http://www.oziexplorer.com/, an excellent navigation program but limited to raster charts. I've since changed to OpenCPN - not such a function-rich application but able to support vector charts.
Which is why I posted - it's interesting to hear what others would do, despite armchair sailing and desktop decision-making being a world away to the frisson of "seeing 250 meters of heavy steel coming at me".I'm following this with interest. The problem is that I'm inclined to agree with all, depending on the view I'm taking.
Results 121 to 130 of 185
31-01-12, 11:55 #121
31-01-12, 12:01 #122Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
How was it illegal? I was crossing a TSS at right angles - more or less.
31-01-12, 12:17 #123
Once in sight of the "target", they may or may not decide it is encumbered (under sail, or is fishing, or trawling). In TSS it's common to assume vessels coming from port are un-encumbered, and therefore "give way" vessels, since vessels are not allowed to fish/trawl in these regions, even though they still (all too often) show fish/trawl lights or signals. And there's a not dis-similar assumption about sail boats - that they will be motoring, even if they're not showing cones (again, all too often).
Of course, if the genoa is rolled, you will be assumed under motor (even with no cones), and therefore the give way vessel.
I'll say again, the only safe way for a sail boat to remove this uncertainty is, when crossing a traffic lane (not necessarily a TSS) coming from starboard, start the engine, lower/furl the genny, hoist the cone (or turn on the motoring light). Then on-coming traffic will know clearly they remain stand-on vessels. Waltzes, or tangos, should no longer arise.
As visibility reduces, so this behaviour becomes ever more important.
Last edited by jimbaerselman; 31-01-12 at 12:20.JimB
http://jimbsail.info helps Skippers plan Europe Cruises
31-01-12, 12:22 #124
31-01-12, 12:52 #125
Last edited by Simondjuk; 31-01-12 at 12:54.
31-01-12, 14:29 #126
31-01-12, 15:46 #127Registered User
Location : Home near Exeter, work in Hampshire, boat in Plymouth
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
In response to your post quoted above: what do you mean when you say you change course 'early and obviously?' How have you assessed that a change of course might be necessary? If you are using a handbearing compass, then you might not know if the bearing is changing until the ship is a couple of miles away. By this time, the ship will have been watching your course and worked out the CPA and decided what to do. The reality of collision avoidance from a ship's point of view in your world is that the ship almost certainly will have been tracking you for some time, and then they see you make some illogical course alteration and they wonder what you are going to do next.
No-one is suggesting that you stand on blindly into danger, but the impression that you give is that you alter early for everything. What does 'early' actually mean? As has been said by myself and others, this is the sort of behaviour that leads to much cursing on the bridge of large ships. In their mind, you have already made one illogical course alteration, and they spend the next few minutes trying to see if you really know what you are doing, or are going to make another equally illogical alteration and put yourself in their path. You know what you are doing in your own mind - and it might make perfect sense to you - but try to see it from the position of the bridge watchkeeper. He really doesn't want to guess what you are doing next. Nice steady courses with alterations as appropriate according to the IRPCS makes him/her a much happier person and keeps you JUST AS SAFE. Stand on until its obvious what is happening - and then you can use your ability to change course quickly to keep out of the way if necessary. You will be pleasantly surprised by how infrequently you have to do anything at all.
Last edited by john_morris_uk; 31-01-12 at 15:49.[B][I]Wishing things away is not effective.[/I][/B]
01-02-12, 00:01 #128timbartlett Guest
Maybe you could refer us to the Rule number?
It's quite easy to do. If, for instance, I want to refer you to the bit that says "Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed", I simply need to say "Rule17 (a) (i)".
Talking of Rule17(a)(i): can you tell us where it says that doesn't apply to yachts? (Just quoting the rule number will do).
01-02-12, 08:22 #129Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
This debate is primarily between those of the "might is right" persuasion and those who prefer their interpretation of the IRPCS.
The name of the thread is "Crossing Separation Zones in a Small Yacht" but it has widened out into a more general discussion of ship/yacht collision avoidance. This post is about collision avoidance in a TSS.
I believe that there is some confusion surrounding the use of the word "impede" in a TSS.
Rule 10j states that: "A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the safe passage of a power-driven vessel following a traffic lane." A common interpretation of this is that by NOT keeping her course and speed (as the stand on vessel, (Rule 17 (a) (i)) these vessels are in contravention of Rule 10j by introducing confusion into the situation.
However this is contradicted in a commentary in "Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road":
"If the small craft or sailing vessel follows a course that requires another vessel following the lane to alter course or speed, the small craft or sailing vessel is guilty of impeding the safe navigation of the other vessel. Once again, however, if the situation develops so as to involve risk of collision, the applicable steering and sailing rules apply to the vessel following the TSS; however, Rule 8(f)(ii) makes it clear that the encroaching vessel is not in any way relieved of her obligation not to impede the other, and therefore she can not seek shelter as a potential priviledged vessel under the steering and sailing rules. If collision results, the vessel’s breach of her duty not to impede will be a basis for allocating fault for the collision."
FWIW, I think the question turns on the point when "encroaching" begins and this is unfortunately a bit subjective. It is not helped by wildly inaccurate perceptions, by some yachtspersons, of the manoeuvring capabilities of large ships and of their standards of watchkeeping.
Last edited by JayBee; 01-02-12 at 11:59. Reason: sp
01-02-12, 20:20 #130Registered User
Location : London UK
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
" a sailing vessel..... should... wait for a suitable oportunity to cross a traffic lane but a power-driven vessel following a lane is not relieved of her obligation to keep out of the way if there is a risk of collision with a sailing vessel. "
" ...sailing vessels are not required to avoid impeding the safe passage of power-driven vessels crossing a lane ...."
I would ignore Farwell's comments.