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

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Well, unless I'm misunderstanding the situation of the two vessels, a course change to Port may not have been prudent (unless it was so far to port as to parallel the ship's course) as it may have just put oneself further into the ship's proposed track, if the ship didn't alter course.

And yet a course change to Starboard would make risk of collision worse if the ship were to take the sensible and appropriate action of altering to go behind the sailing vessel.

All that you say has some merit, but also applies to the ship too.
They should also have taken early and substantial action to make their intent clear.

Originally Posted by boat driver

the rule demands both vessels turn to starboard- therefore the turning to port discussion is mute.
As concerning the initial encounter discussion, the ship was well aware it was passing ahead of the sailing vessel and had no intentions of altering drastically the course any more than necessary to pass ahead. The situation does not discuss water restraints- the ship voyage intentions (approaching harbor or departing) or any other pertinent data.
Last, most sailing vessels are unpredictable so stand on the ship's course and watch to see if the situation develops differently. Generally the sailing vessel tacks, wanders, etc and the situation changes.

Which rule exactly?

Here is the link to the COLREGS that I posted earlier: https://assets.publishing.service.go...65/msn1781.pdf

Please also re-read the OP to understand the situation. It clearly describes all the necessary information:

...we were broad reaching under gennaker and full main (145 TWA on starboard)...

...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...

...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...

In the first instance, this was a simple Power vs Sail situation - Rule 18.

So it is in fact your first sentence that is entirely moot (not 'mute').


This is NOT Rule 14 - Head On Situation:

(a)
When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

(b)
Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she would see the mast head lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

(c)
When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.


This is also NOT Rule 15 - Crossing Situation

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.


This IS VERY CLEARLY Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9,10 and 13 otherwise require:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.


Other Rules may have come into effect as the situation developed but NONE of them are what you have suggested.

It's really clear that many cruisers are posting without properly reading or even understanding the first post from the OP describing the situation and are instead just making up their own assumptions.

It's also really clear that many cruisers don't have the faintest knowledge of the COLREGS, or if they do they are choosing to apply them incorrectly, or simply ignore them and make up their own rules instead.

This is craziness. Please learn and follow the COLREGS.

[TrentePieds]

105 posts about a non-existent "problem"?? My head is spinning :-)!

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

TP

[Clivevon]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

105 posts about a non-existent "problem"?? My head is spinning :-)!

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

TP

+ 1

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Which rule exactly?

Here is the link to the COLREGS that I posted earlier: https://assets.publishing.service.go...65/msn1781.pdf

Please also re-read the OP to understand the situation. It clearly describes all the necessary information:

...we were broad reaching under gennaker and full main (145 TWA on starboard)...

...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...

...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...

In the first instance, this was a simple Power vs Sail situation - Rule 18.

So it is in fact your first sentence that is entirely moot (not 'mute').


This is NOT Rule 14 - Head On Situation:

(a)
When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

(b)
Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she would see the mast head lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.

(c)
When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.


This is also NOT Rule 15 - Crossing Situation

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.


This IS VERY CLEARLY Rule 18 - Responsibilities Between Vessels

Except where Rules 9,10 and 13 otherwise require:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.


Other Rules may have come into effect as the situation developed but NONE of them are what you have suggested.

It's really clear that many cruisers are posting without properly reading or even understanding the first post from the OP describing the situation and are instead just making up their own assumptions.

It's also really clear that many cruisers don't have the faintest knowledge of the COLREGS, or if they do they are choosing to apply them incorrectly, or simply ignore them and make up their own rules instead.

This is craziness. Please learn and follow the COLREGS.

Not to take anything away from this excellent and correct post, but even when you don't fall under Rule 17(c) because you are under sail


(A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.)

It is a good idea to avoid altering to port for a vessel on your port side, or to be very careful when doing so when you must. That is because if the other vessel wakes up suddenly and alters to starboard, you could easily be steering into each other. This situation can be really dangerous -- the closing speed will be suddenly increased, and a collision can develop with amazing speed.



I am in general against unnecessary radio chatter for collision avoidance, but I ALWAYS call if I'm altering to port, to make damn sure he's not just about to alter to starboard. You can get in a lot of trouble this way; care is required.



And I DO alter to port sometimes when I'm under sail and a vessel to my own port is not maneuvering. It's required if you want to pass behind, which I strongly prefer in relation to a much faster vessel and especially if I'm under sail with the risk of lulls in the wind.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

105 posts about a non-existent "problem"?? My head is spinning :-)!

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

TP

Since it's part of their job and professional responsibility and since the bridge team have actually been trained and certified (as opposed to a 'Sunday sailor') surely what the Commercial vessel would do is fully comply with the COLREGS and alter course to pass clear ahead or clear astern?

This is not to say that the sailing vessel could not have done so, or even that it may have been prudent to do so as the situation developed.

But in the first instance both the situation and the obligation was very clear.

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

On Starboard tack with TWA of 145º? Commercial vessel 5 miles distant on a steady bearing on the starboard bow? Oh! Do fetch me my brown trousers :-)!

Surely what a gentleman would do is harden up to, say, 110ºTWA for a few minutes. It would then be as if the "problem" had never existed.

And we Sunday sailors ARE gentlemen, are we not :-)?

Yes, and Thank You!! It would be 5 minutes out of your way, versus pounding fists with "He should move, not me!!" tantrums.

One has to exercise some common sense. The rules are absolutely there for a reason, but it takes an amazing amount of selfishness to hold fast to the rules on principal. The amount of inconvenience to the RORO would have been significantly greater than the inconvenience to the sailboat. Yet, many try to hide behind the rules as justification for insisting that the other person carry the burden of inconvenience.

Another thought that I had. The RORO indicated he was passing on the bow and for the sailboat to maintain course. He could have been throttling up to make the pass. That would not immediately be noticeable either by naked eye or AIS.

If that were the case, the sailboat decided to panic give way out of mis-reading the situaition. Then got upset about it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Shrew

Yes, and Thank You!! It would be 5 minutes out of your way, versus pounding fists with "He should move, not me!!" tantrums.

One has to exercise some common sense. The rules are absolutely there for a reason, but it takes an amazing amount of selfishness to hold fast to the rules on principal. The amount of inconvenience to the RORO would have been significantly greater than the inconvenience to the sailboat. Yet, many try to hide behind the rules as justification for insisting that the other person carry the burden of inconvenience.

It's important to note that holding a collision course right up to 5 cables from a collision canNOT be called "holding fast to the rules on principle". The Rules do not require you to, and don't allow you, to stand on right into an in-extremis situation.

This is why I keep saying -- stop thinking about the other guy's obligations. Think about your own. The OP should not have distracted himself with those thoughts -- he should have taken the matter into his own hands -- as the Rules permit, and then REQUIRE you to do -- and sorted out the crossing. At a safe distance.

Originally Posted by Shrew

Another thought that I had. The RORO indicated he was passing on the bow and for the sailboat to maintain course. He could have been throttling up to make the pass. That would not immediately be noticeable either by naked eye or AIS.

If that were the case, the sailboat decided to panic give way out of mis-reading the situaition. Then got upset about it.

Absolutely. It's a pure waste of time trying to figure out what's going on, on the other vessel. It could be a million different things, including this. It's YOUR responsibility to determine whether you are safe or not, and if YOU determine you are not passing safely, then at the point when the Rules allow it, you take action yourself. If you do it the way the Rules prescribe, there will be no drama. If there is drama, you are doing it wrong.

[sailingabe41ds]

Yes we are gentlemen...unless they dont agree with you then you will be called a wafi...stupid...idiots by members on this forum. Classy. very classy.

Abe

[Montanan]

Let me think, I have the choice between passing a short distance in front of a large commercial ship on a crossing course, or adjusting course so as to pass well behind.

I will chose going behind every time because when I am sailing I never assume that the wind will not change in velocity or direction such that it makes it impossible for me to maintain speed and course as a stand on vessel and thus be assured of a predictable closing of the courses of the two or more vessels.

Stand on status is predicated that one will maintain one's speed and course. Sailboats when sailing can not assure their maintaining of either speed or course and thus can not assure they keep to the obligations of being the stand on vessel. The only way a sailboat can be assured to maintain speed and course is if they utilize motors to assist and then of course their status changes from being a sailed boat to being a motored boat which change in status can change the entire stand on / give way status and which change in status needs to be communicated promptly to all vessels in the traffic area.

Discretion tells me to give way early, preferably with verbal communication, and to make such give way obvious. Passing within 100 meters behind is too close in my mind.

WTF you ask, yeah I would be asking that of your actions, especially since you were aware of the crossing situation a long ways ahead of time and in distance.

I would be like: Take me to a dock and let me off please if I was crewing on your boat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailingabe41ds

Yes we are gentlemen...unless they dont agree with you then you will be called a wafi...stupid...idiots by members on this forum. Classy. very classy.

Abe

No one on here called anyone a WAFI. That's what commercial mariners call all of us.

[Montanan]

Action of Stand on Vessel

Action of the Stand-On Vessel applies only where a risk of collision exists between two (not three or more) vessels. In such a situation, the boat required to keep out of the way is the "give-way vessel" (Rule 16). Rule 17 covers the other vessel, the stand-on vessel."

The actions required by the stand-on vessel can be broken down into four steps:

1. Before risk of collision exists, either vessel is free to maneuver at will.
Geez, take actions early before the COLREGs ever apply, Well D'UH! It doesn't get more simple than that.

2. Once risk of collision exists, except to avoid hazards, the stand-on vessel must maintain its course and speed. One can read this to say: The situation should not have been allowed to happen, but since one or both parties have screwed up their navigating well now these are the proper procedure to follow. Nota bene: The ability of a sailed boat to maintain either course or speed is an uncertainty because wind is inherently uncertain. I never presume that I can maintain the obligations of being a stand on vessel when I am underway by sail power. One may hope they can, but to plan on such as a means to avoid a collision, not a gamble I am willing to accept.

3. If it becomes apparent to the stand-on vessel that the give-way vessel is not taking the appropriate (early and substantial) action to keep out of the way, then the stand-on vessel MAY take action to avoid collision. If both boats are power driven, however, the action must not turn to port for a give-way vessel on her port side. Any maneuvers she makes must be accompanied by the appropriate maneuvering signal. If she chooses not to maneuver, then she should sound the danger signal (five short blasts on the whistle). If the give-way vessel can be readily identified by either name, characteristics, or location, then a call on VHF CH13 or 16 would also be appropriate.

4. If the situation should deteriorates to the point where a collision can no longer be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, the stand-on vessel MUST to take the best action it can to avoid collision. Don't let a situation deteriorate to such a point. To allow such to be realized, one has already failed at their command of the vessel. Geez, early on, just ask someone: "Here hold my beer!" and maneuver your vessel out of harms way far before it ever gets to be in a situation of it ever being put into harms way.

Have I missed anything important. I think not.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

There is no such "rule" - you learnt incorrectly.

Well, I may not be the most seasoned or experienced sailor on these boards, but it's served me well, despite you 'opinion'. In 50 years of coastal and inland sailing, I've never had a collision (or even come close).

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by fxykty

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

...
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.
...

No. It would have put you out of a situation where you were at risk of a collision. You can make an argument that 30 would be better but at 5nm anything that started widening the CPA would be seen by the ship as there no longer being a risk of collision and everyone would just go on their way. Therefore no need for them to turn into you as you were worried since there was no risk of hitting you. What you did was persist until there was a risk of collision which made the situation much more risky for both vessels. The so called "rule of tonnage" that everyone disparages is largely interpreted as small boats moving out of the way of large boats so that a risk of collision never occurs and therefore the COLREG solution to solve that risk is never applied. I think it would have been prudent for you to apply that logic in this situation as well even if technically what you did was "by the book".

Jim

[Montanan]

When a situation arises that it appears that a collision is imminent, thence it can become a matter of urgency to no longer be standing on, but rather to drastically move to stand off.

Hey! How about an example of when to not remain standing on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wMq8u4-Ts

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he was being a jerk?

I say again -- it is a really fundamental mistake to distract yourself trying to blame the other vessel or second guess his motives. What if his junior mate simply did the plot wrong? Who knows? There are a hundred possible reasons.

And who cares? Who has TIME to care? Not a good seaman. If he doesn't unwind the situation after you've stood on to give him a decent chance, then it's simply your turn. That's all there is to it. It is deeply wrong to get worked up about why he's not giving way. Just deal with it yourself. Cheerfully and efficiently, thinking only about safely unwinding the situation and nothing else. That's the professional way, and the only correct way.

I don't know if you have ever worked on commercial ships DH but a few of them are Jerks.

Bored Mates with negative small minds who resent anyone whose sucesses reminds them of their chronic failures.

Pushing little boats around is a game to them as it makes them feel powerful. I know because I've been on the bridge with these weak excuses for professional mariners who usually and hopefully get passed over for command by their employers.

The OPs account never said he was in danger only frustrated with the ROROs verbal response to ignore the rules and hold course. No reasons, just a declaration of entitlement

The OP informed of his intent and adjusted course to safely pass astern at 100m .

In hindsight, yes it was a bit late, but still under control and his account below still.leads me to believe the RORO watchkeeper was being a jerk!


QUOTE 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