Rule 17 -- Vid of a close encounter....

[flaming]

@flaming said “ Principally because AIS CPA assumes that things will continue on their current course and speed,”

That is not true.

It will allow for current rate of turn, sure. But not future turns that the ship will make when it gets to a bend in the channel....

 

[Chiara’s slave]

It will allow for current rate of turn, sure. But not future turns that the ship will make when it gets to a bend in the channel....

Nor that it will straighten up, not just proceed in a circle.

 

[Mark-1]

Personally, I think CS and Flaming are right here - AIS is needless in the Solent in normal viz. But CS and Flaming won't be judge/jury if this ever came up and I can see a judge/jury would be easily seduced by the idea that a magic box that tells you if you're going to crash into something should be switched on. (The counter argument is more nuanced, which is never helpful.)

So I think it's entirely possible that, if it ever came up, we might find Rule 7 *does* require AIS to be used in the Solent. I'd be amazed if it's come up yet - anyone have a copy of Cockroft that post dates wide spread leisure AIS to check?

Having said all that, if someone ****ed up badly enough that this was tested in court the failure to keep a proper lookout would likely be the least of their worries!

 

[flaming]

The Egypt point example is a goid one because you could potentially be less than a minute away from a collision, according to AIS, yet be completely safe.

It's the ones that are the other way around that are should be far more concerning to the AIS trusting Solent sailor. Like when you're passing West Knoll on passage from Hamble / Soton to Cowes. And there's a big ship outbound in the Thorn channel. At that point in time your paths are not intersecting as you're going almost due South, and he's NW of you and going SW. AIS is not going to know it's about to turn about 120 degrees to port and come at your Starboard side.... Obvious to anyone who can see, and read a chart, let alone to anyone with even minimal experience of Solent traffic but not to the electronics until it's way too late.

 

[flaming]

Personally, I think CS and Flaming are right here - AIS is needless in the Solent in normal viz. But CS and Flaming won't be judge/jury if this ever came up and I can see a judge/jury would be easily seduced by the idea that a magic box that tells you if you're going to crash into something should be switched on. (The counter argument is more nuanced, which is never helpful.)

So I think it's entirely possible that, if it ever came up, we might find Rule 7 *does* require AIS to be used in the Solent. I'd be amazed if it's come up yet - anyone have a copy of Cockroft that post dates wide spread leisure AIS to check?

Having said all that, if someone ****ed up badly enough that this was tested in court the failure to keep a proper lookout would likely be the least of their worries!

However failing to keep a lookout was exactly what the skipper of the Pink spinnaker meets massive Orange Tanker fame was prosecuted for.... I don't recall any reference at all to AIS in the trial, though I'm almost certain the boat would have had it.

 

[lustyd]

AIS is needless in the Solent in normal viz

I disagree. AIS tells me the speed of the vessel and allows me to call them with DSC if I wish, both of which are better than nothing. I quite often used AIS to see the speed of ships entering the eastern Solent, or leaving as it gives a good idea of when best to cross near the forts. I could do this by eye, but I quite like the extra info.

 

[Mark-1]

I disagree.

How dare you!

 

[Chiara’s slave]

It's the ones that are the other way around that are should be far more concerning to the AIS trusting Solent sailor. Like when you're passing West Knoll on passage from Hamble / Soton to Cowes. And there's a big ship outbound in the Thorn channel. At that point in time your paths are not intersecting as you're going almost due South, and he's NW of you and going SW. AIS is not going to know it's about to turn about 120 degrees to port and come at your Starboard side.... Obvious to anyone who can see, and read a chart, let alone to anyone with even minimal experience of Solent traffic but not to the electronics until it's way too late.

Well, yes. Of course. Turn that one round then, and put yourself rounding Prince Consort, with your AIS confidently showing your was is clear. That is of course why those Trinity House marks are no longer used for setting courses.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I disagree. AIS tells me the speed of the vessel and allows me to call them with DSC if I wish, both of which are better than nothing. I quite often used AIS to see the speed of ships entering the eastern Solent, or leaving as it gives a good idea of when best to cross near the forts. I could do this by eye, but I quite like the extra info.

This is all needless faff when you’ve got a bunch of experienced sailors on the rail, who know the water and who’s sole job, apart from just being fat, is to look out for other craft.

 

[flaming]

I disagree. AIS tells me the speed of the vessel and allows me to call them with DSC if I wish,

Are you saying you would call large merchant vessels to discuss collision avoidance WITHIN THE SOLENT?

 

[Mark-1]

However failing to keep a lookout was exactly what the skipper of the Pink spinnaker meets massive Orange Tanker fame was prosecuted for.... I don't recall any reference at all to AIS in the trial, though I'm almost certain the boat would have had it.

I was thinking of that when I was writing... Did we ever find out the detail of why he was deemed to have failed to keep a proper lookout at the time? That's never made sense to me. I recall a ybw-er explaining that if you hit something you, by definition, must have failed to keep a look-out but that never seemed very likely to me.

In the absence of a transcript I think we'll never know.

 

[lustyd]

This is all needless faff when you’ve got a bunch of experienced sailors on the rail, who know the water and who’s sole job, apart from just being fat, is to look out for other craft.

Your requirements aren't the only requirements. I've never had anyone on my rail, experienced, fat, or otherwise. I never plan to either, there's barely room for myself and my partner on board!

 

[flaming]

Well, yes. Of course. Turn that one round then, and put yourself rounding Prince Consort, with your AIS confidently showing your was is clear. That is of course why those Trinity House marks are no longer used for setting courses.

Aren't they? I've been sent round Prince Consort recently....

 

[Mark-1]

Are you saying you would call large merchant vessels to discuss collision avoidance WITHIN THE SOLENT?

If I ever do, I'm gonna say: ‘You’re not a sailing boat, you take me for a piece of shit’.

 

[flaming]

I was thinking of that when I was writing... Did we ever find out the detail of why he was deemed to have failed to keep a proper lookout at the time? That's never made sense to me. I recall a ybw-er explaining that if you hit something you by definition must have failed to keep a look-out but that never seemed very likely to me.

In the absence of a transcript I think we'll never know.

Because it's a catch all for "crashed into something that you shouldn't have". And encompasses not only seeing it, but also avoiding it.

 

[lustyd]

Are you saying you would call large merchant vessels to discuss collision avoidance WITHIN THE SOLENT?

I’d call a ship anywhere if I felt the need to discuss their intentions. Are you saying you’d bury your head in the sand and pray rather than call another person? They’re perfectly friendly folk, I promise.
Thus far I’ve not had the need within the Solent as the rules make things clear usually, but there are always exceptions as the recent thread on wash demonstrated.

 

[Mark-1]

Because it's a catch all for "crashed into something that you shouldn't have". And encompasses not only seeing it, but also avoiding it.

If that's the case we're never going to find out what rule 7 requires in terms of AIS because the incident that caused the court case will, in itself, prove rule 7 was broken so no need to go into detail about the nature of the watch keeping.

I'm still unconvinced, I'd like to see a source for it.

 

[flaming]

I’d call a ship anywhere if I felt the need to discuss their intentions.

Good grief.

That's astonishing.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Aren't they? I've been sent round Prince Consort recently....

We’ve been told, as a club, not to set them, and if we really feel we must, to ask for permission from the port authority, Southampton presumably, I have not personally done it. We have an annual race called the Prince Consort charity race. You could previously guess the course, but we haven’t been sent round it for 3 years.

 

[lustyd]

Good grief.

That's astonishing.

The word you’re looking for is seamanship. We’re not all racers trying to ignore other vessels.