Freighters vs. Sailboats

[cappy208]

I am trying to be 'simplistic' because this is really a simple problem. It CAN be solved. It is not difficult.

Two issues to clear up. Mention is made of 2 miles not being realistic for CPA. I don't believe I have ever said that 2 miles is a minimum CPA. 2 Miles is when my MX (or moment of execution of maneuver) is final. Several respondents have replied that they make their MX at one or two cable lengths. Please refresh my memory. But a cable is a tenth of a mile (600ft). You are talking in FEET for an MX. I am talking in MILES! This is the problem. Your vessels may be much more nimble, but if you have waited SO long to accept that you have shifted from Stand On to 'Must take action to avoid' It is going to be all on you to get out of the way! At one tenth of a mile there is little, if anything a merchie can do at that point. My turning radius is just under a half mile. I can turn a little tighter when loaded, versus light, but you have waited until you are past my evasive abilities.

Regarding the thought that 'little ship' skippers feel one way: Not true. But I as an operator of a 500' Tug and Barge, I can 'make your day' as well as a 900 footer can. We all depend upon Colregs to keep us out of harms way.

since the last bit was chopped off, I will re edit this time.

But, it appears that small boaters are unaware that the abilities of merchies as vastly different that your own vessels.

It says right in the rules, (Rule 2 (b)) that each vessel must take into account 'including the limitations of the vessels involved.'

So legally we are ALL supposed to take into account our own vessels abilities, and yours too!

So logic says, as long as we are within our vessels operating conditions (whatever they are) we are fine. Now throw into the mix a 40 knot fast ferry, in 2 meter seas, in a blowing scud. Is it realistic for him to be traveling that fast? NO. But he is. So, YOU must take precautions too. The Rule 5 pretty much covers that.

What I am harping on: Is the operator cognizant of what they are looking at? Decisions being made on scanty information are unreliable (Rule 7).

Rule 7(d) (ii) is pretty impressive. No one has brought this up before.

Could it be that the lack of understanding about other vessels characteristics is what is fueling this debate? You guys are looking at a couple thousand feet to make final decisions, and large vessels are looking at a couple miles? This would go a LONG way to eliminate the 'large vessel in the windscreen' theory.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Originally Posted by foggysail
Has anybody changed their outlook about what they should do to avoid a collision after reading 387 posts? Just curious.

Foggy




IMHO, you are a wise cruiser!

Foggy

I don't have to deal with the heavy traffic that some of you folks do, so I just follow a predictable course, and if I have to turn, I aim for the stern of the larger boat. I do that with a smaller boat. I've never been at risk of collision with a big ship, but have had to consider it with smaller ones (and actually got hit by someone else who came too close while depending on his autopilot -- and then his autopilot caught a wave badly or something and turned his boat 90 degrees to port -- right across my stern!) Oh yeah -- where was the skipper? Sitting in the cockpit next to the cabin. Where was his crew, below "making a snack." No one was at the helm.

But someone asked me just three days ago what I do in the shipping channel, and that's what I told her.

In Tampa Bay and immediate waters we don't have to worry much about freighters. You can predict very well where they're gonna go because they'd run aground quite quickly outside of the channel.

The thing that gave me pause was a big shrimping fleet we came across one night. We gave them a wide berth because I didn't know precisely where those nets were.

[cappy208]

The concept of True Motion versus Relative Motion seems to be generally lacking amongst WAFI's. This is all eliminated if a watchstander has been instructed (and practiced) in Relative Motion.

I can't make it any simpler than that. Without being TOO obtuse, What a good portion of boaters THINKS they know is offset by what they actually DON'T know.

John John was certificated and trained in IFR. And by geesh, he flew that plane DIRECTLY into the Atlantic Ocean at around 220 knots.

Was he certified? Yes. Was he competent??????? The end result, as in the topic of this forum would indicate otherwise. But boy, did he think he was the cats meow!

No one wants to hear they may have short comings. BUT this thread is screaming out that there is a deficiency that needs to be corrected.

The problem is simple. The answer is education. Will you all help your fellow boaters, or get defensive and keep saying: "It's not me...." Mind your own business, or, like about 20 posts ago, "It's not our Nav lights that is the problem." Keep denying. And people will keep meeting up and talking about the same 'incidents' that keep happening, and you just don't know why.

[Andrew Troup]

In response to the question "Has anybody changed their outlook about what they should do to avoid a collision after reading 387 posts?", I certainly have.

I tend to sail in parts of the world where ships are rarely sighted, so I do have to resort to theoretical scenarios to prepare myself for tricky situations. Like many males, I'm also not crash-hot on red-green colour discrimination (although I find the light-gathering attributes of decent 7x50 binos help a lot).
For both these reasons I find it very stressful sailing at night through concentrated zones of commercial shipping, particularly fishing fleets, whose decklights and unpredictable manoeuvres make their heading very difficult to determine.

I also find it difficult remembering, let alone decoding, the lights carried by vessels not often encountered in my waters, and which present particular dangers, like suction dredges with their boom (say) to starboard, or vessels towing another (possibly unlit) vessel on a long, invisible cable... these are situations which really scare me, much more than crossings where 'what you see is what you get' .... so I try to keep flash cards handy.

In the scenario raised further up the thread, by Lodesman in post 314 (a much faster vessel crossing at right angles from your port beam ... classic instance where "point at the stern of the other vessel" is not a viable option, and very thought provoking):
I think this is challenging in the case where it's difficult to determine the other boat's heading: big seas, night, heading possibly changing, etc.

If unable to make satisfactory VHF contact I would (after considerable reflection, carried out in comfortable conditions ashore) broadly adopt a solution for which I have been able to find only one other proponent in this thread: Capn Bill in post 338.

I would leave the scene by retracing my steps, ie along the path by which I entered.

I see little reason for such a dramatic response in daytime, unless perhaps in very high seas - when it may hardly be possible, particularly if you're running downwind.
So we're talking about a night time situation: I would if necessary go sufficiently past 180 degrees (having first shown him my sternlight) to then present him my green light, for the duration of the situation. This leaves NO ambiguity about my new heading, and it would then be criminally obtuse for him to alter to starboard.

In the "running in high seas" situation, when going back upwind would not be viable, I'd try to alter 90 degrees to starboard - in this seastate it's hard to imagine he'd be going five times my speed, more like two times, in all probability. Travelling in broadly the same direction then brings the closing speed back to something entirely manageable by eyeballing the situation. It might be hard to steer a consistent enough course to convey your intentions, but if he sees you hopefully (given that in rules terms, he's now overtaking) he'll use a sound signal to tell you which side he plans to pass - and hopefully, you'll be able to hear it (in the days of steam, you could see a ship's siren sounding)

Thanks to all those who've made thoughtful and often insightful contributions to this interesting thread.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by conachair

I believe the UK advice came from research done by Maib and MCA which concluded that using VHF radio for collision avoidance was not a good idea.

Note it's not talking about "VHF contact" but using VHF for collision avoidance.

I only saw this quite recently and it is quite counter intuitive initially. Not sure what other countries take on it are.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mgn_324.pdf

Naw, its because most Brits won't talk to you until you have been properly introduced.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by cappy208

...........
Two issues to clear up. Mention is made of 2 miles not being realistic for CPA. I don't believe I have ever said that 2 miles is a minimum CPA. 2 Miles is when my MX (or moment of execution of maneuver) is final.

Err... you did say:

Originally Posted by cappy208

This is the biggest issue when avoiding yachts with commercial vessels. Your yacht has a turning radii of its length. My vessel has a turning radius of 6 times its length. I am trying to make meeting plans with you at around 2 miles minimum. (sometimes less, if our apparent closure rate is really slow) .........

I read that as your CPA as perhaps others did; maybe you meant this was your MX.

Originally Posted by cappy208

Several respondents have replied that they make their MX at one or two cable lengths. Please refresh my memory. But a cable is a tenth of a mile (600ft). You are talking in FEET for an MX. I am talking in MILES! This is the problem. Your vessels may be much more nimble, but if you have waited SO long to accept that you have shifted from Stand On to 'Must take action to avoid' It is going to be all on you to get out of the way! At one tenth of a mile there is little, if anything a merchie can do at that point. My turning radius is just under a half mile. I can turn a little tighter when loaded, versus light, but you have waited until you are past my evasive abilities.

I am fairly confident that no one here has stated their "MX" at one or two cables lengths. I may be mistaken but I not going to re-read 400+ posts to check something I am already sure about however if I am wrong, feel free to educate.

Certainly it is not a contention that is current in this thread so I suggest this is not as much a problem that your post suggests.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

In response to the question "Has anybody changed their outlook about what they should do to avoid a collision after reading 387 posts?", I certainly have.
...................

In the "running in high seas" situation, when going back upwind would not be viable, I'd try to alter 90 degrees to starboard - in this seastate it's hard to imagine he'd be going five times my speed, more like two times, in all probability. Travelling in broadly the same direction then brings the closing speed back to something entirely manageable by eyeballing the situation. It might be hard to steer a consistent enough course to convey your intentions, but if he sees you hopefully (given that in rules terms, he's now overtaking) he'll use a sound signal to tell you which side he plans to pass - and hopefully, you'll be able to hear it (in the days of steam, you could see a ship's siren sounding)

Thanks to all those who've made thoughtful and often insightful contributions to this interesting thread.

Yes, I was wondering when someone would bring up the weather aspects and its impact of this subject - thanks

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

- in this seastate it's hard to imagine he'd be going five times my speed, more like two times, in all probability.

First thanks for contributing positively - I'm glad the discussion in not falling on deaf ears. You're correct that high seas will lower the speed of the merchantman, but remember that his threshold of 'high' is somewhat larger than yours - what you might see as mountainous, may be just a little choppy for him

[cappy208]

I used to be comfortable with a potential CPA of 1 mile before taking my own avoiding action; I will now take action around 2 miles. Weather permitting, if I can’t stop, tack, gybe or heave to within 2 or 3 cables (usually much less),

Not naming names, as that doesn't matter. But the difference between the concepts of doing something when you are 2, 3, 4 miles away seems so easy to me, versus waiting until 2, 1 or three cables. At greater distances, it takes considerably less alteration, speed variance to ensure a positive outcome than up close can take a radical, evasive maneuver.

Regarding several peoples comment that they can't devine a Merchies true course and speed, thus cant get a CPA or TCPA, the solution was shared:

Originally Posted by slowsailor45

A note on using a Non-Stabilized RADAR display (in "heads-up" mode) to determine risk of collision or CPA. If your display is away from the wheel, and you have two people, one on helm, and one on RADAR, you can set your EBL while at a specific compass heading.
"Honey when you are steady on 270 yell "MARK!"." and then repeat the process 3 and/or 6 minutes later, and so on as long as the average or aggregate heading is relatively steady, this will give you a good idea of the change in relative bearing and allow an estimate of CPA.

But Y'all have to realize that the TRUE course and speed while being neat to know, and interesting and all are irrelevant to the relevant discussion of WHY ships and sailboats keep having these close encounters. TRUE course and speed are meaningless towards the need of finding out if there is risk of collision.

I was sort of wondering why no one commented on Slowsailors suggestion. But it is indicative of the larger issue.

Three people have commented that they were unable to get their 'crappy yacht RADAR' to give them the desired CPA, and TCPA. One even mentioned that this winter he was going to get rid of the offending RADAR and get a stabilized one. I have to share, having a stabilized RADAR is NOT going to solve your perceived problems. Recall that all this fancy ARPA and electronic interface stuff is relatively new (35 years or so) How did the 'old timers' assess risk of collision before all this new stuff? There is NO stabilization that will remove 10 or 20 degrees of pounding around in 5 to 10' seas that your sailboat is doing! That would be a neat trick to achieve. But that is NOT what stabilized means.


Slowsailors post explains how to do this with an old fashioned, simple 'yacht' RADAR and the EBL. OR better yet, to illuminate what I have been going around and around about, using your eyes Instead of radar/EBL to make a determination of risk. There is NO way any small vessel that is pitching, yawing and slewing around will be able to make an electronic determination using solely the Radar to give you accurate CPA info unless you use the method Slowsailor posted.

One note to Dockhead: Your attempts to use your MARPA will be enhanced by dampening the heading input from your Fluxgate compass. I am unsure what type you have, or if it needs to be done simply on the RADAR end or the fluxgate. But, you must keep the dampening under consideration when navigating in restricted vis, and short rapid course heading changes will be inaccurate. Or if it is sending signal to other devices (AP, TV antenna etc.)

I am wracking my brain trying to think up a simple lightbulb illustration to use to make it so obvious the difference between True Motion and Relative. The other guys true course is useless. It is the other guys direction of motion relative to YOU.
http://www.btinternet.com/~keith.bat...urse_notes.pdf Page 35 shows the CPA and how to determine it, page 36 shows how to get and an example of the differences between relative and true courses.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by cappy208

Not naming names, as that doesn't matter. But the difference between the concepts of doing something when you are 2, 3, 4 miles away seems so easy to me, versus waiting until 2, 1 or three cables. At greater distances, it takes considerably less alteration, speed variance to ensure a positive outcome than up close can take a radical, evasive maneuver.

Regarding several peoples comment that they can't devine a Merchies true course and speed, thus cant get a CPA or TCPA, the solution was shared:




But Y'all have to realize that the TRUE course and speed while being neat to know, and interesting and all are irrelevant to the relevant discussion of WHY ships and sailboats keep having these close encounters. TRUE course and speed are meaningless towards the need of finding out if there is risk of collision.

I was sort of wondering why no one commented on Slowsailors suggestion. But it is indicative of the larger issue.

Three people have commented that they were unable to get their 'crappy yacht RADAR' to give them the desired CPA, and TCPA. One even mentioned that this winter he was going to get rid of the offending RADAR and get a stabilized one. I have to share, having a stabilized RADAR is NOT going to solve your perceived problems. Recall that all this fancy ARPA and electronic interface stuff is relatively new (35 years or so) How did the 'old timers' assess risk of collision before all this new stuff? There is NO stabilization that will remove 10 or 20 degrees of pounding around in 5 to 10' seas that your sailboat is doing! That would be a neat trick to achieve. But that is NOT what stabilized means.


Slowsailors post explains how to do this with an old fashioned, simple 'yacht' RADAR and the EBL. OR better yet, to illuminate what I have been going around and around about, using your eyes Instead of radar/EBL to make a determination of risk. There is NO way any small vessel that is pitching, yawing and slewing around will be able to make an electronic determination using solely the Radar to give you accurate CPA info unless you use the method Slowsailor posted.

One note to Dockhead: Your attempts to use your MARPA will be enhanced by dampening the heading input from your Fluxgate compass. I am unsure what type you have, or if it needs to be done simply on the RADAR end or the fluxgate. But, you must keep the dampening under consideration when navigating in restricted vis, and short rapid course heading changes will be inaccurate. Or if it is sending signal to other devices (AP, TV antenna etc.)

I am wracking my brain trying to think up a simple lightbulb illustration to use to make it so obvious the difference between True Motion and Relative. The other guys true course is useless. It is the other guys direction of motion relative to YOU.
http://www.btinternet.com/~keith.bat...urse_notes.pdf Page 35 shows the CPA and how to determine it, page 36 shows how to get and an example of the differences between relative and true courses.

I am really looking forward to my new radar set with gyrocompass and transmitting AIS, which should give me decent MARPA and a stable EBL.

However, my own taste in general, and this includes how I use chart plotters, is not to run the boat like a video game, with my head buried in some display. When I teach young sailors, I try to get them to keep their eyes mostly on the horizon and what's around outside the boat, with only brief glances at displays - otherwise you can never develop decent 'situational awareness', which you guys are always comp,aiming we 'yachters' don't have.

I continue to believe that the fundamental problem in collision avoidance for 'yachters' is determining from a safe distance whether a collision risk even exists - I am convinced from this discussion that only a minority of 'yachters'
even know how to do this, and that this is 90% of all our problems in encounters with shipping. The essential and fundamental tool for this, in my opinion, for a 'yachter', is the hand bearing compass, which costs less than $100 and which does not degrade your situational awareness while you're using it, unlike a radar screen.

If you have this skill, and keep a good watch as you are required to, then your choice of collision avoidance tactics is already less important. "Just run away!" will also work, PROVIDED you've recognized the situation from 5 or 6 miles away.

I am afraid, however, that the "just run away" school of thought, rejecting a systematic, disciplined Colregs-governed procedure of manuevering, is inevitably associated with the lack of a systematic, disciplined approach to identification of collision risks.

[Dockhead]

Here is what one commercial captain posted on GCaptain, a superb summary of proper procedure in a crossing situation between yacht and commercial ship, with emphasis on the responsibilities of the stand-on vessel:

"In any crossing situation, the stand-on vessel has a five-step process she must abide by. The give-way vessel has two (or three, depending upon who you ask) obligations. Let's get the give-way vessel's duties out of the way:

The power driven vessel must keep out of the way of the sailing vessel. Early and substantial action is called for, which logically implies that simply slowing down is not the first choice. A noticeable alteration of course to starboard is always best, as it allows the stand-on vessel to relax a bit.


Now, to the stand-on vessel's responsibilities: Being stand-on sucks, as we all know. Here's the order that must be followed as stand-on in a crossing situation (in this case, the sailing vessel)
1. Crossing situation where no risk of collision exists: Either vessel MAY do whatever they wish while operating in accordance with Rules 1 (Application). 2 (Responsibility, 5 (safe speed), Rule 6 (Lookout), etc.
2. Crossing situation where risk of collision exists: The stand-on vessel MUST hold her course and speed.
3. If there is any doubt by EITHER vessel as to the other's intentions, Rule 34(d) IMMEDIATELY applies. Generally this means the stand-on vessel MUST sound five or more short and rapid blasts. But so MUST the give-way vessel, if in doubt.
4. If there continues to be doubt on the part of the stand-on vessel, she MAY maneuver to avoid collision.
5. If the vessels are now "In extremis", the stand-on vessel MUST take action to avoid collision.

Rule 2 makes is abundantly clear that every vessel has the responsibility to avoid collision. Being stand-on conveys no privilege and substantial anxiety when the give-way vessel is slow to act. When you are the give-way vessel in a crossing situation, put yourself on the bridge of the stand-on vessel and ask yourself what you'd like that give-way vessel to be doing. And then do it. NOW.


Regarding the use of VHF for passing arrangements, I see no reason to use the radio while properly following the COLREGS, with the exception being when I'm the give-way vessel in an overtaking situation. Then I'll call simply as a courtesy because I'll almost guarantee the stand-on vessel doesn't even know I'm overtaking. Only tugboaters on the wire look behind them.

The US mindset of "intent" encourages radio use even in International COLREGS waters but the rest of the world frowns on it as they are always in "execution" mode. They don't have to agree on any arrangements. Try to make VHF passing arrangements in the UK for example and you'll ruffle some feathers. The expectation is that you'll simply follow the International rules that clearly define your responsibilities. American mariners get messed up by the Inland Rules which require arrangements to be made when within 0.5 nm.

My 0.02 worth.

References:


Rule 2 - Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Rule 34(d)
"When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. [Such | This] signal may be supplemented by at least five short and rapid flashes."
Please note the use of "shall" in the Rule.

Rule 16 - Action by Give-way Vessel

Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.

Rule 17- Action by Stand-on Vessel

(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver 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.

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

Last edited by dougpine; Yesterday at 01:37 AM. "

[slowsailor45]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

However, my own taste in general, and this includes how I use chart plotters, is not to run the boat like a video game, with my head buried in some display. When I teach young sailors, I try to get them to keep their eyes mostly on the horizon and what's around outside the boat, with only brief glances at displays - otherwise you can never develop decent 'situational awareness', which you guys are always comp,aiming we 'yachters' don't have.

This is a very important point Dockhead, and from the merchant side of things this is a much bigger issue than it is on yachts, simply because the kids have SO MUCH STUFF to play with and push buttons on. As I mentioned earlier I did a circumnavigation on a 40' ketch which had a VHF radio as its one and only piece of electronic equipment. Mind Boggling how things have changed in my 30 year professional career.

The kids that are coming out of merchant marine academies today grew up with iphones and XBox360's. On a "modern" merchant bridge (and not all of them are) there are enough automated systems and computer gear to boggle the mind. I am typing from the "dock" In Antarctica in a wheelhouse that has:

A full GMDSS suite; Sat-B, Sat-C, 2 MF/HF scanners/Transceivers with DSC, NAVTEX and Printers for all the above.
Complete ECDIS Suite with dual monitors, With AIS Overlay
Two 24" Display X-band and S-band (on which non-metallic vessels are basically invisible) ARPA RADARS with AIS Overlay
Fathometer/Echosounder
AIS Display
Weather suite Display
Shipboard cameras system display
fire and engineering systems display
Water tight door status display
3 VHF radios (2with DSC)
Two GPS displays
Controls for independent rudder system
pitch and throttle controls for main engine, pitch and throttle controls for thruster system
Internal vessel communication system
Wired and wireless internet
And much, much more
And this vessel doesn't even have a Dynamic Positioning System which would add an entirely new and highly complex command console in addition to everything already listed.


Sailing as a salty old Capt or Chief mate, I will often come up to the bridge to find the recently licensed 3rd Mate or recent academy grad, with his head buried in the ECDIS or one of the ARPA's or trying to figure out what is blinking or beeping or which part of the GMDSS system is giving off that shrill alarm. At which time I generally shout on my patented Cat 5 hurricane voice,

"WHO THE ______ IS DRIVING THIS _______ ________ BOAT?!?!!!!

It seems to take them about 1 day to forget everything they learned in that all too brief Bridge Resource Management class.
The Sad truth of things is that if you do not have an AIS, one of these freshly minted watch officers is probably not going to see you, because he will be attempting to manage all this tech gear, and keep a log, and drive the ship. Hopefully his lookout will, assuming he is not; cleaning the head, making coffee, doing rounds, polishing brass etc, etc.

Do you really want to risk your life and play "Stand-on-Vessel" Armchair Sailor and COLREGS Semantics games while this 22 year old kid bears down on you at 25 knots in his 900 ft ship.

Get an AIS, and be seen on the ARPA RADAR, the ECDIS and the AIS display so junior rocketman can include you in his maneuvering calculations, and even call you by name to discuss passing arrangements if he needs to.

Just so you all know, I have fired kids immediately and without remorse for, facebooking, skype-ing, etc. The rules are absolutely clear on my ships that that crap is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN and will result in immediately being removed from watch and put off at the next port.

Unfortunately I know that it happens, and it will continue to happen and it will result in a major catastrophe at some point.

And don't even get me started on the watchstanding qualities of some foreign flag states.

Everyone be careful out there

Get an AIS.

Cheers,
Mike

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by slowsailor45

Do you really want to risk your life and play "Stand-on-Vessel" Armchair Sailor and COLREGS Semantics games while this 22 year old kid bears down on you at 25 knots in his 900 ft ship.

Get an AIS, and be seen on the ARPA RADAR, the ECDIS and the AIS display so junior rocketman can include you in his maneuvering calculations, and even call you by name to discuss passing arrangements if he needs to.

LOL, yes, I didn't want to say it -- although you guys accuse us bitterly of lacking "situational awareness", I have always suspected that the bridges of many commercial ships lack it just as much as we do, or even more. You can't run a vessel like a video game and really know what's going on around you.

That is why I bend the Colregs and go over to giving way early (2 miles in open water) -- I can't see the guy on the bridge and can't be sure whether he's really "driving the ship" or instead playing a video game or, worse, asleep at the switch, or maybe even down below getting a BJ (Costa Concordia).

After all the comments from commercial mariners approving using the VHF to clear up potential misundertandings, maybe I'll call more often, but then again, maybe not.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by slowsailor45

Sailing as a salty old Capt or Chief mate, I will often come up to the bridge to find the recently licensed 3rd Mate or recent academy grad, with his head buried in the ECDIS or one of the ARPA's or trying to figure out what is blinking or beeping or which part of the GMDSS system is giving off that shrill alarm. At which time I generally shout on my patented Cat 5 hurricane voice,

"WHO THE ______ IS DRIVING THIS _______ ________ BOAT?!?!!!!

Cheers,
Mike

I once suggested to our nautical superintendent that if we placed a mouse and keyboard by the bridge windows, it might encourage a better visual lookout

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Has anybody changed their outlook about what they should do to avoid a collision after reading 387 posts? Just curious.

Foggy

When sailing I'll be hoping that the big ship will be taking action to avoid me (in open waters) at about 5 miles out.
At 2 miles out I'll take action, but make sure that if I do, it is not going to be something that will put me in harms way if the big ship takes action at the same time.
Maybe use the radio if its not too much of a distraction.

And, when I get back to work, amend my bridge standing orders with regards to sailing vessel encounters, to the effect that if safe and practical, that the OOW takes action at 5 miles out, and to be aware that the sailing vessel may do something unpredictable