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

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

At 5 miles out, he would be well within the colregs to bear off a little to go astern of the big ship. If he's worried, it might confuse the big ship, he is free to call and confim the crossing.

Yes, the colregs still apply but so does the law of tonnage if you decide to play chicken. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In a different more restricted situation, he might have to stand on but in the case described, he was foolish to play chicken. By the time he was 0.5 miles from impact, he was already in violation of the colregs.

One more time -- anyone "playing chicken", is violating the Rules ipso facto. Doing it right, no one ever gets near to that.

5 miles out is too close, in open water, to consider yourself free to maneuver as you like, in most cases. That is generally right in the middle of the risk of collision phase. Ordinary practice of seamen, and common standing orders, is to be sure to detect and start tracking potential collisions at no less than 10 miles out. So if you want to take free early action, you should try to do that at least 10 miles out. You will see many ships doing that at 10 miles out, in regard to you, very often at exactly 10 miles, and very often to change the CPA to exactly 1 mile.

At 5 miles you should be standing on if you are stand on. If it's still a collision course at 3 or 4 miles, start planning your move. In really open water I will make my move at no less than 3 miles out where a large and obvious alteration of course (as required by the Rules), 15 or 20 degrees, will decisively open the CPA and unwind the situation. Certainly no less than 2 miles even in fairly crowded waters.

No one who does this right is EVER playing chicken.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sure the law of tonnage is consistent with the colregs but it's a lot easier to remember.

So now we should base our actions on what is 'easier to remember'?

Wow - just wow...

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

YAWN!

Bei mir, at 9 knots (OP's stated speed) you move 15 feet a second, therefore, for me, it would take two seconds to move a boat length. When I'm broad-reaching I can harden up by thirty five or forty degrees in four boat lengths without straining a gut, and THEN begin to think about touching up the sail trim, so where's the problem???

For the RoRo to move, oh, let's say four miles to Collision Point would take 20 minutes or so. So in the given scenario, there is NO RISK of collision and the THE RULES (big guilt capital letters!) have not yet come into play. You can therefore do whatever you like including hardening up :-).

Salut

TP

Sorry but this is INCORRECT and was covered earlier in the thread.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The story the OP provided indicated to me that he was "challenging" the big ship until the last minute when it became obvious he was going to lose to the law of tonnage...then and only then did he back down....then he got indignant that the big ship didn't honor his stand on status.

Not knowing the full picture of what the big ship saw, the big ship MIGHT have violated one of the colregs but not until after the OP violated them and pushed the situation. Luckily, he got away.

Yes, now I agree with you. That's exactly what he was doing, and he was doing it wrong. He should have maneuvered way before that point. Stand-on status is not something anyone "honors"; it's not a privilege.



It has nothing to do with the law of tonnage. You should never "challenge" any vessel whether great or small -- it's not the way collision avoidance works.

[DomPerignon]

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?

Where did that happened ? What was the names of the ships involved ?

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You must never "challenge a big ship". If you think you are allowed to do that under the Rules, you need to study them some more. They don't work like that at all.

Standing on is not "challenging" anyone. It is rather "holding still" and giving him temporary control of the crossing. Standing on is not only an obligation, it is a courtesy. If he doesn't take that up in good time, then you are obligated to take your own action, and to do that in plenty of time, generally still miles out, so that drama does NOT ensue.

The whole idea of "challenging" reflects a deep misunderstanding of how it works. Leave your right of way, your privileges, your "challenges" on land where they belong. Standing on is not a privilege, and you are not entitled to rely on the give way vessel's giving way. The whole system works completely different from roads on land.

Nicely covered in layman's terms @Dockhead

There really are some HUGE misunderstandings of the COLREGS here, mostly by cruisers who don't seemed to have read them or learnt them in the first place (or are purposely ignoring them) yet still think they are right, over internationally accepted rules...

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, now I agree with you. That's exactly what he was doing, and he was doing it wrong. He should have maneuvered way before that point. Stand-on status is not something anyone "honors"; it's not a privilege.



It has nothing to do with the law of tonnage. You should never "challenge" any vessel whether great or small -- it's not the way collision avoidance works.

This time I am disagree with Mr Valhalla as well.

From what I read in the OP post he was not challenging anyone.

He simply complied with his obligation to stand on.
Until he felt it was no longer appropriate and chose to take action.

We may have different opinions about when he decided to act. Was it reasonable or unreasonable fair enough.
I didn’t t interpret his description as a challenge.

I don’t know what the reasons behind the lack of action on the Ro Ro were.
Worst case scenario, challenging the sail boat?
No information available so we don’t know. Why.

Taking the post at face value, because I have no reason not to.
The Ro Ro should have taken action. To avoid collision in ample time and passed clear of the sail boat.

How open was the water, I don’t know, I just take the OP word it was open water,

Even if it wasn’t open water. Even in relatively restricted water.
The Ro Ro lack of action is inexplicable.

Even if the OP and the sailboat were completely in the wrong the lack of action by the Ro Ro is inexplicable.

[jmh2002]

Yes @Uricanejack

I'm surprised by the mostly lack of posts lamenting the ship's lack of action.

Of almost all the points raised, they mostly all apply to the ship too.

I know the approximate location, it's open water as described by the OP.

As you said, the lack of early and substantial action by the Ro Ro is inexplicable.

Very very poor seamanship by the trained and certified bridge crew, regardless of the sailing boat's actions.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Nicely covered in layman's terms @Dockhead

There really are some HUGE misunderstandings of the COLREGS here, mostly by cruisers who don't seemed to have read them or learnt them in the first place (or are purposely ignoring them) yet still think they are right, over internationally accepted rules...

+ 1 I agree with you agreeing with DH

[Paul Annapolis]

13 pages of comments within 24 hours, including both very good information and advice from some and incorrect and plain old wrong advice from others as usual....such as referring to "right of way" or the "rule of tonnage". Whether at sea or near ports or on inland or coastal waters, it is ALWAYS BEST to keep an eye out for ships, stay clear , assume the ship does not see you, don't press your luck and in this case...really? If you are going to use VHF, which is a great thing to do well in advance, then do it well in advance and not within i/2 a mile and then ask WTF on this forum. Many times I have called ships to let them know that I see them, to ask or if necessary to inform them of my intentions (within the Nautical Rules of course). So...if you are out a mile or two under sail, just tweak your course and adjust your sails well in advance and steer clear, but why wait as did the OP when risk of collision was heightened if not imminent and then ask WTF?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Wrong.

Here's one that wants all vessels great and small to follow the Rules.

Exactly, as in any profession, there are good and bad/attentive and lazy individuals.

Any licensed watchkeeper who prefers to just "wing it" instead of following COLREGS is simply weak and a liability to his employers.

The majoity of us follow the rules and try to weed out the bad ones

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

This time I am disagree with Mr Valhalla as well.

From what I read in the OP post he was not challenging anyone.

He simply complied with his obligation to stand on.
Until he felt it was no longer appropriate and chose to take action.

We may have different opinions about when he decided to act. Was it reasonable or unreasonable fair enough.
I didn’t t interpret his description as a challenge.

It may or may not have been intended as a "challenge", but the very fact that there was drama at the point when he decided to take action proves that the action was taken too late. When you do it right, there is no drama. In wide open water like that with no other traffic there is simply no reason -- actually, no excuse -- to get that close and create those risks.



5 cables is simply way too close to be initiating a maneuver. At that distance, if you happen to maneuver simultaneously and towards each other, then only God will decide whether you live or die. There is no time and no space to correct if the maneuver wasn't succesful. You are down to your last chance already even before you start. It is totally wrong to allow yourself to get into that situation, all the more so in open water with no traffic -- no excuse.

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

I don’t know what the reasons behind the lack of action on the Ro Ro were.
Worst case scenario, challenging the sail boat?
No information available so we don’t know. Why.

Taking the post at face value, because I have no reason not to.
The Ro Ro should have taken action. To avoid collision in ample time and passed clear of the sail boat.

How open was the water, I don’t know, I just take the OP word it was open water,

Even if it wasn’t open water. Even in relatively restricted water.
The Ro Ro lack of action is inexplicable.

Even if the OP and the sailboat were completely in the wrong the lack of action by the Ro Ro is inexplicable.

What was going on on the deck of the Ro Ro vessel is unknowable to us. And therefore -- irrelevant. It could have been 1000 different things, ranging from ignoble to entirely justified. Whether the ship was wrong or right -- irrelevant. If the process had been followed correctly by the OP then no issue would have occurred, no risks, no problems -- no drama. Whatever was going on, on the bridge of the ship.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

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).

I know you have good intentions but that’s not what the big boat is expecting and that’s not what other boats in the immediate area are expecting either. So EVERYBODY in the area has to change their plans, wondering WHAT in the world the guy in the little boat will do next. Much better for everyone to just abide by the Colregs regarding crossings, whether you’re in a 25’ boat or 1000’ ship.

I’m reminded of the well intended driver who stops on a main road at an intersection with no red light or stop sign to impede their progress, and beckons the motorists waiting behind the stop signs on either side of the intersection to go first. Never mind the driver coming up behind who doesn’t expect to see someone stopped in his lane, or the car coming from the opposite direction that T-bones one of the cars the well intended motorist beckoned to cross. Whether you’re in a car or a boat or a plane, in order to stay deconflicted, we’ve all agreed on certain customs (stop at a stop sign, don’t stop if no stop sign) that have been codified for us, and it’s incumbent on us ALL to follow them. The size of the plane, boat, or motor vehicle have nothing to do with it.

[Donald Bryden]

As soon as you realize that a close quarters meeting is going to occur you should contact the ship and make agreement on how to make the pass. In your case, that would have been at five miles. Since AIS became available I've had great success in getting responses from called ships by calling with the vessels name. You won't be bothering them if you make the call. They don't want a collision either. As has been pointed out, there are so many class B AIS's broadcasting in coastal waters that they may not be monitoring that feature. (Note: That's another thing. If moored turn it off. The clutter makes navigation more difficult for us small boaters also.) The problem with just taking evasive action without contact is you have no was of knowing the ships intentions. It may be planning a turn at just the wrong time and may nail you. It may be a long shot that that would happen, but remember Murphy was a sailor.

[fxykty]

OP here, both heartened and dismayed by the discussion. But thrilled (truly) that a particular situation can be used to engage a community and for education.

Some additional context:

The conditions were unlimited visibility and moderate steady breeze. We were sailing on autopilot set to AWA, with heading changes less than 5 degrees over the previous 2 hours.

Our course was 20 degrees higher than our next waypoint due to wind angle, so I did prefer to stand on if possible. Also, given the apparent wind speed, we would have been (and were) over the sail’s wind limit on hardening up.

Earlier, two other ships, one a similar RORO and the other a larger container ship, going in the same direction (towards Auckland harbour limits from the north, still 10 miles distant to the harbour limit) had previously altered their respective courses 10-15 degrees to port to go astern of us. Both did so at about 3 and 5 miles distance from us respectively.

So, my expectation was that the third ship would act the same way. It didn’t. I was giving it a chance to act, as altering to go astern would have put me right on top of them if they did the same as the other ships.

When it was clearly apparent that the ship wasn’t going to alter course or slow down (nor speed up), I called them on the radio as described in my original post.

Was I challenging the ship or trying to force them to give way? Absolutely not!

Drama? None!! The voice over the radio was relaxed and I was relaxed. I reached over to turn off the autopilot, turned the wheel to a clearing bearing, and wound in the sheet partially and let the gennaker luff to avoid overloading it. Plenty of time and given the conditions, plenty of room.

Was the radio call left too late? Perhaps, though given the conditions and the relatively slow speeds of both vessels nothing was happening quickly. Open ocean, I would call at 12 miles or so, but with slower speeds and busier traffic, 3-5 miles usually. This time, I obviously left it later, waiting for the expected course change.

Was my course change drastic after the radio call? No, only 30 degrees at first, then curving back to port (leeward) as the ship moved past. Interestingly, there were two power yachts (15-20 metres long each) that plowed through the gap between us and the ship’s stern as we approached the wake.

Did I increase speed or course? Not intentionally, and speed by not more than 1 knot. Course by not more than 3-4 degrees.

Was it enough to throw off a clearing calculation by the ship? Possibly, but that would imply they were happy for a very close pass in front of us with our original speed. That’s the source of my ‘WTF’.

The only quibble with what I did was waiting so long before contacting the ship. Except for that, I still believe my actions as stand on vessel were correct.

Carry on...