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

[boatman61]

They could be tug assisted..

[JimZeigler]

In my humble opinion this was a risky situation for the sailboat. I agree with the comments that the first action when the chartplotter advised a collision was eminent was to contact the ship. The second assumption was that the sailboat would continue to maintain current speed over ground during the next 30 minutes - likewise the large ship given that both were close enough to shore to be affected by current. Also the sailboat is assuming that the motor vessel has sufficient depth to maneuver. Finally, if the large ship hits the saliboat, it will do much damage to the sailboat. All-in-all, the skipper of the sailboat was making a number of assumptions while putting his passengers and vessel at risk. At that distance and time, a slight change in course would have avoided all the risk.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by RoseLoper48

The right of way rules do not specify that a sailboat has right of way over a power boat. It does say that the least maneuverable boat has the right of way. In this case you had early opportunity to alter course to avoid a collision. The first right of way rule says to avoid collision.

I know you mean well but for serious cruisers and professionals, COLREGS is like our Bible.
We study every word and rule to better understand each rules relationship to the others.

When you make up your own scripture as an oversimplified edict, you can expect some blowback![emoji6]

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by GoinSumWare

Last spring we went dead in the water off Long Island in the Bahamas at 3 AM due to a clogged Racor, making us unable to maneuver and way up the COLREGS pecking order. This came as a surprise because the filter only had 24 hours on it but we had apparently taken on some dirty diesel or perhaps it was just the contents of the tank getting stirred up during refueling. In any event as I was down below replacing the filter an 800 foot tanker appeared on AIS and radar headed straight for us at 18 knots. Even a near miss would have been a disaster due to the wake. We immediately got on VHF and hailed her to advise of our situation. The captain asked for us to turn on all exterior lights, which we did, and then was considerate enough to give us a wide berth - the point being it all depends on who is at the helm.

That is a very good point to bring up.

I have a string of 2 All Round Red lights and the appropriate day signal to hoist up the flag halyard , for exactly that purpose.

Even on a sailboat with a jammed rudder you can be NUC

[Ringmaster]

Really?

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Uricanekack....
All that sounds like log towing lingo on the BC coast.

Very relaxed bunch of guys, but usually missing a few tips of their fingers[emoji16]

Yep,

When your.

“Not making tree’s”

Give me a call,

I give you a “slow bell”

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I know you mean well but for serious cruisers and professionals, COLREGS is like our Bible.
We study every word and rule to better understand each rules relationship to the others.

When you make up your own scripture as an oversimplified edict, you can expect some blowback![emoji6]

But.. But.. I'm an atheist..

[Lexi22]

Originally Posted by boatman61

But.. But.. I'm an atheist..

me 2.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john manning

FxyKty the OP is entirely in the right here. Those defending the RORO helmsman have lost the plot.

Avoiding collisions is about following the rules so every action is predictable.

Commercial vessel helmsmen who think might is right should get another job.

What makes you think that the commercial vessel watch officer thinks might is right? We do not have such information; on the contrary, what the OP has posted seems to indicate that the commercial vessel thought it was passing safely (for whatever reason, including possibly a mistake). It doesn't make any difference why or what was going on on the other vessel -- it's not a contest between who is right and who is wrong. However wrong he was or was not, does not change your own responsibility to deal with the situation safely and in accordance with the Rules. The Rules work so that your own acts will produce a safe crossing no matter what happens on the other vessel.

Certainly agree strongly that "Avoiding collisions is about following the rules so every action is predictable." Amen to that.



But the OP did not follow the Rules -- he stood on right into an in extremis situation only 5 cables from collision, with closing speed of probably 16 knots, so seconds from collision. That's a violation of the Rules, which require action to avoid collision to be taken early.

Also being only seconds from collision, instead of maneuvering decisively, he distracted himself and the ship's bridge by getting on the radio. That is contary to good seamanship and to the Marine Guidance Notes of at least one marine authority. If you use a radio in collision avoidance, it should be done much earlier than that.

We've already talked about the importance of not getting into such close quarters situations from the point of view of time and space remaining to deal with the problem, and to correct an action which turns out not to be effective.

Another reason not to cut it this close is uncertainty about his future position -- if his course deviates slightly or there is some small error in calculation, he could end up on top of you before you know it.

But there is yet another reason, which we haven't discussed -- a ship is not a dimensionless point in space -- it has length and beam. AIS, however, calculates CPA based on a dimensionless point in space -- the location of the AIS antenna. Some ships are several cables long -- and where is the antenna? AIS does transmit that data, but few recreational AIS receivers make this data easily available (Open CPN however does). So the CPA indicated on your instruments is NOT indeed CPA to whatever part of the ship might be slicing your hull open in a few seconds, but CPA to the AIS antenna. So you might think you are passing several cables ahead, but if the AIS antenna is aft (as it often is!), you might be on a collision course.

Just yet one more reason (do you really need more???) to NEVER cut it this close -- give him a mile in open water, which means maneuvering at least two miles out, NOT 5 cables.

As has been said before, but worth repeating, none of this applies if he is following a channel or fairway and you can do the crossing by eye because you know where he will be even without instruments.

[Tin Tin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What makes you think that the commercial vessel watch officer thinks might is right? We do not have such information; on the contrary, what the OP has posted seems to indicate that the commercial vessel thought it was passing safely (for whatever reason, including possibly a mistake). It doesn't make any difference why or what was going on on the other vessel -- it's not a contest between who is right and who is wrong. However wrong he was or was not, does not change your own responsibility to deal with the situation safely and in accordance with the Rules. The Rules work so that your own acts will produce a safe crossing no matter what happens on the other vessel.

Certainly agree strongly that "Avoiding collisions is about following the rules so every action is predictable." Amen to that.



But the OP did not follow the Rules -- he stood on right into an in extremis situation only 5 cables from collision, with closing speed of probably 16 knots, so seconds from collision. That's a violation of the Rules, which require action to avoid collision to be taken early.

Also being only seconds from collision, instead of maneuvering decisively, he distracted himself and the ship's bridge by getting on the radio. That is contary to good seamanship and to the Marine Guidance Notes of at least one marine authority. If you use a radio in collision avoidance, it should be done much earlier than that.

We've already talked about the importance of not getting into such close quarters situations from the point of view of time and space remaining to deal with the problem, and to correct an action which turns out not to be effective.

Another reason not to cut it this close is uncertainty about his future position -- if his course deviates slightly or there is some small error in calculation, he could end up on top of you before you know it.

But there is yet another reason, which we haven't discussed -- a ship is not a dimensionless point in space -- it has length and beam. AIS, however, calculates CPA based on a dimensionless point in space -- the location of the AIS antenna. Some ships are several cables long -- and where is the antenna? AIS does transmit that data, but few recreational AIS receivers make this data easily available (Open CPN however does). So the CPA indicated on your instruments is NOT indeed CPA to whatever part of the ship might be slicing your hull open in a few seconds, but CPA to the AIS antenna. So you might think you are passing several cables ahead, but if the AIS antenna is aft (as it often is!), you might be on a collision course.

Just yet one more reason (do you really need more???) to NEVER cut it this close -- give him a mile in open water, which means maneuvering at least two miles out, NOT 5 cables.

As has been said before, but worth repeating, none of this applies if he is following a channel or fairway and you can do the crossing by eye because you know where he will be even without instruments.

Agree. Different situation but shows how big steel boats don't swerve real quick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5BAKrzw34o

[Idlegreg]

Originally Posted by MikeHoncho

The rule of tonnage always applies

'Always applies' - ok so you are saying a 40,000 ton cruise ship is the stand on vessel when it is approaching a 30,000 Bulk Carrier, no mattter what the respective courses ?

Or maybe your rule applies, only, when one vessel is below a certain tonnage ?

Please can you let me know what that figure is and what we do if both vesseles are below that size ?

I suppose before AIS (when you might not know the other vessels tonnage) there was some other rule that would enable you to make a descision - if it apeared the other ship was of a similar size to your own.


Greg

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.But there is yet another reason, which we haven't discussed -- a ship is not a dimensionless point in space -- it has length and beam. AIS, however, calculates CPA based on a dimensionless point in space -- the location of the AIS antenna. Some ships are several cables long -- and where is the antenna? AIS does transmit that data, but few recreational AIS receivers make this data easily available (Open CPN however does). So the CPA indicated on your instruments is NOT indeed CPA to whatever part of the ship might be slicing your hull open in a few seconds, but CPA to the AIS antenna. So you might think you are passing several cables ahead, but if the AIS antenna is aft (as it often is!), you might be on a collision course.

Just yet one more reason (do you really need more???) to NEVER cut it this close -- give him a mile in open water, which means maneuvering at least two miles out, NOT 5 cables.

As has been said before, but worth repeating, none of this applies if he is following a channel or fairway and you can do the crossing by eye because you know where he will be even without instruments.

Excellent point about the Antenna position giving an inaccurate CPA which can result in a much smaller CPA if you were relying on AIS only.

The same distorted info can happen with Radar ARPA if the operator is not careful to turn down the gain when getting closer to the ship.

What happens is that you get too strong a return from the moving target and the ARPA vector calculations bounces around from reading the superstructure aft then the bow, giving unstable data that jumps around.

I think in the OP's case, he wasn't basing his data on AIS, but eyeball avoidance by the time he was taking evasive action.

I am sure he agrees now, it was a bit late, but to me the RoRo was negligent and arrogant in attitude .

It is an interesting observation in mindset between First World and Third World navigation Zones.

First World, there is an assumption that the WKO understands and will abide by the Rules, so you act accordingly with mutual respect.

Third World, you dont have that mutual respect so you take on a much more defensive manner being far more proactive in either early avoidance or dictating actions to a stupid watchkeeper on the give way vessel before you need to take evasive actions in crowded waters.

It can be a wild wild west out there [emoji849]

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What makes you think that the commercial vessel watch officer thinks might is right? We do not have such information; on the contrary, what the OP has posted seems to indicate that the commercial vessel thought it was passing safely (for whatever reason, including possibly a mistake). It doesn't make any difference why or what was going on on the other vessel -- it's not a contest between who is right and who is wrong. However wrong he was or was not, does not change your own responsibility to deal with the situation safely and in accordance with the Rules. The Rules work so that your own acts will produce a safe crossing no matter what happens on the other vessel.

Certainly agree strongly that "Avoiding collisions is about following the rules so every action is predictable." Amen to that.



But the OP did not follow the Rules -- he stood on right into an in extremis situation only 5 cables from collision, with closing speed of probably 16 knots, so seconds from collision. That's a violation of the Rules, which require action to avoid collision to be taken early.

Also being only seconds from collision, instead of maneuvering decisively, he distracted himself and the ship's bridge by getting on the radio. That is contary to good seamanship and to the Marine Guidance Notes of at least one marine authority. If you use a radio in collision avoidance, it should be done much earlier than that.

We've already talked about the importance of not getting into such close quarters situations from the point of view of time and space remaining to deal with the problem, and to correct an action which turns out not to be effective.

Another reason not to cut it this close is uncertainty about his future position -- if his course deviates slightly or there is some small error in calculation, he could end up on top of you before you know it.

But there is yet another reason, which we haven't discussed -- a ship is not a dimensionless point in space -- it has length and beam. AIS, however, calculates CPA based on a dimensionless point in space -- the location of the AIS antenna. Some ships are several cables long -- and where is the antenna? AIS does transmit that data, but few recreational AIS receivers make this data easily available (Open CPN however does). So the CPA indicated on your instruments is NOT indeed CPA to whatever part of the ship might be slicing your hull open in a few seconds, but CPA to the AIS antenna. So you might think you are passing several cables ahead, but if the AIS antenna is aft (as it often is!), you might be on a collision course.

Just yet one more reason (do you really need more???) to NEVER cut it this close -- give him a mile in open water, which means maneuvering at least two miles out, NOT 5 cables.

As has been said before, but worth repeating, none of this applies if he is following a channel or fairway and you can do the crossing by eye because you know where he will be even without instruments.

Actually, it is the location of the GPS antenna, but your general point still stands. BTW, GPS is not error-free, so that needs to be taken into account as well.

[Peregrine1983]

If I understand your situation correctly, I would have turned slightly to windward/starboard to take his stern. I do not play chicken with cargo ships. This approach has served me very well. I don’t end up in situations like this.

EDIT: Also, you saw a dangerous situation developing and did nothing to remedy it. Bad call.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Kamen

Actually, it is the location of the GPS antenna, but your general point still stands. BTW, GPS is not error-free, so that needs to be taken into account as well.

Which is why eyes are still a pretty good type of instrumentation to have aboard.

I’m kind of nervous reading all these posts.

Everyone head down calculating a CPA and looking at screens. Yikes