Dismasted by an aircraft carrier

[psk125]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Where did you get the information that CDG wasn't engaged in flight ops?

No mention of flight operations made in government report:
https://www.premar-mediterranee.gouv...s-toulonnaises

Report says the CDG was on a training mission and that the collision will not affect the mission. The report does not say what the training mission was for.

If planes were taking off or landing, the Polish skipper, who was awake but below on his boat, would certainly have heard them over the sound of his own engine well before any collision with the CDG. I have sailed off Hyères and seen jets taking off from and landing at the airbase near there. The planes can be heard from miles away.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by team karst

Can you folks with radar reliably paint sailboats 3 miles out?

No, although sail boats are generally painted intermittently. One of the things I found interesting is that some of the more modern large, FG, power cruisers often don't show. I put it down to the lack of geed metal reflectors and the use of highly curved surfaces.

However many of the new type poly nav markers show up well. I ascrige that to the inclusion of aluminium dust in the poly as an anti UV degradation measure, but I have nothing to support that theory.

[Say10]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No. AIS is great, but it's no substitute at all for a good radar set.


AIS only shows you what is broadcasting, and only shows you based on the data the AIS gets. Radar on the other hand sees, and doesn't lie. AIS and radar are complementary, no kind of substitutes for each other.

Ais is completely different than radar. I’m a private pilot and familiar with this. There’s several versions of AIS, in general it transmits who you are, location, speed and direction. In addition it receives the same and alerts you to proximity and potential collision.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Say10

Ais is completely different than radar. I’m a private pilot and familiar with this. There’s several versions of AIS, in general it transmits who you are, location, speed and direction. In addition it receives the same and alerts you to proximity and potential collision.

I think everyone in this thread is thoroughly familiar with how AIS works.

And yes, it's completely different from radar. That was indeed the point.

What however does being a private pilot have to do with it? You don't have AIS (TCAS and ADS are completely different), nor do you have the same kind of radar we do (yours is for weather, not collision avoidance or navigation). Aircraft collision avoidance is a fundamentally different process from what we do on the sea.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by team karst

Can you folks with radar reliably paint sailboats 3 miles out?

Yes, my radar can reliably paint sailboats even 10 miles out, provided the sea state is reasonable.


Radar reflectors help a lot, but my radar can paint even kayaks and dinghies 3 miles out, so sailboats are generally no problem. The masts are pretty decent targets.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by CyKlop

Let's look at this for a moment... Before we do, disclaimer - I am not and never have been on an AC under way. All my information comes from publicly available documents.


The sailboat was singlehanding. At some point that person has to sleep. Let's also put aside the whole "Is singlehanding a sailboat a good idea" discussion.

Pretend you're the singlehand sailor in question. Before going to sleep, you do a visual look around, and also check your radar. What's the range of either of those? For most of us, our radars have a theoretical limit of about 20 miles. Practically, it's less, but we'll use 20 miles.

You've done your due diligence, checking for other craft around you that might be a problem, and so you lay your head down to take a nap. Not an 8 hour sleep, but a nap.


U.S. Navy (I know, this AC was French, but I have the numbers for the U.S. at my fingertips) admits that their ACs can do 30 knots. between you and me, they can probably do faster, but the published number is 30 knots. Cruising speed is less than that. Let's use 66% of max speed which us... 20 knots.

So from the time you've done your best to assure clear waters around you, to the time of collision could be as little as 1 hour.

Without blaming the collision entirely on the carrier, I would like to know how the AC and all of its escorts (if any, there are rare occasions that an AC is unescorted) missed seeing a sailboat. Sure, a sailboat is not a big target, but they are able to see sea-skimming missiles for Pete's sake, and those are a lot smaller than a sailboat (but hotter, so maybe it's infrared that sees the incoming missiles)

And, no, military ships do not have some mythical ability to declare an exclusion zone around themselves on the high seas according to ColRegs without some other factor being present. So, assuming no aircraft operations active, and they weren't in some other way hampered by depth or similar in their ability to maneuver, they are supposed to keep clear of the sailboat. On the other hand, the sailboat has a responsibility, when it is obvious that the powered boat was not taking action, to perform such actions as necessary to prevent a collision - which they obviously did not do.

A further note about exclusion zones... There is a difference between "We require that you do not approach us else we may initiate defensive actions" and "We're catching up to/crossing you. Get out of our way or else we may fire upon you." It's a case of who is initiating the approach. The first is somewhat understandable. The second is pure arrogance (in the absence of things like launching/recovering aircraft) A 6 or even 12 knot sailboat is no threat to the warships. And, yes, I know they don't know it's a sailboat, for the most part, but they DO know it's a small boat that's moving pretty slowly.

By the way, sailboats don't have to get out of the way of commercial ships either except for ferries or vessels that are participating in a traffic separation scheme (which aren't present on the high seas), or else the usual other caveats.

Note that within their own territorial waters a country can make additional rules.

Upshot? Although both ships are "wrong" because a collision occurred, and the sailboat obviously did not have a clear watch stationed, the warship was, in my opinion, "More wrong". Of course, there's always the matter of, "Ummm, if we collide, I'm the one that's going to sink, so pardon me while I get out of your way" unwritten rules of being a rational sailor too...

The ‘sailboat’ was motorsailing so for collision avoidance purposes is considered to be a motorboat. I don’t know what the geometry leading up to this collision was but it doesn’t really matter because ultimately both the stand on and give way vessels are obligated to be keeping a watch and to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision and it’s pretty clear that neither had an adequate watch and neither did whatever it took to avoid a collision.

Some posters seem to be laboring under the misconception that large vessels aren’t apt to see you and can’t/won’t alter course to avoid you if you are the stand on vessel but that’s just not true. On a recent east coast delivery of my own boat during which we crossed the traffic lanes leading into Boston, Long Island Sound, New York, and the Chesapeake we contacted and were contacted by large commercial ships numerous times to arrange or confirm crossings and it wasn’t at all unusual for them to offer to either speed up or alter course, and I did the same. In every case where I called a commercial ship it was obvious that he knew right where I was and already knew what our CPA was and seemed respectful of my desire to keep that at least a mile. All very courteous and businesslike. Of course many of them seem to be using English as a second or third language so occasionally I had to ask them to repeat, which they did and the necessary info was exchanged. But my point is that despite their much greater size they want to avoid a collision just as much as you do, and they are intimately familiar with the rules of the road and expect both themself and hopefully you to follow them.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

No, although sail boats are generally painted intermittently. One of the things I found interesting is that some of the more modern large, FG, power cruisers often don't show. I put it down to the lack of geed metal reflectors and the use of highly curved surfaces.

However many of the new type poly nav markers show up well. I ascrige that to the inclusion of aluminium dust in the poly as an anti UV degradation measure, but I have nothing to support that theory.

It is possible that my radar might better show the targets I describe as difficult in the post above if I switched it over to a setting which allowed me to increase the sensitivity.

[jtsailjt]

Lots of discussion of radar vs AIS regarding their usefulness in avoiding collisions. Using them both is ideal because they are so different from each other. I’ve used radar my whole life and am accustomed to the old school method of analyzing the drift as a target progresses down the screen but my new radar has the ability to lock onto targets and predict how close our crossing will be. PFM! [emoji4] But one thing I’ve already learned to consider is the sea state because my radars ability to predict the path of a target is severely degraded when my boat is moving around a lot due to large seas. But the AIS was relatively unaffected by this and in all sea state conditions did a good job of consistently and accurately predicting crossings. So especially in rough conditions I’d be very careful about depending solely on the magic built into your modern radar if you also have AIS available to you. In fact I’d never turn off my AIS unless navigating a crowded harbor where AIS alarms were constant and visibility was good.

[team karst]

Perhaps sailing will join the list of many other transport modes where positive controls are imposed. Planes, trains, cars etc.
An inevitable result of speed, congestion, and our quest for greater safety.
Does anyone here think the AIS 65’ rule will not reduce to 50’, 35’…

[Chris31415]

Maybe all manned vessels will be required to have a swarm of drones to constantly look for potential dangers. Thing like like logs, whales, containers and of course aircraft carriers.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

The ‘sailboat’ was motorsailing so for collision avoidance purposes is considered to be a motorboat. I don’t know what the geometry leading up to this collision was but it doesn’t really matter because ultimately both the stand on and give way vessels are obligated to be keeping a watch and to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision and it’s pretty clear that neither had an adequate watch and neither did whatever it took to avoid a collision.. . .

After a quarter-thousand posts on this case, finally someone has written a perfect one paragraph summary of the situation.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Lots of discussion of radar vs AIS regarding their usefulness in avoiding collisions. Using them both is ideal because they are so different from each other.

That's exactly it. Depending on the conditions, each tool can potentially tell you something the other one can't.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by mlspadaro

My guess is that the sailor was sleeping. He should’ve heard something. However, although the above message is correct, a collision can easily happen within 15 minutes of a ship appearing over the horizon going cruising speed. If you don’t spot it quickly, take the time needed to determine if you’re on a collision course, and change that course quickly, a collision can occur. It all happens relatively quickly with one fast-moving vessel and one slow moving vessel that’s hard to see From a high Bridge and on the radar.

He has his motor on and was below. He probably couldn’t hear anything

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Say10

Ais is completely different than radar. I’m a private pilot and familiar with this. There’s several versions of AIS, in general it transmits who you are, location, speed and direction. In addition it receives the same and alerts you to proximity and potential collision.

The difference is it is mandated for planes but not boats. Is it only IFR or is it also for VFR that must transmit?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Lots of discussion of radar vs AIS regarding their usefulness in avoiding collisions. Using them both is ideal because they are so different from each other. I’ve used radar my whole life and am accustomed to the old school method of analyzing the drift as a target progresses down the screen but my new radar has the ability to lock onto targets and predict how close our crossing will be. PFM! [emoji4] But one thing I’ve already learned to consider is the sea state because my radars ability to predict the path of a target is severely degraded when my boat is moving around a lot due to large seas. But the AIS was relatively unaffected by this and in all sea state conditions did a good job of consistently and accurately predicting crossings. So especially in rough conditions I’d be very careful about depending solely on the magic built into your modern radar if you also have AIS available to you. In fact I’d never turn off my AIS unless navigating a crowded harbor where AIS alarms were constant and visibility was good.

A good post and the hammer contacted the nail head right in the middle of it's driving face.

If you can afford both, have both and you will find that each has it's limitations however using both together pretty well provides "as good as it gets" for collision avoidance. If you can only afford one or the other having now had experience with the dopler radar, I'd opt for the radar.