it's obvious I'm motoring". As far as expense, it's pennies in the big picture of sailing costs and as for the practicalities of hoisting and dropping it's no more arduous than putting the fenders out so I will add it to that same routine.

 

[Poignard]

There is no suggestion the initiator of the survey is bogus.

So the survey catches all our email addresses but the identity of the initiator of the survey is 'anonymous'.

This forum is established to help each other, you scratch my back and if I have the skills I'll scratch yours. Some people give much more than others - and commonly they are knowledgable and altruistic. In general the forum frowns on people using the forum to enhance their commercial activities in the 'real' world. A maritime survey, like the one on orca attacks, could be interesting - anyone who is interested can simply keep in touch with the initiators of the survey. Here the survey offers nothing in return as we have no idea who is behind the survey. Comment has been passed on the 'quality' of the survey suggesting it is not conducted by a professional survey organisation (which might suggest a school, college, university project (and all power to them - but why not be transparent).

I find it 'interesting' that though I have 'rudely' asked for the identity of the initiating organisation this has so far been declined.

I do wonder why it is a secret. I'm not suggesting, I have no reason to, that the motives are not honest - I just happen to like transparency. I actively encourage the sharing of knowledge (I have this little catch phrase - 'knowledge is on no value unless shared' - but I dislike opacity - and sorry if this is deemed rude.


It seems I am not alone in querying......or being 'rude'

I confess that I had never associated 'rudeness' with a request for transparency

Jonathan

In his post (#9) the moderator, John Morris, wrote:

“As the one who approved this enquiry...” ​

Based on that official approval, it was reasonable for me, and others, to assume that the survey was a perfectly legitimate attempt gather information about a topic many of us have an interest in and an opinion about.

Then people began to criticise, in an offensive way, the wording of the survey and the OP’s command of English.

That is the rudeness I objected to, not the perfectly reasonable request for more information about the organisation; something I also asked the OP for.

 

[Capt Popeye]

In his post (#9) the moderator, John Morris, wrote:

“As the one who approved this enquiry...” ​

Based on that official approval, it was reasonable for me, and others, to assume that the survey was a perfectly legitimate attempt gather information about a topic many of us have an interest in and an opinion about.

Then people began to criticise, in an offensive way, the wording of the survey and the OP’s command of English.

That is the rudeness I objected to, not the perfectly reasonable request for more information about the organisation; something I also asked the OP for.

Might suggest that perhaps we should ask John Morris whats what about in this tread ; suppose if its legit it has been tested and found to be OK , but it would , perhaps just show up what tests the Publishers do apply to requests of this sort ?

Just suggesting , like !

 

[Poignard]

Might suggest that perhaps we should ask John Morris whats what about in this tread ; suppose if its legit it has been tested and found to be OK , but it would , perhaps just show up what tests the Publishers do apply to requests of this sort ?

Just suggesting , like !

You have my permission to ask.