Near collision

[Solitaire]

Re: Viral marketing

This whole thing is now starting to sound like the "Irish Problem" - nobody can remember why it started! Since when has this "discussion" been about the Fastcats? The Fastcats (can) take a different route over to the IOW from the conventional ferries and also go to Ryde not Fishbourne. I'm therefore somewhat confused as to why you expect a public apology from MainlyStream?

Perhaps it's because of the arrogance (and ignorance ?) of a few who believe they are always right, irrespective of the circumstances in which they find themselves? A situation that is not uncommon with certain members of the boating public!

I also think that prejudice is getting in the way of fact here, and selective quoting of the Col regs. together with the use of semantics is being used to confuse the issue. Rules 9 – Narrow channels and 10 – Traffic Separation Schemes are very specific in their wording. And, with particular reference to this discussion are Rule 9 subsection B and Rule 10 subsection J. Clearly, in the event that these rules are not being observed, then others will come into play, Rules 13 – 17 for example. But then of course Rule 2 overrides everything!

I’d also suggest reading Paragraph 9 QHM Portsmouth LNTM 06/04 regarding use of the Swashway.

As to the meaning of the word “impede”! Boating is <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.powerboattraininguk.co.uk>Serious Fun

 

[Mike21]

Re: Viral marketing

"Anyway, there is a severe danger of words such as “dead”, “flogging” and “horse” becoming somewhat appropriate here now! "

Fully agree as some will never see past rule 18(a)/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[waverider]

Re: Viral marketing

jonjo....why should MainlySteam apologize? When all his post's in this thread have had either the correct answers or advice........Your demand has confused me!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Viral marketing

Jonjo I can assure you that I do not work for PBO and that I have nothing to apologise for. Nowhere did I say that the Wightlink ferries did not have a good view - I have never been on board one to be able to make that claim. I am sure that if you review my posts you will see that they actually say that some ferries do not have easy visibility astern - you seem to be making the connection with the Wightlink boats yourself.

I can authoritively disagree with the general comment that "fastcats can stop in two boat lengths". I know that at least one of the vessels in the Solent can do so though as I have more than a passing aquaintance with it. What you will find is that many water jet powered ferries can indeed stop very fast but it is incorrect to relate that to boat lengths.

I was recently on a relatively small new jet powered ferry, a very highly powered one, with the naval architect on board who designed one of the recent additions to the Solent fleet (he did not design the boat we were on however) and he commented to me that he recalled that the boat we were on stopped within two boat lengths during the crash stop trials. I pointed out to him that was not so and in fact it stopped within about 100 m (from around 35 knots), which was around 4 boat lengths - on checking he found that was so - he had been thinking of the larger Solent vessel.

Typically, obviously with some allowance for power, a water jet powered ferry may be able to stop in around 100 metres or so. So for a 30 - 40 m vessel (and the one PBO was referring to was probably 40 m, 35 knots) it will tend to stop in around 2-3 boat lengths, however that should not be extrapolated to say a 25 m vessel as while it may stop in the same distance in meters, that will probably equate to 4 or 5 boat lengths.

Importantly though, what you do not say is what happens on board the catamaran if it is forced to make such a crash stop.

Firstly, but least importantly, there is the real risk of damage to the drive chain.

Secondly, and most importantly, there is a real risk of injury to those on board it. I have been on board fast water jet powered ferries during crash stop trials and prior to the stop the crew is warned over the public address that it is intended and again just before and told to be either seated or braced. A crash stop in service, and which would be without warning, would result in anyone standing and unbraced being thrown to the deck.

So before standing on to such a vessel remember that it may not stop in as few boat lengths as PBO may have inferred to you (I have not seen what they actually said) and if it is forced into a crash stop it may very well be that persons on board it will be injured.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gandy]

There's been a lot of informative discussion of yacht vs big boat interaction, mostly unrelated to the original post.

Back to the actual incident, and genuinely wanting to learn ...

Does anyone here think that the original poster should have taken early avoiding action, so allow the ferry to pass without alteration of course? If so, which way would you turn?

How close would you let the overtaking vessel approach before you decide that he's coming straight on and you need to take evasive action? If you act too soon then I guess the ferry could make a subsequent course change, and you're back on collision course again.

Tony S


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[waverider]

I think what the problem has been all along....is that people interpret the colregs different and just maybe let the responsibilty lie with the other vessel

Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.


Rule 6

Safe Speed

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: Viral marketing

> why he should apologise

A chronology.

* Ian had a frightening encounter in a sea area where general ColRegs were in force.
* Some others cited similar examples with both Ryde and Fishbourne ferries.
* Very experienced local yachtsmen commented that ferry behaviour has changed for the worse.
* I recommended that the best action a yacht could take in a similar situation to Ian's would be to stick to ColRegs, hold a course, not do anything erratic to aggravate the situation and let the pro's with their superior knowledge, vantage point and experience, control the situation.
* From half a world away MainlySteam stated he was a maritime pro and in multiple posts he challenged my opinion with contempt and indicated that people like me were part of the problem.
* In October's PBO the captain of a Wightlink fastcat ferry confirmed my opinion 100%.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: You should be aware

The problem is that you don't understand what is meant by "not to impede". It is not the same as being give way vessel. Rule 8 spells out explicitly what the obligations are on both vessels in question.

(a) The vessel required not to impede must give the vessel of passage sufficient room to manouevre safely. That requirement comes into force before "Risk of Collision" exists.

(b) whenever risk of collision exists the vessel of passage is required to abide by all normal colregs, i.e. it remains give way vessel if that would otherwise be the case.

Many people would agree with me that the rules are badly written, and I believe there have been efforts to redraft that section (which is a comparatively recent addition to IRPCS (1987)) but as they currently stand it is not breaking the rules for a vessel required "Not to Impede" to force a "Vessel of Passage" to alter course provided that the latter has sufficient

Don't worry - you are not alone in making this mistake. In a recent survey carried out by the Nautical Institute over 80% of so called "Professional" mariners got the answer to a similar situation about vessels crossing TSS wrong. That is worth bearing in mind when contributors claim that their professional connections give them occult knowledge of Colregs.

My personal approach is never to assume that a big ship has even seen me, let alone is going to apply colregs correctly. I have grave doubts as to the quality of lookout kept on many ships, and there is clear evidence that the watchkeepers don't themselves understand the rules.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Viral marketing

MainlySteam stated he was a maritime pro

Where, exactly /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif?

It may be clear that I do work in the marine industry but I do believe that I did not make the claim you attribute to me.

This is all getting tiresome and I suggest that we both desist. Accept or discard my views as you wish and I will do likewise with yours.

John


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: Viral marketing

It has been an interesting thread albeit feisty.

One of the problems with the thread is that some contributor's clarifications of ColRegs have been mistaken by others as a statement of intent.

I value your special insight to local Portsmouth harbour matters and I have followed your links to the QHM site. So far I have not read a notice indicating that special regulations apply to yacht-ferry counters mid way between Portsmouth and the IOW. Have I missed something?

One particular point raised in the PBO article is that an eastward tidal current often pushes unaware skippers out from the small boat channel into the main Portsmouth approach channel. Have you seen evidence of this?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: Viral marketing

You wrote:

As I do not sail on the Solent I can regard it all with amusement I guess. In fact with a smirk I suppose, because while a couple of amateurs half way around the world have been getting upset at me today, I have been working for a fleet operator, also half way around the world, who thinks quite the opposite of me.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[waverider]

Re: You should be aware

It's not a case of not being alone in making this mistake....as I have not made it! But I have made similar comments in earlier post's to this thread, what you have just stated......."My personal approach is never to assume that a big ship has even seen me, let alone is going to apply colregs correctly. I have grave doubts as to the quality of lookout kept on many ships, and there is clear evidence that the watchkeepers don't themselves understand the rules"
Myself when sailing I always keep a sharp eye......just off the coast of Corfu a month back I spotted three unusual (could be rogue if larger) waves about 2 to 3 metres high in what would be calm waters on my port beam......it was only the fact of keeping a sharp watch that enabled me to point bows to and avoid tidying up what would have been a mess below!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[waverider]

Re: Viral marketing

I think you may have been unfair to MainlySteam jonjo.....when the majority of us have been saying all along that it's best to alter course or stay clear of larger vessels rather than rely on the colregs.......do we need to risk our life jackets will inflate?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: Viral marketing

I re-read the PBO article.

It seems the fastcats do 26 knots on this route and...

"This means that, in an emergency, the cat can stop from flat out in about two boat lengths without graunching and wrecking the gearbox."

Personally I would never rely on such claims when helming a yacht. I have never had a close encounter that caused me great anxiety when sailing around these waters but when my new boat arrives I will be regularly sailing out of Portsmouth, hence my interest in this issue.

Despite all the contentious postings I have not read much that will alter my approach to ferry encounters. I have learnt something about avoiding the big stuff in the final Portsmouth harbour approaches and Bedouin has enhanced my knowledge of the subtle differences about "not impede" and "give way".

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: Viral marketing

> do we need to risk our life jackets will inflate?

And the captain of a Wightlink ferry has now informed us via PBO that you create exactly this risk with creative small boat avoidance manoeuvres in the vicinity of his vessel.

The same article also mentions they do not bother with radar in good visibility because compared to their speed most other craft ahead are effectively static.

I think what the Wightlink fastcat captain is telling us is that when he departs from Ryde and there are 10 yachts in the 2.5 miles between him and the Swashway, he wants those yachts to keep a steady course because any helpful? manoeuvre a yacht can make at 5 knots is largely irrelevant to his speed.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[waverider]

Re: Viral marketing

Well jonjo (no offence intended) I think we are stetching this thread to it's limits m8y.....there will always be problems in the solent with a debate on who was in the wrong......It's sad that although in our minds we can visualise a picture of the event it is not the same as witnessing the live incident. I would suspect that my own opinion along with many others could possibly change if there was live footage on the problems lesuire sailors have with ferrys on this stretch of water.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike21]

Re: You should be aware

"a) The vessel required not to impede must give the vessel of passage sufficient room to manouevre safely. That requirement comes into force before "Risk of Collision" exists."

Bedouin, don't know where your getting this from, as I can't find it as part of rule 10 in any books I have on colregs
You appear to be using part of rule 8 to justify impeding vessels in a TSS.
Solitaire posted the definition of impede, which basically means stay out of the way.
Can't see how forcing a vessel following a TSS to take avoiding action is not impeding it's safe passage, appears CG tends to think that it is.

So imo your mistaken as you always seem to interprete the colregs with rule 18(a)(iv) in mind ie power gives way to sail, rather than as a set of rules to help avoid collisions

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Viral marketing

For goodness sake Jonjo, 'cause I say that I was doing some work for a fleet operator and he does not get upset at me while some amateurs have been, that means, in your view, that "MainlySteam stated he was a maritime pro".

As I said, it has probably been obvious that I do work in the maritime industry (as is the case for a number of other posters on these forums), but the statement you claimed of me was never made.

In any event, for the sake of some rest, lets just say that "You win" and have an end to it. There will be no more from me.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonjo]

Re: You should be aware

> Solitaire posted the definition of impede

This link was to a general purpose every day dictionary.

In a complex situation like this you need to look at how this regulation is taught and applied in a maritime context and if agreement cannot be found, then in the final resort the truth is defined by precedence set in maritime case law.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatmike]

Re: Viral marketing

You don't appear to be reading what Mainlysteam is saying. Let me make it clear. The Ferry may be technically able to crash stop in a couple of boatlengths in fact the MCA may interpret the IMO Code of practice for high speed vessels literally and insist it can before giving it a licence to operate, but if the Master of the vessel has to crash stop to avoid you in your yacht he may well injure or kill passengers by doing it. The g forces involved would throw everyone out of their seat at best. He ain't gonna do that lightly for you chum!

<hr width=100% size=1>