NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Fatal interaction between yacht and ferry.
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2007 May 10, 21:26 +0100
From: George Huxtable
Date: 2007 May 10, 21:26 +0100
Bill wrote- | > My question stands. You can see the craft--why not radio it??? And Lu answered- | I find the willingness of commercial traffic to communicate with | recreational vessels sometimes severely lacking. Many commercial | mariners readily respond to hails from recreational craft. But I've | also had the experience of having hails to commercial vessels (mostly to | understand their navigational intent) totally ignored even though I | clearly identified my boat and my location relative to the commercial | vessel. This seems especially acute when you can't identify the vessel | by name but rather identify it solely by position. | | I will have to admit that a hail on Channel 13 ofttimes works better | than a hail on Ch 16. I suspect many commercial vessel watch standers | develop a certain tone-deafness for traffic on 16. And I have to | wonder if that is especially acute in a high vessel traffic area such as | the English Channel where this accident took place. ============== I think Lu's last sentence explains the problems that he found. In European waters, vessels are actively discouraged from using VHF to mediate their interactions. Instead, they are expected to use the colregs, and nothing but the colregs, at all times. And NEVER to agree a course of action that is contrary to those colregs. This is in complete contrast to the situation in US, and perhaps Canadian, waters, as I understand it. There are several good reasons for those differences. One is the very high traffic density, especially in English Channel waters. Another is the multiplicity of languages. International navigators, in general, are expected to speak some sort of English. But one only has to listen to (for example) Jobourg Traffic, the French surveillance station near Cherbourg, communicating with Japanese watch officers, then Breton fisherman, then Egyptian masters, to realise the pronunciation problems that can ensue. Even in Britain, a broad Tynesider is almost unintelligibe to a native Cornishman, and vice versa. There are many difficulties in exchanging intentions over VHF, when there are many vessels around; particularly when it's not possible to identify the vessels involved. This sort of thing can happen, and has happened. Vessel A notes that she is on a likely collision course with vessel B, and tries to contact her via VHF, giving her ownposition and the approxinate distance and bearing of B. B fails to respond, but vessel C in the vicinity happens to spot another vessel, D, at the corresponding reciprocal bearing, and the right sort of distance. C assumes that D is the vessel sending the radio message, and responds. Between them, they agree how they are to pass, and C changes course to do so. A expects B to change course accordingly, and is surprised by B's inaction. D may also be taken by surprise by C's unexpected manoeuvre. A simple crossing situation has been converted into a dangerous event. That was certainly a severe danger in the past; much less dangerous in recent years, now that GPS allows vessels to know their own precise positions on a common grid. And the introduction of AIS to commercial vessels, and its potential spread to leisure craft, will allow for positive identification of the vessels involved, and selective calling will then allow commumication with the wanted vessel, rather than a channel 16 broadcast. Has the obligation to keep a listening watch on ch. 16 now vanished, anyway? In response to those developments, it may be that dialogue on VHF may become more accepted as a means of collision avoidance in European waters. But that hasn't happened yet. If you visit those waters, don't expect to get a response to such a call. Of course, if it becomes an emergency situation, that's another matter altogether. Finally, I'm rather surprised that the reaction from navlist members to that fatal accident report has concentrated so hard on the question of radar echoes. There has been no response at all about the standard of watchkeeping on the ferry on that clear night. And no reaction to the fact that the ferry came (at least) so close to the yacht that a double-jink was called for in an avoiding manoeuvre. And yet it appears no action was taken to check on the well-being of the yacht, no attempt was made to inform the master, below, and no mention was made in the log. In my view, that will take a lot of explaining. George. contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222) or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---