Pre GGR event entrant collision with Bulk Carrier. HOW?

[newtothis]

What's wrong with ZD2?

Oh wait...I remember asking that 10 years ago: Position Reporting to Lloyds of London

Rather than revivify a decade old thread, I'll use this one to point out that Lloyd's List Intelligence is not the same as Lloyd's.
Although it has a licence to use the name, the last remnants of any connection between LLI and the Lloyd's to which a ZD2 would be reported were severed in the 90s.

 

[Sandy]

So what?

I suppose you only die once... they can charge about the ocean pretending to be back in 1968, I was six at the time.

 

[laika]

Rather than revivify a decade old thread, I'll use this one to point out that Lloyd's List Intelligence is not the same as Lloyd's.
Although it has a licence to use the name, the last remnants of any connection between LLI and the Lloyd's to which a ZD2 would be reported were severed in the 90s.

Actually my original mistake was probably replacing "," with "of": "Please report my position to Lloyds, London" presumably would have referred to Lloyds list as they were in the business of reporting shipping movements. So it was probably a mistake on my part to initially send my enquiry to Lloyds of London (lloyds.com) but interestingly it was by some Lloyds-internal mechanism that the query ended up with Lloyds List Intelligence (owned by the same people as now own Lloyds List, though not doubting that they are now a distinct entity from Lloyds) and it was there that the data acquisition manager (who'd been working there since the 80s) assured me that they had inherited responsibility for acquisition and reporting of shipping movements that would previously have encompassed ZD2.

ie regardless of current corporate structure I felt comfortable that lloyds.com, lloydslist.com and lloydslistintelligence.com apparently agree that if anyone was going to be receiving reports of ZD2, it would be lloyds list intelligence. Of course I haven't polled my local retail bank, pharmacist or assorted tennis players for their opinions yet

 

[Wansworth]

The old fashioned idea of looking out the window can save embarassment

 

[LittleSister]

Was the Yacht relying too much upon the COLREGS for their safety at Sea ?

No, clearly not, otherwise the accident wouldn't have happened.

 

[Wansworth]

Used to be something called Radar assisted collision,getting confused about the screen in relation to reality

 

[penfold]

AIS is permitted but not required.

Gross irresponsibility on the part of the organisers to not make it mandatory.

Rules on cameras are really confusing - its marketed as "film cameras only" but the rules say some drones may be permitted (presumably as it gets the organisers great footage!). I can think of better ways to make the same point.

Facile nonsense; most drones can function as handheld stills and movie cameras, whoever came up with these rules is a moron.

 

[savageseadog]

On AIS transponders, it is possible to set up an AIS alarm as many of us know using a plotter or computer but not allowed.
The old NASA unit might do it?

We knew a prospective GG entrant he crewed on my boat a few times. He was a very inexperienced sailor but had a burning ambition to do the race, I didn't try to dissuade him. He bought a suitable boat paid some money to GGR Ltd or whoever. We used to joke about meeting up before he set off and reading his Eulogy. As it happens he had problems doing his qualifying miles so I suppose the rules worked in the way they are supposed to. However I've seen how people are drawn into this and I don't approve.

 

[Wansworth]

Don’t 5hink the sea is a place to re in act anything,

 

[capnsensible]

It really doesn't matter a jot whether posters on here approve or disapprove. Agree with their rules or not. Get the point of the race or not.

Thing is, 17 adventures supported their sponsors, race organisers and interested parties are gonna watch an epic yacht race set off in two weeks. Personally I'm gonna wish them luck, happy voyaging and will follow the tracking with great interest.

Good for them and bon voyage.

 

[newtothis]

Actually my original mistake was probably replacing "," with "of": "Please report my position to Lloyds, London" presumably would have referred to Lloyds list as they were in the business of reporting shipping movements. So it was probably a mistake on my part to initially send my enquiry to Lloyds of London (lloyds.com) but interestingly it was by some Lloyds-internal mechanism that the query ended up with Lloyds List Intelligence (owned by the same people as now own Lloyds List, though not doubting that they are now a distinct entity from Lloyds) and it was there that the data acquisition manager (who'd been working there since the 80s) assured me that they had inherited responsibility for acquisition and reporting of shipping movements that would previously have encompassed ZD2.

ie regardless of current corporate structure I felt comfortable that lloyds.com, lloydslist.com and lloydslistintelligence.com apparently agree that if anyone was going to be receiving reports of ZD2, it would be lloyds list intelligence. Of course I haven't polled my local retail bank, pharmacist or assorted tennis players for their opinions yet

Having a working knowledge of the LLI database, I can assure you a ZD2 is extremely unlikely to get reported. By unlikely, I mean it 100% won't be.

 

[laika]

Having a working knowledge of the LLI database, I can assure you a ZD2 is extremely unlikely to get reported. By unlikely, I mean it 100% won't be.

Yes: that was the conclusion of the thread I referenced. The information I received was that were it still A Thing it would have been part of the data acquisition function at lli, but it hasn’t been A Thing in at least 40+ years and there’s no process for it

hmm…I wonder whether the us or Japanese coast guards still have a process for this…

 

[Capt Popeye]

No, clearly not, otherwise the accident wouldn't have happened.

M aybe not , but also maybe its a misunderstanding about the real , COLREGS , just maybe the COLREGS should state that all vessels must have a qualified /competant Crew /Skipper aboard ON WATCH at all times

Also any Vessel not fully maned /operational must fly /hoist a SIGNAL to that effect from it mast

Might venture an opinion , that understanding the COLREGS is often put into doubt when the Phrase , 'POW ER gives way to SAIL' appears in print , often with the statement that if the POWERED vessel had obeyed the COLREGS then the incident would not have happened

 

[Stemar]

POW ER gives way to SAIL' appears in print , often with the statement that if the POWERED vessel had obeyed the COLREGS then the incident would not have happened

Not wrong, unless the saily boat alters course unpredictably, but if they don't do what they're supposed to, it's down to the stand on vessel to do the necessary. If I'm stand on, I'm watching give way like a hawk in case they aren't watching me.

 

[penfold]

M aybe not , but also maybe its a misunderstanding about the real , COLREGS , just maybe the COLREGS should state that all vessels must have a qualified /competant Crew /Skipper aboard ON WATCH at all times

Also any Vessel not fully maned /operational must fly /hoist a SIGNAL to that effect from it mast

Might venture an opinion , that understanding the COLREGS is often put into doubt when the Phrase , 'POW ER gives way to SAIL' appears in print , often with the statement that if the POWERED vessel had obeyed the COLREGS then the incident would not have happened

Rule 5 is pretty clear, there's no wiggle room.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Rule 5 is pretty clear, there's no wiggle room.

Well maybe yes and then again maybe no , my guess is thats its a joint decision therefore joint responsibiklity between 2 Skippers ; so if 1 skipper has / has not done what the other Skipper understands that they should do (or have done?) , then that Skipper should take avoiding actions , possibly even whilst muttering to themselves that they were in the right , as stand on vessel , grr grrr grrr

Methinks that the Power gives way to Sail rule appears to be improperly used on many occasions by Leisure Yachtsmen as a way of forcing their course even though the course set is flawed and inconsiderate , possibly due to steering far to close to another oncomming vessel , where the best course of action is to steer off the present course so giving the other oncomming vessel far more room

Guess its a modern occurance owing to many more inexperienced persons taking up Yachting , them taking various RYA courses , which can be a good thing but guess that the RYA courses are not really up to the challenge of bringing up to adequate speed as they really should do

How many times on these pages does one read of COLREGS being cited as the Rules for a sittuation when in reality the LOCAL HARBOUR rules are trumps , they apply in our Home Waters

In the posts about a large Sailing Vessel being in collision with a large Commercial Ship , in German Waters ; I did not see any refernce to the Local Navigation Rules being observed or ignored ?

 

[Stemar]

Methinks that the Power gives way to Sail rule appears to be improperly used on many occasions by Leisure Yachtsmen as a way of forcing their course even though the course set is flawed and inconsiderate , possibly due to steering far to close to another oncomming vessel , where the best course of action is to steer off the present course so giving the other oncomming vessel far more room

+1

A bit of consideration works wonders. If I think I'm going to be getting a bit close to a big boy, it's very little skin off my nose to alter course a bit so I'll pass comfortably behind him. After all, he's working, I'm playing.

It isn't disobeying the 'stand on vessel should maintain course and speed' rule, because I'm doing it before there's a risk of collision, so close quarters colregs don't apply.

Of course, the definition of risk of collision is a bit different for a supertanker that takes a couple of miles to alter course 10 deg than it is for me, and I have to take that into consideration

 

[penfold]

Seems clear enough to me, if two boats collide in open water Rule 5 has been violated and probably by both vessels.

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and 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 or the risk of collision

 

[ylop]

M aybe not , but also maybe its a misunderstanding about the real , COLREGS , just maybe the COLREGS should state that all vessels must have a qualified /competant Crew /Skipper aboard ON WATCH at all times

Also any Vessel not fully maned /operational must fly /hoist a SIGNAL to that effect from it mast

Might venture an opinion , that understanding the COLREGS is often put into doubt when the Phrase , 'POW ER gives way to SAIL' appears in print , often with the statement that if the POWERED vessel had obeyed the COLREGS then the incident would not have happened

You can speculate all you want about what you think the colregs should say but that's total nonsense, until the IMO change them and tell every skipper in the world what the new wording is they say what they say. For some reason you get on your high horse that people here don't understand the colregs - but actually if you read whats written here, quite clearly in coherent english, nobody has suggested that the yacht is not at least in part culpable for a collision. However, if the powered vessel had obeyed the regs (from what we can infer about a collision in open sea between vessels travelling in opposing directions etc) then the collision would not have happened. The yacht should also have seen the risk of collision and taken avoiding action as soon as it became clear that the power vessel was not, but that doesn't mean it is not true that the first failure would be the power vessel; we don't know if that was an inadequate lookout, a failure to understand what was observed, or a failure to take the correct action at the correct time. We also don't know the same information about the yacht.

I have very strong reservations about singlehanded long distance sailers (although this was neither singlehanded not particularly long distance).

 

[Sandy]

M aybe not , but also maybe its a misunderstanding about the real , COLREGS , just maybe the COLREGS should state that all vessels must have a qualified /competant Crew /Skipper aboard ON WATCH at all times

Also any Vessel not fully maned /operational must fly /hoist a SIGNAL to that effect from it mast

Might venture an opinion , that understanding the COLREGS is often put into doubt when the Phrase , 'POW ER gives way to SAIL' appears in print , often with the statement that if the POWERED vessel had obeyed the COLREGS then the incident would not have happened

Humour me, by letting me work this through.

• You are proposing that every UK sailing vessel would need a 'qualified crew' onboard. I wonder what the forum members think of that? As we are all aware there is no requirement for anybody to receive any training before taking command of a vessel in the UK. Given the vessel was doing something to do with the GGR, I strongly suspect that the skipper and crew would be at least Day Skipper standard;
• If I take my non sailing family onboard or some friends for a 'pootle round the bay' the fact that they can see, can work out when the boat is pointing at something and they should turn away or get me now means that they need to do a weeks course;
• Given that I see a motoring cone on one in 10,000 vessels motoring, I find it hard to believe that any vessel would display a 'a qualified person is not on watch' signal;
• Given that COLREGS are, in my opinion, the Rules of the Road written by and for commercial shipping, leisure users do abide by them. On the small sailing ship (LWL 30 metres, with a big pointy bowsprite) it can take 10 minutes to prep and execute a tack or gybe - a distance of 3.67 NM at closing speed of 22 knots ) it is entirely logical that sail is the stand on vessel. I appreciate that most leisure sailing vessels can tack/gybe in about 30 seconds.

I happened to be sailing in Biscay at the time of the incident, the conditions were ideal, F4 to F6 by our instrumentation, clearly both vessels failed to keep a proper watch. Crossing La Manche to Falmouth we had visibility of about two NM and came no less than two NM from several ships, they changed course when needed to.