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

[ameehan]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Commercial ships have right of way in practice. I just adjust a bit to pass astern usually.

They often don’t even look at the “little boat AIS” when entering harbor areas. It’s just a crowded mess for them.

Source? My friend, a mate on ships like this.

You say this as if the merchant vessel was at fault. Almost always, when “entering harbour areas” rules 9 (b) or 10 (j) applies.

[Dockhead]

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.

This is generally right, and I particularly agree with the admonition against making up your own rules.


Where I disagree is the attitude with regard to the Ro-Ro vessel. How do you know he's a "dangerous lackadaisical butt"? There may be different reasons why he didn't give way. Maybe he just didn't see the OP; maybe he was dealing with other traffic; maybe there was a shoal he couldn't maneuver around with his 10x deeper draft than ours. Maybe he wasn't even give-way -- maybe the OP missed a RAM or CBD signal.



Getting upset about this is a really fundamental mistake, and a distraction from fulfilling your own obligations, which is unseamanlike in itself. It's a mistake which is based on a fundamental error in thinking that his obligation to give way somehow gives you some kind of privilege -- some kind of entitlement to rely on his giving way. One of the most essential keys to understanding how collision avoidance works, so that you do it right, is understanding that his obligation to give way does NOT convey to you any privileges of any kind. You are not entitled to rely on his giving way. This is very different from the situation on the road, and this precisely why we don't talk about "right of way" -- you don't have any -- tattoo that to your forehead. What you are obligated to do is stand on long enough to give him a decent chance to unwind the situation his way, failing which, it's your turn. And in that case, you cheerfully and efficiently get to work dealing with it yourself. Fuming about somone not giving way is just really deeply unseamanlike and unprofessional. It's also dangerous, because when the give-way vessel doesn't give way, now the situation is in your hands, and you have work to do.

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Well, unless I'm misunderstanding the situation of the two vessels, a course change to Port may not have been prudent (unless it was so far to port as to parallel the ship's course) as it may have just put oneself further into the ship's proposed track, if the ship didn't alter course.

And yet a course change to Starboard would make risk of collision worse if the ship were to take the sensible and appropriate action of altering to go behind the sailing vessel.

All that you say has some merit, but also applies to the ship too.
They should also have taken early and substantial action to make their intent clear.

the rule demands both vessels turn to starboard- therefore the turning to port discussion is mute.
As concerning the initial encounter discussion, the ship was well aware it was passing ahead of the sailing vessel and had no intentions of altering drastically the course any more than necessary to pass ahead. The situation does not discuss water restraints- the ship voyage intentions (approaching harbor or departing) or any other pertinent data.
Last, most sailing vessels are unpredictable so stand on the ship's course and watch to see if the situation develops differently. Generally the sailing vessel tacks, wanders, etc and the situation changes.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Force the issue???!!!??? ROTFLAPM

I simply waited to give the ship opportunity to do what it should to avoid collision. Note that 5 miles, if the ship was making its usual 20 knots, is not very far at all and certainly within risk of collision time.

Note that the correct action for the ship was either to alter course to port to go behind us, or to slow down to allow us to pass ahead, or to speed up and go ahead. I guess the ship decided on option three and we sped up as the breeze increased. Shows why crossing ahead is not the best choice.

But what if I changed course 5 degrees to starboard well ahead as you suggest? That would put me into the area into which the ship would turn if they turned to port to avoid us. Oops.

As well, a 5 degree change of course is not large enough to be clearly visible to the other ship - a course change should be large enough that it is readily visible on radar - typically 30 degrees.

Many times on this forum people with connections to ship’s masters and navigation officers have said that a stand on sailboat should respect the rules and stand on and the ship will take the correct give way action. If the sailboat takes premature action that does not accord with COLREGS, then the ship that needs to give way doesn’t know what other movements the boat could make and that makes the situation more dangerous for them.

What if, when you first noted the risk of collision at five miles, you had gotten on the horn and talked to the RoRo? If their response stated or implied (as it might well have) that they had no intention of changing course or speed to avoid you, you could have, with as much cursing at them as you wished, made a small course or speed adjustment to avoid them. Then, if the encounter really pained you, make a report to the authorities as has been suggested elsewhere here. I've done that once (in my thirty-five years of sailing) after an encounter with a plastic palace while we were both heading into a very narrow pass under power, him coming from my port side and behind and forcing his way through in front of me. Either one of us was going to hit the rocks or we were going to collide in the middle of the pass (or both). I backed off and let him go through first. Then I wrote a letter explaining the whole situation (quoting quoting liberally from COLREGS and including a witness statement) to the local DOT office. I got a very nice reply from them and, eventually, a telephone call from the skipper of the plastic palace apologizing profusely. My thought is the DOT threatened him with prosecution if he didn't call me and apologize. If you did the same the RoRo watch keeping officer might well earn a black mark on his record.

The cost of a collision to you would have been FAR greater than the cost to them. I'm not a big fan of being dead right.

[Sail Away 3]

A few years back I was on a collision course with a Carnival ship at over 5 miles distance. I then called him by name and stated we were intersecting and asked if I should alter course. He stated I should maintain course and that he would alter course 5 degrees and pass astern. That gave us both plenty of time to make a decision and to maneuver safely. The thing is I gave us both about 30 minutes to avoid the collision where you gave him 2 minutes to avoid you. The key is to act early, not wait until his bulb is under your keel and his anchors over you mast to say that you were in the right.

[Martkimwat]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Commercial ships have right of way in practice. I just adjust a bit to pass astern usually.

They often don’t even look at the “little boat AIS” when entering harbor areas. It’s just a crowded mess for them.

Source? My friend, a mate on ships like this.

I am afraid it is attitudes like yours that will CAUSE an accident. In COLREGS a stand on vessel is a stand on vessel, making up the rules on the fly just because your 'mate' said so is criminally insane.
PS please don't try and argue your way out of this, instead, do something constructive and go read the COLREGS.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.






This

DH Quote
"The key is doing the right things in the right time frames and according to the Rules," unquote

This is where we all basically agree, but fail to communicate well in these discussions

Too many rely on single examples to illustrate their point.
Some look at it based on local experiences, others from a world wide perspective of commercial and foreign interaction.

Those with vast experience "Anticipate and Alleviate" if complicated and dense traffic is ahead

Others simply wait and react in a conservative manner that respects the Rules

To modify DH quote:

The key is doing the right things AT THAT PARTICULAR time frame and according to the Rules,"

There is no right or wrong method, if following the Rules, as long as you make your intentions clear and the CPA opens up.

Its when you make up your own rules, that things tend to go crazy

[aucoingc]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Force the issue???!!!??? ROTFLAPM

I simply waited to give the ship opportunity to do what it should to avoid collision. Note that 5 miles, if the ship was making its usual 20 knots, is not very far at all and certainly within risk of collision time.

Note that the correct action for the ship was either to alter course to port to go behind us, or to slow down to allow us to pass ahead, or to speed up and go ahead. I guess the ship decided on option three and we sped up as the breeze increased. Shows why crossing ahead is not the best choice.

But what if I changed course 5 degrees to starboard well ahead as you suggest? That would put me into the area into which the ship would turn if they turned to port to avoid us. Oops.

As well, a 5 degree change of course is not large enough to be clearly visible to the other ship - a course change should be large enough that it is readily visible on radar - typically 30 degrees.

Many times on this forum people with connections to ship’s masters and navigation officers have said that a stand on sailboat should respect the rules and stand on and the ship will take the correct give way action. If the sailboat takes premature action that does not accord with COLREGS, then the ship that needs to give way doesn’t know what other movements the boat could make and that makes the situation more dangerous for them.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you didn’t have Class B AIS. Now, I know that’s no fun because the data you received from it is what informed your decisions and presents a sense of immediacy. But with the description of the unlimited visibility you gave what would you have done when you spotted that commercial vessel on your starboard at an estimated 90 degree angle several miles, say approx 5, distant? You would call on VHF wouldn’t you and ask if he sees you? You might then have quickly determined a mutual passing plan. Or, what if your VHF was not functioning or you received no answer to your hailing? You would have watched carefully wouldn’t you and avoided a collision. And even more likely absent any input from the skipper of the commercial vessel, you would have decided early to take his stern thereby practically ensuring no collision involving your vessel.

My advice is don’t let AIS get in the way of common sense seamanship. It’s a tool to help you—not technology to reinforce your utterly correct textbook example of Rights of Way at Sea.

[rslifkin]

The biggest thing that bugs me about the whole situation from the RORO side of things is this: when asked about his intentions, the reply indicated they were going to cross the sailboat's bow. But AIS was apparently showing a 0 CPA, which means they were reporting an intention that their instruments should have been telling them just wasn't going to happen.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

The biggest thing that bugs me about the whole situation from the RORO side of things is this: when asked about his intentions, the reply indicated they were going to cross the sailboat's bow. But AIS was apparently showing a 0 CPA, which means they were reporting an intention that their instruments should have been telling them just wasn't going to happen.

Exactly which is why he was being a jerk!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

The biggest thing that bugs me about the whole situation from the RORO side of things is this: when asked about his intentions, the reply indicated they were going to cross the sailboat's bow. But AIS was apparently showing a 0 CPA, which means they were reporting an intention that their instruments should have been telling them just wasn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Exactly which is why he was being a jerk!

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he was being a jerk?

I say again -- it is a really fundamental mistake to distract yourself trying to blame the other vessel or second guess his motives. What if his junior mate simply did the plot wrong? Who knows? There are a hundred possible reasons.

And who cares? Who has TIME to care? Not a good seaman. If he doesn't unwind the situation after you've stood on to give him a decent chance, then it's simply your turn. That's all there is to it. It is deeply wrong to get worked up about why he's not giving way. Just deal with it yourself. Cheerfully and efficiently, thinking only about safely unwinding the situation and nothing else. That's the professional way, and the only correct way.

Originally Posted by Sail Away 3

A few years back I was on a collision course with a Carnival ship at over 5 miles distance. I then called him by name and stated we were intersecting and asked if I should alter course. He stated I should maintain course and that he would alter course 5 degrees and pass astern. That gave us both plenty of time to make a decision and to maneuver safely. The thing is I gave us both about 30 minutes to avoid the collision where you gave him 2 minutes to avoid you. The key is to act early, not wait until his bulb is under your keel and his anchors over you mast to say that you were in the right.

This. The only way his failing to give way causes you any problem, is if you screwed up and waited until it's too late to smoothly deal with it yourself. You're blaming the wrong person -- look at yourself.

[Clivevon]

Originally Posted by aucoingc

Let’s pretend for a moment that you didn’t have Class B AIS. Now, I know that’s no fun because the data you received from it is what informed your decisions and presents a sense of immediacy. But with the description of the unlimited visibility you gave what would you have done when you spotted that commercial vessel on your starboard at an estimated 90 degree angle several miles, say approx 5, distant? You would call on VHF wouldn’t you and ask if he sees you? You might then have quickly determined a mutual passing plan. Or, what if your VHF was not functioning or you received no answer to your hailing? You would have watched carefully wouldn’t you and avoided a collision. And even more likely absent any input from the skipper of the commercial vessel, you would have decided early to take his stern thereby practically ensuring no collision involving your vessel.

My advice is don’t let AIS get in the way of common sense seamanship. It’s a tool to help you—not technology to reinforce your utterly correct textbook example of Rights of Way at Sea.

I agree with this. AIS is brilliant - even better if you are sending too - but you cannot be at all sure the other guy is looking at his screen as closely as you are looking at yours - or at all. You probably can have 15 miles range on your AIS screen. If you only had 1 potential conflict it is just so easy to make a minor course change miles out so the situation just never develops. That has to be the best option. Once you get to 5 miles you might be only 15 minutes from collision. Certainly by then its time to defuse the situation if you can.

If you have simultaneous multiple potential conflicts in crowded waters & no reasonable way to avoid them then I tend to pick the least bad one (based on time, Colregs & what reasonably suits my situation) & stick with that. I will then use my AIS data to call that ship by name to ask if he has seen me & what he intends to do.

Quite often I will just heave to for a few minutes in good time & let it all go away. its often a good option.

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by BillKny

A 5 degree change in course when you FIRST noticed the issue would have avoided the whole problem. But you chose not to do that. It was a choice that YOU made.

What I have always explained to my students is that before there is a "risk of collision" there is no stand-on boat, and you can do whatever needs to be done to prevent a risky situation from developing with out violating your responsibilities as the "stand-on" vessel. When you are 5 miles away away from another vessel there is not a "risk of collision," and therefore you are NOT the stand on vessel. To create a risk of collision where no risk existed and was not necessary is just bad seamanship. Period.

You chose to force the issue. Now you chose to grandstand about how you were wronged. While you do that, we roll our eyes.

The COLREGs specify when risk of collision exists in Rule 7:

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

This is not subjective and the definition does not depend on absolute distance or speed. If the two vessels are approaching and the bearing from one to the other does not change, risk shall be deemed to exist.

OP did not create that risk. The risk existed objectively when he initially observed the RORO ship.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Law of Tonnage works regardless of what the colregs state.

There is no such "law" - please stop repeating this fallacy.

Originally Posted by garyfdl

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

There is no such "rule" - you learnt incorrectly.

[Stmurray62]

I agree most emphatically. Should have contacted ship earlier via vhf, my experience has been that they often do make a minor course change to accommodate sail boats, etc. Failing that I would have done as stated change course. You violated the rule( paraphrasing here) to avoid collision, at any safe means”. You screwed up!!!