Freighters vs. Sailboats

[jackdale]

David

Great post. I would also suggest that folks read the findings of national transportation safety board and court cases.

The two to which I refer a lot are:

Home - News Announcements Recent Cases
Transportation Safety Board | Home

The UK MAIB site (Marine Accident Investigation: Home) also gets my attention.

[Starbuck]

That'd make a good epitaph on someone's tombstone:

Mine was
the stand-on
vessel.
I protest.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

@ David, two of my pet peeves!

I was sailing up on Lake Michigan with a couple of friends this summer and we were being over taken by a topsail cutter from our Stbd quarter. The guy at the helm (ASA instructor to boot) suddenly put the helm over to the Stbd and does a u-turn "to get a good picture" of the boat.

Needless to say, the skipper on the other boat wanted to know what the h*** we were doing.

Two problems here:

(1) the stand-on vessel fails to maintain course and speed
(2) you were sailing in Michigan. On a lake.

(just kidding!) (...about item 2)

[conachair]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

What the MCA is giving out about is not specifically contacting ships nor even confirming that the passing manoeuvre is all agrred. It is giving out about agreeing passing procedures contrary to the COLREGS.

So if in a collision situation you call up and confirm he sees you and that you are standing on as required. That's fine. Calling up and agreeing a procedure contrary to the COLREGS is what is frowned upon. Mind you all this MCA stuff is focused on the approaches of big ships.

Dave

Bit more than that. Uncertainties about identification, language problems, time wasted are all mentioned. Possibly focused more on big ships, yes, but not explicitly so.
Guidance & Regulations
Still means you might not get an answer if you call up though.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Tony B

I was a commercial seaman, I had a USCG 100 Ton Masters. I know what I am doing. I also know that you are fabricating an arguement based on what I did not say nor imply. You have no idea what the difference is between staying clear and maneuvering willy-nilly is. You also have no idea when COLREGS applies. A very slight change in heading well in advance can preclude any need for even exchanging passing/crossing information. Do you radio a ship 5 miles away in the open sea, that you are going to pass him on one whistle when the 2 boats pass each other a mile apart?

You are creating an anti COLREGS faction in your own mind.
Show me the quotes where I infer having impunity, where I steer a vessel willy-nilly, am anti-COLREGS and any of your other accusations. I have many posts in this thread. Look them up and feel free to cut and past and explain each one. 3-2-1 GO!

It's almost as if this forum has to have someone to roast ...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Raku, help me out here, you seem to think I have misquoted you when I posted "but I am surprised though about the claim that most maneuverable vessel is to give right of way in all sections of the CRs regarding ROW"

How was I meant to interpret this part of your OP:


Clearly you believe you meant something different to what I clearly thought you meant but right now, I have no idea what you really meant so please tell me where / how I got it wrong.

I'm sorry, but I don't have ten hours to search through all these posts and determine where *you* misread what anyone -- me or anyone else -- typed. I've had limited internet access the last few days (my internet stick suddenly crumbled into four separate pieces -- a freighter must have hit it, although it could have been a tanker ... )

But as others have repeatedly pointed out -- it would help if we looked at the larger body of what people say as they go, NOT take small snippets out of context and then over-interpret them (not saying that you personally have done that).

[Rakuflames]

Dang it! I'm using a different computer.

There was NO RATIONALE to my OP. It was a QUOTE from SAIL magazine.

I would appreciate it very much if Wot did not "interpret" my posts and then attribute that interpretation to me. Requesting that I clear up the confusion seven pages later is just the icing on the (badly baked) cake.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

That'd make a good epitaph on someone's tombstone:

Mine was
the stand-on
vessel.
I protest.

This is the best and most complete summary of the whole stand-on versus give-way issue that I have seen. You may be in the right, but it is stupid to stand-on until you are dead right!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

This is the best and most complete summary of the whole stand-on versus give-way issue that I have seen. You may be in the right, but it is stupid to stand-on until you are dead right!

Where in the Colregs does it state you must stand on until you collide?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Where in the Colregs does it state you must stand on until you collide?

+1, why is it that some insist that following the rules (all of them) for encounters between sailing yachts and big ships ends in disaster, collision, death etc.

Seriously, why?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

This solidly supports my statement that large vessels, specifically freighters and cruise ships, do not really see sailboats well. By the time you're within five miles of such a boat, it may well be up to the sailboat to stay out of the freighter's way. CLEARLY a freighter has less maneuverability than a sailboat -- even one under sail.

Manoeuvrability is more than stopping distance or advance of a turn - a small sailboat is clearly more restricted in its speed than a merchantman going 25 kts; and a small sailboat can only be propelled in certain directions (as determined by the wind). I don't see how you think that a merchantman would not be able to avoid a sailboat when it's within 5 miles - the quote you posted shows that it only takes half a mile to effect a turn at full speed. As Dockhead wrote - in open waters a merchantman should have made his move by the time he's within 2 miles of you - if he hasn't, then you should take avoiding action, but until then you should stand-on and allow him to avoid you.

"Take it from me at 12 stories up: AIS helps ships "see" pleasure craft. We'll see a pleasure craft's AIS signal 20 miles before physically sighting a vessel. For the sake of us all, get an AIS and get seen!"

It seems to me from this plea from the merchant captain, that he wants you to be seen, so that he can take early avoiding action - he's not asking you to take avoiding action. As others have said, re-read Dockhead's excellent posts.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Dang it! I'm using a different computer.

There was NO RATIONALE to my OP. It was a QUOTE from SAIL magazine.

I would appreciate it very much if Wot did not "interpret" my posts and then attribute that interpretation to me. Requesting that I clear up the confusion seven pages later is just the icing on the (badly baked) cake.

My apologies Raku - fast moving thread and slow moving Wot.

However, if you have enough bandwidth and the inclination, just go back to your OP and you will find that what I quoted were you words and not part of the Sail Magazine quote. Anyway enough said, probably another page of posts to read by the time I type this .

Perhaps I do pay too much attention to detail but I find that such attention brings great benefits to both my work and playtime; keeps me from colliding with big ships and annoys those who are less fastidious to detail. Not suggesting that anyone here can be such described

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Where in the Colregs does it state you must stand on until you collide?

No one has said that ...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Manoeuvrability is more than stopping distance or advance of a turn - a small sailboat is clearly more restricted in its speed than a merchantman going 25 kts; and a small sailboat can only be propelled in certain directions (as determined by the wind). I don't see how you think that a merchantman would not be able to avoid a sailboat when it's within 5 miles - the quote you posted shows that it only takes half a mile to effect a turn at full speed. As Dockhead wrote - in open waters a merchantman should have made his move by the time he's within 2 miles of you - if he hasn't, then you should take avoiding action, but until then you should stand-on and allow him to avoid you.

It seems to me from this plea from the merchant captain, that he wants you to be seen, so that he can take early avoiding action - he's not asking you to take avoiding action. As others have said, re-read Dockhead's excellent posts.

" Manoeuvrability is more than stopping distance or advance of a turn..."

No kidding!

PLEASE tell me where I EVER said at what point ANYONE should take "avoiding action." PLEASE don't decide I meant something I didn't say, and then tell me where to go to correct what I didn't say.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Manoeuvrability is more than stopping distance or advance of a turn - a small sailboat is clearly more restricted in its speed than a merchantman going 25 kts; and a small sailboat can only be propelled in certain directions (as determined by the wind). I don't see how you think that a merchantman would not be able to avoid a sailboat when it's within 5 miles - the quote you posted shows that it only takes half a mile to effect a turn at full speed. As Dockhead wrote - in open waters a merchantman should have made his move by the time he's within 2 miles of you - if he hasn't, then you should take avoiding action, but until then you should stand-on and allow him to avoid you.

Yes, and if a merchant vessel can see a small sailboat from 5 miles, clearly the small sailboat can see the merchant vessel and has ample time to keep out of harms way unless anchored!

Foggy