Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think you're confusing a 1 mile CPA with "taking action at 1 mile" -- two different things. If you want to maintain a 1 mile CPA, then you need to take action quite a bit earlier than 1 mile off.

This statement:

" The sail boat need do nothing more or less than sail along at his or her pleasure. standing on and maintaining course and speed. Under sail."

Reflects a deep misunderstanding of what it means to be standing on, and of collision avoidance in general. There is no "at his or her pleasure" in collision avoidance at sea -- whether or not you are assigned the role of standing on, or the role of giving way, you are equally responsible for avoiding a collision and equally responsible for maintaining a good watch and good situational awareness, and being ready to take action yourself if necessary when the standing-on phase is over. You are not allowed to just "sail along" and let the ship worry about it -- you have no less responsibility than he does, just because you are supposed to stand on.


As to not caring about the "plonkers" on the bridge of ships you encounter -- well, what can I say about that. Just that that is not the way a good seaman treats others, at sea, or expects to be treated. There are a few exceptions, but commercial mariners mostly treat us with consideration and courtesy, trying not to cause problems for us, despite the fact that many of us cause all kinds of problems for them, through our lack of knowledge and skill.

Normally if the ship is give-way and we are stand-on, the ship will take control of the crossing and set up whatever CPA is required by its standing orders and/or judgement of the OOW. But there are situations, including where we and not the ship are give-way, but also in case we are crossing a narrow channel or fairway, or in case we are maneuvering ourselves from too close, where we can cause a smaller CPA. So, you really don't care, if you cause problems for the guys on the ship?

I have a fairly good understanding of the colregs.

I am not understanding your argument about why the sailboat should act at 1 mile.
The Masters standing orders to maintain a 1 mile CPA if they exist are not the sailboats concern.
They are the Masters orders. For his ship. The OOW can comply with them quite easily without any action by the sailboat.
All the OOW has to do is take action to avoid a collision or close quarters situation in sufficient time.
The sailboat should maintain course and speed until it is apparent to the sailboat the give way vessel is not acting as required to give way.
The distance is up to the sail boat.

The last thing on my mind is the other vessels Master standing orders which may or may not exist.


Why would you assume, If I am sailing along at my pleasure standing on and maintaining my course and speed as well as the wind allows. I am not keeping a lookout.


You have also completely misunderstood my reference to plonker.
The OOW is a plonker because he is not following the required order.
The order is foolish given by a micro managing plonker who does not trust his crew to use their own judgment.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. The sailboat should maintain course and speed until it is apparent to the sailboat the give way vessel is not acting as required to give way.
The distance is up to the sail boat.

2. The last thing on my mind is the other vessels Master standing orders which may or may not exist.

2. That may well be true, and one could never know it. Not an issue at all. Only reason it was brought up was that input to Dockhead from seasoned big ship officers mentioned it repeatedly. Good to know.

1. The entire point of this thread, I believe, has been to point out that fast moving ships represent a completely different scenario than those of us blow-boaters are used to in crossing situations with other sailboats and slower moving ships. Once the difference in speed becomes 3 or 4:1, those old standby "use the stanchion" methods no longer work very well because of the geometry of the crossing (angles). My experience back on page 17 (I think) discuss that in detail. I've learned a lot by reading and participating in this thread. "The distance is up to the sail boat." If you follow the math explained by many respondents here, that statement begins to become very questionable once a ship traveling four times your speed is within 4 nm. The awareness of learning to NOT apply a "rounding the marks when sailboat racing" technique to a crossing with ships traveling very fast is critical.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

I have a fairly good understanding of the colregs.

I am not understanding your argument about why the sailboat should act at 1 mile.
The Masters standing orders to maintain a 1 mile CPA if they exist are not the sailboats concern.
They are the Masters orders. For his ship. The OOW can comply with them quite easily without any action by the sailboat.
All the OOW has to do is take action to avoid a collision or close quarters situation in sufficient time.
The sailboat should maintain course and speed until it is apparent to the sailboat the give way vessel is not acting as required to give way.
The distance is up to the sail boat.

The last thing on my mind is the other vessels Master standing orders which may or may not exist.


Why would you assume, If I am sailing along at my pleasure standing on and maintaining my course and speed as well as the wind allows. I am not keeping a lookout.

OK, sorry if I was misunderstanding you.

You interchanged the terms "act at one mile" and "maintain one mile CPA" -- I was just warning against confusing these different concepts.

My second point was about the phrase "sailing along at your pleasure". It sounds like you are advocating just not worrying about it -- relying on your stand-on status and letting the ship deal with it, which is a very common mistake. If what you really mean is you are watching carefully, checking other traffic, and getting ready to make your own move -- then that's fine -- but it sure doesn't sound like "sailing along at your pleasure".

And yes, I agree with you, that if the ship does take control of the crossing, then he will set up whatever CPA he thinks he needs, and if he does do that, and you are also comfortable with that CPA and with the crossing in general, then you don't need to do anything but monitor the situation and hold course and speed. I think I wrote that. But here are cases where it is not the ship which unilaterally determines the CPA -- we determine it (an in the hypothetical you were referring to, the ship is stand-on), or we influence it. In those cases we need to consider not only what we personally feel comfortable with, but also what is the "ordinary practice of seaman", including the normal CPAs for these waters and that type of vessel. That's not just a question of causing problems for the guys on the ship -- it's also a question of safety in and of itself. If you force a crossing at a CPA which is not going to be acceptable for the ship, then most likely he will maneuver himself. If that happens in close quarters, it can be quite dangerous, for different reasons.

The point is that it is important to be aware of and be sensitive to and take account of the way they do it on ships, including customary CPA's, and not just make up something ourselves, in a vacuum. Coordinated maneuvers, where everyone has similar expectations and standards, where everyone understands what the other is doing, and where everyone is in the same phase at the same time, is safe. Uncoordinated maneuvers, especially where the vessels don't understand each other, and don't know what to expect from each other, are not.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

1. Good, great. We agree that many of us have seen them being displayed incorrectly. When I mentioned that I had commented on it to another sailor who had them displayed incorrectly, you gave me some grief over it, unnecessarily as I saw it. All I was trying to do was to politely educate him. I believe we owe that to each other as sailors.

2. His name was Bismarck Dinius. He was on an inland lake in Northern California, Clear Lake. I had sailed that lake for many summers in our Catalina 22 in the early 80s. The incorrect lighting you mention was the claim by the sheriff that he didn't have ANY lights on. The only lights the boat he was on had were the deck lights. It was a 22 or so foot sailboat, sailing quietly home on a calm night after doing a race earlier in the day. The sheriff overtook the boat Bismarck was on at high speed in the dark, killing one of the three occupants - the lady who owned the boat. Bismark was at the tiller. It was a gross miscarriage of justice by the "good ol' boys" network in Clearlake. The sheriff was eventually voted out of office. Bismarck lost his job and a big chunk of his life, due to the stupidity and nastiness of a sheriff who should have never been gong that fast; some dispute remains about the sheriff having had a few drinks before leaving his dock. Oddly enough, this example has NO relationship with this subject. At all. False equivalency at best.

Correct!

That was the guy / situation.

(That was quite a few years back, and my memory is excellent, just incredibly short.)

Well it does have a relationship with the subject of lighting.

It demonstrates how even though the other guy may be at fault for a collision completely, if you are not showing proper lighting (or the claim is you are not), it could help the idiot's lawyers get him off the hook and put you on it.

Personally, (and I don't care who disagrees) I think someone would have to be some kind of idiot to run down a sailboat because they were showing a trilight and a deck mounted running lights together (which is the discussion but not this particular case).

BUT, as we heard from a maritime lawyer in this thread, they would jump all over it to help reduce the idiot's culpability.

That's enough reason for me to advocate not showing both.

Not so much because someone could confuse the situation with something else if they were keeping proper watch, as I don't believe that very likely at all. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Probably not.

But it is highly likely that somebodies lawyer would try to blame a collision on this entirely, (even if they knew / suspected the guy wasn't watching at all, and the lights, extra lights, or lack of lights, had nothing to really do with the collision at all), if they thought they could pull it off.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

They are not there for decoration or just to make a light show...

Don't believe anyone in this thread suggested they were.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Correct!

That was the guy / situation.

(That was quite a few years back, and my memory is excellent, just incredibly short.)

Well it does have a relationship with the subject of lighting.

It demonstrates how even though the other guy may be at fault for a collision completely, if you are not showing proper lighting (or the claim is you are not), it could help the idiot's lawyers get him off the hook and put you on it.

Indeed! And the same applies to following a number of other different rules.

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Personally, (and I don't care who disagrees) I think someone would have to be some kind of idiot to run down a sailboat because they were showing a trilight and a deck mounted running lights together (which is the discussion but not this particular case).

Well, in many cases wrong nav lights might very well not create any confusion. Maybe even most cases. Radar or AIS may make the information from your nav lights unneeded. But in some cases, non-idiots may be confused by wrong nav lights, and it's not hard to imagine getting killed from such confusion. The easiest one to imagine is a ship approaching from behind, dark overcast night, you're not broadcasting AIS and he doesn't see you on radar. You're showing TWO white stern lights because your electrician wired your tricolor the wrong way. One over the other. Looks JUST like the steaming lights on a big ship, but appearing to be many miles away, whereas you are almost under his bows. Do you really think that would not be dangerous?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Objection!

The lights may be shown this way for any number of reasons.

Badgering.

Antagonistic.

Ha, ha.


But seriously -- what reason could there be (much less "any number" of them), to show white over white nav lights, and nothing else, from the stern aspect? That combination of lights is very specific.

[Hoofsmit]

Ok, I am going to join in the off topic ( possibly) light combination subject.
It's all about the spacing ! (Vertical) as stated in annex I in the colregs

A fishing vessel from a port aspect shows red over white over red = RAM
But it is not seen as such because of the lights positions

I have seen a red ensign hang over a stern light .....
me " I am sure he was crossing "!
1st mate " nope, he's flashing a red and white ... what the hell is it "


Then they go and sell these ! ........

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Putting my lawyer hat on, I can say that if someone got run down and killed in a sailboat displaying wrong nav lights (say by a ship approaching from behind interpreting the two stern lights as two steaming lights far away), as a result of the tricolor and deck level nav lights being incorrectly wired together, I would have the installer's head on a platter in court.

OK, so now that your lawyer hat is on, if the officer of the big ship advised that he just fell asleep and woke up when he heard the crunch, would you still proceed to have all the lights checked on the boat he ran down, and go after the poor sailboat owner if they were found to be faulty (though had nothing to do with the accident; they wouldn't have been seen by the sleeping OOW regardless if they were correct displayed or not)?

[weavis]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

OK, so now that your lawyer hat is on, if the officer of the big ship advised that he just fell asleep and woke up when he heard the crunch, would you still proceed to have all the lights checked on the boat he ran down, and go after the poor sailboat owner if they were found to be faulty (though had nothing to do with the accident; they wouldn't have been seen by the sleeping OOW regardless if they were correct displayed or not)?

Yep. My lawyer would.

[Hoofsmit]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed! And the same applies to following a number of other different rules.
You're showing TWO white stern lights because your electrician wired your tricolor the wrong way. One over the other. Looks JUST like the steaming lights on a big ship, but appearing to be many miles away, whereas you are almost under his bows. Do you really think that would not be dangerous?

Well he would be a plonker. ( as it's been used) because he would be heading for a ship over 50m at anchor !

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong

The steaming lights on a vessel over 50m from a stern would normally 'show' a single stern light. From a head you would see its side or side lights in addition

[weavis]

My Lawyer has done stuff like this, not boating related, to establish that the vehicle should not have been on the road in the first place in an unsafe condition. It contributed to the accident.

He won as well.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

OK, so now that your lawyer hat is on, if the officer of the big ship advised that he just fell asleep and woke up when he heard the crunch, would you still proceed to have all the lights checked on the boat he ran down, and go after the poor sailboat owner if they were found to be faulty (though had nothing to do with the accident; they wouldn't have been seen by the sleeping OOW regardless if they were correct displayed or not)?

It's a good question, from both legal and ethical side.

The law says if the accident was caused by the watchkeeper's having been asleep, so that proper navigation lights wouldn't have changed the outcome, then the sailor is not to blame.

So a lawyer trying to get the ship out of liability would have to prove not only that the nav lights were faulty, but that their faultiness actually contributed to the accident. If that was not the case, then it would be dishonest and unethical to attempt to prove it.

I realize that wouldn't stop a lot of lawyers (why our profession doesn't have the best reputation), but you are really not supposed to do this sort of thing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Hoofsmit

Well he would be a plonker. ( as it's been used) because he would be heading for a ship over 50m at anchor !

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong

The steaming lights on a vessel over 50m from a stern would normally 'show' a single stern light. From a head you would see its side or side lights in addition

It looks like a 200+ m vessel heading TOWARDS you. But what's key here is the perception of DISTANCE. It would seem like a ship far away. You wouldn't need to be a plonker to make that mistake.

There have actually been some collisions which happened that way.

[Hoofsmit]

Getting back on topic!

I do question whether working with radar at a distance of say 10 to 12nm on your standard sailing yacht is really such a clever thing to do, when working a cpa with or without MARPA at that distance.

I have been on vessels where the 'Dome' was off set ( I think it had been caught with the genoa leech). in north up, it would have caused you to make the wrong manoeuvre. ( no ais ) !

Crossing the channel from St Malo to the south coast the other day I had 14 contacts in 12nm outside of the TSS, interesting threading the needle under sail, but two vessels altered course 4 nm out and hit my 1nm range line, my torch lights the sails far more than the battery appreciates !
It was an interesting discussion on board as to if we had altered at 1.1nm CPA we would have 'balls'd up one of the other vessels CPA