Dismasted by an aircraft carrier

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by chrisr

sounds like CdG was the overtaking vessel

Based on...?

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Based on...?

The sailor said that he didn't see the carrier because his radar was only looking forward. Seems like the carrier overtook from astern.

Greg

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Franziska

. . . Still, while you are technically right about the law, it practically seems foolish not to adhere to a certain perceived law of gross tonnage.

Personally I would never really argue with a very much larger commercial vessel about right of way.
I'd talk to them, but I would not argue to the point that I'd stand on. If in doubt I would give them way.

Originally Posted by Cadence

Yep, there is no law of gross tonnage. If you want to argue COLregs with something the size of a carrier, have at it when your in that situation. . . .

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.

[CFS Klopas]

I think I have figured out a way to translate the "law of gross tonnage" colloquialism into the actual ColRegs.

In a collision, usually both vessels have violated Rule 14b: a vessel standing on must take action when action of the other vessel is insufficient to avoid collision. However, the distance when this applies will be much greater for the smaller vessel.

The boat should understand the ship is less maneuverable and thus must take action at a given range. At that moment, the ship's watchstanders would know the boat's greater maneuverability means it could easily alter for some additional period of time. Thus, a greater amount of time elapses between when the boat violates Rule 14b and a collision than the equivalent for the ship. This makes the boat's violation more egregious and thus accumulates the majority of the fault.

[chrisr]

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.

cheers,

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

I think I have figured out a way to translate the "law of gross tonnage" colloquialism into the actual ColRegs.

In a collision, usually both vessels have violated Rule 14b: a vessel standing on must take action when action of the other vessel is insufficient to avoid collision. However, the distance when this applies will be much greater for the smaller vessel.

The boat should understand the ship is less maneuverable and thus must take action at a given range. At that moment, the ship's watchstanders would know the boat's greater maneuverability means it could easily alter for some additional period of time. Thus, a greater amount of time elapses between when the boat violates Rule 14b and a collision than the equivalent for the ship. This makes the boat's violation more egregious and thus accumulates the majority of the fault.

You're absolutely right that the boat must "take action at a certain range". But the reason is the opposite of what you state. At sea speed in open water, a large ship is much more maneuverable than a small, slow sailboat. It's possible rate of turn is not much different from that of a sailboat, but at 20 knots or whatever, that rate of turn is translated into changing CPA at 3x or 4x the rate as occurs on a small and slow sailboat. You have very little control over a crossing with a vessel travelling at 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6) times your speed - you're quite like a sitting duck. Therefore, you need to take action early, to have any chance of avoiding a collision with a much faster vessel.

A good illustration of the point is the case of crossing with even much faster vessels like the fast English Channel cats which make 40 knots and more. Here you really have zero control over any crossing. They steer through traffic like playing a video game. Your potential high rate of turn is completely meaningless, not merely relatively meaningless as is the case when crossing with a normal ship.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by double u

Seventeen U.S. Navy sailors were killed and thirty-seven injured...

One of whom was from where I live...

But the point was: the Cole didn't sink...

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Obviously for some ignorance is bliss. But then the forum isn't just for you, now is it?

Nope. They tolerate all kinds...

[CFS Klopas]

Dockhead correctly cites the rule as 17b, myself writing 14b was an error.

As for which is more maneuverable, I suppose I was thinking of congested waters where the ships aren't moving as fast.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CFS Klopas

Dockhead correctly cites the rule as 17b, myself writing 14b was an error.

As for which is more maneuverable, I suppose I was thinking of congested waters where the ships aren't moving as fast.

The accident in question took place in open water with no traffic.



In congested waters in harbours and approaches, see Rule 10.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

The sailor said that he didn't see the carrier because his radar was only looking forward. Seems like the carrier overtook from astern.

It's takes quite a leap to take that statement to mean it was an overtaking situation. As someone already said, the sailor's not the sharpest crayon in the box. He didn't see the carrier, because he wasn't maintaining a lookout. If he was referring to guard zones on the radar, what were the arcs? To be "overtaking" by the Rules, the carrier would have needed to be coming from at least 22.5º abaft the sailboat's beam - so there was a wide swath of ocean from which the carrier could have been coming that would be neither "forward" nor "overtaking."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It's takes quite a leap to take that statement to mean it was an overtaking situation. As someone already said, the sailor's not the sharpest crayon in the box. He didn't see the carrier, because he wasn't maintaining a lookout. If he was referring to guard zones on the radar, what were the arcs? To be "overtaking" by the Rules, the carrier would have needed to be coming from at least 22.5º abaft the sailboat's beam - so there was a wide swath of ocean from which the carrier could have been coming that would be neither "forward" nor "overtaking."

And at the end of the day, what difference does it make?



Overtaking or not, the AC would be give way to sail.


Being overtaken, or not, the sailboat was obligated to be looking out behind as well as ahead, and was obligated to take avoiding action when the collision was imminent.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Overtaking or not, the AC would be give way to sail.

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

[requiem]

Having also followed streams of Reddit comments on this story, my observation was that many of the comments boiled down to 1, not understanding the duties of the stand-on vessel, and 2, not understanding how "maneuverability" is used in the rules.

If people understood what Rule 17 requires, the debate would be more focused on when to move, rather than whether to move. People rightly recognize that there's a need for the stand-on vessel to sometimes take action and thus fill the gap in their knowledge with something that seems to explain it. The "law of tonnage" persists as a way to explain away that perceived gap in the rules.

The same goes for maneuverability. All sorts of people know that "new reels catch fish", and it even says the one with less maneuverability has priority, right? Here again, people recognize that not all vessels are the same, that the rules should account for that, and that's even what they seem to say. Except, the rules don't tend to use "maneuverability" when talking about maneuverability; they use phrases like "if the circumstances of the case admit", "special circumstances", and "the limitations of the vessels involved".

In both cases people are filling in the gaps when they recognize an issue with the rules (as they understand them) but they don't know the rules have already taken it into account. To me this suggests a teaching problem.

[Tingum]

Originally Posted by chrisr

how in the world can ANY ship...let alone a warship with sensors and lookouts to burn...suddenly only see a reasonable size yacht just moments before a collision ! imagine it was a terrorist suicide bomber !!

defies understanding

somebody should be joining the american sub skipper in retirement...

cheers,

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