Pre GGR event entrant collision with Bulk Carrier. HOW?

ylop

Well-known member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
2,564
Visit site
Overtaking is one possibility if the bulk carrier is tootling along very slowly as I‘ve often seen ships do once within 50 miles of their intended port.
true but ROTRA VENTE is a dutch vessel that from AIS records seems to have been en route from Rotterdam to Bilbao (she is currently on her way back to Netherlands and making 12 knots). That would mean she was roughly travelling SSE at the time (someone with a paid subscription could confirm that). The collision was reported as 120NM from the Spanish coast. Bayanat was going from Gijon to les Sabbles d'Olonne - so would have been trying to make passage in a general NE direction - his race tracking information shows he was doing well at >6 knots until around about 0815 UTC when his speed dropped to ~ 3-4 knots for the rest of the race. Race control were informed of a collision at 0851 UTC.

But also if the sailing boat makes a course change that causes the possibility of collision in a situation where the bulk carriers ability to manouvre is not fast enough to respond safely.
yes I think I've been quite clear that whenever there is a collision both skippers are at fault. The first expectation though (assuming the sailing vessel is not overtaking) is that a power vessel with no other limitations keeps clear of the sailing vessel and the sailing vessel holds its course.

In almost all open sea experiences with ships then the sensible approach for a sailing vessel is to stand on but be get sails prepared to allow a last minute manoeuvre if there is any doubt,
it probably shouldn't be last minute!

One factor I hadn't considered till I looked at the yellow brick tracker data, which might be mitigation for the watchkeeper on ROTRA VENTE - the whole race fleet were actually quite close together. A dozen 36' ish yachts all sailing in the same direction. Some of them possibly transmitting on AIS (Bayanat does seem to have AIS but doesn't seem to have had it switched on during the race - last position was Gijon before the start) - it looks like the closest boat, PRB, was transmitting AIS, and was also a Rustler 36. Whilst obviously they should have been looking out the window to make sure - I can see how the crew could mistake the vessels and assume that the were not on a collision course.
 

auditdata

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2009
Messages
303
Location
Chester
www.sephina.org
Looks like both the yacht and the bridge team on the bulk carrier were not looking.

Are GGR entrants allowed AIS?

Not sure what you mean by a collision avoidance system.
Yes some form of AIS is mandatory but not sure what exactly. Clearly not linked to a plotter!
I guess I was thinking about such things as alarmed radar detector as another system
 

capnsensible

Well-known member
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Messages
46,701
Location
Atlantic
Visit site

ylop

Well-known member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
2,564
Visit site
Yes some form of AIS is mandatory but not sure what exactly. Clearly not linked to a plotter!
Not according to the race rules.
I guess I was thinking about such things as alarmed radar detector as another system
Not mentioned in the rules. Given the other things which are banned I'd say it may not be acceptable!
 

Stemar

Well-known member
Joined
12 Sep 2001
Messages
23,973
Location
Home - Southampton, Boat - Gosport
Visit site
I could see an argument that a huge cargo vessel is so slow to change course of speed that it's restricted in its ability to manoeuvre, and maybe that should be built into the colregs, but it isn't so it's clear: Rule 18 (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of ... a sailing vessel.

Rotra Vente isn't a huge vessel by modern supertanker/box shifter standards, so should have been able to give way to a sailing vessel if detected in time, so unless there are some special circumstances, the primary responsibility seems to me to lie with them. However, if they don't, Rule 17 applies.

Action by Stand-on Vessel (a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed. (ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules. (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

That puts responsibility on the yacht as well.

All, of course, with no knowledge of the actual circumstances of the collision
 

dunedin

Well-known member
Joined
3 Feb 2004
Messages
14,079
Location
Boat (over winters in) the Clyde
Visit site
Clearly a critical requirement or part of the event is having the knowledge and skill to sail in a period correct vessel with period correct equipment. Astro is just one small part of this.
AIS is not required for a private sailing yacht on a pleasure voyage.
But an AIS transmitter would be a very important safety feature for a solo race when inevitably the skipper will not be keeping lookout for long periods. A yellowBrick tracker, if that is all they have, doesn’t warn other vessels of their presence like AIS does.
I think the bizarre rules of GGR need revisiting before the sink another innocent vessel.
 

Sandy

Well-known member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
21,914
Location
On the Celtic Fringe
duckduckgo.com
Yes some form of AIS is mandatory but not sure what exactly. Clearly not linked to a plotter!
I guess I was thinking about such things as alarmed radar detector as another system
I would not define either of these setups as an avoidance system, a warning system perhaps.

I have had some reservations about the GGR circus event since it was first run. We live in a very different world than the era it is trying to represent. Look at sails, rope, clothing, nutrition and ships (especially the ships in both numbers and speed). They have all evolved, yet GGR still think it is 1968.
 

Capt Popeye

Well-known member
Joined
30 Sep 2011
Messages
18,830
Location
Dawlish South Devon
Visit site
I could see an argument that a huge cargo vessel is so slow to change course of speed that it's restricted in its ability to manoeuvre, and maybe that should be built into the colregs, but it isn't so it's clear: Rule 18 (a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of ... a sailing vessel.

Rotra Vente isn't a huge vessel by modern supertanker/box shifter standards, so should have been able to give way to a sailing vessel if detected in time, so unless there are some special circumstances, the primary responsibility seems to me to lie with them. However, if they don't, Rule 17 applies.

Action by Stand-on Vessel (a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed. (ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules. (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

That puts responsibility on the yacht as well.

All, of course, with no knowledge of the actual circumstances of the collision

Yes I do try to point out sometimes , ({:))#) that the ritegeous indignatioin shown by some Yachties on here , that 'Power gives way to Sail' is parramount in these circunstances , is bloody 'foolhardy' , and does not show the Poster up in good stead at all ? There is lots of understanding in the way COLREGS was written as it is ; For a start guess that under COLREGS , if the Stand On vessel is obliged to alter her course , possibly at a late stage in the event , its assumed that the 'stand on' vessel is being properly managed and sailed with due care and attention , so can /will be able to recognise the comming danger and be able , safely , to take avoiding actions ; so if a Vessel is being commanded by the Skipper , who is asleep in a bunk , the Crew not trained adequately , the vessel NOT fitted with adequate modern Safety Gear , so guess that sailing at all in those conditions ws not prepared for by the International Committee who drew up COLREGS , was it ?

Just maybe there should be a Sign that can be hoisted at top of MAST which implies that the Vessel is NOT UNDER COMMAND at the present time
 

capnsensible

Well-known member
Joined
15 Mar 2007
Messages
46,701
Location
Atlantic
Visit site
I would not define either of these setups as an avoidance system, a warning system perhaps.

I have had some reservations about the GGR circus event since it was first run. We live in a very different world than the era it is trying to represent. Look at sails, rope, clothing, nutrition and ships (especially the ships in both numbers and speed). They have all evolved, yet GGR still think it is 1968.
So what?
 

zoidberg

Well-known member
Joined
12 Nov 2016
Messages
6,359
Visit site
The earliest quote I can find is Peter Heaton in about 1947. He listed Umbrella, Garden Shears and a Royal Navy Officer. And he was a wartime Navy Officer himself.

Without trudging through ALL the reply-posts, I'm quite sufficiently confident that the original of that once-very well known quip is down to Captain John Illingworth RN, one-time Commodore of RORC, and quoted by Adlard Coles - his most frequent direct competitor in various RORC Series of their day.

viz. "There's nothing quite so useless on a racing yacht as an umbrella, a bicycle, and a serving Naval officer...."

The Wikipedia entry is well worth a read - John_Illingworth (yacht_designer) - as is the more detailed French entry, also accessible via the former - provided one can read colloquial boaty French, or willing to battle with Google Translate.
 
Top