Passage Planning

[graham]

If you dont write anything down how do you keep it all in your head?How would your crew take over?

Eg Idelivered a motrorboat a few weeks ago about 80 mil;es along the South Wales coast from Barry to Pembroke Dock.Ihad a very competent man with me who could have taken over should I have keeled over.

All our plan consisted of was leaving at HW and a couple of waypoints to clear dangers. Also tidal curve for our destination and the only real port of refuge on the way .

Im not talking an essay here just enough to half fill a post it note but without it in an emergency my mate would have had to start piddling about with almanacs and studying the charts.

Ithink that the problem with regulations is that they become the accepted standard even when they are crap.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

It's not a trick question. I was interested in other replies because it's a trip I do regularly and in the past I have always told the CG (safety traffic etc) but never actually written anything down. I know the time to leave the berth and the point of no return etc. Route is in the chart plotter so navs not a problem.
Hence the question.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Exactly why I say its all been covered many times before.

The whole point is 'common sense' . If you feel happier having written plans, that's OK by me, but there is no requirement under Solas V for written plans

If I'm doing a regular run from Lymington to Weymouth, I can easily keep everything in my head, and I solo, so no crew worries. I know all the hazards on route, I know all the safe havens and how to enter them. Just need to check tides and weather, no other passage planning.

If I was going from Lymington round to the Thames, a trip I haven't done yet, then I would prepare pilotage notes and a plan, because that's common sense.

For 99% of the trips I make, no passage planning in writing is necessary, and Solas makes no requirement for me to do so

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

In which case
You don't have to write anything down
You don't have to file a plan with anyone

If you were to have an accident, and were investigated, you would need to prove that your passage planning was adequate, so copies or printouts of tide tables, and weather forecasts would be a good idea, as would entries in your logbook showing that you had made this passage in the past.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

I'm puzzled that anyone can even contemplate a coherent answer to this, as far as I am aware, the weather forecast hasn't been published yet, and I suspect that an onshore gale might make a material change to the plan.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[l'escargot]

The investigators would have to prove that your plans were inadequate not vice versa. Just because something is written, it doesn't necessarily mean it is an adequate or better plan. If your boat is lost it is all pretty academic anyway.

Their is no requirement under the regulations for any written plan, therefore any proceedings under those regulations could not be based on the absence of such a plan.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Passage Planning - another question

sorry if I implied that the wasn;t a plan, or that it wasn't full and complete........../forums/images/icons/smile.gif
however the point I was trying to make is encompassed in your 'picture' better than I could have explained a passage plan is about a lot of things (written out/ held as reference or in someones head [sad]) but a 'route' drawn on a chart is certainly not a requirement.

Oh and Robin - I wouldn't have resisted either!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

We are both agreed that nothing written is required under Solas (see my other posts) so don't fully understand your comment "Just because something is written, it doesn't necessarily mean it is an adequate or better plan."

I haven't advocated written plans.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[l'escargot]

I interpreted copies, printouts and log entries as written. I don't keep a log and I know the tides in my local waters. A tidal flow atlas is my main aid to passage planning, but then I am fortunate that I mainly sail in an area exempted from these latest SOLAS regs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

We are going around in circles again. You talk about sailing in waters known to you. As I've stated many time before, planning in that context is checking (or knowing!) tides and weather before you set off. Exactly what I do within my local cruising range.

If going further afield, then your are going to do a little more detailed planning. Showing that you've done that planning is not difficult, and keeping print out of tide tables (I use Belfield electronic) for the unknown areas you are visiting etc is sensible anyway.

You use a tidal atlas. In your context, that is a written document you use for passage planning?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

qsiv
Sorry that I have un-intentionally mis-led you?

I was trying to get some basic ideas on what other forum members thought about solas V and passage plans. I did say in my first post that it was a "senario" It was never intended to be a real voyage, hence no date given.

What I was looking for, and seemed to have found is that there is some confusion over exactly what is required.
Some members think that to be safe you have to have a written plan, all be it very simple, whereas others think that is un-necessary and you don't even need to tell anyone that you are setting off.

I must admit that I think I would feel better about having a simple written plan rather than standing in the dock saying "well m'lud, I did have a plan in my head and it was all going well until the boat sank"

I don't think that I'm much different to a lot of other forum members when I say that most of my sailing is done in one area and as such over the years I have tended not to write up a log book because I have done the various passages many times.

Therefore Brendon's answer saying that I could produce a log of "other times" that I had done that same trip may prove a bit difficult.

What I was looking for was some genuine debate on the subject of solas V and passage plans in general?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

People tend to take things far too literally and pick on one line out of many. The 'log' comment, was just to indicate you can show you have done the voyage many times before.

Lets go back to basics. You have a sound vessel, a capable crew, and are off on a trip to somewhere you have been many times in the past in your local and well known local sailing area. There is no need for a written passage plan. There is a requirement in law to plan your passage. In this case the passage plan is assessing your vessel, crew, hazards en route, safe havens, tide and weather etc. Can you find your way into every safe haven enroute without pilotage notes? The answer is probably that you know the answer to all of these other than tides and weather for this trip. You look up tides and weather and double check tides against memory of safe havens and at what state of tide you can enter them and in which wind direction etc. Off you set. If you have an accident you can probably put up a very creditable account of your plans for the trip.

Now, instead, you decide to take a trip to Dublin in an unknown boat with several strange crew members and you've never sailed past Portland Bill before as Skipper. What do you think you'd have on board in the way of planning materials? Again there is no requirement for a written plan, but I don't expect you'd stand much chance in court after an accident halfway across the North Sea when you tried to find a safe haven but didn't know where it was or how to enter it for the first time. You'd have a bundle more research, documentation, and would definitely have notified someone about ETA and route etc, and almost definitely a written plan



------------------------------------------------------------

On another topic: "What I was looking for was some genuine debate on the subject of solas V and passage plans in general? "

Why not just say so? You put up a scenario in waters most people here don't know. Bit of a red herring




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Ah - I misconstrued.

Whilst a written plan isnt required, elements are likely to have been written down - you may well have jotted down key weather data, and the tides may well be in an almanac - one might expect both to be close to the top of any log (but then who writes a log for a trip 'round the corner' to the local beach?).

One isnt required to write up a detailed set of instructions that would enable inexperienced crew to navigate to safety - if it were that easy we wouldnt need any of the practical exams, as possession of suitable instructions would suffice. As I read it all you have to do is be aware of their capabilities and limitations, and the impact that might have on your plans. I certainly dont take granny to sea in a gale!

I think the only grey area is the requirement to have 'considered' a contingency plan and alternative ports of refuge. In settled fair weather one might argue this isnt critical.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Knowles]

Re: What a mess

It seems to be a complete shambles. It must be about time that the regulations were made clearer. Reading through the strings here it seems to me no one really knows what should and what should not be done. This is because the half cocked way regulations seems to happen when it comes to boating. I don't need training but I might have to be able to produce a passage plan. If there is no regulations to control the competence of the skipper how would he or she know or at least be able to produce the requirements.

With regards to not needing to complete a written plan if this is this case how could anyone SOLAS win a court case if you didn't have one.

We are told not to rely upon GPS but why? I always have two on board one of which works from batteries and I find it much better to use this than try and read a chart in a choppy Solent with boats going every which way.

Lets get into this century and accepts that we have so much good technology that is far more accurate than the methods that have been used in the past. By all means have charts but we must not hold back progress due to not wanting change.

Isn't about time the whole thing was sorted out so we all knew where we stood

<hr width=100% size=1>Take care.

Dave

Dave Knowles
Southampton - UK

http://www.MyCleopatra.co.uk

 

[Observer]

Re: What a mess

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

It seems to be a complete shambles

<hr></blockquote>

It is not, imo, a shambles at all. It is a widely worded requirement that masters of ships should make a plan appropriate to the intended voyage which takes account of matters which are relevant to the circumstances of the voyage - including route, vessel, crew, weather etc.

Solas V reg. 34 states:
<font color=blue>1. Prior to proceeding to sea, the master shall ensure that the intended voyage has been planned using the appropriate nautical charts and nautical publications for the area concerned, taking into account the guidelines and recommendations developed by the Organization.</font color=blue>

The critical phrase is in bold (my emphasis). "Taking into account" does not mean "in accordance with".

The overall requirement, in my interpretation, in the context of a pleasure vessel, is that the skipper should have a plan for the voyage which takes regard of the those matters which a reasonably prudent skipper would have regard for in undertaking a voyage of that nature and in light of the circumstances of the voyage, vessel, crew etc. How to apply that is up to the individual's subjective judgement.

Nobody is likely to board a pleasure vessel, require to see the skipper's passsage plan and prosecute him if it is not considered adequate. Further, if you have a mishap which is a result of mere fortuity (say an engine failure at a critical moment) the fact that your passage plan is not written is unlikely to count against you. However, if (say) you undertake a passage in unfamiliar waters and run aground on a marked shoal which leads to injury or loss of life or property, you may well be prosecuted for not having an appropriate passage plan if the existence of a passage plan would have facilitated avoidance of the grounding. Of course the consequence could be more serious if there was loss of life. The question that would be asked, I suggest, is "would the accident have been avoided if a reasonably appropriate passage plan had existed".

Annex 24 to SOLAS V, which is essentially MCA guidance notes and (probably) does not have force of law, supports this.

<font color=blue>9.) Small vessels and pleasure craft

Regulation 34 applies to all vessels but the degree of voyage planning may sensibly be less for small vessels and pleasure craft. There is still a need for prior planning but the plan need not be written down. The following should particularly be taken into account when planning a boating trip:

weather: before you go boating, check the weather forecast and get regular updates if you are planning to be out for any length of time.
tides: check the tidal predictions for your trip and ensure that they fit with what you are planning to do.
limitations of the vessel: consider whether your boat is up to the proposed trip and that you have sufficient safety equipment and stores with you.
navigational dangers: make sure that you are familiar with any navigational dangers you may encounter during your boating trip. This generally means checking an up to date chart and a current pilot book or almanac.
contingency plan: always have a contingency plan should anything go wrong. Before you go, consider bolt holes and places where you can take refuge should conditions deteriorate or if you suffer an accident or injury. Bear in mind that your GPS set is vulnerable and could fail at any time. It is sensible and good practice to make sure that you are not over-reliant on your GPS set and that you can navigate yourself to safety without it should it fail you.
information ashore: make sure that someone ashore knows your plans and knows what to do should they become concerned for your well being. The Coastguard Voluntary Safety Identification Scheme (commonly known as CG66) is also free and easy to join.
Although Regulation 34 only applies when proceeding to sea, small craft users should adhere to the voyage planning principles when also sailing in categorised waters.</font color=blue>

Interestingly, although there is a requirement to have a plan, it is not explicitly stated that the plan must be followed. So a master who makes a plan and then does something different has arguably not offended against reg. 34 (although may be caught elsewhere) if something goes wrong.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Knowles]

Re: What a mess

Tim,

Two things firstly you say "in my interpretation" which leads me to think that the guidelines are not clear. This is born out by the above postings and secondly SOLAS can make as many rules as they like but surely the most important thing is knowing how to both read charts and how to avopid the danger. A lot of this comes down to both training and experience the later of which there is no requirement for. I can it would seem be prosecuted for the lack of planning but not for lack of training. I can't drive a car without passing a test and the dangers on the road are probably less than on the water. But I also can't call for help (legally) using a VHF on the water without passing a test. It as I said before seems a mess.

<hr width=100% size=1>Take care.

Dave

Dave Knowles
Southampton - UK

http://www.MyCleopatra.co.uk

 

[PuffTheMagicDragon]

YOU certainly DO need a plan!!!

I admit that I am not familiar with your part of the world (it's that bit under all the closely packed isobars, right?) but I would venture to say that a trip to Dublin, past Portland Bill, ending up in the middle of the North Sea should have a plan that makes for interesting reading....
More Vodka anyone?
Fair Winds!


<hr width=100% size=1>Wally

 

[Observer]

Re: What a mess

Dave,

I understand your desire for certainty but, in many areas which cover human behaviour, the law does not (and cannot reasonably be expected to) offer certainty. For another example in the marine field, consider the use in Colregs of words/terms such as "appropriate", "if the circumstances of the case admit", "so far as practicable". These are open to (in fact REQUIRE) subjective interpretation in the same way as the passage plan regulation.

Sorry if you think this is being picky, but I disagree with your comments "the dangers on the road are probably less than on the water" and "I ... can't call for help (legally) using a VHF on the water without passing a test". First, so far as leisure boating goes, I think the activity is statistically less hazardous than driving a car (I would agree that the inherent threat in the environment is greater). Second, anybody can use marine VHF without licence in an emergency.

All the best.

Tim


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave_Knowles]

Re: What a mess

Tim,

I would certainly feel safer driving my car on any road in UK than steering a boat into Cowes and up the river on a summers weekend day. At least on the road there are consistent rules that effect all vehicles whereas on the water each type of boat seems to have different rules. For example motor gives way to sail which gives way to larger vessels and so on. Unless I know these though no matter how much planning has been carried out disaster can be around the corner.

With regards to the interpretation why do we need this. Going back to the road if it says 30mph that its what you should do if you don't you are liable to be fined and eventually stopped from using the road. Also if I approach traffic lights on red and there is no traffic around I do not intemperate the situation and say I shall just go across them.

I know there are differences with the sea compared to marked out roads but it does need sorting out. If you look at markings on a river. Some lights work some don't there are bits of twig marking your way no one seems to have overall control. It just seems to me the basics need to be sorted as well as SOLAS creating more and more regulations that people are confused as to how to intemperate them.

I don't want to spoil anyones enjoyment on the water but if there was required training and a little policing of the rules I might not see a family proceeding to there boat on the Beaulieu river in a tiny dingy with three children on board and non with a life jacket.

Finally the point I was trying to make with the VHF is we are required to pass a test before using one which is good but to my mind is silly if I can be in charge of a 40 foot boat without any training.

Sorry to go on but safety on the water seems to me to be appalling at times and we worry about deaths in other walks of life but not it seems when it comes to the water.

WHY?

<hr width=100% size=1>Take care.

Dave

Dave Knowles
Southampton - UK

http://www.MyCleopatra.co.uk

 

[Robin]

Re: What a mess

I believe statistically more people drown in cars than from boats. Should we wear our lifejackets inside or outside of our seatbelts?

<Going back to the road if it says 30mph that its what you should do if you don't you are liable to be fined and eventually stopped from using the road>

Doesn't work with the 10kt speed limit in Poole Harbour! Would we have a points system too? Poole's Mobos would soon be thin on the ground, sorry water.

<I don't want to spoil anyones enjoyment on the water but if there was required training and a little policing of the rules I might not see a family proceeding to there boat on the Beaulieu river in a tiny dingy with three children on board and non with a life jacket.>

There are no rules re lifejackets in dinghies to police. Commonsense may certainly suggest it is a good idea, voluntary training may do the same. But Mr Plod on his waterbike with soggy notebook I think not.

Licencing followed by policing - time to leave I think!


<hr width=100% size=1>