Freighters vs. Sailboats

[Nicholson58]

The big guy becomes the stand on vessel in a waterway where he is restricted by draft and or manauverability. At sea, he is a motorboat. THat noted, I also stay away and I LOVE my AIS. Its the first instrument turned on and the last shut down. I use its posted data to confirm with the big ship radio operator that he "sees" me and that we agree on a crossing. (also according to the rules).

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Wow! Another great one that proves people interpret the written language differently.

I know 85% of drivers think they are above average.

I bet 85% of boaters think the same thing.

When regular car drivers get a chance to interact (calmly) with professionals they find out they frequently are more of a problem than a solution, given specific instances.

Some here seem to think the professionals and highly experienced people that are saying you need to follow the COLREGS are saying "Stand on" into some sort of collision.

They are not. And you are not listening (reading) properly.

Sheesh!

Realize you need to know the rules (a lot more complicated than red, green and orange) and like is said, all of them.

Rule 2 - Responsibility



You are all saying the same thing really.

It's just that some don't know enough of the rules before you resort to what you think is the saving maneuver.

Maybe we're trying to avoid 4,000-word posts. Maybe some don't feel a need to state the obvious. Clearly when we're talking about the possibility of a small boat hitting a big boat both parties should pay attention. But if the big boat isn't paying attention -- or can't maneuver to honor "my" "right of way" -- I'm going to get out of the way.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by xymotic

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in MOST of the world where we cruise ocean waters, so to do big ships.

I find the perspective of their pilots to be invaluable in this "debate"

Absolutely. I wouldn't want to be on board with anyone who thought "Oh it's just a freighter ..."

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by foggysail

OH REALLY? I certainly hope that pilot perspectives are not gained from reading or participating in recreational cruising forums! The title of this particular thread is "Freighters vs. Sailboats", not tugs in tow vs freighters, tankers, submarines, war ships, and---

Foggy

Since I am the OP, I will point out that you can only make the title just so long.

Big boats make big crunchy noises when they collide with little cruising boats. Please feel free to include submarines, tankers, war ships tug boats (with or without tows) and any other type of ship where our cruising vessel is likely to be reduced to matchsticks in a collision. I tried putting that in the title, but the silly forum wouldn't take a title that long.

[sv Winterlude]

Interesting story.... Years ago, my son was a junior officer aboard a US Navy big deck ship out of San Diego. The ship was getting ready for a 7 month deployment to the Middle East and families had been invited for a daylong "Family Day" cruise.

My son was the officer of the deck, and as such, in charge of the bridge, navigation etc. I was on the bridge at the time observing.

All of a sudden, my son spots a sailboat, under sail, on a crossing course -- too close for the new homeland security requirements -- in FRONT of this big deck Navy ship with harrier jets and what seemed like zillions of Marine helicopters.

He tried to contact the boat on the VHF -- multiple times, no answer. Again, no answer. The boat was hailed on the loudspeaker, every opportunity was given the boat to avoid the Navy ship. Or at least answer. Everyone in Combat Control (with all the fancy radars) was in an uproar, as was everyone on the bridge.

Bottom line ... the ******* (excuse my language but I AM a cruiser and I was appalled at this boat's behavior) sailed directly in front of the Navy Ship. At a distance off, my son decided to change course and go to full throttle in reverse -- otherwise, to my relatively experienced eye watching the radar and the interception, we would have t-boned the sailboat. All the commotion, of course, brought the Captain, XO and a variety of other officers running to see what the HELL was going on.

As he sailed in front of the ship, the guy was sitting on his bowsprit, a beer in his hand, waving and "gesturing" to the Navy ship.

I don't know about anyone else, but a ship is a ship and WE need to avoid it, not challenge it. I felt bad for the Navy guys, every sailor aboard was having heart failure because they don't want to be responsible for running down a civilian, even one that was clearly just STUPID.

Sorry, but having been a cruiser for many years, I was embarrassed. I think firing the forward guns across the guys bow might have been appropriate.

Just had to chime in ....



P.S. I also was lucky enough to sail on a US Navy "Tiger Cruise" from Pearl Harbor back to San Diego after one of my son's Middle East deployments .... see the story here: Tiger Cruise: US Navy - Sail With Winterlude

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Since I am the OP, I will point out that you can only make the title just so long.

Big boats make big crunchy noises when they collide with little cruising boats. Please feel free to include submarines, tankers, war ships tug boats (with or without tows) and any other type of ship where our cruising vessel is likely to be reduced to matchsticks in a collision. I tried putting that in the title, but the silly forum wouldn't take a title that long.

The point I tried to make, apparently unsuccessfully is the theme dictated by the thread's title was related to a small boat vs a large boat and not a large boat against a large boat as suggested in post #63.

[avb3]

As always, there are some very experienced and knowledgeable contributors to a thread like this. It is worthwhile to read, listen and comprehend what they have to say; their's is the voice of expertise that the rest of us hope to gain.

Hopefully without making wrong decisions because we were confused about the rules.

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by Richard5

It seems the above is predicated on the larger vessel maintaining course and speed. In channles, most larger vessels must maintain course and speed for their own maneuverability Tony B.By manuevering to stay clear you are basing your actions on assumptions meanwhile he may be wondering just what the heck is going on with that sailboat. I don't think he would be wondering. I think he would understand I was moving over to the right as far as possible to get out of his way. Tony B At that point you have presented yourself for increased scrutiny. Really? Increased scrutiny by movng over to the right as far as possible?
Also, manuvering out of the channel to stay clear brings other risks. Depending upon bottom features (often not accurately charted outside of the channel) will you also be on the look out for obstructions thereby putting your vessel at risk?

I do not intend to get down on anyone and what I say is with my personal experience in mind (observing other small vessels as well as some of my own blunders). Just food for thought.

Obviously you don't understand what staying clear means. It does not mean maneuvering all over the place. It means in open water stay clear and nowhere near the larger vessel or its path. In the open, it is not going to sneak up on you. You will see it many miles away. There is no need to get close enough to have to require passing signals. That is what staying clear means. Larger vessels are travelling much faster than they appear. Unless you have radar to track them, you won't be sure exactly where your paths will cross. Good seamanship and good judgement dictates that in these open waters should not be a place for close crossings with a freighter or tanker. Staying clear also does not mean being miles away either. It's all relative. I don't see any need for me to get within a 1/4 mile of a large vessel in open waters, especially when I only sail at 6 to 7 kts max.
As for leaving the channel, you have obviously never been in a relatively
narrow channel where two freighters or tankers are about to pass eachother on reciprocal courses throwing out a large wake and the one behind you is travelling approx 3 times your maximum speed and rapidly climbing your ass. When the channel is 35 to 50 feet deep or deeper, you can pretty well be assured that the outside of the channel is deep enough for my 4 1/2 ft draft. There have been several times I heard over the radio when a freighter requesting a pleasure craft to go just outside the channel for its own safety. Too bad I can't find the pilots to defend themselves on here.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by foggysail

The point I tried to make, apparently unsuccessfully is the theme dictated by the thread's title was related to a small boat vs a large boat and not a large boat against a large boat as suggested in post #63.

I guess. For myself I'm not that rigid. I think sometimes a little topic drift ends up illuminating an issue. And in fact we could have a tugboat owner here. I know a couple who sailed for years, but when they retired, bought a tugboat and fitted it out as their live aboard/travel boat. I think it all adds to the discussion, myself.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Interesting post Raku, I never realized you had been criticised on CF for stating that "freighters and cruise ships, do not really see sailboats well".

I agree whole heartedly that it is difficult for large ships to see small yachts and we must never forget this. And I agree about the AIS point 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. My understanding is somewhat different .

I was tied on to the spit, roasted, rotated and toasted for saying that those big ships do not see small boats well.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

While I totally agree with your position and you are correct about International Collision Regulations you must remember that there are a lot of US boaters on this forum and the USCG Inland Navigation Rules do use the term "Right of Way". Which in my opinion was a stupid thing to do since I have heard Junior Sail Instructors tell their 10yr. old students " don't worry about the powerboat, you have right of way".

Inland Rules use the term "right of way' in exactly one instance.

5. Who has the "right of way" on the water? The Navigation Rules convey a right-of-way only in one particular circumstance: to power-driven vessels proceeding downbound with a following current in narrow channels or fairways of the Great Lakes , Western Rivers, or other waters specified by regulation (Inland Rule 9(a)(ii)). Otherwise, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way (Rule 18) and either give-way (Rule 16) or stand-on (Rule 17) to vessels not under command or restricted in their ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or vessels engaged in fishing, and, similarly vessels should avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft (Rule 18), navigating a narrow channel (Rule 9) or traffic separation scheme (Rule 10). The Rules do not grant privileges they impose responsibilities and require precaution under all conditions and circumstances; no Rule exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2). Neglect, among other things, could be not maintaining a proper look-out (Rule 5), use of improper speed (Rule 6), not taking the appropriate actions to determine and avoid collision (Rule 7 & 8) or completely ignoring your responsibilities under the Rules.

NavRules Frequently Asked Questions

Racing rules do use the term.

Fortunately Canadian modifications to Colregs do not use that term, nor do I. ( I do not sail the US Great Lakes or the Western Rivers of the US)

[jackdale]

Hands up

1) who has read all of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
2) who has read the rules / modifications that are applicable in each country in which you sail.

After you have done your homework, we have have a quiz. (We did that once on Sailnet.)

[jackdale]

First quiz question

Which vessel is at the bottom of the "pecking order"?

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Some time ago I created quite a heated discussion by stating that when it comes to freighters and sailboats the freighter actually had the right of way because of the freighter's lessened ability to maneuver. I got "ridden hard and put away wet" because of that statement, but because of my source (Coast Guard) I didn't change my statement. I then got called out for "not listening to people with more experience."

This quote is from SAIL magazine (p. 12), January 2012. I'll quote the pertinent parts, but the writer's point was that sailboats should have AIS. Here it is:

"I make my living s a senior officer aboard large container ships. Contrary to popular belief, we do not have the latest and greatest radars on board. On a clear, calm day, a 40 ft sailboat looks like a white speck more than few miles out. If I'm lucky, I can acquire and plot it when it's 5 miles out. Traveling at 25 knots, I cover 2.5 miles every six minutes, so even if I put the wheel hard over I would advance a half-mile before turning. If I threw the engine in reverse it would take 3 miles at full astern to stop.

"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!"

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.

Without AIS, that white spec they see from five miles out might be anything and won't necessarily look like a collision hazard to the bigger ship.

The Coast Guard said exactly the same thing at the talk I attended. So now I have two sources, although hearing it from the Coast Guard was enough for me personally.

The one over-arching rule, the one that trumps any section of the ColRegs that could be quoted here, is that one must do everything possible to avoid a collision, but the ColRegs also were written following some basic principles. One of them is that the less maneuverable ship/boat has the right of way. All the sections in CR stating who has the ROW in specific instances are based on those two principles: do everything possible to avoid a collision, and the most maneuverable vessel is to give right of way. In a channel, clearly a freighter has to stay in the channel, but they aren't always in channels.

Seems pretty reasonable. Hard to see vessels should do everything that they can to be better seen and should maneuver to avoid a larger vessel when it is not apparent that they have been seen.

But let's try this with a slightly modified scenario. The smaller vessel in front of the freighter is a liferaft, or dinghy with a motor that has died or is out of gas, or in the developing world it could be an unpainted wooded fishing vessel with nets over the side (VHF radio would be very unlikely let alone AIS). All of these vessels would be less maneuverable than the freighter and therefore would have the right of way or be the "Stand On Vessel" depending on how pedantic you want to be.

If the freighter has to perform a crash stop or panic turn in order to avoid a collision then either it is not maintaining an adequate visual lookout (rule #5) or it is not proceeding at a "safe speed ... appropriate to the prevailing conditions" (rule #6), or both.

If the freighter is proceeding too fast or not keeping a good enough lookout in the revised scenario then it stands to reason that is probably also true for the original scenario.

It seems to me that universal adoption of AIS would be a great thing but it is a pipe dream. Also it really sounds like the big boys are pushing it as a means reduce their bridge staffing requirements and increase their operating speeds even more. Not that seamen aboard ship don't value the safety aspects, but that the corporations' foremost interests are financial.

It also seems to me that rule #5 (proper lookout) is more important than rule #8 (collision avoidance), if you aren't paying attention, none of the other rules matter.

Finally, it seems to me that both sides are trying to use provisions of the rules to mask their own transgressions and they should both grow up.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by jackdale

First quiz question

Which vessel is at the bottom of the "pecking order"?

Taxiing seaplane.