Jessica Watson failed to notice ship at 1 mile

[PilotWolf]

You have no idea....I have personally experienced incidents in which the whole crew to a man have been blind drunk on leaving port, with the exception of the master, the deck officers, the engineers, the donkeyman and sparks. Another problem at sea is alcohol. And this is a problem or was a problem across flags. So I have seen the lot. And I can tell you that I was the only deck officer in the fleet to be teetotal, not because I am a goody goody but because alcohol does not agree with me. Therefore my captains trusted me implicitly, but you have got to understand that a deck officer is in no position to overrule the old man and suddenly take command because he does not like or agree with what he does or does not do in command of his ship. So do not make silly comments.

Excuxe me? How are my comments silly? Refueller has stated he has done just that for one! I have every right in law to do so and would if the need occurred.

I notice you chose not to answer how or why you allowed yourself to remain in the situation - repeatedly it seems - of sailing with Masters and officers who routinely broke the law and did nothing about it.

PW.

 

[VO5]

Then there is another thing...the distance of the sea horizon...

Quoted fro Burton's Nautical Tables:~ (back page).



Height ... Sea Horizon
Ft. ..... M.

10 ..... 3.7
15 ..... 4.5
20 ..... 5.2
25 ..... 5.8
30 ..... 6.4
35 ..... 6.9
40 ..... 7.4
45 ..... 7.8
50 ..... 8.3
55 ..... 8.7
60 ..... 9.1 etc.,


When approaching land, it is the land that can be seen clearly behind the curvature of the earth because the visibility is greater normally than the distance of the visible sea horizon. This leads to the misconception that the view from a yacht is greater than it actually is. It is not.

In some circumstances (and this is a separate topic) refraction, which is the effect of clear cold air may enhance the distance visible.

Alternatively swell may serve to impair spotting ships not so far away.

I remember being inward bound from Lisbon to Amsterdam single handed in Biscay. There was a huge swell running from the North West. I was sailing parallel to a tanker, off no more than 4 cables.

I was having a chat with them on VHF. They could see me, they could see my mast and sails, with an air draght of 54 feet approx., but I could only get glimpses of their funnel. part of the accomodation and foremast as my yacht rose on crests. Occasionally I could glimpse the uppermost continuous deck but not on every rise.

Then you see it is possible to have ships nearby and not be able to see them continuosly...

 

[PilotWolf]

Try the Seismic world where we towed 2 gun strings + a seismic cable of 3 miles long .... That makes for some nervous moments !!

The contract we've just finished involved 4 magnetometers, one sonar fish and a multi beam with the longest at 500 metres astern and that was stressful enough thanks!

W.

 

[VO5]

Excuxe me? How are my comments silly? Refueller has stated he has done just that for one! I have every right in law to do so and would if the need occurred.

I notice you chose not to answer how or why you allowed yourself to remain in the situation - repeatedly it seems - of sailing with Masters and officers who routinely broke the law and did nothing about it.

PW.

You obviously have not had practical experience of big ship life before all these nanny state regulations were put in place. Nowadays we have gone from one extreme to the other.

And it is precisely as a result of this nanny state thinking that simple discussions like these are extended and prolonged with more and more arcane arguments that are beginning to bore me, I will tell you..

 

[Refueler]

Where is that by the way? Is it Milford ? Lower Thames ?

Hamburg. I was Marine Superintendent discharging a cargo of Crude Oil ... 90,000 MT of it.

 

[timbartlett]

<Warning: light-hearted remark coming up>

You obviously have not had practical experience of big ship life before all these nanny state regulations were put in place.

The colregs became law in 1863.
I don't think there are many who would describe Victorian Britain as "the nanny state".
And I'm pretty confident that there is no-one on this forum who had big ship experience before then!

 

[ninky]

another probably more controversial point is to wonder whether massive merchant ships should be allowed to go to sea at all. they cause a lot of pollution, encourage excessive consumerist consumption and generally make the sea a more dangerous place to be.

 

[Refueler]

another probably more controversial point is to wonder whether massive merchant ships should be allowed to go to sea at all. they cause a lot of pollution, encourage excessive consumerist consumption and generally make the sea a more dangerous place to be.

It is considerably off-thread - but it is actually interesting what prompted the building of massive ships. And the follow-on that evolved.

Suez Canal Crisis and later Arab / Israeli conflicts with closing of Suez made company's look to big tankers / bulk-carriers to round the cape. It was a freight cost concern. Markets wouldn't stomach the increased costs and shipping answered the demand by getting bigger.
Later and ongoing is the actual reduction in ship size as steamships phased out ... more economic Motor Ships took over and also markets changed. Areas such as Baltic, Eastern / SE seaboard of USA couldn't take such big ships and lightering was called for. That was slowly outlawed and restricted - bringing the requirement to reduce ships size to more 'pocket-size' compared to the huge of before.
It has now developed across the shipping world with near all types reduced in size for new or recent builds.

Transport is driven by whether markets will carry the costs ... not other way round.

 

[LittleSister]

Are you right to turn left?

Oi! I already posted that a few posts back - it is Rule 17 (c)

It is however a good example of someone showing that they don't know the Colregs as well as they think they do.

- W

I think both you and Refueler are mistaken in believing in a general requirement to avoid turning to port, though this does seem a very popular misconception. We can all (except in two very specific situations) legitimately turn merrily to port or starboard, as our fancy takes us, or the demands of safety or convenience dictates.

Rule 17(c) applies only to power driven stand-on vessels and where a power driven give way vessel on its port side has failed to give way. (Even then the presumption against a turn to port is only 'if the situation permits'.)

As far as I can see, that rule, which covers only that single very specific situation, is the only one discouraging a turn to port. Meanwhile, the only one requiring a turn to starboard is Rule 14 - power vessels approaching one another head on. Neither are relevant to a power vessel approaching a sailing in a crossing situation, so a turn to port was always a valid option.

 

[VO5]

Are you right to turn left ?

Emphatically, no.

The convention is to cant to starboard, or to go round the clock to starboard, or to slow down, or even to stop engine.

As for vessels meeting end on or nearly end on, neither.

This very action in the Atlantic sunk the Andrea Doria.

 

[timbartlett]

I think both you and Refueler are mistaken in believing in a general requirement to avoid turning to port, though this does seem a very popular misconception. We can all (except in two very specific situations) legitimately turn merrily to port or starboard, as our fancy takes us, or the demands of safety or convenience dictates.

When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard... When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall.... avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

I've taken out all the "if the circumstances etc. etc.", but the gist of these two is "alter course to starboard.

A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, ... not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

The most common situation for this situation to apply is two PDVs croassing, where the stand-on vessel decides to alter course -- i.e. faced with a "rogue" approaching from her port side. In other words, she is told to alter course to starboard. of course the situation would be quite different if, for instance, the stand-on vessel were a fishing vessel with a PDV crossing from starboard. And although Rule 19 is too long to quote from, but it effectively allows altering course to port only when overtaking another vessel or when the other vessel is approaching from the starboard side
So in the overwhelming majority of potential collisions, it seems to me that altering to starboard is the preferred or only legitimate option for a PDV. Sailing vessels are different. But as most professionals work on power driven vessels, it is quite understandable that the "avoid altering to port" is adopted as a safe general principle.

 

[VO5]

I've taken out all the "if the circumstances etc. etc.", but the gist of these two is "alter course to starboard.

The most common situation for this situation to apply is two PDVs croassing, where the stand-on vessel decides to alter course -- i.e. faced with a "rogue" approaching from her port side. In other words, she is told to alter course to starboard. of course the situation would be quite different if, for instance, the stand-on vessel were a fishing vessel with a PDV crossing from starboard. And although Rule 19 is too long to quote from, but it effectively allows altering course to port only when overtaking another vessel or when the other vessel is approaching from the starboard side
So in the overwhelming majority of potential collisions, it seems to me that altering to starboard is the preferred or only legitimate option for a PDV. Sailing vessels are different. But as most professionals work on power driven vessels, it is quite understandable that the "avoid altering to port" is adopted as a safe general principle.

Correct.

 

[LittleSister]

Standing Up for the Right to Turn Left!

Rule 19 is too long to quote from, but it effectively allows altering course to port only when overtaking another vessel or when the other vessel is approaching from the starboard side

You're obviously working with a different set of Colregs to me! Here's the International Rule 19 in its entirety (below). Thank you for drawing my attention to a second rule with a port turn restriction, but you'll see it applies only in restricted visibility (fog, etc.) AND when you detect the other vessel only by radar. Neither of those applied in the situation under discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 19 CONDUCT OF VESSELS IN RESTRICTED VISIBILITY
(a) This rule applies to vessels not in sight of one another when navigating in or near an area of restricted visibility.

(b) Every vessel shall proceed at a safe speed adapted to the prevailing circumstances and condition of restricted visibility. A power driven vessel shall have her engines ready for immediate maneuver.

(c) Every vessel shall have due regard to the prevailing circumstances and conditions of restricted visibility when complying with the Rules of Section I of this Part.

(d) A vessel which detects by radar alone the presence of another vessel shall determine if a close-quarters situation is developing and/or risk of collision exists. If so, she shall take avoiding action in ample time, provided that when such action consists of an alteration in course, so far as possible the following shall be avoided:
(i) An alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam, other than for a vessel being overtaken;
(ii) An alteration of course toward a vessel abeam or abaft the beam.

(e) Except where it has been determined that a risk of collision does not exist, every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her speed to be the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[timbartlett]

You're obviously working with a different set of Colregs to me!

So it would seem.
The ones I'm referring to are the ones in MSN 1781 www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/msn_1781-2.pdf, which include three separate rules that apply in daylight, all of which strongly discourage altering course to port: 14, 15, and 17c.
Yes, Rule 19 only applies in restricted visibility. It says so in the title of Section 3, the title of rule 19 itself, and the text of its first paragraph. I didn't think it necessary to reiterate something that could hardly be less ambiguous.
I agree that 19d applies only to vessels with radar. But 19e -- the bit that applies to vessels without radar -- says

every vessel which hears apparently forward of her beam the fog signal of another vessel, or which cannot avoid a close-quarters situation with another vessel forward of her beam, shall reduce her speed to be the minimum at which she can be kept on her course. She shall if necessary take all her way off and in any event navigate with extreme caution until danger of collision is over.

That, to me, seems to be saying "slow down or stop" -- not "turn left".
Of course none of these apply to the sail-meets-power situation that started this thread.
In that particular instance, there appears to be nothing in the colregs that would have prevented the ship from altering course to port (except, possibly, the presence of another ship, several miles away on his port quarter. But nor was there anything to prevent him altering course to starboard.
The problem is not that he did the wrong thing, but that he left it too late before doing anything at all. The only explanation (other than indifference) appears to be that he failed to recognise a solitary green light as the starboard light of an unpowered vessel.
I'm afraid I don't think the idea that the incident was so far offshore that a green light was unlikely to be a sailing boat really holds water: anyone sailing from Portland Bill to Start Point is likely to have been further offshore than Miss Watson was at the time.
BTW, I'm not saying she was whiter than white, either -- just suggesting that it wasn't quite as one-sided as some reports made out.

 

[goboatingnow]

Just as a general comment, based on my sailing experience, I beleive that large commercial vessels never change course to avoid sail boats. Whether thats because they dont see me, teh old mans against it , or what. The majority simply steam on regardless. As a result when at sea I simply always take the avoiding action. and I beleive thats what the vast majority of commercial vessels expect me to do. ( I've been thanked over the VHF enough)

I also beleive that long distance single handing is inherently dangerous, as it requires the boat to have periods when no one is on watch. Thats why JW got into trouble, nothing else. The rules do not allow for the suspension of watch keeping.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Just as a general comment, based on my sailing experience, I beleive that large commercial vessels never change course to avoid sail boats. Whether thats because they dont see me, teh old mans against it , or what. The majority simply steam on regardless. As a result when at sea I simply always take the avoiding action. and I beleive thats what the vast majority of commercial vessels expect me to do. ( I've been thanked over the VHF enough)

I also beleive that long distance single handing is inherently dangerous, as it requires the boat to have periods when no one is on watch. Thats why JW got into trouble, nothing else. The rules do not allow for the suspension of watch keeping.

Firstly please read the other threads on your attitude to see that you are wrong about the vast majority of 'big ships'. Those of us who have experience of big ships can relate how the vast majority of them DO take avoiding action when on a collision course with a sailing vessel. They can also get VERY FRUSTRATED when sailing vessels behave unpredictably.

Secondly from my experience of sailing boats also confirms my first point that the majority of ships DO take avoiding action when necessary. It might not be as obvious as some sailing boats would like it to be as they often don't like to waste fuel and time by altering course very much, but most ships take their watchkeeping duties seriously and have altered to avoid you before you realise what is happening. (This doesn't mean that you should sail into the path of a ship regardless - that would be stupid, but often sailing on and watching carefully allows to to see that the risk of collision doesn't actually exist: the ship has altered for you and you both go cheerfully on your way.)

Thirdly, what are you doing on your VHF? There have been numerous cases of collisions being aided by chat on VHF. Even out in mid ocean when I have chatted to the bored watchkeeping officer of some merchant ship in site, its easy to get confused as to who you are talking to. There is sometimes another ship out of sight, but within VHF range to confuse the issue.

I humbly suggest that the general rule for VHF and IRPCS should be 'Don't use the VHF - it often confuses things'.

Your final point about single handed sailing is often the subject of long and undecided debate. I respect your point of view, but don't agree with it.

 

[JayBee]

But not always..

I humbly suggest that the general rule for VHF and IRPCS should be 'Don't use the VHF - it often confuses things'.

Since the advent of AIS, allowing positive identification of a vessel in a potentially close quarters situation, it can be useful to give the OOW a call on the VHF to check whether or not you have been seen and if so, what his/her intentions are. Not much room for confusion there, in the open sea, at least.

By the way, I have read some incredible assertions in this thread about supposed attitudes of shipmasters and OOWs in Merchant ships. I have never met a fellow professional who is unprepared to alter course for a yacht. It is no big deal for even the largest ships to make a course alteration and certainly does not require the OOW to seek permission from the Master.

 

[vyv_cox]

Just as a general comment, based on my sailing experience, I beleive that large commercial vessels never change course to avoid sail boats.

I disagree. This season we were in the north Aegean on a heavily traversed route for shipping between Istanbul and southern point of Greece. On several occasions ships clearly changed course to avoid us. My previous experience in the North Sea off Holland, a very heavily used area for shipping, also suggests that they were almost as careful as we were in avoiding close approach. At night we have been called on VHF to assure us that they were aware of our presence.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Since the advent of AIS, allowing positive identification of a vessel in a potentially close quarters situation, it can be useful to give the OOW a call on the VHF to check whether or not you have been seen and if so, what his/her intentions are. Not much room for confusion there, in the open sea, at least.

By the way, I have read some incredible assertions in this thread about supposed attitudes of shipmasters and OOWs in Merchant ships. I have never met a fellow professional who is unprepared to alter course for a yacht. It is no big deal for even the largest ships to make a course alteration and certainly does not require the OOW to seek permission from the Master.

I readily accede your point. We don't have AIS yet, but I can see that it makes the process a lot easier - especially if you have an integrated radar/plotter/ais system and cross check the data against each other.

 

[JayBee]

Re: John _Morris_UK - more on AIS

John, I am certain that if you fit an AIS receiver you will find it very useful in areas of high traffic density; perhaps more so when you haven't seen a ship for days and the one that comes over the horizon has your name on it, so to speak.

This summer, on our way back from the Azores we encountered the Eugen Maersk, one of the largest container ships in the world, with an AIS predicted CPA of less than 0.1 miles.
I called the ship and was immediately answered by the OOW, who confirmed that he had seen us. He also told us that he was about to alter course for another ship, which had just appeared on our AIS plot, and that in so doing he would be giving us a wide berth. All of this in a very amicable and professional manner. It was late afternoon and the other ship was on a westerly course, placing us dead ahead of him and directly in the sun's path. This ship, which was the stand on vessel with respect to the Eugen Maersk had NOT seen us, but a quick call on the VHF resolved the situation and he altered course also. No problem.

Of course, not everyone out there is transmitting AIS.......
Regards
JB