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

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

105 posts about a non-existent "problem"?? My head is spinning :-)!

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

TP

A very reasonable plan consistent with the practice of seamen. Or Gentlemen

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

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

Originally Posted by jmh2002

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

Originally Posted by garyfdl

Well, I may not be the most seasoned or experienced sailor on these boards, but it's served me well, despite you 'opinion'. In 50 years of coastal and inland sailing, I've never had a collision (or even come close).

It may have served you well (and nobody here is saying not to use common sense as part of collision avoidance or COLREG compliance) but it's not my 'opinion' that there is no such rule, it is just the facts.

If you disagree you are most welcome to please indicate to me where in the COLREGS a 'rule of the road' exists that says "BIG boat go FIRST!" ?

Here is the link to the COLREGS: https://assets.publishing.service.go...65/msn1781.pdf

[requiem]

Originally Posted by jkleins

You can make an argument that 30 would be better but at 5nm anything that started widening the CPA would be seen by the ship as there no longer being a risk of collision and everyone would just go on their way.

There are two reasons to make a large course change, and only one of them is that "the rules require it". The other is that a small change, for courses that are roughly perpendicular, does almost nothing to alter the CPA: it simply means that the location where both ships collide is shifted to one side or the other of the original point of interception.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Hey! How about an example of when to not remain standing on.

That's not really a good example. I don't think they were standing on. Although the article doesn't specify it I'm guessing they were at anchor because the people fishing didnt even try to start the engine to get out of the way (which they probably would have done if they were just drifting).

And ultimately they didn't standon, they took what action they could to avoid a collision (with themselves) by jumping overboard.

[peter loveridge]

oh dear !
if any well run commercial ship comes within two miles of you on a converging bearing and they don't call or alter course you can safely assume they are not well run and they are not going to do so.
I'd suggest this should have happened , Ch 16 ( so its on the tape which will be running if you in sight of land in almost any developed country)

" RoRo vessel at ( position ), going (heading) I am the sailboat on your port bow, I am altering course and will pass astern of you._ Please acknowledge " Solves all problems, non?. And before any of you get huffy about this, I have 50 years experience sailing small slow boats in some of the most crowded marine areas in the world, and also bear in mind, most large commercial vessels have a blind area, both visual and radar in front of their bow that can be huge

[jmh2002]

Also a point here that is being missed by most. As master of large vessels, when in open water without obstructions, it is in fact relatively easy for most such vessels to alter course to comply with their obligations under the COLREGS.

We are not talking about a VLCC here that needs 5nm to stop.

In addition to it being relatively easy it is also necessary, obligatory, and part of daily life for a ship.

Ships alter course as part of their normal life of being a ship, and as part of the bridge team's life of operating a ship - it's not the big deal that it is being made out to be.

You don't need to do anything special for them (unless special circumstances exist).

The greatest concern for a large vessel is for a small yacht to do something unexpected, unplanned, and unorthodox in relation to the COLREGS.

Just please learn and follow the COLREGS, that is all that is being asked and all that a ship expects.

This is what a large vessel wants you to do. This is what a large vessel expects you to do. Not more, not less, and certainly not something random of your own accord.

It's not necessary to make up your own special set of 'rules' to follow.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

That's not really a good example. I don't think they were standing on. Although the article doesn't specify it I'm guessing they were at anchor because the people fishing didnt even try to start the engine to get out of the way (which they probably would have done if they were just drifting).

And ultimately they didn't standon, they took what action they could to avoid a collision (with themselves) by jumping overboard.

Ahem, an instance of Poe's law.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[requiem]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

In 50 years of coastal and inland sailing

Originally Posted by Lemsteraak

California, in contested areas like SF Bay

I think people may sometimes think they're disregarding the ColRegs and following a "law of tonnage" when they are unknowingly still acting in accordance with the rules. I suppose a driving analogy would be someone coming to California, observing people making right turns on a red light, and then doing the same themselves, all whilst feeling a bit of an illicit thrill for this bit of rule-breaking.

(Spoiler: right-on-red is legal in California)

The problem is, having not learned the rules of this nautical "footpath foxtrot", it can leave them wrong-footed should they find themselves in a situation where the rules call for a different step than what they've been used to.

[Montanan]

And then there be good old COLREG Rule 8 which if applied early and often tends to obviate the need for many of the other rules. In particular part C.

—INTERNATIONAL—
Steering and Sailing Rules
RULE 8

Action to Avoid Collision

(a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with
the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be
positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good
seamanship.
(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the
circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to
another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small
alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is
made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another closequarters situation.
(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to
result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be
carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the
situation, a vessel shall slacken her spe[/B]ed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
(f)
(i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the
passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the
circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea
room for the safe passage of the other vessel.
(ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of
another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other
vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action,
have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this
part.
(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully
obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are
approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

Just saying.

[Rob_P]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

Rule 2 is being invoked to justify the failure of the RORO to adhere to the rules. Which is itself addressed in Rule 2(a) to say that this is NOT allowed. "(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precautions which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

By believing that it is "unseamanlike" to adhere to the rules, which are there to promote everyone's safety, you excuse negligent behavior.


Rule 2(b) also exists to allow the conforming vessel the authority and leeway to violate the Regs to avoid a collision. It's not there to allow vessels to pick and choose when, if ever, they will obey the Regs.

Giving ME the authority to avoid a collision in no way excuses someone else's failure to follow the Regs. Yet here you are saying that early avoidance by the stand-on vessel is what's supposed to happen and that it's the stand-on vessel's fault for not avoiding the potential collision earlier than when they took action.

And then you lambast the helmsman of the stand-on vessel for complaining about it.




As for being a "dangerous lacadaisical butt" the OP's post clearly stated that the RORO's reply to his hail wasn't one in which one could build confidence that the RORO was on top of the situation and would give way as it was required to do. The fact that the RORO didn't give way, as required, makes the RORO "dangerous."

[GiaPet]

ALWAYS REMEMBER TONNAGE COUNTS

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Montanan

And then there be good old COLREG Rule 8 which if applied early and often tends to obviate the need for many of the other rules. In particular part C.

—INTERNATIONAL—
Steering and Sailing Rules
RULE 8

Action to Avoid Collision

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is
made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another closequarters situation.


Just saying.

Agreed. Nobody here said don't do that at all.

In fact many people said action should have been taken earlier.

Let's also remember that it applies to both vessels too.

But unfortunately some people are stating wild and inaccurate information, or making up their own rules, instead of just following the COLREGS which pretty much account for every situation.

[Pelagic]

Keeping this all in perspective, some sailors in search of glory and a Testesterone fix, do some pretty stupid things.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/sailor...3610/?sfnsn=mo

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by GiaPet

ALWAYS REMEMBER TONNAGE COUNTS

NO, IT DOESN'T (except in special circumstances).

This has been refuted multiple times in this thread already.

Please stop posting false information.

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Sandy, I know your intenrions are good....but the danger in that mindset when it comes to collision avoidance is that;
NONE OF US ARE PLAYING
The rules are very clear and offer specific guidance as to stand on and give way respnsibilities.

Large ships have no problem altering course when required and they do it all the time in open waters that have no draft restrictions .

It is that last minute panic change by a yachtie who would have passed clear if they had maintained their stand on course, that gives us nightmares

OK, that was a poor choice of words. How about, "I am out here for recreation and they are out here to earn a living"?

I still feel that at five miles out I can make a miniscule course alteration and the concept of "risk of collision" will never apply - unless you think 2 vessels merely being on the same body of water creates such a risk. That is not what I would call a "last minute panic change". FWIW, I have had decidedly mixed results trying to contact tugs on the VHF, and shrimp boats are hardly worth the attempt.