Do you ever display a motoring cone?

[Robin]

I was motorsailing in the USA displaying a cone.
To my astonishment, the Coastguard came alongside to ask what it was for.

That figures

 

[Cruiser2B]

I shall just edit down your very useful quotation a little:

(g) An inconspicuous, partly submerged vessel or object, or combination of such vessels or objects being towed, shall exhibit:

(iv) a diamond shape at or near the aftermost extremity of the last vessel or object being towed and if the length of the tow exceeds 200 metres an additional diamond shape where it can best be seen and located as far forward as is practicable.​

Over to you.

24(e) would apply to most dinghies, unless you like to punt ashore on a log-boom or dracone.

 

[Uricanejack]

I'm a little confused by your assertion that as you are less than 20 metres you are not supposed to impede any large vessels. In open waters and when not in a TSS that isn't true... My limited experience tells me most every ship try's very hard to comply with IRPCS. Just because it's 'unfashionable' to use a cone when motor sailing, or the fact that you say you haven't seen one, doesn't make failing to comply right. I admit that I've been too lazy to get the thing out on short passages sometimes. However if were motoring across the channel in winds too light to sail in but with the mainsail up to reduce rolling, out comes the cone. IMHO it's a seamanlike thing to do.



But there have been countless times when a power driven vessel has taken action to avoid a 'sailing yacht' only to discover to their annoyance that the yacht wasn't sailing at all. Why shouldn't we encourage sailors to avoid ambiguity and comply with IRPCS.

I'm not going to die in a ditch over this matter, but I am flabbergasted by some of the attempts by some to justify not complying when appropriate.

If you use a cone, good for you it is good seamanship, I just disagree with it being poor seamanship under some circumstances not to.
Though I would agree. Motor Sailing without a cone is ambiguous to the observer on another vessel and not the best practice of seamanship.

The only reason I specified. The VLCC was its earlier mention which referred to the TSS off the Casquetts. which is why I mentioned the TSS.
To all intense and purpose the entire Channel is a TSS so any cross channel encounter would be a TSS or extension of a TSS.

I agree about open water. My opinion is ships in open water manoeuvre for collision avoidance at ranges where shapes are to small to be a factor.

In practical terms I believe a cone is more important to smaller vessels who typically leave collision avoidance to much shorter ranges. Where it could be seen if hoisted.

In a later reply you refer to common sense regarding towing a dingy.
I'm just suggesting common sense applies to the rules about cones.

If you have a sail up with anything more than the lightest airs proceeding in a direction which could be confused with anything from close hauled through any reach to a run. Drop the sail or hoist a cone.

As for annoyance. I’ve encountered far to many motoring sail boats to count or let it annoy me. I just avoid them. Carry on until I meet the next, which will be along soon.

 

[john_morris_uk]

If you use a cone, good for you it is good seamanship, I just disagree with it being poor seamanship under some circumstances not to.
Though I would agree. Motor Sailing without a cone is ambiguous to the observer on another vessel and not the best practice of seamanship.

The only reason I specified. The VLCC was its earlier mention which referred to the TSS off the Casquetts. which is why I mentioned the TSS.
To all intense and purpose the entire Channel is a TSS so any cross channel encounter would be a TSS or extension of a TSS.

I agree about open water. My opinion is ships in open water manoeuvre for collision avoidance at ranges where shapes are to small to be a factor.

In practical terms I believe a cone is more important to smaller vessels who typically leave collision avoidance to much shorter ranges. Where it could be seen if hoisted.

In a later reply you refer to common sense regarding towing a dingy.
I'm just suggesting common sense applies to the rules about cones.

If you have a sail up with anything more than the lightest airs proceeding in a direction which could be confused with anything from close hauled through any reach to a run. Drop the sail or hoist a cone.

As for annoyance. I’ve encountered far to many motoring sail boats to count or let it annoy me. I just avoid them. Carry on until I meet the next, which will be along soon.

I am in almost 100% agreement with all you say.

The only part I would have issue with is the implication of suggesting the whole English channel is 'effectively a TSS or an extension of a TSS; open water is either TSS or it isn't. Common sense and experience tells us that ships make a bee line from the exit of one TSS to the start of the next, but different rules apply and my exierience is that they invariably comply with IRPCS and give way appropriately. I agree that they often alter at distances which would make seeing a cone unlikely but I'm very uneasy about not bothering to put it up.

I remain extremely uneasy about the many and various people who seem to be proud of the fact that they believe bits of IRPCS don't apply to them.

 

[JumbleDuck]

24(e) would apply to most dinghies, unless you like to punt ashore on a log-boom or dracone.

I quite agree. Which is why I am also interested to know how many yachties obey the IRPCS requirements for lighting of conspicuous tows.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I quite agree. Which is why I am also interested to know how many yachties obey the IRPCS requirements for lighting of conspicuous tows.

I have seen towed tenders that were lit, but I'm sure they're a minority. You'll have no argument from me that few if any yachts comply with the lighting requirements for towing. Given the typical length of such tows, it is highly unlikely that any other vessel crossing the stern of the towing vessel would pass so close as to risk collision with the dinghy. Not excusing this non-compliance, but it's clearly not in the same league as not showing the motoring cone - an act that demonstrably inconveniences other sailors, and has the potential to cause a collision.
I take it you concede the point that a diamond is not required on a towed dinghy, unless the tow is >200m?

 

[JumbleDuck]

I take it you concede the point that a diamond is not required on a towed dinghy, unless the tow is >200m?

I was rather waiting for you to concede that it's needed if the dinghy is inconspicuous, as I originally wrote. Of course we can then go on to discuss what dinghies are inconspicuous: my 7'6" white GRP one isn't, but a black inflatable might be.

 

[johnalison]

I tend to take the view that if someone sees me going at six knots to windward in five knots of wind without even my jib up and still can't work out that I am motoring, then my carrying a cone is not going to improve my safety or his convenience to any significant extent.

Yes, I do carry a cone. They are an excellent way of avoiding getting fined when abroad.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I tend to take the view that if someone sees me going at six knots to windward in five knots of wind without even my jib up and still can't work out that I am motoring, then my carrying a cone is not going to improve my safety or his convenience to any significant extent.

Yes, I do carry a cone. They are an excellent way of avoiding getting fined when abroad.

Have you been on the bridge of a ship in the warm and dry?

The bridge watch keeper can be completely immune to the sense of wind etc outside. I expect that some will still argue that he/she ought to know what is going on and ought to be able to work out that a yacht isn't actually sailing, but as I have said before, you are asking a lot of the watch keeper. I don't believe that many if any ships steaming along at 20 knots have the ability to give a reading of 'true wind'. A lot of the time they are making their own wind and you are optimistic indeed if you think that the watch keeper can tell that you 'can't be sailing.'

 

[Cruiser2B]

I was rather waiting for you to concede that it's needed if the dinghy is inconspicuous, as I originally wrote. Of course we can then go on to discuss what dinghies are inconspicuous: my 7'6" white GRP one isn't, but a black inflatable might be.

You're joking?!?!

Paragraph (g) provides for lighting "inconspicuous, partly submerged" vessels or objects that, by their every nature, cannot be provided with conventional sidelights and sternlights. This "vessel" class includes dracones, which are large flexible bags used for transporting liquids

. http://navruleshandbook.com/Rule24.html

From Cockcroft:

Dumb barges and other unmanned vessels or objects being towed must be fitted with the prescribed lights and/or shapes so far as practicable.
Due to the increasing number of tows which consist of inconspicuous or partly submerged objects, a new paragraph (g) has been added, by the amendments of 1981, to improve the provisions for the lighting of such vessels or objects. This new paragraph will apply to flexible oil barges, known as dracones, and to timber floats but may also have application to other vessels or objects being towed.

They're are plenty of nav-light options available for dinghies of all types. 'Inconspicuous, partly submerged' clearly applies to objects that that are basically awash and can't be lit as per rule 24(e), such as dracones and log booms. It's a ludicrous stretch to suggest an inflatable would be "inconspicuous" due to its colour.

 

[JumbleDuck]

From Cockcroft:

Dumb barges and other unmanned vessels or objects being towed must be fitted with the prescribed lights and/or shapes so far as practicable.
Due to the increasing number of tows which consist of inconspicuous or partly submerged objects, a new paragraph (g) has been added, by the amendments of 1981, to improve the provisions for the lighting of such vessels or objects. This new paragraph will apply to flexible oil barges, known as dracones, and to timber floats but may also have application to other vessels or objects being towed.

They're are plenty of nav-light options available for dinghies of all types. 'Inconspicuous, partly submerged' clearly applies to objects that that are basically awash and can't be lit as per rule 24(e), such as dracones and log booms.

Note the highlighted sections in the authority you quoted ...

It's a ludicrous stretch to suggest an inflatable would be "inconspicuous" due to its colour.

Perhaps. But you concede that you were quite wrong to suggest that daymarks only apply to tows over 200m long?

 

[johnalison]

Have you been on the bridge of a ship in the warm and dry?

No, and if I weren't tying to wind people up I would have to admit that I often display a cone in open water. Nevertheless, the sea state would indicate to anyone fit to be in charge of a vessel that there was next to no wind, and as I suggested, yachts don't habitually do a passage while jibless.

 

[capnsensible]

, and as I suggested, yachts don't habitually do a passage while jibless.

Not done many deliveries then!

 

[johnalison]

Not done many deliveries then!

I ran out of ink. I meant jibless under sail. Or is that what delivery crews do to slow down and earn more money?

 

[Uricanejack]

I am in almost 100% agreement with all you say.

The only part I would have issue with is the implication of suggesting the whole English channel is 'effectively a TSS or an extension of a TSS; open water is either TSS or it isn't. Common sense and experience tells us that ships make a bee line from the exit of one TSS to the start of the next, but different rules apply and my exierience is that they invariably comply with IRPCS and give way appropriately. I agree that they often alter at distances which would make seeing a cone unlikely but I'm very uneasy about not bothering to put it up.

I remain extremely uneasy about the many and various people who seem to be proud of the fact that they believe bits of IRPCS don't apply to them.

No you are correct. No point in starting an argument about where the channel starts or ends. Particularly since I've not been there in decades. Rule 10 only applies in a TSS and only those which have been adopted.
How ever, Common sense still applies. If I know the Large commercial vessels are going from one TSS to the next still virtually in "lanes". I choose not to impede. Yet no one could say I was wrong to stand on. The rules are not absolute they provide a guide to help make sense of things. They are simple when there are just two vessels in open water.
Throw in a few more it gets less certain

 

[capnsensible]

I ran out of ink. I meant jibless under sail. Or is that what delivery crews do to slow down and earn more money?

Noo, delivery crews crank the engine into 'Italian Decoke' setting so they can get on to the next one.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Note the highlighted sections in the authority you quoted ...

Does your highlight have a point? The rule was designed with dracones etc. in mind, but obviously they want it to apply with other objects/vessels of similar characteristics - for instance, a salvage tug towing a capsized vessel.

Perhaps. But you concede that you were quite wrong to suggest that daymarks only apply to tows over 200m long?

Well the discussion was about towing dinghies, but you are correct - I did not explicitly point out that the 200m caveat does not apply in a completely unrelated circumstance. Happy?

 

[Walther]

The only day shapes I have ever seen are on fishing boats - usually steel and permanently welded on. So they are still claiming to be trawling when steaming full speed into harbour.
Hence not convinced these add any value

+1.

 

[jeremyparker01]

If I see one I take a photo for use in classes. They are virtually never used, therefore they are pointless. Don't bother.

For me the indicator is usually the foresail. Even if the motor is on, and they have a jib, genny etc up I will treat them as a boat sailing.
If it's main only and obviously under motor assistance, I treat them as a mobo.

Oh and of course you can pick holes in the above, so don't bother telling me you had you main up only when you engine failed in a force 6 and blah blah. Common sense is added too, which should be the first rule in the colregs!

Common sense is the second rule in ColRegs:
RULE 2
Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel ... [for] the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen ...

 

[Halcyon Yachts]

Noo, delivery crews crank the engine into 'Italian Decoke' setting so they can get on to the next one.

Slightly off topic, but the idea that a delivery crew will just motor at high revs is in my experience very inaccurate.

When at high revs your fuel range is significantly reduced. The process of stopping for fuel can take a very long time.... I have wasted more time on deliveries waiting for the fuel dock to open, or hitchhiking to the nearest petrol station because the marina staff are on a long weekend off, or waiting for the fuel truck to turn up, or discovering that credit cards aren't accepted and the nearest cash machine is 40 miles away etc.. etc..

A good delivery skipper will be excellent at conserving fuel, therefore maximising the range and minimising the number of stops.

Pete