IRPCS should have gone to specsavers!

[tonto]

The fishing vessel was NOT fishing, therefore was NOT a a fishing vessel, just an ordinary power driven vessel.

In that case the Sailing vessel was ther stand on vessel, and the power driven vessel was the give way vessel.

The ROR say that the the stand on vessel is to keep her course and speed until it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is not maneuvering as required by the rules. There is advice in Cockroft anfd Lammajer (Poor spelling) about this, and it is dependant on each circumstance.

Rule 17 "The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules."

If things then develop and it becomes apparent that a collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give way vessel alone then both vessels are required to take further action so as best avoid collision.

More;
When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

So bottom line is both at fault, but power driven vessel more so for not keeping a proper lookout!

[Will75]

Originally Posted by tonto

The fishing vessel was NOT fishing, therefore was NOT a a fishing vessel, just an ordinary power driven vessel.

In that case the Sailing vessel was ther stand on vessel, and the power driven vessel was the give way vessel.

The ROR say that the the stand on vessel is to keep her course and speed until it becomes apparent that the give way vessel is not maneuvering as required by the rules. There is advice in Cockroft anfd Lammajer (Poor spelling) about this, and it is dependant on each circumstance.

Rule 17 "The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules."

If things then develop and it becomes apparent that a collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give way vessel alone then both vessels are required to take further action so as best avoid collision.

More;
When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

So bottom line is both at fault, but power driven vessel more so for not keeping a proper lookout!

......Just checked Cockroft, and it gives four times the length of the give way vessel as a guide to the distance when the stand on vessel, the SV, can take its own action. In this case that's about 120 metres....with the beams lowered as they were 120 metres wouldn't have made much difference. The rules are the rules. I agree with you Tonto.

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Will75

......Just checked Cockroft, and it gives four times the length of the give way vessel as a guide to the distance when the stand on vessel, the SV, can take its own action. In this case that's about 120 metres....with the beams lowered as they were 120 metres wouldn't have made much difference. The rules are the rules. I agree with you Tonto.

The rules have 2 points where action is taken. The 1st is where action MAY be taken by the stand on vessel, and Cockroft gives a figure of 12 times the length of the vessel (or in this case approx 500M or just over 1/4 mile) this would probably been ample time to have taken some, if not a lot, of way off the vessel, or some alteration. If this was not enough then the give way vessel could have taken action earlier. The cases in Cockroft refer to court cases and the decisions made by the Elder Bretheren.

The second point of action is where action MUST be taken, and this is the 4 times the length of the vessel, again a slightly arbitary figure, as if it was a 6M rib doing 30 knots (or 15Metres/second) the 24 metres rule means you have less than 2 seconds to avoid a collisioon!

The majority of the rules, and cases are involving larger vessels, and the guidlines are for larger vessels, but the principles are the same. You must know the charactaristics of your vessel, and if you know you cannot maneouver quickly, or easily, you need to take action earlier rather than later.

Almost no collision is ever attributed 100% to a single party, the rules have a great clause that says you must obey them, but also obeying them to the letter is no defence if you could have avoided a collision by departing from them!

Heads you win, tails I lose!

However many P&I clubs note that almost all collisions have inadequate lookout as a factor, or major factor for the collision, So, watch where you are going !

[willk]

Originally Posted by tonto

However many P&I clubs note that almost all collisions have inadequate lookout as a factor, or major factor for the collision, So, watch where you are going !

Had I been trying to make a point, this would have been it

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Will75

......Just checked Cockroft, and it gives four times the length of the give way vessel as a guide to the distance when the stand on vessel, the SV, can take its own action. In this case that's about 120 metres....with the beams lowered as they were 120 metres wouldn't have made much difference. The rules are the rules. I agree with you Tonto.

Odd - I'll admit to never having read Cockroft and Lilliljamer but that strikes me as too little too late - and seems to ignore that size and manoeuvrability of the stand-on vessel so a supertanker should only turn 24 m before hitting a 6m rib!

So I set out to educate myself and found this:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

which seems to suggest that avoiding action can, and should, be taken by stand -on vessels as far out at 2 miles accompanies by appropriate sound signals.

Its lengthy so I may have missed the bit about 4x giveway vessel length.

[Will75]

Originally Posted by Poly

Odd - I'll admit to never having read Cockroft and Lilliljamer but that strikes me as too little too late - and seems to ignore that size and manoeuvrability of the stand-on vessel so a supertanker should only turn 24 m before hitting a 6m rib!

So I set out to educate myself and found this:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

which seems to suggest that avoiding action can, and should, be taken by stand -on vessels as far out at 2 miles accompanies by appropriate sound signals.

Its lengthy so I may have missed the bit about 4x giveway vessel length.

The point about the 4 times, is as Tonto says, this is when you MUST alter, and at this point you MAY turn to port which is normally prohibited on a PDV at least. The 4 times is a guide from Cockroft, the distance is not actually defined in the rules.

[lakelandterrier]

I agree with Wilk ......the master of he SV appears to have done nothing but hold a collision course - and we only see the footage from a couple of minutes out. Thesre should hsve been time to either head up or bear away in good time.
I fully agree the SV had right of way and the FV bears the onus of responsibilty, but all crafty have a responsibility to actually avod collision.
Easy though to criticise in hinsight & when not there.

[Ribochet]

One for the anoraks

The MCA's position is that

"Although, the use of VHF may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the COLREGS should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even when the language of communication is not a problem"

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/mca/mgn_324.pdf

[Erin]

Perhaps it was just a classic game of chicken between a WAFI and MB . Strikes me as though the FV put on full astern in the nick of time given the belch of fumes out his chimney. I'm also not convinced they actually collided, or if they did it was only a bump. The camera man certainly didn't seem to be jolted.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Erin

I'm also not convinced they actually collided, or if they did it was only a bump. The camera man certainly didn't seem to be jolted.

T'was just a peck on the cheek

"The Andrea struck the port quarter of the Alexander von Humboldt. It was a fairly low speed collision.

Apart from some scratched paintwork, the Andrea was undamaged.

The Alexander von Humboldt was lucky to suffer only some dented shell plating with associated damage to internal wooden bulkheads and deck planking together with bent or buckled handrails. It was very fortunate that no harm came to the crew of the Alexander von Humboldt and that it’s rigging and watertight integrity remained intact."

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Will75

The point about the 4 times, is as Tonto says, this is when you MUST alter, and at this point you MAY turn to port which is normally prohibited on a PDV at least. The 4 times is a guide from Cockroft, the distance is not actually defined in the rules.

Yes its not what you said in your earlier post - you implied we 'must' wait until that close before doing anything:


in fact Cockroft suggests you CAN take action as far out as 2 miles, you should take action at least 12 of your own boat lengths before collisions and MUST take radical action if you get within 4 of their boat lengths.

Originally Posted by Will75

......Just checked Cockroft, and it gives four times the length of the give way vessel as a guide to the distance when the stand on vessel, the SV, can take its own action.

It probably seems like pedantry / semantics - but there will be many people who want to follow the rules properly and not piss of professional skippers, who might have been inclined to leave it "too late" if they thought that was the expectation. In fact the 'guidance' seems to suggest that a common sense 'let me get out your way' early approach applies.

[m chappelow]

Originally Posted by Ribochet

One for the anoraks

The MCA's position is that

"Although, the use of VHF may be justified on occasion in collision avoidance, the provisions of the COLREGS should remain uppermost, as misunderstandings can arise even when the language of communication is not a problem"

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/mca/mgn_324.pdf

Good point !
Remember years ago heading into Galveston USA onboard a large bulk carrier from the UK and the amount of other vessels large or small calling up all the time on the vhf to ask which side they wanted to pass on , captain used to reply back politely saying stick to the Col regs please ,
pilot said it was common practise though it did cause confusion problems at times .

With regards to the video clip I would have though that any prudent watch keeper would have realised that a constant bearing would have resulted in a close quarter encounter regardless of who was the stand on vessel.

Don't assume you've been seen the other ship could be underway ( Not under command ) in some circumstances .

First basic rules of seamanship ,
Always keep a good lookout !
Never put your foot in a coil of rope!

[Mollers]

The only action that the tallship could've taken would've been to tack and bare away to stbd. This would've probably have been impossible within the timescale and only delayed the contact by a few seconds if achieved.
Also, an emergency 'crash tack' could've caused mayhem and possibly injury aboard the tallship for little gain.

[SDGANDER]

There is also NO right of way in any of the IRPCS...

SDG

[tonto]

Originally Posted by m chappelow

Good point !
Remember years ago heading into Galveston USA onboard a large bulk carrier from the UK and the amount of other vessels large or small calling up all the time on the vhf to ask which side they wanted to pass on , captain used to reply back politely saying stick to the Col regs please ,
pilot said it was common practise though it did cause confusion problems at times .

The US Coast Guard encourages/requires the use of VHF for collision avoidance, and this is at odds to the MCA guidelines on the use of VHF for collision avoidance. There have been a number of cases of VHF assisted collisions where one vessel calls another, making arrangements, and this is overheard by another vessel, who then thinks he is talking to someone else...... you can see where this goes
However the US also has a different set of Rules of the road for inland waters as well, just to confuse the issue, (along with a different set of bouys, and terminaoligy, but lets not go there eh?) However when in the US, you have to do what they say.

The other part of the rules which do have a bearing here, is that when a vessel takes action at the earlier point, i.e. when it MAY take action there is a requirement that for a PD vessel with another PD vessel (not this case, but relevant to RIBs) is that you should avoid going to port for a vessel on the port side.

When it comes to the point where you MUST take action, then you take whatever action you can to best avoid collision.

Best not get to the second point at all!

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Mollers

The only action that the tallship could've taken would've been to tack and bare away to stbd. This would've probably have been impossible within the timescale and only delayed the contact by a few seconds if achieved.
Also, an emergency 'crash tack' could've caused mayhem and possibly injury aboard the tallship for little gain.

Then they sould have taken action when it was possible to do so!

I am certain they had an engine onboard the SV, they might have started it, increased speed and avoided the collision.

doing nothing but sounding a horn is not an option sometimes.

However as stated earlier it is very easy in hindsight to look at collisions and think I could have done that! We carry a book called "Colisions and thier causes" by the Nautical Institute, which has over a hundered case studies of collisions, and the investigations, and court rulings, which we do read from time to time, and although mostly large ships, if you are interested in this subject it is quite enlightenig to read.

It gives an insight to why a court may have ruled as it did, and as they then set precedents the cases going back over a hundred years are still quoted in rulings.

As also mentioned there is NO right of way, just Stand on, and giveway, although the term right of way, and stand on are commonly used in the same context.

[C-NUMB]

Originally Posted by Mollers

The only action that the tallship could've taken would've been to tack and bare away to stbd. This would've probably have been impossible within the timescale and only delayed the contact by a few seconds if achieved.
Also, an emergency 'crash tack' could've caused mayhem and possibly injury aboard the tallship for little gain.

I agree. Further, we don't know what was the traffic situation otherwise. Starting low rev diesels takes often much longer than this potential situation was developing, and it is not sure this type of vessel will move faster by the support of the engine.

Increasing speed was maybe the only safe potential action by the tallship, and we don't know if that was an realistic option.

[mick]

The SV wouldn't alter course anyway there Germans

[Will75]

Originally Posted by mick

The SV wouldn't alter course anyway there Germans

Let's be thankful that the FV wasn't Polish. If it hand been I am sure the SV would have alterered slightly to Port and started it all off again!

I suppose the real point here is, don't get into the situation in the first place which ever vessel you are on but once engaged and between the CAN and MUST point then the rules are clear, the stand-on, stands on!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Will75

Let's be thankful that the FV wasn't Polish. If it hand been I am sure the SV would have alterered slightly to Port and started it all off again!

guys can we avoid the "racial" / "national" stereotypes please

I suppose the real point here is, don't get into the situation in the first place which ever vessel you are on but once engaged and between the CAN and MUST point then the rules are clear, the stand-on, stands on!

Eh, no... the "CAN" = Can start to take avoiding action, i.e. stop "Standing on" waiting for the other fecker to do something. Prior to that, and until he decides to do something he stands on.