Freighters vs. Sailboats

[Surfer Girl]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I guess I have also reached the point in this thread where there is the blue camp and the ed camp and I cant for the life ofmme figure who is trying to make what point.

Yep. Going in circles, a bit like a rudderless yacht.... which is why I bailed this thread.
Crossing vessels - such a simple, everyday occurrence on the water...
So many over analysed, over complex posts.....

The horse is dead guys; it's been flogged to death!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I have been discussing managing crossing situations with 10 professional ship captains and have learned a lot of surprising things which I will write up and post later.

One of the things I learned is that it is a great frustration for them that we have such poor navigation lights. They recommend -- as something near the top of the list (!) of things for us to do, to make encounters with ships safer and easier for them -- installing the most powerful navigation lights we can buy, making sure the lenses are clean, etc., etc. They also recommend sailing with our spreader lights on so that our sails are lit up.

That would be a very interesting post when you get it written up, thanks in advance. When I was cruising a lot of the ocean crossing boats would sail with a single all round white (usually anchor light). It would be interesting to her some ships captains view on viability of white vs tricolour offshore.

Not so sure about spreader lights though, would play havoc with your night vision.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

No, implications are NOT the "meaning of the matter." An implication is an EXTENSION of what the reader FEELS the speaker said. It's extremely easy for one person to see implications in something that another does not, because it's a judgment call. It is NOT the straightforward meaning, but a judgment of what ELSE the statement might lead to. MIGHT, depending on who is doing the reading.

People see implications according to their own personal biases.

In other words, it's reading inbetween the lines. It's making assumptions based on what someone said, but it's NOT what the person actually said, and it's happening here over and over and over.

Person A says something. Person B reads inbetween the lines and remembers (sometimes remembers ONLY) what he or she THINKS the person meant, and then criticizes what B thought up while reading what A actually said -- often quite harshly.

Then person A is upset because he or she has been skewered for something A never said, and in A's mind, also did NOT imply.

For myself, I try VERY hard to say exactly what I mean. As a one-time professional writer I'm reasonably good at it, but repeatedly a handful of people here have decided I meant something else, or seen "implications" that outraged or upset them in some way -- and then skewered me for what I did NOT say and never would have said.

It would be soooo much better if people would just ask first: "Are you implying such and so?" Very often the answer would be "No, that's not what I meant at all." But people *don't* ask. They assume and then go off on a rant.

Often what person B feels has been implied is actually taking what person A said and stretching it into a logical absurdity, which person B then applies -- erroneously -- to A's beliefs.

To get in a flap over what someone sees as an implication on a message board is really frustrating because this is just casual discussion. No one here is writing a college essay for an English class that they know will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb; but that's often what happens here. 90% of the disagreements here would disappear if people would ask before assuming that they've spotted some terrible implication.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

"Pissy" is also in the eye of the beholder. I'm not "arguing semantics," by the way -- you are. I don't even particularly recognize your screen name. I have nothing against you whatsoever, but if you have been reading inbetween my lines and responding to things I didn't say, then yeah, I will come back and do the best I can to clarify. It's a funny thing about seeing "implications" -- those who see them never seem to see positive ones.

There are no "colregs" for writing posts. It's so much better when people clarify before making assumptions.

[Rakuflames]

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.

I always cross at the stern, 'cuz I know there's no way I'll get hit that way.

But i have an advantage here. There's plenty of room to maneuver around our shipping channels here and no reason to be in the same space as a bigger boat. Not all waters are that easy.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Tony B

OK, If i called him on the radio in a round about way COLREGS already kicked in. And your point being?

Swinging an extremely large radius arc isn't always possible if you are really close hauled, I agree. It has never been a problem before for me, If It were to be, I would just fall off a little and become the stand-on vessel and cross his bow as you would do. Obviously, I would know this well in advance and would not have ever even called to make any other than normal crossing arrangements. I question the idea of crosing anothers bow when close hauled tight enough that I couldn't make an emergenncy turn.

My point is that you stated colregs doesn't apply if the other vessel doesn't have to manoeuvre for you - that is simply incorrect. In your mind, colregs might not be in effect, but on the bridge of the freighter colregs are in effect - and have been since he first determined that a risk of collision existed.

There is nothing wrong with calling the guy early in the engagement and telling him you'll go under his stern. Inland regs refer to this:

34(h) A vessel that reaches agreement with another vessel in a head-on, crossing, or overtaking situation, as for example, by using the radiotelephone as prescribed by the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act (85 Stat. 164; 33 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), is not obliged to sound the whistle signals prescribed by this Rule, but may do so. If agreement is not reached, then whistle signals shall be exchanged in a timely manner and shall prevail.

The take-away from this rule, is that if agreement on a passing can't be achieved on radio, then the steering and sailing rules shall prevail. This also presupposes that everyone on the radio speaks English - out in the open ocean you may not be so lucky to speak with someone who understands you. This is why many maritime organizations around the world discourage the use of VHF to make passing arrangements.

I'm confused by your statement about becoming the stand-on vessel (highlit above) - if you alter course by falling off, then you aren't standing on. Perhaps I've misinterpreted; could you explain please?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

To get in a flap over what someone sees as an implication on a message board is really frustrating because this is just casual discussion.

Such as:

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No kidding!

PLEASE tell me where I EVER said at what point ANYONE should take "avoiding action." PLEASE don't decide I meant something I didn't say, and then tell me where to go to correct what I didn't say.

Sheesh!

As a one-time professional writer, you should know the difference between imply and infer. If I read something, I can infer a subtextual meaning - I might rightly infer the meaning implied by the author, or I might wrongly infer a meaning that was never implied by the author.

End of lesson.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This also presupposes that everyone on the radio speaks English - out in the open ocean you may not be so lucky to speak with someone who understands you. This is why many maritime organizations around the world discourage the use of VHF to make passing arrangements.

I have never heard of this. Do you have a reference?

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

- Pass astern - I have no problem with that when I am give way. When I am sure to be clear I will pass in front. So will I. It's only when I'm on a course where it looks like we will intersect and possibly collide. This is extremely rare in the open. Tony B
I must if I am to ever get across the strait. If it is close I may make a positive turn (60-90^) to specifically make him pass.
Now, according to others on here, you will be cast into COLREGS hell because you are OBLIGATED to maintain course and speed because you are the stand-on. I agree totally with your maneuver, except I choose to cross his stern. As long as you somehow signal them what your intentions. The major maneuver is a legitimate move. I choose an alternate - the VHF.

Radio hail - in "lonely" situations I would consider using the radio but where I sail there are way to many targets to sort this out, I am also a pilot. The analogy is having every pilot be air traffic control making up their own custom arrivals to an airport. Cant work in busy situations.
I stated numerous times, just me and the big guy and no one else in sight. Totally diferent situation in channels and fairways.

the arc idea - I personally would never use it. You can (and probably will) argue it is not a series of small turns, in violaiton of the reg you cite in your next post, but it is a series of small and subject to misinterpretation turns in my view. Granted your "exception" is that you hailed and agreed to this situation. You would not even notice I was sailing an arc. To you, it would appear that I was bearing straight down on you.
The regs work. I agree. By me coming in behind you instead of crossing your bow is where the radio comes in. Would this be any more of 'custom' signal than if you are being passed on your port side and you move to starboard a little to give the other guy more room? After all, you are 'obligated' to keep course and speed, so then you would be breaking the rules even though there was no one or any chance of anyone coming up on your starboard?
.

Anyway, the above is my arguement.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

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

Mine was
the stand-on
vessel.
I protest.

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

"..............
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!"

Quite an interesting sub thread running here!

For the sake of clarity can Raku please tell me if she inferred or implied or otherwise interpreted that the epitaph was a joke because Starbuck did not say it was. It is certainly difficult when someone doesn't just take the post as gospel.

And please, don't anyone infer that I am bringing religion into this thread with the word "gospel"; it isn't implied, I am just using in another sense, some of you will know what I mean, others won't And oh, don't take the devil icon thingy to mean anything sinister either; even if the word "sinister" has "difficult" overtones

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by David M

I have never heard of this. Do you have a reference?

David - It is discussed in this thread and post. It is discouraged in the UK.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1038862

[MacG]

By whom?

In any case not over here. I can understand that in summertime in the Solent it might be different cook.
This is however comparing apples and pears. There are very few sailing yachts on this part of the North Sea and different attitudes therefore apply. See the 2 VHF sets for the Belgiums. Ports cannot entered w/o the operational availability.
That licenses are required is logical. That, however is not the current issue.

[MacG]

By whom?

I can understand that in summertime in the Solent such communications are not really appreciated.
However in this part of the North Sea circumstances are different. Very few sailing yachts on the water and that even in summer. Not comparable with the number of certain parts of the UK.
See the Belgium requirements for the operational availability of 2 vhf sets. There you see that a different attitude is clearly propagated. Same for Holland, where the very heavy traffic requires immediate communication when the situation asks for it.
Same for the IJmuiden area - approaches to Amsterdam.

Any instructor demotivating the use of a vhf set if situation requires so should be re-examined.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Tony B

In channels or shiping lanes we have no choice but to intermingle and interface with large vessels. This is pretty much understood.
Open water is a totally diferent story. I have crossed the Gulf of Mex many times and lived in the Carribbean for a short while. 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. You can be the Stand-on vessel and 100% legal in what you do but why do it? Just to excercise your right? ...............
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.

Originally Posted by sloopygirl

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

Back to the main thread

@ Tony & sloopygirl

I half agree with you, there are many times that you don't have to get close in open water and yet there are times when getting close has distinct advantages. Let me relate two different real life events.

1. I used to sail out of Moreton Bay, Brisbane, Australia; I would be out for a day sail and see big ships approaching Brisbane port. Ships coming from the sea would always be heading for the fairway buoy marking the entrance to the shipping channels in the bay. I would see a ship maybe 5+ miles away and I would just change course to stay well away from their known track. It was simple, just turn away and sail in a another direction away from the where they were going until they had well and truly passed. A case of stay away from big ships, no CRs involved (as far as I was concerned).

2. Sailing from Brisbane (Australia) to Auckland (New Zealand), a 2 week voyage. About 5 days out, we were close hauled pushing into a 20+ kts South Easterly that was expected to develop to around 30 kts (and it did, plus some). We had left the east coast shipping lanes behind a few days back and weren't expecting much traffic and the previous traffic hadn't caused any concerns.

The skipper was at the wheel (no autopilot) around midnight when he first saw ship lights probably about 10 miles away. The lights came and went as we moved through the Tasman sea swells but after awhile, he became concerned that it may be a possible close crossing. He called me up to assist as it was difficult to steer and take bearings at the same time. At around 6 or so miles, it became clear that we were on a potential collision course. We tried the VHF and got no response. At this stage we could have altered course but it was to our distinct advantage not to. To bear away would cost us hard won miles to windward and to tack was even worse. We were the stand on vessel and so i.a.w. the CRs, we stood on.

Around four miles, we knew we were on a collision course and we knew our lights were good at 4 miles. We had had previous confirmation of that our lights could be seen at this distance and that our radar return was strong.

At this time, we turned on the deck lights and put a spotlight onto the mainsail. We also tried the VHF again and received no response from the now clearly visible freighter. At around 2 miles it seem clear that either we had not been seen or that we were being ignored as the stand on vessel. We were still close hauled and on a collision course. Still we stood on and around 1 mile, we acted i.a.w. the CRs and tacked to pass under his stern.

Leaving it any later would have put us potentially in his lee and that is not a good thing. Altering course 3 or 4 miles away would have contravened the CRs and changing course 8 or more miles would have cost us windward miles.

As soon as we were clear, we tacked again to be on the favourable board, doused all the lights (except the running lights), noted the encounter in the log and I took the next trick at the wheel and the skipper had a kip. At no time did the freighter alter course or speed.

The point being that the CRs were followed to the letter (by us), we did not put ourselves into danger and we did not lose any real ground to our lee.

So it it horses for courses, the main thing is to be sure one has a good seaman-like reason for any action one takes when sharing the water with others.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MacG

B

Any instructor demotivating the use of a vhf set if situation requires so should be re-examined.

I do use the vhf to communicate with other vessels when assessing situations. I have done so in both coastal and blue water environments. Our VTS is established to do exactly that among the required participants.