Do use Day Shapes

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Except that it is out of context of the topic....

The context was that vessels motor-sailing are frequently faster and therefore more manoeuvrable than vessels sailing - it was an extension of the argument about using the inverted cone day-shape.

, if they were motor sailing, he still made the right course of action, even if he was the stand on vessel.

You've said that as stand-on vessel, not standing on is the right course of action. Do you understand the concept of COLREGs?

If you want leave a half mile CPA to another sailing vessel

Not sure where this one came from. My only guess is that you think 500 yards is half a mile. It's not.

The only real problem is when you know the other yacht is motorsailing, so you hold course, but they continue to pretend they are sailing and don't stand to.

(my bold)

I assume you meant give way. That is the real problem. Don't you agree it's bad seamanship to motor-sail and not follow the colregs?

[estarzinger]

surprised at the 'strength of feelings' in this discussion, because the actual situation in the real world is quite clear.

Very few yacht's men - virtually none outside of Dutch and near waters - use a motor-sailing cone.
Relatively few know what it means.
They are typically quite hard to see from any meaningful distance, and are of no value 99% of the time.
They are required by the colregs, but usage is not enforced in the vast majority of the world.

I believe none of that is debatable.

The same is true of an anchor ball, except they are slightly more frequently used and known, but of equal (minimal) actual value.

We then each make our own decision whether to use them or not - with the vast majority not doing so except in the small part of the world where the authorities care/enforce. I am not saying that is 'right' or 'wrong' - just it is what it is in the real world.

There will be one (small) group that say everyone should always follow all the rules (and argue that is the one and only right solution) - but the vast majority in fact, in actual practice (look at % over the speed limits on highways), disagree with that philosophy and take a more pragmatic approach.

[thinwater]

Very seldom. However, by the time I can make out whether that 12" diameter black thing, partially obscured by the rigging, viewed through binoculars from the deck of a bouncing small boat, is a cone or a ball... I'm 100% certain it is safer for me to keep my eyes open and carefully observe the whole situation. By the time I am close enough for the difference to matter, I'm quite certain I can see whether they are anchored or motor sailing.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The same is true of an anchor ball, except they are slightly more frequently used and known, but of equal (minimal) actual value.

Anchor ball value in avoiding collisions, minimal. Anchor ball value in avoiding liability if someone runs into you while you're anchored, not minimal, IMHO.

[JPA Cate]

And that, Cottontop, is why we fly the anchor ball, or at least, partly why. [The other reasons are a longish story I've told elsewhere on CF.] i think most people can tell whether you're anchored. Sometimes with ships anchored near a port (I'm thinking of Newcastle, Oz, here), or drifting, the presence of an anchor ball tells you they're staying put; the double ball tells you they're not under command, drifting and not paying attention, also good to know. They do not always update their AIS, so it still pays to keep a careful watch.



In areas where motoring cones are not used, nor understood, we just muddle through.
I'll share a funny story, or at least I think it's funny, others' mileage may vary. I was very junior crew on a club racing boat at the time, and the scene is on SF Bay, where it's blowing its usual 20-25. Some guys on another course were coming out of Racoon Sts. towards the shipping lane that runs towards Vallejo and Sacramento. They were racing to get across the channel in front of this merchant vessel, and the poor guy -- with "right of way", or duty to stand on, [restricted ability to maneuver] has this bunch of kite driven monos seemingly trying to run right into the side of him. Naturellement, he gives five very loud, short blasts on his horn. I thought it meant "get the f out of my way! Right now!". Only later, did I learn it meant "You are sailing into danger!" Sometimes the wafis are racers, but not always, at all. Some are mafi's motor assisted.

Ann

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Taking bearings? Are you serious? If a risk of collision exists, then there is very little to no change in bearing - how do you propose to determine the other vessel's speed with no bearing change?

So if another SO40 is coming at you on the opposite beam reach, and you can only get 3 kts out of the light wind, you'll assume the other guy is going 9 kts, because otherwise it would be bad seamanship?

If you are on "collision" course, obviously the bearing doesn't change, but after you have guessed that the other boat is travelling at a similar speed and you change your course, you will expect the bearing to that vessel to have a constant rate of change. If the rate of change is slow then there are some things you can assume. I'll let you figure them out !

If a SO40 is hammering at 9 knots in light winds I'll be believing in UFOs as mine can't motor that fast. But if they are doing 8 knots it will be pretty obvious from the water splashing off the bow that they are motoring. A couple of knots different would be more challenging to determine.

If it's going to inconvenience my sailing and I believe the other yacht is the stand on vessel, I'll be waiting until we are close to pass behind them.



Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Minimum CPA? Far too many variables to lay down any rules.......

So it's pointless to have standing orders about minimum CPA?

I think you have more experience (by decades) than I do on the bridges of ships, so maybe you have contrary data, but my understanding is that in European waters, at least, one mile as minimum CPA is in the standing orders of 99% of ships, and their behavior reflects this, as they very typically set up almost exactly one mile as CPA when they are the give-way vessel. One mile and not 5 cables nor 2 miles. It may even be that this is a conscious standardization.

When I was doing a deeper study of collision avoidance a few years ago, for my own knowledge, I was particularly interested in this, and in the standard distances for other phases of collision avoidance as carried out on ships' bridges, because it seemed to me that misunderstanding the behavior of ships is a big problems for yachtsmen. My research seems to me to have confirmed this idea -- we see collision avoidance over much shorter time and distance horizons, which causes different problems, especially, failure to recognize when a ship has already maneuvered, leading to inappropriate deviation from holding course and speed on our part.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

. . .There will be one (small) group that say everyone should always follow all the rules (and argue that is the one and only right solution) - but the vast majority in fact, in actual practice (look at % over the speed limits on highways), disagree with that philosophy and take a more pragmatic approach.

I don't think anyone said that. And in fact that's a straw man, if you are saying that EITHER you are an impractical stickler for the rules who insists on following all of them to the letter at all times, even in cases where they are obviously pointless, OR you are a "more pragmatic" person who ignores the rule on day shapes completely. There are many other possible positions, between these extremes. There are plenty of "more pragmatic approaches", which include the use of day shapes under some circumstances.



I think we had a long and vigorous argument that day shapes are useless and pointless because you often can't see them soon enough, but that's a logical fallacy. Just because they are not a panacea does not mean they are useless. My saying that by itself does not prove that day shapes are useful, but saying that they often don't work definitely does not prove that they are completely useless -- let's be logical.


In my view, a motoring cones adds one more piece of data which might very well be useful to the other sailor, and might very well help to clear up confusion about your nav status, even if it's far from a foolproof way of clarifying your nav status. I doubt that thousands of lives have been saved by motoring cones, but that doesn't mean that they are completely useless. Confusion in collision avoidance situations is definitely a bad, a very bad thing.

I personally use my motoring cone when either in waters where the rule about them is enforced (practically all of Northern Europe except the UK, and not just the Netherlands, by the way), OR when there is enough traffic that it seems likely to me that clarifying my nav status in this way might add to safety or to the convenience of other sailors. I do not use the cone where there's little traffic AND I'm not in waters where I'm likely to be fined for not having it.

One place where the cone is actually extremely useful, in absolutely practical terms, is in the Solent, on summer weekends, when there are literally thousands of yachts out and collision avoidance is done mostly racing-style with CPA's measured in meters, not cables or miles. A momentary mistake about nav status can absolutely cause a collision in these circumstances.

If someone doesn't want to use the cone -- I think you're better justified in this violation -- just like you're better justified in speeding on the roads (something I usually do, just to the point of what I think I can get away with), by EARNING some kind of right to this violation by understanding thoroughly why the rule exists, and making a conscious and well-informed decision to not make the effort. I don't think willful ignorance (of a piece with the fairly common "I don't need no COLREGS; don't read 'em; never studied 'em -- I'll just dodge around instead" attitude) is a good approach to the Rules.

I do not curse people motor-sailing without the cone -- as Ann said, we muddle through. It's not usually any problem at all or even any inconvenience, as collision avoidance as between yachts is not usually complex or technical at all, except in exceptionally crowded waters like the Solent.

So I do agree with those who said that it's a minor thing, not likely to be of much consequence, not likely to be seen from a ship's bridge in time, etc. But it CAN add to clarity about your nav status in some cases, and it shows professionalism. So there are also some pretty good reasons to use it in some cases.


Day shapes, of course, are an antiquated and inefficient way to communicate your nav status. The superlative tool for this is Class "A" AIS, which broadcasts your nav status in black and white, day and night, in any visibility, and over many miles. It may be that day shapes will soon be obsolete once everyone has AIS, and if class "B" starts to show nav status (things we can easily imagine in our lifetimes). Note however that even with their Class "A" sets clearly showing nav status as "anchored", anchored ships always show the anchor ball. A hint for us?

[El Pinguino]

Well.... there was nothing in my standing orders about a minimum CPA... can't speak for the rest of the world. Mind you we were only 20,000 grt/20 knots

My day job was akin to running Southampton to France every night... much of the time was spent in pilotage waters....25% or more?

CPAs would be down to a cable for big ships... less when dealing with small stuff.... much of the time.

These days ? passing ahead I like to be able to see their wheelhouse windows... ( thats big ships)... smaller stuff in general ? 100 metres or so.....

The fishing boat? 200 miles offshore..... out beyond the Humbolt..... doubt he had AIS...

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think anyone said that. And in fact that's a straw man, if you are saying that EITHER you are an impractical stickler for the rules who insists on following all of them to the letter at all times, even in cases where they are obviously pointless, OR you are a "more pragmatic" person who ignores the rule on day shapes completely.

mmm . . .Dock you are putting words in my mouth I never said. I never said "either or". My actual words " a more pragmatic approach" are essentially, by definition, not an extreme and not an "either or" - pragmatic is a practical flexible reaction to specific circumstances.

So, please dont get all bent out of shape by something I did not say.

Now, I did say that it was a simple fact that "Very few yacht's men - virtually none outside of Dutch and near waters - use a motor-sailing cone." We can debate in how wide an area cones are actually used in Europe - I saw none in the UK and I saw none in the Med (expect very very occasionally on super-yachts - the superyacht I was on did not hoist a cone), and none in Sweden when we sailed there - but if you want to say that the area is somewhat wider that I said - that's just fine - does not change my point at all. Beyond that discussion about how wide the European "cone area" is, the statement is simple fact and not really debatable.


Just because they are not a panacea does not mean they are useless. My saying that by itself does not prove that day shapes are useful, but saying that they often don't work definitely does not prove that they are completely useless -- let's be logical.

And again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I simply said it is a fact that they are not useful 99% of the time. That is again an un-debatable fact. But also it by definition acknowledges that there is some small percent of the time when they might be useful. So you are totally mis-stating and mis-representing what I said.

The combined facts that (a) they are not frequently used in most of the world, (b) not widely understood by yachtsmen, and (c) not useful the vast majority of the time is/was not a suggestion that YOU (the reader of my post) should NEVER use them, but those combined facts do add color to when and how often they might pragmatically/practically be used. For example - In your solent case - if very very few of the surrounding yachtsmen are looking for a cone or will really know what it means if they see one, then that definitely affects how effective hoisting yours will be.

In the US, in say Buzzards Bay, if another recreational boat actually sees a cone, and has a glimmer of day shape knowledge, I would guess some will think it means fishing (because the local fishing boats all motor around with cones permenentally welded on even when not fishing!) - which has the reverse colregs implication - so, one could argue (if one were trying to be argumentative, which I am not) that it might even be more dangerous to fly a cone where it could be so mis-understood. That is something someone following pragmatic principles might consider.

I very intentionally stated facts, and practical postures, and avoided any extreme positions, and yet here you reply as if I stated some sort of extreme positions - why? It does not seem helpful to a productive discussion to bend someones comments so out of shape as that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I don't think anyone said that. And in fact that's a straw man, if you are saying that EITHER you are an impractical stickler for the rules who insists on following all of them to the letter at all times, even in cases where they are obviously pointless, OR you are a "more pragmatic" person who ignores the rule on day shapes completely.

mmm . . .Dock you are putting words in my mouth I never said. I never said "either or". My actual words " a more pragmatic approach" are essentially, by definition, not an extreme and not an "either or" - pragmatic is a practical flexible reaction to specific circumstances.

So, please dont get all bent out of shape by something I did not say.

Now, I did say that it was a simple fact that "Very few yacht's men - virtually none outside of Dutch and near waters - use a motor-sailing cone." We can debate in how wide an area cones are actually used in Europe - I saw none in the UK and I saw none in the Med (expect very very occasionally on super-yachts - the superyacht I was on did not hoist a cone), and none in Sweden when we sailed there - but if you want to say that the area is somewhat wider that I said - that's just fine - does not change my point at all. Beyond that discussion about how wide the European "cone area" is, the statement is simple fact and not really debatable.


Just because they are not a panacea does not mean they are useless. My saying that by itself does not prove that day shapes are useful, but saying that they often don't work definitely does not prove that they are completely useless -- let's be logical.

And again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I simply said it is a fact that they are not useful 99% of the time. That is again an un-debatable fact. But also it by definition acknowledges that there is some small percent of the time when they might be useful. So you are totally mis-stating and mis-representing what I said.

The combined facts that (a) they are not frequently used in most of the world, (b) not widely understood by yachtsmen, and (c) not useful the vast majority of the time is/was not a suggestion that YOU (the reader of my post) should NEVER use them, but those combined facts do add color to when and how often they might pragmatically/practically be used. For example - In your solent case - if very very few of the surrounding yachtsmen are looking for a cone or will really know what it means if they see one, then that definitely affects how effective hoisting yours will be.

In the US, in say Buzzards Bay, if another recreational boat actually sees a cone, and has a glimmer of day shape knowledge, I would guess some will think it means fishing (because the local fishing boats all motor around with cones permenentally welded on even when not fishing!) - which has the reverse colregs implication - so, one could argue (if one were trying to be argumentative, which I am not) that it might even be more dangerous to fly a cone where it could be so mis-understood. That is something someone following pragmatic principles might consider



I very intentionally stated facts, and practical postures, and avoided any extreme positions, and yet here you reply as if I stated some sort of extreme positions - why? It does not seem helpful to a productive discussion to bend someones comments so out of shape as that.

I was addressing positions taken in the debate, not necessarily your comments. Sorry for the confusion.

I was at no point in this "bent out of shape", and don't have any major disagreements with any of this. Nor do I think you are disagreeing with me in any significant way. As I said -- day shapes are a minor thing. I don't condemn those who don't use them, although I certainly frown on willful ignorance about them, and I disagree that they are completely useless (and I'm not saying you said that).

As to actual practice -- they are not used much in the UK, the ball more than the cone, and there is no enforcement. But pretty much all boats in the UK at least have them on board, and know what they mean.

They are used normally in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and in all of Scandinavia. I don't know about France -- the RYA always scared us with stories of huge fines in France for failing to show the cone, and so most British yachtsmen are careful in French waters, but I've seen French boats not showing day shapes.

Requirements to show day shapes are very aggressively enforced in Belgian and German waters, and there is also significant enforcement in Russia, Estonia and I heard, Poland. The Belgians are notorious. Day shapes are are very rigorously used in Finland (Finnish sailors are very precise about such things), although there is no enforcement AFAIK. The ball is used fairly rigorously in Sweden, the cone less so, but is still commonly used. Same in Denmark.

There's an element of Scandinavian culture at play here maybe -- Scandis typically do stuff without being forced to. For example, there is apparently very high compliance with the new holding tank and discharge requirements, although there is zero enforcement, unlike in the U.S. with our "potty police" (ugh).

I don't have enough experience to opine on the Med, but I do recall that boats I chartered in Croatia and in the Aegean did not have day shapes on board, and I don't recall ever having seen them being used. Big cultural gap between Northern and Southern Europe.


As to what yachtsmen know -- in my experience, most sailors in the U.S. don't even know what they are, but in Northern Europe everyone knows. There's definitely a cultural gap, which does explain some of the differences of opinion here. You tend to look at it differently based on the actual practice which prevails where you sail.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.

They are used normally in . . . . and in all of Scandinavia.
The ball is used fairly rigorously in Sweden, the cone less so, but is still commonly used.

We lived in Stockholm for a year, and in Gothenburg for a second year, sailing in both places. I do not remember ever seeing a motoring cone on anything less than a super yacht, and only very very rarely a ball. They do have that distinctive stern anchor and tie bow close to shore anchoring style and I honestly don't even know if colregs demands a ball when you are moored in that way to shore. But even when they anchored in the normal way, you and I obviously saw quite different things. I would actually be curious to see a photo of a Swedish boat ("normal" size recreational vessel, not super yacht) flying either a cone or a ball, I could find none in our photo files nor on the Internet.


As to what yachtsmen know -- in my experience, most sailors in the U.S. don't even know what they are, but in Northern Europe everyone knows.

I am still a member of KSSS, and again you and I have quite different experiences. I would not say that they have vastly more knowledge of colregs or dayshapes than similar sailors elsewhere.

Two of our best blue water friends are from two different Swedish boats (one quite famous the other simply quietly competent). I'm going to email ask them if they carry balls and cones. I certainly never saw them use them.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Two of our best blue water friends are from two different Swedish boats (one quite famous the other simply quietly competent). I'm going to email ask them if they carry balls and cones. I certainly never saw them use them.

OK, it will be interesting to hear what they say. I'll be sailing the whole coast of Sweden again (6th time in this boat) in August, and I'll keep my eyes open.

Concerning shore ties -- definitely no anchor ball there, and I never put up the ball when moored that way. That would really be pointless.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

most sailors in the U.S. don't even know what they are

But they will be quickly educated, by lawyers, after a collision occurs.

[SURV69]

BE A REBEL ... use day shapes ...

No one will know what they are, so you can smugly inform them of their transgressions ...

For myself, I haven't used them on the Great Lakes, but I think it's a matter of courtesy to let other boaters know your intentions and to remove the second-guessing that often takes place ...