Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 29-10-2017, 13:29   #766
cruiser

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Probably in an anchorage or a boatyard..
Boat: Ebbtide 33' steel cutter
Posts: 5,031
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Incorrect.

Most Lake Ontario cargo ships are 600 ft long and travel 15 knots +. There are defined lanes north and south of Main Duck Island, but that's it. There are no buoyed channels or fairways.

I don't see any difference. Do you see any difference?
Yes.

Nothing that fast and not much traffic , what there is looks to stay mainly in very predictable tracks.



Busy looks like this...


conachair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 13:48   #767
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 conachair View Post
Yes.

Nothing that fast and not much traffic , what there is looks to stay mainly in very predictable tracks.



Busy looks like this...


Very predictable tracks? A bit like this?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	trafic.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	194.3 KB
ID:	158531  
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 13:52   #768
cruiser

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Probably in an anchorage or a boatyard..
Boat: Ebbtide 33' steel cutter
Posts: 5,031
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
Very predictable tracks? A bit like this?
not much traffic.... ? And an'r quite see the similarity of a little line with some red and a big bit of all red..

lets face it , Ontario looks like a lovely place to sail but not what you'd call busy, is it?
conachair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 13:58   #769
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 Dockhead View Post
Two miles is widely considered and widely taught to professionals as a good minimum CPA when traffic allows it. You should know that. By now this is part of the Ordinary Practice of Seamen, Rule 2.

From the story you posted earlier, we can guess that standards of professionalism are quite a bit more relaxed in Argentinian waters, than they are up here. Up here you can't get within a mile of a ship in open water without avoiding action or an angry VHF call.
I should know that? Really.... thanks for the tip.....

Argentinian waters? Not sure where I would find them... and not sure why standards would vary from the norm when I did.

This was in international waters... one Russian ship ... the other one Bahamas registered..... same as most passo boats these days.

Angry VHF calls ?? The air must be blue in the South China Sea....
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 14:01   #770
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 conachair View Post
not much traffic.... ? And an'r quite see the similarity of a little line with some red and a big bit of all red..

lets face it , Ontario looks like a lovely place to sail but not what you'd call busy, is it?
When did the degree of 'busyness' enter into the debate... I see no mention of 'busyness' in the rules.......

Oh I see.... one's knowledge base is automatically linked to the number of ships passing one's marina.... I didn't know that...
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 15:16   #771
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblinrod View Post
Incorrect.

Most Lake Ontario cargo ships are 600 ft long and travel 15 knots +. There are defined lanes north and south of Main Duck Island, but that's it. There are no buoyed channels or fairways.

I don't see any difference. Do you see any difference?
I looked at Lake Ontario last night on marinetraffic.com and again just now. Not one of the ships was traveling faster than 14 knots. Generally they were travelling at 12-13 knots
StuM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 15:21   #772
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 StuM View Post
I looked at Lake Ontario last night on marinetraffic.com and again just now. Not one of the ships was traveling faster than 14 knots. Generally they were travelling at 12-13 knots
So pretty much like most of the world then?

Oooops.... sorry... forgot that this is the 'Let's kick Rod' thread..... my bad.
El Pinguino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 15:44   #773
Marine Service Provider

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
I looked at Lake Ontario last night on marinetraffic.com and again just now. Not one of the ships was traveling faster than 14 knots. Generally they were travelling at 12-13 knots
Ditto. At the moment there is only one ship showing over 10 kts.

There are some "lakers" that were built that are around 1000' long. But due to the limits of the locks outside of the lakers the upper limits for ship size is 740' long, 78' beam and 26.5' draft.

There are strict speed limits on any of the canals and (non great) lakes of the seaway. See page 50 of the handbook indexed below. This tells us that any close encounter with a ship outside of one of the great lakes will have the speed of the ship limited to less than 10 kts (with an exception or 2) and have the ship limited to specific channels.

It is one thing to stand next to a freeway and watch the cars go by - or to have them go by you at Bonneville salt flats.

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/sea...procedures.pdf

Further, as noted by others ships on lake Ontario have a limited number of ports to call on. And if they are transiting Lake Ontario they follow specific routes. The routes are no codified in a VTS but are SOP reqardless. )74, 254 degrees with a 3.5 nm separation as an example. Locking through for ships is not first come first served. Racing to a lock is not really an option.
evm1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 18:18   #774
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 3,482
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
So pretty much like most of the world then?

Oooops.... sorry... forgot that this is the 'Let's kick Rod' thread..... my bad.
So most of the world use lakers, then?
Open water for them is a couple hundred miles at a time - the rest of it is speed limited, so it makes no sense to build them speedy.

As to Rod, you have got to be kidding. He has carried on with childish antics, complaining that he hasn't had his questions answered, when 3 or more different people have answered them; ironically refusing to answer questions that are pertinent to the discussion, but he has dismissed as silly (Rod-speak for "too difficult or embarrassing"); and persisting in his ******** suggestion that one can pass a ship going 20 kts by 180 feet, regardless of whether or not you believe ships can go 20 kts, when it is clear he hasn't come any closer than 1/2 mile or even greater to ships in a narrow channel limited to 10 kts. Only reason to keep reading is for the comic relief.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 19:39   #775
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=Lodesman;2509064]
As to Rod, you have got to be kidding.....

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of stuff someone may resort to when they can no longer defend their flawed position with logic and reasoning.

The true answer is, there is very little difference whether crossing a ship at speed in Lake Ontario or any other body of water.

If you mess up and run into one of these ships, you are just as f'd up, as anywhere else in the world.

All Dockhead had to do was pass between 2 ships, 1-1/4 nm apart. Whether the following ship he ran into was in the English Channel or Lake Ontario makes little difference how smashed up his vessel would be.

I don't know why anyone would think we should be impressed by some ridiculously accelerated cartoon video when just two ships to go between is apparently too much.
ramblinrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 20:32   #776
Marine Service Provider

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

I'm thinking that I should take the time to go back through the thread and list the fallacies that I come across.

I could use this as the fallacies list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Let's play spot the fallacy starting with these two - Appeal to the stone and Shifting the burden of proof.

Lets see - I dismiss your claim as absurd without demonstrating proof and I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

The prevailing logical error is of the ID tenT type.
evm1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2017, 20:37   #777
Registered User
 
Stu Jackson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cowichan Bay, BC (Maple Bay Marina)
Posts: 8,253
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juho View Post
We don't have record of the course and speed history of the vessels, so it is hard to tell exactly what went right and wrong, or how close to each others the vessels could have crossed. But based of the description of the crossing, it seems that one contributing factor was unwillingness to confuse and cause distress to the other vessel. I'm not sure if this action should be called "wrong". Maybe better "right".

It is possible that he could have taken a more aggressive course, pointing in front of the bow of the ferry, and thereby getting closer or even hitting the ferry. But he decided to follow the spirit of the colregs, and keep his course such that the other vessel would understand that his intention was to cross behind the ferry, not in front of it, and not with a course that would carry with it a risk of collision, or what would seem to the captain of the other vessel as a course that might aim at collision.
Thank you, Juho, that was the flavor of the concept that I envisioned, described and hoped to convey, anticipating a welcoming response, like yours.
__________________
Stu Jackson
Catalina 34 #224 (1986) C34IA Secretary
Cowichan Bay, BC, (Maple Bay Marina) SR/FK, M25, Rocna 10 (22#) (NZ model)
Stu Jackson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2017, 01:07   #778
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Boat: Boatless Again
Posts: 4,883
Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

Well, you have managed to generate over 750 posts on how WAFI's abuse the COLREGS, so its time for my two cents.

First, I've spent a fair bit of time playing in traffic, like the straits of Mallacca, NY and SF harbor, approaches to the Panama Canal, etc. I'm in Rod's camp when trying to cross a line of ship traffic. I'd much rather come with one cable of the stern of a ship than 10 cables of the bow of the next ship. When I make may turn to cross behind the first ship, I'm using bearing changes to figure out whether I'm going to hit its stern, and, as most bridges are on the stern, the ship' watchkeepers can make the same observations on my little boat. The part that makes me more nervous is watching the bearings on the next ship's bow.

Secondly, I'm not going to stand on if it means crossing within 2 or 3 miles in front of a large vessel in open water. It is nonsense to say that as a WAFI I have no situational awareness. With a Class B AIS I will be aware of the ships before they are aware of me. I usually use that fact to get the CPA where both I and the ship are comfortable with it before they even know that I am there. I'm aware that the professionals average one collision a week by following the Colregs as they are taught, and the consequences of a collision between me and a ship are one sided.
donradcliffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2017, 01:48   #779
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

A frequent tactic of mine is to turn parallel and then duck behind when safe.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2017, 02:17   #780
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 donradcliffe View Post
Well, you have managed to generate over 750 posts on how WAFI's abuse the COLREGS, so its time for my two cents.

First, I've spent a fair bit of time playing in traffic, like the straits of Mallacca, NY and SF harbor, approaches to the Panama Canal, etc. I'm in Rod's camp when trying to cross a line of ship traffic. I'd much rather come with one cable of the stern of a ship than 10 cables of the bow of the next ship. When I make may turn to cross behind the first ship, I'm using bearing changes to figure out whether I'm going to hit its stern, and, as most bridges are on the stern, the ship' watchkeepers can make the same observations on my little boat. The part that makes me more nervous is watching the bearings on the next ship's bow.

Secondly, I'm not going to stand on if it means crossing within 2 or 3 miles in front of a large vessel in open water. It is nonsense to say that as a WAFI I have no situational awareness. With a Class B AIS I will be aware of the ships before they are aware of me. I usually use that fact to get the CPA where both I and the ship are comfortable with it before they even know that I am there. I'm aware that the professionals average one collision a week by following the Colregs as they are taught, and the consequences of a collision between me and a ship are one sided.
Everyone agrees that if you are trying to get between two ships travelling in a line, that the closer you can pass behind the ship ahead, the more room you have to the ship behind. That is extremely obvious.

The controversy was over how close it is possible to get to the ship ahead, without an unreasonable risk of getting run down by the ship AHEAD. The key is the difference in speeds and the angle of approach which results from this difference in speed. If you and the ships are travelling at similar speeds, say no more than 2:1 difference, then you can get very close to the ship behind -- once you see his transom, as we all know, there is no danger already. But at 4:1 it's a WHOLE different ballgame. I doubt if anyone is going to be interested in re-hashing the discussion yet again -- we did it pretty much to death -- but if you read through the thread, you'll get all possible points of view and you can choose for yourself.

Cheers.
__________________
"Parce que je suis heureux en mer, et peut-Ítre pour sauver mon ame. . . "
Dockhead is online now   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.