Dismasted by an aircraft carrier

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Olorin

OK, my story……

We were motoring up towards the Chesapeake where it opens to the Atlantic Ocean on a stormy day. We decided to turn 180 degrees to return to Norfolk, Virginia because of the inclement weather. I had seen a vessel off in the distance towards the Atlantic which had what looked like large overhangs fore and aft, heading north.

About five minutes later we were hailed on VHF channel 16 by "Warship 69" and asked to respond on another VHF channel. Once on the new communications channel we were told that we were bearing “Zero, Zero, Zero” on their radar. The comms officer stated “as we are restricted in our ability to maneuver”, they ”respectfully request that we leave the channel”.

Looking astern I saw the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) about 250 meters away and closing fast. What I thought were fore and aft overhangs were the overhangs of the flight deck. They were heading west, not north. Of course, we complied with their request. As we were turning, an inflatable about as long as our 40’ catamaran came roaring up and sheepishly repeated the request while acknowledging that we were already clear of the channel.

Using the correct radio protocol, citing the col regs rationale for their request and the polite, reasonable request they made was handled with the utmost professionalism by the crews of the Ike and the coastguard chase vessel.

I was in the wrong making rookie mistakes in the presence of trained and dedicated professionals. There was no threatening word or gesture. No-one was blown out of the water.

We should all aspire to this level of competence, regardless the size and firepower of our vessels.

Nice POST.

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by ob44

The aircraft carrier at 25 kts (or more) would close 7.5 miles in 15 minutes, during which time the solo sailor could have been making tea and visiting the head.

^ This.

From the point of view of the safety of a sailboat skipper, forget for a moment about what's happening on the carrier.

If you don't have something or someone loud enough to alert you that something that big and that fast is that close, you're asking for trouble. The T-Rex they're carrying from Isola Gorda could've devoured the entire crew, for all you know.

Crossing the outer approach shipping lanes to Boston and Portland in the 50 feet of visibility that can descend on you suddenly when you're offshore in the summer months, regardless of the forecast, equals ten miles of nail biting without AIS.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ob44

1. COLREGS. Overtaking vessel SHALL give way.
WHich was the overtaking vessel? That is not apparent from the press reports.

3. 14 U.S.C. § 91. The Coast Guard has established temporary regulations for the safety and security of U.S. naval vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. The regulation is issued under the authority contained in Naval Vessel Protection Zones and provides for the regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity of U.S. naval vessels in the navigable waters of the United States. Applies to US VESSELS in US WATERS.
Why quote this? Neither vessle was US and it was not in US waters.

4. The protection zone of 14 USC 91 applies to vessels APPROACHING a US Naval vessel. It does not (and could not) apply to a 25+ knot military vessel overtaking a 7-knot sailing vessel.
Again, only relevant to US vessels in US waters, not to this case. How do you know the vessel speeds?

5. In clear daylight, a solo sailor would scan visually the forward horizon every so often and likely not look at his radar at all. The aircraft carrier at 25 kts (or more) would close 7.5 miles in 15 minutes, during which time the solo sailor could have been making tea and visiting the head.
We know what he was doing from the reports. He was "sitting quietly in the saloon". Inexcusable behaviour where he was - halfway between France and Corsica.

6. We all know the law of gross tonnage: stay away from ships and commercial vessels regardless of privileged status. In this case, the solo sailor could possibly have had better situational awareness, but the carrier was the burdened vessel.

Your Point 6 reveals a severe lack of knowledge of COLREGs

"Law of gross tonnage" - no such thing. Fail
"privileged" - no such thing. Fail
"burdened" - no such thing. Fail

And also ignores the facts:

"The boat was sailing under power and a reduced mainsail"
IOW it was a power driven vessel, just like the aircarft carrier and just as likely to be the "give way" vessel.



And with a reduced mainsal it would have been even less obvious visually.

[Franziska]

Originally Posted by StuM

Your Point 6 reveals a severe lack of knowledge of COLREGs

"Law of gross tonnage" - no such thing. Fail
"privileged" - no such thing. Fail
"burdened" - no such thing. Fail

And also ignores the facts:

"The boat was sailing under power and a reduced mainsail"
IOW it was a power driven vessel, just like the aircarft carrier and just as likely to be the "give way" vessel.



And with a reduced mainsal it would have been even less obvious visually.

The following is said amicable and may not directly apply here as we can not be sure about why the small vessels skipper found himself in that situation. We lack background info.

Still, while you are technically right about the law, it practically seems foolish not to adhere to a certain perceived law of gross tonnage.

Personally I would never really argue with a very much larger commercial vessel about right of way.
I'd talk to them, but I would not argue to the point that I'd stand on. If in doubt I would give them way.

[goboatingnow]

This has really nothing to do with the COLREGS because being DEAD right isn’t a useful point of view.

The carrier may not have seen or detected the sailing boat for Any number of very valid reasons nor do the COLRegs says you “ must see “ everyone.

The onus exists on both parties to prevent collision. The carrier tried. There is no evidence the sailboat did.

And lastly my favourite mantra “ never stand on into danger “.

The fact is the sailing boat under power was simply not looking out and was lucky to survive.

The incident took place off Hyres as I understand , French warship in French national waters.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The sailboat skipper was completely in the wrong. Warships have exclusion zones. If they had detected him they probably would have fired on him !!

Never seen that in the Colregs.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Siberian Sea

Aircraft carriers take half the ocean to turn and the other half to stop.

You've clearly never driven a destroyer in plane-guard station. They are remarkably nimble for their size. Very unlike similarly-sized commercial vessels.

[tp12]

Again, people quoting colregs are missing the point that if there’s a collision both are at fault - it’s just the responsibility split that’s yet to be determined.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by tp12

Again, people quoting colregs are missing the point that if there’s a collision both are at fault - it’s just the responsibility split that’s yet to be determined.

The determination of “ fault “ is largely academic. Not much point in being faultless and dead for example or being 20% at fault and dead etc.

It’s more an issue of common sense keeping you alive.

Was it a good idea to get into close quarters with an extremely large warship.

No it wasn’t. End of deliberation.

[AJ_n_Audrey]

Originally Posted by chrisr

how in the world can ANY ship...let alone a warship with sensors and lookouts to burn...suddenly only see a reasonable size yacht just moments before a collision ! imagine it was a terrorist suicide bomber !!

defies understanding

somebody should be joining the american sub skipper in retirement...

cheers,

Ask the officers on the USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain how it could happen. At least in this case, no one was killed.

[Cadence]

Yep, there is no law of gross tonnage. If you want to argue COLregs with something the size of a carrier, have at it when your in that situation. It takes the, proverbial 40 acres, for them to alter course.
He is lucky as hell he is not chum. Maybe he will stand a sufficient watch in the future. Radar only looking forward? Maybe he was afraid of running into and sinking a carrier at his a few knots. Of course that is facetious.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The determination of “ fault “ is largely academic. Not much point in being faultless and dead for example or being 20% at fault and dead etc.

It’s more an issue of common sense keeping you alive.

Was it a good idea to get into close quarters with an extremely large warship.

No it wasn’t. End of deliberation.

It’s not academic at all. The point of the regulation is to make both skippers aware of the fact that they both need to take avoiding action regardless of who is the stand on vessel.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Siberian Sea View
"Aircraft carriers take half the ocean to turn and the other half to stop."

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You've clearly never driven a destroyer in plane-guard station. They are remarkably nimble for their size. Very unlike similarly-sized commercial vessels.

You're comparing the maneuverability of a 10,000 (give or take) ton 'tin can' to a 42,500 ton aircraft carrier?

[Chris31415]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

Originally Posted by Siberian Sea View
"Aircraft carriers take half the ocean to turn and the other half to stop."



You're comparing the maneuverability of a 10,000 (give or take) ton 'tin can' to a 42,500 ton aircraft carrier?

Let’s go to the video tape…

Aerial footage of the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) conducting high speed turns

https://youtu.be/ob2HMH3GnJw

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by zeehag

work of art hitting a huge grey wall.
no is not the fault of the carrier.

I don’t know what the geometry of this accident was but I do know that aircraft carriers are capable of very high speeds so staying away from one may be easier said than done.