AIS, Receiver or Transmitter

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by rwidman

He didn't "explain" anything, he is just arguing his point of view.

Who is to say I didn't intend to alter my heading at that point anyway?

I hope you realize that nobody ever wins an Internet argument. It just goes on and on until someone gets tired of it or the thread gets closed. We all go away with the same point of view that we started with.

Ah yes, continue to break rules using the excuse, "It was time for me to change course as I wanted to go a different direction" regardless of being the stand-on vessel in a collision situation.

I'm not trying to win anything. I'm simply trying to explain to readers, other than you, why there are rules and why it's a good idea to follow them. It's obvious that confusing you with the facts isn't going to change your mind.

[puffcard]

I'll be adding a transponder soon. Have a reciever as part of my Standard VHF and really enjoyed that function.

We come a long way. One of my favorite moments was during a night race. Very little wind was sitting in the channel under the Bay Bridge. I called a tug with tow coming down on me. It went like this. "Tug boat this the sailboat do we have a problem?" His response "Not if you get the f___ out of the way." At that point knew what I had to do.

[MarkJ]

Mark I Eyeball.
I first realised what a crock of dogs poop the human eye is when they first shoewd us laser rage finders in the army.
A group of us Infantry officers agreed a range to an object, by sight, was 500 meters. Then this guy with the new lickerty-range finder says its 1,500 meters, of course we didnt believe him, nor the damn map... So we went and trudged the 3kms there and back.

I'm sorry to pick up your deficiencies for you, but, except for close in work your eyes can be deluded so very easily.

Just to prove your eyesight is pretty jolly useless try this test to count the passes. I got the number of passes right first time! Can you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJP40PcGI

Wheres me 'lecytroncs?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by rwidman

(...)

Common sense and common courtesy tells us to give way to a ship that's dozens of times the size of our recreational boats.

(...)

Meanwhile Colregs tell you that when collision risk exists, you are supposed to hang up your 'common sense and common courtesy instincts' and apply the rules.

IMHO, why not use the common things before there is any risk of collision?

Or should we assume that mariners who drew the regulations had no common sense? I feel the rules are common sense codified.

Frankly, if I were in an intimate and unfortunate situation with any big ship, hailing it on VHF would be my first thought - if only to make sure they stop the engines afterwards and pick up the debris.

So, I am for: common sense early on, Colregs when in a collision risk scenario, and chatting to that Queen.

b.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Mark I Eyeball.
I first realised what a crock of dogs poop the human eye is when they first shoewd us laser rage finders in the army.
A group of us Infantry officers agreed a range to an object, by sight, was 500 meters. Then this guy with the new lickerty-range finder says its 1,500 meters, of course we didnt believe him, nor the damn map... So we went and trudged the 3kms there and back.

I'm sorry to pick up your deficiencies for you, but, except for close in work your eyes can be deluded so very easily.

Just to prove your eyesight is pretty jolly useless try this test to count the passes. I got the number of passes right first time! Can you?

Wheres me 'lecytroncs?

I had a similar epiphany the first time I cruised with radar. Always thought I was pretty good estimating how far off the coast I was or distance to another boat. Got a radar and quickly realized I was seriously underestimating distances. What I thought was one mile from the coast was actually two. Similar results with passing boats.

[Don C L]

Well, pertinent to AIS, there is less excuse for getting into any possible collision scenarios. You can call up the ship by name from more than 10 miles out, confirm their speed and course and he or she will confirm yours as well (if you have the transceiver) you will state your intentions and any planned course changes, you can have a nice chat about the Queen, the weather and a few favorite recipes, and you will be one less blip they will have to worry about. Everybody is happy.

[uncle stinkybob]

I'm noticing a trend with what would seem to be the anti ais folks. Looks like a higher percentage go by their own common sense rather than colregs. So now not only are you not using a useful tool for other vessels to navigate safely, your confusing the crap out of every vessel near you because of your uncommonly common sense. If you don't want ais, fine, no problem, but at least stick to colregs in dealing with other boat/ship traffic so they have a clue on what your intentions are.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Dockhead, You seem to spout this same "rules" BS every time you get a chance, much like a broken record. I think we all know the rules but we should be using some common sense to apply the rules. We are humans, not robots.

Have never seen a single comment from Dockhead that advocated abandoning common sense. Following the rules IE Colregs and using common sense are in no way mutually exclusive.

Broken record? Pot and kettle?

Originally Posted by rwidman

I get a kick from imagining you calling the QE II on the VFH and saying "Captain, this is the small sailboat approaching and I am the stand on vessel so I am going to need you to change course for me." Reminds me of the joke about the Navy captain and the lighthouse.

I have frequently contacted large ships at sea (but never ran across the QEII) and they were always glad or even grateful that I did so and confirmed our intentions were compatible with avoiding a collision.

Originally Posted by rwidman

Common sense and common courtesy tells us to give way to a ship that's dozens of times the size of our recreational boats. It's one of those situations where you might be right, but you might be dead right.

Well more or less yes, but within the context of the Colregs. If cruisers unilaterally and randomly start altering course to avoid big ships in ways that do not follow Colregs then it is quite possible or even likely that this could be confusing the situation and increase instead of decrease the chance of collision.

Here is one example that I think clearly demonstrates the issue. You are headed east under sail, to your port is a ship headed south that appears to be on a constant bearing. "Oh" you say, "I need to use common sense and courtesy so I will stop or reverse course to let the ship proceed." Meanwhile that ship has just altered course to starboard a couple of degrees to allow you to cross ahead. Now the ship will have to figure out what you're doing and how to alter course again (or not) to avoid you.

[Dockhead]

W

Originally Posted by skipmac

. . . Here is one example that I think clearly demonstrates the issue. You are headed east under sail, to your port is a ship headed south that appears to be on a constant bearing. "Oh" you say, "I need to use common sense and courtesy so I will stop or reverse course to let the ship proceed." Meanwhile that ship has just altered course to starboard a couple of degrees to allow you to cross ahead. Now the ship will have to figure out what you're doing and how to alter course again (or not) to avoid you.

Especially if you lack the skill, knowledge, and awareness to know that that ship altered course 10 miles ago already and already set up a safe pass. Your "Mark I Eyeball" tells you that it looks scary, and so you make a random course change which has a 50% chance of putting you back on a collision course. This is an absolutely typical WAFI situation, as professional mariners will tell you.


Effective collision avoidance requires a systematic approach. It requires ability to detect a collision course and distinguish it from a safe pass, ability to detect which way you are crossing, and it requires following the rules.

AIS enormously improves your ability to know what you need to know, to maneuver safely. It's possible to live without it, but then you need even much more skill, and you need to invest the effort into using a hand bearing compass properly.


Those who don't have AIS and are not willing or not able to use a hand bearing compass are simply a menace in traffic. MarkJ's and others' comments about the Mark I Eyeball are spot on. This whole conversation makes me doubt my opinion that sailors should not be required to have a license to go to sea.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Have never seen a single comment from Dockhead that advocated abandoning common sense. Following the rules IE Colregs and using common sense are in no way mutually exclusive. . . .

Indeed. And common sense and the "ordinary practice of seamen" are required by Rule 2, even if these require breaking other rules.

Common sense certainly tells you to prevent risk of collision situations from arising in the first place, whenever possible. This is an ideal result, when it's possible.

But common sense (!!!) should also tell you that it is chaos and dangerous, if both vessels maneuver at the same time, once a risk of collision already exists. Common sense (!!!) should also tell you that the COLREGS rules assigning roles of standing-on and giving-way are completely sensible, and are needed on an entirely common sense (!!!) basis to prevent vessels from maneuvering at the same time in an uncoordinated way, and maneuvering into each other.

As Skipmac well said -- the COLREGS do NOT contradict common sense. On the contrary, they are the embodiment of centuries of wisdom and experience.

And they are, on top of all that, NOT optional. You do not have the right to just ignore them.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Here is one example that I think clearly demonstrates the issue. You are headed east under sail, to your port is a ship headed south that appears to be on a constant bearing. "Oh" you say, "I need to use common sense and courtesy so I will stop or reverse course to let the ship proceed." Meanwhile that ship has just altered course to starboard a couple of degrees to allow you to cross ahead. Now the ship will have to figure out what you're doing and how to alter course again (or not) to avoid you.

Of course, and in case Dockhead is thinking I am a blithering idiot (which I might be, I'll stipulate that!), I am not advocating zig-zagging at every moment of anxious concern and COLREGS be damned. There is a question of what constitutes proximity and imminent risk and also a matter of scale. This particular example would have to include a little more detail as to speed and relative headings and distance. But also, nowadays we can avoid the whole problem by TALKING to them. Well, as long as we are both fluent in some common language. Without that and upon approach of a vessel I will generally ASSUME they are NOT awake, on the bridge and not aware of me and are not going to change course. No offense to you commercial skippers, it only takes one close call to make one a little more careful...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Of course, and in case Dockhead is thinking I am a blithering idiot (which I might be, I'll stipulate that!), I am not advocating zig-zagging at every moment of anxious concern and COLREGS be damned. There is a question of what constitutes proximity and imminent risk and also a matter of scale. This particular example would have to include a little more detail as to speed and relative headings and distance. But also, nowadays we can avoid the whole problem by TALKING to them. Well, as long as we are both fluent in some common language. Without that and upon approach of a vessel I will generally ASSUME they are NOT awake, on the bridge and not aware of me and are not going to change course. No offense to you commercial skippers, it only takes one close call to make one a little more careful...

No one thinks you are an idiot

You are right on target with the question of "proximity and imminent risk and also a matter of scale" -- this is key. It is crucially important to understand at all times what phase of the encounter you are in.

But I would suggest that in most cases there is no need to TALK to them. The MCA discourages this, by the way:

There have been a significant number of collisions where subsequent investigation has found that at some stage before impact, one or both parties were using VHF radio in an attempt to avoid collision. The use of VHF radio in these circumstances is not always helpful and may even prove to be dangerous.

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...mgn/mgn324.pdf


If you are sure that you have a problem (which requires either AIS or diligent use of a hand bearing compass), and if you are sure that the ship has had a decent chance already to change course, so that you have a reasonable doubt that he will do so, AND if you have a safe maneuver (i.e. a turn to starboard), then why call? Just make your maneuver -- make it large enough that it is obvious that you have taken the initiative.

This is specifically compliant with COLREGS, and this is correct collision avoidance procedure. The obligation to stand-on most certainly does not obligate you to stand on into danger, nor are you even allowed to do that.

You can't really know what the right distances are for this -- your question of "proximity and imminent risk and also a matter of scale" -- without knowing how ships do collision avoidance. I spent a lot of time researching this by talking to professional mariners. There is no hard and fast rule, and the distances will be different in different traffic conditions, except one -- the pros are taught that they must detect potential collisions no later than 10 miles out. Normally they take action soon after this UNLESS there is a problem with other traffic. That's why in normal conditions about 5 miles, for me, is the time to be ready to take action yourself. In very dense traffic it might be as little as 3 miles, but really not later than that, because by that distance your options are dwindling fast in an encounter with a fast moving ship.

VHF calls are really useful if you DON'T have a safe maneuver -- for example, you are hard on the wind on a starboard tack and can't alter course to starboard. Before altering to port, you do really need to be sure that he is not preparing to alter to starboard -- these two maneuvers at the same time and at 3 or 4 miles out can cause a collision.

You would never call the bridge of a ship and say "I'm stand on and need you to alter course", as in RWidman's ridiculous mischaracterization. You would ask what his intentions are, and you might even start out by saying "Do you see me? I'm not comfortable with our CPA and will now alter to port -- could you please hold your course and speed?" The VHF call would be to make damned sure that he is not just about to alter course himself, which would be dangerous.

A fundamental principle of collision avoidance is that one vessel plays the active role and maneuvers, while the other is the "girl" in the dance and holds course and speed. It doesn't really matter who does what, as long as it is clear who is doing what. The paramount goal here is to avoid both vessels maneuvering at once in an uncoordinated way.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by uncle stinkybob

I'm noticing a trend with what would seem to be the anti ais folks. Looks like a higher percentage go by their own common sense rather than colregs. So now not only are you not using a useful tool for other vessels to navigate safely, your confusing the crap out of every vessel near you because of your uncommonly common sense. If you don't want ais, fine, no problem, but at least stick to colregs in dealing with other boat/ship traffic so they have a clue on what your intentions are.

I agree 1,000,000%%%%%%%

Just imagine chucking the car driving rule book out the window but just for RED cars. Thats the lunacy people here are advocating in their "Ohhhh its a shippy and I'm so scared I havta run away"

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As Skipmac well said -- the COLREGS do NOT contradict common sense. On the contrary, they are the embodiment of centuries of wisdom and experience.

One more thing I would add, adhering to the requirements of Colregs and common sense also do not mean one cannot also act courteously.

Of course one should always treat other boaters no matter what size or type of boat, with courtesy and respect but at some point common sense and ultimately Colregs must take precedence.

[uncle stinkybob]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I agree 1,000,000%%%%%%%

Just imagine chucking the car driving rule book out the window but just for RED cars. Thats the lunacy people here are advocating in their "Ohhhh its a shippy and I'm so scared I havta run away"

You must not be driving the roads of america much Mark? Every time I drive I see people in all color car's that have tossed the driving manual........................holy crap.....I wonder if there is a correlation between said horrid dangerous car driver's and these anti ais common sense folks? HA HA HA HA just kiddin, nobody get yer panties knotted up now.