Dismasted by an aircraft carrier

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

A kinda unbelievable event IMO, but there it is!

Jim

Seemingly an almost annual event now

Did no one ask after the two US fiascos in the Far East, could this happen to us?

[Adelie]

A vessel that size would have at least 3 lookouts if French manning standards match US standards.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by chrisr

true...but there is no suggestion that CdG was carrying out any exercise...and if she was, then you would expect escort vessels

Other than the articles saying that CdG was conducting training. The escort vessels are really only of importance where there's potential of them being fired upon. 40 miles off the coast of France is not likely unfriendly waters.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

A vessel that size would have at least 3 lookouts if French manning standards match US standards.

IIRC from one of the recent US accident reports, they frequently operate with as few as one lookout.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

IIRC from one of the recent US accident reports, they frequently operate with as few as one lookout.

Not supposed to, especially a US carrier. Don't know about the French.
https://maritime.org/doc/pdf/lookout.pdf

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Unless the sailboat was motorsailing and/or the carrier was RAM. Otherwise agree completely.

The sailing boat in this case was motor sailing.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Tingum

How in the world can any idiot in a yacht not see an aircraft carrier and get the F###! Out of the way!

Cause he was down below presumably for a considerable time

[double u]

" "Fail" doesn't even begin to describe this. Warships which can't detect and avoid a rogue vessel travelling at all of 5 or 6 knots shouldn't be allowed out of port."

exactly, DH, exactly!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by double u

" "Fail" doesn't even begin to describe this. Warships which can't detect and avoid a rogue vessel travelling at all of 5 or 6 knots shouldn't be allowed out of port."



exactly, DH, exactly!

Well they did detect it actually. Carrier radar is not designed to locate plastic sailboats

[double u]

I can only guess at their comportment in combat, if that are "peacetime operations"...

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Well they did detect it actually. Carrier radar is not designed to locate plastic sailboats

I made a living performing installs and alignment of combat weapons systems in Frigates. All US navy ships have commercial grade navigation radars for surface to surface awareness.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People citing the "law of gross tonnage" and talking about "arguing COLREGS with x" seem to all be unaware of Rule 17(b):


"Rule 17
"Action by stand-on vessel
. . .
"(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

You don't need any "law of gross tonnage" if you would just read the Rules. Once a collision is imminent, it doesn't matter who is stand-on and who is give-way -- everyone is equally obligated to avoid a collision. There is no basis in the Rules for "arguing COLREGS" when there is an imminent collision, much less "right of way", which does not exist at any time under the Rules. Being the stand-on vessel is NOT having right of way and it is NOT any kind of privilege -- it is just one role in the collision avoidance process which applies only at a certain phase of a crossing with another vessel. That role is over once Rule 17(b) kicks in.



So in this case, both vessels made egregious failures in collision avoidance -- which is the usual case, since even one vessel keeping a proper watch and following the Rules is enough to prevent a collision in every case.


Rule 17(b) applies even if you are under sail and are being run down from behind by a power driven vessel. Rule 5 obligates you to keep a proper watch AT ALL TIMES, including behind you, and Rule 17(b) obligates you to maneuver if it is evident that the give-way vessel is not doing it.



So the sailboat was in egregious violation of at least Rule 5 and Rule 17(b).


But the aircraft carrier -- did those guys learn their collision avoidance procedures at the U.S. Naval Academy? Maybe they are practicing under U.S. Navy supervision on sailboats, before moving up to the big time -- t-boning container ships? It beggars belief that with all those resources, perhaps a dozen supposedly trained people on the bridge, bristling with the best radars in the world, they could have missed a target much larger than a potential terrorist in a RIB with a tonne of explosives. "Fail" doesn't even begin to describe this. Warships which can't detect and avoid a rogue vessel travelling at all of 5 or 6 knots shouldn't be allowed out of port. It's not just the egregious fail in collision avoidance, it's situational awareness -- it's a bloody capital warship.

Dockhead is correct on both accounts. Once in awhile common sense prevails.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People citing the "law of gross tonnage" and talking about "arguing COLREGS with x" seem to all be unaware of Rule 17(b):


"Rule 17
"Action by stand-on vessel
. . .
"(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

You don't need any "law of gross tonnage" if you would just read the Rules. Once a collision is imminent, it doesn't matter who is stand-on and who is give-way -- everyone is equally obligated to avoid a collision. There is no basis in the Rules for "arguing COLREGS" when there is an imminent collision, much less "right of way", which does not exist at any time under the Rules. Being the stand-on vessel is NOT having right of way and it is NOT any kind of privilege -- it is just one role in the collision avoidance process which applies only at a certain phase of a crossing with another vessel. That role is over once Rule 17(b) kicks in.



So in this case, both vessels made egregious failures in collision avoidance -- which is the usual case, since even one vessel keeping a proper watch and following the Rules is enough to prevent a collision in every case.


Rule 17(b) applies even if you are under sail and are being run down from behind by a power driven vessel. Rule 5 obligates you to keep a proper watch AT ALL TIMES, including behind you, and Rule 17(b) obligates you to maneuver if it is evident that the give-way vessel is not doing it.



So the sailboat was in egregious violation of at least Rule 5 and Rule 17(b).


But the aircraft carrier -- did those guys learn their collision avoidance procedures at the U.S. Naval Academy? Maybe they are practicing under U.S. Navy supervision on sailboats, before moving up to the big time -- t-boning container ships? It beggars belief that with all those resources, perhaps a dozen supposedly trained people on the bridge, bristling with the best radars in the world, they could have missed a target much larger than a potential terrorist in a RIB with a tonne of explosives. "Fail" doesn't even begin to describe this. Warships which can't detect and avoid a rogue vessel travelling at all of 5 or 6 knots shouldn't be allowed out of port. It's not just the egregious fail in collision avoidance, it's situational awareness -- it's a bloody capital warship.

Good points. Our youngest is going for his 3rd mate's license on the Great Lakes. The Detroit River is hard to navigate with an 860 foot ship or tug/barge combo with the slightest breeze. There is plenty of practice on avoiding all kinds of summer recreational traffic on the lakes while entering or leaving ports on the lake. Last minute avoidance of small boats is practiced to a high state of readiness, as the amount of paperwork to fill out after even a small glancing blow is formidable to say the least, and anything worse can put the party with the license the shore for a time, regardless of who was a fault.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

I made a living performing installs and alignment of combat weapons systems in Frigates. All US navy ships have commercial grade navigation radars for surface to surface awareness.

Correct and the vast majority of such radars do not detect sailboats.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Correct and the vast majority of such radars do not detect sailboats.

Where do you get this ?

Have you been on a post install sea trial for such installed equipment ?

There are actual standards for such.