How much passage planning should you do?

[pennycar9]

An example of the 'bare Bones' of passage planning can be seen in Reeds Almanac page 34 and the next page shows the details. You dont need to write anything down, but have an accident and if you cannot, say for example,tell the MAIB what time was high water at so and so then woe betide you. How easy is it to write down a plan in a given format,you do with a log book, why not this? also it can serve as a reference for future use.

 

[rickp]

[ QUOTE ]
You dont need to write anything down, but have an accident and if you cannot, say for example,tell the MAIB what time was high water at so and so then woe betide you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go on then, lets see your citations for where the MAIB have prosecuted someone (can they even do that?) who had an accident but couldn't quote tide times.

Or in fact, any prosecutions for not having a written passage plan...

Rick

 

[pennycar9]

I would most strongly suggest that you read the post carefully before jumping down my throat. An example springs to mind of an accident a couple of years back when a motor cruiser hit Weymouth Breakwater. I am pretty sure the skipper was prosecuted. I DONT MAKE THE RULES

 

[rickp]

I did read your post carefully, but once again you are being vague and not citing cases where the fact there was no written passage plan was the cause of a prosecution which is what you've suggested twice. I'm asking you to back that up with facts.

If you feel I'm jumping down your throat, then sorry - but I hate vague scaremongering.

Rick

 

[hlb]

Ang on Rick, irrigards Marys responce. I can see where this is going. No idea whether there has been prosicutions yet. But it is wide open for them and no get out as far as I can see.

In these days of. Where Theres Blame Theres A Claim. Theres nearly no way an accident could not have been avoided. Yep, it might take three backup life rafts, or whatever. But if the accident happened and you had not worked out the possible conciquences of it happening. Far as I can see, Your guilty, maybe only a little bit guilty, or maybe alot guilty.

Thing is with other laws, you know if you have a seat belt or not. Or a child seat.

But on the sea, you dont actually need anything. Till something goes wrong. Then what ever it was, well you did not have the thing it took to rectiffy the position. Did you.

 

[duncan]

I remember the boat running up the breakwater, and the suggestion at the time that SOLAS regulation had been broken (charting I think?) but there are no MAIB investigations or MCGA prosecutions relationg to that listed - nor any identifiable prosecutions relating to SOLAS 'crimes'.

the question of whether the onus would be on you to 'prove' you had planned adequately for your trip as required by the regulations or any potential prosecutions requirement to prove you hadn't ............we I agree with those here that it's clearly easier to avoid the issue all together.

 

[hlb]

Think the boat ran up the break water, long before the passage planning thing started anyway.

 

[rickp]

I feel an FOI request coming on - to find out if there have been any prosecutions of pleasure vessel skippers under regulation 34 of the The Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002 act.

Rick

 

[pennycar9]

I'm sorry but I cannot see what the problem is here. Solas V regulation 34 clearly states a rule for passage planning. I have bought that to light.If people choose to ignore the fact then it is up to them. Do we all ignore the collision regs because it suits us?I dont, other wise I am in danger of paying the ultimate price. All I am saying is the facts. Passage planning is recognized as international law. Whats the problem with that.Portland breakwater, October 2002 boat called Mandator. Solas regs 2002 End of postings on subject.

 

[rickp]

I think we're all aware of the law. It doesn't require a written passage plan, just that you have cosidered the risks of the passage. Nor have you provided any evidence of prosecutions which you have implied happen if you can't give the MAIB the tide times if you have an accident.

I'll submit the FOi request and see what I get back - as you dont seem to be able to backup your claims.

Rick

 

[Bergman]

Well yes it is

But its not clear how far ahead one must plan.

For example my passage plan will be to cover the 2 miles from the marina to the river mouth.

During that time we'll decide whether to turn left or right - so thats the next plan.

Next we decide whether to sail or motor.

After a while we decide whether to stop, or go on or go back.

And so it goes

Ferries run to schedules - I don't.

 

[rickp]

I think that in the case of an accident there are far easier prosecutions which could be attempted. The Mandator case mentioned wasn't prosecuted for not having a passage plan (difficult to prove in court as no requirement to write a plan down) - but was prosecuted for not keeping a proper lookout (ie. col regs). Easy to prove a proper lookout wasn't being kept when the boat ran into the bloody breakwater...

Rick

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Precisely, rickp. See HERE
The whole notion of prosecuting somebody for not having a passage plan is a nonsense anyway. If your boat has sunk as a result of an accident and you have'nt made a passage plan, what are you going to say? The passage plan went down with the boat, of course /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif. And if your boat has'nt sunk, you're going to produce one afterwards, are'nt you?
Basically it's an offence thats going to be impossible to prove for small pleasure craft

 

[Hurricane]

Surely this whole subject is all relative to what you are going to do.
If I am simply going over to the IOW for a spot of lunch, I will know not just check the tides and weather - no formal written plan but I have, in fact, done a mental plan.
If we are going further (X channel of out of sight of land etc) then I have a passage planning sheet that I've made up which also forms a check list of things that must be done before we set off - things like "unlock the liferaft" "have we got enough fuel" etc and other more useful things like VHF channel and tide heights at the destination. All this is done on a single side of A4 and I've only put things on the checklist that make sense - no silly bollocks!!
Apart from anything else, SWMBO feels much more at ease when we've ticked all the boxes.

 

[duncan]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely this whole subject is all relative to what you are going to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and no!

I think bm's point is that (people don't seem to accept) you are required to undertake passage planning everytime you head out (of classified waters - here the solent is classified but, for example, a trip from Poole to Studland Bay would require a passage plan). This doesn't change with familiarity or it being a short trip - it's defined.

I am unaware of anyone here arguing this is not the legal situation - those threads ran miles in 2003-2005! Equally the written issue. Personally I still think too many people consider this primarily a navigation issue but that's another matter.

However, and I am sorry to highlight your post, often implied element that longer, more dangerous, is a reason to write it down - and this gets futher distorted with 'if you don't and something goes wrong you haven;t a leg to stand on' posts.

A passage plan is basically consideration of all the factors that impact on a safe passage for boat and crew so here the concept of distance might produce a different result to consideration of food and drink for crew comfort but the issue has to be considered anyway. 10 miles - 100 miles - 1000miles - the answers amy be different the question/issues the same.

 

[Hurricane]

Point taken Duncan and thanks for your kind PM

I didnt mean to imply that it was any less or more dangerous on a longer or shorter passage but there is practicality and what is sensible and what is required by the MCA.

As far as I can see, a passage plan can be one of many things and this depends upon the circumstance. Most of the trips we do are not passages but take the form of simple pilotages. If you know your area well, you wouldnt make as detailed plan that you would if you were visiting a place for the first time.

I havent seen that SOLAS V calls for anything formal - it just wants you to have planned something appropriate for trip you are about to take. After all, the vessel type and size you are skippering also has an implication on the detail/format of your plan.

see here http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/solas.pdf

SOLAS does, however, detail standards for radar reflectors - I wonder how many vessels over 15m cary a radar reflector that conforms to SOLAS/IMO - I spent a long time researching this and apart from SeaMe there is only one that meets the standards. My reflector does meet the requirements.

A passage plan in your head (considering just tides and weather) for a simple trip that you've done many times IMHO meets the regs whereas your plan would be far more detailed and would probably be written down for other circumstances.

 

[BrendanS]

When the then new Solas regulations first came to our attention here on the forums, I contacted RYA legal dept, and Mr Whelan himself answered me.
What you say is correct. If you know your area, then simply looking at tides and weather forecast is sufficient.

If you are going somewhere new, then a bit of written planning will go a long way.

 

[duncan]

ironically I find I most frequently write things down to show my workings for others! this weekend is a case in point where 2 others are looking to CX for the first time and it's easier to break up the planning into appropriate sections (wind & tide, legs,route & fuel, marinas, sills & alternatives, food and drink, paperwork..........) on paper.

But then again with all the charts, tide info, almanacs and pilot books on board it's really only opening them and paying attention to the weather forecast as B highlights - oh and fresh water and mars bars!

 

[tcm]

Oddly, I suppose, the closer you are staying/going to land the more "passage planning" you need to do in case crunchy up the rocks. So on offshore trip hardly any waypoints needed and few if any boltholes available, so only thing is to have the right gear, spares etc. whereas inshore it is tidal gates and so on.

However, I do think a fair bit of "passage planning" is sort of displacement activity for being slightly sh*t scared - putting in loads of waypoints might make it seem like a carefully planned thing, a series of short hops along a "road"... but really, it ain't. Likewise getting zillions of weather forecasts, and more forecasts. Fact is that at some point the weather might getcha (if miles and miles offshore) anfd praps at some point the gear might fail, so best have spares.

Another bad aspect of passage planning is that in too much detail it can and sometimes does sort-of force a particular departure date and time which is of course a Bad Thing. So all that RYA planning stuff -do people realy do a detailed x-channel plan for all the winds, all the possible departure times and hence different tidal situations? I guess not, really.

Inshore (non-tidal) i think it only nec to have course and main fairway wypts, really, of a few (if any) options and boltholes and some wpts could be hundreds of miles away. Tidallywise needs more of course, but not loads more.

 

[mjkinch1]

Thanks everyone - interesting thread and good fun, at least I have a better view of what is needed than when the thread started! It proves there is quite a range of things that people do, and all depends on when and where they are going.

I have a couple of 60 mile hops, so will use waypoints and compass for those, and then just keep a pilot book and map to hand for the local jaunts.

MartynK