I STILL can't get it....

Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

They were both in the wrong, however the skipper of the big ship, said he saw the yacht on radar and plotted it, when it came very close, it disappeared off their radar, of course it did! Then the ship never saw it again, but kept going!!??!? and didnt stop. He knew he`d run it down! Must have done! If he was plotting it he would have known, however can you believe the evidence, I dont.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

I first read this report on the Moody Owners web site, and I must admit to being as confused as the subscribers to this thread. But my simple take on the occurence is that a) the ships captain was just going too fast for the prevailing conditions, and b) the owner of the Moody wasn't really looking, or at least understanding, the picture on his radar. I know that when I have been in such a sitation I place the EBL on the target when it is several miles away, and if it remains on the line, I take very obvious avoiding action. Like others, I don't fancy trying to make a large ship change course for me. Last summer, I crossed the channel a couple of times (there and back) and three crossings were in daylight. So imagine my feelings when I could look through the bridges of several smaller ships and see nobody on watch at all. At least the bridge itself was empty, maybe there was someone watching the radar screen. But, those of you with radar; how often have you been in site of a yacht that didn't show on your radar screen? It has certainly happened to me. My set isn't that old, either!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Long line of cowards.

"...Statistically, I question whether yacht radar can be shown to offer any real extra safety in fog. It may actually be counter-productive, luring yachts out in marginal conditions."

I'm absolutely with you on this - so far as I can see the faciltities of a yacht radar set and the small size of the radome combined with the additional watch keeping responsibilities it imposes on a lightly crewed boat make radar of questionable value.

I'm going to save the money I would have spent on Radar and spend it on a Radar Target Enhancer instead this will make me more visible at a greater distance to big ship radar and their ARPA facilities. With the change I'm going to buy an AIS (Automatic Identification System) receiver and plug it into to a Chart Plotter. I will then have maximised my chances of being seen and have factual information on the "opposition" which will help me stay out of the way. From preference I will always get out of the way of big ships, even if I have theoretical right of way. I am far more manoueverable than any tanker or container ship.

Ed


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The value of radarrds.

I am very concerned by the use of radar on this yacht. From personal experience in tough conditions I would think:

1. Lining up the closing vessel on an EBL at 6 miles or so would show, whatever the course of the yacht, whether there was a risk of collision. Does this not take precedence over all other considerations?

2. Simple screen observation would show the great speed of the approaching vessel and indicate the fast reducing scope for counter measures on the yacht.

3. Dropping the radar range to 3 then 1.5 miles would, on a properly calibrated radar, produce a very large and growing splash as the target loomed.
The skipper would then have a clear idea of what is about to happen.

4. Many skippers must have shared my experience that large boats take avoiding action quite early on, IF they are going to do so. We otherwise conclude they have caluclated they will pass us or don't care: either way they are a constant rather than a wavering threat.

So if it is clear the commercial vessel is holding its course, the decison of the yacht skipper is somewhat easier.

Whatever may be said about rights and wrongs, the view from the bridge of one of these huge vessels is dominated by the relative lack of options at full operating speed. The YM report accepts there is no way these vessels can nor will travel at line of sight speed in fog. Travelling slower is not likely to make close quarters encounters any less fraught.

When yachts get cought out in such conditions, skippers could usefully give more thought to the view from the bridge, and less to the rights of Col regs as a means of saving boat and life. It's a case of practical sailing. And it helps the skippers of such large vessels to help us when we take EARLY action and clearly signal our intentions, then act consistently.

I am still full of sympathy for the yacht skipper and his crew.

PWG


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Hi Elaine,

It will be based on the skipper's account; the point being that the boat was picked up by the pressure wave off the bow bulb (if that's the right expression) and spun round in the last few seconds before impact. I also understand that the boat had no steerageway at the time and may well not have been heading 012 degrees anyway.

The mention in 2.4.2 is the first time the question of the Colregs is raised. As far as the report is concerned, the skipper never admitted to thinking he was the 'stand-on' vessel

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

This is the confusing bit isn't it?

Some say that if he was hit on the port bow (account calls it the "port hull" - a very unusual YM-ism unless it referring to a cat.) then he couldn't have been steering 012 and this is valid comment.

However, now James is saying that the yacht was picked up on the swell over the ship's bow stub and rotated before having it's front section crushed off from the port side by it's first contact with the ship. If this is how things happened then it is certainly possible and indeed very likely that the yacht was making 015 or thereabouts before the physical encounter took place which explains why he attempted to do the proper thing and turn to stbd in an attempt to pass behind for the best chance of avoidance.

Had he actually been voluntarily travelling south and turned to stbd, then he would have been increasing his time in front of the approaching hazard and thereby committing a grave error indeed.

I will buy the "spinning round" explanation but I think that he just got in too close to the monsters in the first place. Staying on a reciprocal parallel course but at least a couple of miles away until there was a good gap to traverse the traffic would have been my choice simply out of fear.

Not suggesting that this is relevant in this instance but often we have all heard the conversation that ends in "Put it off? No, we'll be alright. We've got radar"

Easy to criticise; not easy to rewind the video of real life for a second try.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

very convenient assumption by an Inspector of the Crown ... another 'dossier'?

P&O would appear to have had a ringside seat in the MAIB recently and P&O Nedlloyd have never been far from trouble whether its receiving a 29m euro fine for price fixing or the loss of £50m on partial disposal to its dutch partner.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

I got the impression they were not monitoring the radar as closely as they had been once they had slowed/stopped, as they thought that their action had done the trick. Trouble too is that when something big is very close it 'wipes' a trace right around you and you lose any idea of where it really is. You can mitigate it by turning the gain control well down but you will still see a much extended trace. Some modern sets automate too much IMO with autosetting gain, tuning, sea clutter and rain - there is therefore a tendency not to play with adjustments and certainly not in such a situation. I think I read too that both vessels were on 6ml range, changing range on the small screen sets we use to 3mls, then below separates the target better and shows more clearly CPA.

We had a Furuno 1830 CRT radar on our last boat which was excellent, very clear screen from any angle and NO auto setting controls. I had a lot of confidence with that set and had used it many times in anger in the channel and in the lanes off Ushant. In fog I would not feel happy with crossing less than 1ml ahead of a ship, a bit less maybe if I was passing astern.

We inherited a Ratheon small screen LCD set with our latest boat. It works but it is much less easy to use. The screen brightness and contrast setting is important and varies with the viewing angle, leaving the gain set to 'auto' means it is too sensitive and the 'trail' function to leave a direction trace behind each echo picks up too much clutter and wipes out the screen very quickly (set manually it is fine). The small screen size is such that the target is difficult to move any distance away from the centre (by dropping range scale) to the edge of the screen, this makes it harder to set the EBLs accurately or to measure the bearings for a paper plot. After a lot of practice in clear vis and some unwanted practice in fog I have become accustomed to it BUT with this one then I would want to stretch the pass in front minimum distance to nearer 2mls minimum. I have no MARPA experience but it seems to me this is just using more computer power to interpret the screen, and it is the screen resolution and clarity coupled with settings used that makes this doubtful in accuracy in practice, I may be wrong of course. In this instance I believe the Moody did not use the MARPA that was fitted anyway.

Like the Moody, I have used the 'stop' option to allow a problem ship to pass ahead, in future I think this might change for a more positive 90deg - 180deg starboard turn. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

By the time the blob reaches out its arms you're too damn close and any useful action is too late. In Soton water it happens when a large container ship is about 20yds away. Even in good visibility I feel nervous crossing shipping lanes with a CPA in front of less than a mile. I know that the textbook says that slowing down is often a good strategy but I'd rather belt off in a different direction so that there is no ambiguity in my actions. In the MAIB it indicates that the ship had already changed course to avoid sumfink, perhaps the yacht had looked at the ship's course when it was on avoiding action and failed to recheck? However if it alters to Staboard to avoid then alters to port to regain its course then in fact the ship is altering course towards a target forward of the beam? Have'nt read the report recently but I remember thinking at the time .. hmmm

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
AIS

Atm, AIS can't go into a chartplotter, it can go into Euronav's chart plotting software, but not the little grey box with chart plotter written on the front. :-(

Best start saving :-)

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

God Jimi, what does it look like to pass just 20yds away from a container ship!

The circular wipeout can occur at any distance, same as you get a 'dragged out' trace sometimes off land radiating around. The cure is to reduce the gain temporarily, but of course if the set has this set as 'auto' it doesn't happen. I would suspect perhaps the Moody set may have had all adjustments on 'auto'.
This is all very dissorienting (sp?), it often happens when the danger has actually passed (ie you crossed way ahead) but the CPA distance afterwards has decreased. (you need a facility to draw pics on here!)

All this gloom and doom is just too depressing. Got to go paint the cradle patches and keel bottom, she's in the boatlift and we go splash at 0800 tomorrow, yippeeee!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Ahh but....

Ahh....but according to the narrative of events on Wahkuna 1.7 on page 10 of the report.....

"Soon after, one of the crew recalled hearing a fog signal, then saw the bow of a large container vessel looming out of the fog at a distance of approximately 50 to 60 metres to port. In an attempt to avoid a collision, the skipper came hardto-starboard, and ahead on the main engine."

So it will be interesting to read the skippers account, but does anyone know how far ahead does the pressure wave travel infront of a ship?

If it's 50 - 60 meters for a ship at 25 knots---how far is it for the the bugs to get out of my way before they land with a splat on my windscreen as I drive down the A3 at 70mph? :-)

Here's a link to the report:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_maritimesafety/ documents/page/dft_masafety_026317.pdf

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Going up and down Soton Water (I'm berthed there) often pass that distance from very large ships (not in front though!) ... I keep the radar on in the dark to spot the unlit boys.

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
I guess,....

...we'll all be avidly waiting for the plots promised by JJ in the next issue.

It is surely fear of getting into this blind, close quarters predicament that makes most of us keep WELL away and certainly not at the business end!

One day though, maybe we'll ALL get caught out at least once and maybe the largest proportion of us will get away with it if only for the simple principle that it's easier to hit the gaps than the ships because the gaps are BIGGER than the ships!

Steve Cronin


<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Is this a confession of violating the "Moving Exclusion Zone"?

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Nope -- MPZ is between Hook Buoy and the Prince Consort Buoy, does'nt applt to Soton Water

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Re: I STILL can\'t get it....

Right

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Confession time

Many years back when we had just bought our first radar, one of those that you had to stare down a tube at the screen, we were crossing from Dartmouth to Camaret and went into a fog patch, you know the kind, a little local patch with 25yd vis that stretches from Dover to Brest. Well this 'thing' appeared on the screen, big like an island with width and depth but apparently not moving relative to us. Well being a skilled navigator, I knew there wasn't an island out there, so maybe it was a rain storm, I had heard you could see rain but hadn't had the set long enough to experience it. Which way do we go round this island? Well let's get a bit closer then maybe we can figure out which way it is going and go behind it. Next thing we hear a VHF call warning of a tug and tow, position xx degs N and yy degs E OK so he's no problem he's miles away we're 4x degs W (it had been a tiring night, now 4am) then the penny drops - wrong longitude, if he was EAST we couldn't hear him. Then another yacht calls him and asks him to confirm longitude, yes WEST it is, oh christ thats what it is TURN 180 go NORTH NOW!!!

The bows of the tug passed within visible range, maybe 50 yards. We called him later, he did apologise but said he was busy with another small boat apparently with no radar or VHF, we left him to it. The 'island' was the tug plus the barge tow reading as one target in width, the depth was created because the tow was out on a shear again painting a deep trace as one target not two. This is why you need narrow beam width scanners for target differentiation. There were no foghorns heard either. We have since had a lot more practice with radar and would not want to be without it, now we do know what rain looks like and don't go close to strange islands that spring up mid channel.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top