Do you ignore col regs

[VO5]

Do what you like. I've given up caring. The law is perfectly clear.
Every professional on the water knows it, and all but a miniscule minority abide by it.

BTW: Threads like this play right into the hands of those who want to see compulsory training, licensing, and registration imposed on us. I'm beginning to think they have a point, after all.

And I have read all your posts here and I agree with you.

And I further agree with your BTW afterthought. All of them are just asking for it.

It would do them a lot of good for them to get a handle on the complexities faced by watchkeepers on big ships by being made to actually spend time on the bridge of a big ship before anything else, and that includes RYA tickets.

The concepts of speed, momentum, stopping distances, advance and transfer from a big ship point of view seem to be strangers to them. Very worrying.

 

[VO5]

Incidentally, before I turn in......I have actually experienced on the bridge of a big ship fully loaded outward bound in the Channel carrying Iron Ore encountering a mobo at night with its nav lights displayed the wrong way round......a green light on its port side and a red on its starboard side...trying to stand on to me...

 

[MapisM]

At 3nm, I doubt that if they alter course, that it will be by more than a degree or two. Plenty enough to ensure they pass confortably in front or behind you. On a small boat you cannot detect this without some fancy electronics. They won't be turning through 30 degrees plus for you.

Agreed. It's TB who envisaged such scenario as realistic.

 

[DAKA]

Tim,

Here you find a bunch of giggly pals delighting in a wind up.

They are just prodding things along to see who will bite.

They are not ashamed, but proud of themselves.

They probably dont even know what the sea looks like.

Ignore the bait.

Interesting contribution to say the least, as there isnt any actual input towards either argument what so ever, I am somewhat perplexed as to your perceived value of it when you typed it

If you dont have anything of value to add perhaps you should read and learn or you just look like another raggie having a rant for the sake of it and weaken any spec of an argument they have left.

Out of interest do you get out on the water very often or at least manage to grab an occasional crewing opportunity because I cant understand why the actions of the overwhelming majority seam so unrealistic to you

its not GC1 is it , if so you got me again

 

[capnsensible]

.

 

[PaulGooch]

But the law never came into it, did it. There was never any risk of collision. The only way a collision could happen, is by blindly carrying straight on. Then we would find out just how fast a ship could turn or stop.

<snip>

Exactly my point Haydn. We make an obvious and early change in course (which we are perfectly entitled to do, big ship around or not) and there never was the potential for a collision, so colregs never came into play, there wasn't a collision to avoid. If we let ourselves get close, then the potential for collision arises and we have to abide by colregs, so everyone knows what to expect from the other party.

By taking early action, we are going nothing more than making a course change.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Of course for us East Coasters we don't get to mix it with the big stuff in open water that often so we are unlikely to experiance the situations discussed on these threads. Mostly shipping is restricted to narrows channels such as the one going into Felixstowe port and where sensible people keep out of thier way.

 

[DAKA]

Of course for us East Coasters we don't get to mix it with the big stuff in open water that often so we are unlikely to experiance the situations discussed on these threads. Mostly shipping is restricted to narrows channels such as the one going into Felixstowe port and where sensible people keep out of thier way.

Me too simon, born and bred Humber.

The solent sailors are not joking , some of them really do take on tankers/ferries and warships, we are not talking about 6-1 nm we are talking about 0-100 meters.

Not many of them of course, as we can see from these threads its just an odd die hard traditionalist .

Here's another snap I took of our hero 'Vela'

'Vela' is a fractional ownership boat , it is safe to assume he is a fully RYA qualified skipper or he wouldnt be allowed to take Vela out unless of course he is under instruction on 'how to stand on in compliance with col regs'.

 

[hlb]

I can sort of understand how colregs work, for a raggie. But for a Mobo doing 20+ knots in a fairly erratic direction, the easy way is to just go round the ship. If it ever changed direction, it would just be a pain in the neck. Not dangerous.

 

[timbartlett]

By taking early action, we are going nothing more than making a course change.

Quite right -- so long as "early action" means before there is a risk of collision. As I have said (many times) before, a legal precedent has established that there can be no risk of collision at a range greater than six miles. That precedent was established just a few years after the stand-on rule was first introduced, and has stood the test of time for over 110 years. That's a fact, not an opinion. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant. Please let's not argue over it.

It is not unreasonable to assume that there is no risk of collision if you have a ship at less than six miles so long as its bearing is perceptibly changing (unless it is one of the "special cases" such as altering course or a long tow). So you don't have to hold your course "just because there's a ship on the horizon", as someone has suggested. But if you have a ship on an apparently steady bearing, then you do have to assume that there is a risk of collision. Again, this is not opinion or "interpretation": it is set out in very plain english in the colregs.

As you seem to have abandoned the idea of conforming to the colregs just because they are law, or because they have stood the test of time, or because, as amateurs, you want to behave in a professional manner, perhaps I can give you a few examples of why it is important. Fortunately, ship/yacht collisions are rare, and neither of the well-documented ones involve Rule 17 (because they happened in fog, where Rule 19 applies).
But:
Whispa/Gas Monarch: ship altered course by 5º, when yacht was at a range of 5.5 miles. Collision would have been averted if yacht had not altered 50º at 3miles
Wakhuna/Nedloyd Vespucci: ship altered course 10º at 4-5 miles for another small craft. It saw Wakhuna on radar at 6 but took no avoiding action because the predicted CPA was 0.8 miles. There would have been no collision if Wahkuna had not slowed down when the range was 1.5-2 miles.

It is interesting to compare these facts (established by the MAIB from evidence such as recorded radar and ships' VDRs and published in their formal reports, available online) with Mapis M's supposition that ships never alter course for small craft.

It is also interesting to apply them to

Out there in the real life situation a 245m tanker cant alter course quick enough to make any significant effect.

If the mobo helms for the tankers starboard quarter there is no danger, if the tanker has altered course to starboard it can either alter back or remain on the new heading,

Let's assume we have a ship steering W at 25 kts and a mobo steering S at 30kts.
Ship alters 10º to starboard at 5 miles, and takes 1 minute to complete the turn.
Range now a little over 4 miles.
The most popular range at which recreational skippers seem to want to alter course is about 3 miles. I'm not sure whether this is regarded as "early" or "late", but there seems to be some consensus about it. So let's assume that at 3 miles the mobo alters course to port by about 50º to "aim for the stern" of the ship. The closing speed is now in the order of 50 knots. Range about 2 miles.

A few seconds later, the CPA and proximity alarms go off on the ships ARPA. Range 1.5 miles. OOW checks, and sees the mobo heading straight towards him. Closing speed 50 knots: range now barely one mile. And the only thing the OOW knows about the mobo is that its skipper has already broken at least one of the colregs.

My gut feeling is that ships are inclined to make smaller alterations of course than they were thirty years ago. Maybe this is because the widespread use of ARPA and AIS means that they now regard 5 or 10 degrees as "large enough to be readily apparent" to another vessel: maybe it really is increasing commercial pressure or declining standards. Or maybe it is because bitter experience has taught them that it is unwise to commit to a large alteration of course for vessels that are likely to behave in an unpredictable manner.

Maybe the increasing use of AIS will put an end to this myth that ships never alter course. But I worry that we are already stuck in a vicious circle that will eventually lead to complete chaos. I think it's time we broke out of it.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Me too simon, born and bred Humber.

The solent sailors are not joking , some of them really do take on tankers/ferries and warships, we are not talking about 6-1 nm we are talking about 0-100 meters.

Not many of them of course, as we can see from these threads its just an odd die hard traditionalist .

I suspect that 'Vela' is a bit further away from the warship than the photo suggests however IMHO it is still too close. We all make mistakes from time to time and hopefully they won't be cutting it so fine in future

However nobody on the other thread is suggesting cutting things that close or trying to assert thier stand on 'rights' on large ships in confined waters.

 

[Robin]

Me too simon, born and bred Humber.

The solent sailors are not joking , some of them really do take on tankers/ferries and warships, we are not talking about 6-1 nm we are talking about 0-100 meters.

Not many of them of course, as we can see from these threads its just an odd die hard traditionalist .

Here's another snap I took of our hero 'Vela'

'Vela' is a fractional ownership boat , it is safe to assume he is a fully RYA qualified skipper or he wouldnt be allowed to take Vela out unless of course he is under instruction on 'how to stand on in compliance with col regs'.

I do hope you are not claiming that picture illustrates someone you think is standing on as per colregs. Nowhere in colregs does it say stand on regardless, quite the reverse in fact.

As for the comment 'Vela' is a fractional ownership boat , it is safe to assume he is a fully RYA qualified skipper or he wouldnt be allowed to take Vela out unless of course he is under instruction on 'how to stand on in compliance with col regs' That is complete and utter nonsense, but then at least in that you are being consistent.

 

[timbartlett]

'Vela' is a fractional ownership boat , it is safe to assume he is a fully RYA qualified skipper or he wouldnt be allowed to take Vela out unless of course he is under instruction on 'how to stand on in compliance with col regs'.

It is not safe to assume that he is fully qualified, nor (even if he is qualified) is it safe to assume that he is acting in accordance with the rules.
Particularly when you yourself have posted photographic evidence to show that he is not acting in accordance with the rules.
He has clearly broken Rule 17b (and possibly others).
But maybe he acquired his knowledge of the colregs from web forums, rather than by reading and absorbing what they actually say.

 

[hlb]

Tim.

I'm no longer going to bother reading anything you write, I know others have given up years ago, but that's mainly about your over the top views of the police etc, so just a personal view.

Your just arguing for the sake of it and now you seem to have come round full circle.

Yes I know its just academic to you. It's the same argument we used to have in school, when we had short pants on.

It's long passed the time you realised, when you come here. Your no longer the head master. Just the little kid at the back of the class. Yep, the one with the runny nose.

 

[westernman]

My gut feeling is that ships are inclined to make smaller alterations of course than they were thirty years ago. Maybe this is because the widespread use of ARPA and AIS means that they now regard 5 or 10 degrees as "large enough to be readily apparent" to another vessel

I think this is the heart of the difficulty. You average small boat cannot detect the course change. The ship regards a few degrees course change at 5nm or more as perfectly adequate to create a course to pass well clear provided that the small boat maintains precisely its course and speed. Your average small boat is not capable of either. At 5nm your average small boat has just started to notice that the ship is there and will not yet have a reliable appreciation of whether they are on a collision course or not.

A sailing boat will meander +-5 degrees and vary speed +- 10% or more in average conditions even under autopilot.

The only close quarters situation I have had recently with a ship, he gave me sound signals so I knew he had seen me, I knew what action he was taking (even though it was invisible to me) and I knew that I could stand on without problem. In this particular case, the bearing was never actually constant - for me it was always clear he was going to pass ahead of me (close, but definitely ahead) - but I think he was a little unhappy that he might be cutting it a bit close.

 

[rubberduck]

I think this is the heart of the difficulty. You average small boat cannot detect the course change. The ship regards a few degrees course change at 5nm or more as perfectly adequate to create a course to pass well clear provided that the small boat maintains precisely its course and speed. Your average small boat is not capable of either. At 5nm your average small boat has just started to notice that the ship is there and will not yet have a reliable appreciation of whether they are on a collision course or not.

A sailing boat will meander +-5 degrees and vary speed +- 10% or more in average conditions even under autopilot.

The only close quarters situation I have had recently with a ship, he gave me sound signals so I knew he had seen me, I knew what action he was taking (even though it was invisible to me) and I knew that I could stand on without problem. In this particular case, the bearing was never actually constant - for me it was always clear he was going to pass ahead of me (close, but definitely ahead) - but I think he was a little unhappy that he might be cutting it a bit close.

In my mobo it would be no problem to skip around behind the ship in these circumstances regardless of what the rules say, just out of common courtesy to the skipper. I often do this on the roads even if it is my right of way, common sense combined with a good knowledge of the rules would seem to be key. Can a yacht skipper not do likewise, I appreciate it may be more involved than pull a lever or two & turn the wheel a bit, but must be possible, albeit at a slower pace. If not perhaps we should ban raggies from the water as they cannot be controlled & are therefore unsafe. Running away now, my 1st troll.

 

[DAKA]

As for the comment 'Vela' is a fractional ownership boat , it is safe to assume he is a fully RYA qualified skipper or he wouldnt be allowed to take Vela out unless of course he is under instruction on 'how to stand on in compliance with col regs' That is complete and utter nonsense, but then at least in that you are being consistent.

I thought you knew me well enough by now to know I dont deliberately make false statements.

After being called a troll previously regarding the frigate I researched and spoke to the owner of Vela (manager of a fractional ownership syndicate).
Vela is based in gosport marina (was at the time).

Vela's Insurance will only allow RYA qualified skippers at the helm.

It is safe to assume that Vela was under control of an RYA qualified skipper or a skipper under RYA instruction at the time the photo was taken.

Other explanations could have included that vela was stolen but you would have thought the fractional manager would have mentioned that when I spoke to him a few days after the incident.

The current thread and the sister thread on scuttleburks was started following the rallying of defence on scuttleburks towards morons who sail into situations such as pictured above.

ANYONE who thinks its acceptable to get bow to as close to a ship as that (even if docked) shouldnt be on the water, I dont care how many RYA qualifications they have.

Unless web craft and Tim can agree on that statement then they are not likely to have any respect on these forums, sail or power.

 

[Ubergeekian]

At 3nm, I doubt that if they alter course, that it will be by more than a degree or two. Plenty enough to ensure they pass confortably in front or behind you. On a small boat you cannot detect this without some fancy electronics. They won't be turning through 30 degrees plus for you.

Which is, of course, a clear breach of IRPCS.

 

[DAKA]

I suspect that 'Vela' is a bit further away from the warship than the photo suggests however

note the shadow projected on the ship from vela and then note the same size shadow projected from GBR1756 main sail to foresail which we know is only a few feet apart.

On the last post I also posted a picture of velas damaged bow rail including grey paint on the same rail.
although I admit the damage and grey paint could have been done anywhere.

 

[Robin]

I thought you knew me well enough by now to know I dont deliberately make false statements.

After being called a troll previously regarding the frigate I researched and spoke to the owner of Vela (manager of a fractional ownership syndicate).
Vela is based in gosport marina (was at the time).

Vela's Insurance will only allow RYA qualified skippers at the helm.

It is safe to assume that Vela was under control of an RYA qualified skipper or a skipper under RYA instruction at the time the photo was taken.

Other explanations could have included that vela was stolen but you would have thought the fractional manager would have mentioned that when I spoke to him a few days after the incident.

The current thread and the sister thread on scuttleburks was started following the rallying of defence on scuttleburks towards morons who sail into situations such as pictured above.

ANYONE who thinks its acceptable to get bow to as close to a ship as that (even if docked) shouldnt be on the water, I dont care how many RYA qualifications they have.

Unless web craft and Tim can agree on that statement then they are not likely to have any respect on these forums, sail or power.

Peter

Your post reads that because it is a jointly owned boat all users must be RYA qualified, that as I said is nonsense.

What you are now saying is that Vela's INSURANCE (NOT the RYA) insists on each user being qualified or under supervision. That is an entirely different statement.

Nobody at all is saying go as close to a ship as it seems those in your picture did and to imply that this is an example of someone following Colregs is complete rubbish which I am sure you know.


None of this has anything whatsoever with RYA qualifications either, the RYA have NOTHING to do with setting Colregs except that they will be on the syllabus to teach of most courses that they run. You seem to have some harebrained idea that the RYA are teaching people that Colregs mean that as stand on they should dice with death at every opportunity when the reality is that Colregs actually REQUIRE you to take avoiding action when it is apparent that the other vessel is not going to. This is the internationally agreed worldwide set of rules applying to ALL vessels irrespective of sail or power, small or large. This set of rules has been examined, amended and re-examined regularly over many many years and is as good as it gets and there is NO room for little side rules to account for people who either don't know or think that there own methods make more sense.

But hey, if you want to go your own little way and ignore any rules that you disagree with then go ahead, with luck you might never meet the other guy one dark foggy night that thinks just like you.

Robin