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)

StuM 31-08-2017 15:21

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

Originally Posted by ramblinrod (Post 2468379)
To insist others use the exact term defined in the regulations every reference to the situation, in a cruisers forum, is just someone with too much time on their hands, attempting to make themselves feel superior by "correcting" (belittling) others, IMHO.

Please! It's this sort of insulting remark that got the other thread shut down. Can't we just keep this civil and discuss the matter without denigrating others? :peace:

StuM 31-08-2017 15:33

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

Originally Posted by Exile (Post 2468512)
Maybe it'll help if the classes aren't referred to as "Rules of the ROAD!" Only kidding, but the "on the road" mindset does seem to be a chronic source of confusion.

Even if you are only kidding, thanks for pointing that out.

One of the subjects in the "Learn To Sail Keelboats" course that I am conducting in October is currently titled "Rules of the Road".

I'm going to re-name it just to help students have the right* mindset ! :thumb:


*right as in correct, not as in entitlement :)

StuM 31-08-2017 15:42

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

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 2468587)
My answer to this would be that "lost" does not only mean "can't be located". It also means "can't be recovered". Both meanings are absolutely correct. If for example we talk about my "lost youth" -- well, I know where it is . . . :) But it's still "lost".

Like your captain, I've also "lost" gear in the North Sea. I know where it is, too. :) But it's still lost.

As I tell the missus when driving around a strange city. I'm not lost, I'm just temporarily geographically uncertain.

Exile 31-08-2017 15:56

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

Originally Posted by StuM (Post 2468762)
Even if you are only kidding, thanks for pointing that out.

One of the subjects in the "Learn To Sail Keelboats" course that I am conducting in October is currently titled "Rules of the Road".

I'm going to re-name it just to help students have the right* mindset ! :thumb:


*right as in correct, not as in entitlement :)

Maybe both sides of the right of way/stand on debate are "correct." It's not so much the exact terminology but newbies' associating it with their own experiences on the road. If nothing else, "stand on" would be new terminology and so perhaps a better way of dispelling old assumptions? :confused:

Exile 31-08-2017 15:58

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

Originally Posted by StuM (Post 2468768)
As I tell the missus when driving around a strange city. I'm not lost, I'm just temporarily geographically uncertain.

And how does that one sell?? :whistling:

robbievardon 31-08-2017 16:27

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Dockhead, perhaps I have confused you.I would not advocate replacing the words as written in the c regs but suplement them with words that would help them to grasp the principle and remember it more easily. Is this not something you intend to put in your book. Having said that how about you give a couple examples of just what scenarios you intend to create and how you intend to improve on the wording in the c regs to cover it. Your last sentence does not quite fit with my question evaded by you by stating not part of c regs, The narrative regarding the river passage was not in the US but europe. A small adendum, what signals would the ship exibit in your opinion each time we ran aground, day and night?

AKA-None 31-08-2017 16:43

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
So if I'm following along at home here and understanding what some are suggesting then right = obligation. And maybe I'm ignorant but they seem different. If I extend this to the US statement that is often on cop shows them when I'm read my rights I actually have an obligation to not say anything and must remain silent. Have I understood correctly???

robbievardon 31-08-2017 16:49

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
Dockhead,your version of lost is incorrect as a general statement. We now have the ability to recover lost items from almost anywhere in the North sea up to and beyond the Thistle oilfield which seems to be local to you.Divers are regularly put to work in depths greatly exceeding 6oo feet. I don't know the current capacities but in my day we had floating cranes with lift capacities 3,600 tons over the stern or 2,600 tons full circle, and i am sure these figures will have increased as jackets and platform modules have increased in size. Introducing your age into the argument is the same as talking about a car. A complete non starter for me.

transmitterdan 31-08-2017 17:23

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
George Carlin, may he Rest In Peace, got a lot of mileage out of goofy phrases that mean the opposite of what seems logical. We drive our cars on parkways and park our cars on driveways.

No one here is trying to belittle anyone. If you feel belittled then please try to understand no such thing is intended. If you can't believe that then try to find out from where that feeling is coming. It is not coming from posters in the forum. Please believe me.

StuM 31-08-2017 17:33

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

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468798)
A small adendum, what signals would the ship exibit in your opinion each time we ran aground, day and night?

Whatever Rule 30 specifies for the size of the vessel in question.

robbievardon 31-08-2017 18:18

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
StuM the question is is the signal hoisted and lowered to match the buoyancy of the ship?
Dockhead you forgot to mention that the USCG rules (9) are not the same as the international ones. Where do you get the "right to manoeuvre as you like" Int. c regs (9) states "A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable" Sections b,c,d,e,and f list vessels which should not impede the above vessel which to me suggests it has a "right of way' but there is no statement to this effect that I can see.

StuM 31-08-2017 18:29

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

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468846)
StuM the question is is the signal hoisted and lowered to match the buoyancy of the ship?

Yes. Aground is aground. Underway is underway. Rule 3(i) :)

Quote:

Sections b,c,d,e,and f list vessels which should not impede the above vessel which to me suggests it has a "right of way' but there is no statement to this effect that I can see.
This has been discussed several times. "shall not impede" doesn't confer any ROW. (Note that it's "shall, not "should")

"Shall not impede" basically means, do not manoeuver into a position where a "risk of collision" will arise. Once the "risk of collision" has arisen because of the improper action of the "vessel which shall not impede", then the other rules come into effect and the "above vessel" may well be the "give way vessel" and the impeding vessel may well be the "stand on" vessel.

Rule 8.(e)(iii) A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

StuM 31-08-2017 18:41

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

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468846)
"A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable" Sections b,c,d,e,and f list vessels which should not impede the above vessel which to me suggests it has a "right of way' but there is no statement to this effect that I can see.

Actually, Sections b-f do not list vessel which should not impede the above vessel.
They only list situations where certain classes of vessel shall not be impeded. The most relevant being sect (b): A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

Cockcroft again:
Small craft and sailing vessels are therefore expected to take early action to keep well clear of vessels which can only navigate within the channel or fairway, without waiting to determine if risk of collision exists. This Rule does not relieve a power-driven vessel which is restricted to the channel from her obligation to keep out of the way of a small power-driven vessel being overtaken or crossing from her starboard side, or of any sailing vessel, if there is risk of collision. Small vessels and sailing vessels are not required to avoid impeding the passage of all power-driven vessels of over 20 metres in length when in a narrow channel. Many power-driven vessels which exceed that length may be able to navigate outside the channel limits.
However, it is not only the passage of a vessel showing the lights or shapes to indicate that she is constrained by her draught which must not be impeded.
Small vessels should take the width and depth of the channel into account and, if in doubt, keep clear of vessels likely to be restricted.


robbievardon 31-08-2017 20:06

Re: Collision Avoidance, Cones of Uncertainty, and Appropriate CPA
 
StuM I don't know where you are getting your information from? I will quote you my copy of the regs with amendments of 1983. Rule 9b. A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
9c. A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.
9d a Vessel (rule 3a) shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely only navigate within such channel or fairway
9e Not a quote. Overtaking vessels are bound to keep clear of the vessel they are overtaking. I would hope that no one believes otherwise. I do not understand your logic on the obligation of a vessel restricted by her draft giving way to a small power driven vessel crossing from her starboard side.In unrestricted waters yes, but in a restricted channel do you expect the larger vessel to make a turn to starboard and run aground in the shallows? If the small vessel is crossing from port side it is the give way vessel or have I got that wrong too? As for the suggestion that vessels over 20 metres MIGHT be able to navigate outside the recognised channel you defeat the reason for having rules of the road. Well I think I will stand on because I think he can go out of the channel.Hard to not be rude with a suggestion like that.

StuM 31-08-2017 20:38

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

Originally Posted by robbievardon (Post 2468881)
StuM I don't know where you are getting your information from?

I'm getting my information from COLREGS and Cockcroft.

Quote:

I will quote you my copy of the regs with amendments of 1983. Rule 9b. A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
9c. A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.
9d a Vessel (rule 3a) shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely only navigate within such channel or fairway
Yep, that's the same wording as my COLREGs. What do you disagree with in my post?

Quote:

9e Not a quote. Overtaking vessels are bound to keep clear of the vessel they are overtaking. I would hope that no one believes otherwise.
Nope, that's quite clear. If a tanker in a narrow channel is overtaking a small saiboat, the tanker is required to "keep clear" or "keep out of the way of" the sailboat. Rule 13(a).

Quote:

I do not understand your logic on the obligation of a vessel restricted by her draft giving way to a small power driven vessel crossing from her starboard side
This is where accurate wording is essential.
I didn't say that. I said "the above vessel" i.e. following on from your:
"A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable" Sections b,c,d,e,and f list vessels which should not impede the above vessel

IOW, we are not referring specifically to a vessel constrained by draft, but to any vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway..

That difference aside, even the vessel constrained by draft IS the give way vessel once a risk of collision exists. Rules 9(a)-(d) all refer to "not impede", not "give way"

Quote:

.In unrestricted waters yes, but in a restricted channel do you expect the larger vessel to make a turn to starboard and run aground in the shallows? If the small vessel is crossing from port side it is the give way vessel or have I got that wrong too? As for the suggestion that vessels over 20 metres MIGHT be able to navigate outside the recognised channel you defeat the reason for having rules of the road. Well I think I will stand on because I think he can go out of the channel.Hard to not be rude with a suggestion like that.
Please read my last quote from Cockcroft again.


1. Until a risk of collision exists, the small vessel is required to "not impede".
2. If the small vessels fails to do so, crosses from starboard and a risk of collision arises, THEN, the small vessel becomes stand one and the large vessel is required to take action - be it alter course, slow down, speed up or whatever.
3. Only once it becomes apparent that the large vessel is not taking action can the small vessel take action (to avoid the collision, not to "give way")


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55.

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


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.