Freighters vs. Sailboats

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, the place with two seasons, July and winter

Ohhh even better. I've been to Scotland once but didn't make it that far north (maybe just as well since it was December) ... and am hoping to go back.

[Rakuflames]

"
Originally Posted by Rakuflames
No one has said that ...
Er...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuck

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


Mine was
the stand-on
vessel.

I protest.

Quote:
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!

It was implied. "

Exactly. No one said it -- and the epitaph is a joke.

Another famous one -- "I told them I was sick!"

I didn't use this one but it is actually the last words my husband ever spoke:

"There are some really stupid people in this hospital!"

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by foggysail

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

Assuming the sailboat knows where harm's way is. The merchant could have already manoeuvred, or he might be planning how to pass a number of vessels - when this WAFI goes and messes up his plan by turning.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

"Exactly. No one said it

What's your point? The poster made an implied point and I asked him to defend it.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Tony B

In all my sailing/cruising I have never had the need to cross the path of a large vessel close enough for COLREGS to kick in. "Large enough for COLREGS to kick in" means never close enough for the larger vessel to have to alter course for me.

If you really want to join hands and sing Kum By Ya, just call the ship on 16 and say "Skip, I'm going to cross you at your stern. Have a good one" We are talking about a 1 or 2 degree change in your course for about 30 minutes. No need to even adjust your sails. This can be done from about 4 or 5 miles away.

A 2-degree course alteration for a sailboat at 4 kts will displace its location 30 minutes later by 400 feet. Do you think that's sufficient to avoid a freighter?

If a large vessel is six miles away approaching you so that risk of collision exists, then Colregs have kicked in; and he may already have altered course to avoid you. It's pretty self-centred to think otherwise.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

What's your point? The poster made an implied point and I asked him to defend it.

Well, my point is that you're asking someone to defend something they didn't say.

[sloopygirl]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But your instincts are right -- stay away from them in the first place is exactly the right "first line of defense" against a collision.

Absolutely - no way I'd argue with any vessel larger than mine! Especially out in the open sea, no reason to get close.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Well, my point is that you're asking someone to defend something they didn't say.

He did say it implicitly. Do you want to get back to the topic of the thread or do I need to explain "implied meaning" to you?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Tony B

Lets take this from another perspective. You are the stand-on vessel maintaining course and speed. You misjudge the freighters speed and he gets to the estimated point on intersection a little faster than you thought. This can put you at a smaller crossing angle and you are no longer the stand-on vessel. Now what?

Now what? Is that really a question you want to ask?

I'm guessing, Tony B, that you intended this as a rhetorical question. However, the question doesn't hold water.

First of all, the freighter will be on radar, and my MARPA system will estimate the CPA, Closest Point of Approach, and the exact time to CPA within a few seconds. In other words, I'm not likely to "misjudge the freighter's speed." If MARPA doesn't get it, AIS surely will. In the old days, I could get the same info from a hand-bearing compass.

Second, if the freighter's course brings it to a closer CPA than I'm comfortable with, I will contact the freighter, make certain he's aware of my presence, and request his intentions. I will do so on VHF 13.

I've done this dozens and dozens of times in open water, and EVERY TIME the freighter/tanker/container ship has altered course appropriately if I was the stand-on vessel, which I usually am when under sail on the open ocean.

This is how the system works. The remarkable thing is: the system works. I'm astonished that someone who claims to have a 100-ton masters ticket is advocating blatant disregard for this system. It works, and you are doing cruisers a disservice by suggesting alternative systems based upon irrational fears that freighters are hell-bent on running us down.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

He did say it implicitly. Do you want to get back to the topic of the thread or do I need to explain "implied meaning" to you?

"Implied" is in the eye of the beholder (or in this case, reader) -- not in the words of the writer. I don't understand. Why so rude? Am I not allowed to disagree with you regarding whether we should take posts at face value or re-interpret them?

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

A 2-degree course alteration for a sailboat at 4 kts will displace its location 30 minutes later by 400 feet. Do you think that's sufficient to avoid a freighter?
No, 400 feet would not be sufficient.The 2 degree figure was just a wild guess sitting here on the computer. In reality, it would be several degrees. Something that I would eyeball and feel comfortable with.
If a large vessel is six miles away approaching you so that risk of collision exists, then Colregs have kicked in; and he may already have altered course to avoid you. It's pretty self-centred to think otherwise.
No, I think you missed the point. Once we communiucated and agreed by radio, he would continue on course and speed and to him, I would be a non-issue because he knows that I will be coming in behind him. I have my hands on the steering wheel all the time anyway while driving and just make the adjustments as necesary. While doing this, I am not wandering all over because the adjustments would be made small and over time. COLREGS would not kick in because I am not crossing his path and we both know that I am not crossing his path.

Crossing someones stern is done all of the time. This is not something unique. Generally the technique is that he is maintaining course and speed and I am pretty much always aiming directly at his stern. If someone was to plot my course, I would appear to be swinging a very smooth arc.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

"Implied" is in the eye of the beholder (or in this case, reader) -- not in the words of the writer. I don't understand. Why so rude? Am I not allowed to disagree with you regarding whether we should take posts at face value or re-interpret them?

No, 'inference' is in the eye of the reader - 'implication' is the meaning of the writer. I never said that anyone said anything in the post that got you started - I simply asked the question "where is it written in colregs that you must stand on until collision?" You inferred (correctly) from the context of my post, the meaning I had implied. Apparently it`s alright for you to infer meaning, but not for me to do it.

Rude??? Pot...kettle...?
You have been pissy with me from my first post in this thread, and instead of disussing the topic, you seem hell-bent on arguing semantics. I tried to be nice, but quite frankly no longer have the patience to keep smiling while dealing with loutish behaviour. If you want to be civil, I`ll happily oblige.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Tony B

Crossing someones stern is done all of the time. This is not something unique. Generally the technique is that he is maintaining course and speed and I am pretty much always aiming directly at his stern. If someone was to plot my course, I would appear to be swinging a very smooth arc.

Most of the time this level of complexity is unnecessary. Presuming the Ship is the stand on vessel sailing an arc may not be the best idea as you give up a lot of leeway and frankly at the end you may pass too far from his stern.

Let's say I am close hauled - take a bearing at 2 miles a realize we may collide. Depending on where I am going I may decide to simply slow down and not give the leeway up.

This situation is extremely common crossing the Straits. It is two way traffic and the crossing is "supposed" to be taken at 90 degrees.

Sailing an angle or arc is technically not allowed as it violates the 90 degree rule. Also there are always more ships coming and the other issue is crossing the first lane is pretty easy, the second lane (opposite traffic) takes planning.

Once again - all this works because of the regs. Imagine those guys slowing and speeding up and changing course - I wouldn't have a chance of planing a crossing.

They stand on - I expect them to stand on - I plan for them to stand on and of course - I have a bailout plan in case they don't.

They expect me to cross at 90 degrees and manage my boat so that I keep clear. If I started sailing angles and tacking and maneuvering in the strait they would go nuts.

In this case the only "real" tool is my boat speed and my "impeccable" timing -

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Tony B

No, I think you missed the point. Once we communiucated and agreed by radio, he would continue on course and speed and to him, I would be a non-issue because he knows that I will be coming in behind him. I have my hands on the steering wheel all the time anyway while driving and just make the adjustments as necesary. While doing this, I am not wandering all over because the adjustments would be made small and over time. COLREGS would not kick in because I am not crossing his path and we both know that I am not crossing his path. Crossing someones stern is done all of the time. This is not something unique. Generally the technique is that he is maintaining course and speed and I am pretty much always aiming directly at his stern. If someone was to plot my course, I would appear to be swinging a very smooth arc.

No Tony I think you`re missing the point. If you`ve called him on VHF and made passing arrangements, then colregs have already kicked in.

Swinging a smooth arc isn`t always practical when sailing.

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by Bash

Now what? Is that really a question you want to ask?

I'm guessing, Tony B, that you intended this as a rhetorical question. However, the question doesn't hold water. This was not only a rhetorical question but also a sarcastic joke. Not aimed at you but just a general statement.

First of all, the freighter will be on radar, and my MARPA system will estimate the CPA, Closest Point of Approach, and the exact time to CPA within a few seconds. In other words, I'm not likely to "misjudge the freighter's speed." If MARPA doesn't get it, AIS surely will. In the old days, I could get the same info from a hand-bearing compass.
Wow, but thats you. And all I have to use is my radio and my eyesight. My RADAR crapped out a long time ago and never did replace it.

Second, if the freighter's course brings it to a closer CPA than I'm comfortable with, I will contact the freighter, make certain he's aware of my presence, and request his intentions. I will do so on VHF 13.
If you are so wrapped up in this whole COLREGS thing, you shouldn't have to call him up. Once you did call him up, you could have agreed to any crossing plan you wanted to. I assume you told him you were maintining course and speed and he would have to alter course, which you already knew and he already knew. I don't know where you sail, but in our area, the international hailing frequency is VHF 16.

I've done this dozens and dozens of times in open water, and EVERY TIME the freighter/tanker/container ship has altered course appropriately if I was the stand-on vessel, which I usually am when under sail on the open ocean.

This is how the system works. The remarkable thing is: the system works. I'm astonished that someone who claims to have a 100-ton masters ticket is advocating blatant disregard for this system. It works, and you are doing cruisers a disservice by suggesting alternative systems based upon irrational fears that freighters are hell-bent on running us down.

What I cant understand is your total lack of reading comprehension. When radio communication is established and agreed upon well in advance there is no blatant disregard for the system. I don't have an irrational fear of being run down, I'm just taking the easy relaxed way for both of us. You just are not capable of thinking out of the box. I am out sailing for the fun of sailing and if I have to add a grand total of an extra 1/4 mile to my trip and not have to monitor the other boat, I will. My ego is not that great that I have to be the Stand-on vessel. It's just easier and more relaxing for me to aim for his ass.
Let me repeat this for you - radio communication has been established and I wanted to cross his stern and not his bow and we both agreed. Radio communication has been established and I wanted to cross his stern and not his bow and we both agreed. This is perfectly legal. This what I want to do. You are doing cruisers a disservice by letting them think that there is no other way to cross to the other side. If you are crossing their stern and they know in advance that you will be crossing their stern there is no problem. I called them on the radio to let them know I intended to cross their stern. It's done all of the time. He don't have to do anything. All I have to do is aim for his stern, I dont even have to adjust my speed.
Is there a rule that says I cant contact the other vessel and arrange for crossing his stern? If there is, please let me know.