How to Avoid Huge Ships

[David M]

Originally Posted by Pyxis156

Dave (or anyone else),

Could you please provide the titles of books you would recommend?

Thanks!

I studied from both of these books...
Amazon.com: Mariner's Rules of the Road (9780393032871): William P. Crawford: Books

Amazon.com: Farwell's Rules Of The Nautical Road (U.S. Naval Institute Blue & Gold Professional Library) (9781591140085): Craig H. Allen: Books

In looking through Amazon, I came across this book which looks pretty good although a bit expensive.
Amazon.com: Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, Sixth Edition (9780750661799): A N Cockcroft, J N F Lameijer: Books

[Lodesman]

Cockcroft & Lameijer's Guide is the gold standard - found a link to a PDF version: http://khorramshahrport.pmo.ir/filed...e833c3aa2.html

Check out page 114 for an explanation of the four stages. And pages 58-60 for an explanation on the "do not impede" requirements.

[goboatingnow]

I would read 108 through 112 which provides ample justification of my views and entirely backs the view that the stand on vessel takes substantive action as soon as she determines that the give way vessel is not reacting sufficiently. They refer to such actions taking place at a Distance of 2 miles. I be quite happy if large ships so manoeuvred and if they don't ( and most don't) then I would act under 17( ii). Which by the way was added to the colregs hence to provide for such action and to prevent standing on into danger

QED

Dave

[Capt Phil]

Hummingways' link in post #157 is hilarious... the BC Ferry system did commission the builds for the new ferries outside of Canada. What the link did not mention was that the reason for the new ferry builds was that the New Democratic Provincial Government at the time had 3 Pacificat ferries built for around $400 million powered by jet drives. It took about 10 runs across the Straits of Georgia sucking logs into the drives to render the Pacificats inoperable and drastically limit access to Vancouver Island. As I recall, they sold the lot for less than $50 million causing the Provincial Government to fall. I love revisionist history! The BC Ferries operate in one of the most difficult areas of any ferry operation in the world... through an area strewn with rocks, reefs, strong currents, blind headlands and very heavy commercial and recreational traffic. I've had the chance to be on the bridge of these ferries on crossings a few times and their seamanship is second to none IMHO. These profeesional seaman do not hold the weekend marine warrior in too high regard for very good reason. Capt Phil

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Watermann

I've never been into Rotterdam, but that blurb (or one like it) is found in pretty much any VTS Manual anywhere you go. In extreme situations, they can intercede. I have never denied that.

What you will not find - at least to my knowledge, and certainly not in the U.S. - is an ATC-like Vessel Traffic Control where specific speeds and courses are issued to vessels as a matter of routine. It's been proposed before and that is something that I (and most other captains/pilots I know) would never want to see, for the reasons I mentioned above. The closest thing you might see now is mandatory wake reductions during certain tides or special operations or clearances for one-way traffic zones.

Watermann VTS services all around Europe especially on the entrances to harbours issue legally binding " instructions" every hour of every day. They do not as you say issue ATC style course and speed instructions that is the sole responsibility of the Master. But they do " control" where the ship goes . It is definitely not just an advisory process. I have a good friend who runs such a VTS

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Bash

A few years ago I had the opportunity to transit the fiords around Bergen, Norway on the bridge of a large ship. I was impressed at how little tension there was between the ship, which maintained cruising speed, and recreational traffic. No one seemed especially concerned when vessels came within close proximity--it was all very routine. A totally different scene than my home waters on San Francisco Bay, where it would be unusual to go through a weekend without hearing several ships give recreational boaters the five-blast treatment.

On the other hand, there are numerous channels here where it's not uncommon to encounter a ship at close quarters: the Richmond channel, Redwood Creek Channel, the Oakland Estuary, the Sacramento Deepwater Channel. It's not at all uncommon to pass a ship port-to-port going the opposite direction in these channels. No big deal.

There's no reason for small craft to clear the water when a ship is around. Once we figure out that ships go much faster than recreational sailboats, and that they are more constrained by draft, and that they tend not to have good brakes, everyone can get along just fine.

Bash.... its one drop dead gorgeously awesome fjord is it not.... stopped there 'showing the flag' years ago.... spent 10 days there and the Norwegian Navy took us up to Voss skiing.... man it was great... traded my rum ration to the married guys to cover my watches on ship..... Rum sure has its uses

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I would read 108 through 112 which provides ample justification of my views and entirely backs the view that the stand on vessel takes substantive action as soon as she determines that the give way vessel is not reacting sufficiently. They refer to such actions taking place at a Distance of 2 miles. I be quite happy if large ships so manoeuvred and if they don't ( and most don't) then I would act under 17( ii). Which by the way was added to the colregs hence to provide for such action and to prevent standing on into danger

QED

Dave

You have completely lost the plot. That section of the book is summarized in my post #141 - the same post you said I was "extending the colregs into areas it doesn't go." This is the point I have been consistently making, and the point you have been consistently arguing against.

The 2 mile example is predicated on two merchantmen in a crossing situation - assuming a closing-rate of 30kts, that gives 4 minutes to collision. At speed the average merchant requires the better part of a mile to make a crash stop or large course alteration - that should give you some indication that this represents very close proximity for large vessels. When one of the two vessels is small and manoeuvrable, this range is less than 2 miles. That 2 miles also marks the point by which the give way vessel should have taken action and therefore the point at which the stand-on vessel may take action. In other words, it is the transition zone between the second and third stages. 17(a)(ii) was added because the previous rules required the stand on vessel to stand-on into extremis, where it required both vessels to manoeuvre in order to prevent collision. (a)(ii) allows the stand-on vessel to avoid a collision by her manoeuvre alone, as the give-way vessel may never wake up and take the required action.

The vast majority of large vessels do follow the rules - I can't believe you would say otherwise. I'll go one further - most large commercial vessels will take their action at about 3 miles - if their manoeuvre is not apparent at that range, I would certainly hail them on VHF.

[sanssouci]

Why has AIS not been mentioned?