US Navy destroyer collision

[Snowpetrel]

^^ rule 15 crossing situations only says for the give way vessel "if the circumstances of the case admit she shall avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel." This leaves plenty of room for a bold port action by the give way vessel. Unfortunately this seems poorly recognised even by many professional mariners.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I will try and find and post a copy of the Normal Maneuvers versus Escape Action ..... Drawing, which I believe is in Cockcroft
.

Please do, if you get a moment and find it. I don't think I have ever seen that.

I believe, even in a rule 15 crossing (e.g. you can see a side light), in a relatively narrow sliver of angles (like from 15 to 22 degrees behind the beam with stand on to starboard) a port turn by give way may (depending on distance at decision point) be the correct action, and is certainly allowed as a option. In case stand on turns to stb, port by give way does (may) diverge the vessels in that very specific situation.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Ann,

I think the worry or concen is that the report will either not be issued or will be a white wash..

The nuance I would add is I'm sure there will a report. My view is there wouldn't be intentional white wash but asking a Navy officer about the Navy is a little like asking a parent about their child.

I suspect there is an inherent, blind, unintentional, positive bias.

NTSB - NTSB - NTSB

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Please do, if you get a moment and find it. I don't think I have ever seen that.

I believe, even in a rule 15 crossing (e.g. you can see a side light), in a relatively narrow sliver of angles (like from 15 to 22 degrees behind the beam with stand on to starboard) a port turn by give way may (depending on distance at decision point) be the correct action, and is certainly allowed as a option. In case stand on turns to stb, port by give way does (may) diverge the vessels in that very specific situation.

Might be meaning this diagram. Although it states it is intended for restricted vis situation, it is also applicable for vessels in sight of one another.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Please do, if you get a moment and find it. I don't think I have ever seen that.

I believe, even in a rule 15 crossing (e.g. you can see a side light), in a relatively narrow sliver of angles (like from 15 to 22 degrees behind the beam with stand on to starboard) a port turn by give way may (depending on distance at decision point) be the correct action, and is certainly allowed as a option. In case stand on turns to stb, port by give way does (may) diverge the vessels in that very specific situation.

This certainly does no harm to consider ahead of time as an academic exercise, but the decision concerning which way to turn for each vessel, in addition to depending as you say "on distance at decision point," also depends on the relative speed of each vessel, the rate of turn of each vessel, the ability to accelerate/decelerate, and even the length of the opposite vessel, so since those are all variables that aren't known ahead of time and vary from one vessel to another, it's not something you can figure out ahead of time and memorize. Rather, each skipper must use general guidelines such as what you're discussing and then adjust them to suit each particular crossing situation when he encounters them. Knowing what was the most right solution in one situation with two vessels and their particular crossing geometry, relative speeds, and performance characteristics might be interesting to discuss, but does little to help us decide what the most right solution is for you or I in our vastly different performing cruising sailboats where all the variables are different.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Might be meaning this diagram. Although it states it is intended for restricted vis situation, it is also applicable for vessels in sight of one another.
Attachment 153421

Although I was never 'taught' any distances ITNCoE and good vis I always used 4 miles as the distance I would alter by and if a stand on ship was down to 3 miles without doing anything I would be seriously prepared to act myself.

Which ties in with that diagram...

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Slowing down is an option not used often enough, in my opinion. How can giving more time to build situational awareness, to communicate, to separate be bad?

Well slowing down can reduce your manoeuvrability and your ability to put distance between you and a vessel that's not acting in accordance with the rules. Particularly if you are stand on in a crossing situation, slowing down might conflict with the give-way vessel's turn to starboard.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Might be meaning this diagram. Although it states it is intended for restricted vis situation, it is also applicable for vessels in sight of one another.
Attachment 153421

Yes!, that's the one Nigel...book is onboard and we are into heavy rain but if I remember correctly, there is supporting text and explanation for those having trouble visualizing

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I will try and find and post a copy of the Normal Maneuvers versus Escape Action ..... Drawing, which I believe is in Cockcroft
...

➥ https://books.google.ca/books?id=eCQ...action&f=false

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Although I was never 'taught' any distances ITNCoE and good vis I always used 4 miles as the distance I would alter by and if a stand on ship was down to 3 miles without doing anything I would be seriously prepared to act myself.

As good a number as any. I tend toward 20 or 30 minutes to CPA as that self-corrects for faster platforms.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well slowing down can reduce your manoeuvrability and your ability to put distance between you and a vessel that's not acting in accordance with the rules. Particularly if you are stand on in a crossing situation, slowing down might conflict with the give-way vessel's turn to starboard.

Point taken. Not relevant when ships are constrained to channels but certainly a consideration in open water.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by nigel1

Might be meaning this diagram. Although it states it is intended for restricted vis situation, it is also applicable for vessels in sight of one another.
Attachment 153421

Ah, nice, and does include my point/comment about Port.

I guess what I run into is that while folks may have been taught this in school; when they get their watch standing experience, a lot of them they seem to have drilled into them by the older hands 'go to starboard'. Or at least that is my impression from various colreg discussions I have had.

3nm 'escape' might be difficult to implement in Japanese waters, seems like there are usually several targets within 3nm.

[estarzinger]

re the previous discussion on repair/refit costs:

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/27/rep...-terror-attack

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I guess what I run into is that while folks may have been taught this in school; when they get their watch standing experience, a lot of them they seem to have drilled into them by the older hands 'go to starboard'. Or at least that is my impression from various colreg discussions I have had.
.

Too True!
I would say that 90‰ of the Simulator exercises are designed to reinforce that you should avoid altering to Port
As soon as you do, the Examiner/Instructor will inject more kamikaze targets into your program to box you in and usually have you end up going in the opposite direction of your planed course as other targets close in

As you said...This reinforces the old hands fear of going to Port as an unnecessary Legal Risk.

What is forgotten is that in a close quarters Avoiding action, you are basically trying to put your stern towards the Target to minimize relative speed.
That requires a bold and committed action to either Port or Stbd.

[Jim Cate]

I can't remember which old MM told me the truism: "turn to port, see you in curt'!

That philosophy does seem to be ingrained in some minds.

Jim

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I can't remember which old MM told me the truism: "turn to port, see you in curt'!

That philosophy does seem to be ingrained in some minds.

Jim

I think the inherent weakness in "RULES" is that it encourages the lazy and the bit thick... to not mentally visualize the exceptions and take that decisive bold action what needed....even if it is a departure from the Rules.

That is why the Track of the Fitz interests me and should be made public.

COLREGS reminds us of our ultimate responsibilit in Rule 2, but it is rarely tested in Simulatiions.

Rule 2
Responsibility
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.