RYA - Colregs (no anchors)

I think you've missed my point webcraft.

By taking the wrong action due to misunderstanding bilbos lights, I could put myself at risk.

Please let us all follow the standardised rules and not each use personal variations.

If you want to avoid a collision situation I suggest to get on the radio and ask the vessel if hes seen you and what is he going to do about it? If he hasn't seen you tell him you'll flash your powerful lamp across his bridge.

This proposed method I've explained to a ferry skipper who didn't have a problem with it.
 
I do not believe that you have addressed any of my points. The RYA's tinkering with LEDs will not significantly affect safety. And would not have prevented Ouzo. They seem to have no other initiatives in place.

I do not believe that any of the passive reflectors examined during the investigation complied with the mandated specification.

The finding and prosecution of the Ouzo offenders was required by law, nothing to do with rulemaking, and will have little or no effect on future safety.

I gave a lot of thought to this post, and I find your style of debate does not do justice to the issues involved

Do try to see the bigger picture.
 
I have been reading the posts on this subject with interest and in my opinion john morris is as near the truth as one can get. Should we all disregard the rules just because we dont agree with them? I think not. The use of stobes as navigation lights would cause mayhem. Think of N cardinal marks.
Whilst I can see the value in the use of strobe lights.(I have them fitted to our lifejackets) to use them for navigational lights is a no no. I could possibly agree with their use in a close quarters situation but only as a last resort.
Rules are made for every ones benefit,What gives any one the right to disregard a rule just because they dont agree with the content. Anarchy would soon follow. Sure there are rules and laws that we all disagree with but most of those who disregard them are either dead or in prison!!!!.

The RYA is the best option we have to represent our corner( I am not a member) so lets not criticize too much. Someone said that radar reflectors are useless, personally I have to disagree with that as I have experimented with different kinds with, it has to be said ,varying results. I would not go to sea with out one in good visibility let alone fog. It is always easy to blame other people when things go wrong. The Ouzo tradgedy is a case in point. Has any one considered the fact that the yachts crew could have seen the ferry coming and did nothing? They where the stand on vessel after all. I have a single screw motor boat with a deep draught and somtimes am constrained by my draught, I hoist a black cylinder and still yachts expect me to give way.
 
OK. Oversimplifying, we have two positions in this debate:

1. Something needs to be done
2. Don't rattle the cage

These are not mutually exclusive.

I think all would agree that the limited visibility of small vessels at night creates a hazard to those vessels when there's significant commercial traffic. So small vessels should take steps to improve their visibility.

Lets also agree that most steps proposed so far are imperfect:

1. Radar reflectors have limitations
2. VHF calls will often not be acknowledged
3. Flares temporarily blind the crew using them, and are a fire risk (don't ask!)
4. Timely use of powerful lamps and flares require an alert crew - not always realistic in short handed vessels, and (as Ouzo) even alert crews can be surprised by un-expected manouevres from un-aware commercial vessels.

Given all these imperfections, there is a very strong case for improving visibility. Strobes are an obvious choice. Objections to strobes have been aired:

1. They are against the rules
2. Their use can create confusion (because the rules don't provide for them)
3. They can be confused with N/any navigation marks

All these objections can be dealt with. First, no-one has thought to define what characteristics a strobe could have; colour, frequency (or lack of frequency!) can both differentiate from navigation marks. Next, once a suitable characteristic can be defined, the rules can make provision for this light.

I think the RYA should pursue this last idea. In the meantime, I favour a white flash, generated to flash with random intervals of between 0.2 to 5 seconds. Now,I'd argue that that was not a strobe, therefore within the exisiting rules. A bit like flashing your lamp at the bridge, except it takes care of crew inattention and unexpected manouevres . . . or maybe a yellow colour? . . . ahhh. Loses brilliance. Oh well.

Meanwhile, Ken should eith express himself more clearly, or polish up his knowledge of colregs - 'colregs do not cover these' indeed! OK; A trivial moan about what I thought was a rather trivial answer to a real problem.
 
That was very well put, and I agree with your approach.

It seems that the only significant improvement in visibility and hence safety we can expect lies with strobes. A white light with random pattern would fit the bill.

Agree not necessary to have it permanently illuminated, only when risk of collision. And in that case not precluded by the Regs.

In the best of all possible worlds the RYA would be constructing and testing a prototype and demonstrating visible leadership.

But it's not rocket science, is it, and so we'll just have to do our best with the soldering iron in the garden shed.

Who is going to draft the spec?
 
I heartily agree with the idea that almost anything that improves small boat visibility has to be a good thing. A high intensity strobe at the masthead will improve my visiblity significantly, so to my mind, it's a good idea, especially as strobes are probably the most cost-effective way of improving visibility in terms of gain per amp-hour. However, I also agree that 100 strobes blasting out between No 4 and Ballast on a Sunday evening is a bad idea.

Maybe the solution is for them to be restricted to open water, perhaps more than 3 miles off shore, except in emergency. Yes, I know that the people who still go the wrong side of Ballast Pole will probably have their strobes on as well, but that's just human fallibility and they can be bollocked into submission by the Harbour Patrol or MOD Plod. It doesn't matter that everyone gets it right, just that I (and everyone else) can go across the Channel and be confident that I won't become another Ouzo.

Those who, sometimes abusively, rubbish such attempts to improve safety because there may be occasions when they may be less than helpful are, IMHO, on a par with those who argued against seat belts in cars because there a tiny number of accidents where a belt might do more harm then good. They're right, but I'll play the odds that my accident will be one of the 998 where the belt will help, not one of the 2 where it might hinder. How about you?

I'll bet people argued the pros and cons of nav lights as well...
 
[ QUOTE ]
I heartily agree with the idea that almost anything that improves small boat visibility has to be a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ] my thoughts too. Interestingly I always carry one underwater and use it regularly underwater and would use it on the surface too if the dive boat was having difficulty finding me. Sadly the firefly ones flood if you take them diving /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif and thats not for the lack of trying a few.

I will now think about having one on board ready to hoist up the spinnaker halard if the vis drops

Pete
 
[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe that you have addressed any of my points. The RYA's tinkering with LEDs will not significantly affect safety. And would not have prevented Ouzo. They seem to have no other initiatives in place.

I do not believe that any of the passive reflectors examined during the investigation complied with the mandated specification.

The finding and prosecution of the Ouzo offenders was required by law, nothing to do with rulemaking, and will have little or no effect on future safety.

I gave a lot of thought to this post, and I find your style of debate does not do justice to the issues involved

Do try to see the bigger picture.

[/ QUOTE ]I am trying very hard to understand the reasoning behind your posts. Are you convinced that there is a crisis in safety where small boats are more and more in danger of being run down by large shipping?

Like many other professional and amateur users of the sea I believe that the IRPCS already deal with collision avoidance provided they are kept to by users. Note - I don't even say ALL users - as the ultimate responsibility of any skipper under IPCS is to avoid collision.

For me the fatal flaw (after the confusion with N Cardinals etc. issues) in the strobe argument is that it assumes that provided your sailing boat is made visible enough, the shipping will keep clear of you and not 'run you down'. But the bottom line is not just visibility, it's obeying the IRPCS.

How do we know that the Ouzo was keeping a good lookout astern or to weather. My experience of sailing in poor weather is that you have to remind the crew regularly to look behind them AND to weather if its blowing old boots. I expect you will remember how painful it is to look to windward in a gale. We have been known to wear ski-goggles to help keep a look-out.

Furthermore, if visibility is the problem, then surely the answer lies in brighter and better Nav lights. Traditionally on small sailing craft, power is at a premium and herein lay the problem. The small craft couldn't sustain bigger Nav lights because of power consumption problems. LED's might solve this problem, yet you criticise the RYA for getting invoved in the debate about their standards. The RYA's so called 'tinkering with regulations' has a direct effect on safety - so why the criticism?

There are still yachts who sail around at night with NO nav lights, choosing to turn them on if they think they need to be seen. I know that such contacts can initially be dismissed as flotsam/debris on a big ship radar, and yet the same people will then criticise the big ship for failing to avoid a sailing boat. Thankfully not many people do this in the channel - its usually in deep ocean that this is practiced and contacts with shipping are few and far between.

Radar reflectors are not perfect. They all have particular angles at which they are not very effective, yet a good octahedral reflector has been shown in ALL the tests that I have seen to be better than most others and certainly better than nothing. Its why all bodies suggest fitting radar reflectors to small craft. The only mandated rating for reflectors lies with either Yacht Racing rules or the directives for small commercial craft. I know of no law about radar reflectors for those who go to sea in the UK outside those regulations .

The RYA's position (and remember I am not speaking for them, but as a member and an independant examiner) is to encourage voluntary training and good seamanship. Their official line that strobes might confuse seems reasonable and responsible.

If you think you're not visible get some better Nav lights and some white flares and a powerful torch. The latter two is what the Code of Practice for small commercial craft - ie charter boats and sailing school boats insists on for paying customers - and seems very reasonable.

I have no idea about what you mean when you criticise my style of debate.
 
Well, I think that if you read this and other threads on the suject you will find that many other yachtsmen take the view that we are indeed at danger of being run down by large vessels and one of the few things we can do to improve our visibility is to fit an emergency use strobe.

I stick to the Rules and adopt a very defensive attitude, but after Ouzo I find it difficult to share your confidence in the professionals adherence to the Rules. And my underdtanding of the accident is that course changes by POB left Ouzo with no escape.

The Report makes it clear that no reflector meets the technical requirements. In particular the bog standard octahedron. This came as a surprise to me because I remember a PBO test concluding that it was as good as the rest. Rules say reflectors must be fitted to all craft where possible and gives the spec.

I take the view that the death of the crew of Ouzo was a clear indication that all is not well, and was a wake up call to the regulators

I do not believe we should adopt an attitude of blind faith in the professional establishment and the RYA and hope that everything turns out alright.

The sea is dangerous enough in itself. We need to fight our corner strenuously when confronted with the more manageable dangers of large fast shipping.

Further more, don't forget that in the rulemaking forum the small boat comes a long long way down the pecking order.

So I would advocate an RYA led review of the totality of the Collision Rules and their fitness for purpose in small boat safety. It is well overdue, and would represent a fitting memorial to the brave crew of Ouzo.
 
As a cyclist I illegally used flashing lights for many years.
As an inner city drinker I have used many a minicab and by way of an amateur survey I have asked at least 100 drivers whether they preferred the flashing lights to the legal non-flashing ones on cycles.
100% voted for the strobe effect as more easily seen.

From my own experience I know that a flashing light at sea gets my attention faster than the constantly on one.

So what we are really looking for is a strobe pattern that cannot be confused with any existing pattern......?

Single and group 2, 3, and 4 are out. (e.g. North, danger, East, pilot)
So are 6 and 9 ( South and West)

So Group 5 flash is the obvious choice - a visual 'Wake Up!' signal.

Using lights to replace sound signals is already in the Regs - 34 (b) (i) so it would be an easy addition.

Any takers ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think that if you read this and other threads on the suject you will find that many other yachtsmen take the view that we are indeed at danger of being run down by large vessels and one of the few things we can do to improve our visibility is to fit an emergency use strobe. <span style="color:blue"> We will have to agree to differ. I don't see a large majority wanting this - only a maverick few. I am not suggesting no debate about it, but you don't answer mine and other objections. Review the visibility of your lights - yes. Strobes NO.</span>

I stick to the Rules and adopt a very defensive attitude, but after Ouzo I find it difficult to share your confidence in the professionals adherence to the Rules. And my underdtanding of the accident is that course changes by POB left Ouzo with no escape. <span style="color:blue"> Which report did you read? The official report gives the evidence from the watchkeepers. They failed to keep a proper watch and it appears Ouzo didn't see them coming either. See my previous post about watching behind you. The onus is on ALL of us to keep a watch for potential danger and obey IRPCS as a result of our watchkeeping. Are you suggesting that Ouzo couldn't have seen what was happening and avoided the situation? What is clear is that her lights were not very visible, ergo better lights might be in order - see my previous post. Would you like the watchkeeper to say "look there's a sailing boat" or "I wonder where that N Cardinal has broken free from"?</span>

The Report makes it clear that no reflector meets the technical requirements. In particular the bog standard octahedron. This came as a surprise to me because I remember a PBO test concluding that it was as good as the rest. Rules say reflectors must be fitted to all craft where possible and gives the spec. <span style="color:blue"> Which report? - there have been lots. What rules are you referring to? </span>

I take the view that the death of the crew of Ouzo was a clear indication that all is not well, and was a wake up call to the regulators <span style="color:blue"> One tragic accident a statistic does not make. Of course we should review these things in the light of accidents. Its what professional seamen do all the time. </span>

I do not believe we should adopt an attitude of blind faith in the professional establishment and the RYA and hope that everything turns out alright. <span style="color:blue"> Nothing I have said indicates a blind willingness to accept the 'professional' establishment, but you need serious arguments to be taken seriously.</span>

The sea is dangerous enough in itself. We need to fight our corner strenuously when confronted with the more manageable dangers of large fast shipping. <span style="color:blue"> Don't know what you mean. Either you are paranoid or don't understand the lengths professional seaman go towards safety at sea. There is no conspiracy to 'get' small boats. </span>

Further more, don't forget that in the rulemaking forum the small boat comes a long long way down the pecking order. <span style="color:blue"> This just isn't true. In the grand scheme of things, fishing boats are 'small boats' and they are represented and especially protected in the IRPCS. Small craft and sailing craft are specifically represented both in the IRPCS and at reviews. There is no conspiracy by big shipping in all of this.
So I would advocate an RYA led review of the totality of the Collision Rules and their fitness for purpose in small boat safety. It is well overdue, and would represent a fitting memorial to the brave crew of Ouzo.<span style="color:blue">
Unrealistic and unhelpful. See all my comments previously and above. I don't suggest we stick our heads in the sand, but you need to make meaningful suggestions if you are to be taken seriously by the world seafaring community.<span style="color:blue"> </span>

[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
For me the fatal flaw (after the confusion with N Cardinals etc. issues) in the strobe argument is that it assumes that provided your sailing boat is made visible enough, the shipping will keep clear of you and not 'run you down'. But the bottom line is not just visibility, it's obeying the IRPCS.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you miss one point, which is that if a larger or faster vessel is unaware of a smaller, slower one (for whatever reason), it may choose to alter course in such a way as to create a collision risk.

No amount of lookout (which I think you already accept, has shortcomings) deals with this threat. And I'd agree that this threat is small, although I have sailed a lot in one particular area where it's very real (between Kythera and mainland Greece, a dense traffic area where half the traffic turns across lanes busy with other traffic).

Rules can be changed if there's a need. I see a need. Perhaps you don't. Meanwhile, each time I travel through that nasty corner at night, my powerful lamp will make like a strobe, sweeping across all visible (and invisible) ships on the horizon about once a minute. I'd prefer to automate that process . . .
 
Sorry, I have had enough of this. Maverick?

We will have to agree to differ, because I sense a firmly closed mind here.


Family and friends of the Ouzo's crew will be impressed by your assessment of their fate as a trivial blip in the statistics, not worth a reexamination of the rules under which they were operating.

And do try to stop reminding the rest of us that we are only amateurs, not professional seamen, RYA Examiners, blah blah blah.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I have had enough of this. Maverick?

We will have to agree to differ, because I sense a firmly closed mind here.


Family and friends of the Ouzo's crew will be impressed by your assessment of their fate as a trivial blip in the statistics, not worth a re-examination of the rules under which they were operating.

And do try to stop reminding the rest of us that we are only amateurs, not professional seamen, RYA Examiners, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]Hmm. We seem to have reached an impasse. I have tried to bend over backwards to show that I don't have a closed mind to these things.

Your comments regarding the families of the Ouzo are not helpful. I strongly resent your suggestion that I have called the incident 'trivial'. I have not, and anyone reading this thread will see the truth. I noted that a large amount of time, money and effort had gone into the investigation and rightly so. However what is not often acceptable is to use one incident as some sort of trigger for a wholesale change in the way things are done. The investigation asked some questions of yachtsmen and watchkeeping on big ships. Just because it didn't come up with your answer is no reason to get upset.

I am fascinated to know where you think I have constantly reminded you of any role I might or might not have in sailing. If you think I was being officious or pompous let me know where. I believe I am just trying to see things from all points of view. I don't claim any moral superiority. The sea is a great leveller, and my experience is the moment you start to think you are good at something at sea, it comes and bites you in the backside.

It would be more helpful if you answered some of my comments and objections to your argument about strobes.

I am quite open to suggestions that improve safety at sea, but please don't get cross when your suggestions are criticised.
 
Strobes?

I have a little problem here, and I suspect that it may be at the bottom of a lot of our disagreements. The word "strobe" is an abbreviation, coming from the use of stroboscopes to look at fast revolving machinery. A fast flashing light can make rotating machinery (or anything else making fast and repetitive actions) look as if it is stopped, or rotating only slowly; a very useful thing to do in investigations of machinery. Such lights were then used in other activities (such as discos) but the name "strobe" has stuck.

I don't think any of us is talking about a light which flashes at the sort of rates used in stroboscopic work. What we are talking about is a high-intensity flashing light, with the colour and rate as yet unspecified.

If we think about the purposes behind navigation lights, I think there are three stages:

(1) to indicate the presence (and position) of something which could be a hazard;

(2) to give an indication of what that something is; and

(3) to give an indication of the direction in which that something might be moving.

Our problem is, I think, that since the introduction of regulations covering navigation lights (way back in the nineteenth century) ship speeds have got a lot higher. That has meant that ships get less time to see small boats (or indeed other ships). To improve matters, we need to make our light visible at longer distances.

We could do this by simply increasing the brightness of our lights. The difficulty is that this needs more power, and power is one thing that sailing craft are short of. It may be that LED lighting will give us brighter lights for less power, but we don't yet have them. The other possibility is to concentrate our light. Our present lights already do this, by concentrating the light into a horizontal fan, but we know that this causes problems when the boat is heeled (as Ouzo probably was). Can we concentrate the light in any other way? Yes, by concentrating it in time, either by using the power to make an intermittent light or by using an optical system to concentrate the light into a rotating beam.

There is no doubt at all that intermittent lights have a greater ability to attract attention than do steady lights. Buoyage lighting (even though quite low power) is usually easily seen. (With Felixstowe Docks as a background it can be difficult, but steady lights are even worse!) So why not use flashing lights?

The obvious reason is their possible confusion with lit navigation marks. As someone else has said, Fl(2) is isolated danger, and Fl(3) is East Cardinal. The type of light used on aircraft could easily be mistaken for the Q or VQ of a North Cardinal. But do we need to flash at that rate? A 5s flash would not be confused with any buoyage light, and the slower flash would enable higher intensity with the same power.

I am not suggesting that such a light should be used. I am suggesting that the lights specified in IRPCS should be reconsidered in the light of lighting developments over the last fifty years. After all, Italy has just proposed to IMO that small craft should always be give-way vessels when meeting larger commercial ships, with the consequent need for snall craft lighting to be modified to make them identifiable; whether we agree with such a suggestion or not, at least it shows that Colregs aren't set in concrete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top