Freighters vs. Sailboats

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

Great post, really good the hear from "the other side".

Pretty much tallys up with a lot of this thread. Use the col regs! Always!

AIS was interesting, Anything else about lights?

Yes, they hate our nav lights.

They say, with astonishment, that they encounter blow boats with anchor lights on, or steaming lights when they're under sail.

They say that lenses are dirty or crazed and they can't see our lights.

They told a story of a wooden sailboat in the Med with no radar reflector which they would never have seen except that he lit up his sail with a spotlight minutes before a collision -- they avoided him at the last moment.

They like the "red over green, sailing machine" light.

I come away from this with the idea that everyone should throw away all the 1nm lights and use 2nm lights on every sailboat regardless of size, or maybe even bigger if they will fit.

[MacG]

Absolutely factual.

[Sabbatical II]

I have sailed under various captains in the last 6 years or so of my "sailing apprenticeship". In sailing terms, all would regard themselves as experts, and as far as experience goes all were far more experienced than the typical bay sailor / armchair expert that seems to have an opinion on everything. However, on an ocean crossing in broad daylight about 2 years ago one of them would not alter course for a collision bound freighter because we were under sail. We had this big guy who was crossing at 90 degrees in our sights for at least 45 minutes before he passed. When the ship was within a mile the skipper decides to call him up and make sure that we have been seen. Because we couldn't raise the bridge, at about half a mile away our skipper has to alter course for the ships stern anyway. I far prefer to make an obvious (even exaggerated) course alteration of about 45 degrees once I've assessed that a collision course exists. With the ship as far away as this one was, a transit over a stanchion with no change of bearing in the first 10 minutes would be good enough for me. With the course change and the ships speed he would cross my bow much earlier and not be a further consideration. The formal sail training I did as part of my "sailing apprenticeship" was commercially endorsed and assumed that we would be commercial skippers and most in the course had that intention. It became obvious to me that the standards accepted for commercial skippers is way and above the standard that recreational sail training organisations deem to be acceptable, particularly of how ships should react when in sight of one another. As a generalization, we the recreational sailors, are the erratic and unpredictable ones that need to lift our game.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

I have sailed under various captains in the last 6 years or so of my "sailing apprenticeship". In sailing terms, all would regard themselves as experts, and as far as experience goes all were far more experienced than the typical bay sailor / armchair expert that seems to have an opinion on everything. However, on an ocean crossing in broad daylight about 2 years ago one of them would not alter course for a collision bound freighter because we were under sail. We had this big guy who was crossing at 90 degrees in our sights for at least 45 minutes before he passed. When the ship was within a mile the skipper decides to call him up and make sure that we have been seen. Because we couldn't raise the bridge, at about half a mile away our skipper has to alter course for the ships stern anyway. I far prefer to make an obvious (even exaggerated) course alteration of about 45 degrees once I've assessed that a collision course exists. With the ship as far away as this one was, a transit over a stanchion with no change of bearing in the first 10 minutes would be good enough for me. With the course change and the ships speed he would cross my bow much earlier and not be a further consideration. The formal sail training I did as part of my "sailing apprenticeship" was commercially endorsed and assumed that we would be commercial skippers and most in the course had that intention. It became obvious to me that the standards accepted for commercial skippers is way and above the standard that recreational sail training organisations deem to be acceptable, particularly of how ships should react when in sight of one another. As a generalization, we the recreational sailors, are the erratic and unpredictable ones that need to lift our game.

Yep, your skipper screwed the pooch.

At one mile off you're already screwed. You have to think much, much further ahead than that.

Nothing wrong with standing on for a while -- in fact, you are required to do it. But you have to be ready to maneuver if the MV doesn't give way. And you have to be ready to do it at a safe distance -- one mile is not that, much less half a mile, that's just crazy.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by David M

One way a yacht could do this without having ARPA or MARPA or without having to learn the entire technique would be to plot the ships position on the radar screen with a grease pencil once per minute for a few minutes. You must do this on the same course if you your radar is on the heads up setting. North up and it does not matter. This gives you a relative motion line which will give you a rough idea of the ships CPA at your current course and speed. This is not the entire technique but it does let you know just how close that ship is going to get at yours and their current course and speed.

Another method is to put the electronic bearing line on the target. If the target stays on the EBL, a collision is imminent. If you have a visual, the hand bearing compass is still the best method. I keep one in the cockpit at all times.

[Therapy]

Time for a group hug.


















Unless you are a nay-sayer, COLREGS denying, willy-nilly boat driver.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think there is a misunderstanding between some of us on this point.

Rakuflames posted that more maneuverable vessels should give way to less manueverable ones, as a principle behind the Colregs.

This is correct actually -- the heirarchy of stand-on and give-way types of vessels does come from this basic idea -- sail over motor because it is presumed that a vessel motoring can more easily maneuver than a vessel under sail.

I agree with Raku's principle behind the colregs being about maneuverability and meant to give her credit in a previous post.

The "tonnage rule" has been cited by several folks and I just don't see how it could work. The idea of very large differences in size might make sense in some dimension but practical application as a real rule would be impossible.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by David M

I have never heard of this. Do you have a reference?

David, I'm not sure what part you're questioning - whether it's assumed everyone will speak English in US Inland waters, or that VHF is discouraged for passing arrangements outside of the US? The latter has been answered - if it's the former, then it should be self-evident that the lingua franca in US Inland waters is English; there is likely a CFR that makes it required, but I don't have it at hand.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

If I ever got the chance to ride on the bridge of a freighter entering Sydney Harbour of a weekend I'd jump at the chance, just to see the other perspective.

On some cruise ships there are interior windows accessible to passengers looking into the bridge. Unfortunately, blinds block the view while the ships are entering/exiting harbors. It must be "ugly."

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One P.S. --

One captain recommended the maneuver which Tony was talking about.

He said that at a certain point if you are still on a 0 CPA then you should step away from the radar set and simply aim the bow of your boat at the stern of the ship, and keep it aimed there -- noting that we will be changing course in an arc during this time.

A simple, safe manuever to pass behind another vessel without having to do any kind of calculations -- something which won't overload our pea-sized WAFI brains, I guess.

Sounds like a good tip.

If you haven't made contact with the merchant, and are on his starboard bow (with him on your port bow) would he still advocate turning toward the merchant's stern? Would anyone?

[Jman]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is the less obvious maneuverability calculations. If I am sailing is 12' sailing dingy and someone is tooling around in his 80' Donzi, even though he is 7 times bigger he is still likely more maneuverable. If i am sailing a 50' classic wooden schooner, and come across a 100' super maxi like Rambler, who is more maneuverable? It has nothing to do with weight and length in that case. That is why we have the COLREGS. When boats are closer in size and weight, how could anyone accurately calculate relative maneuverability. Clearly best efforts to communicate are the most desirable and when they fail, just get out of the way, putting yourself clearly in the position of the giveway vessel makes sure that you are not counteracting whatever avoidance tactics the other vessel is attempting (however slowly they might be able to enact them). But taking evasive actions that are inconsistent with the COLREGS could be worse.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

No true, covered in the regs: "For if there is a risk of collision, a stand on vessel can still be obliged under Rule 2 to give way so as to avoid a collision, if doing so will be effective and is practicable. "

"
Originally Posted by Rakuflames
AND ...

If you "follow the rules" and the result is a collision you could have avoided by departing from "the rules," guess who is to blame.
No true, covered in the regs: "For if there is a risk of collision, a stand on vessel can still be obliged under Rule 2 to give way so as to avoid a collision, if doing so will be effective and is practicable. ""


Sorry, but you misunderstood me. We are saying the same thing. You must do everything possible to avoid a collision. That takes precedence over any other rule. If two boats (of any size or purpose) collide and both of them could have taken action to avoid the collision, both are liable.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Such as:


Sheesh!

As a one-time professional writer, you should know the difference between imply and infer. If I read something, I can infer a subtextual meaning - I might rightly infer the meaning implied by the author, or I might wrongly infer a meaning that was never implied by the author.

End of lesson.

You must be very proud of yourself for knowing the difference between imply and infer.

What you keep missing is that you're reading in between the lines and assuming that what you thus imagine is what someone has actually said. You don't get the LIMITS of what you see as implying and the activity of inferring, so it doesn't matter if you can recite the definitions or not.

I inferred from your previous actions that you would not drop this, but I'm not implying anything with that statement.

[rgscpat]

The people who think that avoiding collisions is as simple as running away from one encounter don't always consider that such an action might mean turning into others, perhaps worse, dangers, or causing dangerous situations by one's unpredictable and unexpected course changes. Prudence, humility, predictability, visibility, and knowledge of the rules are all needed.

[carstenb]

A point or two that seem to have been forgotten

In open sea, it makes sense to clearly alter course to get out of the way of larger ships. Why? Because unless you are endowed with super eyesight, you will not be able to see a ships day signals for constrained in ability to maneuver or ship not under command. The ship will have to get fairly close before you can determine this.

Since you are unable to determine the status of the approaching ship(and you have determined that there might be a collision), prudence, and good seamanship require you to alter course to avoid

In close areas, like shipping lanes, you may (repeat may) be close enough to see day signals. If so, you must react accordingly. If not, then you should obey the collregs. Assuming, a freighter is coming at you at 20+ knots and is only 1 or 2 miles away - you can rest assured that they in no way will be able to avoid you. Therefore, a collision is imminent and the colregs require you to take actions to avoid.

It ain't that hard guys.

As a further to Dockheads post regarding what commercial skippers say: Here in Denmark we have several catamaran ferries. These babies cruise at 45+ knots. If they are 5 miles out - they will run you down in 7 minutes. so 7 minutes is all you have to figure out what to do.

When we (Danish Sailing Association) ask them what they prefer we do, their answer is always the same. If you are going to take evasive action - make damn sure it is completely clear that you are doing so(and in keeping with the colregs). Completely meaning a course change that will show up on their radar (we're talking about them being say 5 miles out - they can only "see" you on their radar). If you are not prepared to do that then stand on and they will avoid you.

I sail around these ferries all the time and I make very clear course changes (90 degrees or more).

I'm with Tony B. I'm out here sailing for fun. I don't mind if it takes me a couple extra minutes.