How close is too close.

[DAKA]

When standing on to a 15-20 knot ship in a 12 m 25 knot boat how close do you let the ship get .

From about 6 miles away you will have first noticed him and started to monitor @ 4 miles.

At two miles he is still heading your way but he will now have already altered his course to pass by your stern.

As he gets closer he may well start to alter slightly towards you in order to pass your stern.

As you pass infront of him holding your course and speed you can tell from his bow wave that he is travelling fast.
How close do you feel comfortable for him to get before you start to question your decision to stand on.


Do you make a special effort to check for debris/pots in the water ahead of you ?



Do you ask a crew member to go below check your gauges are all running within normal boundaries (that in itself may cause a problem if you normally slow down for a crew member to go below).

1/4 mile (thats about poole harbour entrance/hamble entrance) just 28 seconds until you can relax again, too late to deploy the liferaft anyway.

1/2 mile (thats about the length of hamble fairway) 57 seconds to go

1 mile (thats about the width of chichester harbour entrance at Eaststoke) almost 2 minutes to go , you can see the front of the tanker but the captain on the bridge is still too far away to see.

 

[timbartlett]

You are boating along in a wide but speed-limited patch of water. A sailing dinghy is on what appears to be a collision course. You are obliged to keep clear of him, so you alter course to go behind him.
No sooner have you done so, than for no apparent reason he alters course, putting himself back on a collision course.
This happens two or three times.
It happens again with the next dinghy you encounter.
Do you:
(a) admire the dinghy helmsman's seamanship and presence of mind in dealing with an exceptional situation
(b) wonder why the feck these plonkers are allowed on the water without some kind of licence

 

[Poignard]

I was taught to stand on until you can see the rivets in the hull.

It took some time, and several near misses, before I learned that modern ships do not have rivetted hulls.

 

[Flying Penguin]

You missed the option for "wait until you see the whites of their eyes, throw grapples, fix bayonets and lead a boarding party".....

 

[DAKA]

just for the record this was started as a serious post after I became a stand on convert following a previous thread.

I havent yet stood on and passed under the bows of a ship doing 20 knots and I need guidance on how to overcome my natural fear of death.

I am fearful that I may chicken out at in the last minute or two ( just over a mile away).

I havent done military service and I have no way of knowing how I will react in the face of possible death.

So lets be knowing, will someone please answer the question.

How long do you stand on and what tricks do you have to convince yourself not to turn to port for the safety zone at the side of the ship.


Seriously started as a genuine question Tim, I am somewhat mystified in the manor to which you have received it.

Sincerely

Pete

 

[PaulGooch]

As a result of other threads and personal messages (telling me i was an amateur that know SFA), i've decided that i'll stand on until the end.

The ship that runs me down will clearly be in the wrong and my widow should have no problem claiming off of their insurance.

 

[PaulGooch]

Pete, i think the last option is wrong. I think Colregs always apply. What i think doesn't always apply is rule 17. To suggest it applies to a mobo 6 miles away from a large ship is lunacy.

 

[timbartlett]

just for the record this was started as a serious post after I became a stand on convert following a previous thread....
...Seriously started as a genuine question Tim, I am somewhat mystified in the manor to which you have received it....

Sorry if I am being unduly thin-skinned: I allowed myself to be misled by your reference to "standing on under the bows of a ship".
But I think you are being equally thin-skinned about my response, which was intended to help others see the situation from the ship's watchkeepers point of view.

What I don't understand is why you (and others) keep going on about "chickening out" and "possible death". All you need to do is follow Rule 17 and "possible death" does not apply.

With the usual warnings about paraphrasing, I reiterate that there are four stages to a potential collision:
1> If there is no risk of collision (as defined in the rules, not "does collision appear to be unavoidable?") then Rule17 does not apply.
2> When there is RoC, the stand on vessel is obliged to stand on until >>>
3> When it is clear that the give way vessel is not taking sufficient action, the stand on vessel may take avoiding action, but should avoid altering course to port.
4> If, in spite of all this, the situation progresses to the stage at which nothing the give way vessel could do would be sufficient to prevent a collision, then the stand on vessel is required to take any action that will minimise the effect.

Please note point 3 -- I think it overcomes all your concerns. Concerns such as yours were a major part of the reason that Rule 17 a(ii) was added to the 1972 version of the colregs.

If you are dealing with a big ship in open water, then slowing down, speeding up, or altering course to starboard when it is a mile away are not "chickening out": they are all perfectly acceptable and legitimate actions in accordance with Rule 17a(ii). If it's a very big ship, then I would say that 1 mile is pretty close to being stage 4 -- compulsory avoiding action -- and at that stage, altering course to port becomes a legitimate option!

 

[timbartlett]

I was taught to stand on until you can see the rivets in the hull.

It took some time, and several near misses, before I learned that modern ships do not have rivetted hulls.

It's hard to tell whether you are joking or not, because it seems that quite a few people genuinely believe this. If you are not joking, you were taught wrong.

You missed the option for "wait until you see the whites of their eyes, throw grapples, fix bayonets and lead a boarding party".....

Have any of you ever actually read the colregs?
And if so, how did you come to miss rule 17a(ii)?

Rule 17 Action by stand-on vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

 

[Flying Penguin]

Have any of you ever actually read the colregs?
And if so, how did you come to miss rule 17a(ii)?

Tim, chill... It was a joke

FWIW I do actually agree with you on this.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim, chill... It was a joke

FWIW I do actually agree with you on this.

OK.
I'm sorry.

 

[Elessar]

From about 6 miles away you will have first noticed him and started to monitor @ 4 miles.

I presume you are talking open water?

If so why on earth do you leave it so late?

If it's because you don't have an AIS receiver get one. In the scale of magnitude of boating costs they are free.

 

[oldgit]

corse the worst thing about the entire thread is spellin innit "manor"

 

[Poignard]

It's hard to tell whether you are joking or not, because it seems that quite a few people genuinely believe this. If you are not joking, you were taught wrong.

It's hard to tell whether you are joking or not!

 

[timbartlett]

It's hard to tell whether you are joking or not!

I'm not.

There are some people who are able to read Rule 17 and convince themselves that it means "As stand-on vessel, the best way to avoid a collision ideal procedure is to wait until the moment at which the give way ship is most likely to be altering course to go behind me, then alter course towards it.", despite the fact that it very clearly says otherwise.

There are others who claim to believe that Rule 17 says they have to stand on even if the other vessel is clearly not giving way -- again, despite the fact that it very clearly says otherwise.

The root of the second problem is pretty obvious, but I've been struggling to understand the first one. I think it may stem from confusion over the meaning of the expression "risk of collision". If so, I think I can see where that comes from, and I empathise with it.

I still don't understand the reasoning that says it is "commonsense" to ignore a rule that has been instrumental in preventing collisions for more than 120 years. Nor do I understand why my opinions on the colregs justify the personal abuse that has been hurled at me by Paul Gooch (in particular, though one or two others come close).

 

[dt4134]

I havent yet stood on and passed under the bows of a ship doing 20 knots and I need guidance on how to overcome my natural fear of death.

If you can do more than 20knots you should be fine. In the late 19th century ramming as a tactic became popular amongst the navies of the world. I read an article a good few years ago which attempted to calculate the probability of success under varying combinations of speed of the attacker and victim when one vessel was trying to deliberately ram the other. The probability of success was very small under almost all combinations, which is borne out by the empirical evidence where most of the vessels sunk were on the same side as the attacker and were usually sunk in peactime q.v. Victoria & Camperdown.

Anyway, the probability of success became pretty much zero when the attacker was slower than the target, so there's your lesson - if things get hairy, run away.

Of course it could be that they're not deliberately out to get you, in which case none of the above applies and you could be in grave danger.

 

[volvopaul]

You are boating along in a wide but speed-limited patch of water. A sailing dinghy is on what appears to be a collision course. You are obliged to keep clear of him, so you alter course to go behind him.
No sooner have you done so, than for no apparent reason he alters course, putting himself back on a collision course.
This happens two or three times.
It happens again with the next dinghy you encounter.
Do you:
(a) admire the dinghy helmsman's seamanship and presence of mind in dealing with an exceptional situation
(b) wonder why the feck these plonkers are allowed on the water without some kind of licence

Good post tim, very rarely do I alter course for dinghies, or as said plonkers.

I mostly throttle back or go into neutral and let them then weave around me.

I used to race cars and rally many years ago before serious boating where track position was paramount to get the best result, I guess it's rubbed off on the water , once you start giving way they will assume your so polite and make you do it again! .

 

[rbcoomer]

I still don't understand the reasoning that says it is "commonsense" to ignore a rule that has been instrumental in preventing collisions for more than 120 years. Nor do I understand why my opinions on the colregs justify the personal abuse that has been hurled at me by Paul Gooch (in particular, though one or two others come close).

First and foremost I must say that I'm with you 100% on the hurling of insults and personal abuse. I don't believe this ever has a place in debate, resolves nothing and is never justified. Seems to happen a lot in these forums however and whilst I know people get a bit carried away sometimes, it's really not necessary. Please be assured that I for one have utmost respect for your viewpoint (and determination) - even if I don't necessarily agree 100%...

With regards to the commonsense and ignoring of rules, I can only speak for myself (but suspect I'm not the only one )... I would never advocate ignoring the rules, but the grey area seems to me more about at what point to apply them. If anything needs updating in the rules then I would say it would be the 'within sight' application of rule 17. I would certainly question if this is the best definition with the diversity and shear numbers of modern craft. There are clearly circumstances when this defies the sensible solution, but equally there are perhaps a majority that don't. Most accidents/tragedies at sea clearly have little to do with colregs and are usually man vs nature or blind stupidity. Those that do involve colregs seem to be mainly shipping not leisure (unless I'm missing something) - this tells us that whatever actions most of us are taking are not causing carnage on the seas!

I'm also not sure your statement that colregs have been instrumental in preventing collisions for 120 years would stand up too well to scrutiny either. For that to be true, other rules would surely have to have been tried/proven ineffective and the number of actual collisions significantly reduced under colregs? But I would agree with the sentiment that we're better off with them than without them!

I'm not sure that there is a better definition that could be used than 'within sight' given its need to cover such a broad spectrum of circumstance, but for me that is the weakest aspect. It is clearly too soon to be an established 'risk' for many small craft, yet not so for shipping. No doubt there will come a point where use of technology will instigate a rule update as it has in so many other walks of life. Until such time, I fear some of us will agree to disagree (at least in part)

 

[Poignard]

I'm not.

There are some people who are able to read Rule 17 and convince themselves that it means "As stand-on vessel, the best way to avoid a collision ideal procedure is to wait until the moment at which the give way ship is most likely to be altering course to go behind me, then alter course towards it.", despite the fact that it very clearly says otherwise.

There are others who claim to believe that Rule 17 says they have to stand on even if the other vessel is clearly not giving way -- again, despite the fact that it very clearly says otherwise.

The root of the second problem is pretty obvious, but I've been struggling to understand the first one. I think it may stem from confusion over the meaning of the expression "risk of collision". If so, I think I can see where that comes from, and I empathise with it.

I still don't understand the reasoning that says it is "commonsense" to ignore a rule that has been instrumental in preventing collisions for more than 120 years. Nor do I understand why my opinions on the colregs justify the personal abuse that has been hurled at me by Paul Gooch (in particular, though one or two others come close).

Oh for God's sake! When I made a remark about being able to count the rivets I was joking. Did you seriously consider that I might not be? Are you not able to recognise a joke (albeit a not very original one)?

This old joke about counting rivets is in the same category as the one which advises that for an Atlantic crossing you should sail south until the butter melts and then turn west. They are just humorous sayings, part of the banter that most people enjoy - nobody acts on them and most people would be astonished if anyone thought they might.

Come on man - don't be a po-face - lighten up. You'll get never get any pleasure out of life if you don't.

 

[Richard10002]

When standing on to a 15-20 knot ship in a 12 m 25 knot boat how close do you let the ship get .

From about 6 miles away you will have first noticed him and started to monitor @ 4 miles.

At two miles he is still heading your way but he will now have already altered his course to pass by your stern.

As he gets closer he may well start to alter slightly towards you in order to pass your stern.

As you pass infront of him holding your course and speed you can tell from his bow wave that he is travelling fast.
How close do you feel comfortable for him to get before you start to question your decision to stand on.


Do you make a special effort to check for debris/pots in the water ahead of you ?



Do you ask a crew member to go below check your gauges are all running within normal boundaries (that in itself may cause a problem if you normally slow down for a crew member to go below).

1/4 mile (thats about poole harbour entrance/hamble entrance) just 28 seconds until you can relax again, too late to deploy the liferaft anyway.

1/2 mile (thats about the length of hamble fairway) 57 seconds to go

1 mile (thats about the width of chichester harbour entrance at Eaststoke) almost 2 minutes to go , you can see the front of the tanker but the captain on the bridge is still too far away to see.

If your question is serious, there is not much to worry about, as long as the other vessel passes at least a few hundred yards astern of you ..... A quarter of a mile would be fine.

Having stood on, he has altered course to starboard, such that he is aiming astern of you. The only time you were "crossing his bows" was when his course alteration meant he was aiming straight at you, for a few seconds - this was when he was more than 2 miles away from you.

I agree that it would be somewhat disconcerting to see him altering course gradually to get back on course, thus continuing to point "just" astern of you, rather than "well" astern of you - witness my reply to Paul Gooch in the other thread. That practice is not a good idea.

However, disconcerting as it may be, as long as his course doesn't alter to aim straight at you, or ahead of you, again, he won't hit you. Unless his goal is to collide with you, (which it won't be), something has to go wrong. Having said that, if you feel his actions aren't appropriate in the circumstances, you may take action, avoiding altering to port if possible. You could alter to starboard, perhaps until he is dead astern of you. After a few minutes, he will be well past your stern, any danger will have passed, and you can both resume your courses.

If his steering gear jams, and his alteration continues such that it looks like he might hit you, things are becoming serious, and you must take action, avoiding altering to port if circumstances admit. His course with jammed steering will describe a circle, and the hypothetical collision will take place somewhere ahead of you.

Without being there, my picture of the situation suggests a sharp alteration to starboard, and full speed ahead, would get you away from where you were going to collide. Alternatively, you could just stop, and allow his alteration to aim him straight at you for a few seconds, then ahead of you, after which you can go the other way.

All in all, there is not really much to concern you too much in the scenario described, as long as you keep a close eye on his altering back towards you, rather than maintaining his course until past and clear.