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

[john_morris_uk]

Why would facts ever matter on here?

Why let the truth get in the way of a good dit!

 

[Chiara’s slave]

That may or may not be true. I thought we’d moved on to discuss actions on applying IRPCS generally.

We have no information as to how the yacht in the OP’s video got into that position. Nor do we know the circumstances as to whether it’s in confined or open waters. Therefore it’s very difficult to draw accurate conclusions as to how and why the yacht ended up there.

Of course. We were indeed discussing IRPCS generally. I put forward a possible explanation of how it arose. I make no claim to have discovered the truth. It seems considerably more likely that for reasons unknown both vessels were unaware of each other. You’d think that otherwise, if the big one couldn’t do anything else, he’d at least give 5 hoots.

 

[Mark-1]

You’d think that otherwise, if the big one couldn’t do anything else, he’d at least give 5 hoots.

It's entirely possible the yacht's action is a response to just that, and the video starts just after that signal. Perhaps it was the last of many such signals.

 

[oldbloke]

If you sound five hoots and the boat doesn't change course you can't really claim you are uncertain of his intentions. I'm not aware of a sound signal for :- Get out of the f..ING way

 

[Chiara’s slave]

If you sound five hoots and the boat doesn't change course you can't really claim you are uncertain of his intentions. I'm not aware of a sound signal for :- Get out of the f..ING way

Generally if it gets to the 5 hoots stage, that is already the meaning.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

It's entirely possible the yacht's action is a response to just that, and the video starts just after that signal. Perhaps it was the last of many such signals.

Crikey, can you imagine snoozing through a 1000ft ships horn doing that Not to say you’re wrong though. I only hope he has a change of undercrackers available

 

[DFL1010]

It's interesting that the quote above is in relation to the para. 3 "Use of VHF to Aid Collision Avoidance". My advice was use AIS to determine CPA and if I am the stand on vessel, call up the other vessel if the CPA is less than 0.5NM when over 5 miles away and request them to alter course to increase CPA and avoid any potential collision. How calling up on VHF to request this is covered by your quote is beyond me. What would you prefer? That as the stand on vessel I ignore the VHF, stand on and do exactly what the video shows? AIS is a fantastic aid to safety. I'm not going to ignore the value of AIS, I'm not going to ignore the COLREGs, but I am going to ignore the "advice" quoted.

If you consider an MGN merely advice then I suggest a rethink.

 

[Mark-1]

Crikey, can you imagine snoozing through a 1000ft ships horn doing that Not to say you’re wrong though. I only hope he has a change of undercrackers available

Lots of wind and wave noise on the yacht. I reckon it's entirely possible they didn't hear early signals. But that was an aside. I'm mainly arguing that it's entirely possible that the the COC was a response to 5 blasts which were before the start of the video.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Lots of wind and wave noise on the yacht. I reckon it's entirely possible they didn't hear early signals. But that was an aside. I'm mainly arguing that it's entirely possible that the the COC was a response to 5 blasts which were before the start of the video.

Yes. I can’t imagine a commercial vessel leaving it that late for a 1st attempt though. But that could well be moments after he became aware of it’s presence. Dunno how many big ships you’ve been near, but we hear them doing 1, 2 or 3 blasts regularly, and I can assure you that nothing short of a storm would stop you hearing them. Louder than a Deep Purple concert by far.

 

[seeSimon]

If you consider an MGN merely advice then I suggest a rethink.

The clue is in the name...
MGN= Marine Guidance Note

 

[DFL1010]

The clue is in the name...
MGN= Marine Guidance Note

Oh dear.

 

[capnsensible]

Lots of wind and wave noise on the yacht. I reckon it's entirely possible they didn't hear early signals. But that was an aside. I'm mainly arguing that it's entirely possible that the the COC was a response to 5 blasts which were before the start of the video.

 

[requiem]

The clue is in the name...
MGN= Marine Guidance Note

At least in my world, a "guidance" document from a regulatory agency means "this is how we interpret and intend to enforce the related regulations". I.e., as with the Colregs, if you're going to deviate from them you need to have a Very Good Reason.

 

[Mark-1]

Yes. I can’t imagine a commercial vessel leaving it that late for a 1st attempt though. But that could well be moments after he became aware of it’s presence.

So you can imagine it leaving it that late. In a way that would rule out the ship having taken earlier avoiding action. Which is where I came in. We don't know, but it's not impossible.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

So you can imagine it leaving it that late. In a way that would rule out the ship having taken earlier avoiding action. Which is where I came in. We don't know, but it's not impossible.

No, that’s the opposite of what I said. There is no way on Gods earth that a commercial ship, at leat a cruise ship, not one with just 1 drunk Russian on the bridge, would leave is that late. Our yachtsman has missed something, not least a flippin massive ship on a collision course. With or without electronics, that is breathtaking. I turned away from my date with destiny about 30l metres away as being close enough. That was close enough to know for certain he was not taking any action.

 

[Mark-1]

No, that’s the opposite of what I said. There is no way on Gods earth that a commercial ship, at leat a cruise ship, not one with just 1 drunk Russian on the bridge, would leave is that late.

Then what did you mean by "But that could well be moments after he became aware of it’s presence." That appears to be an explanation of why he might have left it late.

Seems to me not making a sound signal at all is just as unlikely or more unlikely than leaving it late.

 

[Jmacd]

You have just over 20 seconds of video of a reportable near miss.
Video was apparently shot by a concerned passenger. Who saw the situation develop and clearly though WTF.
The observant passenger probably saw the sailboat getting closer.
First thought. " I'm sure they know what they are doing"
Second thought, " They will probably do something about this soon"
Third thought "There a leaving it a bit close"
Final thought. "WTF" and turns his or her phone on.
We just see the last bit. Well into the WTF is going on here.

Fortunately we observe the sailboat take evasive action at very nearly the last possible moment.
Way way to close for comfort by my observation.
Why? Who knows?
Speculation. or educated guess work.
The general consensus here. Appears to be. The sailboat is a bit of an idiot and must have done something stupid off camera. Why?

No mention of location or context re Narrow Channel, Fairway, TSS ect. Requirement to "not impede" Well past the point off.
This is quite simple.
Sailboat on collision course, or very near it. with a rather large power boat.
In very very close quarters.

Sailboat takes appropriate if perhaps a little later than other's might. Evasive action.

As for the 5 short blasts. I didn't hear any on the video clip.
I doubt if any of the bridge crew in their weather tight wheelhouse on the Cruise ship heard the sailboats 5 short.
Which off course the sailboat should have sounded.
The 5 blast might have had an effect on the sailboat skippers shorts.

I did not see any sign of action in the clip by the cruise ship.
No apparent attempt to alter course.
No apparent attempt to reduce speed. (If they had put CPP or Azipods into astern thrust the vibration ect would have been both significant and noticeable by all on board)

Which certainly leaves me wondering if the bridge team had ever seen the sailboat.
Why not? Any number of reasons. Speculate away.

Sailboat.
Skipper Crew,
How long on this heading?
When did they see the ruddy great big ship?
When did they determine risk of collision existed?
Open water?
Advice often given by expert yachtsmen here. Just follow the rules.
Narrow channel Fairway ect. ? Advice varies.
Sailboat determines Risk of collision exists.
Just follow the rules.
So sailboat follows the rules.
Stands on maintains course and speed.
Expecting the Ruddy great cruise ship to follow the rules.
Which would be, Dare I say it to give way.
Not an unreasonable presumption.
Until.
Reaches a point where the sailboat crew think. They don't appear to be going to do anything about this.
We are going to get run over.
WTF,
Hmmm.
Why is anyone criticizing the sailboat?

I think the sailboat Skipper acted reasonably. Perhaps could have reacted sooner.
As some have suggested.
Discretion might have been the better part of valour a little sooner. Depending upon circumstance we have no information about.

Some experts apparently. Don't approve of altering to Port. My opinion in this case by far the safest action to take. When confronted with a give way vessel which is apparently not giving way in sufficient time. It is much safer and a much better recommendation to turn away from the give way vessel rather than towards the giveaway vessel. If the stand on vessel has doubt about the give way vessel taking the required action in time. Which the sailboat did.
The offt given advice to avoid an alteration of course to Port. Is usually good.Dependant on the situation. This being one of those occasions when when an alteration to port would be the safer option.
Why? Altering away from a give way vessel.
This one was very very close. To an actual collision.
Cudo's to the sailboat skipper.
I wonder what he or she thinks about the next time they see a ruddy great big power boat approaching.

As for the cruise ship bridge team, WTF.
If I was their boss. I would definitely be wondering.

 

[Mark-1]

I think the sailboat Skipper acted reasonably. Perhaps could have reacted sooner.

I would have agreed if it had been a nice smooth tack, tacking the jib and paying out the main. Instead the turn by the yacht looks utterly chaotic as though the whole situation caught them by surprise.

I can't make the situation make any sense at all, and I certainly wouldn't be putting this down to stupidity on either side. Looking close there's someone in the cockpit seemingly facing the ship. So seasickness? Sleep?

Anyway, despite a slow start I got 12 pages of debate out of it so I'm happy.

 

[sfellows]

If you consider an MGN merely advice then I suggest a rethink.

Oh dear.

Arguing over the legality or not of a MGN which was quoted as NOT to use VHF for collision avoidance is like arguing over a Contract of Sale for a House and watching the house burn down and not calling the fire brigade.

We're trying to avoid collisions here - that's the only consideration, and AIS combined with a VHF call to the other vessel when 5NM miles away is pragmatic, prudent and safe.

I stand by my original point. If others choose not to use VHF to call up a vessel on a collision course at indicated by AIS when 5NM away, because of an MGN from 2016, that's their decision. I think the Maritime Agency (and a Judge) would take a very dim view of stand-on yacht that collided with another vessel and that had not used all it's available technology including AIS combined with VHF.

 

[Mark-1]

an MGN from 2016,

...and that MGN emphatically doesn't say "Never use VHF for collision avoidance.".

I never have, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up a scenario where it could help and couldn't possibly hurt.