Ouzo - an interesting viewpoint re the MAIB report

[graham]

[ QUOTE ]

Quite right. That's what I meant by "paranoid" action. I usually adopt the same attitude in pubs when blokes are big and hairy.... I keep out of ther way cos if they bump into me when they are not looking I don't fancy debating who's fault it was afterwards!

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that comparison Mike and cant wait for this to come up in a real conversation so I can use it /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Legally the big bruiser in the pub is obliged not to hit you with a pint glass then kick you while your down,also in the morning he may not even know what he has done /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gifTwo similarities there.

 

[dmayes]

You can buy a video camera and recorder for under £200. I am sure that paying a little more would get you a reasonable setup. Cameras and recorders fitted to the bows of large ships with a decent sized screen on the bridge would greatly assist watchkeeping. The recorded images would also help anyone investigating. These could also be light enhancing versions. The recorder could be in the form of a "black box" so it is tamper proofed.

 

[graham]

After the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized because the bow door wasnt shut a regulation came in for ROrO ferries to have a cctv pointed at the door so it could be checked on the bridge visually.

They were given years to implement this then P and O succesfully applied for more time due to the financial hardship this was causing them /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Bodach na mara]

Nothing to do with the Ouzo itself, but I was a passenger on the P&O cruise liner Arcadia recently. Returning to Southampton, we were off the French coast on the night of April 22 and while returning to my cabin I heard the horn sounding. I went on deck and realised that we were in conditions of considerably reduced visibility. I cannot tell the range, as all I could see was the reflected light from the decks, but I estimate visibility as less than 200 metres.

On returning to the cabin, I noted that the speed over the ground (as measured by the GPS and broadcast on the ships information channel) was 24 knots. At that speed, the ship covers 200 metres in a little over 16 seconds. I think that the lesson here is not to be in a small boat in this area in these conditions.

 

[Robin]

We have crossed the Channel many times in thick fog over many years, not deliberately you understand.

In the 'old' days (pre Decca and GPS in yottie terms) we always heard ships foghorns and indeed became quite practiced at guessing their approximate bearings. However, I cannot remember when I last heard a ship's fog horn in the Channel, I have heard them in Poole Harbour and even the Solent, but not once in open waters despite visibilities down to 30m.

Maybe Arcadia was testing to see if hers still worked!

I believe they don't want to admit to visibility being bad enough to sound a fog signal, since that might imply they should reduce speed as well.

 

[rhumlady]

Changing the colregs to say that we should keep out of the way of ships will give some owners and masters all they need to stop looking for us as it will be up to us not to be there!
Rant! The EU should be told by the flag states to keep out of things which are not in their remit ( or shouldn't be) End Rant!

 

[MoodySabre]

I thought it strange that they only referred to the fact that nobody had time to let off red flares. No reference to Ouzo not letting off white ones for collision warning. Perhaps this would have helped early on.

First channel/North Sea crossing planned for next month. Salutory reading.

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bearing is steady or nearly so then we usually alter course obviously to port (i.e. by at least 30 degrees) at a range of between one and two miles (eyeball, no radar) whether we are the stand-on vessel or not.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't you think that your action might be dangerous when you are the 'stand on' vessel?

Lots of ships are very good at avoiding yachts. They also have a bigger picture to worry about and are worrying about the next ship that is over the horizon from the deck of your yacht. They might not alter very much, but many many ships HAVE seen you and the OOW is wondering what you are going to do next.

It does the cause of yachtsmen NO GOOD at all, to ignore the collision regulations - which is effectively what you are doing.

Watch, take bearings, use your radar if you have one, and stand on with caution if you are the stand on vessel. If the ship is not going to take avoiding action, take action yourself in good time, but please don't turn to port when you are the stand on vessel.

 

[Sgeir]

I think he's been on the port. I wuz going to PM him but you beat me to it.

 

[Sinbad2222]

Agreed, turning to port in a collision situation is apallingly bad seamanship. When will they ever learn!!?? Please all of you that want to turn to port look up "Andrea Doria" in Wickipedia.

 

[Mike21]

[ QUOTE ]
One more thing. Why do merchantmen always claim that yachts are difficult to see? Whenever I'm at sea I have no difficulty in seeing yachts,

[/ QUOTE ]


Could be because your close to the water and everything is above you in relation to your position, where as on merchants, leisure boats are below you.

How easy is it to spot buoys especially at night if there's any light pollution, unless you know exactly where to look

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
They also have a bigger picture to worry about and are worrying about the next ship that is over the horizon from the deck of your yacht. They might not alter very much, but many many ships HAVE seen you and the OOW is wondering what you are going to do next.

It does the cause of yachtsmen NO GOOD at all, to ignore the collision regulations - which is effectively what you are doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to criticise one form of breach of the rules, but condone another:

The rules say that any alteration of course or speed should be substantial so as to make it clear to the other vessel that an alteration has taken place. The easiest way to do this is to show a different aspect...

Asthe stand on vessel, you need to know that the give way vessel has seen you, as above.

The fact is that vessels only have to follow the rules relating to risk of collision, once a risk of collision situation has arisen. It is therefore left open for a watchkeeper to determine whether a risk exists. If webcraft thinks that in the situations where he is altering substantially to port a risk hasnt arisen, he does nothing wrong.

You could say that he is taking action to avoid the risk of a risk of collision situation arising

 

[john_morris_uk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They also have a bigger picture to worry about and are worrying about the next ship that is over the horizon from the deck of your yacht. They might not alter very much, but many many ships HAVE seen you and the OOW is wondering what you are going to do next.

It does the cause of yachtsmen NO GOOD at all, to ignore the collision regulations - which is effectively what you are doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to criticise one form of breach of the rules, but condone another: <span style="color:blue"> I don't condone any breach of the rules. I am well aware that the IRPCS say that alterations to course and speed should be obvious etc. I am also aware that what is 'obvious' from the bridge of a ship with its radar and plotting aids isn't always quite so obvious from the deck of a yacht. This is not my interpretation, but my experience from both sides of the equation. I agree that sometimes ships should be a bit more obvious about what they are doing. However cautious patience from the yachts part often sorts out what is going on.</span>

The rules say that any alteration of course or speed should be substantial so as to make it clear to the other vessel that an alteration has taken place. The easiest way to do this is to show a different aspect...

As the stand on vessel, you need to know that the give way vessel has seen you, as above.

The fact is that vessels only have to follow the rules relating to risk of collision, once a risk of collision situation has arisen. It is therefore left open for a watchkeeper to determine whether a risk exists. If webcraft thinks that in the situations where he is altering substantially to port a risk hasnt arisen, he does nothing wrong. <span style="color:blue"> This might or might not be true, but it's not very good seamanship is it? In fact its condoning the erratic behaviour that makes lots of professional mariners think of yachtsmen as Wind Assisted Flipping Idiots (or something like that)</span>

You could say that he is taking action to avoid the risk of a risk of collision situation arising<span style="color:blue"> Are you suggesting that we apply the IRPCS on the double bluff principle? </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[peterb]

Arguing about the action to be taken when risk of collision exists is missing the real crux; if the ships haven't seen each other, then they are not going to take any action. This seems to be the case with Ouzo; PoB didn't see her (or saw her too late). Whether Ouzo saw PoB or not we will never know, but even if she did what action should she have taken?

How can we make ourselves more visible? Certainly by day coloured sails help; you need only look at the effect of a row of highly coloured spinnakers on a run, and compare them with the same boats when they round the leeward mark and go to windward. We do MOB exercises with a bucket tied to a fender; the visibility of a white fender compared to a dark blue one makes me certain that I'm not going to wear white oilies. But what can we do at night, or in restricted visibility?

Retroreflective material is of little help. Yes, it shows up brilliantly when you shine a torch on it, but it's only brilliant to the person shining the torch. It's just like a good radar reflector; it returns the light in the direction it came from. If someone else shines the torch, then they see the reflection and you don't. So to rely on retroreflective material would require the bridge to be fitted with a searchlight, continually scanning round on the offchance that it would be reflected by the material on a boat which probably isn't there anyway.

I must admit that I am gradually changing my mind. I used to be strongly opposed to the use of strobe lights, with the usual objection that they can be mistaken for navigational lights. But the periphery of a human eye is very sensitive to moving or changing objects; a flashing light is very easily seen. I don't think it needs to be flashed very often; Fl 10s might be sufficient. But it must be in addition to the normal nav lights, not in substitution. The strobe is there to draw attention to the red, green or white that provide positional information. A few years ago Trinity House experimented with a buoy with an electronic flash, rather than the usual light. It was superbly visible, but almost useless. You could never look at it directly. Your eye caught it peripherally, and you looked in its direction. But when it flashed again, you were never quite looking in the right direction, so you couldn't get any sort of bearing on it. Superb in attracting attention, useless for conveying information. Combine the flash with the steady light, and we're getting somewhere. Perhaps a triple 'tricolour'; the normal all-round white at the bottom, the normal tricolour in the middle, and a flash at the top?

I have a pdf version of the Italian suggestion for Colregs change. Unfortunately, I don't have a URL for it, otherwise I would post it, if only to show how little thought has gone into it. For instance, training boats are to be classed as commercial craft, so that normal power craft would have to give way to a school boat, but stand on to the same type of boat operated as a pleasure craft. To distinguish between them, pleasure craft would have to carry special shapes and lights (not yet defined). Pity we can't post attachments.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Certainly, the intense, very short duration flash that aircraft use would be difficult to confuse with a nav mark, or the quick flash of air cushion vehicles, pair trawlers, etc.

 

[Sixpence]

I know I'm a junior in this field but as far as I know aircraft don't use a strobe because it's so hard to judge how far off they are , or even where they are until you lock on to their position . They use a rotating light similar to a lighthouse so that the changing light attracts peoples attention , but the slower rotation means their location is easier to lock on to . So in my very humble opinion , a strobe would only cause confusion , where a rotating light would do the opposite