Freighters vs. Sailboats

[El Pinguino]

Some further thoughts.... if the 3/0 had the radar tuned correctly and he had been watching the yacht's bearing and if the yacht had been transmitting AIS the 3/0 would most probably have made that small alteration to starboard to pass clear anyway so the end result may well have been the same.

Next time you meet a ship in the 8 to 12 just think about this.... the 3rd mate may have only had his ticket for a few months.... he may have passed on the nth attempt after many years of trying.... and he may have just scraped through with the minimum mark in all subjects....

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by LJH

Assuming a level deck, if the wave height is greater than the yacht's freeboard then the yacht would be less visible using running lights instead of the tricolour.

If the yacht's skipper is not going to visually clear behind the genoa, then a periodic radar sweep would have done wonders!

I find that it has to be a pretty big sea before you lose sight of deckmounted lights on a yacht ... certainly more than a metre or two. On the other hand I have had mast head tricolours - esp when it is the white sector - hide themselves in the shore lights ( in frinstance harbour approaches) until you are right on top of them.

I suspect that if the skipper had been running the radar the quality of his watchkeeping would have been unchanged... read the bit about his AIS watch.

But both the watchkeepers concerned had 'qualifications' which must be a good thing...yes?

[boatman61]

I'd say 60% blame lay with the sailboat... he made more mistakes all the way down the line... no reflector.. radar off.. AIS set to near minimum range... not seeing the freighters lights till the last moment... likely blinded by the display in the cockpit so many folk seem obsessed by instead of covering it and just checking every half hour... you can see lights a bloody long way away... and they tell a story..

[El Pinguino]

'he saw its green sidelight fine on his starboard bow. He decided to alter course to port and, by about 2151, Riga II’s heading had been altered 10o to port. The skipper then altered the yacht’s heading a further 10o to port to a heading of about 280o, with the aim of passing well clear of the ship.'

British Aviator/ Crystal Jewel anyone? Deja vu all over again....

[J Clark H356]

I have just cruised from Kentucky Lake to Punta Gorda Florida and we are used to tows like are on the Tenn-Tom going 5 to 6 knots which is comparable to sailboats. I have Radar with Marpha and AIS and have had two encounters with large ships on my last legs from Panama City to Punta Gorda. Just as the sun set, I discovered i had a large tow pulling a barge overtaking me from Panama City to Clearwater and I followed him carefully visually, with AIS and with Radar/Marpha. At one time out CPA was 46 meters at 26 minutes. I had the VHF in hand to call him and determine which way he preferred I change course to to avoid being overtaken. I was doing about 6 knots and he was doing 8.1. Just before my call, he changed course 20 degrees to his starboard and we got clear pretty fast. I continued to monitor him closely until he was well away from us.

When transiting the Intercoastal just east of the Sunshine Parkway bridge in Tampa Bay, in the middle of the day, a freighter was just entering the pass heading east. From AIS I determined he was a potential collision course with us very early on. I altered course to get across the ship channel well in advance of his getting near us and we cleared by well over 1/4 mile. He saw us and sounded his horn well in advance and I made a VHF call to him and advised him of my intentions and that I would be well clear. This ship was 468 feet long, 91 feet wide and had a draft of 28 feet. He was also doing 15.2 knots and probably capable of much more, but had slowed due to entering Tampa Bay. He also put off a pretty good wake even 1/4 mile away. It was a very different large ship experience than I have had before with the tows on the lakes and rivers. Even with all my tools, and knowing we would be well clear, without them, I would have waited to cross his path. That ship was on us much faster than one can imagine until you have experienced the speed at which these big ships operate. I knew to expect ships in the ship channel in Tampa Bay and would have been very surprised had their not been one or more in the area. That is why radar and AIS is so important to have. Further, you must also have enough common sense to not drive in the ship channel if other parallel options are available. Something that draws 28 feet isn't going to be in 15 to 20 feet of water.

Anyone in any boat that doesn't contemplate these circumstances while cruising in a busy harbor is just a fool.

[Argyle38]

A couple of people have mentioned radar reflectors. Does anyone know of any independent verification that they are at all effective in increasing radar cross section? My understanding is that they are not very effective at all.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

A couple of people have mentioned radar reflectors. Does anyone know of any independent verification that they are at all effective in increasing radar cross section? My understanding is that they are not very effective at all.

They can be very effective especially if you have a small cross-section. See

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets...r+Test.pdf.pdf

[El Pinguino]

Sorry but link comes up as 'bad request'.

[LakeSuperior]

Try this...

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...s%20report.pdf

[captain58sailin]

Hang them rain catching side up.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Hang them rain catching side up.

Would that be upside down.. or downside up..??

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Hang them rain catching side up.

yep I can vouch for that.

For the visual among us.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Try this...

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...s%20report.pdf

The whole of the Ouzo report is worth a read.

Marine Accident Investigation: Ouzo

And

Granholm v. TFL Express (Google gets lots of hits) The finding is now behind a pay wall.

In 1984, Granholm v. TFL Express, the court found a single-handed racer negligent for taking a thirty-minute nap.

The yacht, Granholm, was participating in a qualifying sail for a transatlantic race. With the boat on autopilot, and with all required navigation lights showing, the owner scanned the horizon for ships, set a thirty-minute time, and went below for a nap. Meanwhile, the TFL Express was on autopilot, making eighteen knots; the mate was plotting her position, and the "lookout" was making tea. The Express came up from behind and ran the Granholm down.

The owner of the Granholm sued the Express for her failure to maintain a proper lookout (Rule 5), and for neglecting, as the overtaking vessel, her obligation to keep clear (Rule 13). The court agreed, but placed equal blame on the single-hander, saying, "The obligation to maintain a proper lookout falls upon great vessels and small alike."

[SvenG]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Oh dear
Wot carefully backs away from a thread where emotions overides rules.

Just saw this thread and agree with you. The thread is truly scary.



-Sven

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The whole of the Ouzo report is worth a read.

In both of those examples the yacht was being overtaken. I've found that even when a reasonable lookout is being kept on a yacht the lookout astern is often a bit dodgy. So many times people either don't look over their shoulder at all esp in heavy weather or if they do and they do see a ship overtaking them they don't realise how very quickly that ship is going to be upon them.

If the crew of Ouzo had taken avoiding action 1 minute earlier they would still be alive.... and don't tell me that one minute before impact you don't realise something very very bad is about to happen.