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

[BAD ORCA]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

And what I'm trying to say is "that's covered in the rules too!".

Have you even read the COLREGS? I think not, otherwise you would be aware of this.

thank you for your input.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The OP had the opportunity to take action early as he admits he was aware of the situation 5miles out.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The OP went on blind faith in the rules until it created a real potential for issues. (personally don't like to get within 100m of a ships stern as the wakes can be pretty wild).

It wasn't "blind faith in the rules". To hold a collision course right up to 5 cables off is not required or even allowed under the Rules. Once he had doubt that the other vessel was going to maneuver, he should have been planning to take matters into his own hands. It was rather blind faith in the expectation that the other vessel would maneuver, and that expectation is misplaced. There are lots of different reasons, some of them even legitimate, why the other vessel won't maneuver.

[Rob_P]

Against my better judgement, I will post this reply.

I am LEARNING right now so I don't really know the rules backwards and frontwards and sideways yet, but it seems to me that the rules say what they say.

If you are stand-on, then you are stand-on and the MV is required by the Regs to give way (absent circumstances not in play here).

Harping that the SV should have... yada yada yada is STUPID because the rules says he is stand-on and the MV is required to give way. When it became obvious that the MV was not going to give way, then the SV is required under the rules to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision. In this case he did so.

Again, harping because the SV didn't do this or that "soon enough", or take action according to your personal ideas on what the Regs "really mean", is also STUPID. Worse, making up rules that don't follow the Regs, and which actually violate them, is even MORE STUPID.

If you are stand-on, then you are obligated to stand-on. Contact the other vessel and clarify his intentions. If he says by word or deed that he's going to break the rules, then take action. One of the things you have to do as part of the action taken is to avoid the collision. The other is to report his dangerous lackadaisical butt to the appropriate authorities.

Not only did the RORO fail to obey the Regs, but by not doing so he endangered the SV and all other vessels in the immediate area. Filing the report will put another piece of evidence in the file if the RORO continues to act irresponsibly and eventually does run someone over.

Being a nice guy and failing to report him means he got away with it and that will only reinforce his behavior and violations of the Regs until he does kill someone.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

. . .Personally, I think whenever you have interacting vessels of very different sizes, manueverability and assumed training, it is prudent to clarify your intentions by Radio whenever a close CPA exists.

In my opinion, Plan A should be to conduct the crossing in such a way that there is never any need to clarify any intentions. The key is doing the right things in the right time frames and according to the Rules, and even if a give-way vessel doesn't give way, normally this can be handled smoothly and without any calls and without any drama.



There are different reasons why this might not work out despite best efforts. Say you want to turn to port rather than starboard because you don't want to pass ahead. Say you are not entirely sure whether he might still be planning a maneuver. For different reasons it can be prudent to call. But in my opinion a crossing which just doesn't need a call is what we should always be shooting for.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...... and then take those [1] readily apparent actions [2] early enough to confirm understanding.. .

This

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Against my better judgement, I will post this reply.

I am LEARNING right now so I don't really know the rules backwards and frontwards and sideways yet, but it seems to me that the rules say what they say.

If you are stand-on, then you are stand-on and the MV is required by the Regs to give way (absent circumstances not in play here).

Harping that the SV should have... yada yada yada is STUPID because the rules says he is stand-on and the MV is required to give way. When it became obvious that the MV was not going to give way, then the SV is required under the rules to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision. In this case he did so.

Again, harping because the SV didn't do this or that "soon enough", or take action according to your personal ideas on what the Regs "really mean", is also STUPID. Worse, making up rules that don't follow the Regs, and which actually violate them, is even MORE STUPID.

If you are stand-on, then you are obligated to stand-on. Contact the other vessel and clarify his intentions. If he says by word or deed that he's going to break the rules, then take action. One of the things you have to do as part of the action taken is to avoid the collision. The other is to report his dangerous lackadaisical butt to the appropriate authorities.

Not only did the RORO fail to obey the Regs, but by not doing so he endangered the SV and all other vessels in the immediate area. Filing the report will put another piece of evidence in the file if the RORO continues to act irresponsibly and eventually does run someone over.

Being a nice guy and failing to report him means he got away with it and that will only reinforce his behavior and violations of the Regs until he does kill someone.

It would help if the OP stated the location/waters this incident happened in, whether the RoRo was actually a ferry which in many parts of the world has priority in restricted waters which to me 3 miles clear water certainly comes under..
Clear water for a Cat drawing less than 2 metres is very different from clear water for a ship.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Against my better judgement, I will post this reply.

I am LEARNING right now so I don't really know the rules backwards and frontwards and sideways yet, but it seems to me that the rules say what they say.

If you are stand-on, then you are stand-on and the MV is required by the Regs to give way (absent circumstances not in play here).

Harping that the SV should have... yada yada yada is STUPID because the rules says he is stand-on and the MV is required to give way. When it became obvious that the MV was not going to give way, then the SV is required under the rules to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision. In this case he did so.

Again, harping because the SV didn't do this or that "soon enough", or take action according to your personal ideas on what the Regs "really mean", is also STUPID. Worse, making up rules that don't follow the Regs, and which actually violate them, is even MORE STUPID.

If you are stand-on, then you are obligated to stand-on. Contact the other vessel and clarify his intentions. If he says by word or deed that he's going to break the rules, then take action. One of the things you have to do as part of the action taken is to avoid the collision. The other is to report his dangerous lackadaisical butt to the appropriate authorities.

Not only did the RORO fail to obey the Regs, but by not doing so he endangered the SV and all other vessels in the immediate area. Filing the report will put another piece of evidence in the file if the RORO continues to act irresponsibly and eventually does run someone over.

Being a nice guy and failing to report him means he got away with it and that will only reinforce his behavior and violations of the Regs until he does kill someone.

The rules do require you take all reasonable actions to avoid a collision regardless of what the other vessel does. They also require you do take early action when possible.

We are only hearing the OPs side of the story. The ship may have had other requirements forcing them to maintain course.

Then you have the OP indicating they sped up (violating their stand on status). For all we know, the ship was projecting to pass well ahead but when the OP sped up, it was back to a collision course.

Stand-On vessels are not required to "stand on" they can call and arrange an alternate passing by agreement. They can also legitimately make a large and obvious course change negating the crossing all together.

By waiting until the last second before calling, the OP was practicing poor seamanship.

Not knowing the situation from the ROROs point of view, they might also have practiced poor seamanship but we don't have enough info to say with certainty.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by fxykty

We started watching the ship at about 5 miles distance from us. We determined that we were stand on as a sailing vessel and the RORO give way as a power vessel. The distance between us kept reducing with very little change in relative bearing, with the RORO just slightly bow forward of us. Note that our AIS continued to show 0.0 CPA.

How were you judging the bearing? What do you mean by "very little change"? You should have been taking compass bearings of the ship.

From the outset did you maintain course and speed, or did it change (prior to your turn at 1/2 mile)?

[captmikem]

I was second officer on a RoRo running between Miami, Panama and Cost Rica. When in coastal waters bays, if we altered to avoid all the little boats we would be going around in circles. You overestimate your importance. It could get you killed one day.
Let me give you a piece of advice. ANYTIME you are in a crossing situation with a ship alter course early to CROSS ASTERN. Simple, easy, won't cost you anything but your ego.

M

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Against my better judgement, I will post this reply.

I am LEARNING right now so I don't really know the rules backwards and frontwards and sideways yet, but it seems to me that the rules say what they say.

.

Well that is good and honest.

But then you start making decisions and calling folks names.

Originally Posted by Rob_P

Harping that the SV should have... yada yada yada is STUPID because the rules says he is stand-on and the MV is required to give way. When it became obvious that the MV was not going to give way, then the SV is required under the rules to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision. In this case he did so.

Again, harping because the SV didn't do this or that "soon enough", or take action according to your personal ideas on what the Regs "really mean", is also STUPID. Worse, making up rules that don't follow the Regs, and which actually violate them, is even MORE STUPID.

If you are stand-on, then you are obligated to stand-on. Contact the other vessel and clarify his intentions. If he says by word or deed that he's going to break the rules, then take action. One of the things you have to do as part of the action taken is to avoid the collision. The other is to report his dangerous lackadaisical butt to the appropriate authorities.


.

I suggest you READ the COLREGS so you understand them. Understand also that some folks have logged more blue water miles on a single passage than others have done in their sailing history. For an admitted newbie to call folks “stupid” is never prudent.

A competent mariner sees a threat well before most folks consider it a concern. Sometimes a distant threat does not materialize because the other vessel followed COLREGS. In this case a distant threat was made worse because the vessel waited until the last minute to react and failed to stand on (they increased speed) and failed to establish communication with the threat when minor course or speed adjustments could have remedied the situation.

Me? I try to have a minimum clearance of 1NM around me offshore and at least 0.5nm close in. This crossing was way closer than that. Of course in a market channel, or in a harbor, it can get much closer.

[landsend]

Originally Posted by captmikem

I was second officer on a RoRo running between Miami, Panama and Cost Rica. When in coastal waters bays, if we altered to avoid all the little boats we would be going around in circles. You overestimate your importance. It could get you killed one day.
Let me give you a piece of advice. ANYTIME you are in a crossing situation with a ship alter course early to CROSS ASTERN. Simple, easy, won't cost you anything but your ego.

M

Finally some sense!! I steer my 35 ft boat well clear of freighters and such. Its a no brainer.

[garyfdl]

The first "rule of the road" I learned in sailing was: "BIG boat go FIRST!"

As someone else posted (more or less) earlier in the thread, a small course change early on by the OP and this would be a non-issue.

Use common sense.

[ronbrett]

As the small guy I would always either slow down or alter course to make I sure I pass astern of any large vessel even though I might in principle have right of way.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by captmikem

I was second officer on a RoRo running between Miami, Panama and Cost Rica. When in coastal waters bays, if we altered to avoid all the little boats we would be going around in circles. You overestimate your importance. It could get you killed one day.

In open water???
Are you kidding???

You are an embarrassment to professional mariners. If you don't understand the colregs you should find a land job.

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by fxykty

We were outside of the harbour limits, there was no traffic separation scheme nor channel, and there was clear water all around with no obstructions within 3 miles.

We started watching the ship at about 5 miles distance from us. We determined that we were stand on as a sailing vessel and the RORO give way as a power vessel. The distance between us kept reducing with very little change in relative bearing, with the RORO just slightly bow forward of us. Note that our AIS continued to show 0.0 CPA.

To me, the highlighted points are the crux of the discussion. It's tough to tell how much distance closer the two vessels got before taking action. If it started at 5 miles, can we assume that there was 3 miles distance and no obstructions for a 3 mile radius?

If so, the assumption is that the RORO can actually effectively slow or change course within 3 miles. They are usually travelling much faster than they appear, are significantly slower to slow, stop or turn. And turn in significantly larger radius' than one would expect.

Basically, the assumptions here are:

1) That the RORO COULD effectively change course.

2) That the RORO needed to actually change course.

[jim King]

I agree with most posts suggestion that you waited too long to communicate with the commercial vessel to make any correction. Chances are they wouldn't have made the correction anyway and let you make the correction. It takes way too long for them to make a correction with their mass and velocity. You are the nimbler boat and. I always defer to the commercial vessels in my way to let them pass and get around them safely. I always thought that commercial vessels had the right of way.