Freighters vs. Sailboats

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Then at the very beginning was the carrier (who has greater visibility up on the bridge)...

The various failures on both vessels have been covered - but I wanted to discuss what you said about visibility. Large ships are legally required to have longer range of visibility of their nav-lights. In daylight their sheer size make them far more visible at range than a small vessel. In this case, the masthead light of the carrier should have been visible to the sailboat at six miles minimum, but more likely visible at ten miles or more. The sailboat's tricolour, otoh would probably be visible at not much more than 2 miles. Altitude is not the only determinant of visibility.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by stillbuilding

Presumably most ships with AIS will respond to a direct call via DSC. It is not a requirement for ships to monitor Ch 16 I think.
What is your experience - any better with DSC?

Yes as I said , having AIS and hence being able to make a DSC call and work ch 13. However now that I have AIS , especially a transponder , I almost never need to call in the first place !

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by David M

I am reading situation after situation where if the person on the yacht had got on the VHF and tried to make passing arrangements with the ship that things would have been predictable and therefore much safer.

Why are so many non-professional boaters so seemingly frightened of making radio contact with a ship? If there is any doubt at all, professionals make radio contact with each other long before a meeting, crossing or overtaking situation occurs in order to make passing arrangements.

Lights and dayshapes only describe status and not necessarily intent. You are far better off getting on the VHF to find out intent. It might also make a dull watch more interesting to talk to someone.

Also, if it is obvious on which side you are going to pass then dont start throwing in tacks a mile or two before your CPA. The best way to get in to a collison is to become unpredictable. Really, you need to make radio contact long before you get this close...long before the COLREG's start applying.

Going right to avoid a collision is the unspoken intenational "rule" for avoiding collision. I was taught this at the maritime academy. Or better defined, you almost never go left to avoid a collision.

He did call on the VHF, but far too late.

He turned to port without agreeing a green-to-green. Bad, bad, bad. He thought he was already well to port of the ship - failure to read the ship's aspect. And he was supposed to be standing on!

The ship followed the rules and turned to starboard. But he had seen the yacht's green sidelight!!

Very poor on both sides, IMHO.

The vessels turned into each other. If the yacht had stood on and communicated early, there would have been no problem, no matter how incompetent the Philippine guys on ghe ship were.


Getting back to the original premise of this thread - here is a great example of how chaotic maneuvering - the absence of a systematic approach to collision avoidance -- can get you killed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SvenG

That's what I would have guessed. So you could end up dead wrong but you also have to make sure that your evasive maneuvers are abundantly clear so there can be no claim that you caused any collision by your maneuvering.

Thx.

-Sven

Yes, but don't, for Gods sake, turn to PORT, "early and apparent" or not! The ship's watchstanders have a hard turn to starboard in muscle memory! And that's exactly what happened here!

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by stillbuilding

Presumably most ships with AIS will respond to a direct call via DSC. It is not a requirement for ships to monitor Ch 16 I think.
What is your experience - any better with DSC?

Although not a legal requirement to monitor Ch 16, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) recommend that all ships maintain a listening watch on Ch 16 when practical. It would be an unwise ships captain who did not.
From a practical point of view, I would prefer a brief call on 16 identified by name, rather than DSC, DSC is just another annoying alarm at times, and in our case, sets off the alarm on 4 VHF sets

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

The various failures on both vessels have been covered - but I wanted to discuss what you said about visibility. Large ships are legally required to have longer range of visibility of their nav-lights. In daylight their sheer size make them far more visible at range than a small vessel. In this case, the masthead light of the carrier should have been visible to the sailboat at six miles minimum, but more likely visible at ten miles or more. The sailboat's tricolour, otoh would probably be visible at not much more than 2 miles. Altitude is not the only determinant of visibility.

Exacactimo....