Radar visibility and small boats

[seatime]

2 miles passing distance is a good guide between ships. It also depends on who's on the bridge of the other ship! some of these guys rely heavily on GPS plotters & ECDIS and don't like straying off the track.

I've heard of masters on some FOCs coming onto the bridge and checking the course recorder, then give the 3rd Mate a clip over the ear for altering course and wasting fuel!
Not sure how true it is, but experience tells me some don't like altering in head-on situations, if you alter course 4-6 miles away, they will maintain course and not reciprocate the action.

[Chine]

Herein lies the problem.

Because, as Triman said, "Safe Distance" and "Close Quarters Situation" are stated yet not defined under the rules it opens the situation up to the OOW's own interpretation.

If we go back to the original post, which I think was a 500m clearance.....the OOW may well have sighted the anchored vessel and deemed 500m to be a safe clearance.....but the poor b.......d on the anchored vessel is not aware of of this and may well be very uncomfortable with the the assumption that he has not been sighted and things are a little close for his liking.

The previous post about closing speeds and times is very relevant.

When in doubt, call on VHF CH 16. Only recently was I called by a yacht passing down my starboard side......I had been monitoring him, he was on the radar and I was comfortable with the closest point of approach......yet he was not comfortable, with the view that I may have altered to starboard towards him and so he called me up on 16. I was really chuffed that this guy had the common sense to call up and establish my intentions.......he was using all means at his disposal to avoid collision.

Regards

Chine

[triman]

The Colregs must be a generic document to cover all vessels. Accordingly it is impossible to define "close quarters", "safe distance" etc, because as a Master on a high speed catamaran ferry I was happy to pass within 100m of another vessel due to my enhanced maneouvrability but when on the bridge of a 150,000 tonne bulk carrier with a turning circle measured in miles and a stopping distance of 8 miles the 2 terms meant totally different things to me and required a radical change of mind-set.
As it was when the fast ferries ran from Melbourne to Tassie we established our own Rules, working with the pilots and exempt Masters. Because we could turn in a matter of hundred of metres, albeit with some discomfort to passengers if we turned too sharply, we would call all vessels with which we may become involved and we would state the we would take all action to avoid collision and ensure a safe passing/crossing/overtaking. Not only did this put the mind of the bloke on the other vessel at rest but it was also recorded on the Harbour Control audio tape so that if anything did happen we would be hung out to dry.
Regarding a 500m clearing distance it depends entirely upon the vessel I'm on and MY interpretation of the other vessel's movements. We have the luxury of limited traffic around the Australian coast; for some really scary stuff have a look at Malacca Straits, the Japanese coast, Straits of Gibraltar and various other congested waters and ask yourself how you would interpret a VHF call
"Ship on my port bow, what are you doing?", said with a strong East European accent and there are 2oo vessels on your radar within 12 miles. That's where the Rules come into their own!

[triman]

Regarding my previous post where I said that in the fast ferries we stepped outside the Rules and gave way to everyone we would have had little or no defence had anything gone pear-shaped; our only lifeline would have been Rule 2, and that was extreemely tenuous.

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.

[Kerry]

Chine, So you saying all this new "technology" has not put a bigger wedge between little boats and big boats?

As for fatigue? The martime industry doesn't have sole rights in the fatigue business Sounds like a bit of a cop out, that one?

[DALEPRICE]

so if something was invented that clipped onto the
top of your vhf radio areial that was highly reactive
to a radars system we could solve the proublem???

just thinking out aloud and wouldnt have a clue
how a radar works.
cheers dale

[triman]

so if something was invented that clipped onto the
top of your vhf radio areial that was highly reactive
to a radars system we could solve the proublem???

just thinking out aloud and wouldnt have a clue
how a radar works.
cheers dale

Daleprice, there are many designs of radar reflector available, of varying effectiveness, but you must remember that the biggest single downside to a fibreglass boat in this particular situation is that fibreglass is NOT a good radar reflector and as noted very early in this thread ant echo seen on board a ship's radar is more than likely from your engine, being the largest metallic lump on board.
This post, from the USsiling website, gives values for a range of radar reflectors. Note that this was done in 1995 and the technology has probably vastly improved. For an explanation of the gee-whiz terms used I defer to Kerry or another person more knowledgeable than me.

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Stud...eflector_3.htm

Then there's this, an OZ company
http://www.buoys.com.au/trilensinfo.html

[Deiter]

modified to protect the guilty

Damo

[Getout]

I reckon I might just buy one of those radar reflectors, mount it on a stick and shove it in my rocket launcher when I anchor at night

[triman]

Now you're talking, and a good bright anchor light.

[rainbow_runner]

Mr Bean has the right idea

I have heard too many similar stories

A radar deflector for $40 bucks is cheap insurance and the strobe is a brillant idea

I now know what the kids are getting me for Xmas

I was told it's not compulsary for ships now to monitor 16 on vhf

Can anyone confirm this

[Chine]

Mr Bean has the right idea

I have heard too many similar stories

A radar deflector for $40 bucks is cheap insurance and the strobe is a brillant idea

I now know what the kids are getting me for Xmas

I was told it's not compulsary for ships now to monitor 16 on vhf

Can anyone confirm this

In addition to GMDSS equipment SOLAS vessels are fitted with two working VHF's on the bridge. One is on CH16 at all times.

The radar reflector is an excellent idea............school's out on the strobe.

Regards

Chine

[rainbow_runner]

Thanks for the feeback on the radio

[Edencraft]

When at sea I refuse to put the safety of myself or my crew in the hands of someone else. You as the skipper are ultimatly responsible for the vessel and it's safety, if I can't keep watch myself and I don't have anybody on the vessel responible enough to keep watch then I don't stay out all night. In saying this many do, look at around the world solo sailers. I think people have to stop thinking in the mindset that it is the responsibility of the big vessel to see you and take action to avoid a colission. It is your responsibility as skipper of your vessel that you don't let the situation arrise where you could be run down by another vessel. Take responsibility for your own safety don't rely on someone else doing it for you.

[triman]

Mr Bean has the right idea

I have heard too many similar stories

A radar deflector for $40 bucks is cheap insurance and the strobe is a brillant idea

I now know what the kids are getting me for Xmas

I was told it's not compulsary for ships now to monitor 16 on vhf

Can anyone confirm this

I wouldn't be saying the bit about the strobe light too loudly. If you'd care to refer back a couple of pages they are a definite no-no, but to each his own.