Freighters vs. Sailboats

[MacG]

Very few skippers are looking aft Take a few flying lessons!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SvenG

Just saw this thread and agree with you. The thread is truly scary.



-Sven

Sorry... I'll try hard to get serious about this..

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Sorry... I'll try hard to get serious about this..

I'm just rather happy that it has gone from a bizzare discussion about the use of arctans and arcsins to work out the aspect of ships when under sail single handed in the dark in sleet with a heavy sea running.....

I thought that was one of the reasons ships had steaming lights...

I was also glad that just before I sat second mate's orals they stopped asking 'how is she heading' questions. As in 'you are steering SW and the wind is from the east..... you see a red light bearing WNW a quarter W ... how is she heading?
Mind you it was still a requirement to be able to box the compass in quarter points for your lifeboat ticket.

But tell that to young people today and they just don't believe you.....

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by LJH

It is important to know how to tune and interpret a radar as well as turn it on! All the more reason to have an AIS transceiver transmitting. Anything to better the SA on the bridge decreases the chance of collision.

Clarification requested. It seems your comment suggests that one reason to have AIS is if one does not possess satisfactory knowledge of their radar. To me that seems like playing to a weakness, that is, to use the AIS to cover for being ignorant of how to operate a radar.

"See and avoid" applies whenever two or more moving objects may exist in the same time whether they be automobiles, aircraft, or marine vessels. If the ship truly were blocked by the headsail of Riga II, it is the unchanging relative bearing which is the telltale of his fate. And he would be blissfully ignorant right up until point of impact.

[Argyle38]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try this...

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...s%20report.pdf

Hey thanks for posting. That is an interesting report. I guess my only question would then be, how do these numbers translate to real world installations. If my mast has an RCS of 5 m^2, adding a reflector that adds 4 m^2 doesn't necessarily make the assembly 9 m^2. What do you use?

I have my mast down this year and have been considering adding a fixed reflector, just above my radar dome, but like I said, I read too many things that said they didn't do much. I guess one of the biggest issues is, even if you have a great reflector, you are still hoping that the other guy is bothering to look at his radar screen.

Still thinking about it though, and papers like the one you linked are very helpful in my research.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Richard5

If the ship truly were blocked by the headsail of Riga II, it is the unchanging relative bearing which is the telltale of his fate. And he would be blissfully ignorant right up until point of impact.

To all intents and purposes they were on reciprocal courses, both bolted to the dotted line, with the yacht's head slightly to port ( according to the report ship's head 295/300 while making good 303) so yes... ship behind headsail and not seen until after AIS had alarmed.


Re radar... no point having it if you only turn it on when the vis goes pearshaped... needs practice to know how to get the best out of them.

[LJH]

Originally Posted by Richard5

Clarification requested. It seems your comment suggests that one reason to have AIS is if one does not possess satisfactory knowledge of their radar. To me that seems like playing to a weakness, that is, to use the AIS to cover for being ignorant of how to operate a radar.

My two thoughts merged a bit. The radar on the ship was not tuned properly before the collision. Just having it on is not good enough to see a target with a small radar cross section. Also, the yacht was not using his radar. The yacht`s radar would most likely have alerted them long before their AIS receiver did. But, given their poor understanding of their AIS receiver, it is not likely that they would have been proficient with their radar either.

An AIS transceiver on the yacht would have made made the ship aware of their presence earlier when the ship's radar was not tuned properly. - `be seen`!

Originally Posted by Richard5

"See and avoid" applies whenever two or more moving objects may exist in the same time whether they be automobiles, aircraft, or marine vessels. If the ship truly were blocked by the headsail of Riga II, it is the unchanging relative bearing which is the telltale of his fate. And he would be blissfully ignorant right up until point of impact.

agreed

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by MacG

Very few skippers are looking aft Take a few flying lessons!

I think it was the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Organization Aircraft Safety Foundation (AOPA ASF) which said 80% of mid-air collisions occur when an overtaking aircraft plows into the other. 'Check six' is not just for fighter pilots.

My only marine experience with this was when approaching the Columbia River mouth bound for Astoria yet still about 30 nm off the beach I spied a massive trawler about 3 nm astern. I thought to keep an eye on him but became distracted. Sometime later I realized I hadn't looked so I did look. My eyes became as saucers as I threw the wheel hard over. That boat wallowed past just clearing the boom end. We were just clear as the outriggers came sweeping by. Not a soul seen onboard her. Moments later a man on the back deck hove into view. Talking on the VHF he later recounted how he fell and probably dislocated his knee in a mad dash for the helm.

It is not unheard of to set the radar alarm while underway. But that requires one to actually be listening for it.

[boatman61]

See and avoid" applies whenever two or more moving objects may exist in the same time whether they be automobiles, aircraft, or marine vessels. If the ship truly were blocked by the headsail of Riga II, it is the unchanging relative bearing which is the telltale of his fate. And he would be blissfully ignorant right up until point of impact.

That's what legs are for.. give your ass a break and walk now and then to admire the view...

[evm1024]

Might as well throw my few pennies into the fray.

The sailboat failed to keep a good lookout. Radar is not a requirement and in a small boat that is shorthanded does not even come into play. Rule 5. The AIS was on and was available so that was needed to be used effectively and was not. But the main problem was the failure to sight the bulk carrier.

The mate on the bulk carrier had 2 lookouts (self included), professional radar with arpa. The lookout on more than one occasion alerted the mate that there was a light and each time the mate did not verify the target.

Everything else follows from these two points.

The sailboat failed to keep a good lookout and thus was unable to take early corrective action.

The bulk carried did detect the sailboat some distance out but failed to act on that detection. Rule 7 esp (c). and this failure in my mind represents negligence.

Thus I read this as an 20% sail 80% bulk rationing of responsibility.

Regards

PS I also have been almost run over off the mouth of the Columbia by a fishing vessel returning to port without a proper lookout. We did not get that close to each other because I altered course early as he overtook us.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I was also glad that just before I sat second mate's orals they stopped asking 'how is she heading' questions. As in 'you are steering SW and the wind is from the east..... you see a red light bearing WNW a quarter W ... how is she heading?
Mind you it was still a requirement to be able to box the compass in quarter points for your lifeboat ticket.

But tell that to young people today and they just don't believe you.....

Wish´some one had told the examiner when I did my Second Mate orals.
I think just for giggles I'll try a few on the 3rd and 2nd Mate in the morning.
As for boxing the compass, I dont think they have to do that any more, its all going to the dogs.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Wish´some one had told the examiner when I did my Second Mate orals.

Maybe my memory is on the blink.... that was 66, I know they had just changed the rules and also those wierd fishing boat lights had gone. It justified my sloth over the previous few years.... I would have been learning all this stuff I didn't need to know...

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Might as well throw my few pennies into the fray.

The sailboat failed to keep a good lookout. Radar is not a requirement and in a small boat that is shorthanded does not even come into play. Rule 5. The AIS was on and was available so that was needed to be used effectively and was not. But the main problem was the failure to sight the bulk carrier.....

Hmm... I would have thought otherwise, radar was fitted to the yacht therefore it was available and therefore it becomes part of "all available means". The radar would have certainly sighted the bulk carrier if it had been used.

Shorthanded means just that so any additional means of keeping a lookout is thus more important. Like all aids (including the mark 1 eyeball), it is of no help if turned off or otherwise ignored.

At this stage, I am sticking to my 50/50.

[SvenG]

And don't forget this one:

Investigation: 268-MO-2009-008 - Collision between Silver Yang and Ella

(Hope that is not a re-post)



-Sven

[rebel heart]

I'm not sure if I ever replied to this thread but here's a picture from a couple of weeks ago. The ship got within about a 1/4 of a mile (after adjustments) which is hilarious because there was another upper tonnage ship that was on a collision course with us maybe an hour before that.

In both cases I spotted them visually and on AIS, and the AIS data confirmed that yep: it was going to be way too close for comfort.

It was a little dicey because both boats were entering a 1 mile wide channel, but weren't in it yet necessarily and it's not marked on any navigation charts as a "channel", but rather it's the route everyone has to go between shoal water and some rocks.

I had the wind vane set, it was blowing maybe 20 knots, I had preventers rigged on both the staysail and the main, and my option would have been to unwind the whole mess and gybe because shallowing up would put me towards the shoal.

I hit up each captain on the VHF and explained that I was under sail and could reasonably only move closer to them or I could slow down. I threw the "I'm under sail" in there as a gentle reminder of the rules.

- I was under sail, they were motoring.
- It was a big enough channel and it wasn't defined as one on a chart.
- It was a crossing situation and I was the vessel to starboard.

So the only way I could see that I was the give-way vessel would be to argue that they were transiting a navigational channel that I was crossing, but a >1 nm wide patch of water between two islands doesn't really strike me as a "navigational channel". Would it still be one if it was five miles wide like another channel to the south?

Either way, the ships were friendly and passed astern of me and we both chatted it up. They practiced their English and I practiced my Spanish.