Do use Day Shapes

[four winds]

Back to the inverted cone shape. I'm not required to display one and I don't.

Interesting, ....the earlier comment about their uselessness offshore for professional mariners decision making process. Certainly makes sense to me.

And,... consider bay sailors under 12 meters in the US with no cones while motoring, or the fact that larger boats rarely if ever display cones (I've never seen one), it seems very logical to me for the purposes of collision avoidance to consider a boat under sail to in fact be sailing.

I asked before without response;

Your crossing with a boat under sail....

Must one make a determination of boat length and therefore display requirements to determine burden?

Must one make a determination of performance (fast boat in light winds as mentioned earlier) to determine burden?

Must one look for exhaust water flow to determine burden?

Would a motorsailing skipper actually expect his water flow be seen by the other sailor to determine burden?

None of that makes any sense to me.


Once, I was crossing with another boat in the choke point mentioned earlier with another sailor and local friend. He was stand on yet approaching shallows so about to tack, and still be stand on.

I fell off a bit, gave him time to tack. But he didn't tack, he headed up and luffed, slowed and motored aft of me. Later at the dock I told him I was expecting a tack and giving way. He said he figured I knew he was motorsailing. I said, "Oh", and thought how the he'll would I know that.

Never knew him to motorsail, not required to display a cone, approaching off my starboard pinching up around the point. Seemed obvious he would tack well ahead of me as I fell off a bit. And then I tack and cross his wake well aft.

But, .... but,... if he had been displaying an inverted cone, I would actually have known he was motorsailing and taken stand on status through tight spot. ..... So there you go.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What if you "just dodge" at the very same moment, and in the same direction, that a give-way boat maneuvers to avoid you? If you are the stand-on vessel according to the Rules, the give-way vessel is entitled to rely on your holding course and speed so that his maneuver brings him clear of you. Standing-on is an obligation, not a privilege.

Many ships have been sunk and thousands of lives have been lost as a result of "just dodging" -- vessels maneuvering in an uncoordinated way and "dodging" into each other. That's not the way to do collision avoidance. The Rules were invented to bring order and make it clear who maneuvers when. A boat which, rather than maneuvering in the order required by the Rules, "just dodges", is a menace to navigation. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's really not overstating the case.

Yep, there is no doubt about it, I am a "menace to navigation" but also a long term survivor.

Years ago my vessel was passing through a narrow channel between a sand bar and a reef with a friend on the wheel when a very large power cruiser attempted to pass on the wrong side. My friend started to cross to the wrong side when I stopped him, went into astern and stopped the boat dead in the water. The cruiser then went back to the right side and passed us. My friend asked for an explanation which was. "That moron does not know the right side to pass but you can guarantee he has a lawyer on speed dial and if he runs that thing onto the reef you can almost guarantee his excuse will be that we forced him to pass on the wrong side hence he ran on the reef."

Second incident about the same time.

I passed over the course of a trawler about 200m ahead and the helmsman came out of the wheelhouse and pointed to his day marks then abused me over the VHF. My answer was "You morons have the things welded in place and whether you are trawling or not keep them up, firstly I am passing well ahead of you and secondly how the hell does anyone know your intentions when you do not work your day marks and nav lights properly."

I'm going to stick with my dodging and a general policy of avoiding close proximity to other boats which may, or may not know the rules of the road. There are to many morons with money and speed dial lawyers and impatient commercial operators and boats charging around on autopilot without proper watches being kept.

Same with my push bike when I ride down the wrong side of the road into the traffic. I want to be able to see the maniac speeding with the weaving 25' caravan and head into the woods well before he has a chance to swipe me into the ditch. I know I am infringing the highway code but I am probably going to survive longer by doing so.

Wrong and alive beats right and dead any day.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What if you "just dodge" at the very same moment, and in the same direction, that a give-way boat maneuvers to avoid you? If you are the stand-on vessel according to the Rules, the give-way vessel is entitled to rely on your holding course and speed so that his maneuver brings him clear of you. Standing-on is an obligation, not a privilege.

Many ships have been sunk and thousands of lives have been lost as a result of "just dodging" -- vessels maneuvering in an uncoordinated way and "dodging" into each other. That's not the way to do collision avoidance. The Rules were invented to bring order and make it clear who maneuvers when. A boat which, rather than maneuvering in the order required by the Rules, "just dodges", is a menace to navigation. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's really not overstating the case.

So at exactly what point does the obligation to avoid a collision override the obligation to hold your course?

[psneeld]

In "extremis"....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Yep, there is no doubt about it, I am a "menace to navigation" but also a long term survivor.

Years ago my vessel was passing through a narrow channel between a sand bar and a reef with a friend on the wheel when a very large power cruiser attempted to pass on the wrong side. My friend started to cross to the wrong side when I stopped him, went into astern and stopped the boat dead in the water. The cruiser then went back to the right side and passed us. My friend asked for an explanation which was. "That moron does not know the right side to pass but you can guarantee he has a lawyer on speed dial and if he runs that thing onto the reef you can almost guarantee his excuse will be that we forced him to pass on the wrong side hence he ran on the reef."

Second incident about the same time.

I passed over the course of a trawler about 200m ahead and the helmsman came out of the wheelhouse and pointed to his day marks then abused me over the VHF. My answer was "You morons have the things welded in place and whether you are trawling or not keep them up, firstly I am passing well ahead of you and secondly how the hell does anyone know your intentions when you do not work your day marks and nav lights properly."

I'm going to stick with my dodging and a general policy of avoiding close proximity to other boats which may, or may not know the rules of the road. There are to many morons with money and speed dial lawyers and impatient commercial operators and boats charging around on autopilot without proper watches being kept.

Same with my push bike when I ride down the wrong side of the road into the traffic. I want to be able to see the maniac speeding with the weaving 25' caravan and head into the woods well before he has a chance to swipe me into the ditch. I know I am infringing the highway code but I am probably going to survive longer by doing so.

Wrong and alive beats right and dead any day.

The incidents which you describe are not examples of "ignore the rules, and 'just dodge'". They are on the contrary examples of what the Rules require, namely Rules 2 and 17. But there is far more in the Rules, than this, and willful ignorance of the other requirements of the Rules, is dangerous and unseamanlike. Collision avoidance is also technical, and requires knowledge and technique, to do correctly. It is possible to get away with this for decades, even, but only because of the skill employed on the bridges of ships you encounter -- they are doing your work for you. But even the pros sometimes make mistakes, and one day they may not manage to do your work for you, and the result may be death and destruction.

It is not a violation of the Rules, to avoid a crossing situation altogether, by maneuvering before a risk of collision arises. On the contrary, this is good seamanship, and this is the usual and correct way to deal with commercial shipping in approaches to harbors and inshore areas where ships are following channels and predictable fairways.

But this is not a substitute for knowing what to do, when you find yourself in a risk of collision situation, for knowing the order of maneuvering, and knowing the timing and distances for doing it. And it is sure not a substitute for doing the work to detect and recognize a risk of collision situation before it becomes dangerous.

Professional mariners hate us, exactly for the attitudes shown here. They call us "WAFIs" -- Wind Assisted F**** Idiots. Because so many of us just dodge around, rather than following proper collision avoidance procedure. The way they generally deal with us, is to maneuver very far ahead, often 10 miles or more, before we are even aware they are there (because we don't have a clue about how to detect a potential collision in good time), and steer such a wide berth around us, that no "just dodge" amateurish maneuver we may do, could put us under their bows, knowing that we are likely as not to dodge the wrong way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So at exactly what point does the obligation to avoid a collision override the obligation to hold your course?

It's all in the Rules, in black and white, and not knowing this, you would not pass any competence exam.


The purpose of holding course and speed -- Action of Stand On Vessel, Rule 17 -- is so that the other vessel can calculate a maneuver which will defuse the situation. He can't do it if you are maneuvering at the same time. Two vessels in a risk of collision situation maneuvering simultaneously has caused countless collisions and deaths over the centuries, which is why this rule exists. One vessel has to "hold still."

Once you have a reasonable doubt that the give way vessel is not going to maneuver, then you gain the right to maneuver yourself.

Once the action of the give way vessel alone will not be enough to prevent a collision, then you are required to maneuver.

Collision Avoidance 101; practically the first lesson. It is not rocket science, people.

[44'cruisingcat]

Oh well. I already have.


It's when it becomes apparent to me that the other vessel is not taking avoiding action. It's not hard and fast, black and white.


It's a judgement call.


"The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre 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 compliance with these Rules."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Oh well. I already have.

Without knowing when the stand-on vessel may maneuver itself? Or when it must maneuver? That's about as basic as it gets. I think it's even in the one-day Competent Crew course the RYA gives.

[Jim Cate]

Professional mariners hate us, exactly for the attitudes shown here. They call us "WAFIs" -- Wind Assisted F**** Idiots. Because so many of us just dodge around, rather than following proper collision avoidance procedure. The way they generally deal with us, is to maneuver very far ahead, often 10 miles or more, before we are even aware they are there (because we don't have a clue about how to detect a potential collision in good time), and steer such a wide berth around us, that no "just dodge" amateurish maneuver we may do, could put us under their bows, knowing that we are likely as not to dodge the wrong way.

Getting back to the original subject, that of the necessity of displaying the m/s day shape, do you really think that the m/v, when making an avoiding maneuver at 10 miles distance, could possibly see an inverted cone in your rigging and then base his decision upon that?

I don't.

And do you think that he can tell from that distance whether you are 12 meters in length, or less than that, and know that you are not required to display the cone, and base his decision on that?

We've beaten the "just dodge" issues to death, and I completely agree that we should all follow the avoidance rules, just as you say. My continuing point here is that not displaying the m/s cone and behaving as if you are in fact sailing will not lead to confusion or danger in crossing situations. Not legal, but likely not causing any significant difficulties for the other vessel.

And in this day of yachts with AIS, do you actually change the programming on your AIS to show that you are motorsailing every time that you start motoring and dutifully hoist the cone? To me that seems at least as important as the day shape when considering interactions at sea.

Jim

[daletournier]

When I did my RYA yachtmaster I assumed the big black ball we used to be hoist at anchor signified "RYA training vessel" ....it must of meant that ,as we were the only boat that ever put one up!....lol.

And in regards to the rules ,I would now fail the RYA tests that I passed in the past and most likely the navigation side of it as well, although I'm out here doing it everyday. Common sense and pratical ability trump all of the technicalities & rules, and only time that builds experience gets you there.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Common sense and pratical ability trump all of the technicalities & rules, and only time that builds experience gets you there.

I had a kid who thought the rules didn't apply to him cause' he already knew it all. As I said before, 30 years experience is not the same as one years experience repeated 30 times.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I had a kid who thought the rules didn't apply to him cause' he already knew it all. As I said before, 30 years experience is not the same as one years experience repeated 30 times.

Heres the thing, a very large percentage of the boating world isnt even aware that such a thing as "col regs" exist.
So over here I could just use my mast head anchor light each night, I'm right aren't I? But when a local smashes into the side of my boat on a dark night because to him my anchor light is just another star, who is in the wrong?
So instead of just the anchor light I have flashing red, green and white leds that come on once the sun goes down, every here knows what they are and can see them.
Rules work great when everyone is on the same page, but most of the world is reading a different book.


Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[four winds]

Someone posted day shapes were required to be onboard and enforced by citations where they sail. Maybe that was Europe.

So now I'm wondering, in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Asia, etc: if the majority of sailors actually use them, get cited for non use, have any boat length qualifiers on the requirements, etc.

For me, I've never heard, or heard of, day shapes being mentioned by anyone IRL (in real life). Neither by sailors or enforcement officers, but I suppose in some of those classes that I've never taken they are mentioned, and apparently forgotten.

I note the lack of large numbers of members chiming in to say, sure I use day shapes consistently.

[markpierce]

Many sailing boats are much more maneuverable than my slow motorboat.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Without knowing when the stand-on vessel may maneuver itself? Or when it must maneuver? That's about as basic as it gets. I think it's even in the one-day Competent Crew course the RYA gives.

I must have taken the incompetent crew course. It's longer, but more fun, and the exams are easier.