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

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

Nice,
I was going to post something about this silly concept but don't need to.

If you are altering for collision avoidance make it obvious.

I've even seen some ships make a substantial course alteration - so that it's very obvious and noticeable, and then slowly come back towards something more reasonable.

So "hey, we see you, we are making it clear, but we still have a course to keep".

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You say you were doing 9kts and a bit roughly then gybed onto a 6nm max dogleg to take you to your next point where you turned to port to pass down the passage...
Thereby putting you on a course across the ships course around 2.5, 3nm max from the CPA.. to my mind the burden of staying clear falls on you I am afraid.. Just my opinion.
I am sure the Colregs supporters will however disagree..

No Boatie, I agree with your analysis. Nice detective work - this was not obvious from the OP. If you're within the range that you should be standing on, and you alter course to create a close-quarters situation, it really should be on you to do the avoiding from then on out. Explains the OOW's terse VHF response.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

5 10 even 15 is not readily apparent, Particularly if you are sailing its just within the normal range of bobbing about.

^^^^This!

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

This plus looking at the surrounding land mass was making me wonder if a collision occurred whether it would be more a case of which was the overtaking vessel than a straightforward 90* crossing situation when it got to court.. just half a story here.

When would this have been an overtaking situation?

How is Overtaking determined? Well, once again it is clearly defined in the COLREGS:

Rule 13 - Overtaking

(b)
A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the stern light of that vessel but neither
of her sidelights.

I don't believe that at any point either vessel could see the theoretical arc of the other vessel's stern light during an approximately 90deg crossing situation.

That would have only finally occured when the OP headed up to pass the ship clear astern.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Totally mistaken. You are measuring the track when we were on port gybe, hours prior to meeting the ships, slowly lifting as the breeze went left. The dogleg you you refer to was our gybe to starboard, as the steadily lifting ESE system breeze settled into the NE sea breeze.

The place where we met the RORO in question is marked by the red cross. Well after the gybe.

Originally Posted by jmh2002

When would this have been an overtaking situation?

How is Overtaking determined? Well, once again it is clearly defined in the COLREGS:

Rule 13 - Overtaking

(b)
A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the stern light of that vessel but neither
of her sidelights.

I don't believe that at any point either vessel could see the theoretical arc of the other vessel's stern light during an approximately 90deg crossing situation.

That would have only finally occured when the OP headed up to pass the ship clear astern.

JMH2002.. Unlike you I was not taking the OP #1 as verbatim but having a go at teasing things out bit by bit..
We got the story then later we got the chart with track and a post that to me looked like the dogleg was to avoid the ship after bearing to port gradually by 30 odd degrees.. which led me to think he was trying to beat the ship to a point, could not so turned to stbd to pass the stern and decided on a different route home.. remember we have no idea of the ships course so could have been near parallel or within 45* and the boat that's aft the beam is potentially an overtaking vessel.
OP's latest post now says he turned in toward the ship 2.5 to 3nm away from a 0 CPA then held course expecting the ship to yield.
Sorry.. but if you think this is valid Colreg your having a larf.
But then again.. I am short on brain cells..

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

...remember we have no idea of the ships course so could have been near parallel or within 45* and the boat that's aft the beam is potentially an overtaking vessel.

Note to clarify: Rule 13 actually says "...more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam" (not aft of the beam, there is quite a difference)

Although it also says: (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

We have absolutely a correct idea of the ships course - the OP stated it was 90deg to his own and 5nm from him on his starboard bow. In addition he had the ship's course and speed via AIS. So we can be fairly confident to rely on his stated information.

It's pretty easy to visualise and imagine the situation between the two vessels and none of Rule 13 appears to be the case, and in fact an overtaking situation seems impossible from the information provided.

Now if the OP hasn't provided us with the correct information, well then all types of other random assumptions could be made, and the discussion becomes pointless.

For example, yes, he does have an Outremer, so maybe he was actually sailing at 20kn+, chasing the ship from behind, overtaking it, trying to play chicken and cross it's bow, just to prove a point and defy any rules...

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

I've even seen some ships make a substantial course alteration - so that it's very obvious and noticeable, and then slowly come back towards something more reasonable.

So "hey, we see you, we are making it clear, but we still have a course to keep".

Yup, Done this countless times.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Note to clarify: Rule 13 actually says "...more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam" (not aft of the beam, there is quite a difference)

Although it also says: (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

We have absolutely a correct idea of the ships course - the OP stated it was 90deg to his own and 5nm from him on his starboard bow. In addition he had the ship's course and speed via AIS. So we can be fairly confident to rely on his stated information.

It's pretty easy to visualise and imagine the situation between the two vessels and none of Rule 13 appears to be the case, and in fact an overtaking situation seems impossible from the information provided.

Now if the OP hasn't provided us with the correct information, well then all types of other random assumptions could be made, and the discussion becomes pointless.

For example, yes, he does have an Outremer, so maybe he was actually sailing at 20kn+, chasing the ship from behind, overtaking it, trying to play chicken and cross it's bow, just to prove a point and defy any rules...

It was 90* after he changed course 2.5 to 3nm away from what became a 0 CPA.
Prior to that he had been sailing a curving course going down to what someone calculated as 210*.. and I don't recall him mentioning the ships course.
Aft.. Abaft.. Semantics.
Still.. if your happy with that good for you..
Just had another look at his track and if he was steering 210 when he changed course he put 65* to stbd towards a ship steering course 180* and a closing CPA of 0 less than 3nm away.. based on his posts.
Just changing course to 285 and we'd have nothing to argue about..

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Aft.. Abaft.. Semantics.
Still.. if your happy with that good for you..

The note and correction was not about Aft or Abaft...

You wrote "aft the beam" - but that would be aft of 90deg. That's not correct.

Rule 13 actually says "...more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam" - that is actually aft of 112.5deg.

That's not semantics. That's the problem when people prefer just to make up their own version, rather than using the COLREGS specifically.

Here is an illustration of the difference. The boat at the bottom right is 'aft of the beam (your words) - but it is not overtaking, it is crossing.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by boatman61

It was 90* after he changed course 2.5 to 3nm away from what became a 0 CPA.

Prior to that he had been sailing a curving course going down to what someone calculated as 210*.. and I don't recall him mentioning the ships course.

Aft.. Abaft.. Semantics.

Still.. if your happy with that good for you..

Just had another look at his track and if he was steering 210 when he changed course he put 65* to stbd towards a ship steering course 180* and a closing CPA of 0 less than 3nm away.. based on his posts.

Just changing course to 285 and we'd have nothing to argue about..

We were out sailing the angles on our way home from a long weekend cruise to the far side of the Hauraki Gulf. None of our courses were chosen for any other reason than sail trim, wind angles and ultimate destination.

Your distances aren’t quite right as the other ship was moving as well and not just sitting there on our westward track. At that time of our gybe the RORO in question was about 4.5 mile distant based on his speed when we starting paying closer attention to him a little while later. The RORO was much further away from us than the two nearer ships.

Those two other ships had already altered course before our gybe and that made the new course clear water with respect to them. The RORO was still far distant, going much slower than the other two and we weren’t yet paying attention to them due to that distance.

If the RORO had based its clearance on us during our 210 degree course on port gybe then it was overtaking and we would have been closely clear ahead on crossing - not so comfortable for us. Possibly he thought that the gybe was our attempt to keep clear of them astern. This analysis (thanks boatie for the idea) makes the RORO’s action (or rather lack thereof) more reasonable.

The westerly course on starboard gybe we went to was based on wind angle and sail trim - as low as possible to be more on course to destination, high enough not to blanket the gennaker, and not so high that the sail’s wind strength limit was exceeded - a relatively narrow range of available courses. It also took us more directly out of the way of the two ships we were looking at.

As stated earlier, the other two ships had altered to go astern, so we expected the third to do the same. Since the conditions were clear and easy, we simply ran down our course, ready at all times to continue or bear away if the ship altered to port, or head up to take the ship astern of it continued on its course and speed. It did, and that’s what we ended up doing.

There wasn’t any drama, it wasn’t reckless, nor challenging, nor arrogant, nor ignorant, nor anything else I’ve been of accused of.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

The note and correction was not about Aft or Abaft...

You wrote "aft the beam" - but that would be aft of 90deg. That's not correct.

Rule 13 actually says "...more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam" - that is actually aft of 112.5deg.

That's not semantics. That's the problem when people prefer just to make up their own version, rather than using the COLREGS specifically.

Here is an illustration of the difference. The boat at the bottom right is 'aft of the beam (your words) - but it is not overtaking, it is crossing.

We'll we do not know whether he was or was not.. if you reread what I wrote you would see I said "potentially an overtaking situation".. a course curving down to 210 and another at 180 it seems..
But that ceased to apply when the OP turned to275 to cross a 180 course.. and a 0 CPA.
But I guess aft not being Abaft is more important..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fxykty

We were out sailing the angles on our way home from a long weekend cruise to the far side of the Hauraki Gulf. None of our courses were chosen for any other reason than sail trim, wind angles and ultimate destination.

Your distances aren’t quite right as the other ship was moving as well and not just sitting there on our westward track. At that time of our gybe the RORO in question was about 4.5 mile distant based on his speed when we starting paying closer attention to him a little while later. The RORO was much further away from us than the two nearer ships.

Those two other ships had already altered course before our gybe and that made the new course clear water with respect to them. The RORO was still far distant, going much slower than the other two and we weren’t yet paying attention to them due to that distance.

If the RORO had based its clearance on us during our 210 degree course on port gybe then it was overtaking and we would have been closely clear ahead on crossing - not so comfortable for us. Possibly he thought that the gybe was our attempt to keep clear of them astern. This analysis (thanks boatie for the idea) makes the RORO’s action (or rather lack thereof) more reasonable.

The westerly course on starboard gybe we went to was based on wind angle and sail trim - as low as possible to be more on course to destination, high enough not to blanket the gennaker, and not so high that the sail’s wind strength limit was exceeded - a relatively narrow range of available courses. It also took us more directly out of the way of the two ships we were looking at.

As stated earlier, the other two ships had altered to go astern, so we expected the third to do the same. Since the conditions were clear and easy, we simply ran down our course, ready at all times to continue or bear away if the ship altered to port, or head up to take the ship astern of it continued on its course and speed. It did, and that’s what we ended up doing.

There wasn’t any drama, it wasn’t reckless, nor challenging, nor arrogant, nor ignorant, nor anything else I’ve been of accused of.

I have never accused you of anything even in my first post where I stated I would either call the ship or furl some genny to bleed some speed till I could pass his stern..
Everything else has been speculation to tease out more info and play devils advocate with the Colregs fanatics
No collision.. No foul..

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

But I guess aft not being Abaft is more important..

Originally Posted by jmh2002

The note and correction was not about Aft or Abaft...

It's clear you didn't read a word I wrote or that you are just being belligerent.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

It's clear you didn't read a word I wrote or that you are just being belligerent.

Funny.. I was thinking the same about you..
Before the course change the ship was 'abaft' the beam of the cat.. I did not specify a particular vessel you chose to assume I meant the cat was who was abaft..
Until one has all the pertinent info it's hard to make a judgement.. and that's what the OP asked for.
However as you have stated I am either confused or don't know the Colregs so basically I an irriut..
FXTY.. I know the ship was not sitting on the X waiting for you when you made your turn but the CPA was.. you said you thought he had increased speed but then so did you which is why I originally said (post #6) I would have bled some speed to open the CPA to an acceptable number.. now I see the whole picture I maintain that opinion.
It takes two to tango..
Oh.. and the two ships that changed their course before your gybe would have been abaft (notice my ab's ) your beam I would imagine and assuming you were making for Auckland from your course at the time.

[jmh2002]

Actually no, I was just correcting your incorrect statement regarding the COLREGS.

I'll repeat it again as you still don't seem to get it (nothing to do with aft or abaft) and it's important not to confuse other cruisers.

You wrote the following:

Originally Posted by boatman61

...and the boat that's aft the beam is potentially an overtaking vessel.

I corrected you because that is wrong. Rule 13 actually says (using your words):

"the boat that's 'more than 22.5 degrees' aft the beam is potentially an overtaking vessel"

You completely missed a key part of Rule 13 that I have highlighted in red.

So I posted a diagram to show how a boat can be 'aft of the beam' (your words) but is in fact a crossing vessel (and therefore NOT an overtaking vessel).

If you know the COLREGS please stop posting half truths and falsehoods that others may understand to be correct.

Thanks.