US Yachtie hits rocks in NZ

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by exfishnz

a 70' steel trawler should show up very well on a radar screen in nice weather, it should also be seen visually. Why did they turn at the last minute? I can only assume that someone finally heard us on vhf 16 & looked out the window. Also, I don't know why the cargo vessel was so close to shore, they normally go at least 10nm off.

You're absolutely right that you should have been seen. The unfortunate reality is many shipping companies, in an effort to save a buck, hire under-qualified watchkeepers. They tend to run with minimum crews, so it is possible that there was only one watchkeeper on - he may have been in the chartroom. or getting a coffee. Even if he heard the VHF, there's a good chance he was less-than-fluent in English. If they had the radar running, chances are it was untuned and/or at an inappropriate range scale; I say "if" because there's a good chance they turned off the radar to conserve its operating lifespan - totally illegal, but it happens.

in nice weather, some of these radars can even pick up small alloy dingies from a distance

In nice weather, you can pick up seagulls floating on the water at 2-3 miles.

In regards to Naval ships, they normally have full watch crew, high end radars & possibly even night time (or thermal) vision (perhaps you should correct me if I'm wrong

I can't speak for every country's navy, but from my experience out in the open ocean (ie when transiting vice conducting operations) the watches are usually reduced. There may or may not be a radar watch closed up. Even if a radar watch is monitoring the military surface search radar(s) it's likely to be junior ratings doing training. Most of the anti-collision is done by the OOW, using a commercial navigation radar - and like any watchkeeper, some OOWs are more competent and/or experienced than others. Most of the massive radars you see on a warship are air-search or fire-control radars, so aren't used to track ships/boats. We do use night-vision devices, but they're generally not suitable for scannning the horizon - rather they're used to confirm the existance of a contact, after a faint light or radar blip is detected.

When I started out, we were still using tactics from WWII - running silent and dark to evade the enemy (or simulated enemy); that is no nav lights and no radars on. We've seen a doctrinal shift since, pushed by the USN's overt posture, enabled by the technological advantage that gives us the ability to 'reach out and touch' our enemies before they can even see us. So while a lot of western navies may not be out there screaming around in the dark without lights and radar anymore, I wouldn't assume that navies from developing nations are not doing it.

In the highly unlikely scenario of a collision with a single handed sailor in a 25'-45' yacht, a 300'+ Naval cutter is going to come off the winner.

Nobody's a winner, especially if the navy guys have to recover a body.

When I said that warships don't follow shipping lanes, it was an example. I'm sure you can attest that fishing boats follow the fish not the ship-routes, so a single-hander is just as likely to come upon a tuna fleet, or research vessel, or a cable-layer, or some idiot drawing turtle-shapes in the ocean. The list goes on.

If the rescuer is going to put limb/life/vessel in danger, then its his discretion as to whether he undertakes the rescue

I didn't say otherwise. The convention and concomitant laws don't require mariners to subject themselves to serious risks. But rescue agencies and militaries will often assume a larger risk than would be expected of a private boat-owner. The account from Monowai is illustrative: Queens Birthday Storm 1994 - HMNZS MONOWAI

I think that both your opinion & my opinion are probably going to keep differing on this issue. Perhaps its better to "agree to disagree", rather than go in an "infinite loop".

Agreed.

[sv.horizon]

It would seem that some of the posters are a bit lacking in navigation skills as well as being arm chair sailors..... The boat went aground on the Great Barrier Island in NZ not the Great Barrier Reef in Australia as this thread has migrated to.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

As others will see, but you apparantly do not, Article 98 states that only the master of the ship has any duty - as does the NZ legislation that you posted before.

So your claim is as I said incorrect, it is only a master of a ship that is required to, and that only if he considers it safe to do so (so he is also not "compelled" as you continue to claim), no one else has any duty to - not even your "anyone" or your "Kiwi".

I am sure that most of us are aware as to why it is only the master - and I alluded to why earlier.

So you've completely changed your argument - yes, I was imprecise in what I said - but it was implied that you are the master of your own vessel. I don't know what you think the crew and passengers of a vessel are going to do, while the master of that vessel is conducting a rescue at sea As to the difference between "require" and "compel" - sheesh

[sv.horizon]

If the confusion of the postings here are any indication of navigation skills, the chap would have company on the rocks. I see numerous posts about the Great Barrier Reef..... wrong Great Barrier.... that one is in Austraila...unless someone moved it.....he actually went agound on Great Barrier Island which is NZ..... then what's in a name? and ...a few degrees on a chart?... Right?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You're absolutely right that you should have been seen. The unfortunate reality is many shipping companies, in an effort to save a buck, hire under-qualified watchkeepers. They tend to run with minimum crews, so it is possible that there was only one watchkeeper on - he may have been in the chartroom. or getting a coffee. Even if he heard the VHF, there's a good chance he was less-than-fluent in English. If they had the radar running, chances are it was untuned and/or at an inappropriate range scale; I say "if" because there's a good chance they turned off the radar to conserve its operating lifespan - totally illegal, but it happens.



In nice weather, you can pick up seagulls floating on the water at 2-3 miles.



I can't speak for every country's navy, but from my experience out in the open ocean (ie when transiting vice conducting operations) the watches are usually reduced. There may or may not be a radar watch closed up. Even if a radar watch is monitoring the military surface search radar(s) it's likely to be junior ratings doing training. Most of the anti-collision is done by the OOW, using a commercial navigation radar - and like any watchkeeper, some OOWs are more competent and/or experienced than others. Most of the massive radars you see on a warship are air-search or fire-control radars, so aren't used to track ships/boats. We do use night-vision devices, but they're generally not suitable for scannning the horizon - rather they're used to confirm the existance of a contact, after a faint light or radar blip is detected.

When I started out, we were still using tactics from WWII - running silent and dark to evade the enemy (or simulated enemy); that is no nav lights and no radars on. We've seen a doctrinal shift since, pushed by the USN's overt posture, enabled by the technological advantage that gives us the ability to 'reach out and touch' our enemies before they can even see us. So while a lot of western navies may not be out there screaming around in the dark without lights and radar anymore, I wouldn't assume that navies from developing nations are not doing it.



Nobody's a winner, especially if the navy guys have to recover a body.

When I said that warships don't follow shipping lanes, it was an example. I'm sure you can attest that fishing boats follow the fish not the ship-routes, so a single-hander is just as likely to come upon a tuna fleet, or research vessel, or a cable-layer, or some idiot drawing turtle-shapes in the ocean. The list goes on.



I didn't say otherwise. The convention and concomitant laws don't require mariners to subject themselves to serious risks. But rescue agencies and militaries will often assume a larger risk than would be expected of a private boat-owner. The account from Monowai is illustrative: Queens Birthday Storm 1994 - HMNZS MONOWAI



Agreed.

Thanks for the insight into how the "other side" operates.

I've always assumed it was my responsibility, when in charge of my own boat, to keep a proper lookout, and avoid collisions with ships (and islands), and would never even consider trying to exercise my "right of way" over something 1000+++ times bigger than me.

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

would never even consider trying to exercise my "right of way" over something 1000+++ times bigger than me.

What "right of way" would you have (in a small sailboat)? Are you towing? Not under command? Under distress (sinking, fire etc)?

It's my understanding (from my nautical school notes), that power vessels over 500 tons have "right of way" over smaller sailboats.

Back in Wellington NZ, there are tugs that are 90' & 600 tons, they have probs on a regular basis with sailboats & windsurfers trying to cut them off.

[Alan Wheeler]

I've always assumed it was my responsibility, when in charge of my own boat, to keep a proper lookout, and avoid collisions with ships

It is also. It is both skippers responsibility to avoid a collision, but one carries the can legally.
Only a fool is going to steer directly on a path of collision with another vessel when legally he may have right of way and is going to exercise that right. It is more prudent to steer a course of avoidance that to test the rule. It is common knowledge that many cargo vessels are traveling with no one maintaining VHF watch and Radar turned off in order to save money. They most likely would be held accountable if they hit a yacht, but it still doesn't mean they monitor and I certainly would not want to test the possibility by steering on a path of collision.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by exfishnz

It's my understanding (from my nautical school notes), that power vessels over 500 tons have "right of way" over smaller sailboats.

I think you're trolling now

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I think you're trolling now

I see your humor. But I'm actually quite serious on my point

[exfishnz]

This yuppie yachtie must of thought he had the “right of way” vs a large ship

Link to YouTube vid

Edit: when I was 18 (sitting my first ticket), my tutor told me a story about how a windsurfer wrote a complaint to the rail ferries, arguing how a ferry (400'+ ship) should've given way to him (as he's under sail) & not cut him off

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by exfishnz

I see your humor. But I'm actually quite serious on my point

The reason 44CC used the quote marks around "right of way" is likely because he is using the term colloquially and he is aware that there is no such thing in the colregs. Rule 18 describes the relationship between power-driven vessels and sailing vessels; there are no references to tonnage. Power normally gives way to sail, except where rules 9, 10 and 13 apply. In this case "power" does not include fishing, NUC, RAM or CBD.

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

likely because he is using the term colloquially and he is aware that there is no such thing in the colregs.

Are you sure??? That may be giving an Aussie a bit too much credit

Rule 18 describes the relationship between power-driven vessels and sailing vessels; there are no references to tonnage.

Hmmm... Perhaps I am slightly confused, perhaps the rules I mentioned were in regards to certain harbors.

[Alan Wheeler]

arguing how a ferry (400'+ ship) should've given way to him (as he's under sail) & not cut him off

Yes there are local Harbor bylaws. Picton and Wellington both have a local bylaw excluding the Ferries and ensuring that in fact, Sail must give way to the Ferry and Ferry has right of way in all instances. However, I would imagine that a fair amount of "restricted movement" would also enhance the "stay out of the Ferries way" within the sound.

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Yes there are local Harbor bylaws.

Aye, that be right mate. Perhaps some of my confusion is caused by the poor quality beer they brew over here in West Island NZ (sometimes illegally stated as “Australia”)

Here's another one's of those yuppie yachties taking on a ship & getting crushed (where do they get their tickets, in QLD??? )

Link to YouTube vid

PS. The locals are getting a bit concerned tonight, there's wind's forecast up to 100kph (55kts). 55kts, pffft! Just another average day in the Cook Strait

[MidLandOne]

In NZ the master of a vessel under 500 gross tonnage must not allow his vessel to impede the navigation of of a vessel of 500 gross tonnage or greater in ANY harbour area. This is usually stated in the local district's by-laws but the requirement is a national one covered in Maritime Rule Part 91 so covers all harbour areas whether in the district's bylaws or not.

Normally the "harbour area", which is required to be marked on charts, extends a considerable distance to sea - in Wellington's case over 3-1/2nm out from the harbour entrance, and in the case of the Marlborough Sounds includes the whole of the Sounds, out in Cook Strait as far as The Brothers, from there out around Stephens Island, down the Tasman Bay side of D'Urville Island and down to include Croisilles Harbour so covers many hundreds of square miles of sea.

Is a very dangerous practice to assume that the ColRegs apply wherever one is. The above type of rule is not just limited to NZ and in many harbours or areas of the sea certain vessels, eg harbour ferries (like some in Sydney), may have to be given way to according to the local legislation.