WAFIs & AIS

[awol]

Anyone remember the Colregs threads with DAKA and the horde of WAFIs recommending ignoring the rules and running away when ever a ship was sighted? I get the impression they now fit AIS transponders and believe they are totally safe. The same people who were paranoid that professional watchkeepers weren't looking now seem to believe the same negligent watchkeepers will take cognisance of their electronic signals - after all they have the proof that they can see ships changing course on their plotter screens. So if the advantage of AIS is that numpty sailors actually behave predictably and follow the IRPCS then whoopee!

 

[JumbleDuck]

Anyone remember the Colregs threads with DAKA and the horde of WAFIs recommending ignoring the rules and running away when ever a ship was sighted?

No. I do remember some people saying that they preferred not to let a collision situation develop in the first place, which seemed and still seems reasonable to me.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Anyone remember the Colregs threads with DAKA and the horde of WAFIs recommending ignoring the rules and running away when ever a ship was sighted?

"Ah, yes, I remember it well!"

 

[john_morris_uk]

No. I do remember some people saying that they preferred not to let a collision situation develop in the first place, which seemed and still seems reasonable to me.

And I remember trying (very patiently) to explain that most of them had no idea whether a collision situation actually existed or might develop. Zig zagging round the oceans in the off mistaken belief you are being helpful is the reason sailors get called WAFI's... I suggest that most of the time by the time many small boat skippers have spotted a ship that they think might be a threat, the ship has already seen them and assessed the risk of collision and perhaps tweaked their course to open up the CPA. If AIS is demonstrating this fact to sailors then three cheers for AIS.

 

[SteveSarabande]

What is a WAFI

 

[Elessar]

And I remember trying (very patiently) to explain that most of them had no idea whether a collision situation actually existed or might develop. Zig zagging round the oceans in the off mistaken belief you are being helpful is the reason sailors get called WAFI's... I suggest that most of the time by the time many small boat skippers have spotted a ship that they think might be a threat, the ship has already seen them and assessed the risk of collision and perhaps tweaked their course to open up the CPA. If AIS is demonstrating this fact to sailors then three cheers for AIS.

Well put as always. But don't just blame the sailors some mobos are as bad, as ably demonstrated by Daka.
+1 to your point.

 

[capnsensible]

It should be remembered that some people are Very Self Important and therefore can quite freely choose to abide by the rules or ignore them as They Wish.

 

[JumbleDuck]

And I remember trying (very patiently) to explain that most of them had no idea whether a collision situation actually existed or might develop.

Ah, well then we get on to the whole interesting business of what, precisely, a "collision situation" is. You're tacking down from the Cloch. A container ship is heading north, bound for Greenock. Is it really so bad to stay over to the Cowal side?

 

[Twister_Ken]

What is a WAFI

Wind Assisted Flipping* Idiot

*or similar word beginning with 'F'

 

[john_morris_uk]

Ah, well then we get on to the whole interesting business of what, precisely, a "collision situation" is. You're tacking down from the Cloch. A container ship is heading north, bound for Greenock. Is it really so bad to stay over to the Cowal side?

Not at all and that us exactly what I would expect any sailor or small power boat to do.

Except its a poor illustration as the ship is in a narrow channel and IRPCS require small craft to keep clear.

I was referring to open sea situations.

 

[pmagowan]

I know lots of people who consider 'stand on' to be optional especially when the other boat is bigger than you. I was kind of brought up that way but have found that sticking to colregs seems to make for an easier life with less stress.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Not at all and that us exactly what I would expect any sailor or small power boat to do.

Except its a poor illustration as the ship is in a narrow channel and IRPCS require small craft to keep clear.

It's a mile and a half wide. Does that really count as a narrow channel?

I was referring to open sea situations.

That's more tricky. In general then yes, of course, faffing around does nobody any good, but there are real issues which arise when one vessel can assess the existence of a collision situation long before the other, particularly when it's the stand-on one and I don't think insults like WAFI help resolve this.

 

[john_morris_uk]

It's a mile and a half wide. Does that really count as a narrow channel?



That's more tricky. In general then yes, of course, faffing around does nobody any good, but there are real issues which arise when one vessel can assess the existence of a collision situation long before the other, particularly when it's the stand-on one and I don't think insults like WAFI help resolve this.

The bit where a ship is happy to be is rather less than a mile and a half..,

Insults rarely help anyone, but the point I was making was about why some large ship bridgewatchkeeper refer to yachtsmen and women as WAFIs. I wasn't condoning their use of the term, just explaining why I thought they used it.

 

[pmagowan]

There is a difficulty with assessing the risk of collision as it is different for each vessel dependent on manoeuvrability. The large ships are likely to detect things early and react early but in doing so they can fail to make a manoeuvre which is obvious to a small yacht. AIS can aid in detecting this manoeuvre. A small boat might react much later but will likely make a coarse change in the region of 90 degrees. It may be tacking to go to somewhere other than it is pointing and thus it was never going to collide although a projection of its original course would suggest otherwise.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Insults rarely help anyone, but the point I was making was about why some large ship bridgewatchkeeper refer to yachtsmen and women as WAFIs. I wasn't condoning their use of the term, just explaining why I thought they used it.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being insulting but realise that it came across that way. My mistake.

My point was that what looks like yotty incompetence from the well equipped, high-up bridge of a ship doing 20kt may actually be quite logical behaviour from the basically equipped, near-the-water cockpit of a sailing boat doing 5kt, and of course vice-versa. It doesn't help if yotties ave to start guessing what the big boat boys think they should do.

By and large it all seems to work, though, as not many big things hit wee things.

 

[JumbleDuck]

There is a difficulty with assessing the risk of collision as it is different for each vessel dependent on manoeuvrability. The large ships are likely to detect things early and react early but in doing so they can fail to make a manoeuvre which is obvious to a small yacht.

Absolutely. I think it is arguable that a large give-way ship which makes a 2 degree course change when five miles away to maintain a safe CPA is in breach of the IRPCS my not making a clear change of course.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being insulting but realise that it came across that way. My mistake.

My point was that what looks like yotty incompetence from the well equipped, high-up bridge of a ship doing 20kt may actually be quite logical behaviour from the basically equipped, near-the-water cockpit of a sailing boat doing 5kt, and of course vice-versa. It doesn't help if yotties ave to start guessing what the big boat boys think they should do.

By and large it all seems to work, though, as not many big things hit wee things.

I quite agree that it might be logical in the mind of the small boat, but it doesn't always make it right. I will carry on celebrating that many small boat owners now realise what was happening all the time; big ships almost invariably obey IRPCS and despite their size will do their best to keep clear of small sailing vessels on the open sea. (Its not a career enhancing move to run a small vessel down.) If AIS shows that this is happening and encourages small craft to obey IRPCS and not go wondering off course in the mistaken belief that they are 'keeping clear of that ship because it is bigger than me...' then its got to be a good thing.

I agree that by and large it does work, but AIS might also reduce the frustration of big ship watch keepers because small vessels start doing what they are supposed to be doing and I think that was partly the point of the OP's post?

 

[lw395]

I quite agree that it might be logical in the mind of the small boat, but it doesn't always make it right. I will carry on celebrating that many small boat owners now realise what was happening all the time; big ships almost invariably obey IRPCS and despite their size will do their best to keep clear of small sailing vessels on the open sea. (Its not a career enhancing move to run a small vessel down.) If AIS shows that this is happening and encourages small craft to obey IRPCS and not go wondering off course in the mistaken belief that they are 'keeping clear of that ship because it is bigger than me...' then its got to be a good thing.

I agree that by and large it does work, but AIS might also reduce the frustration of big ship watch keepers because small vessels start doing what they are supposed to be doing and I think that was partly the point of the OP's post?

Absolutely, I've thought this since I owned an early NASA 'AIS Radar' .

 

[lustyd]

Anyone remember the Colregs threads with DAKA and the horde of WAFIs recommending ignoring the rules and running away when ever a ship was sighted? I get the impression they now fit AIS transponders and believe they are totally safe. The same people who were paranoid that professional watchkeepers weren't looking now seem to believe the same negligent watchkeepers will take cognisance of their electronic signals - after all they have the proof that they can see ships changing course on their plotter screens. So if the advantage of AIS is that numpty sailors actually behave predictably and follow the IRPCS then whoopee!

But it won't mean they are following the rules necessarily. Simply holding course is wrong in quite a few situations, and if that's the result of AIS then we're still at square one. They will still need to actually read the IRPCS just in case they end up motoring across a channel when there is no wind for instance - half of the ships met in this scenario will be stand on vessel and the other half not!

 

[JumbleDuck]

I quite agree that it might be logical in the mind of the small boat, but it doesn't always make it right. I will carry on celebrating that many small boat owners now realise what was happening all the time; big ships almost invariably obey IRPCS and despite their size will do their best to keep clear of small sailing vessels on the open sea. (Its not a career enhancing move to run a small vessel down.) If AIS shows that this is happening and encourages small craft to obey IRPCS and not go wondering off course in the mistaken belief that they are 'keeping clear of that ship because it is bigger than me...' then its got to be a good thing.

In Ye Olde Days two vessels would spot each other, get close-ish and then one would make a significant change in course to avoid the other, then resume its course. Nowadays vessels can in some cases spot each other miles away and make small changes in course so that the risk of collision, in the old sense, never arises. When a tanker does this with a small change in course it's sensible use of technology - despite being a clear breach of Rule 8. What a yacht does it it's gross irresponsibility..