Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 29-09-2017, 13:26   #166
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Ontario
Boat: Ontario 38 / Douglas 32 Mk II
Posts: 3,250
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
In the other thread, a very knowledgeable person suggested exactly making a one degree course correction from 5 miles our for a 180 foot miss, and asserted that this was an adequate maneuver. I demonstrated mathematically that it is not.
Now wait just a minute.

I left this thread feeling I had cleared this up, only to find the falsehood perpetuated.

After I made the statement about the one degree course change, you are referring to, you then arbitrarily selected the worst case conditions (head on high speed approach) to make it implausible.

One need not make course corrections for the worst case scenario, except in the worst case scenario.

I was considering the usual scenario, where a small rec vessel crosses shipping lanes at right angles.

When crossing a shipping lane, making a 1 degree adjustment from 5 miles out is absolutely fine.

Why?

No risk of collision even exists yet.

As I said in prior posts (and you seem to have completely ignored), the sailboat could be planning to turn 180 and reverse course completely in 4 miles. No risk of collision whatsoever. No need to change course and by a large degree from 5 miles out at all.

Additionally, it is extremely highly unlikely that the sailboat is going to maintain constant speed. Even if the sailboat holds original course, due to speed variation may pass well clear of the larger vessel.

Show me a skipper on a small rec boat that can even hold a course within +/- one degree constantly for 5 miles.

So please, stop making statements about my prior post that are untrue.

If I was approaching a vessel head-on with a very high combined intercept speed, my approach and reaction would be far different than when approaching at right angles.

Crossing at right angles, from 5 miles out, I don't have to change course at all. In all likelihood there will be no risk of collision by the time I get to the original intersect point.

It is only when a risk of collision develops, the give-way vessel must take action to avoid a collision, and that a large course change is required. The sole purpose of the large correction is to (hopefully) provide an obvious indication to the stand on vessel that you have identified the risk, are monitoring the situation and are acting appropriately.

(Even still this could be false, the give way may have just been slapped by a wave, and not aware of anything. Surely the stand-on vessel is monitoring the course keeping track of the other vessel. A 30 degree turn, when the vessel has been on a drunken sailor course, may not mean anything.)

If I am on a narrow miss in a crossing situation, when it becomes necessary to make a course change to avoid collision, I may turn 30 degrees off to show clearly that I am making a course correction, and then turn back to X degrees off the original course (as appropriate) to meet my "obligation" to avoid collision.

Whether any vessel watch officer has standing orders to report any vessel closer than 1 nm is not my concern. That is their business, and they can set whatever arbitrary distance they wish. I am not responsible for knowing what that is, considering that, or basing my decisions on that. My responsibility is to follow colregs, and I do.

(IMHO, that 1 nm number under nay condition is stupid, because as we can clearly see, the safe distance away varies depending on the speed and direction of the vessels.)

Regarding the cone of silence, (tongue in cheek) of course I would look at the situation to see if the larger stand on vessel is likely to make a course change to avoid land or another vessel that may then put us on a collision course.

But to go to the extremes you did to make your point, I could just as easily argue that the worst case scenario is that the faster vessel has the capability to run me down no matter what I do, as soon as they pick me up on radar, even if I turned 90 degrees away from my original course at full speed, after spotting them 5 miles away.

So please, stop referring to my post as if it related to the arbitrary worst case scenario you established after the fact. It didn't.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 02:06   #167
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Now wait just a minute.

I left this thread feeling I had cleared this up, only to find the falsehood perpetuated.

After I made the statement about the one degree course change, you are referring to, you then arbitrarily selected the worst case conditions (head on high speed approach) to make it implausible.

One need not make course corrections for the worst case scenario, except in the worst case scenario.

I was considering the usual scenario, where a small rec vessel crosses shipping lanes at right angles.

When crossing a shipping lane, making a 1 degree adjustment from 5 miles out is absolutely fine.

Why?

No risk of collision even exists yet.

As I said in prior posts (and you seem to have completely ignored), the sailboat could be planning to turn 180 and reverse course completely in 4 miles. No risk of collision whatsoever. No need to change course and by a large degree from 5 miles out at all.

Additionally, it is extremely highly unlikely that the sailboat is going to maintain constant speed. Even if the sailboat holds original course, due to speed variation may pass well clear of the larger vessel.

Show me a skipper on a small rec boat that can even hold a course within +/- one degree constantly for 5 miles.
. . .

I only have two things to say about this:

1. Your idea of when a risk of collision exists is faulty. Talk to a commercial skipper some time and let him explain it to you, since you don't want to listen to anyone here. 5 miles out in open water is a fully developed risk of collision situation and rapidly approaching the end of the window of opportunity for normal maneuvering. Your misconception of this is an absolutely typical WAFI misconception, which is one of the things which drives commercial seaman crazy, about the way we maneuver. You cannot just make a 180, one mile out, and be sure to avoid danger, and you cannot just blithely sail on from 5 miles out to 1 mile out, telling yourself that there is no risk of collision. The reasons were explained in great detail in this and the other thread, and because you were so much more interested in arguing, than in learning anything, you missed it. The fear of appearing to be wrong, is the mortal enemy of knowledge and learning, and this is a really great example of it.

2. You explain very correctly that you can't hold a steady course within one degree on a small boat -- no way to do it within one degree. So how can you say that a one degree course correction in any case (not only head-on), puts you 180 feet into safety? Do you not see the contradiction here? That is PRECISELY the reason why you must not do collision avoidance with one degree course corrections -- they are MEANINGLESS when you are not even holding your course within one degree anyway. You don't know where you will be on a given course, five miles later, or where he will be, within 180 feet. Your course correction must get you out of the cone of uncertainty around the CPA, in order to be effective. We don't even get to worst case, best case crossing geometry here -- it should be totally obvious to you -- isn't it? -- that a one degree course correction when your course itself is not consistent within one degree is utterly meaningless -- just wasting time while you hurtle towards a possible collision.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 02:42   #168
Registered User
 
danielamartindm's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Boat: Leopard 39
Posts: 860
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Now wait just a minute.

I left this thread feeling I had cleared this up, only to find the falsehood perpetuated.

After I made the statement about the one degree course change, you are referring to, you then arbitrarily selected the worst case conditions (head on high speed approach) to make it implausible.

One need not make course corrections for the worst case scenario, except in the worst case scenario.

I was considering the usual scenario, where a small rec vessel crosses shipping lanes at right angles.

When crossing a shipping lane, making a 1 degree adjustment from 5 miles out is absolutely fine.

Why?

No risk of collision even exists yet.

As I said in prior posts (and you seem to have completely ignored), the sailboat could be planning to turn 180 and reverse course completely in 4 miles. No risk of collision whatsoever. No need to change course and by a large degree from 5 miles out at all.

Additionally, it is extremely highly unlikely that the sailboat is going to maintain constant speed. Even if the sailboat holds original course, due to speed variation may pass well clear of the larger vessel.

Show me a skipper on a small rec boat that can even hold a course within +/- one degree constantly for 5 miles.

So please, stop making statements about my prior post that are untrue.

If I was approaching a vessel head-on with a very high combined intercept speed, my approach and reaction would be far different than when approaching at right angles.

Crossing at right angles, from 5 miles out, I don't have to change course at all. In all likelihood there will be no risk of collision by the time I get to the original intersect point.

It is only when a risk of collision develops, the give-way vessel must take action to avoid a collision, and that a large course change is required. The sole purpose of the large correction is to (hopefully) provide an obvious indication to the stand on vessel that you have identified the risk, are monitoring the situation and are acting appropriately.

(Even still this could be false, the give way may have just been slapped by a wave, and not aware of anything. Surely the stand-on vessel is monitoring the course keeping track of the other vessel. A 30 degree turn, when the vessel has been on a drunken sailor course, may not mean anything.)

If I am on a narrow miss in a crossing situation, when it becomes necessary to make a course change to avoid collision, I may turn 30 degrees off to show clearly that I am making a course correction, and then turn back to X degrees off the original course (as appropriate) to meet my "obligation" to avoid collision.

Whether any vessel watch officer has standing orders to report any vessel closer than 1 nm is not my concern. That is their business, and they can set whatever arbitrary distance they wish. I am not responsible for knowing what that is, considering that, or basing my decisions on that. My responsibility is to follow colregs, and I do.

(IMHO, that 1 nm number under nay condition is stupid, because as we can clearly see, the safe distance away varies depending on the speed and direction of the vessels.)

Regarding the cone of silence, (tongue in cheek) of course I would look at the situation to see if the larger stand on vessel is likely to make a course change to avoid land or another vessel that may then put us on a collision course.

But to go to the extremes you did to make your point, I could just as easily argue that the worst case scenario is that the faster vessel has the capability to run me down no matter what I do, as soon as they pick me up on radar, even if I turned 90 degrees away from my original course at full speed, after spotting them 5 miles away.

So please, stop referring to my post as if it related to the arbitrary worst case scenario you established after the fact. It didn't.
I enjoy math as much as the next guy; but I'm a simple human being and sailor. It seems to me that despite all of our technical wizardry, collision avoidance boils down in the minds of captains to a psychological approach/avoidance paradigm: the closer you get, the more extreme your actions should become. We can, and should, attempt to quantify that; but in the real world, it all boils down to sentience of one's immediate situation, and pucker factor. Call me a cowboy, I've been called worse.
danielamartindm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 03:41   #169
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 2020 - Caribbean, currently Grenada
Boat: Amazon 49 cutter, custom steel boat built in Surrey, Canada
Posts: 731
Images: 1
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

For us poor acronym-challenged sailors, what is a WAFI?

Cheers!

Steve
steve77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 03:43   #170
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,489
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Wind Assisted F*ing Idiot.
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 03:46   #171
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Boat in Puerto Lucia, Ecuador, Body in SE Australia, Heart in Patagonia....
Boat: Westerly Sealord
Posts: 5,946
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve77 View Post
For us poor acronym-challenged sailors, what is a WAFI?

Cheers!

Steve
I believe that it stands for Wind Assisted ****ing Idiots.... however I must say that in 42 years in the day job I never ever heard it used.

First came across it in the pages of pommy yachting mags and then here on CF..... or maybe the other way around....
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 03:53   #172
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 2020 - Caribbean, currently Grenada
Boat: Amazon 49 cutter, custom steel boat built in Surrey, Canada
Posts: 731
Images: 1
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by rramsey View Post
I might be wrong but AIS seems to miss something. It doen't tell me if the CPA is ahead or astern of the other vessel. So I don't know if I am supposed to slow down or speed up.
I didn't see where anyone answered his question, so...

Your AIS may give the compass bearing to the other vessel. Our Simrad system does, and I would expect other systems do, also.

Watching the other vessel for a few moments, you should see the bearing change. You can extrapolate this to determine whether the vessel will pass in front or behind you.

For example, a vessel to port with a compass bearing that is increasing will pass in front of you.

Cheers!

Steve
steve77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 03:56   #173
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 2020 - Caribbean, currently Grenada
Boat: Amazon 49 cutter, custom steel boat built in Surrey, Canada
Posts: 731
Images: 1
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
I believe that it stands for Wind Assisted ****ing Idiots.... however I must say that in 42 years in the day job I never ever heard it used.

First came across it in the pages of pommy yachting mags and then here on CF..... or maybe the other way around....
Thanks! I figured it was a Brit thing. I was also pretty sure about the FI part.

Appreciate the clarification. Cheers!

Steve
steve77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 04:10   #174
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
I believe that it stands for Wind Assisted ****ing Idiots.... however I must say that in 42 years in the day job I never ever heard it used.

First came across it in the pages of pommy yachting mags and then here on CF..... or maybe the other way around....
Heard a lot in American waters as well. And in the pages of the GCaptain forum for commercial mariners.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 04:13   #175
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve77 View Post
I didn't see where anyone answered his question, so...

Your AIS may give the compass bearing to the other vessel. Our Simrad system does, and I would expect other systems do, also.

Watching the other vessel for a few moments, you should see the bearing change. You can extrapolate this to determine whether the vessel will pass in front or behind you.

For example, a vessel to port with a compass bearing that is increasing will pass in front of you.

Cheers!

Steve
Yes, that's the way I figure it out, on my system.

BUT -- the question is a really good one! I agree that this is one of the basic things, which we should be able to know at a glance. Sometimes the bearing is not changing quickly enough to see this very soon.

OpenCPN (and I believe Vesper separate AIS displays) solve this problem by graphically displaying the crossing geometry.

This is so valuable that in really complicated situations, where you're dealing with multiple targets and really need to see this at a glance, I always use OpenCPN at the nav table while someone else is at the helm and keeping a visual watch.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 08:50   #176
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Ontario
Boat: Ontario 38 / Douglas 32 Mk II
Posts: 3,250
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
I only have two things to say about this:

1. Your idea of when a risk of collision exists is faulty. Talk to a commercial skipper some time and let him explain it to you, since you don't want to listen to anyone here. 5 miles out in open water is a fully developed risk of collision situation and rapidly approaching the end of the window of opportunity for normal maneuvering. Your misconception of this is an absolutely typical WAFI misconception, which is one of the things which drives commercial seaman crazy, about the way we maneuver. You cannot just make a 180, one mile out, and be sure to avoid danger, and you cannot just blithely sail on from 5 miles out to 1 mile out, telling yourself that there is no risk of collision. The reasons were explained in great detail in this and the other thread, and because you were so much more interested in arguing, than in learning anything, you missed it. The fear of appearing to be wrong, is the mortal enemy of knowledge and learning, and this is a really great example of it.

2. You explain very correctly that you can't hold a steady course within one degree on a small boat -- no way to do it within one degree. So how can you say that a one degree course correction in any case (not only head-on), puts you 180 feet into safety? Do you not see the contradiction here? That is PRECISELY the reason why you must not do collision avoidance with one degree course corrections -- they are MEANINGLESS when you are not even holding your course within one degree anyway. You don't know where you will be on a given course, five miles later, or where he will be, within 180 feet. Your course correction must get you out of the cone of uncertainty around the CPA, in order to be effective. We don't even get to worst case, best case crossing geometry here -- it should be totally obvious to you -- isn't it? -- that a one degree course correction when your course itself is not consistent within one degree is utterly meaningless -- just wasting time while you hurtle towards a possible collision.
As it stands, you believe I am wrong, and I believe you are. In my humble opinion making a course correction from 5 miles out when crossing a larger vessels path at right angles is much farther out than necessary. My speed may vary 10 ways from Sunday over the course of the hour it will take me to get to the original course intersect point. Any course correction I make hat far in advance will most likely be wrong.

You believe differently. That is your right and you are resposiblr for your precious cargo and I mine. But before you belittle or chastise others and call them names, as you have done in this thread (totally unbecoming of a forum moderator by the way) consider that perhaps your opinion could be incorrect.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 09:54   #177
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 6,476
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Speed counts. 5 miles separation from a big ship is not 1 hour. It's more like 15 minutes in many cases and even less for head on situations. So 5 miles is well inside the "risk of collision" window in my opinion. Even 10 miles is in some cases which is why some ships have already maneuvered before we see them.
transmitterdan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 09:57   #178
Senior Cruiser
 
skipmac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: 29° 49.16’ N 82° 25.82’ W
Boat: Pearson 422
Posts: 14,892
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
As it stands, you believe I am wrong, and I believe you are. In my humble opinion making a course correction from 5 miles out when crossing a larger vessels path at right angles is much farther out than necessary. My speed may vary 10 ways from Sunday over the course of the hour it will take me to get to the original course intersect point. Any course correction I make hat far in advance will most likely be wrong.
You still do not answer or address Dockhead's point #2. You claim a 1 degree correction is adequate 5 miles out then you correctly state that a sailboat could not hold a course anywhere close to a +/- 1 degree accuracy.

The only way for another vessel to tell what you are doing and react accordingly is for you to make a large correction, early in the situation.
__________________
The water is always bluer on the other side of the ocean.
Sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious for the benefit of the oblivious.
Rust is the poor man's Loctite.
skipmac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 10:22   #179
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Helsinki (Summer); Cruising the Baltic Sea this year!
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 28,481
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
As it stands, you believe I am wrong, and I believe you are. In my humble opinion making a course correction from 5 miles out when crossing a larger vessels path at right angles is much farther out than necessary. My speed may vary 10 ways from Sunday over the course of the hour it will take me to get to the original course intersect point. Any course correction I make hat far in advance will most likely be wrong.

You believe differently. That is your right and you are resposiblr for your precious cargo and I mine. But before you belittle or chastise others and call them names, as you have done in this thread (totally unbecoming of a forum moderator by the way) consider that perhaps your opinion could be incorrect.
Well, don't believe me -- that's fine. I suggested that you talk to some commercial seaman, to find out decision points and distances, and ask them what they think about your idea that there's no risk of collision before a mile out. You will find that ships maneuver according to certain particular time and distance frames, and they do not correspond at all to the ones you are espousing here.

And concerning the 1 degree course correction -- I think you got my point.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-ętre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2017, 23:11   #180
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Ontario
Boat: Ontario 38 / Douglas 32 Mk II
Posts: 3,250
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
Speed counts. 5 miles separation from a big ship is not 1 hour. It's more like 15 minutes in many cases and even less for head on situations. So 5 miles is well inside the "risk of collision" window in my opinion. Even 10 miles is in some cases which is why some ships have already maneuvered before we see them.
Any course correction they make would be based on the sailboat speed.

What is the sailboat speed going to be?

All we know for sure is that it is not likely to be constant.

Even if the ship turned 20 degrees to pass well astern the sailboat, if the sailboat slows down from 5 knots to 4, the original ships course may have been fine, and the new ships course may now be a collision course.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Challenge: Collision Avoidance! Pelagic Challenges 53 18-08-2017 19:54
CARD Collision Avoidance Radar Detector multihullsailor6 Marine Electronics 12 27-12-2015 21:12
Collision Avoidance - Tsunami Debris rreeves Health, Safety & Related Gear 22 03-05-2012 07:23
Collision Avoidance in Mexico: AIS or Radar or ? no_bad_days Pacific & South China Sea 27 19-09-2011 15:40
Distance to Horizon & Collision Avoidance GordMay General Sailing Forum 7 19-06-2009 00:18

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.