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

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Which is why eyes are still a pretty good type of instrumentation to have aboard.

I’m kind of nervous reading all these posts.

Everyone head down calculating a CPA and looking at screens. Yikes

Ideally, you use both. Instruments to tell you what you can't see yet or to confirm what is unclear visually. And eyeballs to confirm that the information from the instruments is sane and to see any details the instruments can't tell you.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Ideally, you use both. Instruments to tell you what you can't see yet or to confirm what is unclear visually. And eyeballs to confirm that the information from the instruments is sane and to see any details the instruments can't tell you.

I agree. Don’t really seem to be hearing anything about looking at the other vessels though.

It’s all so much less complicated than this thread makes it.

[bensolomon]

There are a few interesting points on this thread. First is the increased reliance on technology in either AIS or radar. With such reliance, there is a potential for losing navigational reasoning skills. Incorrect interpretation of the AIS or radar results in skewed reactions.

Second is the issue of letting the big boats alone. Sailing on the Chesapeake bay, regularly, the big ships are coming constantly. 95% of the time they're in the channel. Even then, I stay well clear, and adjust course miles ahead of time just in case THEY need to be evasive or something happens on their boat that is unforeseen. When they are out of the channel, I stay well clear, especially at night. A clear tack change let's everyone know our intent. When transiting between Chesapeake and New England I have seen the big ships off to starboard or port. A quick call to tell them my intention, maybe 10 or so miles away and more so at night, goes a long way in avoiding any near misses.

As a side note, I don't have AIS or radar for the aforementioned reasons, especially for night sailing. There are more than just the big ships out there to worry about, and I can usually see the big lights from very far.

Ben

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Which is why eyes are still a pretty good type of instrumentation to have aboard.

I’m kind of nervous reading all these posts.

Everyone head down calculating a CPA and looking at screens. Yikes

Yes, in close quarter situations, taking bearings by eyeball is by far the best, but calculating CPA beforehand using Radar is also a skill.that is needed.

People forget that sometimes you will have NO VISIBILITY,

Common in Fog areas but monsoonal rains can do the same.

Then Rule 19 comes into play, you slow things down and above all try and discuss intentions via vhf with other vessel to maintain a safe CPA.

This ia where practising your radar skills in good visibility in daylight, helps you to learn how to manually.tune for close quarter Radar discrimination,

Used it many times towing in zero visability fog conditions up the inside passage to Alaska

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I agree. Don’t really seem to be hearing anything about looking at the other vessels though.

It’s all so much less complicated than this thread makes it.

I brought it up about 350 posts back, but never got an answer.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

. . . I am sure he agrees now, it was a bit late, but to me the RoRo was negligent and arrogant in attitude .. .

I might be starting to sound like a broken record, but the one thing here has nothing at all to do with the other. Negligent, arrogant, or not -- simply mistaken, dealing with other traffic -- whatever. Makes not the slightest difference in what the OP should have done.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Yes, in close quarter situations, taking bearings by eyeball is by far the best, .. . .

I beg to disagree. Unless you have some reference point -- like channel markers -- the Mark I eyeball can be virtually useless for understanding a crossing in close quarters. Are you passing ahead? Behind? Direct collision course? Will such and such a maneuver pull you clear, or not? Do you have 10 seconds to impact, or a minute? In a close cases you canNOT discern that with the naked eye. Otherwise there would be no need for hand bearing compasses, and even that is an exceedingly crude tool compared to a good radar set.

[TeddyDiver]

Don't know if it was mentioned earlier but class B Ais does not allways refresh the speed and position to other vessels in real time and constantly, anyway what I know of. So the ships AIS might have shown different CPA thus no action. However it's not an absolution for them as they were then just another CAFI neglecting visual confirmation and radar..

[boatman61]

My argument was based on the evidence supplied by the OP and that was given in ranges via AIS so that's what I worked on initially and decided he made a bad call..
Further on in the thread got into stand on and Colregs so I tried teasing more info out and he kindly posted a chart showing his course and the CPA marked by a cross.
The argument made by the Colregs group was as the ship was 5nm away the primary fault lay with the RoRo..
However I measured the distance from course change to CPA 0.00 at under 3nm so although the ship was as stated 5nm away the OP had chosen to alter his course to pass ahead of a ship less than 3nm from point of theoretical impact.. bad call to my mind.
To the skipper of the RoRo this could be just a temporary change of course to gain a better approach or simply a Yottie out for a joy ride.. if a ship responded to every yachts course change like this and turned to port some may never leave harbour.
So to my mind the OP laid excessive burden on the ships master and should have pointed higher by a few degrees to avoid the situation he found himself in..
In Colregs it says one should avoid creating situations.. loosely interpreted.. not create them.
Also, much is being made about radar here however this happened in waters where many boats will not have radar.. and few having AIS so maybe less emphasis on these luxury items for the priviliged and more on the reality of bearings using a static point on the boat like a stanchion or a compass.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "...so maybe less emphasis on these luxury items for the priviliged and more on the reality of bearings using a static point on the boat like a stanchion or a compass."

Indeed!! Thank God for my principal navigation tool, the Mk I eyeball, and the common or garden variety stanchion :-)!

Still, there is probably wisdom in accepting that 1) a hobby within a hobby is fine just so long as it's kept in perspective, and 2) in some quarters pedantry will always trump common sense.

Hej och Hå, Skipper Boatie :-)!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US6tNn7BOoE

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Idlegreg

'Always applies' - ok so you are saying a 40,000 ton cruise ship is the stand on vessel when it is approaching a 30,000 Bulk Carrier, no mattter what the respective courses ?

Or maybe your rule applies, only, when one vessel is below a certain tonnage ?

Please can you let me know what that figure is and what we do if both vesseles are below that size ?

I suppose before AIS (when you might not know the other vessels tonnage) there was some other rule that would enable you to make a descision - if it apeared the other ship was of a similar size to your own.


Greg

This should be an automated response every time someone advocates the "Rule of Tonnage"

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I beg to disagree. Unless you have some reference point -- like channel markers -- the Mark I eyeball can be virtually useless for understanding a crossing in close quarters. Are you passing ahead? Behind? Direct collision course? Will such and such a maneuver pull you clear, or not? Do you have 10 seconds to impact, or a minute? In a close cases you canNOT discern that with the naked eye. Otherwise there would be no need for hand bearing compasses, and even that is an exceedingly crude tool compared to a good radar set.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.
A piece of your boat is the reference point

By bearing I meant "changing" bearing where you line up target with a fixed point on your boat and while holding a steady course discern if it is steady or moving fwd or aft

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I might be starting to sound like a broken record, but the one thing here has nothing at all to do with the other. Negligent, arrogant, or not -- simply mistaken, dealing with other traffic -- whatever. Makes not the slightest difference in what the OP should have done.

Lol Dh,
Nowhere in the Rules does it say...

"You shall not take action and have an opinion at the same time
[emoji4]

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I beg to disagree. Unless you have some reference point -- like channel markers -- the Mark I eyeball can be virtually useless for understanding a crossing in close quarters. Are you passing ahead? Behind? Direct collision course? Will such and such a maneuver pull you clear, or not? Do you have 10 seconds to impact, or a minute? In a close cases you canNOT discern that with the naked eye. Otherwise there would be no need for hand bearing compasses, and even that is an exceedingly crude tool compared to a good radar set.

Au contraire. All those questions you pose regarding a crossing at close quarters are best discerned via the Mark 1 eyeball. You don’t need to see a channel marker or have a hand bearing compass or anything else besides seeing the drift (or lack of) of the other vessel relative to a reference point on your vessel. It’s as simple as determining that the other vessel is getting bigger and it’s not changing its position relative to a shroud or bow roller or some other reference aboard your boat and even an untrained person can discern that in just a few seconds. At longer distances or in restricted visibility, our electronic gadgets almost work miracles but once you’re up close, and need to decide which way to turn right NOW, there’s nothing like the naked eye. Another advantage of the naked eye in close quarters is that you might be able to see subtle clues such as that ship just put its rudder hard over, long before that hard over input results in changing angles that can be detected on any instruments.

If you have EITHER 10 seconds OR a minute to impact that means you’re WAY too close and you really don’t care which it is, you just don’t want to hit him and the best way to do that is by maintaining visual contact, and if you can clearly see the other vessel and are less than a minute to impact, the last place you should be looking is inside at your instruments. I find it frightening that you’d suggest such a thing and some inexperienced sailor might believe you.

Long ago I used to run intercepts from the back seat of an F4 Phantom and we had an often repeated saying that “one peek is worth a thousand cross checks”. which meant that once you were close enough to “peek” outside to see the target, you were much better off doing that than watching the drift on the radar and your instruments and depending on them to set up the intercept. But at longer distances when the target wasn’t yet visible or looked like just a speck to the naked eye, the radar and radar intercept officer were invaluable. The same holds true for “running intercepts” on ships at a much slower pace.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Perhaps you misunderstood me.
A piece of your boat is the reference point

By bearing I meant "changing" bearing where you line up target with a fixed point on your boat and while holding a steady course discern if it is steady or moving fwd or aft

Yup. This is what I’m talking about.

Eyeballs. (And a reference point ok the boat)

Works like a charm day or night, but not, as you pointed out, in fog.

Boats towing astern in the fog is the stuff nightmares are made off. The one thing that scares me a bit in commercial traffic areas.

You may think you’ve passed that boat astern only to get hung up on the cable below the water and run down by the barge.

Radar is good for this situation. Very good.