Collision Avoidance

[skipperpete]

Military vessels seem to have a spectacular disregard for the Colregs and AIS,
the USS McCain collided with the MV Alnic
, the Fitzgerald collided with the ACX Crystal
The USS Porter collided with MV Otoswan
The Helge Ingstad collided with the MV Sola TS
HMAS Melbourne hit the Frank E Evans
HMAS Melbourne hit HMAS voyager
USS Darby collided with the SS Soya Atlantic
Most of these resulted in loss of life. All were in peacetime.
And these are just the ones I can cite from memory , mine..not Google.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

Military vessels seem to have a spectacular disregard for the Colregs and AIS,
the USS McCain collided with the MV Alnic
, the Fitzgerald collided with the ACX Crystal
The USS Porter collided with MV Otoswan
The Helge Ingstad collided with the MV Sola TS
HMAS Melbourne hit the Frank E Evans
HMAS Melbourne hit HMAS voyager
USS Darby collided with the SS Soya Atlantic
Most of these resulted in loss of life. All were in peacetime.
And these are just the ones I can cite from memory , mine..not Google.

Half of those were before AIS was invented. A small percentage of the overall number of collisions between vessels, so military vessels not so special.

[skipperpete]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Half of those were before AIS was invented. A small percentage of the overall number of collisions between vessels, so military vessels not so special.

Good point, almost none of them were transmitting AIS data at the time of the collisions and the more recent were not particularly visible if at all on radar.

[Kettlewell]

Half of those were before AIS was invented. A small percentage of the overall number of collisions between vessels, so military vessels not so special.

In my experience military vessels at least will talk to you on the radio and maintain a real watch--I've spoken to numerous naval and coast guard vessels. Commercial vessels often don't respond when you call on the radio.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

Good point, almost none of them were transmitting AIS data at the time of the collisions and the more recent were not particularly visible if at all on radar.

They do paint on radar, but more like a small vessel. In one of those collisions, the commercial vessel saw the running light on McCain(?) thought it was a fishing vessel and turned to cross its path. There was blame on both sides of that collision.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by singlespeed

... A friend recently recounted his personal experience on the ICW in the Carolinas. Mid-day, mid-week clear and sunny. He sees an approaching sailboat motoring down the middle of the ICW. His sailboat draws 4'8", so his ability to avoid collision is dictated by the dredged channel. As they close he noted that he could only see the top of the approaching boat's helm man's head. He moved as far to port as his depth so under indicated was safe. The other helmsman never looked up. My friend waited until both cockpits were abreast and then laid on his horn. The other skipper's cell phone went flying onto the cockpit floor and the skipper wrenched the wheel to port. Because the boat never actually changed course, my friend surmised that not only was he on the phone, but the boat had hydraulic steering and was on autopilot.


My friend successfully did everything he could to avoid a collision, within the physical depth limits of that stretch of the ICW. Has that other skipper learned his lesson on being situation aware? Doubtful, if you read all the reports on distracted driving. Be careful out there.

Singlespeed asked "Why would he have gone to port?"


This is, in part, why I started the thread.


Absent other information, he should have gone to starboard in a head-to-head meeting, and if he had a reason to go to port, he should certainly have done it VERY early and signaled with two short blasts ("I intended to leave you on my starboard side"). Going to port invites a head-on collision and is in conflict with Rules 9, 14, and 17. It's all wrong.


It sounds like your friend needs a class too. Collisions most often take two errors, and it sounds like both were seriously wrong.

[skipperpete]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

They do paint on radar, but more like a small vessel. In one of those collisions, the commercial vessel saw the running light on McCain(?) thought it was a fishing vessel and turned to cross its path. There was blame on both sides of that collision.

There’s always accountability on both sides in a collision , even when one of the vessels is at anchor with an anchor watch….. like when the ferry T boned an anchored container ship (US Virginia) off Marseille.
Your statement about the McCain incident is false, look up the video AIS tracks on Gcaptain and read the damning NTSB report to understand what actually happened.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

Your statement about the McCain incident is false, look up the video AIS tracks on Gcaptain and read the damning NTSB report to understand what actually happened.

You'll note the question mark I put it there - I couldn't remember which was which and couldn't be faffed to look up the various reports. It was obviously the Fitzgerald collision where the opposite vessel turned towards.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Singlespeed asked "Why would he have gone to port?"

Actually, I asked that question. Singlespeed stated his friend went port, and hasn't answered my question. But your analysis hits the nail on the head.

[skipperpete]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You'll note the question mark I put it there - I couldn't remember which was which and couldn't be faffed to look up the various reports. It was obviously the Fitzgerald collision where the opposite vessel turned towards.

If you “ can’t be faffed” to read an NTSB report it might be wise to not comment on the incident. In the USS Fitzgerald incident the NTSB report made it very clear who changed course and when, 3 cargo ships travelling on parallel courses were following a shipping route close to each other when the Fitzgerald crossed that route with the 3 ships on her stbd bow as an invisible AIS target and collided with the ACX Crystal at 18 knots . Crystal turned to stbd as Colregs suggest. Well prior to the incident the USS Fitzgerald “inexplicably” ( NTSB wording) changed course 10° to stbd causing her to collide with ACX Crystal, between 2 other ships. I’m interested to know what’s meant by “opposite vessel”, did you mean the Fitzgerald?

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

In my experience military vessels at least will talk to you on the radio and maintain a real watch--I've spoken to numerous naval and coast guard vessels. Commercial vessels often don't respond when you call on the radio.

My experience is similar. Very rudely and ignoring any relevant rule they simply demand you stay clear. I have had it happen in dense fog where they were not visible, not transmitting AIS, but telling all other vessels to keep clear. They didn't even hail them, it was just a regular broadcast. Arrogant and irresponsible. How are these young sailors learning the rules if all of their sailing assumes they always have a right of way? Does this contribute to accidents?

IMHO, in peacetime AIS needs to be mandatory even for military vessels. It makes no difference to the sailors on board the military ship. Even more so if they are broadcasting on VHF their location telling everyone to keep clear.

The first time it happened was as I was finishing the Pacific Cup Race. As I approached the finish a Navy vessel parked near the finish line and told me to keep clear. It delayed my finish by an hour.

The fog incident was near San Diego.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Knotical

Does this happen?

I can't imagine any law enforcement agency issuing any ticket or taking any action against a violation or infraction they did not witness only on the word of a citizen claiming it happened. It would most certainly be dismissed in court.

[Knotical]

Originally Posted by wholybee

I can't imagine any law enforcement agency issuing any ticket or taking any action against a violation or infraction they did not witness only on the word of a citizen claiming it happened. It would most certainly be dismissed in court.

I didn’t think so either, i cannot imagine them diverting valuable resources into resolving petty fights in absence of a serious incident.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by skipperpete

If you “ can’t be faffed” to read an NTSB report it might be wise to not comment on the incident. In the USS Fitzgerald incident the NTSB report made it very clear who changed course and when, 3 cargo ships travelling on parallel courses were following a shipping route close to each other when the Fitzgerald crossed that route with the 3 ships on her stbd bow as an invisible AIS target and collided with the ACX Crystal at 18 knots . Crystal turned to stbd as Colregs suggest. Well prior to the incident the USS Fitzgerald “inexplicably” ( NTSB wording) changed course 10° to stbd causing her to collide with ACX Crystal, between 2 other ships. I’m interested to know what’s meant by “opposite vessel”, did you mean the Fitzgerald?

Sorry I don't meet your strict requirements for entering a discussion, and didn't flip through half a dozen accident reports to positively identify the specific incident to discuss an inconsequential tangent to a tangent to the original topic.
Sorry for assuming the average person would get from "in one of those collisions" that if it wasn't one, it was the other.
The vessel "opposite" Fitzgerald obviously wouldn't be Fitzgerald - are you being deliberately obtuse?
So to meet your requirements, I've gone back and quickly had a review of the NTSB report. I couldn't find "inexplicably" written anywhere in the report - did you make that up?
It is, like most of these reports, somewhat lacking. No-one disputes that Fitzgerald made a bunch of mistakes, but Crystal also did. You should read the other reports. When they were 6.5 miles apart, Crystal turned to port, putting them into a collision course with Fitz. Had Crystal not made that turn, she would have passed nearly 2 miles ahead of Fitz. Fitz had been painting on Crystal's radar from 13 miles away. The NTSB describes Crystal's original course as "easterly", but other reports show they were ESEly, cutting the wrong way through the voluntary TSS lane and separation zone, before altering to 069º (breaking rules 10 and 17). In fact they also kinda fractured Rule 15, as they were give-way to a Maersk vessel closing from their starboard side prior to that turn. The second officer on the Crystal apparently didn't see Fitz's navlights until about 3 miles away. Despite the fact that other vessels had seen Fitz's steaming light, Crystal apparently only saw a green running light, and made the assumption (strangely) that that indicated a fishing vessel. If it was a fishing vessel, (or a sailing vessel, as that would be what a lone green light would actually indicate) Crystal should have given way (breaking Rule 18), but instead they chose to shine their aldis lamp in that direction. At the point that Crystal turned to starboard, Colregs does not "suggest" a turn to starboard - but Rule 17(b) says to take whatever action as will best aid to avoid collision." A turn to port would have been better, but I don't blame them on that point - it would have been pretty difficult to decide the optimum solution then - hindsight is 20/20. There are threads on this topic, if you want to read more on it.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The NTSB describes Crystal's original course as "easterly", but other reports show they were ESEly, cutting the wrong way through the voluntary TSS lane and separation zone, before altering to 069º (breaking rules 10 and 17). In fact they also kinda fractured Rule 15, as they were give-way to a Maersk vessel closing from their starboard side prior to that turn.

Is there a TSS (voluntary or otherwise) here? I thought I remembered one as well, but don't see any mention in the report. A peek at TSS in the area suggests I'm remembering the one off Iro Zaki (further East) but don't recall which particular collision it featured in.

From the various diagrams in the NTSB report, it appear the three eastbound ships all made similar turns to port. It mentions the Crystal's turn as part of the voyage plan, and such turns would be expected for those ships to avoid the islands of Toshima and Udone-shima.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The second officer on the Crystal apparently didn't see Fitz's navlights until about 3 miles away. Despite the fact that other vessels had seen Fitz's steaming light, Crystal apparently only saw a green running light, and made the assumption (strangely) that that indicated a fishing vessel. If it was a fishing vessel, (or a sailing vessel, as that would be what a lone green light would actually indicate) Crystal should have given way (breaking Rule 18), but instead they chose to shine their aldis lamp in that direction. At the point that Crystal turned to starboard, Colregs does not "suggest" a turn to starboard - but Rule 17(b) says to take whatever action as will best aid to avoid collision."

This is an example of why I think AI has better odds; it's more likely to properly interpret the data provided, and to take more decisive action instead of faffing about. If Crystal had seen the steaming light, 17(c) is the rule you're looking for (avoiding turns to port if possible).