Sailing vessel and RORO ship on collision courses - what do you think of the outcome?

[Rennsail]

I for one, would rather be alive and technically wrong, than dead and technically correct.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Open water, not open ocean. The crossing took place 5 miles to the NE of Tiritiri Matangi. We were still 5+ miles outside the Auckland Harbour limits. You can see our course adjustment if you zoom in.



I say again, I was not challenging the ship, nor trying to assert my imaginary right of way.

For those saying I should have altered course earlier, what about the earlier ships? .

I don’t think you did anything wrong and if you didn’t come close to colliding you probably altered course soon enough. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, based on my understanding of what you were seeing, I think you and the RORO would both have benefited from talking on the radio to clarify both of your expectations and either you or he could have initiated this. That said, I’ve been there too when in a situation where the other vessel should be altering course but doesn’t and you keep thinking he MUST be about to alter, but suddenly you realize you’re getting closer to him than you wish you were. It can definitely sneak up on you. So when you first start (or even earlier) to wonder why he hasn’t altered yet, I think it’s good practice to call him on the radio and clarify what sort of crossing you’re both envisioning so you can then both stop worrying and wondering about what the other guy is up to, long before you, especially as the stand on vessel, have to make a late and large course alteration.

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

You are confusing a specific situation with a general discussion.

I'm not sure I'm confusing anything. I'm merely, and solely discussing the OP's situation as presented.

However, I think you've succinctly hit upon why this thread appears so hot. Half of the posters are approaching the discussion from the OP's specific situation. The other half are approaching the discussion from a more general 'Col Reg's' perspective.

[onestepcsy37]

Originally Posted by Rennsail

I for one, would rather be alive and technically wrong, than dead and technically correct.

He was right, dead right, as he sailed along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

I'm not sure why people keep posting snippets from other random sites (and/or their own interpretation) when official links to the COLREGS have been posted multiple times.

The COLREGS are very clear and risk of collision is clearly defined!
(and there are not multiple factors, but only one!)

...

Rule 7 - Risk of Collision

(d)
In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:

(i)
such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;

Informed commentary can be relevant; courts often look to outside experts and past precedent when interpreting the law. At least for the UK and other jurisdictions, courts have held that if such a potential collision is sufficiently distant in time and space, then one cannot reasonably consider risk of collision to yet apply. After all, should a sailing boat exiting a marina through a channel temporarily bind all other ships within visual range that happen to have a converging course, even many miles away? Would that same sailing boat be bound to stay on that course until it has determined that all those other ships have first given way or otherwise gone about their business? I am told that the 1972 Conference rejected a proposed definition that would simply project out courses and speeds to see if they intersected near the same point, for precisely this reason.

As a bit of trivia, Rule 7(d) is a restatement of the preliminary to the Steering and Sailing Rules of 1960, which stated "Risk of collision can, when circumstances permit, be ascertained by carefully watching the compass bearing of an approaching vessel. If the bearing does not appreciably change, such risk should be deemed to exist."

Finally, I'd call attention to the phrase "the following considerations shall be among those taken into account". This phrasing does not indicate an exhaustive list, merely that good judgement is to be applied and that those items are of special import. It does not indicate particular distances, speeds, states of visibility, or any algorithm to relate them. Apart from 7(d), it is about as precisely defined as "a narrow channel".

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Open water, not open ocean. The crossing took place 5 miles to the NE of Tiritiri Matangi. We were still 5+ miles outside the Auckland Harbour limits. You can see our course adjustment if you zoom in.



I say again, I was not challenging the ship, nor trying to assert my imaginary right of way.

For those saying I should have altered course earlier, what about the earlier ships? Oh yeah, earlier than them. If so, I would have ended up at Kawau, the larger island to the north, and they, having manoeuvred correctly, would have seen me altering course right at them.

Attachment 232258

These weren’t ferries, nor were they in a shipping lane, nor were they moving at top speed. All three ships went on to anchor to wait for space at the port.

There are those saying WAY TOO CLOSE. I called on VHF, and altered course, when I judged it to be appropriate in the circumstances. There was no danger at any point of us hitting the ship or of them running us over.

The ship obviously thought so too, as they didn’t do anything but continue on their way.

The earlier ships are irrelevant as you have said they gave way..
So basically you tacked to pass the stern of the ship then continued 6nm and then tacked again to pass between Tiritiri and the Peninsula.. and the ship was 90* off your bow and closing at the time you tacked..

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Rennsail

I for one, would rather be alive and technically wrong, than dead and technically correct.

Originally Posted by onestepcsy37

He was right, dead right, as he sailed along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Neither "technically correct" nor "dead right"; simply someone who didn't actually know the rules.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

His stand on status in no way obligated him to continue on a collission course until the last second.
- At 5 miles out a distinct course change to go well behind the ship was well within the colregs.
- The colregs allow and encourage you to negotiate an agreed crossing (VHF, Sound Signals). The OP continued on at 9kts (around 30minutes) on a collision course without making an attempt to negotiate an agreed crossing until it was too late to do anything but rant.

When did he say he stood on until the last second. Certainly not how I interpreted his version of events.
Also how do you come up with negotiation. There was no negotiation.
Or at least I didn’t interpret it as a negotiation.



Negotiation is not required and I wouldn’t recommend negotiation.

Query re intent? Not happy with response. was my interpretation, followed by decision to act by his maneuver alone.
No point arguing. Or negotiating.

5 cables is half a mile. Not the last second. Last 3 minutes arguably, not the last second.

It’s is in my opinion not fair to use alarming phrases or words to characterize the OP, to fit your option or bias.

If you want to say he left it a bit later than you might have. That’s ok.

Saying it was last second. is not OK not fair. Or referring to it as a challenge is not fair.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Sorry Phil, but it's not my thinking, only a reply to your post of interpretations of rules that don't even apply in this case, ie: Rule 15 - Crossing Situation, When two power-driven vessels are crossing...

When in the first instance this situation is simply Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(iv) a sailing vessel

Well.. I was trying to visualise the situation prior to the OP posting his chart..
Having now seen the course he was on and his statement that the ship was crossing at 90* its unlikely the ship would turn to port towards an approaching yacht (shades off Jessica?) and even less likely he would be prepared to turn to stbd and Tiritiri.. possibly he had increased speed and his AIS showed sufficient CPA for him.. or maybe he just played the game of Tonnage.
Its a one sided tale and I would have called the ship and established an action, tack and pass astern or furled in some genny and eased the main to drop some speed and let him pass ahead of me.
But hey.. that's what I would do.. guess I'm just insecure..

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The earlier ships are irrelevant as you have said they gave way..
So basically you tacked to pass the stern of the ship then continued 6nm and then tacked again to pass between Tiritiri and the Peninsula.. and the ship was 90* off your bow and closing at the time you tacked..

Did you miss the fact that we were broad reaching on starboard tack? No tacks involved, just hardening up to clear the stern with a decent amount of water, then bearing away to original course (based on wind angle to keep the gennaker filled and not blanketed by the main), then gybing a few times to get through the channel and on course towards our berth.

FYI, the dashed blue tracks are for the undersea cables that provide telephone and data from North America and are the reason no anchoring to the west or north of America’s Cup Course A. They do not represent any tracks.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well.. I was trying to visualise the situation prior to the OP posting his chart..

All of the relevant information to determine the situation was provided in the very first post by the OP (I even requoted that relevant info several times - even in my reply to you too). The chart and the extra info were nice to have but not essential.

Originally Posted by boatman61

...Having now seen the course he was on and his statement that the ship was crossing at 90* its unlikely the ship would turn to port...

And yet I and other professional mariners here (and the OP too) expected the ship to do exactly that, and the two other previous ships did exactly that too - they both turned to Port and passed astern.

The turn to Port by the ships to pass astern of the OP's yacht is acceptable in this situation because this is not "two power driven vessels meeting" - it is "a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel".

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Did you miss the fact that we were broad reaching on starboard tack? No tacks involved, just hardening up to clear the stern with a decent amount of water, then bearing away to original course (based on wind angle to keep the gennaker filled and not blanketed by the main), then gybing a few times to get through the channel and on course towards our berth.

FYI, the dashed blue tracks are for the undersea cables that provide telephone and data from North America and are the reason no anchoring to the west or north of America’s Cup Course A. They do not represent any tracks.

Nope.. I did not miss that fact, just used an inappropriate expression for the course change.. and no.. I did not confuse the blue dashes with your green track..

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by requiem

Informed commentary can be relevant...

It can be, but in the posts I quoted it was either irrelevant, incorrect, or in contradiction to the COLREGS.

So not much sense in that.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I'm not sure I'm confusing anything. I'm merely, and solely discussing the OP's situation as presented.

However, I think you've succinctly hit upon why this thread appears so hot. Half of the posters are approaching the discussion from the OP's specific situation. The other half are approaching the discussion from a more general 'Col Reg's' perspective.

Hi Shrew, good observation and it is easy to misunderstand a posters perspective other than the OP.

Obviously some of us know the Rules intimately and have applied them all our professional careers, been regularily tested in simulators with Examiners, where Murphy's Law is injected into your avoidance actions to see if you will break the Rules.

Most yachtsmen successfuly rely on common sense and a conservative approach.

But the Rules do matter and the key Rule which actualy guides both professional and amateur is
Rule 2

https://www.myseatime.com/blog/detail/colregs-rule-2

https://cultofsea.com/colregs/part-a...ponsibility-2/

Sometimes part of that seamanship is to accept local practices like in HK or NY where ferry schedules rule...
.....or NOT try to avoid the swarm of 1,000's of fishing boats all around you....They will move when you are just 200m from them.....if you start to take avoiding action it only confuses them.

Just like speaking English in a foreign land, you try to speak in their local accent.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

All of the relevant information to determine the situation was provided in the very first post by the OP (I even requoted that relevant info several times - even in my reply to you too). The chart and the extra info were nice to have but not essential.



And yet I and other professional mariners here (and the OP too) expected the ship to do exactly that, and the two other previous ships did exactly that too - they both turned to Port and passed astern.

The turn to Port by the ships to pass astern of the OP's yacht is acceptable in this situation because this is not "two power driven vessels meeting" - it is "a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel".

At about 0.5nm separation, with no evident change of course or speed by the RORO, I called them on VHF 16 using their name (from AIS) and identifying ourselves as the sailboat on their port bow and our boat name. I asked what were their intentions for the crossing. A very relaxed voice replied that they were crossing our bow. I replied that we were currently on a collision course near their midpoint and that we would have to turn to starboard to take their stern. The relaxed voice came back and said to carry on, out.

We hardened up about 30 degrees and crossed their wake about 100 metres astern of them, then bore off back to our original course. Had we kept our original course and speed we would have hit them.

Sorry if I needed to see where the incident took place.. guess I just lack imagination and the ability to visualise the approaches to Auckland.. never been so never seen.
I still feel he was wrong to carry on as he did and push a point.. considering his resultant route after passing there was no need to press the situation as he did.. the course change lasted 6nm I calculate before altering course to pass down the passage whereas at the distance he states, things just seem like a situation was created for no reason other than to press a point..
Different folks, different strokes.. and like Dockhead I have traversed the English Channel and up as far as the Kiel Canal enough times so know what's supposed to happen, what can, and what I choose to do.. fact.. not all ships actually see you so I prefer to be proactive..
If that's an anathema to you.. sorry, its a tough life..