Collision and Dismasting

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Marathon1150

In addition to loving sailing I also love to ride fast motorcycles - a strange combination. Current ride is a Ducati S4r. I have been riding for about as long as sailing and I learned from reading everything available when I first started to ride that it is best to think of oneself as invisible. Other drivers don't see you or they don't understand that a motorcycle is a motor vehicle and might be moving, possibly quickly.

I try to do the same when sailing, particularly after being t-boned by a recreational fisher. I was sailing and he was trawling. I saw him and the person on watch and assumed that they would change course. By the time that it was clear that they were not changing course it was too late for me to do anything. I was wrong - the ColRegs and common sense indicate that everyone is responsible for avoiding collisions no matter who has the right of way.

Regarding AIS, I strongly agree with others that it is a low cost, high value way to avoid collisions. While sailing at night over the past 8 or so years, our AIS has several times helped us identify deep seas that might get too close to our course. Without exception they responded to a VHF call and without exception they offered to change course. I was amazed.

It makes a big difference calling up a ship by name rather than "red hulled ship on southbound course this is the sailboat just off your stbd bow 2nm distant.."

[LakeSuperior]

Our couple Atlantic crossing with a strong crew was made having a full-time watch per sensible cruising. And, knowing ourselves, we Great Lakes boys decided if you are going to be on watch you might as well helm so as not to get distracted or fall asleep. So all passages were made with a full-time helmsman. There was no getting up and looking around every 15 minutes to check traffic, you were driving the boat every second like a car. The autopilot was still brand new at the end of the two year cruise.

Bottom line is we put up a mighty defense, radar when viz was reduced, two-way AIS, VHS, and visual.

In spite of it all there were some serious challenges out there even with a full time helmsman. I remember night watch on a rough, high traffic, Cuxhaven to Southampton passage...well a story for another time.

All-in-all, our methodology worked well for us.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by davil

they were trawling for shrimp

SO?

If true, the fishing boat would have been stand-on.

- they didn't see us on radar

SO?
--------------------------------------------
- we didn't have on nav lights on before or after the collision

expected answer/excuse

Taken together, if true, these would imply that the fishing boat was fulfilling their obligation to keep an effective watch.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Jammer

If true, the fishing boat would have been stand-on.





Taken together, if true, these would imply that the fishing boat was fulfilling their obligation to keep an effective watch.

The fishing boat is claiming that the SV didn't have nav lights on, however the SV has indicated they did, and they confirmed after the collision that the lights were still working.

[sailorboy1]

You know what?

The report from the fishing boat wasn't even written by someone who was on the boat. It was written by the boats' owner and says the Master was at the helm.

Their report marked YES to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this casualty". They never even got within 100' of me, how did the owner back on shore come up with this I wonder?

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

You know what?

The report from the fishing boat wasn't even written by someone who was on the boat. It was written by the boats' owner and says the Master was at the helm.

Their report marked YES to the question "Is there evidence that alcohol contributed to this casualty". They never even got within 100' of me, how did the owner back on shore come up with this I wonder?

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip - he was subconsciously thinking of his own crew as he ticked the box!

[skipperpete]

Rule 18 b provides clarity regardless of any of the other information from the actual collision. The trawler immediatly established contact with the relevant authorities on VHF. It’s up to the lawyers ( or NTSB) to establish the cause of the incident and not lay blame during that process. As is always the case though, neither party is blameless.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Perhaps it was a Freudian slip - he was subconsciously thinking of his own crew as he ticked the box!

no, he also wrote in the comments

[carstenb]

Don I can't add anything except to say I happy no one was hurt and it seems as if you and your wife acting like seasoned seamen when all this occurred. Your first obligation is to your crew (no one hurt) then save you boat which you did.

Let the CG and the lawyers figure this one out.

[davil]

Originally Posted by Jammer

If true, the fishing boat would have been stand-on.





Taken together, if true, these would imply that the fishing boat was fulfilling their obligation to keep an effective watch.

====================
actually NO

if they were keeping an effective watch, they did not meet the “avoid collision” rule.
That overrides any other rule.


the only attempt to avoid a collision was mentioned when his wife attempted to steer away.

Again, to my initial comment, this was a collision between two vessels not seeing each others.

As to why they didn't see each others?

have no idea.

Glad and surprised there were no injuries in such a potentially deadly event.

[davil]

In general with some exceptions, we, pleasure boats tend to understand commercial fishing vessels are WORKING and respect them for a very difficult and hard profession, last thing we want is to interfere in their activities.

there is always a jerk in the equation.
At the same time, there are exceptions to the commercial fishing captains, and is not surprise there are a few exceptions that involves bullying and lack of respect.

But,that is life, anybody driving I 95 with a truck tailgating your car will know.

[skipperpete]

Originally Posted by davil

====================
actually NO

if they were keeping an effective watch, they did not meet the “avoid collision” rule.
That overrides any other rule.


the only attempt to avoid a collision was mentioned when his wife attempted to steer away.

Again, to my initial comment, this was a collision between two vessels not seeing each others.

As to why they didn't see each others?

have no idea.

Glad and surprised there were no injuries in such a potentially deadly event.

I too am thankful no one was injured. davil , have you ever actually tried to turn a trawler with the gear down? Possibly across the current ?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

I too am thankful no one was injured. davil , have you ever actually tried to turn a trawler with the gear down? Possibly across the current ?

Trawler having gear down and having all required lights on is impossible to unsee. And it's a fact!

[davil]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

I too am thankful no one was injured. davil , have you ever actually tried to turn a trawler with the gear down? Possibly across the current ?

===============================

My answer is
it depends.

I see F/V turning and changing course all the time, that is why I steer away from them, sometimes 1 or 2 miles, find them unpredictable and accept that as part of their working grounds.

have deep respect for their job, hard, difficult and sometimes risking their lives.

In this case, it involved two vessels on a collision course, none of them able to change course to avoid the collision.

That is why I remarked the SO?

It didn't matter, they didn't see the sailboat.
--------------------------------------------------------
As a comment, on a personal note, this past season convinced me to not longer
do overnight coastal passages alone, traffic has increased over the years, the East coast has more vessels commercial as well as non, and the night passage in my opinion requires a minimum of 2 (two) alert and experienced people on watch.
We have more electronics to attend to and is impossible for one person alone.
My personal choice.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by davil

As a comment, on a personal note, this past season convinced me to not longer
do overnight coastal passages alone, traffic has increased over the years, the East coast has more vessels commercial as well as non, and the night passage in my opinion requires a minimum of 2 (two) alert and experienced people on watch.
We have more electronics to attend to and is impossible for one person alone.
My personal choice.

I have some of the same thoughts, although it depends on location.

On Lake Ontario, especially away from the busiest areas, night runs don't concern me much, particularly if it's not a Friday or Saturday night (even without radar). There's just not much traffic out late at night, and most of what's out there are sailboats and freighters, generally far apart and fairly predictable. But for some areas I'd need a pretty good reason to run overnight due to concern for lobster pots, traffic, etc. and in some areas I just flat out wouldn't do it without radar.

For the 2 on watch thought, that idea has shaped my plans for electronics improvements a bit. Radar is on the to-do list at some point and that will come with another MFD at the helm so it can have a dedicated display (I've got a good spot for a second one). Also in the plans is an additional MFD at the nav station next to the helm to allow some workload to be offloaded to the admiral in busy areas (the helm seat has a better view around the boat without having to stand up and move around, so I'd rather offload some of the navigation and radar watch duties than visual watch).