Is there any point in standing on...

[Woodlouse]

That really is the biggest load of tosh that is oft repeated on these forums.

The real answer is to obey IRPCS - otherwise you get all sailors a bad name. No wonder watch keepers of ships wonder what some sailors are playing at...

The IRPCS are written is such a way that if you do miss all other boats whilst not causing other collisions then you have obeyed them. Nothing is hard and fast in the rules when it comes to avoiding action and much is placed at the skippers discretion as to when to give way.

 

[john_morris_uk]

The IRPCS are written is such a way that if you do miss all other boats whilst not causing other collisions then you have obeyed them. Nothing is hard and fast in the rules when it comes to avoiding action and much is placed at the skippers discretion as to when to give way.

That's only partially true. If everyone behaved in the way that some people seem to claim they behave then there would almost certainly be MORE collisions. IRPCS provide some 'predictability' in the way that other people will avoid collision and that's essential. I suggest its possibly lack of appropriate experience and certainly a lack of seamanship that causes people to repeatedly claim that they 'give way to everything'. Its wrong on so many levels.

If all ships 'avoided everything', then a little thought shows that ships would start colliding regularly. There would be situations like two people on a pavement stepping one way and another and the result with a craft of any size would be disastrous. When two ships met in a crossing situation it would be Russian Roulette as to which way to turn. One way would be safe and one way would potentially be disastrous. The watch keeper would guess - and then see if he/she had guessed right. Overtaking vessels would be in real danger as the vessel being overtaken would be a liberty to alter course at will... etc etc So if we agree that IRPCS are a good thing then:-

Size doesn't come into it: smaller craft should also behave 'predictably'. What possible reason could there be for it to be any other way? If one claims that a small craft is more manoeuvrable and IRPCS shouldn't apply, then the logical conclusion is that it would be licence for every vessel of any size to run down any other vessel with impunity. More importantly, who decided what is small and what is big? I've sailed boats from a few feet long to over 100 feet long. Do the rules apply only on the big boats? Where's the cut off? Same rules for everyone, otherwise its madness.

The reason I suggest that the problem is one of experience and seamanship is this: big ships have the advantage of well defined radar and advanced automatic plotting systems which together with a steady platform and AIS makes the assessment of the risk of collision easier. On a small boat one has to work harder to assess risk of collision.

I strongly suspect that this claim that 'I avoid everything' means that people are actually altering course for a perceived risk which frequently doesn't exist. I have sailed with crew who get anxious about any ship that appears if it looks as though it is coming anywhere near us. The answer is to give them the hand bearing compass and get them to start taking bearings. Ninety nine times out of a hundred the ship that seems to such a threat on first sight has a bearing that is changing and passes clear with ease. This is often NOT obvious from just looking, or 'lining it up with bit of the boat'. The latter works on nice calm days when your boat is being steered accurately. (It definitely doesn't work very well when you are surging along on a broad reach in a force six) In fact the bearing often doesn't change very much at all until the ship is only a slack handful of miles away. (Draw the vector diagram to see why this is.) This has been discussed on these forums many times, yet people still seem to think that they can ignore one of the basic requirements of IRPCS which is all about behaving predictably. Be just a little bit braver and wait and see.

None of this means you stand on into danger. If you stand on and it becomes apparent that the other vessel is not complying, then IRPCS obviosuly requires you to avoid collision. But claiming some get out clause and saying 'I alter course long before anyone who pings me as a threat' (as someone else has claimed) is delusion. I will put VERY short odds that the big ship will (so long as you appear on their radar) have assessed and altered course for you before you do. As a good skipper you always watch to make sure he/she has 'seen you' and you prepare to alter course if necessary but don't zig zag round the ocean making people wonder what you are playing about at.

I note that one of the really good things about AIS is that its helped my argument. Its made many small boat skippers realise that ships they would have previously thought of as a threat have already altered for them miles before they had even started to notice the potential problem.

Saying 'I avoid collision therefore I am obeying IRPCS' is not the whole story. You can sail your entire life and avoid collision but be a continuous source of annoyance to watch keepers of other vessels.

 

[lpdsn]

Thanks for posting that.

I have to admit that the ColReg posts on this forum are the strongest argument I've ever seen for compulsory licensing.

Too many people use "might is right" as a shorthand alternative to learning the ColRegs and consider standing on means passing under the bows of a ship, which of course it doesn't.

No wonder we're called WAFI or PAFIs.

 

[A1Sailor]

The reality from the bridge of a ship is that the watchkeeper can't make out what you are doing from your meandering course and the chances are that he/she has ALREADY altered course to avoid you. You then go and mess things up by altering yourself and he/she is left scratching their head as to what you are playing at.

You are also doing a huge disservice to the watchkeepers on major ships by suggesting that they don't care about you as a so called 'rabbit'. I've met a fair few professional watch keepers merchant and RN and I believe that without exception they would be deeply insulted by your suggestion. All the ones I have met are proud of their seamanship and are frustrated by the silly antics of many yachts weaving about the sea in the manner you seem to imply.

+1
The watchkeepers on major ships are often looking at a much bigger picture, altering course/standing on for other ships that the meandering yachtie hasn't seen.

EDIT: So the meanderer can create havoc!

 

[fisherman]

I won't quote #102 and clutter up the thread, but may I say that is THE biggest load of






sound seamanship and common sense I can remember on here. Ta.

 

[Mariner69]

+1

 

[A1Sailor]

+1

+1