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

[KS_Sailor]

Originally Posted by BillKny

A 5 degree change in course when you FIRST noticed the issue would have avoided the whole problem. But you chose not to do that. It was a choice that YOU made.



What I have always explained to my students is that before there is a "risk of collision" there is no stand-on boat, and you can do whatever needs to be done to prevent a risky situation from developing with out violating your responsibilities as the "stand-on" vessel. When you are 5 miles away away from another vessel there is not a "risk of collision," and therefore you are NOT the stand on vessel. To create a risk of collision where no risk existed and was not necessary is just bad seamanship. Period.



You chose to force the issue. Now you chose to grandstand about how you were wronged. While you do that, we roll our eyes.

Yep...And Gross Weight Wins[emoji41]

[dfelsent]

My most recent close encounter with a ship, where I was the WAFI was when the Queen Mary 2 was overtaking me. I knew they would want to change course to starboard, heading to sea. I knew they would see me. I had lots of funky sails up and could easily harden up. Not easily head down. Easily stand on. I called with my intended course change, also to starboard, and the pilot responded and said ok, and with their plan, which was to leave me to starboard if I made my change. At about a mile. 10 knots for them , 7 for me. So 20 minutes away.

Without the communication the pilot would have had to guess what the (me) possible idiot would do. I would have held my course (not an idiot) and they would have made a closer pass than ideal.
Reduced stress all around.

I have had it drilled into me. Make your course change early and obvious. That’s communication.

Follow the rules, until you are too close, then follow the rules.

Too close can be a mile or more off for a ship. Not so far off for a 120 foot 35 knot. And really close for two racing sailboats. And for racing dinghies inches not feet.

Colregs provide a degree of certainty (one hopes) in our uncertain world.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Sorry if I needed to see where the incident took place.. guess I just lack imagination and the ability to visualise the approaches to Auckland.. never been so never seen...

...If that's an anathema to you.. sorry, its a tough life..

Phil, I don't necessarly disagree with some of what you have said in your last post regarding the time to get in contact and/or to take action.

However, respectfully, my original post highlighted that you didn't seem to have a correct grasp of the COLREGS in this situation - because you posted totally incorrect information applying to:

- "two power driven vessels meeting"

instead of:

- "a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel".

You don't need to see where the incident took place to understand from the first post that this is the OP's sailing boat meeting a commercial ship.

Someone else indicated that you were / are confused, and I agreed.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Phil, I don't necessarly disagree with some of what you have said in your last post regarding the time to get in contact and/or to take action.

However, respectfully, my original post highlighted that you didn't seem to have a correct grasp of the COLREGS in this situation - because you posted totally incorrect information applying to:

- "two power driven vessels meeting"

instead of:

- "a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of a sailing vessel".

You don't need to see where the incident took place to understand from the first post that this is the OP's sailing boat meeting a commercial ship.

Someone else indicated that you were / are confused, and I agreed.

I don't believe I am confused, just pulled the page and failed to do my usual proof read before posting..
Other than that I'll stick to my strategies..

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I don't believe I am confused, just pulled the page and failed to do my usual proof read before posting..

Other than that I'll stick to my strategies..

Rather amusing to see you going to such lengths to avoid admitting that you were, and maybe still are, confused about the fact that this was a sailboat vs motorboat crossing so the rules you quoted didn’t apply. No big deal that you apparently didn’t read the OP carefully enough, we’ve all been there, done that. But why not just admit it? The only other explanation is that you really don’t understand that different crossing rules apply for sailboats vs motorboats and I don’t even want to imagine the possibility that you’ve managed to kill off THAT many brain cells.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Rather amusing to see you going to such lengths to avoid admitting that you were, and maybe still are, confused about the fact that this was a sailboat vs motorboat crossing so the rules you quoted didn’t apply. No big deal that you apparently didn’t read the OP carefully enough, we’ve all been there, done that. But why not just admit it? The only other explanation is that you really don’t understand that different crossing rules apply for sailboats vs motorboats and I don’t even want to imagine the possibility that you’ve managed to kill off THAT many brain cells.

It was a copy and paste that I screwed up..
Re brain cells... What led you to believe I had them in the first place.. Glad you're amused..

[Knotical]

I apologize if this has been mentioned before in this hot thread - does it make a difference if instead of asking for the ship’s intentions you (sailboat) mention your intentions first, like “I intend to maintain my course and speed?” Most of the radio calls I have heard the person initiating contact mentions his intentions first. Of course I would contact a large ship well in advance to give her enough time to change course, it will be futile to expect a course change very close to you as that may put you at risk of being t-boned if the wind suddenly dies! I haven’t maneuvered anything larger than 45’ but imagine it would take a long time and quite a bit of space for a freighter to change course, right?

[markpierce]

The OP should have advised the ship, by radio or obviouse course change, it was altering course to avoid a potential collision.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rennsail

I for one, would rather be alive and technically wrong, than dead and technically correct.

YADH!

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The OP should have advised the ship, by radio or obviouse course change, it was altering course to avoid a potential collision.

I did!!! After the ship said they were good, I informed them I would alter course to starboard. All good.

[requiem]

Just a small observation, based on the screenshot provided, the course route leading up to the dogleg looks a bit curved. Using the extremely unscientific method of plopping down arrows in Google Slides and rotating them to match the course, I measure the legs as follows:

From the 42 m sounding to the 15 m sounding: 235°
From the 15 m sounding to the "U" in Hauraki: 225°
From the "U" to the course change: 210°

Using Boatman's estimate of 6 miles for the diversion (which is pretty close to what I measured on OpenCPN), the lengths of those legs are roughly 6, 6, and 3 miles. (Since I have NZ charts up now, it looks like there's a tidal stream of up to a knot that could be a factor.)

I too am rather concerned the RORO wouldn't detect a dangerous CPA, but I do wonder if an early measurement may have provided a different passing picture, and complacency led it to not notice a change. Even so, keeping a decent watch and allowing a safe passing distance should have avoided this.

[GILow]

Originally Posted by BillKny

All those concerns can be completely cured by a short and sweet radio call while everything is still 30 minutes away to make passing arrangements if you have any fear about something developing in an unexpected way. The idea that I should hold my course while a steady 0.0 CPA continues on and on is just anathema to me.



It's pretty routine for us to hail a larger vessel and confirm a port-to-port passing, or a starboard-to-starboard if that make more sense. It has always been well and politely received.



Waiting until you are minutes away from disaster (at least in your eyes) to do anything, or worse to suddenly insist that somebody else do something, is either arrogant, stupid, or both.

^^^^^^

Absolutely this. Exactly what I do and it has nearly always been met with a polite and helpful response.

Once I know they know I am there I usually make the minor adjustment needed to keep out of their way. Regardless of the rules they are burning a LOT of dinosaurs to get where they are going, it costs me nothing at all to change my heading or speed.

Once a particularly polite captain (or officer, not sure his rank) informed me, from ten miles out, that he had already made a minor course adjustment to avoid me, something that was reflected almost immediately in my AIS CPA reading. This encounter led to a terrific discussion where the ship was happy to give me feedback on my radar and AIS visibility giving me some good metrics that I would otherwise not know.

Kind of staggered that the OP held their heading in this situation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Knotical

I apologize if this has been mentioned before in this hot thread - does it make a difference if instead of asking for the ship’s intentions you (sailboat) mention your intentions first, like “I intend to maintain my course and speed?” Most of the radio calls I have heard the person initiating contact mentions his intentions first.

I wouldn't. Because my intention depends on his. I am calling (if I call at all) because I want to know why he hasn't maneuvered and whether he is planning to. There are many different reasons why he can't or doesn't want to maneuver, in such a case my intention will NOT be to hold course and speed, but rather to maneuver myself.

Originally Posted by Knotical

. . .Of course I would contact a large ship well in advance to give her enough time to change course, it will be futile to expect a course change very close to you as that may put you at risk of being t-boned if the wind suddenly dies! I haven’t maneuvered anything larger than 45’ but imagine it would take a long time and quite a bit of space for a freighter to change course, right?

No, most large ships moving at sea speed can change course very quickly, up to several degrees per second. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-flA-m5cFuo

Don't call and annoy them earlier than after when you would have expected them to change course, only after you start to have reasonable doubts that they will (so at say 3 or 4 miles, in open sea). If you call at all. Normally calling is not necessary. Once you feel fairly confident that he's not going to maneuver, just maneuver yourself. It's all there in Rule 17.

[jtsailjt]

I get that making a smaller correction early on yields a greater amount of clearance per degree turned than a late correction would yield, but several posters have mentioned making a 5 degree heading change very early on to avoid the whole situation. That's a great theoretical thing to do and might even work while motoring on autopilot in calm conditions, but usually not so useful while sailing in actual practice and the reason is that early on, you don't really know within 5 degrees what the actual collision course is because you don't know within 5 degrees what YOUR actual course is. You know what course you're trying to hold and have a readout that tells you what your course is at that moment but if you look at your course vector for 30 seconds or so, it's usually bouncing around more than 5 degrees, or at least mine is, especially when I'm sailing in any kind of seas. So that means if I only make a 5 degree adjustment to my course, I about as likely to be putting myself on a collision course rather than moving slightly away from one. So, if I deem that a course correction is necessary because I seem to be on, or close to a collision course with someone, I'd always make a larger correction than the amount my course is varying to ensure clearance. Another reason for doing this is to make it obvious to the other vessel that I've made a course correction so as to leave no doubt regarding my intentions for the crossing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by BillKny

. . . The idea that I should hold my course while a steady 0.0 CPA continues on and on is just anathema to me.. .

It's written in so many words in the Rules, but it's helpful and a true interpretation of them:


"Never stand on into danger"


This is a correct interpretation of Rules 17 and 2.


The Rule 17 obligation to stand on does NOT require you to hold a collision course "on and on", and does not allow it. The only purpose of standing on is to cede to the give-way vessel the opportunity to work out a solution to the crossing. The purpose of your holding course and speed is simply to allow him to know where you will be, so he can avoid you.



As soon as you have reasonable doubts that he intends to maneuver, that's out the window. Now it's your turn. Standing on is not just carrying on because it's the other vessel's problem. It's always a mutual problem. You are just giving him his turn to sort it out, while being ready to take your own turn if necessary. In good time and with plenty of space left.