Sailing vessel and RORO ship on collision courses - what do you think of the outcome?

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

It may have served you well (and nobody here is saying not to use common sense as part of collision avoidance or COLREG compliance) but it's not my 'opinion' that there is no such rule, it is just the facts.

The whole point of my initial comment was: common sense should prevail, COLREG notwithstanding.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by requiem

I suppose a driving analogy would be someone coming to California, observing people making right turns on a red light, and then doing the same themselves, all whilst feeling a bit of an illicit thrill for this bit of rule-breaking.

(Spoiler: right-on-red is legal in California)

The problem is, having not learned the rules of this nautical "footpath foxtrot", it can leave them wrong-footed should they find themselves in a situation where the rules call for a different step than what they've been used to.

A right on red when driving in the UK, New Zealand and Australia definitely solicits thrills, kind of like going around their roundabouts intersections in an anticlockwise direction, i.e. the wrong direction in such lefty drive countries -
Been there done that: Yelling "Yank coming through." My British clients now prefer that they do the driving after having experienced such thrills when I was behind the wheel commuting in central London.

There is the right side of the road and then there is their correct and proper side of their roadways. One needs to keep saying to oneself, Portside, Portside. My non-sailing British clients keep looking oddly at me as I state Portside approaching an intersection.

And when being a pedestrian in those countries, I have to keep reminding myself to Look Right before crossing. I have found that traffic in London is disinclined to yield to you when one is going walkabout, very annoying and rude that, compared to Montana where it is customary to stop even on the the highway to allow a person to cross and certainly on streets, if one spots someone who has the intent to cross the roadway. You yield to let them cross in front of you and to shelter them from anyone else that is coming along behind you. Out of state drivers tailgating behind you, well they don't get it when one slows abruptly to a stop from say 70 mph to let a person cross the highway.

Drive safe, sail safe.

[Rob_P]

Originally Posted by Snore

Well that is good and honest.

But then you start making decisions and calling folks names.



I suggest you READ the COLREGS so you understand them. Understand also that some folks have logged more blue water miles on a single passage than others have done in their sailing history. For an admitted newbie to call folks “stupid” is never prudent.

A competent mariner sees a threat well before most folks consider it a concern. Sometimes a distant threat does not materialize because the other vessel followed COLREGS. In this case a distant threat was made worse because the vessel waited until the last minute to react and failed to stand on (they increased speed) and failed to establish communication with the threat when minor course or speed adjustments could have remedied the situation.

Me? I try to have a minimum clearance of 1NM around me offshore and at least 0.5nm close in. This crossing was way closer than that. Of course in a market channel, or in a harbor, it can get much closer.

Oh my... the dreaded "I have more experience than you do, noob" post.




At this moment in time, I have the ColRegs right in front of me because I have my ASA 101 test in a couple of weeks and a mini-quiz coming up on Thursday about them.

Please tell me what rule mandates a 1Nm clear space between a pleasure craft / sailing vessel and any / all commercial vessels in open water? What rule mandates a .5Nm clear space in inland waters? Further, do either of those rules apply inside the harbor? What about when coming into a crowded anchorage? And what rule requires that the stand-on vessel contact the approaching vessel earlier than when the stand-on vessel deems necessary? Is this the armchair captain rule that I've heard of?

Clearly, as a NOOB, I need this information since I can't find any of these rules in the ColRegs and my instructor hasn't mentioned them to me at all. Plus, with a quiz/test coming up, I'm positive that I'm going to fail if I don't know those particular rules.

Maybe these rules are in some appendix someplace? But, since I had mine removed as a kid, I don't have one. Which now has me wondering if that's going to be a problem.

Do only "real mariner's" have an appendix?

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

105 posts about a non-existent "problem"?? My head is spinning :-)!

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

TP

That's what I'm talking about!

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Action of Stand on Vessel

Action of the Stand-On Vessel applies only where a risk of collision exists between two (not three or more) vessels. In such a situation, the boat required to keep out of the way is the "give-way vessel" (Rule 16). Rule 17 covers the other vessel, the stand-on vessel."

The actions required by the stand-on vessel can be broken down into four steps:

1. Before risk of collision exists, either vessel is free to maneuver at will.
Geez, take actions early before the COLREGs ever apply, Well D'UH! It doesn't get more simple than that.

2. Once risk of collision exists, except to avoid hazards, the stand-on vessel must maintain its course and speed. One can read this to say: The situation should not have been allowed to happen, but since one or both parties have screwed up their navigating well now these are the proper procedure to follow. Nota bene: The ability of a sailed boat to maintain either course or speed is an uncertainty because wind is inherently uncertain. I never presume that I can maintain the obligations of being a stand on vessel when I am underway by sail power. One may hope they can, but to plan on such as a means to avoid a collision, not a gamble I am willing to accept.

3. If it becomes apparent to the stand-on vessel that the give-way vessel is not taking the appropriate (early and substantial) action to keep out of the way, then the stand-on vessel MAY take action to avoid collision. If both boats are power driven, however, the action must not turn to port for a give-way vessel on her port side. Any maneuvers she makes must be accompanied by the appropriate maneuvering signal. If she chooses not to maneuver, then she should sound the danger signal (five short blasts on the whistle). If the give-way vessel can be readily identified by either name, characteristics, or location, then a call on VHF CH13 or 16 would also be appropriate.

4. If the situation should deteriorates to the point where a collision can no longer be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, the stand-on vessel MUST to take the best action it can to avoid collision. Don't let a situation deteriorate to such a point. To allow such to be realized, one has already failed at their command of the vessel. Geez, early on, just ask someone: "Here hold my beer!" and maneuver your vessel out of harms way far before it ever gets to be in a situation of it ever being put into harms way.

Have I missed anything important. I think not.

That too!

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

These are completely fair comments, which correct some oversimplifications in my post. Thanks.

The distances I gave (at the risk of oversimplifying everything) were only an example, and probably average distances for real open water and average speeds (18-20 knots for the ship). They might all be compressed somewhat in more crowded waters and/or lower speeds.

And so it's very true what UJ said that in the range of 2 to 4 or 5 miles, it is not always obvious when the obligation to stand on goes away. You have to be careful, watch closely, and make your maneuver very apparent so he can see what you're doing, and be ready to react in case he wakes up suddenly and manuevers himself.

As to passing astern -- I believe the RoRo in the OP was on his starboard, so the correct alteration to stb would have him pass astern.

It's much more difficult if the give-way vessel is on the other side, so that an undesirable turn to port would be required to pass astern. A turn to port should be avoided because if the other vessel alters to stb at the same time, a collision might result. I completely agree with UJ that if you do this, then you really do need to call to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

I think sailing vessels should avoid passing close ahead of faster moving ships. "Close ahead" is certainly anything much less than a mile, and even a mile might be tight depending on the difference in speed.

The only disagreement I have with UJ is about holding a collision course right up to 0.5 miles. In my opinion this is always wrong, unless the ship is in a channel and you know exactly where to turn to for sure stay out of his way. 5 cables is already "in extremis" -- not enough distance to correct in case your maneuver doesn't resolve the situation. Not enough time to sort anything out if he wakes up and maneuvers at the same time. It's just way too close. If you're under sail, what if there is a lull in the wind? What if you get a lee from the ship itself? What if the ship slightly varies its course? You should just never be that close to a ship in open water. The Rules say that "[a]ny action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules . . . and shall . . . be positive, made in ample time, and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship." Rule 8(a) Waiting until 5 cables, just a couple minutes before impact, when it's too late for the maneuver to be observed and considered, when a simultaneous maneuver might create an irrecoverable situation, just doesn't cut it. In fact, 5 cables isn't even really a safe CPA, even if set up miles ahead, much less it is a safe decision point (if you only maneuver at 5 cables, what's your CPA? I shudder to think. The Rules say: Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance). Unless perhaps passing behind and without a huge difference in speed. You should in most cases (in open water; it's different when there are channels involved) not ever get within a mile of a ship -- you should maneuver at least a a couple of miles off to pass at least a mile from him -- as a general rule. If there are many vessels involved (in really crowded waters like English Channel, North Sea, German Bight -- where I sail) this might not always be achievable, but in uncrowded, open water, there is just no reason to get closer.

It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree.

Bottom line I wasn’t there, wasn’t my boat or responsibly. In general I try and avoid being specific about distance. However I do occasionally give examples.

Would I have waited to 0.5? Probably not.
Hard to answer. I don’t know the sise of the other vessel, a small Ro Ro ?
The point I accept as reasonable.
The op knows how his boat manoeuvres.

I might wait until relatively close. But I have started to plan my potential actions much sooner.

So I have time to signal my concern.
So the other vessel has time to asses.
I continue to observe looking for response.
Then I get to a point where I am still comfortable with my ability to respond and safely avoid the situation.

My level of comfort or acceptable risk may be quite different from another skippers. Which is fine.

Many factors may affect my comfort level.

[jtsailjt]

I’m a little surprised by how many seem to think the “rule of tonnage” is a real thing or that it somehow is significant that “he’s working and you’re playing.” As the professional mariners on this forum have stated over and over, they clearly prefer that ALL of us simply follow the Colregs, no more, no less.

Think about the “law of gross tonnage” for a minute. It implies that the skipper of the smaller boat has more to lose in a collision than the skipper of a large ship. It’s true that the small boat skipper could lose his life, but if a licensed ships master runs down a smaller sailing vessel such as ours in open water, his career is over right then and he can expect to be sued by the estate of the skipper he runs down. So, though his life probably isn’t at stake, his professional life and his professional reputation that he’s spent years or decades to achieve is, and of course he also has his conscience to consider, so the professional skipper of a big ship doesn’t want to run into you any more than you don’t want to run into him.

In the OP’s scenario, I think he generally acted correctly except it would have been much better if he (or the ship) had contacted the other party quite a lot earlier to arrange the crossing. I’m surprised an experienced recreational sailor would wait this long but I’m REALLY surprised that the professionals on the ship didn’t act or attempt contact sooner.

Theres been some discussion of making a small course correction as much as 30 minutes prior but when a sailboat is involved I don’t find this to be very realistic. The wind could gust or die or shift or the sailor might have been planning to tack prior to the intersection of the 2 courses. So, rather than the stand on vessel making a small course change that may or may not be necessary or adequate so far out, if it appears you are on a collision course that would be a good time to call the other vessel on the radio and coordinate your crossing.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Agreed. Nobody here said don't do that at all.

In fact many people said action should have been taken earlier.

Let's also remember that it applies to both vessels too.

But unfortunately some people are stating wild and inaccurate information, or making up their own rules, instead of just following the COLREGS which pretty much account for every situation.

Yep, Rule 8 Action to Avoid Collision is written ahead of Rule 17 Action of a Stand On Vessel, because Rule 17 only applies when there is risk of collision, i.e., a closing situation.

Take action to avoid a collision such that there is thence no risk of collision, and then you don't need to concern yourself with stand on / give way status. Simply move early and substantially so as to not have a closing situation.

Rule 8 part C truly works wonders.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the
most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is
made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

It ain't rocket science.

[joelhemington]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Yesterday we were broad reaching under gennaker and full main (145 TWA on starboard), heading towards our berth from a distant island. About 6 miles short of our destination we had a mid-sized RORO ship (180m long, roll on roll off car carrier) approaching from our windward (starboard) bow on a course that would cross ours at 90 degrees and with a 0.0nm closest point of approach (CPA) according to our AIS. Our boat speeds were roughly equal - 9.5kn for the ship and 9kn for us. Both of us were clearly visible and transmitting information over AIS, us class B and identified as sailing vessel and the RORO class A and commercial vessel.

We were outside of the harbour limits, there was no traffic separation scheme nor channel, and there was clear water all around with no obstructions within 3 miles.

We started watching the ship at about 5 miles distance from us. We determined that we were stand on as a sailing vessel and the RORO give way as a power vessel. The distance between us kept reducing with very little change in relative bearing, with the RORO just slightly bow forward of us. Note that our AIS continued to show 0.0 CPA.

At about 0.5nm separation, with no evident change of course or speed by the RORO, I called them on VHF 16 using their name (from AIS) and identifying ourselves as the sailboat on their port bow and our boat name. I asked what were their intentions for the crossing. A very relaxed voice replied that they were crossing our bow. I replied that we were currently on a collision course near their midpoint and that we would have to turn to starboard to take their stern. The relaxed voice came back and said to carry on, out.

We hardened up about 30 degrees and crossed their wake about 100 metres astern of them, then bore off back to our original course. Had we kept our original course and speed we would have hit them.

WTF?

Sounds like Cpt Ron is alive and well Personally, I prefer to pass a big ship on their stern as their predicted position under power is much more accurate than mine while under sail. My biggest fear is that both vessels alter their heading possibly making the situation worse - which is why we have radios.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by captmikem

I was second officer on a RoRo running between Miami, Panama and Cost Rica. When in coastal waters bays, if we altered to avoid all the little boats we would be going around in circles. You overestimate your importance. It could get you killed one day.
Let me give you a piece of advice. ANYTIME you are in a crossing situation with a ship alter course early to CROSS ASTERN. Simple, easy, won't cost you anything but your ego.

M

Good grief

I guess not all professionals act professionally.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I’m a little surprised by how many seem to think the “rule of tonnage” is a real thing or that it somehow is significant that “he’s working and you’re playing.” As the professional mariners on this forum have stated over and over, they clearly prefer that ALL of us simply follow the Colregs, no more, no less.

Think about the “law of gross tonnage” for a minute. It implies that the skipper of the smaller boat has more to lose in a collision than the skipper of a large ship.
. . .

Picturing the Rule of Tonnage for a second.

Row, row, row your boat.

There be those times when it best to not be gently.

Do note that the person on the row boat is literally standing on it.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I’m a little surprised by how many seem to think the “rule of tonnage” is a real thing or that it somehow is significant that “he’s working and you’re playing.” As the professional mariners on this forum have stated over and over, they clearly prefer that ALL of us simply follow the Colregs, no more, no less.

Yes, thank you for referencing this again

Since it's part of their job and professional responsibility and since the bridge team have actually been trained and certified (as opposed to a 'Sunday sailor' perhaps) one should even be able to naturally expect (although this is not referenced in the COLREGS) that it will be the commercial vessel that fully and properly complies with the COLREGS in the first instance.

(we are not talking about for example a Dredger 'working' in this instance - just a normal ship, at sea, in open water)

Again, this is not to say that the sailing vessel could not have taken actions too, or even that it may have been prudent to do so as the situation developed.

But in the first instance both the situation and the obligation was very clear for both vessels.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

A great way to make your family rich when they sue over your death...not so good for actually staying alive when you could have simply angled off by 10 degrees as soon as you were aware of the situation.

sorry : so wrong on so many levels i just don't know where to start...

cheers,

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Think about the “law of gross tonnage” for a minute. It implies that the skipper of the smaller boat has more to lose in a collision than the skipper of a large ship.

I may well be wrong but my understanding of the "law of gross tonnage" was about the physics involved (Force=Mass x Acceleration) i.e. a small vessel is (generally) more maneuverable. (BIG boat go FIRST).

[Montanan]

WAFI
Wind Assisted Flaming Idiot.

This interpretation is obviously the polite version. Essentially a maritime term, but actually transferable to anyone who blusters and blunders about, having no regard for the safety of others, and no control of the forces that they seek to dominate. The acronym originates (Ack E Creswick) from the UK Coast Guard, RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) and other maritime agencies, who use WAFI in marine VHF messages to describe an incident or potential incident at sea in which lives are at risk, usually due to the actions of an idiot in charge of a small sailboat getting into difficulty or causing trouble to others.

When there are WAFIs about, the USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN 72] underway, being the give way vessel, be like the image below:

Hey, hey, what do you do with a drunken sailor . . .