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

[Uricanejack]

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.

Good grief

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Lemsteraak

OK, I'm confused.

I've always thought that larger vessels have rights because of more limited maneuverability. It has been a very long time but if I remember right COLREGs say that vessels over 20 meters have rights over smaller vessels and vessels under sail. US regs are vessels over 65 foot have rights over smaller vessels.

California, in contested areas like SF Bay you avoid commercial traffic and if you see a freighter you need to already be ranging them because they move deceptively fast.

I would recommend simply pulling up a copy of the ColRegs and reading them; the language is not particularly difficult, but it is precise. Much of the confusion comes from people trying to reduce them to simple soundbites and key elements are lost, particularly when people don't read the definitions (Rule 3).

Since you mention SF Bay, something that might not be widely known is many areas within it are designated as narrow channels/fairways and thus Rule 9 applies. The "vessels under 20 meters or sailing vessels" distinctions you mention come from Rules 9 and 10, and do not apply outside of such narrow channels and traffic zones.

Originally Posted by Lemsteraak

Wanderbird (now Elbe #5), a famous pilot cutter I remember from SF Bay was involved in a horrible accident with a commercial ship in Germany. She was under sail and a commercial ship didn't change speed or course. A video shows the accident -
https://www.passagemaker.com/technic...erandcommander

Did she have rights being under sail?

In that particular case the German inland rules are in play, under which the other ship had the "right of way", a phrase that you won't find in the (international) ColRegs. I haven't checked recently to see what might might have resulted from that investigation.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Force the issue???!!!??? ROTFLAPM

I simply waited to give the ship opportunity to do what it should to avoid collision. Note that 5 miles, if the ship was making its usual 20 knots, is not very far at all and certainly within risk of collision time.

Note that the correct action for the ship was either to alter course to port to go behind us, or to slow down to allow us to pass ahead, or to speed up and go ahead. I guess the ship decided on option three and we sped up as the breeze increased. Shows why crossing ahead is not the best choice.

But what if I changed course 5 degrees to starboard well ahead as you suggest? That would put me into the area into which the ship would turn if they turned to port to avoid us. Oops.

As well, a 5 degree change of course is not large enough to be clearly visible to the other ship - a course change should be large enough that it is readily visible on radar - typically 30 degrees.

Many times on this forum people with connections to ship’s masters and navigation officers have said that a stand on sailboat should respect the rules and stand on and the ship will take the correct give way action. If the sailboat takes premature action that does not accord with COLREGS, then the ship that needs to give way doesn’t know what other movements the boat could make and that makes the situation more dangerous for them.

You done ok.

Extremely piss poor performance by the RORO. No excuse for it.

Only advice I would give.
When you become concerned the other vessel is not taking the appropriate required by a stand on vessel.

Turn Away or stop. In this particular case you had a vague verbal confirmation of sorts he was not going to alter towards you, So ok kind of, it’s your life, you trusted him with.

If you can avoid turning towards a stand on vessel JIK the master comes up on the bridge and kicks hiss ass.

I would also recommend contacting Australian ATSB and filing a report of a near miss. On ATSB form 18.
They will investigated. At least by contacting the owners of the vessel a request a response. Don’t expect a published report.
Forms available on line.

If you are not comfortable contacting ATSB.

There is a voluntary near miss reporting system run by Safety at Sea who will contact the vessels owner investigate and make recommendations.

I will look it up and post the correct name.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by sandy stone

Very well put. When I come across commercial boats I try to remember that I'm out here playing, and they're out here working. That may not exactly apply to the OP's situation, but still...

Sandy, I know your intenrions are good....but the danger in that mindset when it comes to collision avoidance is that;
NONE OF US ARE PLAYING
The rules are very clear and offer specific guidance as to stand on and give way respnsibilities.

Large ships have no problem altering course when required and they do it all the time in open waters that have no draft restrictions .

It is that last minute panic change by a yachtie who would have passed clear if they had maintained their stand on course, that gives us nightmares

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Fore and Aft

JMH2002 I think you answered your own question when you asked if they had read the Colregs? I never have and doubt they would even stick in my brain if I did. When I see a large commercial vessel I personally slow down or alter course so I cross their stern. This is done long before a collision is going to happen. As far as I am concerned there are no winners if you try and argue “Colregs” with a ship that is ignoring you.
We are ten times more manoeuvrable than a large commercial vessel so why not make their life easier?
Cheers

With respect, nobody is 'arguing' the COLREGS with a ship. The Regs are there, very clear, and don't require any arguing to be done.

It's not even a question of if you should (decide yourself to) make life easier or not for the ship - simply make life easier by following the COLREGS as you are obliged to do.

This is what a large vessel wants you to do. This is what a large vessel expects you to do. Not more, not less, and certainly not something random of your own accord.

(but as I pointed pointed out, the COLREGS do allow you to take action as the standon vessel too - you are not prevented from doing this, but you do have some obligations to observe)

As Pelagic mentioned above, the greatest concern for a large vessel is for a small yacht to do something unexpected, unplanned, and unorthodox in relation to the COLREGS.

To be honest I'm quite shocked to see so many cruisers here professing not to have knowledge of the COLREGS, and that they just do their own thing instead.

[Uricanejack]

CHRIP
Confidential Reporting Program for Aviation and Maritime.

Look up CHRIP maritime.

It’s is a UK based charity which promotes aviation and maritime safety.
They are well respected world wide by the marine industry.
There reports are confidential and provide information only.
A report can be made on line.

They do publish some of their reports in the trade magazine safety at sea.

[jmh2002]

Here's an official link for anyone who might be interested:

MSN 1781 The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996

Notice to Owners, Masters, Skippers, Officers and Crews of Merchant Ships, Fishing Vessels, Pleasure Vessels, Yachts and Other Seagoing Craft.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972

https://assets.publishing.service.go...65/msn1781.pdf

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

You done ok.

Extremely piss poor performance by the RORO. No excuse for it.

Only advice I would give.
When you become concerned the other vessel is not taking the appropriate required by a stand on vessel.

Turn Away or stop. In this particular case you had a vague verbal confirmation of sorts he was not going to alter towards you, So ok kind of, it’s your life, you trusted him with.

If you can avoid turning towards a stand on vessel JIK the master comes up on the bridge and kicks hiss ass.

I would also recommend contacting Australian ATSB and filing a report of a near miss. On ATSB form 18.
They will investigated. At least by contacting the owners of the vessel a request a response. Don’t expect a published report.
Forms available on line.

If you are not comfortable contacting ATSB.

There is a voluntary near miss reporting system run by Safety at Sea who will contact the vessels owner investigate and make recommendations.

I will look it up and post the correct name.

We’re in New Zealand. I did refer to the ship by name over VHF, and provides our name and call sign. Channel 16 is recorded and for sure our conversation was heard by everyone official on the channel.

Should I contact Maritime NZ as the governing authority and tell them about it?

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by fxykty

We’re in New Zealand. I did refer to the ship by name over VHF, and provides our name and call sign. Channel 16 is recorded and for sure our conversation was heard by everyone official on the channel.

Should I contact Maritime NZ as the governing authority and tell them about it?

I would recommend contacting Maritime NZ, they will have a reporting system.
I don’t know if 16 will have been recorded unless it was a VTS area near a port.
Even if heard and recorded assumptions might have been made it was just a routine passing arrangement.

The likely result is the NZ Maritime will contact the owners and request a responses, probably leaving the owner to conduct an internal review of the occurrence.
They might ask to see VDR recording.

The owners will want to have a word with the Master and the OOW. If they get contacted by NZ Maritime.

Main reason I recommend contacting NZ Maritime.
It’s a learning event for the shipping company, the Master and the OOW.

Any feed back will be positive learning experience for you as well.

You did ok.

[Dockhead]

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.

Correct.

0.5 miles to collision is FAR too late.

The correct procedure is:

1. If you detect the situation before risk of collision -- there are no hard rules, but >30 minutes TCPA, and/or >10 miles off is a good rule of thumb in open water -- then you can correct it yourself with a small course change.

2. <10 miles or and/or < 30 minutes you are now obligated to stand on -- do it.

3. At 3 or 4 miles off if he hasn't taken action, then you can maneuver yourself -- do it now. Certainly no less than 2 miles off.

4. Pass safely behind. Job done.

Radio communications are not necessary if there are no special circumstances such as the following:

1. Multiple vessels involved

2. You have some special circumstance hindering your ability to manuever, like another vessel, a shoal, whatever, which he should know about.

3. You are hard on the wind or something and it would be simply nice if he would maneuver -- ask him to.


4. You are the stand-on vessel, but the time has come under Rule 17 when you are allowed to maneuver yourself, and you are going to do it. You are obligated to do this with a large and obvious maneuver exactly so that the other vessel will know what you are doing. Theoretically a radio call shouldn't be necessary, but this is one of the rare cases where a radio call might really be worthwhile to eliminate any doubt and eliminate the risk that he might be intiating a maneuver of his own. I do call sometimes in this case.



Otherwise, just follow the Rules, and if you do, then whether he follows them or not, there is no danger.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

With respect, nobody is 'arguing' the COLREGS with a ship. The Regs are there, very clear, and don't require any arguing to be done.

It's not even a question of if you should (decide yourself to) make life easier or not for the ship - simply make life easier by following the COLREGS as you are obliged to do.

This is what a large vessel wants you to do. This is what a large vessel expects you to do. Not more, not less, and certainly not something random of your own accord.

(but as I pointed pointed out, the COLREGS do allow you to take action as the standon vessel too - you are not prevented from doing this, but you do have some obligations to observe)

As Pelagic mentioned above, the greatest concern for a large vessel is for a small yacht to do something unexpected, unplanned, and unorthodox in relation to the COLREGS.

To be honest I'm quite shocked to see so many cruisers here professing not to have knowledge of the COLREGS, and that they just do their own thing instead.

Exactly right. If you talk to pro mariners, they say this over and over again. They HATE our improvised, unpredictable behavior, and that's why they call us WAFIs. The whole purpose of the Rules is to provide an orderly sequence of maneuvering, so everyone knows what to expect. What they want is for us to follow the bloody Rules.

And what is beautiful is that the Rules also cover the situation where one vessel fails for whatever reason to maneuver.

Only ONE vessel needs to be following the Rules, to have a perfectly safe crossing.

The OP was obligated to stand-on for a time, but when the Ro-Ro failed to maneuver, he should have simply gone over to maneuvering himself -- at the proper time. If he had done that, then there would have been no problem, no drama.

I think the biggest point of confusion is that people think standing on is some kind of privilege. It's NOT. It's the opposite of that -- standing on is a burden, an obligation. Do it only as long as you are required to, then take matters into your own hands. If you really understand how collision avoidance works, you will not be bothered at give-way vessels not giving way. It's no big deal IF you do what you are supposed to do, and do it in good time.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Correct.

0.5 miles to collision is FAR too late.

The correct procedure is:

1. If you detect the situation before risk of collision -- there are no hard rules, but >30 minutes TCPA, and/or >10 miles off is a good rule of thumb in open water -- then you can correct it yourself with a small course change.

2. <10 miles or and/or < 30 minutes you are now obligated to stand on -- do it.

3. At 3 or 4 miles off if he hasn't taken action, then you can maneuver yourself -- do it now. Certainly no less than 2 miles off.

4. Pass safely behind. Job done.

Radio communications are not necessary if there are no special circumstances such as the following:

1. Multiple vessels involved

2. You have some special circumstance hindering your ability to manuever, like another vessel, a shoal, whatever, which he should know about.

3. You are hard on the wind or something and it would be simply nice if he would maneuver -- ask him to.


4. You are the stand-on vessel, but the time has come under Rule 17 when you are allowed to maneuver yourself, and you are going to do it. You are obligated to do this with a large and obvious maneuver exactly so that the other vessel will know what you are doing. Theoretically a radio call shouldn't be necessary, but this is one of the rare cases where a radio call might really be worthwhile to eliminate any doubt and eliminate the risk that he might be intiating a maneuver of his own. I do call sometimes in this case.



Otherwise, just follow the Rules, and if you do, then whether he follows them or not, there is no danger.

I usually agree with most of what you post. Your knowledge of the regulations is very good.

I am concerned about the advice you are giving here with reference to distance.

In my opinion the OP did just fine complying with the regulations.
I don’t have a concern about him waiting until 0.5 miles to take action.

The distance is his choice based on his vessels manoeuvrability which is justifiable and reasonably safe.
Not to early, not to late, reasonable for his vessel.

Strictly speaking to comply with the rule for action by a stand on vessel.

Prior to taking action.
The stand on vessel is required to signal its doubt about the intentions of the give way vessel. The prescribed signal 5 short blasts.

Or in this case the OP chose a call on the radio expressing his doubt.

After this the OP took action.

In general I would advise a stand on vessel to either stop or turn away from a give way vessel.
There is significant risk a give way vessel may alter towards you if you alter to pass astern,

There may be rare circumstances which do not permit a stand on vessel to turn away, in which case a significant reduction of speed or stopping would be much less risk than altering to pass astern.

In this case the OP spoke to the give way vessel and appears to have received confirmation it would not alter. Mitigating some of the risk of it altering to words him.
Still putting trust in a vessel which has proven not to be very trust worthy.

My concern with your advice to alter at 3 or 4 miles or before to to pass astern. There is a very distinct possibility the give way vessel OOW will. Wake up, put his book down, turn the ball game off, or hear the dog bark.
And alter course as required, just for some unknown reason a bit later than I might regard as prudent.

Depending on type and sise of commercial vessel 2 to 4 miles might be considered as a perfectly reasonable distance for an alteration of course by some OOW. Depending upon the circumstances.

By comparison, an OOW on a stand on VLCC might reasonably consider taking action by its manoeuvre alone after having sounded 5 short at around 2 miles.
And by turning away.

If you are stand on getting concerned calling by radio at 3 or 4 miles is ok.
It’s to early to determine the other vessel is not acting as required. And acting by you maneuver alone.

At this range making a passing arrangement to pass astern, is ok if you want to.
But be aware you are agreeing to deviate from the rules. When you do so.

Altering course to pass astern without signalling you are in doubt could be very hazardous.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Exactly right. If you talk to pro mariners, they say this over and over again. They HATE our improvised, unpredictable behavior, and that's why they call us WAFIs. The whole purpose of the Rules is to provide an orderly sequence of maneuvering, so everyone knows what to expect. What they want is for us to follow the bloody Rules.

And what is beautiful is that the Rules also cover the situation where one vessel fails for whatever reason to maneuver.

Only ONE vessel needs to be following the Rules, to have a perfectly safe crossing.

The OP was obligated to stand-on for a time, but when the Ro-Ro failed to maneuver, he should have simply gone over to maneuvering himself -- at the proper time. If he had done that, then there would have been no problem, no drama.

I think the biggest point of confusion is that people think standing on is some kind of privilege. It's NOT. It's the opposite of that -- standing on is a burden, an obligation. Do it only as long as you are required to, then take matters into your own hands. If you really understand how collision avoidance works, you will not be bothered at give-way vessels not giving way. It's no big deal IF you do what you are supposed to do, and do it in good time.

You are absolutely correct standing on is an obligation.
Clearly a stand on vessel is obligated to maintain course and speed.

Obviously this obligation does not extend to obliging the stand on vessel stand on into a close quarters situation or collision.

Once upon a time prior to 1972 the obligation to wait was perhaps not entirely sensible. It was rather late in the game, when the stand on vessel determined the give way vessel was unable to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone.
The stand on vessel was required at this point to take such action as would best aid to give way vessel to avoid collision.

This is still there surprisingly, but it is now considered the last resort after everything has gone completely pear shaped both vessel, have screwed up and it’s the only option left.

Common sense required there be some intermediate steps so this extreme situation should not occur.

So the first step a stand on vessel is required to take when she becomes concerned about the actions of a give way vessel.

The stand on vessel must signal her doubt about the give way vessels intentions.

The required signal is 5 short and rapid blasts of the vessels whistle which may be supplemented by a signal light.

Clearly this signal should be given while there is still time for the give way vessel hear the signal asses the danger and act accordingly by altering as required.

After having given the signal, the stand on vessel is still obligated to stand on. And observe the give way vessel to determine if action is now being taken.

The signal should be repeated.

Only now having signal doubt, waited for a response, observed no response and signalled again.
This is when the stand on vessel is no longer obligated to stand on and is now permitted to take action by her maneuver alone to avoid collision.

When? Clearly some reasonable time before you end up stuck in the old situation where it’s such action as will best aid.
So close but not close.

Depends on the relative sizes and manoeuvrability of the vessels involved.
So specifics generally avoided.

Two small vessels small distances.

Big vessels bigger distances

Slow vessels fast vessels ect.

Who gets to decide. The stand on vessel,
the stand on vessel is obligated to be reasonable.

The giving warning about having doubt and allowing time to asses and act are important steps in the obligations of a stand on vessel.

If you think about it logically what is the give way vessel possibly going to do now you have woken him up with your whistle ect. Radio.

He is possibly going ohhh shiiitttt. As he figures out what going on.

Next he quite possibly will attempt to alter course.

Quite probably to go round your stern.

Hence the advice to avoid altering to port for a give way vessel or in our case as sailboats towards a give way vessel.

If the circumstances admit ect.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by hafa

QFT. The ultimate goal is accident avoidance. Rules come after that. When I see a ship in my way, I do whatever is needed to give them a wide berth.

I understand your thinking on this but it’s also important to remember that sometimes it’s not just the two of you involved. Other vessels nearby are also trying to avoid collision by following the COLREGS and they are basing their decisions on the assumption that you will be following them too. When/if you don’t, it can foul up everyone’s plan and possibly increase your risk of collision too.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Correct.

0.5 miles to collision is FAR too late.

The correct procedure is:

1. If you detect the situation before risk of collision -- there are no hard rules, but &gt;30 minutes TCPA, and/or &gt;10 miles off is a good rule of thumb in open water -- then you can correct it yourself with a small course change.

2. &lt;10 miles or and/or &lt; 30 minutes you are now obligated to stand on -- do it.

3. At 3 or 4 miles off if he hasn't taken action, then you can maneuver yourself -- do it now. Certainly no less than 2 miles off.

4. Pass safely behind. Job done.

Radio communications are not necessary if there are no special circumstances such as the following:

1. Multiple vessels involved

2. You have some special circumstance hindering your ability to manuever, like another vessel, a shoal, whatever, which he should know about.

3. You are hard on the wind or something and it would be simply nice if he would maneuver -- ask him to.


4. You are the stand-on vessel, but the time has come under Rule 17 when you are allowed to maneuver yourself, and you are going to do it. You are obligated to do this with a large and obvious maneuver exactly so that the other vessel will know what you are doing. Theoretically a radio call shouldn't be necessary, but this is one of the rare cases where a radio call might really be worthwhile to eliminate any doubt and eliminate the risk that he might be intiating a maneuver of his own. I do call sometimes in this case.



Otherwise, just follow the Rules, and if you do, then whether he follows them or not, there is no danger.

Glad you chimed in DH as you are generally up to date on what safety experts are now recomending at conferences.

RADIO CALL has been one of those things discouraged in the past between vessels due to fears over language misunderstandings.

THEN I understand opinions modified as AIS made identification easier and they realized that mariners were NOT talking to each other, when they should have been as in the cases you pointed out....

Personally, I think whenever you have interacting vessels of very different sizes, manueverability and assumed training, it is prudent to clarify your intentions by Radio whenever a close CPA exists.
...... and then take those readily apparent actions early enough to confirm understanding.

What has been the latest opinion on that?