Schooner VS Containership

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by requiem

Been that way for nigh on a century, and Wiki claims the US and UK were among the last to switch, doing so in the early '30s.

And there's evidence that this very same mistake lead to the most famous shipwreck of all, just over a century ago. It remained a secret until the Second Officer finally revealed it on his deathbed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ok-claims.html

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

And there's evidence that this very same mistake lead to the most famous shipwreck of all, just over a century ago. It remained a secret until the Second Officer finally revealed it on his deathbed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ok-claims.html

No, your other left!

I find it entertaining / exhilarating to have someone that isn't used to steering with a tiller try to navigate. It not being too unusual to have them say, prepare to tack / come about and then to execute an unexpected jibe / gybe, frequently without a preventer in place or aid of trimming the main to the center to avoid the boom going hard over and the boat heel harshly. The looks afterwards on the crew and passengers to the helmsperson are always precious and so is the sheepish look of the helmsperson.

As to nautical terms, can we [at least in the USA] all jibe, that to gybe or jibe are the same maneuver?

I jive you not.

"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.

He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

quoted by Eric Hiscock in "Cruising Under Sail", Oxford University Press, 1st edn, 1950.

[carstenb]

I've sailed the Elbe with Dockhead a couple of times and the traffic can be difficult to say the least. Whenever we sail in congested waters we always have a VHF at the helm and we use it to call other ships and make sure we both understand each others intentions. Not saying that would have helped in this situation, but it wouldn't have hurt anything to have made contact with the container ship. Of course in those close waters, by the time they see each other, it is too late

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by carstenb

........ Of course in those close waters, by the time they see each other, it is too late

Of course in those close waters it helps if you are on the correct side of the channel....... as required by both the local and international rules....

If you compare the photo of the time of impact that I posted yesterday and compare it with this chart section below you can see the two pylons and a red buoy under the ship's quarter which place Astrosprinter very close to the top left corner of this chartlet... and very close to the edge of the channel at a point where there is simply no water outside the channel.

Meanwhile on the opposite shore there is ample room outside the channel for the schooner.

Ignore the blue lines and arrows... dunno how they got there... measuring something or other and forgot erase...

minor edit... the schooner may well have just tacked out from the viciniyy of Juelssand... just out of pic to the NW...

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, naturally. Even if he was backing down hard, or had the rudder hard over, he will share some of the responsibility for the collision. I have all sympathy for him and it is possible that there was almost nothing he could really do, but he was obligated to do everything possible to avoid the collision and seriously doubt that he will get off without some serious consequences. That's just the way it works.


And it might be worse than that -- that part of the Elbe is pretty deep right up to the banks, so a judge might conclude that he could have come to starboard and avoided the schooner if he'd taken action earlier.






This is a non-sequitur. Of course, what you write is true. But it has nothing to do with the obligation of all vessels to avoid collisions. And if the rule in San Diego is that sailing vessels are not to impede commercial traffic, then commercial shipping will nevertheless be obligated to give way to sail if a risk of collision arises. This is different from the Elbe, where commercial shipping following the channel has actual "right of way".

Nope.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Nope.

What an insightful reply...

perhaps it would help support your statement if you posted the local rules and statutes that set up this unusual situation.

Then we could all say "yep".

Jim

[El Pinguino]

The local rules and statutes have already been posted... several times.

Elbe 5 was struck a glancing blow right frd and sprang a few planks.... if the Astrosprinter had gone to starboard she may well cut her in half with heavy loss of life...

Sometimes standing on is the best thing to do...

You can see in the last photo I posted that contact with the bow of the ship was essentially with the root of the bowsprit... subsequent photos including one taken very recently of her arriving in Hamburg show no serious hull damage. Link here.. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hambu...ierspaltig.jpg

And incidents such as this do not, in most countries, go before a judge who apportions blame, they go before an enquiry which establishes the circumstances... for instance... the MAIB https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...n-branch/about says...
'Our job is to help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring, not to establish blame or liability.'



And in Australia the ATSB https://www.atsb.gov.au/marine.aspx says


'The ATSB is Australia’s national transport safety investigator. Investigations seek to identify safety issues and encourage safety action to reduce the risk of future accidents and incidents.

About

Marine safety

The ATSB Marine Safety Investigation Team, conducts investigations to determine and report on the circumstances and causes of marine incidents.
About marine investigations

The aim is to concentrate ATSB's resources on those investigations considered most likely to enhance maritime safety.'

Here is an example of an investigation..
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...9-mo-2018-002/

Note the following comment ... 'These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.'

As I have stated previously what happens regarding insurance claims is an entirely separate matter.

[El Pinguino]

This is the form British inquiries used to take.... scroll down.... the court back then would quite often suspend a person's certificate Clan Keith (2)

In this case the master also found himself facing a manslaughter charge.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

The local rules and statutes have already been posted... several times.

Elbe 5 was struck a glancing blow right frd and sprang a few planks.... if the Astrosprinter had gone to starboard she may well cut her in half with heavy loss of life...

Sometimes standing on is the best thing to do...

You can see in the last photo I posted that contact with the bow of the ship was essentially with the root of the bowsprit... subsequent photos including one taken very recently of her arriving in Hamburg show no serious hull damage. Link here.. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hambu...ierspaltig.jpg

And incidents such as this do not, in most countries, go before a judge who apportions blame, they go before an enquiry which establishes the circumstances... for instance... the MAIB https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...n-branch/about says...
'Our job is to help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring, not to establish blame or liability.'



And in Australia the ATSB https://www.atsb.gov.au/marine.aspx says


'The ATSB is Australia’s national transport safety investigator. Investigations seek to identify safety issues and encourage safety action to reduce the risk of future accidents and incidents.

About

Marine safety

The ATSB Marine Safety Investigation Team, conducts investigations to determine and report on the circumstances and causes of marine incidents.
About marine investigations

The aim is to concentrate ATSB's resources on those investigations considered most likely to enhance maritime safety.'

Here is an example of an investigation..
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...9-mo-2018-002/

Note the following comment ... 'These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.'

As I have stated previously what happens regarding insurance claims is an entirely separate matter.

Yep, thank you.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Nope.

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Yep, thank you.

The things you say "nope" and "yep" to do not contradict each other.


Methinks you don't actually understand how the rules work.


In any case, what Ping says about standing on sometimes being better -- causing less damage, and/or giving the other vessel a better chance to get away -- is important. But that doesn't mean that the ship is not obligated to avoid the collision -- Ping is saying that sometimes standing on is more effective.



And another thing not mentioned here -- if you've ever stood on the bridge of a commercial vessel in heavy traffic -- at a surprisingly long distance, you can't SEE a small vessel crossing, nor can your radar see it. It is pointless to maneuver if you can't see what you are trying to avoid. Even if you have room to do so.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

This is the form British inquiries used to take.... scroll down.... the court back then would quite often suspend a person's certificate Clan Keith (2)

In this case the master also found himself facing a manslaughter charge.

It's similar in Germany. In this case, the German press are reporting that both captains have been arrested. The container ship was diverted to Brunsbuttel and the VDR was seized. The container ship captain refused to make a statement to police.



It's a very serious matter because people were injured, one seriously.



A criminal case for reckless injury has already been opened against the schooner captain, an 82 year old retired Elbe pilot, and charges against others are being considered.



https://www.mopo.de/hamburg/polizei/...ngen--32677968


https://www.noz.de/lokales/westoverl...n-kapitaen-ein


This is being conducted by the Wasserschutzpolizei and is a separate process from the maritime investigation being done by the BSU: https://www.bsu-bund.de/DE/Aktuelles...ngen_node.html. Note that this case is classified as a "Sehr Schwerer Seeunfall" -- a Very Serious Maritime Accident, the first one of those the BSU has had in more than two years. The results of the investigation will be published here when it's finished, but don't hold your breath -- it will take a while.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The things you say "nope" and "yep" to do not contradict each other.


Methinks you don't actually understand how the rules work.


In any case, what Ping says about standing on sometimes being better -- causing less damage, and/or giving the other vessel a better chance to get away -- is important. But that doesn't mean that the ship is not obligated to avoid the collision -- Ping is saying that sometimes standing on is more effective.



And another thing not mentioned here -- if you've ever stood on the bridge of a commercial vessel in heavy traffic -- at a surprisingly long distance, you can't SEE a small vessel crossing, nor can your radar see it. It is pointless to maneuver if you can't see what you are trying to avoid. Even if you have room to do so.

Methinks thou dost protest far too much and besmirch those you know nothing about.

My Merchant Mariner's Credential and years of service, most of it at sea, show that I understand the rules. I just disagree with your condemnation of the freighter's captain without all the facts.

I have stood watch on the bridge of several large vessels in heavy traffic, enough to know that the freighter in this case could very likely see the schooner. When a vessel pulls out in front of you, there's often little you can do except sound the danger signal and back down. Calling on VHF, choosing to maintain course, sounding the danger signal, and and backing down are all actions to avoid collision.

In hind sight and knowing only what we know, I think the safest course of action was for the schooner to come left, passing the freighter starboard to starboard. That may have been what the schooner's captain intended but his crew either misunderstood his order or didn't know how to do it.

From what I saw here, the smaller, more maneuverable boat should taken early and obvious action to avoid a bigger, less maneuverable commercial vessel in a narrow river, whether there was a "do not impede" order is in place there or not. That's all in my humble opinion (what I think we're supposed to be presenting here) and I won't call you ignorant if you disagree.

Another "known unknown" is other traffic in the area. The maneuvering rules are for two vessels in sight of each other.

As noted on previous threads, when the curmudgeons and "sea lawyers" chime in and start making things up, I'm out. Since you know it all, I'll leave you to it.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And another thing not mentioned here -- if you've ever stood on the bridge of a commercial vessel in heavy traffic -- at a surprisingly long distance, you can't SEE a small vessel crossing, nor can your radar see it. It is pointless to maneuver if you can't see what you are trying to avoid. Even if you have room to do so.

I seem to remember an article (can't remember where - darn it) that showed quite clearly that in a good sized containership or tanker anything less than a nautical mile from your bows is invisible - both to your eyes and your radar. AIS is another matter.

In this case, I have to wonder - did the schooner not have AIS? If it had, why hadn't the skipper paid some attention to it? AIS is really about the most easily used gadget you have on board. Push of a button and you get CPA, TCAP and lots and lots of other information.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I seem to remember an article (can't remember where - darn it) that showed quite clearly that in a good sized containership or tanker anything less than a nautical mile from your bows is invisible - both to your eyes and your radar. AIS is another matter.

In this case, I have to wonder - did the schooner not have AIS? If it had, why hadn't the skipper paid some attention to it? AIS is really about the most easily used gadget you have on board. Push of a button and you get CPA, TCAP and lots and lots of other information.

While I agree with the generally proposition that when you are navigating a vessel that one should keep in mind that another vessel can't or hasn't seen your vessel. This is where good communication practices come into play, e.g., VHF discussion and confirmation of intentions.


Cargo ships are not allowed to have such extended blind spots.

First by the design of the ship and its placement of cargo, see copied Code of Federal Regulations as an example of the required visibility. German law may differ as to visibility requirements.

And second by the requirement to keep a proper lookout, reference Rule 5 of the International Steering and Sailing Rules which nature and location of look out is detailed in the recommendations of the US Coast Guard Navigation Center copied below.

§ 164.15 Navigation bridge visibility.

(a) The arrangement of cargo, cargo gear, and trim of all vessels entering or departing from U.S. ports must be such that the field of vision from the navigation bridge conforms as closely as possible to the following requirements:

(1) From the conning position, the view of the sea surface must not be obscured by more than the lesser of two ship lengths or 500 meters (1640 feet) from dead ahead to 10 degrees on either side of the vessel. Within this arc of visibility any blind sector caused by cargo, cargo gear, or other permanent obstruction must not exceed 5 degrees.
Note: At 10 knots one is traveling 5.144 meters per second.
The Astrosprinter has a length of 142 meters so it should be able to view the water surface at 282 meters ahead. Which if traveling 10 knots would be a distance covered in 54 seconds, lesser time if traveling faster.

(2) From the conning position, the horizontal field of vision must extend over an arc from at least 22.5 degrees abaft the beam on one side of the vessel, through dead ahead, to at least 22.5 degrees abaft the beam on the other side of the vessel. Blind sectors forward of the beam caused by cargo, cargo gear, or other permanent obstruction must not exceed 10 degrees each, nor total more than 20 degrees, including any blind sector within the arc of visibility described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(3) From each bridge wing, the field of vision must extend over an arc from at least 45 degrees on the opposite bow, through dead ahead, to at least dead astern.

(4) From the main steering position, the field of vision must extend over an arc from dead ahead to at least 60 degrees on either side of the vessel.

(b) A clear view must be provided through at least two front windows at all times regardless of weather conditions.

[CGD 85-099, 55 FR 32247, Aug. 8, 1990, as amended by USCG-2006-25150, 71 FR 39211, July 12, 2006]

RULE 5
Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and
hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing
circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation
and of the risk of collision.

US Coast Guard Navigation Center Frequently Asked Questions:

12. When do I need a Look-out?

According to Rule 5, all vessels are responsible for maintaining a proper look-out at all times - this includes one-man crews, unmanned crafts, and recreational boats.

The term look-out implies watching and listening so that he/she is aware of what is happening around the vessel. The emphasis is on performing the action, not on the person. Still, in all but the smallest vessels, the lookout is expected to be an individual who is not the helmsman and is usually located in the forward part of the boat, away from the distractions and noises of the bridge. While no specific location on a vessel is prescribed for the lookout, good navigation requires placement at the point best suited for the purpose of hearing and observing the approach of objects likely to be brought into collision with the vessel.
The size of the vessel and crew effect this answer, however, the emphasis in every legal decision points to the need for a proper, attentive look-out. While the use of radar to evaluate the situation is implied in the requirement to use all available means, that is still understood to be secondary to maintaining a look-out by sight and hearing.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I........ AIS is really about the most easily used gadget you have on board. Push of a button and you get CPA, TCAP and lots and lots of other information.

Gadget indeed....

This collision involved two vessels in clear sight of each other.... and the **small** feeder container ship and the schooner had clear bridge to bridge visibility of each other at all times... you do not need gadgets to avoid collisions in such circumstances.... not if you are keeping any semblence of a decent lookout.