Yachting FAIL - Jessica Watson

[MarkJ]

15/16 yo American starting....

Californian Abby Sunderland, who will turn 16 in October, now has a major sponsor who will enable her to purchase her yacht. She is planning a mid to late November start.

Sail-World.com : Just between the girls- for solo circumnavigations


.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by David M

The COLREGS are right in the US CFR's as law. No signing necessary.

That's what I said David - although the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS, they nonetheless made the Colregs law.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GeoPowers

The question that is much more difficult to answer is when does risk of collision exist according to Colregs? Rule 7 gives guidance, but not a black and white answer.

This is also the question I asked - you have not given an answer. I was wondering how peeps on the forum interpreted when "risk of collision never exists in the first place"? I'm guessing that most small boaters underestimate this point and therefore act in contravention of Rule 17. Rule 7 is far too restrictive as written - Cockcroft & Lameijer have a much better explanation of the "stages" of an anti-collision situation.

So I ask again what is the cut-off point in distance or in TCPA that you guys consider it OK to not hold your course and speed when approaching an anti-collision situation with a large vessel?

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This is also the question I asked - you have not given an answer. I was wondering how peeps on the forum interpreted when "risk of collision never exists in the first place"? I'm guessing that most small boaters underestimate this point and therefore act in contravention of Rule 17. Rule 7 is far too restrictive as written - Cockcroft & Lameijer have a much better explanation of the "stages" of an anti-collision situation.

So I ask again what is the cut-off point in distance or in TCPA that you guys consider it OK to not hold your course and speed when approaching an anti-collision situation with a large vessel?

Sorry, but that wasn't the question you asked. Your answer by law is Rule 7. Simply, there is no specific distance or time. One has to use sound judgment based on numerous factors such as bearing drift, relative speed, distance, maneuverability variations in like vessels, anticipation of planned movements of other vessels, etc. There is no "cookie-cutter" answer.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GeoPowers

Sorry, but that wasn't the question you asked. Your answer by law is Rule 7. Simply, there is no specific distance or time. One has to use sound judgment based on numerous factors such as bearing drift, relative speed, distance, maneuverability variations in like vessels, anticipation of planned movements of other vessels, etc. There is no "cookie-cutter" answer.

You said that you agree with manoeuvring early enough that risk of collision doesn't yet exist - I asked when is "early enough"? Sounds a lot like:

The question that is much more difficult to answer is when does risk of collision exist according to Colregs?

So you want specifics? OK you're in a Bene 393 under sail at 5 kts and see a 60,000 tonne collier over the horizon at 8 miles doing 10 kts; open ocean, no other traffic - when do you become obligated to hold your course and speed a la Rule 17?

[speakeasy]

Investigations carried out by Australia's State and Commonwealth authorities after teen sailor Jessica Watson's collision with a merchant ship last week have come to nothing, as the yacht and the merchant ship were in international waters at the time, 15 nautical miles off the coast.

.....

Andrew Fraser, spokesman for her public relations company, was quoted as saying, 'It's my understanding that nobody could be charged because it happened in international waters more than 12 miles offshore.'


Also from Sail World Sail-World.com : Jessica's collision - Australia has 'no jurisdiction'

---------------------
So for all you there ought to be a law folks, no soup for you!

With my cynicism warning light blinking, it occurs to me that the bureaucrats and politicians found this to be a no-win situation. On the one hand you have the crowd favorite hometown girl and on the other, the PRC who happens to be far and away your biggest customer for all the Aussie raw materials, coal, iron, etc.

Is this the usual way nautical accidents are handled? Who has jurisdiction outside the 12 mile limit?

[Lodesman]

A Canadian-registered ship is subject to the laws of Canada anywhere in the world - I suspect that Australia has similar jurisdiction over Australian vessels. I'd trust the maritime-law expertise of a PR flack even less than that of a journalist

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

OK you're in a Bene 393 under sail at 5 kts and see a 60,000 tonne collier over the horizon at 8 miles doing 10 kts; open ocean, no other traffic - when do you become obligated to hold your course and speed a la Rule 17?

You are misinterpreting Rule 17. It does not oblige you to hold your course.

i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules.

I reiterate my reiteration! The rules say BOTH VESSELS CAN NOT BANG INTO EACH OTHER! If the guy dosen't give way you don't just run into the twerp you get out of his way

[Lodesman]

Sorry Mark I disagree. You note the part you didn't highlight?:

i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.

I agree that the Rules essentially say you can't bang into each other, but there is a defined period where the stand-on vessel is required to maintain its course and speed (allowing for navigationally required changes of either). When it becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is not giving way in a positive and timely manner, then the stand-on vessel may take action. But, and I reiterate the but - you do have to give the give-way vessel a reasonable chance to take the avoiding action - action that is likely predicated on the stand-on vessel maintaining its course and speed. If the stand-on vessel starts wallowing back and forth or making "minor course adjustments" it only confuses the situation and leads to a collision.

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You said that you agree with manoeuvring early enough that risk of collision doesn't yet exist - I asked when is "early enough"? Sounds a lot like:

So you want specifics? OK you're in a Bene 393 under sail at 5 kts and see a 60,000 tonne collier over the horizon at 8 miles doing 10 kts; open ocean, no other traffic - when do you become obligated to hold your course and speed a la Rule 17?

Day or night? What's the CPA...1000 yds? 500? 600? 3000? CBDR? how long before CPA? Overtaking? Crossing? Relative speed? 12-14 ft waves, or flat seas? Reduced vis? 15 kts wind right on the nose, or 10 kts on the beam? Is he yelling at you in Farsi on the VHF? Does my VHF work? Do I have radar? Does he?

Look, we can play this all day, my answer is the same- every situation is unique and depends on the judgment and perspective of both captains. I know you want me to say something more specific, but I'm not gonna do that- it is just not possible to make "rules" on how to interpret some of the Rules.

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

But, and I reiterate the but - you do have to give the give-way vessel a reasonable chance to take the avoiding action - action that is likely predicated on the stand-on vessel maintaining its course and speed. If the stand-on vessel starts wallowing back and forth or making "minor course adjustments" it only confuses the situation and leads to a collision.

You do know that stand-on vessels shall only maneuver to STBD for this reason right? (also contained in Rule 17). If you maneuver to STBD, you are turning away from the approaching vessel and would come to more parallel courses, reducing relative motion and increasing CPA.

Sorry for the thread drift, I promise not to contribute to it more, but you have to read all of the Colregs, not just parts. I've read them sooo many times on a midwatch, and am amazed how many times I learn something new or something I forgot.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by GeoPowers

Day or night? What's the CPA...1000 yds? 500? 600? 3000? CBDR? how long before CPA? Overtaking? Crossing? Relative speed? 12-14 ft waves, or flat seas? Reduced vis? 15 kts wind right on the nose, or 10 kts on the beam? Is he yelling at you in Farsi on the VHF? Does my VHF work? Do I have radar? Does he?

Look, we can play this all day, my answer is the same- every situation is unique and depends on the judgment and perspective of both captains. I know you want me to say something more specific, but I'm not gonna do that- it is just not possible to make "rules" on how to interpret some of the Rules.

OK..............................Taking all of that into account, wouldn't it then make sense to take advantage of the cupla thousand miles of empty ocean to port and get the hell out of the shipping lanes before heading south and thinking of sleeping?

Originally Posted by cat man do

I also have done many thousands of single handed miles and around this area, but would never have contemplated sleeping in a shipping lane.

Just like I don't walk out in front of trucks with my eyes shut.

Perhaps she should have sailed another 20 miles east , well out of the lanes before heading south, if, she had to prove some point by sailing through the first night?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Factor

Excellent - that saved Maritime Safety Qld, the Queensland Police and the various commonwealth authorities a whole host of time and taxpayers money in undertaking an investigation. Thanks very much for your help.

Oh and I am not sure about your place of origin but it appears your society does not have the concepts of onus and standard of proof that we operate with, bloody inconvenient to expect the prosecution to prove matters beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fine.

I sail on a biannual basis from Holland to the South of France, over sea, crossing the North Sea, the Channel, Biscaya, all the way along Spain and Portugal, Strait of Gibraltar i.e. the busiest waters in Europe.
Sometimes I am solo sometimes I have company.
At least in all traffic lanes there is watch/lookout.
In Europe, there is no pity for a sailor who doesnot keep a proper lookout.
When the girl, Jessica hit the freighter, she was in the vicinity of a port (Brisbane) at a distance of 15 miles and did not keep a lookout according to the first reports. So, who is to blame in this case?

A yacht should have a working engine on board, you are not allowed to enter commercial ports without. So why she did not operate her engine and steered away. If these questions cannot be answered for, the explanation is simple.

Secondly:

It is my experience that there is a growing number of commercial traffic that keep no watch anymore, relying on radar and/or AIS and other electronic gadgets. Equipment that (often) cannot be handled by the watchmen of even so often (far) eastern countries. Least of all a VHF

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GeoPowers

You do know that stand-on vessels shall only maneuver to STBD for this reason right? (also contained in Rule 17). If you maneuver to STBD, you are turning away from the approaching vessel and would come to more parallel courses, reducing relative motion and increasing CPA.

Have you actually read the rule? A power-driven vessel shall not alter to port for a vessel on her own port side, if the circumstances of the case admit.

Day or night? What's the CPA...1000 yds? 500? 600? 3000? CBDR? how long before CPA? Overtaking? Crossing? Relative speed? 12-14 ft waves, or flat seas? Reduced vis? 15 kts wind right on the nose, or 10 kts on the beam? Is he yelling at you in Farsi on the VHF? Does my VHF work? Do I have radar? Does he?

I suspect you don't really have a clue and are just throwing up specious arguments at this point. I suggest you invest in a copy of Cockcroft and Lameijer's guide to the Rules.

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I suspect you don't really have a clue and are just throwing up specious arguments at this point. I suggest you invest in a copy of Cockcroft and Lameijer's guide to the Rules.

That's rude. And I certainly don't feel the need to give you a breakdown of my years standing bridgewatch.

If you have a specific distance or time answering your own question that fits all conditions and situations, I'm sure we'd love to learn a little bit from you. I know I would.