Is PeterB around? An IRPCS question

[NigeCh]

Last Friday night about 8 miles SW of Portland Bill we were sailing merrily along to the west and came across a very strange sight which turned out to be a static ship (about 200' long) with whom we were on a collision course. The lights at 3 miles were 47 white lights and one high red. We switched on the radar to get distances and to see whether we should have to alter course. At 1.5 miles through binoculars we identified that the single high red was in fact red over red and that on the bow of the ship there was a mast with a single white light (amongst all the other white lights) At 5 cables we identified that the two reds weren't two reds but red over a very faint white over red and that there were two horizontal greens on the port side at deck level. As we passed her at about 2 cables we saw that there were searchlights at the stern illuminating a cable disapearing into the sea. At the same time we observed that the red over faint white over red were in fact two horizontal reds over two faint white horizontal whites over two horizontal reds.

On the side of the ship in big letters was the word 'Alcatel'

The faint whites between the two reds were not visible beyond 3/4 mile. As the boat was lit up like a christmas tree we changed course believing that the ship was NUC.

My questions are: why did the ship not display an equal white between the two reds; why did it have two greens at deck level and why do static ships at sea wear so many white lights that obscure the intent of correct lights?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Nige,

Stop worrying, mate. You didn't hit it, so all those lights succeeded in preventing a collision at sea.

 

[NigeCh]

But why 2 green lights on the port side? I'm not worrying but just asking ... ships lit up like christmas trees are for avoiding just as (in another context) Rule 35(e) is meaningless.

 

[Chris_Stannard]

What you saw was a cable laying ship engaged in laying a new cable or more likely repairing and existing cable. The lights should obey the rules and be visible at not less than two miles. Since the ship was owned by Alcatel and you feel strongly about it why not write to the MD and tell him, I doubt he reads the YM forum.

Chris Stannard

 

[Guest]

It is difficult to write this without appeari9ng patronising, but you youngsters do not appreciate just how sloppy the nautical world has become over the last 50 years. One has always expected some amateurs to be ignorant or slaphappy, but there was a time when professionals behaved like professionals and if they did not they got hell.

Alcatel is a French electronics and armaments company which in my experience is arrogant and uncaring. (Nobody can call me Francophobe, far from it: I admire France, but like most countries she has her lousy side) Personally I would address a letter to the French ambassador in London asking if France has abandoned its commitments under the IMO treaties. They hate that because they take pride in their national reputation.

William Cooper

 

[peterb]

Nige

Try Rule 27(d)(iii). A vessel engaged in underwater operations when at anchor shows red-white-red in a vertical line, together with two reds on the obstructed side and two greens on the side on which another vessel may pass. Surprisingly, even though at anchor, she should show no anchor lights (but it looks as if your ship was).

With the red-white-red lights mounted on a mast, there has to be a sector over which the mast blocks the lights. To overcome this, the lights are often mounted in pairs on each side of the mast. From a distance the pair will look like a single light; only when you are very near will you be able to see them as two lights. You often see the same arrangement on trawlers, etc.

Under Rule 30 (c) a vessel at anchor may (and if longer than 100m shall) use available working and deck lights to illuminate her decks, hence your 47 white lights. Mind you, Rule 27(d)(iii) says that she carries the red-white-red instead of the lights of Rule 30; taken with the apparent anchor light I suspect that she wasn't following this rule properly.

If you remember that old quiz, it was covered under question 6.

 

[NigeCh]

Thanks Bill ...

I'll do just that ... that ship was in our territorial waters and not displaying the correct lights.

Nige

 

[Guest]

Being based of the West Coast of France I would like to add, that if writing to the French authorities, stand by for the reprisals when the local French maritime authorities start chasing up British registered yachts for not flying the Red Ensign etc., etc..

 

[Mirelle]

Tch, tch. Cable ship, dear boy

She was under way but not making way. No obstruction on the port side. Perfectly correct.

I would advise NOT writing any letters to the French Ambassador. The cableship business is having rather a lean time just now and they might have a sense of humour failure.

Cable and Wireless sold their cableship fleet to Global Crossing (now in Chapter 11) and it is now called Global Marine - they are the biggest and have a base in Portland. Alcatel have a big fleet of cableships too.

 

[NigeCh]

Rules and rules ... and interpretations

I'm going to start a new post on this as I have just talked to the MCA ... and what they have said is interesting.