collision avoidance

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You should NOT be standing on whilst crossing a TSS. If you find yourself doing that, you have violated Rule 10!

Gotta disagree with you Dock. The rules make it very clear that the steering and sailing rules have effect in a TSS. Goboating was only required to ensure the other vessel had sufficient sea-room to manoeuvre. We've had this discussion before

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Gotta disagree with you Dock. The rules make it very clear that the steering and sailing rules have effect in a TSS. Goboating was only required to ensure the other vessel had sufficient sea-room to manoeuvre. We've had this discussion before

I agree with you, obviously, that the S&S Rules have effect in TSS.


Where I disagree with you, is that you have fulfilled Rule 10 if you have forced a vessel navigating in a TSS to maneuver to avoid you. Yes, we've had this discussion before, and I respect your opinion, but I think the great weight of scholarship is contrary to your position. I think I cited some of it, the last time we discussed this.


Even if forcing a ship navigating in a TSS to maneuver to avoid you is somehow not "impeding", then at the very least, it's bad practice. The ship may be forced into conflict with another vessel. At the very least the spirit of Rule 10 requires you to do your best to stay well out of the way and disturb ships navigating in the TSS as little as possible.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

With respect, this is absolutely untrue. Ask any professional mariner; read the forums on GCaptain. It would be totally unprofessional for them to not "plot" and "monitor" you as carefully as any other traffic -- their job is to get to the next port safely and without accident, and running down a yacht would cause horrible problems, months or years of inquiries, career damage -- believe me, they don't want that.

This is one reason why it is important to follow the Rules and stand on when required -- they WILL be maneuvering as required, in almost all cases, and you can screw up their manuever if you maneuver unpredictably and not in accordance with the Rules yourself. Preventing unpredictable chaotic maneuvering is one of the primary purposes of the Rules.


Talk to any professional mariner -- they do want you to stay out of their way, but only when you can do that in compliance with the Rules. Otherwise, the main thing they want from us is to FOLLOW THE BLOODY RULES! They HATE our improvised, erratic deviations from the Rules based on our own made up ideas -- that is exactly why they call us WAFIs.




Agreed.



You should NOT be standing on whilst crossing a TSS. If you find yourself doing that, you have violated Rule 10!

You SHOULD be standing on in all other cases where you are the stand-on vessel. So you're doing it exactly backwards. The only time you are free of the obligation to stand on is when you are able to maneuver so early that you can do so before the risk of collision arises.

This rule is not optional!

Sorry I’m being sloppy with my English , about TSS crossing , I meant “explicitly abide by the rules “

I do not agree with standing on in all cases. As I said my rule zero is “ do not stand on into danger “ , “ danger” being as I determine it

And yes I typically maneuver well before the risk appears

As for commercial bridge monitoring or plotting me , you have clearly not sailed much in international waters. I’d say of the few ships bridges I’ve talked to , or the crew I’ve met over the years , Yacht’s are either ignored , not seen , or just regarded as a nuisance , a Chinese bridge officer I met in Italy had a typical answer “ just stay out of my way “

We’re called WAFIs because ships are constantly amazed how yachts get themselves into close quarters with shipping when yachts can stop , turn around ,go somewhere else

No use arguing you were in the right from a coffin, ( see Pride of Bilbao etc )

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry I’m being sloppy with my English , about TSS crossing , I meant “explicitly abide by the rules “

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . I do not agree with standing on in all cases. As I said my rule zero is “ do not stand on into danger “ , “ danger” being as I determine it

And yes I typically maneuver well before the risk appears

Well, it's not up to you to decide -- the obligation to stand on is not optional. But we may just have a semantic problem here -- if you are maneuvering BEFORE the obligation to stand on appears, and by doing so you prevent the risk of collision from ever appearing, then this is not only allowed, but it's really good practice. Contrary to common misconception, standing on is NEVER any kind of right, not in any phase of an enounter with another vessel, and it is an obligation ONLY at a certain phase of an encounter. It's just nothing like right of way on the roads.

But once the risk of collision appears and you don't have an acceptable CPA, it is very important that you give the give-way vessel a chance to resolve the crossing. You have to "hold still" for a certain amount of time -- standing on is an essential part of the process.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

As for commercial bridge monitoring or plotting me , you have clearly not sailed much in international waters.

Maybe 150,000 miles over 45 years? From Greenland in the North to Biscay in the South, from Russia in the East to Central America in the West. And I know professional mariners and have not only talked with, but stood on ship's bridges underway. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . I’d say of the few ships bridges I’ve talked to , or the crew I’ve met over the years , Yacht’s are either ignored , not seen , or just regarded as a nuisance , a Chinese bridge officer I met in Italy had a typical answer “ just stay out of my way “

It is totally unprofessional and totally illegal for a ship's bridge to simply ignore another vessel in a risk of collision situation. Might happen once and a while, and the risk of that is much higher in cases where the crew are from certain third world countries, but this is rare. Talk to some pro mariners (there are a few on here) and you'll see. Lodesman, care to weigh in?

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

We’re called WAFIs because ships are constantly amazed how yachts get themselves into close quarters with shipping when yachts can stop , turn around ,go somewhere else

Not indeed. Please talk to some pros. The number one complaint is our not following the Rules -- I even did a survey once upon a time. And they explicitly want you to stand on when required.

But we should be clear what we are talking about -- if you are in pilotage waters where ships are following fairways or narrow channels, then it's more like what you say. In really crowded waters it might not be possible for ships to deal with all the targets. But in such waters, Rule 9 applies, and you should not be IN the channels in the first place unless the coast is clear. In that case, it would be normal for ship's crew to say "just stay out of my way" -- you should not be impeding -- you should just stay out of the channels or fairways until you can cross without impeding anyone, or stay well over to the right if you are following them, in order not to impede. But blue water is totally different -- in that case, follow the steering & sailing rules! Avoid risk of collision ever arising if you can, if you can't stand on for a while and give the other vessel his chance. If he fails to take it up, then maneuver yourself, in good time to prevent close quarters from ever occurring. That's all there is to it. Do all of that, and no one will ever call you a WAFI. Make up your own rules and maneuver unpredictably -- that's what makes you a WAFI.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No use arguing you were in the right from a coffin, ( see Pride of Bilbao etc )

This is nonsensical in the context of the COLREGS. You have NO rights under the COLREGS, so there is not any way to "argue you were in the right from a coffin". Once you get into an in extremis situation in close quarters, then you have already done it wrong, regardless of whether you were stand on or give way at some earlier point. There is simply no argument that you could have been right, if you get into a collision. No matter what the other vessel does, if YOU only follow the Rules, there will be no collision. The difference between the COLREGS and the traffic rules on land is that at sea, BOTH vessels are AT ALL TIMES equally responsible for avoiding the collision.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, it's not up to you to decide -- the obligation to stand on is not optional. But we may just have a semantic problem here -- if you are maneuvering BEFORE the obligation to stand on appears, and by doing so you prevent the risk of collision from ever appearing, then this is not only allowed, but it's really good practice. Contrary to common misconception, standing on is NEVER any kind of right, not in any phase of an enounter with another vessel, and it is an obligation ONLY at a certain phase of an encounter. It's just nothing like right of way on the roads.

But once the risk of collision appears and you don't have an acceptable CPA, it is very important that you give the give-way vessel a chance to resolve the crossing. You have to "hold still" for a certain amount of time -- standing on is an essential part of the process.



Maybe 150,000 miles over 45 years? From Greenland in the North to Biscay in the South, from Russia in the East to Central America in the West. And I know professional mariners and have not only talked with, but stood on ship's bridges underway. You shouldn't jump to conclusions.



It is totally unprofessional and totally illegal for a ship's bridge to simply ignore another vessel in a risk of collision situation. Might happen once and a while, and the risk of that is much higher in cases where the crew are from certain third world countries, but this is rare. Talk to some pro mariners (there are a few on here) and you'll see. Lodesman, care to weigh in?



Not indeed. Please talk to some pros. The number one complaint is our not following the Rules -- I even did a survey once upon a time. And they explicitly want you to stand on when required.

But we should be clear what we are talking about -- if you are in pilotage waters where ships are following fairways or narrow channels, then it's more like what you say. In really crowded waters it might not be possible for ships to deal with all the targets. But in such waters, Rule 9 applies, and you should not be IN the channels in the first place unless the coast is clear. In that case, it would be normal for ship's crew to say "just stay out of my way" -- you should not be impeding -- you should just stay out of the channels or fairways until you can cross without impeding anyone, or stay well over to the right if you are following them, in order not to impede. But blue water is totally different -- in that case, follow the steering & sailing rules! Avoid risk of collision ever arising if you can, if you can't stand on for a while and give the other vessel his chance. If he fails to take it up, then maneuver yourself, in good time to prevent close quarters from ever occurring. That's all there is to it. Do all of that, and no one will ever call you a WAFI. Make up your own rules and maneuver unpredictably -- that's what makes you a WAFI.



This is nonsensical in the context of the COLREGS. You have NO rights under the COLREGS, so there is not any way to "argue you were in the right from a coffin". Once you get into an in extremis situation in close quarters, then you have already done it wrong, regardless of whether you were stand on or give way at some earlier point. There is simply no argument that you could have been right, if you get into a collision. No matter what the other vessel does, if YOU only follow the Rules, there will be no collision. The difference between the COLREGS and the traffic rules on land is that at sea, BOTH vessels are AT ALL TIMES equally responsible for avoiding the collision.

As a commercially licensed skipper to 200 tons , with 30 years international sailing experience , I dont need lectures on COLREGS thanks.

I’m well aware of the rights issue at sea , my point was there is no point arguing you followed the rules from a coffin

Your belief in the professionalism of bridge crew is very misplaced , there are shocking levels of undermanning , poor non functioning equipment , badly trained bridge crew out there , again and again maritime investigation agencies criticise poor bridge practices , of course that’s not to tar all ships , many are well equipped and well manned but that’s not possible To determine from the deck of a small boat.

Hence my advice is “ stay out of the way “ , if you find yourself in close quarters , you better have vhf comms with the bridge , because ships will simply often NOT change course for a yacht in any circumstance , rules or no rules. hence it’s very foolish to sail into the path of a 20knot vessel , believing the rules will protect you. ( “ path “ being as you determine ) and YES I am aware of the responsibilities on both vessels to avoid collisions , the problem is there’s a huge penalty if the smaller one goofs. ( or the situation collectively goofs )

The best thing is AIS B , because these days ships ( aka bridge crew) are almost totally dependent on it , as radar plotting is increasingly not done. At least with that they know you’re a WAFI from the start.

Ps i made the point that in close quarters situations like busy TSS crossings, fairways etc , you need to absolutely follow the rules as far as you can .

[Manateeman]

With regard to no response on a security call. Please let me explain because IF you are thinking “I called on vhf and didn’t get a response “ therefore it’s a waste of time. Well it’s not. I’ll explain why.
The ideal bridge management takes three people and this is what the majority of large commercial vessels IN high traffic areas now use routinely.
One person controls the vessel, one watches radar and AIS and takes info from the lookouts, one handles radio traffic .
They try to limit radio traffic to information really necessary to avoid collisions.
If the information coming to the team has nothing to indicate a problem, then there is no need to take up space on the radio with non critical information because another vessel could need to communicate immediately.
They might see you. They might have an excellent idea of your course, speed and position. You are definitely not aware of what situations they are currently evaluating. Not responding to you does NOT mean your information is not of value. They might be short handed. They might be more concerned with another vessel who they are in contact with on another frequency. They might have a problem with their vessel or equipment.
If you state your position, course, speed, name...someone will keep track of you IF contacting you becomes necessary. It’s critical for vessels to know who is who. Prior to AIS, a number of serious accidents were caused by mistakes in identification. Boat A thought they were talking to boat B, but they were talkin to boat C. You cannot reach any close quarters agreement...passing, meeting or crossing...unless BOTH parties are in CLEAR communications.
Communications is the most important tool to avoid collisions.
Not radar, AIS, good binoculars, knowledgeable lookouts...
If I loose all electrical and all power I have a radio on a separate battery in the pilot house and I can communicate.
I’ve seen one vessel help another out of serious trouble time and time again.
Learn the rules. Don’t be too proud to ask for help or clarification. Try to be patient. Respect their limits on maneuverability.
I’m not going to respond to those who insult professional mariners.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and his happy manatees

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Manateeman

With regard to no response on a security call. Please let me explain because IF you are thinking “I called on vhf and didn’t get a response “ therefore it’s a waste of time. Well it’s not. I’ll explain why.
The ideal bridge management takes three people and this is what the majority of large commercial vessels IN high traffic areas now use routinely.
One person controls the vessel, one watches radar and AIS and takes info from the lookouts, one handles radio traffic .
They try to limit radio traffic to information really necessary to avoid collisions.
If the information coming to the team has nothing to indicate a problem, then there is no need to take up space on the radio with non critical information because another vessel could need to communicate immediately.
They might see you. They might have an excellent idea of your course, speed and position. You are definitely not aware of what situations they are currently evaluating. Not responding to you does NOT mean your information is not of value. They might be short handed. They might be more concerned with another vessel who they are in contact with on another frequency. They might have a problem with their vessel or equipment.
If you state your position, course, speed, name...someone will keep track of you IF contacting you becomes necessary. It’s critical for vessels to know who is who. Prior to AIS, a number of serious accidents were caused by mistakes in identification. Boat A thought they were talking to boat B, but they were talkin to boat C. You cannot reach any close quarters agreement...passing, meeting or crossing...unless BOTH parties are in CLEAR communications.
Communications is the most important tool to avoid collisions.
Not radar, AIS, good binoculars, knowledgeable lookouts...
If I loose all electrical and all power I have a radio on a separate battery in the pilot house and I can communicate.
I’ve seen one vessel help another out of serious trouble time and time again.
Learn the rules. Don’t be too proud to ask for help or clarification. Try to be patient. Respect their limits on maneuverability.
I’m not going to respond to those who insult professional mariners.
Happy trails to you.
Captain Mark and his happy manatees

You do realise that the MAIB / MCA in the uk for instance , recommends that VHF is NOT used to resolve passing situations and especially in an emergency colregs situation .

My experience is where professional mariners are professional they are a joy to deal with , I have equally experience of ships that are seemingly staffed with either incompetent , bored , or aggressive bridge crew.

If you call up a vessel and get no response that process may or may not be useful to the ship, it’s utterly useless to you on the helm of a sailboat if yiu get no acknowledgement.

By the way I was a “ professional mariner “ for a while, not just on a container ship that’s all, I was also a radar instructor amongst other things , which brought me in contact with many bridge crews

( the issue isn’t properly trained bridge crew, it’s the improperly trained ones )

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Even if forcing a ship navigating in a TSS to maneuver to avoid you is somehow not "impeding", then at the very least, it's bad practice. The ship may be forced into conflict with another vessel. At the very least the spirit of Rule 10 requires you to do your best to stay well out of the way and disturb ships navigating in the TSS as little as possible.

It is hardly likely to create another conflict with another vessel, as all traffic using the lane should be going in roughly the same direction. In ensuring one is not impeding, one should probably be cognizant of any other crossing traffic that the would be impeded vessel might have to negotiate as well. The lanes in the English, are I think, fairly wide and free of additional hazards. I wouldn't think it terribly difficult to carry out standard collision-avoidance manoeuvres in the course of transitting a lane there. What do you think happens when commercial traffic (ferries and the like) cross the lanes?

[Manateeman]

The original poster is in the USA. I’m not going to get into an arguement on MGN 324 and what it means with regard to VHF and AIS in British waters.
Your opinion on mariners who lack training is simply unkind and has little to do with the question asked by the original poster. I guess you would like to argue over the minutiae and discrepancies in international rules. Why don’t you start another thread on it. Oh...and do try to be a bit more tolerant to those, who you feel, have substandard educations.
I’ll stand by the advice I gave.
Captain Mark and his “we didn’t dump the tea in Boston harbor” manatees.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

It is hardly likely to create another conflict with another vessel, as all traffic using the lane should be going in roughly the same direction. In ensuring one is not impeding, one should probably be cognizant of any other crossing traffic that the would be impeded vessel might have to negotiate as well. The lanes in the English, are I think, fairly wide and free of additional hazards. I wouldn't think it terribly difficult to carry out standard collision-avoidance manoeuvres in the course of transitting a lane there. What do you think happens when commercial traffic (ferries and the like) cross the lanes?

The real issue is the disparity of speed
I’ve crossed at the Dover straits in a fast powerboat and it’s much safer then a slow sailboat , especially one struggling in bad weather and rough seas. The “ cone of danger /indecision being a function of relative speed )

Ferries and the like have the benefit of doing this all day every day , and many use VHF to clarify intentions ( against official advise)

I had the same experience of Denia a while back.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You do realise that the MAIB / MCA in the uk for instance , recommends that VHF is NOT used to resolve passing situations and especially in an emergency colregs situation .

We should maybe have moratorium on discussing the use of VHF in anti-collision. In Europe, and many other places where there are a wide variety of languages spoken by the bridge crews of the shipping, VHF use is frowned upon; in the US where all bridge crews speak English (or an approximation of such) VHF use is encouraged. Neither is wrong - just different circumstances call for different actions.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

We should maybe have moratorium on discussing the use of VHF in anti-collision. In Europe, and many other places where there are a wide variety of languages spoken by the bridge crews of the shipping, VHF use is frowned upon; in the US where all bridge crews speak English (or an approximation of such) VHF use is encouraged. Neither is wrong - just different circumstances call for different actions.

Fine by me. But my comments were triggered by pleas to engage in conversations by vhf with bridge crew. This might be fine advise in the USA and on the ICW , it’s not quite so useful when a bridge lookup has extremely poor English and can’t be understood( assuming he answers the vhf in the first place )

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

a Chinese bridge officer I met in Italy had a typical answer “ just stay out of my way “

Master? Mate? 3rd Mate? Cadet? Did this bridge officer have any credentials? You found one incompetent, unprofessional boob from the third world, and take his as the attitude of the entire industry???

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Your belief in the professionalism of bridge crew is very misplaced , there are shocking levels of undermanning , poor non functioning equipment , badly trained bridge crew out there , again and again maritime investigation agencies criticise poor bridge practices , of course that’s not to tar all ships , many are well equipped and well manned but that’s not possible To determine from the deck of a small boat.

In general it's been getting better. For awhile it was definitely getting pretty bad, with large companies letting their competent expensive crews go and replacing them with 3rd-world masters and mates, but it has tightened up in the last couple decades with port state control, solas and other initiatives to improve safety at sea. Your previous statement that yachts had better equipment than ships was downright laughable. But you are right that you can't make a determination about the competency of a ship's crew from your cockpit - fortunately the Rules tell you all you need to deal with that uncertainty - just follow the Rules; if you're the give-way, then give way; if you're the stand-on, then stand-on until it appears the give-way is not taking action. Nowhere does it say you stand-on until you die.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

As a commercially licensed skipper to 200 tons , with 30 years international sailing experience , I dont need lectures on COLREGS thanks.
By the way I was a “ professional mariner “ for a while, not just on a container ship that’s all, I was also a radar instructor amongst other things , which brought me in contact with many bridge crews

I don't have a problem with someone giving their CV on the forum, but I do when it serves to give weight and legitimacy to what I consider terrible advice. That's where I think it's useful to drill down to the actual bona fides of the advice-giver. So 200T - tug boats? fishing vessels? sailmaster? inland-water dinner boats? What and where does this experience come from? Did you come into contact with any bridge crews while on the bridge underway?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

. . . fortunately the Rules tell you all you need to deal with that uncertainty - just follow the Rules; if you're the give-way, then give way; if you're the stand-on, then stand-on until it appears the give-way is not taking action. Nowhere does it say you stand-on until you die.. . .

Words to live by.


And not only does it NOT say that you "stand-on until you die", Rule 17 absolutely forbids it.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by KayZee

..............

1. When using a relative bearing with a fixed point on your boat, is it important to create a range/transit with two objects, for example, a stanchion and a shroud, or is it enough to observe from a single object with a fixed head position?............................

Your head is one of the two points.