Lessons learned??

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

What do you take from this article with regards to safety and rules of the road?


https://gcaptain.com/vendee-globe-s...139820873&mc_cid=2b14d10cc5&mc_eid=5b70bcca05

 

[oscar]

What do you take from this article with regards to safety and rules of the road?


https://gcaptain.com/vendee-globe-s...139820873&mc_cid=2b14d10cc5&mc_eid=5b70bcca05

Sounds like the fisherman may have had his AIS off..... Risks of the game.

 

[floater]

Was the sailboat guy correct when he told the tanker he has the right of way?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Sounds like the fisherman may have had his AIS off..... Risks of the game.

A lot of fishermen don't have AIS, or as you stated turn it off.

 

[jungpeter]

Sounds like the fisherman may have had his AIS off..... Risks of the game.

As Mr. Hermann was admittedly asleep at the time of the collision, in direct contravention to the International Rules of the Road. I have ZERO empathy for him. "...risks of the game"-exactly. But unfortunately not just risks to him. What do you think the fishermen have to say about this incident?

I have SIGNIFICANT empathy for the (purported) fishermen that may, or may not, have AIS aboard, or may, or may not have turned it off. This collision is 100% on the shoulders of Mr. Hermann, and by extension the organizers of the Vendee Globe, and by further extension, on those that support such idiocy.

Single handed long distance competitive sailing, personified by an event such as the Vendee Globe, is at the outer fringe of rational human behaviour. Reliance on electronic aids to navigation to prevent collisions at sea, with grave risk to property, life, and limb to innocent parties is, in my personal opinion, simply stone stupid. While I recognize participants are welcome to engage in such behavior, as it is their choice and their business, I continue to marvel at the predominantly euro-centric hero worship of such as Mr. Hermann. In my opinion, he's a chump and a pawn to his sponsors, and probably criminally liable in this particular incident.

Given that Mr. Hermann's (or any human) presence aboard SEAEXPLORER is redundant and unnecessary, I'm hopeful that the organizer's and supporters of such as the Vendee Globe realize that not all human challenges warrant support. If I'm off base, I propose to crowdsource fund a prize to the first human to walk unaided and bare-ass naked across the active Kilauea volcano. Makes about as much sense to me.

Regards,

Pete

 

[High Wire]

Was the sailboat guy correct when he told the tanker he has the right of way?

Not enough info. Maybe. But a half hour to convince the ship to change course?

 

[Shrew]

This collision is 100% on the shoulders of Mr. Hermann, and by extension the organizers of the Vendee Globe, and by further extension, on those that support such idiocy.

Unfortunately, that is an opinion (which you're entitled too) however that is EACTLY the reason why the Col Regs are used under such circumstances. There is very rarely a situation that is 100% one party's fault in a collision.

1) Both vessels should have had adequate lookout. We know the sailing vessel did not, however, based on the information presented, it is unclear whether whether there was an active lookout on the fishing vessel.

2) The sailing vessel would only be compelled to give way to the fishing vessel only if the fishing vessel were actively fishing. Since it is unclear, based on the information presented, whether the fishing vessel was steaming or actively fishing we cannot make a conclusion.

3) The sailing vessel was making way while not under command however, based on the information presented, it is unclear whether the sailing vessel was presenting the appropriate lighting to indicate it was not under command.

4) Based on the information presented, it is not clear whether the fishing vessel was making way while not under command.

5) If the fishing vessel was making way while not under command, based on the information presented, it is not clear whether the fishing vessel was presenting the appropriate lighting to indicate it was not under command.

6) If there were an active lookout on the fishing vessel then they were compelled to identify the collision and take action to avoid it.

So one can by no means make the assertation as to what percentage of fault is attributed to each party. By no means is there any provision to extend liability to the organizers of the event. Making the contention that those that support open ocean racing are also culpable is simply ludacrous.

==========================

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS)

As per the Col Regs "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea"

Part B- Steering and Sailing Rules

Section I: Conduct of Vessels in any Condition of Visibility

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.​

Rule 5: Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision

Rule 7: Risk of Collision

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:

(i) Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;​

​

Section II - Conduct of Vessels in Sight of One Another

Rule 18: Responsibilities Between Vessels
Except where rule 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require:

(a)A power driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;
(iv)a sailing vessel;​

(b) A sailing vessel under way shall keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;
(iii)a vessel engaged in fishing;​

(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:

(i)a vessel not under command;​

​

====================

 

[psneeld]

Relying on equipment has always been a giant leap of faith...yet we are on the verge of the age of autonomous ships.... which at some point will rely only on sensors and AI to keep from running you over.

 

[MurrayM]

...while racing in third place, some 90 miles from the Vendée Globe finish line off Les Sables d’Olonne...

Riiiiiiight. He was asleep 90 miles before the end of the race? Bullsh!t

 

[denverd0n]

Was the sailboat guy correct when he told the tanker he has the right of way?

No. He may have been the "stand on" vessel, but in that circumstance there IS NO "right of way."

 

[ancora]

Was the sailboat guy correct when he told the tanker he has the right of way?

No where in COLREGs is the term "right of way" used.

 

[jungpeter]

Hi Shrew,

Thank you for posting pertinent parts of the COLREGS. In the interests of brevity, I chose not to do so. And, as there are many unknowns in this incident, I also chose to give a broad brush to those unknowns (was the oher vessel engaged in fishing (per the COLREGS), did it have adequate and appropriate lighting per it's circumstance, was it underway but not making way, etc. Each of these is an unknown, and simply a red herring to the point I'm trying to make.

As Psneed (and many others to date) have asserted, we are in the dawn of the age of autonomy. As a many, many years active professional participant in the design, development, and deployment of (undersea) autonomous vehicles, I am VERY aware of the state of the art in such autonomy. And as this incident verified, WE AIN'T THERE YET!

And, as I clearly stated, IN MY OPINION, assuming such autonomy today, and putting human(s) at risk for life, limb, and property in this current state, is stone stupid. Putting Mr. Hermann aboard simply adds human drama to this event, without enhancing it in a substantive manner. And this event thus appears solely for the financial benefit of his sponsors, and indirectly for the satisfaction of those enamored of vicarious enjoyment in the misery and/or elation of others. i.e.-the entertainment value imparted by a human.

And while this self-same human may add efficacy to this particular event, significant development of the necessary autonomous features (sensors, satellites, artificial intelligence, etc.) will NOT come from the outcome of the Vendee Globe. Despite the glamor of technology espoused by many, it really will not be enhanced by this event. Trust me-many of us that actually work in this field look at this event with derision, and wonder what kind of person subjects him (or herself) to living in a wet, cold tin can for days on end, simply for the entertainment and vicarious gratification of someone at the other end of a video feed? Sounds a lot like the argument Chuck Yeager made many years ago when asked to participate in the Mercury program, when he declined to be "spam in a can".

So one can by no means make the assertation as to what percentage of fault is attributed to each party. By no means is there any provision to extend liability to the organizers of the event. Making the contention that those that support open ocean racing are also culpable is simply ludacrous.

OK, Mr. Shrew. Mea Culpa. I perhaps over-simplified and overly dramatized my argument. I was making no attempt to engage in maritime legal wrangling in this public open forum. But as someone with a lifetime at sea, with professional licenses and credentials behind me, I DO INDEED allocate the balance of the fault in this incident to not only Mr. Herman, but to those ashore who organize and support "...open ocean racing" in this fashion. And by the way, if this were truly "open ocean racing", the statistical likelihood of this event would be nil. Given it occurred within 90nm of the finish, it certainly wasn't "open ocean".

Regards,

Pete

 

[AlaskaProf]

Riiiiiiight. He was asleep 90 miles before the end of the race? Bullsh!t

My reaction exactly. But perhaps he wanted to look well-rested for his press photos.

 

[MurrayM]

My reaction exactly. But perhaps he wanted to look well-rested for his press photos.

Plausible. Then again...

Lesson learned: Do not become engrossed in manscaping while under speed.

 

[BandB]

I think the responsibility is shared by the two vessels. However, I do want to point out that too often sailboats, especially those in competition, think they own the seas and others should avoid them. These sailboats are often faster than the other boat. Sailors also think it's ok to sleep on the job. You combine these attitudes and you end up with callous disregard. Now there are commercial fishermen with similar attitude.

 

[Jeff F]

Riiiiiiight. He was asleep 90 miles before the end of the race? Bullsh!t

That's entirely plausible, and not something the skipper would lie about. Far better to sleep 90 miles out than try to do the last 30 exhausted. Sleep management is key to success in this type of competition. He was in a close battle for first place after 79 days of flat out racing, so was probably running on empty.

I have lots of sympathy for the crew on the fishing boat. The sailboat was traveling at ~20 knots with only an automated watch system which clearly failed.

I'm not offering a full-throated defense of this type of competition, but continue to think that the risk to non-competitors is low. And each race brings advances in autonomous sailing, navigation and safety that ultimately help lots of recreational boaters.

https://www.sail-world.com/news/232861/OSCAR-helps-prevent-costly-Vendee-Globe-collisions

 

[Portage_Bay]

What do you take from this article with regards to safety and rules of the road?

https://gcaptain.com/vendee-globe-s...139820873&mc_cid=2b14d10cc5&mc_eid=5b70bcca05

This thread has been an interesting read. I want to give my input. In the interest of keeping my post short I'll avoid quoting multiple posts and the full text of the applicable colregs rules. If you don't understand my points I encourage you to read the colregs.

The question was raised "Did the sail boat have right of way". As has already been pointed out the colregs don't use "right of way".

So, did the bulker have to give way to the sailing vessel? Or for that matter any sailing vessel? Yes, in this case being on the open sea, the bulker had to give way. Applicable rules are:

• Rule 18 (a)(iv). Power keeps out of the way of sail.
• The exceptions where power does not have to keep out of the way of sail, which don't apply in this case are:
  • Rule 9 (b) narrow channel or fairway.
  • Rule 10 (j) vessel traffic schemes.
  • Rule 13 overtaking, Rule 18 (b)(iii) vessels engaged in fishing.

The sail boat being "Not Under Command" was brought up. The sail boat was not by the colregs "Not Under Command" due to the skipper being asleep.

Rule 3 (f) Not under command refers to the vessel's inability to be controlled, not the skipper's lack of standing a watch. See this link for a good explanation. Vessel Not Under Command. Before you state the obvious that eColregs.com is not the 'real' colregs. You are correct. But look to their "About Us" page to see who eColregs.com's contributors are. Their interpretation lines up with I was taught when studying the colregs.


A fine point about Not Under Command not related directly to this discussion. If you are going to claim others keep out of your way because you are Not Under Command be sure to show the lights or day shapes. Otherwise how are other vessels to know you are Not Under Command and keep out of your way?


The other part of ASD's question, safety. The lessons I take from this are:

• Don't single hand for a long enough time that you need to sleep, especially with your vessel making way at relatively high speed. Yeah, I know, it's done "all the time". I just think it's stupid.
• Don't put all your faith in technology to avoid collisions. Automatic systems, AIS, radar, FLIR. Use them, make good use of them, but use your eyes and brain too.
• Don't trust the other guy, in this case the fishing vessel, to cover your butt. Yup, if the fishing boat had been on the ball they would have seen the sail boat bearing down on them. And if their gear allowed them to maneuver they could have gotten out of the way. But they didn't.
• Autonomous ships are coming. The OSCAR system these racers were carrying was likely peanuts compared to what full on autonomous ships will carry. But still. Don't fully trust the robots.

One final thought. The colregs define special lights for air-cushioned, WIG and submarines. We'll need yet another special light or some identifier to let us know when an autonomous ship is nearby. AIS should help with this.

 

[markbarendt]

Was the sailboat guy correct when he told the tanker he has the right of way?

No, as I understand the rules, the vessel that is least maneuverable has right of way.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The sail boat being "Not Under Command" was brought up. The sail boat was not by the colregs "Not Under Command" due to the skipper being asleep.

So I know a very old, seasoned tug captain, Cap't Pete has worked around the world. He once told me if he was working his way up or down the coast without a tow and he got tired, he would turn on all his lights, shut the engine down and take a 6 hour or so nap. He would wake up, figure out how far he drifted and continued on.

I always thought that was nuts, just drifting to take a nap

BTW he is now, finally retired and owns a KK.

 

[Shrew]

No, as I understand the rules, the vessel that is least maneuverable has right of way.

US Department of Homeland Security: USCG (INLAND):
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs)
https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx

The collision at the scope of the discussion was in the open ocean. The Inland Rules refer to "Right of Way". The COLREGS (open ocean) do not. There is only Stand-on and Give Way. There is no "Right of Way" in this case. Since the scope of the discussion is literally focused on which vessel is at fault, then this concept IS important.

Regardless of which vessel was the stand-on vessel, the stand-on vessel would be compelled to become the give way vessel in the absence of action by the actual give way vessel.

I'll acknowledge my previously improper interpretation of "Vessel not Under Command".

Rule 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel
(a)

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) 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.​

(b) 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.​

 

[oscar]

Riiiiiiight. He was asleep 90 miles before the end of the race? Bullsh!t

Do you have solo off-shore sailing experience? I do. The rhythm is short sleep and short wake (relative to our 16/8 hour patterns). Approaching the finish line, and the zoo thereafter, he needed every ounce of energy he could muster. Catching some sleep up to the last minute was paramount.

 

[BandB]

Do you have solo off-shore sailing experience? I do. The rhythm is short sleep and short wake (relative to our 16/8 hour patterns). Approaching the finish line, and the zoo thereafter, he needed every ounce of energy he could muster. Catching some sleep up to the last minute was paramount.

And some of us think that is wrong.

 

[Portage_Bay]

So I know a very old, seasoned tug captain, Cap't Pete has worked around the world. He once told me if he was working his way up or down the coast without a tow and he got tired, he would turn on all his lights, shut the engine down and take a 6 hour or so nap. He would wake up, figure out how far he drifted and continued on.

I always thought that was nuts, just drifting to take a nap

BTW he is now, finally retired and owns a KK.

I know fishermen who do a similar thing. But they drop a trawl door to the bottom and let it thump along slowing the drift. A bit better than just drifting.

 

[psneeld]

I would love to see the a maritime court ruling on the definition of "not under command" and the actual use of the words 'exceptional circumstance".


The underlying theme of "not under command" is NOT being able to comply with the rules.


A vessel with no lookout, or no helmsman by fact is NOT able to comply with the rules. The rules assume you have a helmsman and a lookout.....so the assumption in my opinion that a failure to maneuver the boat is a steering casualty or other engineering casualty that prevents a "crew" from adherence to the rules.


So without a court ruling or some other form of legal guidance, for the life of me... I cannot see that a solo sailor's vessel isn't "not under command" and thus could and should show the proper lighting/dayshape. Running into such a vessel is tantamount to running into debris.


I taught captains licensing and have taught the standard "exceptional circumstances" for years...I just don't see where it is appropriate in this case and with the proper ID could be considered. Sure it could be abused and left up all the time, but that's possible anyhow.

 

[Portage_Bay]

No, as I understand the rules, the vessel that is least maneuverable has right of way.

Please read Rule 3 (g)
The term “vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver” means a vessel
which from the nature of her work is restricted in her ability to maneuver as
required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel; vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver include, but
are not limited to:
(g) (continued) The term “vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver”
shall include but not be limited to:
(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation
mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons,
provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
(v) a vessel engaged in mineclearance operations;
(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts
the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their
course.


It's not simply a matter of which vessel is less maneuverable. It's a matter of whether or not a vessel is "restricted in her ability to maneuver as required by these Rules" . I was taught when studying the colregs that "required by these Rules" means a vessel is not able to slow, stop or turn. Not how difficult it is. Further if a vessel is restricted in ability to maneuver she'd need to show the lights and shapes indicating such. If we left it to each mariner to decide which vessel is less maneuverable that would lead to situational mayhem.

Now, does that mean I don't think the skipper of the sail boat was a bone head? Of course he was. If he had 30 min to debate with the bulker capt then he had plenty of time to subtly alter his course to pass clear of the bulker. The slight added distance to his track line from altering his course would not have altered his race position from 3rd to 4th unless #4 was seconds behind him.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I don't know if your post is in response to mine.

I think you and I have tossed this one back and forth before. And again, with due respect to your background as a professional and educator, I'm going to disagree with you.

I studied the colregs at Crawford Nautical School which at that time was run by a family of master mariners and pilots. We students were taught what I have expressed. An exceptional circumstance was somehing wrong with the vessel that made it not possible to adhere to the rules. That not maintaining a lookout was a screw up and in viloation of Rule 5 Look-Out.

From memory, when this was raised in class with respect to smaller vessels and limited crew, Crawford said something like "Just because you left the wheel to take a sh!t doesn't mean your vessel is not under command!"

You may be right that there have been no court cases addressing this issue. But why push the gray areas and wind up in a collision, maybe become the first court case to deal with it? Why not follow the rules and understand that exceptional circumstance doesn't mean a bone head left the boat running by itself with no look out?

That said, I've spent years on a 2 man boat running 24 X 7. Sometimes you gotta leave the wheel house with no one to hand it over to. But there's a huge difference between checking all around via visual, radar and now AIS to ensure all is good for the few minutes you are gone vs going to sleep and letting the boat fend for itself.

I would love to see the a maritime court ruling on the definition of "not under command" and the actual use of the words 'exceptional circumstance".


The underlying theme of "not under command" is NOT being able to comply with the rules.


A vessel with no lookout, or no helmsman by fact is NOT able to comply with the rules. The rules assume you have a helmsman and a lookout.....so the assumption in my opinion that a failure to maneuver the boat is a steering casualty or other engineering casualty that prevents a "crew" from adherence to the rules.


So without a court ruling or some other form of legal guidance, for the life of me... I cannot see that a solo sailor's vessel isn't "not under command" and thus could and should show the proper lighting/dayshape. Running into such a vessel is tantamount to running into debris.


I taught captains licensing and have taught the standard "exceptional circumstances" for years...I just don't see where it is appropriate in this case and with the proper ID could be considered. Sure it could be abused and left up all the time, but that's possible anyhow.

 

[rslifkin]

From memory, when this was raised in class with respect to smaller vessels and limited crew, Crawford said something like "Just because you left the wheel to take a sh!t doesn't mean your vessel is not under command!"

...

That said, I've spent years on a 2 man boat running 24 X 7. Sometimes you gotta leave the wheel house with no one to hand it over to. But there's a huge difference between checking all around via visual, radar and now AIS to ensure all is good for the few minutes you are gone vs going to sleep and letting the boat fend for itself.

I agree, leaving the helm for a couple of minutes isn't necessarily a big deal. There are plenty of times where you can be sure there's no danger within the time you'll be gone.



I'll admit to popping down to the head for a minute on a trip this past summer. Doing 6.5 kts, 6nm off shore, no boats in sight in any direction. Boat was tracking well enough that I was comfortable leaving the helm for a minute or 2 with no autopilot, GF was napping in the navigator seat. So I popped down to the head, came back probably 90 seconds later, made a 3 degree course correction and other than the slight course drift, nothing had changed.



That said, I'm in the camp that considers singlehanding longer than you can reasonably be awake for to be irresponsible.

 

[psneeld]

OK....lets say I go below and go to sleep.


But before I go, I put on the NUC lights. A couple of rare interactions with vessels see it and avoid me.


Now on a different day, I don't turn on those lights and there is a collision.


First case scenario...who will ever know I don't have a steering failure? Though I don't suggest it, I also don't see the logic behind knowing there are solo long passages and endorsing them without some sort increased safety factor that "no lookout or helmsman" would warrant.


I get the initial approach to discourage its use to accommodate the solo or shorthanded crew...but I don't know if it makes sense in the long run....or if these types of actions are tolerated, why not come up with some alternative signal?


Much of my USCG career, I saw plenty of irregularities in policies that I vocalized against. Some taken and most ignored. Some institutions are deemed so perfect or chiseled in granite, better ideas are not even considered. This is a case of turning a blind eye to one violation and either not enforcing it or providing an alternate. Goes against every fiber of leadership and safety training in me.

 

[rgano]

In solo offshore competitions like this the organizers and their individual competitors are all agreeing that the COLREGs will be flouted for about 50% of the time, just as a solo sailor will do in his private sailboat making long offshore passages. It's all "illegal" and accidents waiting to happen. While it may happen, I do not read of motorized vessels being operated this way on a regular basis. When I read comments like "my alarm didn't go off," all I can do is through up my hands in frustration at the stupidity of it all.

 

[Benthic2]

I think if a race is longer than you can expect the sailor to be awake for, they should require a "virtual watch stander" If the mililtary can have someone command a drone from half a planet away, a sailor could have a shoreside helper stand watch via cameras and access to his radar/chartplotter screen. If a situation arises the helper can sound an alarm on the vessel to wake up the sailor. With a mast height of 90 feet, and speeds of 10-15 kn, there should be ample time to see a situation develop before it is critical.

I would think the cost of 3 or 4 cameras and a satelite link would be minimal compared to the total budget for a race like this, and it could make a huge difference in safety.