doris
Well-known member
Commonsense says that a LARGE and early course alteration is in order, as per the regs, to make it clear that that the give way vessel will not need to vary their course.
How much use is AIS
- Thread starter sailorman
- Start date
Commonsense says that a LARGE and early course alteration is in order, as per the regs, to make it clear that that the give way vessel will not need to vary their course.
franksingleton
Well-known member
When a ship is well manned with a well trained and competent crew, I am sure that you are correct. But, how often is that the case? Ship captains working for me made it quite clear that manning levels are often too low for safety and that those on watch are not necessarily competent. Listening to VHF discussions bridge to bridge has not always been encouraging.
What should happen and what does happen are not always the same. Returning to the UK and on our first Channel crossing in 14 years, we were, according to the AIS, passing ahead of a large ship emerging westwards from the Casquets TSS. On present course and speed of both, we would have been ½ mile ahead.
Clearly, I was the stand on vessel. But to assume that the ship would take appropriate action meant assuming that it was crewed competently.. Of course, it also meant assuming that my speed would remain constant in a strong but, as ever, varying wind.
Maybe I chickened out but we made a large change of course and went behind with enough clearance to avoid his wake disturbance,
Daydream believer
Well-known member
On a thread drift i must say how surprised i am at how small most ship's wakes are
clearly a demonstration of good design
dom
Well-known member
Hang on ...you were travelling North and the ship West?
franksingleton
Well-known member
Yes. We were sailing. He was under power. We were outside the TSS.
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.
Last edited:
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
Is one of the most stupid and ignorant and annoying ditties that is commonly trotted out. There's no such thing as right of way anyway.
As several others have said, standing on, does not mean standing on blindly into a dangerous situation.
The IRPCS do REQUIRE you to act predictably and that sometimes means standing on until it is obvious that the other vessel is not taking action to avoid collision. In a small boat it is very easy to stop or reverse course or take a dramatic course alteration (usually to starboard) and avoid being run down by a ship that doesn't appear to have seen you or which isn't taking appropriate action to avoid collision.
AIS has actually demonstrated to many yachtsmen and women how large ships are taking (have been taking) action to pass clear of them. It just isn't always obvious at first from the yacht's deck. Bearings change VERY slowly at first and its possible to convince yourself that you are going to be run down when a little patience will show that the ship has seen you and has already altered course.
franksingleton
Well-known member
Agree 100% except that the ditty is a warning. Rules are made for the guidance of wise men .......
Cruiser2B
Active member
That's an extremely liberal interpretation of rule 2. You might want to review the first part of that rule, where it says that nothing will exonerate you from the consequences of neglecting to comply with the rules. And while it does mention it might be necessary to depart from the rules, that is for 'special circumstances' and 'to avoid immediate danger', not "because the other vessel is big."
pmagowan
Well-known member
I am not sure which part of the colregs you think should be ignored. As far as I can see the only bits that give leeway are what constitutes a situation where they apply and when exactly you should take action as a stand on vessel to avoid collision. These are open to interpretation, within limits. Otherwise the rules are clear and describe everyone's responsibilities. If you choose to make unpredictable alterations to your course or speed when you are the stand on vess then you will increase the risk of collision, annoy those around you and be to blame if things go wrong. Colregs specifically state that you should not blindly follow a rule which leads to collision. They explain when the rules cease to hold true and alternative rules apply. I can't see the loophole.
Barnacle Bill
Active member
Hang on lads!
Just remember all the stuff about Action of Stand-on Vessel (Rule 17) etc is for "Conduct of Vessels in sight of one another".
Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility - Rule 19 - is completely different.
Just remember all the stuff about Action of Stand-on Vessel (Rule 17) etc is for "Conduct of Vessels in sight of one another".
Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility - Rule 19 - is completely different.
GHA
Well-known member
Disagree.
In this case "Because the other vessel is big" is perfectly covered in rule 2.
"including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger."
What's the ship supposed to do? He can't slow down, too big, too close and no a good idea in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Turning to starboard isn't really an option as Frank will already pass his bow, Port as out due to the rules and will put him into the East going traffic.
Frank decision to go astern of the ship was good seamanship and perfectly covered within the irpcs.
IMHO.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
True, but don't let the exception make the rule. 99% of ships obey the rules. I am sure that under the circumstances I would have been doing the same thing (perhaps even reversing track and allowing the ship to pass safely ahead of me?) I might have been cursing quietly at the big ship for not following IRPCS, but I would also be aware that most of them do.
Too many people cite ships with no watch keeper as a reason why yachts should behave in some arbitrary way etc etc, whereas in reality there are very few ships steaming up and down the channel without adequately trained bridge watch keepers. Most ships spot the potential problem miles before we do and alter course slightly to expand the CPA to exceed their standing orders minimum distance.
Last edited:
GHA
Well-known member
My experience also.
Another reason ais is so wonderful
Midocean watch the few and far between ships on AIS occasionally do a dog leg to give you more room, before they appear above the horizon.
dom
Well-known member
But don't forget that Captain Jay's brother may also be at the bottom of the sea. I had just such a colregs discussion with a friend of mine (captain for Brittany Ferries) and he suggested that I see for myself:
1. We left Poole on the Barfleur one morning and crawled through the harbour entrance to be met by a motley fleet of yachts and mobos moving in every direction, the captain commented that this fleet would inevitably containe: (i) clueless folk who might do anything, (ii) sensible folk who "quite understandably" had no idea if/when the Barfleur was restricted in her ability to manoeuvre and therefore had no idea what to do, (iii) aggressive numtys who want to stand on to demonstrate their virility, (iv) folk who appear to be acting like "iii" but genuinely haven't seen the ship.
2. Once in mid-channel he pointed out that the shipping lanes were implicit (in a navigational not legal sense) even where no formal TSS existed and explained that yachts claiming stand on rights by virtue of sail alone would often force ships navigating on the left hand side of the channel to turn starboard towards the right hand side which they were wary of. He also pointed out that 99% of the time sailing vessels sailed within a few miles of a ship and then suddenly changed course, very often to port.
3. I watched a number of yacht ship close contacts develop mid- Channel and was amazed at the correct, early and decisive actions taken by those big Evergreen, Maersk, etc container ships. I had never noticed this before as my boat has too crude a radar. I WOULD HONESTLY ADVISE NEVER TURNING TO PORT EXCEPT IN DIRE EMERGENCIES OR TO AVOID ENTERING A SHIPPING CHANNEL.
4. Another day in mid-Channel an old coaster tub appeared fine off the Barfleur's port bow. The Barfleur stood on and the coaster failed to act. The Barfleur then turned to starboard and the coaster turned to port!!! Barfleur went hard to starboard (these things turn much quicker than I thought) and all was well. Captain of the Barfleur gave the coaster a *******ing using some choice language on Ch16. Portland Coastguard did not seem to mind.
I think the moral of all that is that yachties, mobos and ships all contain “the good”, “the bad” and “the ugly”. But most of the big ships are a responsible bunch who are happy to and do follow the rules. Sensible yachts should largely keep out of their way, BUT ONLY AVOID THEM IN WAYS CONSISTENT WITH THE IRPCS.
LadyInBed
Well-known member
In all these tails of stand on boats changing course because the CPA is thought to be too close for comfort, there has never been any mention of radio comms to establish what the other boats intent is!
Since AIS I've found a call on 16 to be very effective and see (on AIS) the called ship make a course alteration at the same time that he is telling me he will.
Since AIS I've found a call on 16 to be very effective and see (on AIS) the called ship make a course alteration at the same time that he is telling me he will.
franksingleton
Well-known member
I think that several of us are saying the same thing. I still hold to my “Rules are made for guidance ….”
At #1 we saw a collision situation. C2B suggested that the fishing vessel might have been engaged in fishing and, I assume that he implied, that the ship should have taken avoiding action.
Two possibilities; either the fishing vessel changed curse and did not give the ship opportunity to keep clear or the ship did not assess the situation well enough. The fishing boat might have been in the right nut was being a William Jay.
In my situation at #62, under the Col Regs, I could have stood on. I might well have been OK. As has been said, many ships are well crewed and would have sized up the situation accurately... On the other hand, with a strong but varying wind that might have caused problems. Also, there are enough instances of ships getting it wrong to make me unwilling to take unnecessary risks..
I took the decision to pass astern of the ship. Like don at #74, I see no point in unnecessarily inconveniencing a large ship. There may be fewer idiots on bridges than in wells but I would rather not encounter them. I had no wish to be a William Jay.
At #1 we saw a collision situation. C2B suggested that the fishing vessel might have been engaged in fishing and, I assume that he implied, that the ship should have taken avoiding action.
Two possibilities; either the fishing vessel changed curse and did not give the ship opportunity to keep clear or the ship did not assess the situation well enough. The fishing boat might have been in the right nut was being a William Jay.
In my situation at #62, under the Col Regs, I could have stood on. I might well have been OK. As has been said, many ships are well crewed and would have sized up the situation accurately... On the other hand, with a strong but varying wind that might have caused problems. Also, there are enough instances of ships getting it wrong to make me unwilling to take unnecessary risks..
I took the decision to pass astern of the ship. Like don at #74, I see no point in unnecessarily inconveniencing a large ship. There may be fewer idiots on bridges than in wells but I would rather not encounter them. I had no wish to be a William Jay.
Cruiser2B
Active member
Perhaps you should review the rules too. Rule 18 only requires a PDV to 'keep out of the way' of a SV; it does not limit the action to do that, so a turn to port is not only possible, but likely. But then the WAFI goes and mucks up that plan by not standing on as he should.
Robin
Well-known member
+1, headless chickens and rabbits in headlights can cause problems for others too. We have several times been caused problems when ships have had to make alterations for a chicken or rabbit scurrying whereas previously they were keeping clear of all, until being presented with a new situation of a scurrying boat not complying with the rules and reacting unpredictably. I'm not sure if I'm explaining that clearly, but I recall two yachts, I think in company, headed northbound and crossing the eastbound 'lanes' ( not in a TSS, just in the very busy area central Channel) and these would have crossed clear ahead of an eastbound VLCC but they decided to do an about face so as not to cross ahead. The VLCC now had to significantly alter course for these two yachts whose about face meant they would no longer pass safely ahead of the ship and when he did so then caused us problems whereas until then we were set to pass clear astern of him. So here we had a big ship that had probably alreadymade a small alteration some miles back in order to comply with the rules and keep clear, now being forced into a whole new game of nautical chess because somebody, the two yachts, had decided they would arbitrarily modify rules on the fly.
I don't know if AIS necessarily helps as sometimes the CPA will be small even after a successful cross well ahead, as we have oft times passed well clear ahead of a ship only to look astern a little later and find it later looked like we must have passed very close ahead, possibly a bit of track geometry that causes an optical illusion when the brain is looking back and reconstructing. Again not sure if I'm presenting my illustration clearly enough and no doubt the 'might is always right' 'recreational gives way always to commercial' brigade flames will soon appear. Note these comments are not related to narrow channels but to the English Channel which is both deep and wide, even though the traffic travels in pretty much in well defined straight lines between the major TSS areas at Ushant in the West, Casquets in the centre and Dover in the east.
Last edited:
franksingleton
Well-known member
Yes. A good point. But, as a leisure tiddler in a sea with far larger fish on serious business, I feel that is incumbent on me to inconvenience them as little as possible. Navigating a large ship up the Channel with a small crew is a high pressure job. There is enough to distract them without them having to worry about me knowing full well that I should be able to look after myself.
At the risk of being accused of thread drift, how many of us are squeaky clean re the Col Regs. I always show an anchor ball but few others do so. I occasionally fly a motoring cone; can anyone say that they always do so?
dom
Well-known member
As it happens I think you did exactly the right thing in turning to starboard and dip his stern. The trickier situation is if you were approaching the Westward bound ship from the other side -- i.e. from the North. Now you would be the stand on boat, no doubt about it.
This is when lots of yachts (according to the Brittany Ferries captain) tend to turn to port to try and dip the ship, which can set up a head-on situation if ship (correctly) turns to starboard.
But even if the yacht turns to starboard it can inadvertently set up a collision situation by negating the ship's attempt to dip the yacht -- also v dangerous.
The advice here is to turn to starboard by >90 degrees so the ship can see (visually and on radar) that your track is unambiguously no longer converging with his. If he has turned to starboard he can quickly revert to his course which requires a turn to port. He'll only want to do this if the yacht/mobo has made damn clear (I.E. ZERO AMBIGUITY) about his intentions.
