dom
Well-known member
What a wonderful expression!
How much use is AIS
- Thread starter sailorman
- Start date
What a wonderful expression!
GHA
Well-known member
A turn to port possible into the East going stream or the path of another tanker coming up astern?
Suggesting your course of action without knowledge of the local traffic at the time makes it sound like you haven't sailed in areas with the huge amount of traffic that there is in the channel. As soon as the ship changes course there would probably be CPA alarms going off in half a dozen different ships.
Frank did exactly the right thing IMHO.
In a low traffic area away from TSS's a different decision may well have been more appropriate.
Robin
Well-known member
I understand why you raise the point, but it is a world apart from crossing busy traffic areas, somwhere that I for one would never anchor. I always set an anchor lamp at night when anchored, but rarely hoist a dayshape ball as most places full of anchored boats it would seem a little obvious that we too were also anchored. I never motor with full sail up, if the engine goes on, the genoa is rolled away a) as it is unnecessary and b) because way back when I sailed a Liz 30, a sudden gust could heel or heel/lurch the boat enough for the oil pressure alarm to go off ( Bukh 10) as it maybe sucked air momentarily. So on that basis I don't use a motoring cone as to most others a yacht seen under mainsail alone is nearly always motoring unless maybe in harbour preparing to anchor or pick up a mooring.
By the same token how many fishing boats have their 'fishing' signal dayshape welded in placed and fishing lights permanently switched on. same goes for Dive boats with fixed in place 'diver down' signals. At least I don't claim right of way if motoring with no cone up, unlike fishing boats that often seem to think merely being one conveys the right to do as they wish..
Last edited:
pmagowan
Well-known member
The colregs seem reasonably clear and I don't think they should be thrown out the window because some of us get uncomfortable with assuming the correct position of stand-on vessel. The real area where they are open to interpretation is, being that we are small manoeuvrable boats that like to fliff flaff about the place for fun, when does the situation where they come into effect apply. For instance, a large container ship is clocking you miles ahead and often before you can even see them and often takes appropriate action. We, on the other hand, may be intending to sail round in circles and we are not going to stand-on until we are half way across the channel just because we inadvertently pointed our bow towards a big tanker. However, when you are making a clear bee-line towards your destination and it involves holding a specific course where another vessel is entering a situation where you are at risk of collision then you must judge the colregs to apply. When they do you should go through the rules in your head to identify if you are stand-on or not, do exceptions or special circumstances apply etc. You then have a very clear set of instructions to follow, none of which increase your chance of collision. The sea is quite big and there is plenty of space for everyone, all you have to do is follow the rules. It is the unpredictable nature of people's actions that causes the risk. I don't think it will inconvenience anyone if you stick to the rules. If a big ship has a problem with that then there is no reason why they can't give you a buzz on the VHF and have a chat about it. For most of us we have plenty of time to make the decision as we are hardly moving at ridiculous speed.
LadyInBed
Well-known member
I try not judge others decisions, only suggest that the use of the VHF to tell a ship what you are doing, if it is contrary to Col Regs, might be helpful to the ship.
Cruiser2B
Active member
Ha ha, you make me laugh. I guess that 'tanker coming up astern' would be running over Frank then.
I can tell that you've never been on the bridge of a large ship. If Frank was tracking to pass a half-mile ahead of a ship, then the ship is likely going to alter a few degrees at most to open the passing range. This will not be done without considering other traffic; and making the appropriate VHF calls if necessary - all of this would be done before the average little-boater has even realized there's an issue. Hate to burst your bubble, but the 'huge amount of traffic that is in the channel' pales in comparison with the traffic density found in many other places around the world. Believe it or not, big ships are more than capable of manoeuvring around a small vessel; and more often than not, they can do it without causing mayhem.
Cruiser2B
Active member
dual post - gotta love technology
Last edited:
franksingleton
Well-known member
There is no need to be offensive to GHA.
I have not sailed in many areas of the world but I do know that the English Channel is reputed to be one of the most crowded areas worldwide. Far more than when we have sailed through the Gibraltar Strait.
You may be more trusting tan I am but I would only pass ½ mile ahead of any large ship in my 10.3 m yacht if there were no safer options. They may be very good and often are. However, there are ships that are not well manned, with crews of different nationalities that can hardly communicate with each other.
Our MAIB has discussed a worrying number of occasions when ships have done something stupid. Conversations that I have heard bridge to bridge do not always reassure. These are comments based on around 40 years of offshore sailing.
Going back to the original theme of this thread, AIS, radar, chart-plotters, hand bearing compass, even the Mk 1 eyeball are all tools. All must be used with care and judgement. The same is true of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
Cruiser2B
Active member
I didn't see my comments as offensive, at least no more than his patronizing comment to me.
Well I have, and I grant you the Channel has a lot of traffic; in terms of total tonnage, it must rank among the leaders, if not at the very top. But the Channel is also at lot larger than many of the world's shipping routes, hence my point that traffic in the channel is less dense than many places, but even in the most crowded fairways, large ships are still able to manoeuvre in accordance with the rules.
Manning regulations and enforcement have improved vastly in the last 30 years. In similar circumstances I wouldn't pass 1/2 mile ahead of a large ship without having established that she is aware of me. I would try to establish communications as well before making any manoeuvres; even if I never manage to raise the other vessel, other vessels that potentially will be affected will be warned, and if there's a VTS, they'll be alerted too.
Tools serve no purpose if you don't use them.
Last edited:
GHA
Well-known member
Some errors in there possibly through lack of local knowledge.
Vhf use for collision avoidance, nth ough not explicity forbidden, is very much frowned upon by the MCA.
See. MGN 324 (M+F).
__
Use of VHF as Collision Avoidance Aid 7. There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has
found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an
attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful
and may even prove to be dangerous.
13. Although the practice of using VHF radio as a collision avoidance aid may be resorted to
on occasion, for example in pilotage waters, the risks described in this note should be clearly
understood and the Collision Regulations complied with.
__
In the area in question the majority of the traffic is going between 2 TSS's, both 5 miles wide. Extremely congested.
One more time, IMHO Frank did exactly the right thing under the circumstances , there are few sailors around here who would have the stupidity or balls to stand on. Calling him a WAFI when you don't know the waters is unnecessary and just plain bad manners.
dom
Well-known member
Your WAFI comment could not be further off the mark if you tried!!! When about to set sail to the UK from Denmark about 10 yrs ago , I was recommended (by a Danish sailor in the Kiel canal!) to Frank's fantastic and informative weather website. He even maintained a reduced version for those with limited bandwidth back then.
The result ...all of us WAFIs in the Channel could sail with just the right amount of wind! And don't forget (as explained to me by a passenger ship's captain who navigates the Channel daily) Frank did nothing wrong or irritating with his clear turn to stb.
Cruiser2B
Active member
I didn't have Frank in mind when I made the WAFI comment - it was a response to GHA's assertion that an alteration to port is disallowed by the rules for a rule 18 situation; it was generically applied to all the WAFIs who don't understand the responsibilities of the stand on vessel.
I'm well aware of the warnings to mariners about VHF-assisted collisions. It's not limited to your locale; the IMO issued similar advice. Note that it states there are occasions where VHF can be 'resorted to.'
I don't recall if Frank explained at what distance from the other ship, he made his bold alteration, so I can't comment specifically on his case. I have frequently been in the situation of having to deal with small recreational vessels making random, unpredictable manoeuvres when they should be standing on. I can tell you how infuriating it is, to have made a course alteration to avoid a small vessel, only to have that vessel do a U-turn or whatever. It's a lot harder to deal with something, if its intentions are unclear.
I'm well aware of the warnings to mariners about VHF-assisted collisions. It's not limited to your locale; the IMO issued similar advice. Note that it states there are occasions where VHF can be 'resorted to.'
I don't recall if Frank explained at what distance from the other ship, he made his bold alteration, so I can't comment specifically on his case. I have frequently been in the situation of having to deal with small recreational vessels making random, unpredictable manoeuvres when they should be standing on. I can tell you how infuriating it is, to have made a course alteration to avoid a small vessel, only to have that vessel do a U-turn or whatever. It's a lot harder to deal with something, if its intentions are unclear.
franksingleton
Well-known member
Too much is being made of my example where I was trying to snow that, had I been following the Regs literally and without commonsense, I could have carried on and (hopefully) the ship might not have had to take avoiding action. In the event, I chose to make my course alteration before (I hope) the OOW would have had to get too worried.
The example quoted at #1 looked as though it might have been one where the skipper was relying on the Regs without allowing for misjudgement by himself or the other vessel.
Last edited:
Cruiser2B
Active member
I doubt that in your example that the ship would not have taken any avoiding action. If you were to pass 1/2 mile ahead of the ship (and assuming the ship was travelling faster than you), then the CPA would have been considerably closer on your stern. It's all academic now, but do you recall what your distance was from the ship, when you made your manoeuvre?
As to the collision in the OP, my point in asking if the trawler was fishing, was that it may not have been a cut-and-dried case of rule 14 being violated. Someone also alluded that we don't know the state of visibility and it could have been rule 19 in effect. My experience with fishermen, is that they typically have poor lookouts, especially when they are busy fishing. But I don't think we know enough of this incident yet, to proclaim the cause of the collision.
franksingleton
Well-known member
At a best guess, and it really is that, we were around two miles from the CPA, i.e. about 20 minutes as we were doing 6+ knots.
I agree that the case at #1 may well not be as clear cut as if the trawler was not at the time engaged in fishing.. If ne was fishing and assuming that, as professional seamen,, both knew the relevant regulations then one or both made errors of judgement in applying them.
It is situations such as this that make me, as an amateur seaman, cautious about always assuming that the professionals are as competent as you clearly would wish.
pmagowan
Well-known member
There seems to be the suggestion that in order to follow the Colregs without increasing your risk of collision one must apply common sense as to where to vary from them. This does not make much sense to me as the col regs are common sense and indicate precisely what the requirements are in order to avoid collision. I do not see how following the colregs could increase your risk of collision. In following them you avoid taking inappropriate and confusing action. They don't advise you to follow them into a 'high risk' situation so their should be no reason to blame them for a developing situation. All you do is stand on as required until such time as you see that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action. It does not suggest that you stand on until a situation of high risk develops. You first take appropriate and obvious action to avoid collision. Avoiding a collision does not mean scraping the bow of another boat as you suddenly gibe it means taking action in a timely fashion such that you never enter a dangerous situation. You can do this a mile away if that is what you determine to be the appropriate time.
Cruiser2B
Active member
I was looking for the range from the other vessel, but that's no matter. The reason I asked is that most of us use range or TCPA or some mix of those two, along with the particulars of each situation, to gauge when we consider when the stages of an anti-collision situation exists. The 'stages' I refer to, are explained in Cockcroft and Lameijer's excellent guide to the rules. There are four - first: before the rules begin to apply and both vessels are free to manoeuvre; C&L suggest that for two PDVs open ocean, the inner limit for this stage could range between 5-8 miles;
second: this is the stage where the stand on vessel is expected to stand on as per rule 17.a(i);
third: the point where the stand on vessel may manoeuvre as per rule 17.a(ii); C&L suggest the outer limit for this stage is 2-3 miles - this is for large vessels with great turning circles and stopping distances; and
fourth and final: the stand on vessel must act as per rule 17.b.
For an interaction between a large and small vessel, the lower limits of these ranges would typically be used as a guideline by the OOW in the large vessel.
franksingleton
Well-known member
Thank for your informative and detailed comments. From this and earlier posts, it appears that you ate or were a professional seaman
The problem for leisure sailors is the competence of the OOW. The case at #1 is one where two professionally manned vessels collided. One or both either applied the Regs incorrectly or applied them correctly but made errors of judgement. Of course, the majority of professionals would not get into such a position but this is not an isolated example of poor practice by professionals.
This colours how I interpret the Regs in any particular situation judging each on its merits. In the example I gave with a time to CPA of roughly 20 minutes, I decided that ½ mile ahead of a large ship was too close for comfort for me and, possibly, for the peace of mind of the OOW. I acted accordingly rather than stand on in the hope that the OOW was not one of the incompetents.
pmagowan
Well-known member
If you were stand-on vessel then the requirement is that you stand-on until such time as you deem that the 'give-way' vessel has failed to take appropriate action. If, you took your action at that time then you have abided by the colregs and all is well. The colregs do not require you to play chicken in the hope that the other vessel will do something. When you do take action, especially where it is because of a failure of the other vessel to take appropriate action, it is important that it is large enough and obvious enough so that the other vessel knows your intentions. It is imprtant that you don't adopt the policy of 'I am a small sailing boat so will keep out of the way of everyone else and to hell with the colregs'. As others have stated, you then become the rabbit in the headlights and everyone else is swerving left or right with no idea which way you will go.
Cruiser2B
Active member
I've never eaten a whole one in one sitting.
Right on the second count.
You are the master of your vessel, so you have to do what you feel is best for you. I thought it would be helpful to have the perspective from the other side. Unfortunately there are many pro's who have no experience in small vessels, so they are not aware of the unease felt by the little fish. In a busy seaway in particular, an OOW may close the distance (to the inner side of stage 2) before making a manoeuvre. This is to reduce the interactions with third party vessels, and is common practice, but can be downright scary to the small-boat skipper. My personal take on it, is that once I'm within about 5 miles (give or take depending on the situation) of the other vessel, I consider that I'm obligated by the rules - if I'm 'stand on', then I stand on. There are always measures that can be taken, if it's starting to look like the other guy isn't doing what he should be. I don't shy away from using VHF to ask the intentions of the other vessel. Back to the OP, I see AIS as being useful for putting a name on an approaching contact - though I am shocked by how many vessels don't seem to transmit that info - just the MMSI. And if I got to stage 3, I would likely fire up the engine and have it standing by - ultimately I'll be more manoeuvrable than a large vessel, so can afford to get closer, but don't want to risk getting caught in irons. If I haven't gotten a clear indication of his intentions by the time we're 2 miles apart, then I consider it to be stage 3. My 2p.
