The Law of Tonnage

[Uricanejack]

The manoeuvre itself looks correct; you're effectively rotating his line of relative motion away from you and off to port. It's also compliant with 19(d). Was it that you couldn't/didn't explain the why of it beyond citing the rule?

It wasn't stated that this was close quarters or a foghorn was heard, so I'm assuming 19(e) isn't in play.

I certainly thought it was correct. Clearly action was required to avoid a close quarters situation.
The problem was how did I determine, the action I was going to take.

I didn’t receive an instant fail, I got a chance to figure it out, I started by telling the examiner what the rule was and and I was compliant.
Eventualy, I rule 19 wasn’t where I made my error. So you are correct had not explained the why.

Why did I decide to make the alteration I made?
What should I have done? To ensure my action was appropriate.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I certainly thought it was correct. Clearly action was required to avoid a close quarters situation.
The problem was how did I determine, the action I was going to take.

I didn’t receive an instant fail, I got a chance to figure it out, I started by telling the examiner what the rule was and and I was compliant.
Eventualy, I rule 19 wasn’t where I made my error. So you are correct had not explained the why.

Why did I decide to make the alteration I made?
What should I have done? To ensure my action was appropriate.

An interesting question. One thought is whether you did any plotting to determine the speed of the other vessel. In fog and tidal stream, it’s easy to think a buoy or other navigational mark is another vessel!

 

[zoidberg]

I'm wondering why you were not abed at 0216 ( post #81 ), and....

What should I have done? To ensure my action was appropriate.

ISTM 'backplotting' to establish the radar target's True Course and Speed is necessary. That may show the target is NOT making way and, perhaps, a fixed hazard.

But I'm listening.....

 

[john_morris_uk]

I'm wondering why you were not abed at 0216 ( post #81 ),

I think UrricaneJack is in a different time zone to thee and me. (Like the USA..)

 

[Uricanejack]

You have got it,

I did something I had done countless times in practice, I decided what the target was doing based only on its relative plot.
I had not completed the radar plot to determine the targets true course speed and aspect.
An assumption based on scanty information. Particularly scanty radar information.
I had to quote that darn rule as well.

without determining the targets true course and speed.
how did I know. I was not the overtaking vessel.?
Without a completed plot.
How would I know an alteration of course to Port, was not allowed.

I had resolved the plot in my head, without explaining to the examiner.
Fortunately fo me, my action was a ”safe“, action. he knew , I had taken a short cut. he let me figure it out. While grilling me pretty hard.
Every Time I insisted I was complying with rule 19 by not altering course to Port for a vessel other than a vessel being overtaken. I was annoying the heck out of him.
Fortunately the light went on, I told him I d resolved the plot in my head, and determined by the length of the relative vector the target couldn’t be going the same way, so clearly not a vessel being overtaken, I should have completed the plot.

 

[zoidberg]

Thanks, 'U-jack. That's a very helpful confirmation of the turgid thought processes I have to live with.

We yotties, even those of us who try hard to comprehend and comply fully, don't get the practice and the peer-review..... certainly not from anything RYA based.

I for one would appreciate more ColRegs conundrums like this one, then salted with professional judgement and experience.... ?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Thanks, 'U-jack. That's a very helpful confirmation of the turgid thought processes I have to live with.

We yotties, even those of us who try hard to comprehend and comply fully, don't get the practice and the peer-review..... certainly not from anything RYA based.

I for one would appreciate more ColRegs conundrums like this one, then salted with professional judgement and experience.... ?

I completely agree. I’m all for some informed discussion about IRPCS. We can all learn something no matter how well we think we know the rules or how long we’ve been applying them.

My problem with the thread as it originally started (and in particular with the US Captain and his ‘interpretation of the rules’) is that it encourages leisure sailors who claim they ‘just keep out of the way of everything’. In their unpredictable behaviour they annoy the hell out of other vessels great and small by their actions a lot of the time.

My take is that I do my best to comply with IRPCS until it becomes more and more obvious that the other vessel isn’t complying whereupon I continue to comply with IRPCS by taking avoiding action. This doesn’t normally mean altering to Port, but I’m invariably driving something small enough that a turn to starboard and slowing down for a few minutes to allow the other vessel to pass isn’t much of a problem.

 

[zoidberg]

The problem-set which gives me greatest difficulty, wafting along under sail but with aux engine available - and in good visibility - comes when there are several merchant vessels crossing.... generally on similar courses to each other but at different speeds. They will also have sorted out their mutual-avoidance decisions before they become aware of li'l ol me......

A couple of places spring to mind A: crossing the southgoing TSS OFF LANDS END near the south end, then later just clear south of the north-going lane....
and B: clear east, and clear west, of the OFF CASQUETS TSS.... with multiple vessels streaming into/out of the respective TSSs.

I do know the Rules - fairly well - and have been keen to adjust my position, course and speed ( such as is practicable ) to present the least 'confliction' and to make my intentions obvious and in good time, but again without an ARPA kit the judgement of when it is most appropriate to stand on/continue and when it is most appropriate to alter considerably, presenting the other bow...... and when to turn tail and gitoutathere..... has proven 'interesting' at times.

At night, with good viz, it sometimes seems easier.

I know of very few yotties who actively consider and have a game-plan for multiple near-simultaneous encounters.

Any words of wisdom from the real pros on here?

 

[GHA]

The problem-set which gives me greatest difficulty, wafting along under sail but with aux engine available - and in good visibility - comes when there are several merchant vessels crossing.... generally on similar courses to each other but at different speeds. They will also have sorted out their mutual-avoidance decisions before they become aware of li'l ol me......

A couple of places spring to mind A: crossing the southgoing TSS OFF LANDS END near the south end, then later just clear south of the north-going lane....
and B: clear east, and clear west, of the OFF CASQUETS TSS.... with multiple vessels streaming into/out of the respective TSSs.

I do know the Rules - fairly well - and have been keen to adjust my position, course and speed ( such as is practicable ) to present the least 'confliction' and to make my intentions obvious and in good time, but again without an ARPA kit the judgement of when it is most appropriate to stand on/continue and when it is most appropriate to alter considerably, presenting the other bow...... and when to turn tail and gitoutathere..... has proven 'interesting' at times.

At night, with good viz, it sometimes seems easier.

I know of very few yotties who actively consider and have a game-plan for multiple near-simultaneous encounters.

Any words of wisdom from the real pros on here?

Where ais is invaluable. How do you know they haven't factored you in (time to transmit ais or get a better radar reflector if you're spending lots of time in busy places?) ? Far from unknown in the channel to see a ship miles away do a minor tweak which results in a near exact 1nm cpa.
Impossible to say generically but often I might turn parallel for 5/10 minutes which resolves a situation, or just slow down and look at the cpa's on the ais. No hard and fast rule to cover every possible situation. Opencpn must be as good as any display for display ais data, fantastic resource to have onboard.

 

[capnsensible]

A great place to practice multiple contacts in a shipping lane with crossing ferries, vessels altering to enter a bay, fishin boats willy nilly, yachts, smugglers ribs, police and customs boats and a variety of leisure craft is the Straits of Gibraltar. I learnt masses there about manouvering under sail amongst that variety of craft, day and night, whatever der wevver.

However I do appreciate that most people arent gonna do that most weeks for 12 years.....

Realistically though, a few trips from Gib to Ceuta return gives great confidence in judgement, relative bearings, speeds and distance. Without the other 10 hours of 'sat about' on an English Channel crossing.

I reckon a bit of yacht racing anywhere helps too.

 

[zoidberg]

I reckon a bit of yacht racing anywhere helps too.

Done that, too. The Rools is diff'rent, as I recall, very diff'rent!

 

[Uricanejack]

I completely agree. I’m all for some informed discussion about IRPCS. We can all learn something no matter how well we think we know the rules or how long we’ve been applying them.

My problem with the thread as it originally started (and in particular with the US Captain and his ‘interpretation of the rules’) is that it encourages leisure sailors who claim they ‘just keep out of the way of everything’. In their unpredictable behaviour they annoy the hell out of other vessels great and small by their actions a lot of the time.

My take is that I do my best to comply with IRPCS until it becomes more and more obvious that the other vessel isn’t complying whereupon I continue to comply with IRPCS by taking avoiding action. This doesn’t normally mean altering to Port, but I’m invariably driving something small enough that a turn to starboard and slowing down for a few minutes to allow the other vessel to pass isn’t much of a problem.

I have similar reservations about the terminology.
He did start by illustrating his “Rule Of Tonnage” does not exist in any rule book. He used “right of way”. We all know doesn’t exist.

He was speaking in a very down to earth “ fire side chat” to American pleasure boats. While operating a tug and barge on the Hudson and in New York harbour.
How many views would he get trying to explain the complexities of the requirements not to impede?

I do believe it wasn’t a bad way of putting the concept across very simply.

I also get some amusement out of the US coastal inland waters jargon. It was quite bizarre and almost incomprehensible to me when I first heard it.
As a Glaswegian, many people on this side of the pond, expressed doubt English was my first (and only)language.
While they put subtitles on movies and TV shows filmed in Scotland.

 

[Uricanejack]

Surely in this day and age, the seamanlike thing to do if the slightest doubt can arise, is to call up the other ship and agree what is going to happen? I hear this all the time in the busy approaches to the Belgian ports and the mouth of the Schelde, officers and pilots are talking to one another and agreeing how they are going to pass. There is no excuse any more that you do not know the name of the other ship, no more ’ship in position xyz‘ nonsense.

Technology has certainly changed by several orders of magnitude since I last sat in front of a DOT examiner.
life and it’s many twists and turns, have taken me far away from the UK maritime world.
Quite a few years ago, I crossed paths with the head examiner of the MCA At the time. He was auditing a ship simulator facility for MCA accreditation.
We had quite a debate on use of VHF communications. With me taking a very North American view particularly within VTS areas.
He found it quite interesting, accepting a few points, for Pilotage areas covered by VTS operations.
He was adamant the MCA did not approve the use of VHF. We agreed to disagree.
This was quite a few years ago, from what I hear the MCA still frowns upon the use of VHF.
I believe the facility was accredited.
Turns out you can argue with the MCA, when you don’t answer to them.

 

[GHA]

This was quite a few years ago, from what I hear the MCA still frowns upon the use of VHF.

With well reasoned arguments based on incidents >
http://solasv.mcga.gov.uk/m_notice/mgn/mgn167.pdf

There have been a significant number ofcollisions where subsequent investigation hasfound that at some stage before impact, one orboth parties were using VHF radio in anattempt to avoid collision. The use of VHFradio in these circumstances is not alwayshelpful and may even prove to be dangerous.

 

[Uricanejack]

With well reasoned arguments based on incidents >
http://solasv.mcga.gov.uk/m_notice/mgn/mgn167.pdf

Makes the point quite clearly, I would be quite surprised if the traditionally rather conservative MCA view were to change any time soon.

My view, The MCA are very wise.
However, Given the right time and place. VHF communication can be very helpful. In some circumstances critical, based on one incident, I know off. Presumably a rare event.
Our video star.
Can be seen using VHF to make passing arrangements on a couple of occasions.

Possibly, Illustrating some of the problems. As well as some of the benefits of making a passing arrangement via VHF.

“See you on 1 whistle”

“See you on 2 whistle“

Clear?

It is if you are a New York Pilot or Tug Skipper.
Or even a Canadian,

 

[capnsensible]

Done that, too. The Rools is diff'rent, as I recall, very diff'rent!

Itsnot for the rules, its the judging speed and distance.

But do be careful not to attempt to cross in front of a tanker in the Solent if you got a big purple spinnaker!

 

[doug748]

.......


“See you on 1 whistle”



Clear?

....

Yes, I thought that was great. Like a lot of expressions from the New World it grates a bit but there is a lot of good sense in it:


It reminds you and him of the correct sound signal, even if you are not making it

It's more pointed than "port to port"

It conjures a mental image of the little ships in the books - doing the right thing.

 

[westhinder]

With well reasoned arguments based on incidents >
http://solasv.mcga.gov.uk/m_notice/mgn/mgn167.pdf

The document you refer to is dated 2001. Its main argument is the uncertainty about the identity of the vessel replying on the VHF. It clearly predates AIS, which has removed most of that uncertainty.
In my experience all professional mariners have reacted positively when I had reason to call them on VHF.
If you want the most striking illustration of the value and the importance of VHF communications, sail to the Veerhaven, the small marina in the centre of Rotterdam. Going up the Nieuwe Waterweg, you are required to listen and respond to the traffic controllers in the harbour. Yes, it could all be done relying on just the colregs but with far greater risk of confusion and collisions.
Pretending in 2020 that all the data we have is an echo on a radar screen may be ok for educational purposes, in a real world situation you would be foolish not to use the possibilities with which technological progress provides us.

 

[requiem]

The document you refer to is dated 2001. Its main argument is the uncertainty about the identity of the vessel replying on the VHF. It clearly predates AIS, which has removed most of that uncertainty.
...
Pretending in 2020 that all the data we have is an echo on a radar screen may be ok for educational purposes, in a real world situation you would be foolish not to use the possibilities with which technological progress provides us.

I particularly agree with that last part. When I hear people with severe GPS distrust it reminds me of some old arguments about not wearing seatbelts because "you might get trapped in the car".

Still, not everyone uses AIS; Norway lost a frigate a short while ago, in large part because they were neither squawking nor watching AIS. I would also counter that the MCA guidance identifies three problems, of which the identity question is only the first. The other two are language or clarity barriers, and ambiguous language or assumptions. That last problem is in little danger of being rendered obsolete by technology.

Sounding five blasts asks the question "WTF are you doing", but only the VHF can provide an answer. I don't argue against using it, but using it to negotiate a non-ColRegs pass should be done with extreme care.

 

[zoidberg]

Pretending in 2020 that all the data we have is an echo on a radar screen may be ok for educational purposes, in a real world situation you would be foolish not to use the possibilities with which technological progress provides us.

I'll welcome all the help I can get.

One aid that would IMHO help immensely would be a really good interactive online/computer-based Colregs ProcedureTrainer. We have the computing power now readily available and affordable AND we now have the capability to insert multiple choices, multiple pathways, given the growth in complexity of computer games. Is that 'multi-role, multi-player' stuff?

Instead of a dependence on memorising complex paper-based Rules in arcane language and a sketchy interpretation of them by many ( most? ) of us amateurs, surely a company such as Raymarine could come up with an 'add-on' app which prompts the user to consider, say, Rule19 or Rule 6 when circumstances seem to suggest....

One obvious example is assessment of when a Risk of Collision is deemed to exist. Several of those I have sailed with consider that's 'clear convergence and well within half a mile' and that's when they first start to consider options and responsibilities. I myself, with a mil aviation background, consider a Risk of Collision starts to exist when another vessel is inside the horizon and coming closer.... so I upgrade the Degree of Risk progressively and decide very early at what points I effect changes or where other Rules become applicable ... and it doesn't evaporate until that vessel is once again beyond the visible horizon, for I've seen vessels double back and circle around....

Perhaps two ends of a spectrum.