Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

The answer to both a) and b) is NO.

Thank you for your opinion.

Can you cite any references that support your claim?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Hmmm, seems to me you posted the exact opposite and that was what prompted this thread.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461106

> I don't understand. It is not an issue of who can get further away from whom faster. 180 ft is plenty of distance from any size vessel side or stern.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461734

> Altering course from 5 nm away by 1 degree to pass the stern of a vessel by 180 ft or more is a non-issue.

Of course he did, and not unlike when he changed his position after saying this (post #793):

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

My boat is not required to have AIS, radar, or even VHF. I am required to have a radar reflector if in an area where ships may be travelling. Why? Because the ships are required to have this equipment, training, and personnel to use it, and are expected to see me, and avoid running into me, even if I don't adhere to Colregs.

Huh, go figure. Didn't RR only recently announce that his position had always been that the Colregs apply equally to "all" vessels, and that every vessel had the responsibility to avoid collision? That is true, of course, but awhile back he announced with equal certainty that, even if a recreational vessel is not adhering to the Rules, commercial ships are nevertheless "expected" to avoid a collision. That is also true of course, but it sure sounds incompatible with the notion of equal responsibility regardless of differences in crew training & equipment.

Maybe it's just confusion over language. You know, that some of us speak American while he speaks Canadian? Sounds about as plausible as his ubiquitous "strawman" accusations, according to Rod's personal defn. of that term of course. The actual dictionary defn. would say that Rod's changing his positions for the sake of "winning" his argument makes him the quintessential strawman as evm has already pointed out quite convincingly. Makes me wonder what the term is for someone who changes his position for this purpose and denies doing so, while accusing others of this same behavior at the same time? A strawman with feet of clay perhaps?

But then this isn't about logic, reason, or sincere debate for Rod, but rather insuring he is the "last man standing." In other words, anything goes in his "fight" to "win" yet again. Or maybe these will just be a couple of posts he chooses not to respond to?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Thank you for your opinion.

Can you cite any references that support your claim?

You only need one, and you already posted the link to it. All you have to do now is read & study.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by StuM

Hmmm, seems to me you posted the exact opposite and that was what prompted this thread.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461106

> I don't understand. It is not an issue of who can get further away from whom faster. 180 ft is plenty of distance from any size vessel side or stern.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2461734

> Altering course from 5 nm away by 1 degree to pass the stern of a vessel by 180 ft or more is a non-issue.

Nope.

There are plenty of circumstances where passing astern another vessel by 180 ft or more is a non-issue, and I have done it many, many, times, as have many, many others.

There are some circumstances where it is an issue.

Exactly my point from the very get go and as I have repeated throughout this thread so many times, the concept of a one-size fits all min CPA is ludicrous.

There are circumstances where less, (including 180 ft) is ample.

Of course, after the fact, someone posted the scenario of a 600 ft tanker, head on, approaching at 20 knots, in open sea.

In this case, I don't consider 180 ft ample.

Then I recommended that it is safer to pass astern, and the minimum CPA crossing astern of a vessel should be less than the min CPA crossing bows.

Then I posted a scenario, describing a situation where it would be safer to cross astern a 20 knot vessel with a 180 ft CPA vs 2-3 cables.

I have never posted that it was particularly safe to cross a vessel in this scenario, or that I would attempt it in anything other than extreme emergency.

I clearly stated that under normal circumstances, I would avoid this crossing altogether.

Then someone stated it was impossible because instruments are not accurate enough.

I then described how it could be done, successfully, (meaning not being hit) without need of any instrumentation.

Then the argument was changed by the person proven wrong, to this crossing would not be considered "safe" in the context of prudent seamanship.

I never suggested it was; I declared it was possible.

It is.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't RR only recently announce that his position had always been that the Colregs apply equally to "all" vessels, and that every vessel had the responsibility to avoid collision?

This has always been my position.

That is true, of course...

Then why are you arguing against it?

but awhile back he announced with equal certainty that, even if a recreational vessel is not adhering to the Rules, commercial ships are nevertheless "expected" to avoid a collision.

Yes, they are. All ships are expected to avoid a collision, even if another isn't adhering to the rules BECAUSE COLREGS APPLY TO ALL VESSELS equally.

(Notwithstanding, as I have previously clearly stated, some provisions of Colregs apply to vessels differently based on size or other issues. Additionally, other rules and regs apply to commercial vessels that do not apply to rec vessels.)

Maybe it's just confusion over language.

I can't speak to why you are confused. I am being as clear as possible.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

You only need one, and you already posted the link to it. All you have to do now is read & study.

Please clarify. What link?

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by evm1024

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a side note - I once was attempting to come alongside the fuel dock in Neah Bay with a rather gusty wind blowing crosswise to the dock.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And as expected a gust came up and pushed us off the dock just before my father-in-law jumped.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Oh, yes. That fuel dock was sited and arranged by the devil himself. Couldn't have put it in a worse location or position. Sept. 2016 after a long day coming up from Lapush, we just beat the fog line in around Cape Flattery, fog came in over the hills with a vengeance around 1400. "Gust" is a mild name for it. More like 1400 under the Golden Gate Bridge on a building fog day!

I'd call that fuel dock a "cone of avoidance!"

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by StuM

A perfect example of the four basic patterns of motion.

The post your are referring to is an accurate recap of my position throughout this very lengthy thread.

Please, let it go.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wish I could continue to help you out...

If this is true, please clarify; what link?

Simple questions deserve simple answers.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Wish I could continue to help you out but...

Throughout this thread you have requested that I defend my opinion to great lengths, many, many times, and I have done my best.

Here, I have asked you to cite a reference to support your opinion.

You have chosen not to.

I assume that either:

a) Your expressed desire to help (above) is insincere.

b) You cannot cite a reference to support your opinion.

This causes me to question the credibility of your expressed sincerity, and opinion on the matter.

My position on the subject, is that...

"In general, there is a higher level of competence expected from a professional than from an amateur."

I suspect this applies to the expectations of navigation and collision avoidance competence between typical professional mariners in charge of a large commercial vessel, and a husband and wife team cruising a small sailboat.

They both have to follow applicable regulations, but there would be an expected possible or probable difference in competence levels.

I do not profess for one second to be as competent a navigator and skilled collision avoidance expert, as compared to those having professional mariner accreditation of licences, and qualified to be in command of a large commercial vessel.

I do believe I am sufficiently competent to handle my rec boat in any circumstances I may reasonably encounter.

I would expect that is quite common, and in fact reasonable, and that there is no real reason or benefit for a rec boat skipper to seek the competence level of a commercial vessel ranking officer, unless they seek that professional position or out of simple personal interest, and legislation mandating that level of education, experience, and licensing for all (as suggested by another poster), would be disasterous to the recreational boating community.

The best analogy I can offer, is that I want to be able to treat myself and crew with first aid, should anyone become ill or injured aboard.

I have read many first aid books and taken several first aid courses, and have taken a pretty significant St. John's Ambulance certified marine first aid course. I do not believe I should need to become a board certified doctor to be sufficiently competent to meet the first aid needs of my vessel and crew.

I understand that as an amateur, if I render first aid to an individual and they claim I have caused them harm, that I am protected by law, whereas a professional medical practitioner, could be found guilty of malpractice for doing exactly the same thing; I assume because there is a higher level of competence expected of a professional vs an amateur.

[transmitterdan]

Rod,

At no time in this thread did anyone propose rec boaters should obtain professional certification. Pros need to know many things that a rec boater need never worry about.

But collision avoidance is one area where competence of all involved vessel masters is necessary in order that the Colregs system can function. If a rec boater chooses not to learn and become competent in the "rules of the road" then they should stay away from situations where they might encounter risk of collision with other vessels.

I do not believe it is possible for the Colregs to function when only one master of two collision course vessels is competent in understanding and using them. You seem to be advocating that there can be different levels of Colregs competence and I do not believe that can work.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

At no time in this thread did anyone propose rec boaters should obtain professional certification. Pros need to know many things that a rec boater need never worry about.

But collision avoidance is one area where competence of all involved vessel masters is necessary in order that the Colregs system can function. If a rec boater chooses not to learn and become competent in the "rules of the road" then they should stay away from situations where they might encounter risk of collision with other vessels.

I do not believe it is possible for the Colregs to function when only one master of two collision course vessels is competent in understanding and using them. You seem to be advocating that there can be different levels of Colregs competence and I do not believe that can work.

I disagree with all of my sole.

I believe that there is a minimum acceptable level of competence in navigation and collision avoidance, but the level expected on the bridge of a large ship, is considerably higher than in the cockpit of a small cruising sailboat.

The professionals aboard ships are expected to be able to use all of the features of all of the applicable nav and collision avoidance instruments with a very high degree of skill and efficiency.

The rec boat skipper, isn't even required to have the instruments mandated on the commercial vessel.

Much higher degree of relevant and related competence and capability expected on the large commercial vessel.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Rod,

At no time in this thread did anyone propose rec boaters should obtain professional certification. Pros need to know many things that a rec boater need never worry about.

Yes it was.

The OP suggested or recommended that all rec boaters be trained, skilled, and licensed for navigation and collision avoidance to the level of those on the bridge of large commercial vessels.

I am not going to go back through all of these posts to find it, but it was most definitely posted in this thread.

I disagree with this premise to the bottom of my sole.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Simple questions deserve simple answers.

Do you think the PCOC program has made boating less accessible to people?

Simple question - deserves a simple answer.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

...

Much higher degree of relevant and related competence and capability expected on the large commercial vessel.

In restricted waters, ships have little to no option to avoid collision.