Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Seamanship & Boat Handling (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f90/)
-   -   Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f90/collision-avoidance-cones-of-uncertainty-and-appropriate-cpa-189919.html)

Exile 04-12-2017 03:10

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2529442)
Yes, you mischaracterized. Please don't paraphrase if you can't do it accurately. That is a strawman by definition, changing what one said, and then arguing against that.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hopefully prompt a rational explanation as to what you actually mean when you repeatedly justify your lax & confused approach to the Colregs based on commercial ships being held to "higher" standards. My mistake for politely inviting you to clarify.

My point was, that commercial vessels are held to different standards. They must carry radar, they must carry AIS. No choice. There are many other standards and regulations that apply to commercial vessels that do not apply to rec vessels.

It is axiomatic that such ships with professional crews have "higher" and "different" standards they are required to follow. What exactly is your point in repeatedly raising this if not to erroneously claim they will also be held to a greater degree of responsibility, i.e. liability, in the event of an incident or collision involving a recreational vessel?

Additionally I stated that according to Colregs, everyone is required to proceed at safe speed, depending on conditions, including proximity and congestions of obstructions and other vessels.

Obviously "safe speeds" are contingent on the factors you describe (among others). Your point?

So if a commercial ship, who stands to lose money (a lot of money) if they slow down, chooses to maneuver from a long distance out, to avoid congestion, that is their choice and a wise financial decision.

If a commercial ship is a "long distance out," there is no risk of collision so they are free to maneuver as they wish and for whatever reason(s). You have no idea what their motivations might be nor does it have anything to do with actions that a recreational vessel may or may not take. The "stand on/give way" rules do not apply. And what makes you think that slowing down for however long would cause them to lose money when, for all we know, they can simply make up any lost time by simply increasing their speed later on? You're simply speculating on something you obviously know nothing about, and one which is irrelevant to the discussion in any event.

Did I say a rec boat sailor should expect that (implying base all decisions on that)? NO. Not at all.

Expect what? Assumptions about the actions of another vessel should never be made absent direct communication. Only presumptions should be made based on the Rules, along with preparations for taking action should a crossing vessel act inconsistent therewith.

Please do not put words in my mouth (or any posters) so that you can make good arguments against them. You are then, in fact, arguing with yourself.

I can assure you that neither I nor my ego have any interest in making "good arguments" with a group of strangers I've never met on an internet forum. It quite frankly sounds to me like you lack experience in the type of sailing most others are discussing here, but I'm heartened that you at least found a link to the Colregs. It is perhaps a start.

Instead, just make your point, without implying it is argument against someone else's, when it most definitely is not.

It's all too obvious that you lack understanding of some of the basic concepts, and rather than trying to become better educated you are trying to demonstrate that you have all the answers. This attitude inevitably results in your repeatedly being corrected. If that is offensive to you, then the equally obvious answer is for you to become better educated in the subject matter or stop making (and then trying to defend) clearly erroneous statements.

Yet you continue . . .


Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2523070)

Large commercial ships are (should be) equipped with professionally trained crew dedicated solely to navigation.

OK. I'm sure those same crew also perform other tasks but your observation is well taken.

The average rec yacht at sea is equipped with a man and woman on alternate watches who are responsible for EVERYTHING.

Given that the avg. yacht is a fraction of the size & complexity of a large commercial ship it seems reasonable. In fact, recreational yachts have also been known to be operated singlehanded. :wink:

It is unreasonable to expect that all rec yacht crew members have the training and experience in navigation of the professional seamen on commercial ships.

Another given.

For those to refer to rec yachts as WAFI's is not only disrespectful, but a sign of their total ignorance of reality.

What reality? That a large number of recreational sailors don't understand how the Colregs work? More than amply demonstrated in this very thread!

Much of this thread has been perverted by always looking at the worst case scenarios and posing that all situations should be treated as such. That is pure nonsense.

Your characterization of how this thread has been presented is "pure nonsense." The only "perversion" was your far-fetched hypothetical of an armada of ships lined up and steaming through the English Channel, the absurdity of your repeated statements that passing within 150' of a ship was perfectly safe, and your refusal to understand the significance of basic rules governing navigation lights. More "strawmen" here?? :whistling:

The average rec boater who is familiar with colregs and basic navigation is fine.

I've read nothing but agreement from everyone on this one, including Dockhead who recently used the example of sailing with his own father. You yourself, along with Ping & others, have also effectively made this point in several ways. But you've also amply demonstrated at various times that you're not familiar with the Colregs, and have made recommendations more consistent with ego & bravado than what the Rules and basic common sense dictate.

They do not need to learn advanced navigation techniques as used on the bridge of a 200 m commercial vessel. Of course they may do so if they desire, it is just not necessary.

Agreed, and nobody disputes.

Undeniable Facts:

"Undeniable"? Really? Let's see . . .

1. Potential collision danger to John Q. increases proportionally with the size, weight, and speed of the ship on collision course.

Check.

2. It behooves commercial shipping to travel at a speed that produces acceptable profit / risk balance (which is all really tied to mullah).

Check.

3. When a risk of collision is first considered, it behooves the commercial vessel to take early action and plot a course change (even if they are stand on) so as to not have to slow down, in the event a rec yacht does something unexpected, that could require them to slow down.

You again seem confused. If it's early enough that a risk of collision has not yet arisen, then the commercial ship cannot be "stand on" to the hypothetical recreational yacht and is free to maneuver (or not) as she pleases and for whatever reason. Whether the yacht "does something unexpected" at that point has no import to the ship. If the commercial vessel is close enough that a potential risk of collision exists, however, then if the ship is stand on it is required to stand on until/unless the yacht fails to give way within a reasonably safe proximity.

4. Many of the arguments for applying more involved navigation techniques in congested waters are because commercial shipping is going 20 knots.

True, and because of many commercial ships' size, and length of time it may take to maneuver, slow & stop. But if a ship is bearing down at your yacht at 20 kts. then it's all about your combined closing speed. In certain congested waters the yacht may then be required to have navigation techniques similar to the commercial vessel. Other experienced mariners disagree and hold the opinion that it doesn't need to be so complex. So be it; reasonable minds sometimes disagree. I've never sailed in such waters so I can't form an opinion. And you are qualified to do so how?

5. When a commercial vessel is travelling in congested waters they are required to slow down to a "safe speed".

Apparently not in the English Channel, Straights of Malacca, and other high traffic areas, at least according to some of the AIS tracks that have been posted. They may be sailing at a "safe speed," but don't seem to be slowing down.

6. If a commercial vessel is travelling at such a speed in congested waters as to make "normal" navigation practices for rec boats insufficient, one could easily argue that the commercial vessel was not travelling at "safe speed" under the conditions.

Doesn't sound like a realistic "test" for what constitutes a "safe speed." Certainly not "easily argued." But IF your larger point is that a commercial vessel may be held liable to the extent their speed contributed to a collision and was excessive for the traffic density, weather, seas, and other factors, then you are probably correct.

7. A rec boat is not required to have radar or AIS. A commercial vessel is. Obviously, the laws of the sea indicate that commercial vessels are held to a higher level of navigation expertise than rec boats.

Not all commercial vessels as 'evm' recently pointed out. But again, what is the point of stating that commercial vessels "are held to a higher level of navigation expertise than rec boats"? If you simply mean to say that professional crews on commercial ships may generally have a higher level of expertise, then you are once again (re)stating the obvious. Rather than complaining that others are "incorrectly paraphrasing," simply explain why you keep repeating this.

* * *

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2523296)

Yet you keep repeating this again & again. Why?

Small rec boats are not required to have AIS or Radar, nor even a VHF.

To suggest the crew of small craft should have the same level of navigation training skill as commercial ships is ridiculous in my opinion.

Because you continue to believe that . . .

Incorrect! I Am not trying to shove all responsibility for collision avoidance on the commericial ship. What I am saying is that they should be held to a higher level of responsibility and the average cruiser should not be held to higher standard than the average cruiser (all complying with Colregs a given.)

But you're wrong (to the extent I understand that last sentence). Nobody is "trying to shove all responsibility for collision avoidance on the commericial ship." Although commercial ships often have a higher level of navigation expertise as well as collision avoidance equipment, under the Colregs they will be held to the same standard of responsibility as a recreational vessel in the event of an incident or collision. The liabilities may be apportioned 50/50, 100/0, or anywhere in between depending on the particular circumstances of each case, but the mere fact that one vessel has a particular status requiring a higher level of expertise will not be considered unless it is directly relevant to the facts surrounding the incident itself. Both commercial & recreational vessels are required to maintain adequate watches, both are required to use all available means onboard to avoid collision, both are required to know how to apply the Colregs, and both are required to understand at least basic navigation techniques. Your preconceived notions to the contrary are simply incorrect.

ramblinrod 04-12-2017 08:29

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile (Post 2529847)
It's all too obvious that...
.


You know what, I was going to respond to every error in your post in turn, and realized that this is just bait to waste my time.

That you acknowledge that you misrepresented / mischaracterized my posts is unacceptable.

This is not a valid way to "invite" someone to do anything.

For this reason, I am not responding directly to your questions.

For anyone else, who is being honest, my positions have been made extensively, and as clear as I can. If you don't get it now, you never will.

"Rec Boaters" only need a "reasonable" level of skill to safely navigate, pilot, and avoid collisions.

Is mandating that all rec boaters must have a "Master's License" reasonable?

IMHO NO![/

evm1024 04-12-2017 08:56

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2529954)
You know what, I was going to respond to every error in your post in turn, and realized that this is just bait to waste my time.

That you acknowledge that you misrepresented / mischaracterized my posts is unacceptable.

This is not a valid way to "invite" someone to do anything.

For this reason, I am not responding directly to your questions.

For anyone else, who is being honest, my positions have been made extensively, and as clear as I can. If you don't get it now, you never will.

"Rec Boaters" only need a "reasonable" level of skill to safely navigate, pilot, and avoid collisions.

Is mandating that all rec boaters must have a "Master's License" reasonable?

IMHO NO![/

Rod, That is a Strawman that you are using RE: Master's License.

JSSailem 04-12-2017 10:26

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Wow... Dockhead my hat is off to you for the excellent thread. At the encouragement of my friend "Stu the Canadian"... I have read through this 34 page thread and gleaned a wondrous appreciation for the variety and informative material shared. It has confirmed many of the skills I consider basic in piloting a craft through congested waters.
One that is prevalent here in the Pacific NW that I did not find is that Tug boat who's AIS is saying your CPA will be the 1 plus cable a stern that Ramblinrod has allowed as adequate.
Up here in the cold waters of the Salish Sea that will put you right beneath the bow of the 319 ft x 62 ft barge in tow. Of course the barge is not manned. It is not issuing an AIS signal. It is controlled by a cable/hawser connecting to the tug, placed is a perfect condition to mess up the unsuspecting yacht owner attempting a close astern crossing between the radar blips...

evm1024 04-12-2017 10:45

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JSSailem (Post 2530020)
Wow... Dockhead my hat is off to you for the excellent thread. At the encouragement of my friend "Stu the Canadian"... I have read through this 34 page thread and gleaned a wondrous appreciation for the variety and informative material shared. It has confirmed many of the skills I consider basic in piloting a craft through congested waters.
One that is prevalent here in the Pacific NW that I did not find is that Tug boat who's AIS is saying your CPA will be the 1 plus cable a stern that Ramblinrod has allowed as adequate.
Up here in the cold waters of the Salish Sea that will put you right beneath the bow of the 319 ft x 62 ft barge in tow. Of course the barge is not manned. It is not issuing an AIS signal. It is controlled by a cable/hawser connecting to the tug, placed is a perfect condition to mess up the unsuspecting yacht owner attempting a close astern crossing between the radar blips...

The closest (that I know of)time that I came to a collision was in the Straits of Juan de Fuca heading to Anacortes in a fog. We were an hour or so out from Neah Bay hugging the Washington shore.

This was a time when my most advanced navigational aid was an RDF. So we tacked in toward shore till we got to the 60' line then tacked back offshore to the 250' line (as I recall). This was expected to keep us out of the local traffic lanes inshore of the VTS.

We could hear the fog horns going and being a 29' fiberglass boat did not expect to be detected on Radar.

We were keeping a really good lookout and being young thought that would be enough.

I finely did spot the tug boat just as its stern was moving into a denser fog bank. We were heading to pass behind it but....

....But as it went into the fog bank I did see the tow cable - Yikes! We were heading right between the tug and its tow with neither in sight due to the fog.

We tacked right then and headed into shallower water and anchored. We did use up all our compressed gas for our horn. It scared the crap out of me.

There are no old, bold, sailors.

It was a very valuable lesson for me.

Paul Elliott 04-12-2017 11:03

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Re: tug with tow -- AIS nav status (if properly set) will show "tug with tow", but I don't think it distinguishes between short and long tows. Of course, there are always the tug nav lights to tell us that, if you can see them. I recall one night I was approaching the Golden Gate in nasty conditions and there was a tug with tow crossing in front of us. I could see his three white lights and we were in no danger of getting in the way, but the tug very considerately started playing his searchlight across his barge. I appreciated that.

I've also seen barges carrying their own AIS transponder, but I don't recall how that was identified on my chartplotter.

JSSailem 04-12-2017 11:33

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
EVM understand your situation. The RFD and a depth sounder were the great oldschool skills to know where you were and chart your progress.
Glad you had your head up and outside the cockpit.
A valuable lesson. Thanks for sharing.

Exile 04-12-2017 11:38

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2529954)
You know what, I was going to respond to every error in your post in turn, and realized that this is just bait to waste my time.

That you acknowledge that you misrepresented / mischaracterized my posts is unacceptable.

This is not a valid way to "invite" someone to do anything.

Exactly why I used only your exact words in my last post, and responded accordingly. Eliminates all the nonsensical accusations of "strawmen" and other transparent attempts to make you feel like you've "hit back." This is a discussion where reasonable people are free to have open & honest debate. It's not a fist fight. And contrary to what you've expressed throughout, it's not personal to you.

For this reason, I am not responding directly to your questions.

There's nothing more to say, in the abstract at least, on the basic issue of shared responsibility & liability btwn recreational & commercial vessels. These two types of vessels' respective "standards" of expertise & professionalism are separate issues. The rest is fact-specific and determined on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully you understand this now, whether you have the wherewithal to acknowledge it or not. Either way, there's no need to go after people who's only "offense" is demonstrating when you've been mistaken & why. Such errors are commonplace, not worthy of verbal "fist-fights," and certainly not prosecutable. Accusing people who disagree with you of bad intentions & dishonesty has been a consistent approach of yours since the outset and has been a huge time-waster, along with not being very "nice."

For anyone else, who is being honest, my positions have been made extensively, and as clear as I can. If you don't get it now, you never will.

I would think most who have been following for awhile understand the positions you've been extensively repeating and your motivation for doing so. I certainly do. Enough said.

"Rec Boaters" only need a "reasonable" level of skill to safely navigate, pilot, and avoid collisions.

Is mandating that all rec boaters must have a "Master's License" reasonable?

IMHO NO![/

Not a "Master's License" since that goes well beyond rudimentary knowledge. And debatable whether any license would be worthwhile at all. But the larger issue is how to most effectively raise the level of education & awareness of recreational mariners generally. That, it seems to me, is worthy of rational discussion & debate. But if you believe this is yet another issue directed at and threatening to you personally, then perhaps you will consider not participating. It sounds like your position on the matter, after all, is already fixed and your mind made up.

Exile 04-12-2017 11:45

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by evm1024 (Post 2530034)
The closest (that I know of)time that I came to a collision was in the Straits of Juan de Fuca heading to Anacortes in a fog. We were an hour or so out from Neah Bay hugging the Washington shore.

This was a time when my most advanced navigational aid was an RDF. So we tacked in toward shore till we got to the 60' line then tacked back offshore to the 250' line (as I recall). This was expected to keep us out of the local traffic lanes inshore of the VTS.

We could hear the fog horns going and being a 29' fiberglass boat did not expect to be detected on Radar.

We were keeping a really good lookout and being young thought that would be enough.

I finely did spot the tug boat just as its stern was moving into a denser fog bank. We were heading to pass behind it but....

....But as it went into the fog bank I did see the tow cable - Yikes! We were heading right between the tug and its tow with neither in sight due to the fog.

We tacked right then and headed into shallower water and anchored. We did use up all our compressed gas for our horn. It scared the crap out of me.

There are no old, bold, sailors.

It was a very valuable lesson for me.

Dense fog has also been the scariest situation for me, and I've also encountered ocean going tugs & tows, but unlike you these two events haven't occurred simultaneously for me (yet)! This is a good lesson to share, and despite having AIS, radar & excellent chart plotters, I often find myself comparing readings on my depth sounder to soundings on the chart. Maybe redundant but skills that could definitely come in handy one day!

JSSailem 04-12-2017 12:13

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Paul
I recently came upon a log raft in the channel near Hole in the Wall on Skagit Bay. I was heading for La Conner. It was raining and that fog/mist conditions which screws with your visibility. AS I approached the raft in the channel, the tug pulling the raft turned and became visible.
It was a bit tense trying to figure out why a log raft was in the middle of the channel.
I contacted the captain of the Tug on VHF and we agreed letting him transition through Hole In the Wall then passing him on the straight away would be the best course for both of us.

Jim Cate 04-12-2017 13:23

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
For the master mariners out there: from the bridge of your ship, can you hear the sound signals from a typical yacht? These would include the electronic braying from some VHF units, compressed gas horns or ones blown by lung power? (Not many alternatives seen on sailing vessels these days, things like the bellows operated "Board of Trade" horns described by Arthur Ransome in old "Swallows and Amazons" books involving the UK in the thirties.)

My take is that for ships, and likely for smaller commercial vessels or even motor yachts, our sound signals from any distance beyond "about to collide" are inaudible. Is that true? Even the powerful sirens on ships are only required to be audible at two miles IIrC.

Jim

nigel1 04-12-2017 14:33

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Cate (Post 2530127)
For the master mariners out there: from the bridge of your ship, can you hear the sound signals from a typical yacht? These would include the electronic braying from some VHF units, compressed gas horns or ones blown by lung power? (Not many alternatives seen on sailing vessels these days, things like the bellows operated "Board of Trade" horns described by Arthur Ransome in old "Swallows and Amazons" books involving the UK in the thirties.)

My take is that for ships, and likely for smaller commercial vessels or even motor yachts, our sound signals from any distance beyond "about to collide" are inaudible. Is that true? Even the powerful sirens on ships are only required to be audible at two miles IIrC.

Jim

Highly unlikely, especially as most ships built over the last dozen years have a fully enclosed wheelhouse.
Although they are fitted with microphones designed to pick up sound signals, I have never found them to be useful, all you hear is wind noise.

Another good reason to fit a TX AIS.

JSSailem 04-12-2017 14:36

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nigel1 (Post 2530155)

Another good reason to fit a TX AIS.

I agree. That is my take on the situation. If you cannot be heard or seen then you are just flotsam on the water.:biggrin:

ramblinrod 04-12-2017 15:40

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile (Post 2530068)
[COLOR="navy"]

But the larger issue is how to most effectively raise the level of education & awareness of recreational mariners generally. /COLOR]


Why do we need to raise the level of education and awareness of recreational mariners generally?

Are there an unreasonable number of yacht / commercial ship collisions?

I simply don't believe so.

The pleasure of "pleasure boat operator" will be lost forever for far to many people who simply aren't willing to pursue boating because of over-regulation and licensing.

The last thing the boating community needs is a few do-gooders running around telling those in officialdom more regulation and licensing is required to protect boaters from themselves.

I am quite sure, there are much bigger and more urgent issues that will assist the boating community; and will have a much, much, much, much greater impact.

Stu Jackson 04-12-2017 16:22

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2530188)
Why do we need to raise the level of education and awareness of recreational mariners generally?

Because most of them don't have a clue. I have found, in 40 years of sailing, that basic crossing situations are completely beyond the reach of most recreational boaters. I knew quite a few sailing friends back in SF who I sailed with who didn't know. I sailed racing with many who were pretty good at mark roundings, but some, who often led the pack, had no clue what to do if they were NOT in the lead. I cruised with many who didn't understand simple port/starboard crossing situations to say nothing about the intricacies of Colregs.

I've led cruises where folks, most of them, didn't understand water depths and were literally terrified about going aground, even one who was right on my boat!!!:banghead: Gee, do you think I'd take MY boat through here if we were going to go aground? :facepalm:

"Gee, Stu, could you lead a cruise up the Petaluma River? We don't know how to find the entrance." :confused:

How many discussions on boating forums about navigation have you read where there is such a basic misunderstanding of SOG, COG and heading as to boggle your mind? It truly scares me. Do people get from Point A to Point B? Mostly, but sometimes I'm amazed at how they do it...:facepalm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2530188)
Are there an unreasonable number of yacht / commercial ship collisions?

I simply don't believe so.

Only because there may be more boats out there. "Unreasonable" means different things to different people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2530188)
The pleasure of "pleasure boat operator" will be lost forever for far to many people who simply aren't willing to pursue boating because of over-regulation and licensing.

The last thing the boating community needs is a few do-gooders running around telling those in officialdom more regulation and licensing is required to protect boaters from themselves.

I don't think asking people to understand how things should work is being a "do-gooder." I also don't think licensing is the answer. Too many States are doing it, to no avail statistically that I've seen or heard about. It's a strange way to "get" people who take up a hobby or a lifestyle to learn what they're getting into. OTOH, if the idiots don't want to learn about basic safety stuff, it does affect others around them.

I had the interest in the sport, and read and learned as much as I could. It seems others didn't share that affinity for education or safety, of themselves and their crew.

Rod, you must see this all the time in your line of work. I think basic electrical system knowledge is a safety issue. How many times have we read: "I don't know nuttin' 'bout lekrisity...but..." It simply gags me that folks who can (maybe) figure out how to sail a sailboat, can't educate themselves on basic systems. Yeah, I ain't never gonna be an artist, either, can't draw worth a damn, but I can draw a wiring diagram. :smile::smile::smile: You don't have to be a certified electrician to be able to learn the basics of boat systems and to learn when you need to call in more experienced folks, like you, for instance. :wink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2530188)
I am quite sure, there are much bigger and more urgent issues that will assist the boating community; and will have a much, much, much, much greater impact.

For example? Really. I believe that avoiding collisions would be topic # ONE.

Again, I learned a lot about important issues in this topic and was glad to have been able to put some into practice as my example (back on page 17, I think) showed.

Thanks again, Dockhead.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:57.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.