Freighters vs. Sailboats

[David_Old_Jersey]

Although not a ColRegs issue, stuff like this (happened this week) reminds me that not all Freighters know what they are doing:-

BBC News - Channel Islands freight ship hits rock on maiden voyage

The Huelin Renouf Dispatch hit rocks off the coast of Alderney

My guess is that as a new vessel that they had a decent amount of shiney new toys on the bridge (which I suspect was the problem - unless the Rock moved suddenly ).

[Dockhead]

"Just run away", as a collision avoidance technique, if combined with late or inaccurate assessment of the risk of collision, can cause collisions if the stand-on vessel manuevers unexpectedly or in the wrong direction.

But "just running away" by a stand-on vessel is also basically forbidden by the Colregs and can result in liability:

"A stand-on vessel which takes avoiding action before it can reasonably be
assumed that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action is likely to be held mainly to blame if practically simultaneous action by the give-way vessel causes a confused situation which results in collision."

A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, AN Cockcroft & JNF Lameijer, 7th Ed., 2011, page 108.

The moral of the story is that if you are too chicken to stand on as required, you need to maneuver very early to ensure that you don't create a "confused situation". This is hard to do for sailors because even when we are skilled, we rarely are able to identify a potential collision situation as early as they do. You should not venture out into open water where there is merchant traffic without a HBC around your neck and the skill to use it -- otherwise you are simply a menace to yourself and whoever else is on board.

Another thing worth emphasizing: we are talking here about open water. A lot of argument here has been between some people talking about open water, and others arguing about what they do in bays and harbors -- two entirely different situations and so people talking right past each other.

In bays and harbors in close quarters, where the distance between you and the merchant ship is measured in cables and not miles, there is usually nothing practical he can do to avoid you and he may not even see you, so you need to stay out of the way, period. In harbors, merchant ships typical switch their AIS gear to supress AIS Type B targets to declutter their displays. Stay well clear.

If he is navigating in a marked channel, then Rule 9 applies, and again -- stay well out of the way, period. Keep out of marked channels if merchant shipping is around, and don't even cross them unless you are sure you will not impede shipping.

[Wotname]

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.................

If you are referring to my post (in part)

Originally Posted by Wotname

.............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), then I must be asleep or severely sleep deprived . 2 miles gives me at least 10x factor of safety in sufficiently altering course to avoid a collision. This should have zero impact of the big ship as either he doesn’t know I am around or he has already ignored me.....

Then I haven't explained my position clearly enough so let me try again.

In an open sea crossing between my sailing yacht and a freighter, I will stand on until I am about 2 miles away from a collision (i.e. 2 miles CPA). As others have pointed out, this is my obligation as the stand on vessel.

At this 2 mile CPA point, I will take avoiding action as I will be assuming the freighter isn't going to (and at this distance it is probably way too late for him to take meaningful action). I presume this is what you are describing as the MX point.

I should be able to complete my manoeuvring within a cable length, 3 at the very most. This leaves a margin of ~1.8 miles. Depending on the weather, the manoeuvre will be to bear away, tack or gybe. I can effect a course change of anything from 90 to 180 degrees; ample to avoid any close quarters. The CRs have been followed (by me) and neither vessel has been placed in danger. I get to stay alive and the freighter skipper gets to keep his job .

I trust this explains my position better.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

[LEFT][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]The moral of the story is that if you are too chicken to stand on as required, you need to maneuver very early to ensure that you don't create a "confused situation".

"Too chicken to stand on as required" is an interesting way to put it. I prefer, however, the phrasing quoted by the commercial captian quoted in post #416, who said, "Being stand-on conveys no privilege and substantial anxiety when the give-way vessel is slow to act."

"Substantial anxiety" might be an understatement if some of the paranoid recommendations being made on this thread are any indication. I think the problem at the bottom of all this anxiety is that too many recreational boaters don't understand the Rules of the Road, preferring to make up their own "common sense" rules in place of the established rules.

Rule #9 simply doesn't apply to open waters. If we start acting as if Rule #9 applies to every crossing situation between a yacht and a freighter, as some have recommended in this thread, chaos will be the result.

Learn the rules.
Follow the rules.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Wotname

If you are referring to my post (in part)

Then I haven't explained my position clearly enough so let me try again.

In an open sea crossing between my sailing yacht and a freighter, I will stand on until I am about 2 miles away from a collision (i.e. 2 miles CPA). As others have pointed out, this is my obligation as the stand on vessel.

At this 2 mile CPA point, I will take avoiding action as I will be assuming the freighter isn't going to (and at this distance it is probably way too late for him to take meaningful action). I presume this is what you are describing as the MX point.

I should be able to complete my manoeuvring within a cable length, 3 at the very most. This leaves a margin of ~1.8 miles. Depending on the weather, the manoeuvre will be to bear away, tack or gybe. I can effect a course change of anything from 90 to 180 degrees; ample to avoid any close quarters. The CRs have been followed (by me) and neither vessel has been placed in danger. I get to stay alive and the freighter skipper gets to keep his job .

I trust this explains my position better.

I believe you are using the term "CPA" incorrectly, and this may be the source of the confusion.

CPA (Closest Point of Approach) is the projected minimum distance between you and the other vessel given your current courses and speeds. The TCPA (Time of CPA) is how soon you will be at the CPA.

What I believe you are saying is that when you are the stand-on vessel, and your CPA is unacceptably close, you will take evasive action when your range becomes less than two miles.

When at sea I usually set my AIS alarm for a CPA of two miles, and a TCPA of 20 minutes. This means that if the CPA will be 2 miles or less, the alarm will sound 20 minutes before our CPA. Assuming a closing speed of 20 kts, the alarm will trigger at a range of about 7 miles, giving me enough time and distance to figure out what to do.

When among ships, we usually run with no AIS alarm and just keep our eyes open. We do keep watch in all waters.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

That seems a pretty good summation.

[goboatingnow]

Interesting thread.

(1) I think everyone acknowledges that the " just run away " action is flawed. HOWEVER the reason that's it's common are two fold

( 1.a) the consequences of a subsequent close quarters situation are almost universally bad for the sailboat

(1.b) many sailors have the experience that despite being the stand on vessel, they find there is no action by the give way vessel. A vessel that is closing at significant speed. This inaction may be unintentional , they didn't see us, or deliberate. The resulting close quarters situation may leave the sailboat with no safe exit strategy.

(1.c) while Cockcroft et al. are clear that early action by the stand on vessel is incorrect, most sailing boats merely want " not to be there " a very commendable thought.


(2) I fail to accept as a general case that close quarters situations develop because people on sailing boats fail to assess correctly that possibility of collision exists.

(3) close quarters situations develop because sailing boats are in general the stand on vessel, are correctly applying the COLREGS and the approaching merchant vessel does not apply the COLREGS ( for whatever reason) . If merchant vessels applied the COLREGS as required we wouldn't be talking about this issue here. Excuses such as turning circles, stopping speeds , or that you have already agreed certain passing strategies the other large ships ARE IRRELEVANT, the sailing vessel,under the COLREGS is the stand on vessel and you are required to change course and give way. If you cannot do so correctly you should slow right down so as to facilitate such a manoeuvre.

(4) Merchant vessels have adopted watch policies and bridge management routines that make it difficult for them to detect small sailing vessels. It could be argued therefore that merchant vessels progressing through any area frequented by sailing vessels
should slow right up. See COLREGS rule 6, This of course is never going to happen.

(5) it could be argued that the current COLREGS is unsuitable today for the determination of crossing strategies between modern fast commercial vessels and slow sailing vessels. The COLREGS in my opinion should reflect the reality that sail gives way to large vessels. I know the Italian delegation to the IMO conference suggested such.

(6) the determination of exact or near exact CPA , in effect the determination of relative course is very difficult in trying conditions. ( night, bad weather ,etc) EBL techniques do not provide any additional accuracy. The resulting course actually lies within a cone of error. A typical sailboat cannot exit that cone of error in time This is why one posters actions of turning 180 provides no comfort, you may simply find that all you have done is actually sailed further into the cone. ( see the Wakuna incident )

(7) Fundamentally many merchant vessels do not see or do not act when a sailing vessel is a potential collision target. ( for example see the pride of Bilbao incident ) no amount of " good practice " by merchant vessels overlooks that fact.

(8) The excuse of "not seeing you" or detecting you on radar is NO excuse by merchant vessels. The COLREGS offer no solace there. In fact the current practice of driving large vessels by radar. Is specifically warned about in the COLREGS ( decisions based on scanty radar data). A sailing vessel not appearing on radar is just that , scanty radar data. See COLREGS 6(ii) , 6 ( iv)

(9) it's very humerous to see merchant captains lecturing us to respect the COLREGS ( they could hardly argue anything else could they) however they would do well to sail in small boats to see the lack of application by merchant vessels of such rules when in the vicinity of small sailing vessels.

(10) the consequence of this situation is the "associated with the lack of a systematic, disciplined approach to identification of collision risks." that applies in the situations under question

I am excluding TSSs and narrow channels or any RAM conditions.

Dave

[slowsailor45]

Just an FYI, these rules were pretty much fully fleshed out and internationally recognized by the 1890's when there were no such things as "cruising sailboats." Sailing ships were primarily commercial vessels operated by professional mariners and there was little difference if any in size and hull construction between sail powered and steam powered ships.
Perhaps it is time that the COLREGS be scrapped. Perhaps something along the lines of "Vessels under 50 meters shall give way to vessels over 50 meters"
would be easier for everyone to understand.
Honestly, if you expect me to give way to an 8 meter "stand-on" sailboat in a congested seaway only to have a collision with and sink a 6000 passenger cruise ship, or another VLCC, when I am ALSO the "give-way" vessel in regards to them you are likely going to wind up disappointed.
This would be the case even if small sailboats routinely held to or behaved in accordance with COLREGS , which in my over 10,000 documented sea days (not miles, days) is not my impression, in fact, out on the water, they seem as rare to me as rainbow farting unicorns. All due respect to the exceptional members here.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by slowsailor45

Just an FYI, these rules were pretty much fully fleshed out and internationally recognized by the 1890's when there were no such things as "cruising sailboats." Sailing ships were primarily commercial vessels operated by professional mariners and there was little difference if any in size and hull construction between sail powered and steam powered ships.
Perhaps it is time that the COLREGS be scrapped. Perhaps something along the lines of "Vessels under 50 meters shall give way to vessels over 50 meters"
would be easier for everyone to understand.
Honestly, if you expect me to give way to an 8 meter "stand-on" sailboat in a congested seaway only to have a collision with and sink a 6000 passenger cruise ship, or another VLCC, when I am ALSO the "give-way" vessel in regards to them you are likely going to wind up disappointed.
This would be the case even if small sailboats routinely held to or behaved in accordance with COLREGS , which in my over 10,000 documented sea days (not miles, days) is not my impression, in fact, out on the water, they seem as rare to me as rainbow farting unicorns. All due respect to the exceptional members here.

The reason they jog about is exactly your attitude "Honestly, if you expect me to give way to an 8 meter "stand-on" sailboat in a congested seaway only to have a collision with and sink a 6000 passenger cruise ship, or another VLCC, when I am ALSO the "give-way" vessel in regards to them you are likely going to wind up disappointed."

NO , what's wrong is that you are expected to go slow enough to ENSURE you avoid all stand on vessels. Of course getting merchant vessels to slow is another of those peculiar rainbows!

ie what you mean is "tonnage rules", Hence for us applying COLREGS means dying and you wonder why were afraid and jump about the place !!!!

Time to change the COLREGS.

[slowsailor45]

You can just as easily hit things going slow as going fast, bare steerageway might be 8 or 9 knots on some commercial ships for a given load condition, and if I do slow to that, then my options are used up, because I have just taken 30 or 45 minutes to slow down and now my rate of turn is abysmal or if I'm lightship in a strong blow, maybe I can't turn at all. That said my standing orders to the mates on the bridge are to reduce to bare steerage and call me whenever confronted with a situation in which you don't know what to do. It gives me more time to make passing arrangements or come up with a solution.

I've done a sailing circumnavigation. I've captained transatlantic and transpacific crossings on sailboats from 36 up to 120 ft. I am not in any way saying that merchant captains are all perfect examples of professionalism. I have taught celestial navigation, terrestrial navigation, boat-handling, and numerous other nautical subjects to professional and amateur sailors for over 30 years. In my experience MOST casual/weekend/near coastal "sailors" do not understand the COLREGS, do not follow the COLREGS when they do understand them, a lot of them have "just enough knowledge to be dangerous." I could sit here and type out page after page after page of examples of utter and complete stupidity exhibited on the water by everyone from junior dinghy racers to Unlimited Masters on ULCC's.

Please allow me to summarize. I have been told LITERALLY hundreds of times by sailboats which I have managed to contact on the radio (usually after calling and calling, then sound signals or searchlights or even firing flares) after explaining that I am RAM (Restricted in my Ability to Maneuver) for one reason or another: coring/drilling, recovering subsea equipment, laying subsea cable/pipelines, towing gear, retrieving torpedos, what have you. I have been told Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over again, "I'm under sail and I have the right of way."

Again, my advice, just get an AIS.
I would equip one long before I'd put a RADAR on a sailboat, and I do love me some RADAR.
I'll be off the internet, conducting science between Antarctica and Cape Horn until around Oct 6th. So I won't be able to reply to any questions, PM's etc until then. If you are rounding the Cape and see Red White Red, please give me at least a 1 mile CPA.
Cheers,
Mike

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by slowsailor45

.................
Again, my advice, just get an AIS.
I would equip one long before I'd put a RADAR on a sailboat, and I do love me some RADAR.
I'll be off the internet, conducting science between Antarctica and Cape Horn until around Oct 6th. So I won't be able to reply to any questions, PM's etc until then. If you are rounding the Cape and see Red White Red, please give me at least a 1 mile CPA.
Cheers,
Mike

Well, I was going to request that you heave to while I raft up along side you and pop aboard for a nice cuppa and chinwag and perhaps warm my toes in your heated bridge but I will just wave as we pass a mile apart. If your mate is near the radio, I'll request a check that my AIS is working.

[cappy208]

2) I fail to accept as a general case that close quarters situations develop because people on sailing boats fail to assess correctly that possibility of collision exists.

That's funny. Isn't this overall situation why this thread exists. You keep mentioning a 'cone of error.' Isn't this so called 'cone' really the error margin of your ability to determine the bearing of an approaching vessel? Quite simply, if someone is having a harder time determing if there is bearing drift, the more trouble you are having should make the stand on vessel make a decision to avoid earlier. Someone mentioned that on a calm day.... Yes, that would have a very narrow 'cone'. A crappy night, in seas would have a much larger cone. Teaching people about the differences is what this is about. From my POV, My 'cone' on a merchie is directly related to your 'cone' on your sailboat.

(3) close quarters situations develop because sailing boats are in general the stand on vessel, are correctly applying the COLREGS and the approaching merchant vessel does not apply the COLREGS ( for whatever reason) . If merchant vessels applied the COLREGS as required we wouldn't be talking about this issue here.

Sailboats are NOT following the Colregs when extremis has been met. Or are not realizing how late they are in the decision making process relative to the rate of closure. The larger the target becomes the sooner 'it' is going to happen. Waiting and hoping is actually doing NOTHING. Each and every case you have mentioned involves violations of Colregs. It is the inability to distinguish between whether extremis has been met is the issue. The varying vessel maneuvering abilities and capabilities (both stand on and give way) are what decides when extremis has been met.

Excuses such as turning circles, stopping speeds , or that you have already agreed certain passing strategies the other large ships ARE IRRELEVANT,

These are not excuses, but examples of differences in vessels abilities that I have tried to share with others who may not be aware of these parameters. Also, I don't believe you have the power to telepathically come into my wheelhouse and change my course order dial, or move my throttle. Until that happens, we are stuck with sailing, trying to avoid, and continue on our way. What the other guy 'should' be doing is not going to be changed by this debate. It is what YOU will do.

the sailing vessel,under the COLREGS is the stand on vessel and you ??????????? are required to change course and give way. If you cannot do so correctly you should slow right down so as to facilitate such a manoeuvre.

This is true. But at some point, when it becomes evident the sailing vessel must take action, the ship is only 1000' long (or less) and only 100' wide. Not only is the ocean small, and we keep occupying the same small space (from time to time) It is also easy to NOT be in the same piece of real estate as another with a little timely effort.

We may be on different oceans professionally, but not everyone involved is equal either as much as no likes to admit!

(9) it's very humerous to see merchant captains lecturing us to respect the COLREGS ( they could hardly argue anything else could they) however they would do well to sail in small boats to see the lack of application by merchant vessels of such rules when in the vicinity of small sailing vessels.

Whether it is a third world Mate who doesn't have a complete grasp of the English language, A stiff Welshman, or an irreverent American is NOT a concern. Whether the Merchie is following Colregs is irrelevant. Trying to help fellow yachters of any type learn how to avoid this situation is what is needed. To me, all the breast beating is useless. Sharing knowledge about what it is like from the other side would seem to help. Maybe you don't agree. But then again; I didn't start the thread!

[cappy208]

It's not You. It's not Me.... It's US.

[cappy208]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

The only problem is most everyone gets highly offended at the mere suggestion that they may have shortcomings regarding this concept.

Not that everyone has this shortcoming, but enough do to cause angst amongst all us boat aficionados.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by cappy208

It's not You. It's not Me.... It's US.

Ah... very true
Reminds me of being married - when in agreement, all is sweet but otherwise, not so much!

Maybe meeting a strange vessel on a potential collision course should be viewed as a blind date ending up in a one night stand.

OK some thread drift licence taken!