Freighters vs. Sailboats

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think you are the most knowledgeable and experienced in these matters of all the "yachters" in this thread, and I have learned a tremendous amount from you. But I have to disagree with you here.

thanks for the complement, Id say there are many here who know their onions.

We have heard a number of professional mariners say that they don't maneuver sooner than 4-5 miles, or sometimes 2-3 miles, or maybe not at all, because they can't predict what the hell we will do, and the maneuver will just be wasted if it is done so far ahead.

I take that comment with a grain of salt, in my experience, having contacted ships, aside from good bright calm days, they mostly dont see me to actually navigate around me. That is a failure under the COLREGS, while I do what I can to be visible they must also maintain active lookouts, Ive been on the bridges of many ships, the quality of lookouts is often very poor and many are just "radar jockeys". The COLREGS are not optional, the ship , under current regs, MUST maneuver ( and must continue to maneouver even if the risk of collision continues). COLREGS nevers allows the give-way vessel the option to "do nothing", yet thats what mostly actually happens

This seems to me a very legitimate point, and I would guess that the main cause of unpredictable behavior by WAFIs is that are sailing along fat, dumb and happy paying no attention to the ship on the horizon, until suddenly the ship is right HERE, and then they employ their brilliant "just run away" tactics and maneuver who the hell knows in what direction, probably in a panic.

nobody I sail with takes that attitude, maybe some weekend warriors around the Solent, anyone with any experience watches for shipping all the time. its the most dangerous thing out there,

The ship's bridge cannot calculate a maneuver when dealing with such WAFIs, so they wait until the sailboat is too close to maneuver back into the way, then make a hard turn. This whole situation is a direct result of the failure of WAFI's to identify collision risks in time, and of the erroneous and dangerous idea of some that you don't need to do or know anything, but just steer out of the way when danger is already obvious.

Sorry, we disagree here big time, Neither stand on or give way is absolved of responsibilities, Hence the ship MUST maneovuer, thats is what expected of him under the COLREGS. The problem is far too many merchant vessels ignore sailing yachts either through lack of identification or deliberate decision.

The give way vessel, cannot under COLREGS, sorta take the view well this guy approaching in his blowbote is an idiot and Ill ignore him, thats nonsense and the merchant men arguing it are merely suiting themselves.

Remember that the stand-on vessel is also obligated to keep a sharp watch, identify these risks, and hold course and speed when a risk of collision appears, and prepare to take action if the give-way vessel doesn't manuever in time. Standing on is not a passive activity -- it is not like having any kind of right of way.

no body said it was, for most sailers being the stand-on vessel, means we're the only vessel taking action. Im the one running CPA's trying the VHF etc, the other guys on autopilot, ay 20knts, with his S-Band on 40 mile range!!

If a majority of blowboaters understood basic anti-collision maneuvering and followed the rules, and stood on on a steady course and speed, I believe the professional guys would behave differently.

AGh, Seriously Dockhead, have you actually encountered many vessels. Sure stand on and see what happens, ( well dont actually I like to see your posts and being in a watery grave aint going to help that!).

Turning circles and stopping distances certainly are relevant, because they define the point at which the merchant vessel can no longer take effective action -- a point which is significant under the Colregs, by the way. Because of turning circles and stopping distances, if a "just run away" type WAFI turns under the bow a couple of cables off, there is really nothing whatsover they can do but pray that the WAFI turns back, and under the Colregs the WAFI is now entirely responsible for the situation.

Sorry COLREGS offers no solace, it does not recognize those limits. you MUST maneuver unless you are in a special category. The ship must be conned in such a manner as to ensure that these course changes can be done. THIS unfortunately is NOT what happens. Hence WAFIs quickly realise its a fool errands to "Stand on".

Speed hardly helps, because large vessels lose effective steerage at speeds higher than most sailboats' hull speeds.

Nonsense, its aint my problem if the design of the ship is faulty, THE COLREGS require a "safe" speed so that " so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision" NO buts OR ifs.

I do agree with your conclusion however -- the Colregs should really be changed, specifically Rule 18. Sailing vessels under 20 meters should "keep out of the way" of motor vessels big enough to require two masthead lights (that is, 50 meters or more), and we should not be required (or allowed) to stand on in encounters with such vessels. It just doesn't make any sense. So large commercial vessels should hold their course and speed and it should be up to us steer a course to pass well behind them.

Exactamundo.. thats actually what I was working to. The fact is that custom and practice on the high seas is to (a) run as fast as the boss wants, (b) drive by radar jockey, AIS,etc and (b) whats thats spec of light out there, ah forget bout it.

The reality is commercial shipping either through systems neglect or deliberate action ignores sailboats. Lets realize that and change the COLREGS.

It would be far easier for me, if I can assume that the Ship Im plotting will take not a blind notice of me, and will plough straight on ignoring my presence. I can "jig about" to me hearts content. Equally I can plot a CPA and know that this isnt the 1-in-10 ship that actually applies the course change and freaks me out.

For this to work, we will need to learn how to determine collision risks earlier (but we need to anyway). Maybe AIS should be required for recreational vessels -- for the hopelessly clueless among us, particularly for those of us who wilfully insist on remaining clueless, at least there will be an alarm. AIS will also make it possible for the merchant vessel to call a WAFI who has failed to take early and sufficient action, to encourage the WAFI to, for example, "turn 90 degrees starboard, you fool!".

In 30 years of sailing , Ive only once been called by a ship unsolicited ( he just was lonely and my AIS transponder info intrigued him!).

The main benefit from changing the rules, is that it brings into the rules, the effective actual practicethats exists and hence code-ifies the actions, hence both merchant man and sailer would suddenly be within the rules and compliant, in fact you need less AIS, because were not trying to be the bloddy "stand-on " vessel anymore ( while getting run down).


Dave