Dismasted by an aircraft carrier

[Martkimwat]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No. AIS is great, but it's no substitute at all for a good radar set.


AIS only shows you what is broadcasting, and only shows you based on the data the AIS gets. Radar on the other hand sees, and doesn't lie. AIS and radar are complementary, no kind of substitutes for each other.

I totally agree, but with the proviso that 1) the other vessels AIS is turned on and 2) that they have not turned off Class B clutter which they can do on Class A sets.
I think my next significant expense is going to be an X and S band active radar reflector.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CyKlop

Apologies, I only read the original article, which did not contain any information such as that he was sitting quietly in the saloon, nor that he was under power as well. I'll go back through the other responses to see if there's an article that I missed somewhere.


I went with the information I had. Whether asleep or sitting quietly in the saloon, they are, pretty much, equal in terms of keeping a watch - with sitting quietly in the saloon probably slightly better than sleeping. Either way, I agree that he did not have a clear watch - local vernacular where I grew up for what the colregs call a "proper lookout" - and said so.





Not sure where that information came from - possibly in one of the other posts. It certainly was not mentioned in the original article at https://theaviationist.com/2021/11/1...lle-collision/




While true that it would have made it harder to physically see the sailboat that (A) does not exonerate them from seeing it (B) Does not explain how, with all their systems, they didn't see a boat. The picture of the RIB approaching the sailboat which, I presume, came from the AC carrier attempting to assist the sailboat certainly does NOT show heavy conditions, despite the claim in the article of sea state 4 (5-8 feet/2-3 meters).

Someone else claimed that it wasn't open sea because it happened "off the south coast of France".

According to the article it happened 40 NM SE of the of the Hyeres islands. That's outside the territorial waters of any country and therefore there is no country-specific rules to be under consideration, nor is there likely to be a traffic separation scheme in effect either. Further, 40NM SE of the islands would have meant at least 80 NM round trip - which is a bit more than an easy day sail, especially single handed. Yes, it COULD have been a day sail for someone to go straight out and back that distance, but somehow I doubt that was the case.

The same poster mentioned that the sailor should have been more careful, and that's something I can certainly agree with. If, as the poster claims, that's a busy waterway, then yes, the sailor should have chosen a different course of action. I can also postulate all sorts of reasons he might have gone below other than a nap - warming up from potential hypothermia is one possibility -- but none of them exonerate the sailor from a bad decision.

Ok, off to read more of the posts to see what I missed.

You need to read the French interview with the sailor

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CyKlop

Let's look at this for a moment... Before we do, disclaimer - I am not and never have been on an AC under way. All my information comes from publicly available documents.


The sailboat was singlehanding. At some point that person has to sleep. Let's also put aside the whole "Is singlehanding a sailboat a good idea" discussion.

Pretend you're the singlehand sailor in question. Before going to sleep, you do a visual look around, and also check your radar. What's the range of either of those? For most of us, our radars have a theoretical limit of about 20 miles. Practically, it's less, but we'll use 20 miles.

You've done your due diligence, checking for other craft around you that might be a problem, and so you lay your head down to take a nap. Not an 8 hour sleep, but a nap.


U.S. Navy (I know, this AC was French, but I have the numbers for the U.S. at my fingertips) admits that their ACs can do 30 knots. between you and me, they can probably do faster, but the published number is 30 knots. Cruising speed is less than that. Let's use 66% of max speed which us... 20 knots.

So from the time you've done your best to assure clear waters around you, to the time of collision could be as little as 1 hour.

Without blaming the collision entirely on the carrier, I would like to know how the AC and all of its escorts (if any, there are rare occasions that an AC is unescorted) missed seeing a sailboat. Sure, a sailboat is not a big target, but they are able to see sea-skimming missiles for Pete's sake, and those are a lot smaller than a sailboat (but hotter, so maybe it's infrared that sees the incoming missiles)

And, no, military ships do not have some mythical ability to declare an exclusion zone around themselves on the high seas according to ColRegs without some other factor being present. So, assuming no aircraft operations active, and they weren't in some other way hampered by depth or similar in their ability to maneuver, they are supposed to keep clear of the sailboat. On the other hand, the sailboat has a responsibility, when it is obvious that the powered boat was not taking action, to perform such actions as necessary to prevent a collision - which they obviously did not do.

A further note about exclusion zones... There is a difference between "We require that you do not approach us else we may initiate defensive actions" and "We're catching up to/crossing you. Get out of our way or else we may fire upon you." It's a case of who is initiating the approach. The first is somewhat understandable. The second is pure arrogance (in the absence of things like launching/recovering aircraft) A 6 or even 12 knot sailboat is no threat to the warships. And, yes, I know they don't know it's a sailboat, for the most part, but they DO know it's a small boat that's moving pretty slowly.

By the way, sailboats don't have to get out of the way of commercial ships either except for ferries or vessels that are participating in a traffic separation scheme (which aren't present on the high seas), or else the usual other caveats.

Note that within their own territorial waters a country can make additional rules.

Upshot? Although both ships are "wrong" because a collision occurred, and the sailboat obviously did not have a clear watch stationed, the warship was, in my opinion, "More wrong". Of course, there's always the matter of, "Ummm, if we collide, I'm the one that's going to sink, so pardon me while I get out of your way" unwritten rules of being a rational sailor too...

The sailboat was motoring , rerun your analysis

Secondly the CDG regularly exercises without support vessels.

Thirdly the AC watch was presumably “ watching “ but failed to see it. The COLREGS don’t require you to spot everything.

It’s clear the sailboat under motor was not maintaining a watch.

Clearly the AC under COLRegs took avoiding action the sailing boat did not

Specialised military radar is not used for collision avoidance these systems are typically utilised when the vessel is under military treat and run from dedicated control centres abs not the bridge. Often conventional commercial radar is what’s available to the bridge for conventional navigation use.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

It was 0730, the sun was up -just - so good eyesight should have been all that was required.
Not sure why all the radar v ais chatter.

Photo of the yacht and the sea state here
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...e/#prettyPhoto

Actually it was civil Twilight at 7:30 am. ( the time of the collision ) Sunrise is officially 8:01 in Toulon on 12 nov. The picture is well after the collision

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Actually it was civil Twilight at 7:30 am. ( the time of the collision ) Sunrise is officially 8:01 in Toulon on 12 nov. The picture is well after the collision

I got that from here https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/france/toulon

Says sunrise 0725 on the 12th

says the same here
https://dateandtime.info/citysunrise...php?id=2972328.

[grahamj]

A vessel capable of carrying enough tnt to blow a carrier out of the water is allowed to crash into it and the controversy is whether the skipper of the yacht was observing the colregs along with some arcane nonsense regarding AIS or ADS.

Hilarious. Gotta love it.

The IRGC, CCP and Russian Navy have not stopped larfing.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by grahamj

A vessel capable of carrying enough tnt to blow a carrier out of the water is allowed to crash into it and the controversy is whether the skipper of the yacht was observing the colregs along with some arcane nonsense regarding AIS or ADS.

Hilarious. Gotta love it.

The IRGC, CCP and Russian Navy have not stopped larfing.

I think it’s more that the carrier crashed into the yacht not the other way around

Of course the The CCP and Russians are laughing at the Cole too. ( well unlikely as they had their own FUBARS also )

[Leighpilot]

You read wrong. Nowhere in the Colregs is a recreational vessel required to universally give way to military or commercial vessels. The only special classes of vessels having special rights are those constrained in their ability to maneuver due to towed equipment, draft restrictions or not under command.

[double u]

Originally Posted by grahamj

A vessel capable of carrying enough tnt to blow a carrier out of the water is allowed to crash into it and the controversy is whether the skipper of the yacht was observing the colregs along with some arcane nonsense regarding AIS or ADS.

Hilarious. Gotta love it.

The IRGC, CCP and Russian Navy have not stopped larfing.

seems we are the only two seeing this screamingly obvious fact....

[double u]

Originally Posted by Leighpilot

You read wrong. Nowhere in the Colregs is a recreational vessel required to universally give way to military or commercial vessels. The only special classes of vessels having special rights are those constrained in their ability to maneuver due to towed equipment, draft restrictions or not under command.

so that the single most expensive military asset of a western nation allows an unidentified, potientally inimical vessel to crash into it is a question of colregs?...my idea of the conduct of a "warship" is different, but then...

[bailsout]

Double u: make it three.

[Larry Florida]

An aircraft carrier is pretty hard to miss. Colregs aside if something can kill you it's your responsibility to look out for yourself. Basic.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by double u

so that the single most expensive military asset of a western nation allows an unidentified, potientally inimical vessel to crash into it is a question of colregs?...my idea of the conduct of a "warship" is different, but then...

[DMF Sailing]

Originally Posted by double u

so that the single most expensive military asset of a western nation allows an unidentified, potientally inimical vessel to crash into it is a question of colregs?...my idea of the conduct of a "warship" is different, but then...

which reminds me...whatever the conclusion is reached regarding fault in this incident, the captain of the aircraft carrier gets reprimanded for even letting this happen to the flagship of a powerful nation's navy, right?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by double u

so that the single most expensive military asset of a western nation allows an unidentified, potientally inimical vessel to crash into it is a question of colregs?...my idea of the conduct of a "warship" is different, but then...

The “ Cole” clearly also needed some “ retraining “