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

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I think we have a difference of opinion. Most of the 5º proponents seem to think this small change somehow makes life easier for the poor working stiff on the bridge of the commercial ship - and they're fooling themselves. To the watchkeeper, you are still a risk of collision, your bearing will not change (at least at a rate and distance to indicate a safe pass), and ARPA will still have you near a 0 CPA. Generally speaking in open water a CPA of at least 1/2 mile is preferred. If you're going to take any avoiding action whether you're the give-way vessel or a stand-on vessel using 17(a)(ii) clause or the idea that risk of collision has not yet begun to take effect, you should still be following the spirit of rule 8:

600yds vs 1/2 mile (800yd)...it's not that exact of a process. If we want to split these hairs, I want the OP to provide the chart with series of vessel positions, so I can see exactly what is happening. He says open water but then describes a situation where there may be other restrictions, so I'm not going to trust based on the description what other factors may be in play. Also, what other traffic is in the area. Just outside a harbor, there may be dozens of small boats. If he reacts to the OP, he may be in violation of the colregs with a different boat. Too many unknowns to determine if the ship did anything wrong.

If I make my move before it has a chance to become a crossing situation and then maintain that spacing, the helmsman is always going to see me passing to his stern. Sure he has to watch my position but he does no matter what if he's doing his job keeping a proper watch. Odds are a big ship has an AIS, so if he sees me crossing well behind, it's not really a big burden as long as I stay consistent with crossing to his stern (unlike the OP's description of varying speed and course randomly). If he is concerned that there may be a crossing conflict where stand on status becomes an issue, he is free (and required) to either take action which can include getting on the vhf and clarifying the crossing but realistically, he's going to keep an eye on the situation but not worry too much if I'm passing well to his stern.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Well explained DH but many don't have a comfortable feel as to when that transition should take place or how to manage it. [!!!]

Guides like the excellent A.N. Cockroft editions say that no closer than 3nm is when Action should take place. Ideally that should be from the give way vessel, but this is also when the stand on vessel should become proactive if nothing is happening .

At 3nm if I'm the stand on, is when I would usually call to ask their intentions.
Often, here in Asia, you don't get an answer, but they do then make an adjustment to open up CPA.

Harbour or constrained water conditions are different, the action period being much closer and if on a small craft, it does make sense to.just stay out of the way of the larger vessels.. . .

This is an absolutely crucially important point. None of this works if different vessels have different ideas about what phase of the crossing they are in. I think is one of the main sources of confusion among yachters, perhaps THE main source of confusion, and possibly the reason that so many just throw up their hands and try to follow some "rule of gross tonnage".


That part of Cockcroft about the four stages of a crossing is something everyone should read learn by heart:







Cockcroft & Lameijer, A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, 6th ed. 2004, pp. 114-115



If you don't recognize what stage you're in, the the whole crossing will be a mess. The distance frames vary as Cockcroft says, but the ones he mentions are valid in 80% of cases at least in the waters I sail --


* No later than 5 to 8 miles out you are in risk of collision situation and stand on vessel is obligated to stand on


* by 2 to 3 miles out, stand on vessel is free to maneuver. Meaning, it would be very strange if give-way vessel has not maneuvered by 3 miles out and by then you should be prepared to take action.


The other concrete distance framework which everyone should understand is minimum CPA. It is normally one mile in open but crowded water, and may be two offshore. It is important for yachters to understand that commercial vessels will have standing orders requiring them to maintain minimum CPA with all vessels, normally one or two miles, so don't maneuver to get closer than that -- you cause them trouble and anyway its dangerous. A mile is a good minimum distance in any case -- less than a mile is close quarters and a whole different level of risk. The OP lacks these frameworks; a lot of this thread has been about that. In order to make and execute a decision and still maintain one mile CPA obviously you have to act long before one mile out.



This is all different in pilotage waters where ships are following fairways, channels, or obvious seaways. You can get a lot closer in such cases so long as you stay out of the fairways, channels, or obvious seaways, and the process is different.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

600yds vs 1/2 mile (800yd)...

First off, 1/2 mile is 1000 yds; at sea we normally use nautical miles. Secondly, my point isn't that you ensure a 600 yd CPA by making a 5º turn 5 miles away, it's that you move the path you will travel 600 yds left or right at that point that you would otherwise encounter the other vessel. You can't with any precision know from 5 miles out where your actual CPA will occur - perhaps destiny would take you 200 yds in front of the ship's bow - and by shifting that 600 yds right, you plow through his stern instead.

[HeinSdL]

I haven't read the entire thread but surely this is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup?


These days with the electronic aids we have we should not need to get so hung up and let situations develop to the point where stress kicks in. Previously, determining whether two ships were on a collision course took time: hand bearing, wait a minute or two, hand bearing again, yes maybe, wait a bit more, take a bearing again and collision course is confirmed. Then you needed to do something and make it very obvious to the other ship what you were doing (as the stand on vessel giving it a bit more time while continuing taking bearings and then also do something if the give way vessel is not taking action). In those days there was no room for a 5 deg change of course. It had to be a significant, clearly visible to the other vessel, change of course and/or speed.


Today we have AIS, or at least most of us pleasure people and definitely the OP but in any case all commercial folk. Combined with actually observing physically, the AIS will immediately confirm to both vessels CPA of 0.0, and then follows some quick QC (i.e. is the course and speed of the vessel reflected correctly by the system hence the CPA is likely correct) and you can start to think next steps. As the stand on vessel I would not do anything for a while, assuming the give way vessel is also looking at a CPA of 0.0 and will shortly take some action. However, I might be wrong in my assumption, the other vessel might have me filtered out (in which case he does not care that much about my existence), or he incorrectly feels he has rights due to the commercial nature of his business, or he is asleep. If any of these apply and no action is observed I can conclude his course and speed will remain unchanged and I would go for the +5 to +10 course change to starboard. And watch the CPA creep up to say 0.3 to 0.5 NM. All this with still a few miles to go. Good enough for me. And if not good enough for the other vessel or the COLREGS then I would suggest that through the absence of action on the part of the other vessel I became obliged to take action myself. As per the COLREGS, but in any case no need to wait till 0.5 NM still separates us with CPA still at 0.0.


Now, if this small change of course is not clearly visible to the other vessel by physical observation then the other vessel can do one of two things: 1) observe on his AIS that the CPA has increased to an acceptable margin or 2) if he doesn't like the CPA on his AIS indeed take significant avoiding action himself.


If clarity is still allusive then call on the VHF.


I don't call so much on the VHF. But indeed it can be helpful. When double handed with the spinnaker up heading south along Portugal we were on a collision course with a vessel about 8 NM distance. We were not so keen to leave it too late in view of the spinnaker, so we made contact and they made their couple of degrees change of course, passing nicely behind us.


Today we are much better informed when at sea, are much more agile and the hand bearing days are definitely gone.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That article is absolutely shocking. An average of one incorrect statement about the Rules per paragraph. And written by a lawyer!

If we're reading the same article, I didn't find it that egregious. Other than the part where he says tugs don't operate under rule 9 or 10, it was generally okay.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

First off, 1/2 mile is 1000 yds; at sea we normally use nautical miles. Secondly, my point isn't that you ensure a 600 yd CPA by making a 5º turn 5 miles away, it's that you move the path you will travel 600 yds left or right at that point that you would otherwise encounter the other vessel. You can't with any precision know from 5 miles out where your actual CPA will occur - perhaps destiny would take you 200 yds in front of the ship's bow - and by shifting that 600 yds right, you plow through his stern instead.

Feel free to make it 7.653 degrees or what ever to get to exactly 1000yds...not the point of the recommendation. I doubt the people who mentioned 5 degrees pulled out their calculators and did the math. The point was turn and eliminate the potential collision before it's even a crossing situation.

The OP indicated he took the CPA off his AIS...that can do a pretty good job estimating the distance as long as he accounts for the rough size of the ship and he doesn't change speed and heading (if he does, he's not following colregs)

Also, I indicated that you keep a watch and adjust as needed during the approach...so you aren't going to wind up 200yds in front of the ship.

The OP kept plowing straight ahead when the AIS was projecting that he would hit the ship broadside.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

As the stand on vessel I would not do anything for a while, assuming the give way vessel is also looking at a CPA of 0.0 and will shortly take some action. However, I might be wrong in my assumption, the other vessel might have me filtered out (in which case he does not care that much about my existence), or he incorrectly feels he has rights due to the commercial nature of his business, or he is asleep. If any of these apply and no action is observed I can conclude his course and speed will remain unchanged and I would go for the +5 to +10 course change to starboard. And watch the CPA creep up to say 0.3 to 0.5 NM. All this with still a few miles to go.


Today we are much better informed when at sea, are much more agile and the hand bearing days are definitely gone.

My previous discussion about the futility of a 5 or 10º alteration appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Assuming you wait for him to act, then decide "with a few miles to go" say 3nm distant, you'll be about 2 nm to the intersection point, and 10º will shift that 700yds to the right, still well within a dangerously close proximity. On top of that it's a virtually invisible change of course from the other guy's perspective.

Contrary to your last point, hand-bearing should be utilized in all (YES ALL) situations where there might be a risk of collision. The only time you shouldn't use a hand-bearing compass, is if you have a mounted compass/gyrocompass/pelorus.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by 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.

Totally mistaken. You are measuring the track when we were on port gybe, hours prior to meeting the ships, slowly lifting as the breeze went left. The dogleg you you refer to was our gybe to starboard, as the steadily lifting ESE system breeze settled into the NE sea breeze.

The place where we met the RORO in question is marked by the red cross. Well after the gybe.

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

My previous discussion about the futility of a 5 or 10º alteration appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Assuming you wait for him to act, then decide "with a few miles to go" say 3nm distant, you'll be about 2 nm to the intersection point, and 10º will shift that 700yds to the right, still well within a dangerously close proximity. On top of that it's a virtually invisible change of course from the other guy's perspective.

Contrary to your last point, hand-bearing should be utilized in all (YES ALL) situations where there might be a risk of collision. The only time you shouldn't use a hand-bearing compass, is if you have a mounted compass/gyrocompass/pelorus.

To be honest, if possible I would take action much much earlier when both vessels are still permitted to do as per an earlier post. i.e 5 deg change to starboard.

The point I was making is that a 10 deg course change is not invisible on AIS. If I thus pass ASTERN of the other vessel by a margin which is comfortable for me (CPA of 0.3 to 0.5 NM having established already that the other give way vessel is NOT taking action), I am satisfied. If the margin is too small for the taste of the other vessel (company policy, etc) then as the give way vessel, he should feel free to take proper action IN GOOD TIME. Although obviously, if it is getting a little on the late side the change of course would be bigger, much bigger if need be. A temporary luff up into the wind for which I would have the boat prepared.

Then about taking bearings. I stand corrected. I do take bearings perhaps informally lining up eg the steering wheel pedestal and a stanchion with the other vessel, or using my fixed compass but not with a handheld. Just to check if what the AIS is telling me makes sense. But along the same lines, when entering a harbour, I am not likely to plot a triangulation point on a chart using a distant church spire, a lighthouse and some other land mark when my GPS (2 different sources) is doing a perfectly good job.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If we're reading the same article, I didn't find it that egregious. Other than the part where he says tugs don't operate under rule 9 or 10, it was generally okay.

Hard for me to see how you could think this is "generally ok". Maybe you're reading something else? Take just this for example.

"Rules 9 and 10 refer to large ships operating within a narrow channel or inshore shipping lane, where the large ships are expressly given the right of way. A tugboat, with or without a barge, is not considered a big ship, and it does not operate under those rules"
https://www.thelog.com/ask-the-attor...-right-of-way/

Utter nonsense on two or three different levels:

1. No, those rules do not refer to "large ships" Rule 9 refers to any vessels "which can navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway." Rule 10 refers to "any power driven vessel following a traffic lane" -- so not only tugs and barges, but even my yacht so long as the engine is running. These purely made-up "large ships" are egregious. And from a lawyer!

2. Other vessels being obligated to "not impede" is not indeed being "expressly given the right of way"

3. A tugboat or barge "does not operate under those rules"? Nonsense

Or this:

"So, the 'short' answer to our reader’s question is that his sailboat has the right of way over the tug, unless the tug is exhibiting the lights or day shapes for a restricted vessel"

A "restricted" vessel? Where is that in the Rules? RAM? And "right of way"?

Or this:

"As a consequence of Rule 2 and of the maritime law system of allocating fault between vessels, any boat that stubbornly insists on a super-technical adherence to the other rules will be found to have contributed to the collision, and in some circumstances may be found to bear the majority of fault."

Totally incorrect reading of Rule 2, as held by many cases. The courts interpret Rule 2 to allow departures from the Rules only in exceptionally rare cases, and AFAIK have never assigned fault for NOT departing from them. And it is a misunderstanding of the Rules as a whole to think some "super technical adherence to the other Rules" could ever contribute to a collision, much less get you into court. A common and very harmful misunderstanding, in fact -- the same misunderstanding that has yachters thinking that stand-on vessels are required (or allowed) to stand on right into extremis, and use that as an excuse for not following or even learning the Rules.

"Technically, a sailboat has the right of way over a commercial vessel, unless that vessel is a big ship or it is displaying the lights or shapes of a 'restricted' vessel."

Wrong on several levels.

1. No one ever has right of way.
2. The obligations do not change when the other vessel is a "big ship" -- extremely harmful nonsense.
3. What is a "restricted" vessel? RAM? And what about NUC, and vessel fishing?

This is truly egregious, one of the worst things on the Rules that I've ever seen in print. And from a lawyer!

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

At a half mile, the ship had no option but continue on based on the OPs choice to assert his stand on status. We don't know what other conditions the ship was under such that it may or may not have been able to take earlier action.

Yes, the colregs to require you to negotiate how the crossing will happen if it's unclear what is happening.

The ship had lots of options.
I will agree calling at 5 cables all you are going to confirm is someone is awake.
The ship should have acted sooner.
At 5 cables it could still alter course and very possibly may have if it was a different OOW.
Which is why I personal would have been concerned about going astern of the ship.
I would have turned away parallels to its course or even further. Which might have meant going about. or luffing my sails so I took my way off.

The ship should have acted sooner. No apparent reason why it couldn't .

It might not have wanted to which is not the same as couldn't.
Most likely due to some unknown reason the watch had failed to see the sail boat.

So I will agree raising the concern a bit sooner would have been better.

Other wise. Acting at 5 cables is not unreasonable.
You can judge the OP actions as slower than how you might have acted.
Fair enough.

What about the ship? It didn't act at all.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Hard for me to see how you could think this is "generally ok". Maybe you're reading something else? Take just this for example.

That article is yet another case where people get into trouble by trying to paraphrase the COLREGS.

That get's sticky quickly.

For that reason probably you've noticed that in general I have copied and pasted directly from the COLREGS in my posts here.

It keeps everything much clearer and simpler.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

My previous discussion about the futility of a 5 or 10º alteration appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Assuming you wait for him to act, then decide "with a few miles to go" say 3nm distant, you'll be about 2 nm to the intersection point, and 10º will shift that 700yds to the right, still well within a dangerously close proximity. On top of that it's a virtually invisible change of course from the other guy's perspective.. . .

This should be printed out and kept on board.

Small alterations when there is a risk of collision should be avoided at all costs. They are forbidden by the Rules, which say:

"Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided." Rule 8(b)

Which actually applies even when there is no risk of collision yet. It should not be done for two reasons: (a) It is really important that when you change course it is really glaringly obvious and not just in AIS, so that he doesn't assume you're holding course and speed. The consequences of that can be tragic. (b) Remember you can't predict exactly where either his or your vessel will be at CPA -- every vessel has variations in course and speed, especially one under sail.

This last thing informs several aspects of collision avoidance. You're not trying to avoid the actual ship, because you can't know exactly where he will be. THere is a cone of uncertainty as to his position. What you are trying to avoid is where he COULD BE. That's why your CPA needs to be more than 10 feet and why in most cases it needs to be a mile, at least in open water. By the time you meet, he could be anywhere within the cone of uncertainty built up out of variations in speed and course, including possible CHANGES of course, which could happen for different reasons, even by accident. So the CPA has to cover this. A safe distance to pass a ship is a lot greater distance than many yachters realize, especially where there is a big difference in speed (not the OP's case).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

The ship had lots of options.
I will agree calling at 5 cables all you are going to confirm is someone is awake.
The ship should have acted sooner.
At 5 cables it could still alter course and very possibly may have if it was a different OOW.
Which is why I personal would have been concerned about going astern of the ship.
I would have turned away parallels to its course or even further. Which might have meant going about. or luffing my sails so I took my way off.

The ship should have acted sooner. No apparent reason why it couldn't .

It might not have wanted to which is not the same as couldn't.
Most likely due to some unknown reason the watch had failed to see the sail boat.

So I will agree raising the concern a bit sooner would have been better.

Other wise. Acting at 5 cables is not unreasonable.
You can judge the OP actions as slower than how you might have acted.
Fair enough.

What about the ship? It didn't act at all.

I've said it before, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree -- he should never have gotten within 5 cables of a ship at sea speed, much less only initiated deviation from a collision course at 5 cables. In my opinion, pure madness.

I do however agree with your suggested maneuver -- finding yourself in that extremely dangerous position for whatever reason, the right thing to do is to immediately bear off, tack, or whatever you need to do to get onto a reciprocal course (or further), to immediately kill any further closing of range to him. I would be nervous about taking way off, since you become a sitting duck without way on, but even that would be ok if it's necessary to get you turned around. I agree that he should not have been trying to work up a crossing, from that distance. He is within seconds of not even being visible from the bridge of that ship. Some place you do not ever want to be!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Hard for me to see how you could think this is "generally ok". Maybe you're reading something else? Take just this for example.

"Rules 9 and 10 refer to large ships operating within a narrow channel or inshore shipping lane, where the large ships are expressly given the right of way. A tugboat, with or without a barge, is not considered a big ship, and it does not operate under those rules"
https://www.thelog.com/ask-the-attor...-right-of-way/

Utter nonsense on two or three different levels:

1. No, those rules do not refer to "large ships" Rule 9 refers to any vessels "which can navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway." Rule 10 refers to "any power driven vessel following a traffic lane" -- so not only tugs and barges, but even my yacht so long as the engine is running. These purely made-up "large ships" are egregious. And from a lawyer!

2. Other vessels being obligated to "not impede" is not indeed being "expressly given the right of way"

3. A tugboat or barge "does not operate under those rules"? Nonsense

Or this:

"So, the 'short' answer to our reader’s question is that his sailboat has the right of way over the tug, unless the tug is exhibiting the lights or day shapes for a restricted vessel"

A "restricted" vessel? Where is that in the Rules? RAM? And "right of way"?

Or this:

"As a consequence of Rule 2 and of the maritime law system of allocating fault between vessels, any boat that stubbornly insists on a super-technical adherence to the other rules will be found to have contributed to the collision, and in some circumstances may be found to bear the majority of fault."

Totally incorrect reading of Rule 2, as held by many cases. The courts interpret Rule 2 to allow departures from the Rules only in exceptionally rare cases, and AFAIK have never assigned fault for NOT departing from them. And it is a misunderstanding of the Rules as a whole to think some "super technical adherence to the other Rules" could ever contribute to a collision, much less get you into court. A common and very harmful misunderstanding, in fact -- the same misunderstanding that has yachters thinking that stand-on vessels are required (or allowed) to stand on right into extremis, and use that as an excuse for not following or even learning the Rules.

"Technically, a sailboat has the right of way over a commercial vessel, unless that vessel is a big ship or it is displaying the lights or shapes of a 'restricted' vessel."

Wrong on several levels.

1. No one ever has right of way.
2. The obligations do not change when the other vessel is a "big ship" -- extremely harmful nonsense.
3. What is a "restricted" vessel? RAM? And what about NUC, and vessel fishing?

This is truly egregious, one of the worst things on the Rules that I've ever seen in print. And from a lawyer!

Lol DH, If I am not mistaken I think that you are also a lawyer and a pretty good one at that

Perhaps now you can understand my tone whenever I encounter a bad professional watchkeeper at sea [emoji6]