Lights while sailing at night

[Kukri]

1985!

As an author of technical documentation I would consider that as being from the dark ages, I work in a safety critical industry and if I had to go back that far I'd consider the activity to be safe.

The remarkable feature is that the crew of the yacht survived to tell the tale.

A ship that I know of was the subject of an MAIB investigation after she ran down and sank a 30 metre steel fish carrier, killing 12 men, without being aware that she had done so.

 

[Walther]

It is sadly common in the Solent to see tricolour, steaming light, and deck level lights all on at the same time.

That's also almost invariably the case with American-flagged sailing yachts: including those skippered by people proud of their "USCG-licensed Captain" status, who presumably should know better.

 

[lw395]

Oh look.... another one.... interesting that her lights were only 5 years old...
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25004/mair12_001.pdf

A lot of law breaking by the ship.
The tricolour was seen and identified as being a vessel, but the aspect was hard to determine because the red light had faded to white. As the yacht was going quite slowly comapred to the ferry, this doesn't make much difference.

It's hard to judge distance from a single point of light.
Maybe those red-over-green lights on the mast are worth the hassle?

 

[Frank Holden]

1985!

As an author of technical documentation I would consider that as being from the dark ages, I work in a safety critical industry and if I had to go back that far I'd consider the activity to be safe.

Not a case of having to 'go back that far'..... its simply a very well documented case which has a lot of relevance. Cases such as British Aviator/Crystal Jewel date from the early sixties and are still relevant despite there having been no end of similar incidents in far more recent times.

If you wish to ignore ignore the advice of three people who do know what they are talking about and put both yourself and your crew at risk that's your business... doesn't bother me....

Although it may bother the poor bloke who runs you down and drowns you....

Not sure what being an 'author of technical documentation' has to do with anything.

 

[Frank Holden]

A lot of law breaking by the ship.
The tricolour was seen and identified as being a vessel, but the aspect was hard to determine because the red light had faded to white. As the yacht was going quite slowly comapred to the ferry, this doesn't make much difference.

It's hard to judge distance from a single point of light.
Maybe those red-over-green lights on the mast are worth the hassle?

What particular laws would those be?
That track was the norm for northbound ships.

Speed? White light and aspect gave the idea it was a northbound v/l..... 15-5 = closing speed of 10 knots

Actually was dealing with 15 + 5 = closing speed of 20k or thereabouts.

Yes ... red over green well worth the effort.

 

[[70521]]

Not sure what being an 'author of technical documentation' has to do with anything.

I gather the evidence and write reports when things go wrong and there are either near misses or fatalities. Perhaps that puts my sentence into context.

I can't find a large body of evidence that shows ships are routinely colliding with yachts due to displaying a masthead tricolour. rather than deck level navigation light.

 

[dom]

I gather the evidence and write reports when things go wrong and there are either near misses or fatalities. Perhaps that puts my sentence into context.

I can't find a large body of evidence that shows ships are routinely colliding with yachts due to displaying a masthead tricolour. rather than deck level navigation light.

Are we not raising the bar very high for Frank, a ships' master, who alongside other similarly qualified individuals has raised questions about tricolors in crowded shoreside waters?

I mean, if every post required full Harvard referencing.

FWIW, a French Brittany Ferries Captain who oozes nautical professionalism made exactly this point as we entered Poole Harbour once in the hours of darkness. Their collective professionalism (Red Clown Funnel excluded) avoids collisions 99.99% of the time.

But if they say, "Hey guys, you know you're making life damn difficult for us by......!"

Then I tend to listen, with an intensity heightened by the 20,000+ tons of steel they are maneuvering.

 

[lw395]

I gather the evidence and write reports when things go wrong and there are either near misses or fatalities. Perhaps that puts my sentence into context.

I can't find a large body of evidence that shows ships are routinely colliding with yachts due to displaying a masthead tricolour. rather than deck level navigation light.

Exactly, and the only example people can point to, the ship identified the yacht as a vessel, then ran it down largely due to shortcomings of the way they manned the bridge. The red lens being faded to white was a significant factor.
If a ship can see your deck level lights, you can see them.

I have heard plenty of whinges from pro mariners about yachts with low level lights partly obscured by sails, flags, dinghies on davits, liferings or whatever.

I do understand that the failure to judge the distance to the yacht's light was probably due to it being close to eye level to the ship's bridge, so the vertical angle to it does not change as you close. you can't judge range just on the brightness of a point of light.
The flip side of this is that a pulpit mounted light will be close to eye level for the more numerous and less predictable smaller vessels.

 

[[70521]]

Are we not raising the bar very high for Frank, a ships' master, who alongside other similarly qualified individuals has raised questions about tricolors in crowded shoreside waters?

I mean, if every post required full Harvard referencing.

FWIW, a French Brittany Ferries Captain who oozes nautical professionalism made exactly this point as we entered Poole Harbour once in the hours of darkness. Their collective professionalism (Red Clown Funnel excluded) avoids collisions 99.99% of the time.

But if they say, "Hey guys, you know you're making life damn difficult for us by......!"

Then I tend to listen, with an intensity heightened by the 20,000+ tons of steel they are maneuvering.

Perhaps we are raising the bar a bit high for Frank. Sadly, it is the world I live in and while my posts on here are pithy and short the day job means that I have to reference till I am blue in the face.

As I have said above I keep out of the way of the big stuff as they take a time to turn or stop. My slight change in course two miles off or that tack 10 minutes early means there is a lot less stress all round.

Poole is a lovely wee harbour, I enjoyed the night we had there last October.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The flip side of this is that a pulpit mounted light will be close to eye level for the more numerous and less predictable smaller vessels.

Exactly. There are no easy solutions. I switch between masthead and pulpit depending on which I think will be best seen at the time.

 

[LadyInBed]

Oh look.... another one.... interesting that her lights were only 5 years old...
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25004/mair12_001.pdf

"Failure to exhibit the radar reflector could therefore be saidto have contributed to the events leading up the collision." and poor lookout by the shp didn't help.
Looks like yacht got hit on port side, so no shore lights to get in the way.

 

[Frank Holden]

"Failure to exhibit the radar reflector could therefore be said to have contributed to the events leading up the collision." and poor lookout by the shp didn't help.
Looks like yacht got hit on port side, so no shore lights to get in the way.

No shore lights in this case but a mis-appreciation of the distance due to the height of the light above sea level.....not helped by the dodgy lens.. and lack of radar return.

Poor lookout? Nothing in the report about 'poor lookout'.... yacht was sighted at a range of about 4 miles some 10 minutes before the collision. The yacht sighted the ship's lights at 20 minutes.... not surprising considering the far greater intensity of the ship's lights...

The actual findings....'The Watch Officer aboard Lysaght Endeavour misjudged the distance of the white light & resumed the original course too soon.'
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1985/mair/mair12/

 

[[70521]]

The actual findings....'The Watch Officer aboard Lysaght Endeavour misjudged the distance of the white light & resumed the original course too soon.'
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1985/mair/mair12/

Sir, you are being selective in the extreme.

Sounds like what we call a rather good Swiss Cheese there were a lot of actions that the Lysaght Endeavour failed to do all clearly stated in the conclusions.

 

[Frank Holden]

Sir, you are being selective in the extreme.

Sounds like what we call a rather good Swiss Cheese there were a lot of actions that the Lysaght Endeavour failed to do all clearly stated in the conclusions.

OK.... the relevant parts in full
From here... https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1985/mair/mair12/
'On the evening of 16 December 1985, Lysaght Endeavour was proceeding northwards, in ballast, along the southern NSW coast. Shortly before 2200, the Watch Officer saw a single, small white light one point to port & the lookout reported the light shortly afterwards. No target was depicted on the radar screen & as the light remained on a steady bearing, the officer assumed that he was overtaking a small vessel, which was on a converging course. He therefore made a broad alteration to port, then gradually came back to the original course, keeping the other vessel fine to starboard. The white light suddenly disappeared under the starboard bow & Lysaght Endeavour collided with the fibreglass yacht Grunter, which was sailing on a southerly heading & stated to be displaying a tricoloured lantern at the masthead.

Grunter suffered only minor damage & was able to proceed to port unassisted.

The red section of Grunter's tricoloured lantern was foumd to have degraded to such an extent that it showed a white light. However, doubt was raised as to whether the bulb in the red section was working & that in fact the yacht was displaying the all round white anchor light.

Conclusions
Grunter was not showing the correct navigation lights, in that it was not displaying a red port sidelight.

Although there was one on board, Grunter did not carry a radar reflector in a prominent position, to enhance detection by radar.

The Watch Officer aboard Lysaght Endeavour misjudged the distance of the white light & resumed the original course too soon.'

and , from the PDF....
'(b) On LYSAGHT ENDEAVOUR, in contravention of provision 4.1 of Marine Orders Part 28 (Operations Standards and Procedures), the composition of the navigation watch was not adequate and appropriate, taking into
account:
.
.
(c) (i)
the ship was in automatic steering with no standby helmsman close at hand
the ship was close to shore approaching a narrow unlit passage inside Sir John Young Banks in darkness at full speed and the
officer of the watch, in addition to being required to fix the ship's position at frequent intervals and keep it on the intended track, would be required to undertake helmsman's duties
if avoiding action was required.
LYSAGHT ENDEAVOUR altered course to port at about 2201 hours on the incorrect assumption that the white light sighted was the stern light of a vessel. The light could have been the white
- 19 -
light prescribed in Rule 23(c)(ii) or Rule 25(d) or Rule
30(b). As it eventuated, it was not a prescribed light but a sailing vessel underway showing a white light on its port side.
(ii) LYSAGHT ENDEAVOUR'S resumption of its Northerly course at 22041⁄2 hours did not result in a safe passing distance from the other vessel as required by rule 8(d). Rather, when combined with the previous factors, it was the culmination of the events which caused the vessels to collide.'

Can't see anything there about - to quote 'Lady in Bed's statement - 'poor lookout by the ship' .... lets try incorrect light, no radar reflector, and a light mounted in such a position as to give a false impression of range.

'LYSAGHT ENDEAVOUR was properly manned and equipped and was seaworthy for the voyage.
5. GRUNTER could be considered unseaworthy in terms of Section 207 of the Navigation Act 1912 in that the lack of a port sidelight rendered it unfit to encounter an ordinary peril of the voyage, namely collision risk.'

 

[JumbleDuck]

I used to think it prudent to assume that all merchant vessels were crewed by a drunken Lithuanian second officer with forged Turkish papers and a underpaid, overworked Filipino asleep in his cabin. This thread leads me to believe that I may have been overoptimistic. More white flares needed, I think.

 

[Uricanejack]

I used to think it prudent to assume that all merchant vessels were crewed by a drunken Lithuanian second officer with forged Turkish papers and a underpaid, overworked Filipino asleep in his cabin. This thread leads me to believe that I may have been overoptimistic. More white flares needed, I think.

 

[lw395]

I used to think it prudent to assume that all merchant vessels were crewed by a drunken Lithuanian second officer with forged Turkish papers and a underpaid, overworked Filipino asleep in his cabin. This thread leads me to believe that I may have been overoptimistic. More white flares needed, I think.

I think you are being unkind to Lithuanians.

I've never needed to use a white flare, but a few times I've felt it worth lighting up the sails for a few seconds with a 12V spotlight.
Most merchant ships are very predictable in their actions. They follow channels inshore and logical paths from A to B offshore. Some yachts on the other hand, alter course every time they see a light (or just at random). It's worth trying to see it from the other guy's point of view.

 

[prv]

I used to think it prudent to assume that all merchant vessels were crewed by a drunken Lithuanian second officer with forged Turkish papers and a underpaid, overworked Filipino asleep in his cabin. This thread leads me to believe that I may have been overoptimistic.

Meanwhile all yachts are skippered by Wind Assisted ****ing Idiots who don't have the first clue about the Colregs and weave all over the ocean like a gaggle of startled ducklings

Pete

 

[alant]

I used to think it prudent to assume that all merchant vessels were crewed by a drunken Lithuanian second officer with forged Turkish papers and a underpaid, overworked Filipino asleep in his cabin. This thread leads me to believe that I may have been overoptimistic. More white flares needed, I think.

A few years ago, I was skippering a survey vessel in the Baltic, sailing across the busy traffic seperation zone between Denmark & Germany, the main shipping lane in the Baltic & vessels were calling up a ship, seen on radar & AIS sailing against the traffic in the wrong lane. "You are in the wrong lane" they cried." "That is only your opinion" was the slurred reply from the Russian Captain.
Not a drunken Lithuanian, but a crazy Ivan.

 

[Ladybirdgaffcutter]

A few years ago, I was skippering a survey vessel in the Baltic, sailing across the busy traffic seperation zone between Denmark & Germany, the main shipping lane in the Baltic & vessels were calling up a ship, seen on radar & AIS sailing against the traffic in the wrong lane. "You are in the wrong lane" they cried." "That is only your opinion" was the slurred reply from the Russian Captain.
Not a drunken Lithuanian, but a crazy Ivan.