Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 19-10-2017, 10:42   #481
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Yes. And the judgement also has to be somewhere in sync with what others are doing. This lack of sync is one of the main complaints commercial mariners have against us.
And in sync with what others are doing in similar circumstances. Passing a cable length or two behind one of the big ship's transoms in order to stay outside of 1nm of the bow of the next ship may be deemed reasonable & necessary in the channel, but (possibly) unnecessarily & unreasonably unsafe in the more typical 2-ship encounter in open waters. Contrast this with the rules of the (actual) road, where stopping at a red light is unquestionably required whether it is during rush hour or the dead of night.

Simplistic examples, but it seems much of the misunderstandings arise from the mindset that necessarily gets ingrained from basic traffic laws on the road.
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 10:51   #482
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 Exile View Post
It's only "subjective" in the sense that each vessel has to make their own judgment. But that judgment still has to be within the realm of what is objectively reasonable, namely what a prudent mariner would do faced with similar circumstances.
Gimme a break. That there is no defined value and the distance is based on the judgement of the individual, makes it a subjective issue by definition.

Else one could claim that everything is objective because people should always be reasonable.

Sorry if it affects anyone's Pucker Factor, but what is "safe distance" most definitely is "subjective" and at the slippers discretion unless mandate elsewise or ruled after the fact.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:27   #483
Registered User
 
markpierce's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central California
Boat: M/V Carquinez Coot
Posts: 3,688
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
By "won't press stand-on obligation in a potential collision situation" -- do you mean "won't FULFILL stand-on obligation"? I suggest this might not be a good idea, while the obligation exists, but that might be only brief period in a crossing in such waters.
Lots of burdened commercial vessels don't take early and obvious course changes for pleasure boats in potential collision situations, so as a "stand-on" I'm obligated to make a course change.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:35   #484
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
And in sync with what others are doing in similar circumstances. Passing a cable length or two behind one of the big ship's transoms in order to stay outside of 1nm of the bow of the next ship may be deemed reasonable & necessary in the channel, but (possibly) unnecessarily & unreasonably unsafe in the more typical 2-ship encounter in open waters. Contrast this with the rules of the (actual) road, where stopping at a red light is unquestionably required whether it is during rush hour or the dead of night.

Simplistic examples, but it seems much of the misunderstandings arise from the mindset that necessarily gets ingrained from basic traffic laws on the road.
Indeed.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:38   #485
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Gimme a break. That there is no defined value and the distance is based on the judgement of the individual, makes it a subjective issue by definition.

Yes, but that obvious subjectivity is expressly limited by a codified, enforceable rule of law. If your individual judgment is outside what is considered objectively reasonable, then you are in violation (to say nothing of potentially giving pro mariners heartburn ). And here it's important to understand that "violation" and "enforcement" are not mutually exclusive. You can potentially wait until 180' to make successful collision-avoidance maneuvers all day long without any consequences other than perhaps some derisive chatter about your boat on Ch. 13, but that doesn't mean you haven't violated the Rules.

Else one could claim that everything is objective because people should always be reasonable.

Yes they should be reasonable, but often are not. That's the whole point of promoting uniformity & predictability through a law. Otherwise it's too easy to turn your comment around & say it's all subjective with no objective standards, in which case we're back to a pre-Colregs era free-for-all.

Sorry if it affects anyone's Pucker Factor, but what is "safe distance" most definitely is "subjective" and at the slippers discretion unless mandate elsewise or ruled after the fact.
Pucker factor has no place in this analysis, although I wouldn't doubt it exists in some of the crossings in the English Channel that have been described! Otherwise it's best left to a racing scenario.
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:40   #486
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Gimme a break. That there is no defined value and the distance is based on the judgement of the individual, makes it a subjective issue by definition.

Else one could claim that everything is objective because people should always be reasonable.

Sorry if it affects anyone's Pucker Factor, but what is "safe distance" most definitely is "subjective" and at the slippers discretion unless mandate elsewise or ruled after the fact.
What is an acceptable RISK is an individual decision. What risks result from what decision point and what CPA in a given crossing is NOT subjective.

And even the first thing is not actually individual, because it involves the other vessel. You are endangering the career and possibly freedom of the ship's watchstanders, with kamikaze 180 foot CPA's, even if you don't mind the risk yourself.

"It's a matter of judgement" doesn't mean "whatever you are brave or stupid enough to risk". There is good and bad judgement.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:45   #487
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
Lots of burdened commercial vessels don't take early and obvious course changes for pleasure boats in potential collision situations, so as a "stand-on" I'm obligated to make a course change.
Sure. That's reasonable. I just couldn't understand what you were saying before.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:48   #488
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
Lots of burdened commercial vessels don't take early and obvious course changes for pleasure boats in potential collision situations, so as a "stand-on" I'm obligated to make a course change.
My experience as well, at least in inland waters. But now I'm questioning whether some of these vessels may in fact be stand on to us, either because they are RAM's (and I missed the signal), or because they assumed I was motoring with sails up (need to remember to fly that cone). Does Class A AIS transmit RAM status for e.g.?

[Edits in bold (sorry).]
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:55   #489
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
What is an acceptable RISK is an individual decision. What risks result from what decision point and what CPA in a given crossing is NOT subjective.

And even the first thing is not actually individual, because it involves the other vessel. You are endangering the career and possibly freedom of the ship's watchstanders, with kamikaze 180 foot CPA's, even if you don't mind the risk yourself.

"It's a matter of judgement" doesn't mean "whatever you are brave or stupid enough to risk". There is good and bad judgement.
This is the clearest explanation I've read (or written!) yet.
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 11:58   #490
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
What is an acceptable RISK is an individual decision. What risks result from what decision point and what CPA in a given crossing is NOT subjective.

And even the first thing is not actually individual, because it involves the other vessel. You are endangering the career and possibly freedom of the ship's watchstanders, with kamikaze 180 foot CPA's, even if you don't mind the risk yourself.

"It's a matter of judgement" doesn't mean "whatever you are brave or stupid enough to risk". There is good and bad judgement.
That there is human decision involved at the time the "Safe Distance"
decision is made is clearly subjective. I'm not saying that I would pass
The transom within 180 ft, but I guarantee that as I approach the crossing, I will subjectively determine the minimum safe distance I need to give the lead boat transom port corner, and if that distance is determined to be 180 ft by me, that s how close I will come. I will also turn to port as soon as I clear that corner, by the degree required to get no closer to the lead boat, and maintain maximum distance from the following boat, until I am the hell out of its path.

To me, in this example, that is the "safe distance" and it s
completely subjective. Handle it.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 12:44   #491
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
That there is human decision involved at the time the "Safe Distance"
decision is made is clearly subjective. I'm not saying that I would pass
The transom within 180 ft, but I guarantee that as I approach the crossing, I will subjectively determine the minimum safe distance I need to give the lead boat transom port corner, and if that distance is determined to be 180 ft by me, that s how close I will come. I will also turn to port as soon as I clear that corner, by the degree required to get no closer to the lead boat, and maintain maximum distance from the following boat, until I am the hell out of its path.

To me, in this example, that is the "safe distance" and it s
completely subjective. Handle it.
Sure, Rod.

And all of these guys:

Darwin Awards: 2014 Darwin Awards

also subjectively believed that what they were doing, was perfectly safe, too. But their subjective beliefs did not change how safe or how dangerous it was, that they were doing.

And the COLREGS also don't talk about your subjective beliefs. They talk about "effective action", "safe speed", "ample time", and "safe distance". They don't say "action which the skipper thinks might be effective, no matter how wrong he is", nor "safe distance in the opinion of the skipper, no matter how badly he misunderstands the risks." It's a matter of judgement, sure, but not even yours -- if there's an accident, it will be the judge whose judgement is applied (in some countries and cases, jury, based on proofs offered by the two sides).
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 12:46   #492
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
My experience as well, at least in inland waters. But now I'm questioning whether some of these vessels may in fact be stand on to us, either because they are RAM's (and I missed the signal), or because they assumed I was motoring with sails up (need to remember to fly that cone). Does Class A AIS transmit RAM status for e.g.?

[Edits in bold (sorry).]
Yes, Class A does communicate nav status. It's unfortunate that commercial plotters show it only if you query the target.

OpenCPA () actually puts up the dayshape symbol above the target caret, so it's immediately visible.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 12:51   #493
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: 28,478
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
This is the clearest explanation I've read (or written!) yet.
Thanks, but it's very basic lawyer stuff. We prove in court every day, as a fact, what is "reasonable", for example. Bread and butter.

Collision avoidance cases -- and I've read a thousand of them by now, I guess -- are full of proof about what is a safe distance, and what is "ample time." You can go to jail if you kill someone because your subjective judgement about what is a "safe distance" does not correspond to what is objectively safe enough, which the prosecutor will prove.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 12:52   #494
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: May 2011
Location: PDX
Boat: Gulfstar 50
Posts: 1,831
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Just for fun I ran some calculations describing a crossing at 90 degrees between a ship and boat. There are lots of assumptions like the boat is pencil thin and the ship has a square bow. Also keep in mind that we start with the boat directly in front of the ship and end with the ship directly astern of the boat. There are no waves speed variations and the like. This does not give the CPA. It is only calculated for the ship being directly astern of the boat by a given distance. CPA will be less than this distance.

OK, the boat is doing 7 kts and is 50 feet long. The ship has a beam of 110 feet and is doing 15 kts. (for sake of understanding say the boat is on 090 true and the ship is on 000 true)

So if we want the boat to just miss being hit by the ship the boat needs to be 171 feet ahead of the ship when it crosses the ships bow. The ship will just miss the boat after 6.77 seconds. (hey, this is a good crossing! Just my pucker factor is less obvious than yours)

If we want to have 180 feet between the ship and the boat when the ship is directly astern of the boat the boat needs to be 557 feet ahead of the ship when crossing the bow. It will take 22 seconds for the ship to move to the place where the boat was when the boat was directly ahead. (great crossing, 22 seconds is a long time - I'm listening on headphones, I don't hear anything)

If we want a quarter of a mile between us then we need to be 3426 feet ahead of the ship when we cross her bow and it will take the ship 2.2 minutes to get to where we crossed her bow. (Easy peasy - what pucker factor)

If we want a half mile between us then we need to be 6681 feet (a nm and a touch) ahead of the ship when crossing her bow. The ship will take 4.4 minutes to get to the crossing point. (I have no clue why he keeps sounding his horn)

Lastly if we want 1 nm between us then we need to be 2.17 nm ahead of the ship when crossing her bow. The ship will take 8.7 minutes to reach the point of crossing.

If we take the last crossing and expand it to become a full crossing rather than just an escape we start with our boat 1 nw away from crossing the ships path. Still doing the same speeds and a 90 degree crossing aspect we get a CPA of 0.9 nm 15.4 minutes later. This crossing starts with the ship 4.45 nm away from us 77 degrees off our bow. We will be directly ahead of the ship in 8.7 minutes.....
evm1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2017, 12:56   #495
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,908
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Yes, Class A does communicate nav status. It's unfortunate that commercial plotters show it only if you query the target.

OpenCPA () actually puts up the dayshape symbol above the target caret, so it's immediately visible.
Very cool. Another reason why, when my helm plotter finally craps out, I'll be in the market for a waterproof monitor to run OpenCPA above & below decks.
Exile 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 10:09.


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.