|
|
09-16-2009, 12:06 AM
|
#21
|
Commander
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 127
|
She hit a SHIP. The reports are that she spoke to her father prior to. I am sorry but seamanship is seamanship. If she had time to call her Dad then she had time to steer away. As a former professional seaman this seems quite a strange behaviour for someone who didn't "mess up big time".
I don't denigrate her for attempting to achieve something, but in an emergency, she may very well risk others if she is incapable of keeping herself out of trouble.
We are all entitled to tackle things bigger than ourselves but don't paint the picture of innocence by ignorance. It will be her word in any enquiry. The captain of the bulk carrier will tell their story and she will tell her side. If per chance they draw a conclusion that the girl was in wrong then the authorities should at least make sure that she is better prepared before moving on. The biggest possibility though, is the enquiry will be unable to find a cause and she will be allowed to continue on unabated.
Lets be perfectly clear, the media in Australia has already said things about the carrier not steering away etc. This shows an already evident way the media is portraying the girl.
If she is capable then so be it.
Cheers
Rob & Annette
S/V Blue Lady
__________________
__________________
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 05:20 AM
|
#22
|
Admiral
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qldcruiser
If per chance they draw a conclusion that the girl was in wrong then the authorities should at least make sure that she is better prepared before moving on. The biggest possibility though, is the enquiry will be unable to find a cause and she will be allowed to continue on unabated.
Lets be perfectly clear, the media in Australia has already said things about the carrier not steering away etc. This shows an already evident way the media is portraying the girl.
|
Also, as a former ship master, I fail to see how an enquiry can fail to attribute a large part of the blame on the girl. She broke, by her own admission, one of the main rules for avoiding collision, i.e. Rule 5, which is probably the simplest, easiest understood and least ambiguous of all the Rules. It states, " Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and 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 or the risk of collision. "
So, we may like it or we may not but the bottom line irrefutably is that little Jessica broke the Rule and, unless the enquiry is rigged, must be attributed the blame in part.
I do not try to exonerate the master and crew of the SILVER YANG, the bulk carrier Jessica collided with. They too may well have broken the same Rule and several others but that is not the subject of this discussion. The subject here is is she (Jessica) ready for the trip or not.
As far as the Australian media coverage is concerned, then, from what I have seen here from Spain, the master and crew of the bulk carrier are the bad boys and no one seems to question Jessica's part in the incident.
From the fragments of the story I have read and seen, my impression is that this young lady is being pushed into a very dangerous adventure. She has been extremely lucky once and should get out now before something worse befalls her.
Hand on heart; if Jessica was your daughter would you let her sail alone over 7,000NM in the Southern Ocean. I have been there; I know what it can be like and I would not let it happen.
Aye // Stephen
__________________
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 02:09 PM
|
#23
|
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 27
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nausikaa
Also, as a former ship master, I fail to see how an enquiry can fail to attribute a large part of the blame on the girl. She broke, by her own admission, one of the main rules for avoiding collision, i.e. Rule 5, which is probably the simplest, easiest understood and least ambiguous of all the Rules. It states, " Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and 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 or the risk of collision. "
So, way may like it or we may not but the bottom line irrefutably is that little Jessica broke the Rule and, unless the enquiry is rigged, must be attributed the blame in part.
I do not try to exonerate the master and crew of the SILVER YANG, the bulk carrier Jessica collided with. They too may well have broken the same Rule and several others but that is not the subject of this discussion. The subject here is is she (Jessica) ready for the trip or not.
As far as the Australian media coverage is concerned, then, from what I have seen here from Spain, the master and crew of the bulk carrier are the bad boys and no one seems to question Jessica's part in the incident.
From the fragments of the story I have read and seen, my impression is that this young lady is being pushed into a very dangerous adventure. She has been extremely lucky once and should get out now before something worse befalls her.
Hand on heart; if Jessica was your daughter would you let her sail alone over 7,000NM in the Southern Ocean. I have been there; I know what it can be like and I would not let it happen.
Aye // Stephen
|
Stephen you have hit the bottom line. We sailed for 5 years in the north and south pacific with 4 teenage children. Even after that extensive experience I would never have risked any of my children at that age. It borders on child abuse.
Gary
__________________
Gary
"I feel younger while afloat in my boat."
http//HealthyBoating.blogspot.com
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 04:44 PM
|
#24
|
Admiral
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,098
|
I just reread the news report, and found a followup news report, here and* Here *
She hit the ship off North Stradbroke Island. *Apparently the ship saw her, so now the question is, were they constrained by draft to maintain course? *SHE says, "it could have happened to anybody. *I'm just unlucky, I guess."
What annoys me about the majority of news reports is that in their rush to print the news, they only get the most sensational part of the news printed. *No research, nothing that a knowledgeable person could use to judge for himself whether this girl should be given a hero's welcome or not. *
With the sophisticated public relations drive behind Jessica, and a Chinese flagged vessel, I worry that there is not going to be enough truth about this accident to satisfy any of the members of this board. *I would like to watch this to see just how fair and impartial the news reporting will be.
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 05:29 PM
|
#25
|
Rear Admiral
Join Date: Mar 2007
Home Port: Hamburg
Vessel Name: Aquaria
Posts: 281
|
Many, many years ago, sitting in sailing courses (conducted by a retired and well experienced ship master) I learned, that a bulk carrier has the worst manuvering abilities of all ships.
So, if they appear on the horizon (on the high seas), better not count on your way of right as a sailing ship, that usually comes in sight (optically and on radar) very late - better act after the rules of good seamanship and do your share that is necessary to avoid a situation of close encounter (altering your course clearly and early).
So, if the bulk carrier had the yacht in sight, were they still able to change course and speed in a way to make sure to get out of the way of a yacht, that due to seastate and maybe not stable winds and under auto pilot changes course and speed contnuously, if not erratic?
Uwe
SY AQUARIA
: Germany, Background, Cruising/Sailing the German Bight
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 05:50 PM
|
#26
|
S/V Waterdancer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Home Port: Winthrop, MA
Vessel Name: Waterdancer
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apolima
Stephen you have hit the bottom line. We sailed for 5 years in the north and south pacific with 4 teenage children. Even after that extensive experience I would never have risked any of my children at that age. It borders on child abuse.
Gary
|
I agree that I would not either.
One could argue though, that taking your children (who don't have a choice in the matter) onto a ocean crossing is not safe either.
In a different world, where everybody tries to regulate everybody else, I am sure that one could find many who would have wanted to disallow that, and would find that as reasonable and rational as those today who would like to disallow this.
This is more an issue of people's freedom of choice than anything else
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 08:40 PM
|
#27
|
Admiral
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterdancer
One could argue though, that taking your children (who don't have a choice in the matter) onto a ocean crossing is not safe either.
|
Indeed; just as one could argue that sending children to school is not safe as they have to cross roads and therefore should not go to school.
I understand where you are coming from but the fundamental difference between Jessica and Apolima is that he was with his children to offer support, guidance and physical assistance. Jessica, if she continues, is on her own.
Regarding Aquaria's remarks, a bulk carrier is,as pointed out, not the most easily maneuvered vessel. However it is not too difficult to alter course or reduce speed. Stopping the engine is a different matter as the engineers need time to change from heavy oil to diesel unless it is a real emergency, after which, if the heavy oil has cooled, it may not be possible to restart the engine. The one thing large bulk carriers are relatively immune to is sea state. They just keep on going in almost any weather up to force 9.
With respect to Jeanne's post, I do not know the area where the collision occurred but many here seem to. However, I do know that loaded the Silver Yang has a draught of 13.09 metres (Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit). Now, if she is restricted in her ability to maneuver due to her draught she should have been showing three red lights in a vertical line and visible all around the horizon in addition to her steaming lights. Was she? I don't know but neither, I think, does Jessica.
Incidentally, it is worth pondering for a minute that the Silver Yang has a draught greater than the length of Jessica's boat. No matter who is in the right or the wrong you cannot argue with that. Nobody needs their epitaph to read, "She was right".
Again, returning to Aquaria's post, he points out the correct course of action - keep out of the way! This maybe not what is required by the Rules but a small flick of the helm for a yacht is a far more seaman-like thing to do than to force a huge ship to alter course or slow down. Sometimes common sense has to prevail!
Aye // Stephen
|
|
|
09-16-2009, 11:58 PM
|
#28
|
S/V Waterdancer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Home Port: Winthrop, MA
Vessel Name: Waterdancer
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nausikaa
Again, returning to Aquaria's post, he points out the correct course of action - keep out of the way! This maybe not what is required by the Rules but a small flick of the helm for a yacht is a far more seaman-like thing to do than to force a huge ship to alter course or slow down. Sometimes common sense has to prevail!
Aye // Stephen
|
Absolutely, no question. Frankly when I am sailing in crowded areas, I prefer much more to be the give-way because at least, I have control over where to go whereas the stand-on vessel is basically depending on the other vessel's actions.
Of course when you are dealing with a vessel substantially bigger, you can throw in many other rules and reasons. As far as I am concerned, if a Tanker is coming, it has the right of way, even if I am "not under command".
I would get it in command somehow !
Incidentally, I have heard of singlehanders who put up the two red lights and go to sleep.
At night, I always have my radar on, and always have a zone alert on, although that may not be feasible sometimes because of sea state etc.
I am not defending that the tanker should have gone out of the way. They probably did not even see her until it was too late.
I still would like to hear the details before making up my mind about her fitness to go around the world
Maybe it was on of those moments everyone has, or maybe it is a characteristical fault that makes her unfit.
Shall the one, who has never made a stupid seamanship mistake raise their hand !
And yes, there are stupid mistakes and then there are stupid mistakes.
The most stupid one I made was diving overboard to cut off the line that was entangled on my prop, and holding me off about 100 feet from the lee shore. .. that was 40 years ago. I was young and stupid. Now I am old and stupid !
|
|
|
09-17-2009, 12:21 AM
|
#29
|
Admiral
Join Date: Jan 2007
Vessel Name: Persevate
Posts: 548
|
two red lights and go to sleep huh... I would think that would just make more trouble than keep people away... If I saw two red I'd try and radio and then go closer to check it out, someone might need help...
another way to go about it is to just rig your white mast head light to flash 2.... I've got a friend who does this and swears he noted a marked difference in ships that came near him.
__________________
“The world turns aside to let any man pass who knows where he is going.” (Epictetus 55 - 135 AD)
"To see new things, and live day to day, is better than wine or poppy, and fitter for a man." (Theseus)
|
|
|
09-18-2009, 11:58 AM
|
#30
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 700
|
Not getting involved in the discussion as to whether a 15yo girl is ready for a solo around the world voyage or not, but I have sailed this particular stretch of water several times and it is very busy. Even with 2 folks on watch and all of our sailing lights up, we've had to take constant evasive action not to get hit. The worst times of the day appear to be the few hours after dusk and around dawn when the fishing / trawling fleet are out and about.
I'm sure there are busier parts of water in the world but also remember that Newcastle, which Jessica would have been sailing directly towards on her way to Sydney, is the world's third busiest port in terms of tonnage, and most of that tonnage heads north towards China. It's the Chinese industry with their attitude of "we like buy another billion tonne coal / iron ore / wood pulp, here is cheque, you fill in amount" that's pretty much kept Australia out of the world-wide recession and most of that tonnage goes directly up the coast, sailing pretty much into Jessica's path.
Just another data point worth considering, not a measure of seamanship of course.
|
|
|
09-18-2009, 01:54 PM
|
#31
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Home Port: Washington DC
Vessel Name: SV Mahdee
Posts: 3,236
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by delatbabel
I'm sure there are busier parts of water in the world but also remember that Newcastle, which Jessica would have been sailing directly towards on her way to Sydney, is the world's third busiest port in terms of tonnage, and most of that tonnage heads north towards China. It's the Chinese industry with their attitude of "we like buy another billion tonne coal / iron ore / wood pulp, here is cheque, you fill in amount" that's pretty much kept Australia out of the world-wide recession and most of that tonnage goes directly up the coast, sailing pretty much into Jessica's path.
Just another data point worth considering, not a measure of seamanship of course.
|
Part of being a competent (won't say "good" here...I'm talking basic competence...) bluewater sailor is knowing when to stay awake and on lookout no matter what! If what you say about this area is true it is also well known. She isn't alone in her logistics--she has sponsors and people supporting her voyage. So, wouldn't she have known that this is a busy stretch? And, wouldn't she have already been trying to take evasive action then if she was keeping a proper lookout? I don't recall, but surely she had AIS? All the major ships are required to send AIS signal--so why didn't she pick up on it?
Many, many questions. I would have the same questions for any solo sailor; though most don't have sponsorship and a team of people supporting their travels.
|
|
|
09-18-2009, 03:07 PM
|
#32
|
S/V Waterdancer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Home Port: Winthrop, MA
Vessel Name: Waterdancer
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by atavist
two red lights and go to sleep huh... I would think that would just make more trouble than keep people away... If I saw two red I'd try and radio and then go closer to check it out, someone might need help...
another way to go about it is to just rig your white mast head light to flash 2.... I've got a friend who does this and swears he noted a marked difference in ships that came near him.
|
That may be the right thing to do, although vessel not under command does not mean vessel in distress. I would think that every vessel carries the distress flag, and that it may be counterproductive to put the 2 reds on if you need help ?
|
|
|
09-19-2009, 10:50 PM
|
#33
|
Lieutenant
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 41
|
On our cicumnavigation in the 90's, on night watch I always enjoyed working out the course of shipping in our vicinity. If the lower white light (bow) was close to the higher white light (superstructure) the vessel was approaching, if they were very close together we were in their path and I would alter course. If red & green became visible it was time to drastically alter course and get right out of their way.
Often the approaching vessels lights configuration would change as THEY altered course to avoid us in a timely manner.
Great times! Great memories!
Alan
__________________
|
|
|
09-20-2009, 06:01 AM
|
#34
|
Admiral
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
|
Two red lights in a vertical line - forget it. This is not a distress signal so other vessels should not approach to investigate. On the other hand, nothing in the rules exonerates a vessel from keeping a proper lookout; even if she is not under command.
Getting the masthead light to flash - forget it. It is illegal and the OOW on a large vessel would probably assume that the light was being obscured by rigging as the vessel rolls or by waves if there was a sea running. Also, as a sailing vessel you should not be showing the white masthead light.
IMHO lobbying of IMO should take place to encourage them to allow a strobe light for sailing vessels at the next review of the COLREGS.
Aye // Stephen
|
|
|
09-21-2009, 03:46 PM
|
#35
|
Rear Admiral
Join Date: Mar 2007
Home Port: Hamburg
Vessel Name: Aquaria
Posts: 281
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nausikaa
IMHO lobbying of IMO should take place to encourage them to allow a strobe light for sailing vessels at the next review of the COLREGS.
|
Great idea!
Another safety feature.
But can we count on that the OOW keeps a watch in the meaning of looking around and does not just rely on the AIS or the radar giving alarm in a situation of close encounter/risk of collision??
I suppose they do in an a sea area of dence traffic. But way out on the high seas?
Uwe
SY AQUARIA
: Germany, Background, Cruising/Sailing the German Bight
|
|
|
09-21-2009, 05:01 PM
|
#36
|
Lieutenant
Join Date: Oct 2005
Home Port: Road Town
Vessel Name: Various
Posts: 78
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nausikaa
Two red lights in a vertical line - forget it. This is not a distress signal so other vessels should not approach to investigate. On the other hand, nothing in the rules exonerates a vessel from keeping a proper lookout; even if she is not under command.
Getting the masthead light to flash - forget it. It is illegal and the OOW on a large vessel would probably assume that the light was being obscured by rigging as the vessel rolls or by waves if there was a sea running. Also, as a sailing vessel you should not be showing the white masthead light.
IMHO lobbying of IMO should take place to encourage them to allow a strobe light for sailing vessels at the next review of the COLREGS.
Aye // Stephen
|
Good reply Stephen - you beat me to it! As for Strobes: I have mixed feelings at the moment. I hate to see them currently because they are "illegal" or have no meaning, in the colregs sense. But if they do become legalised or adapted, then, yes, they are a hi-vis asset - provided everyone knows their meaning ("just" a sailing boat? A sailing boat in distress? A sailing boat with the operator asleep? ) Tony
__________________
|
|
|
09-22-2009, 12:57 AM
|
#37
|
Admiral
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,098
|
A sailboat's masthead light can be, in many circumstances, be mistaken for just another star on the horizon. I like a masthead tricolor, but that isn't always easily seen, either, in bad weather or fog or smoke.
We used our strobe to guide other boats into an anchorage, after communication on the VHF telling them to look for the strobe - then it had a meaning. This was very useful when we were cruising with another boat through Indonesia in '97, when the palm oil plantation owners were burning down Borneo and the smoke was so thick that visibility was minimal. A strobe was much easier to see in that circumstance. Same when we were guiding a friend into an anchorage after dark - full open bay, it was just helping him find the bay and us.
We also used our strobe during the horrendous electrical storms off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, and the South China Sea off Borneo. We just wanted the fishing boats out there to know that there was a boat nearby, because nobody could see much of anything, and a sailboat's lights were probably impossible to see in the terrible downpours we were sailing through. The strobe went off as soon as the weather and visibility improved.
We also turned on our strobe when a boat had to stand off Beveridge Reef one night, waiting for sunrise to come in. I told them by radio that I would leave the strobe on so that they had a visible reference to guide them during the night. My greatest fear was that they would get too close to the reef and be pushed onto it by the strong current. They originally told me that they did not think they would need that light, but the next morning they thanked me, telling me that it made their night watch much easier, knowing that they were not getting too close.
Legal or not, those were circumstances when a static light would have been of minimal use, or useless. It has the advantage of being highly visible, and it was used by us in locations where it could not be mistaken for anything else.
|
|
|
09-22-2009, 01:28 AM
|
#38
|
Admiral
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,067
|
"Rule 36: Signals to Attract Attention
Colregs for the Yachties > The Collisions Regulations > Part D - Sound and Light Signals > Rule 36: Signals to Attract Attention
If necessary to attract the attention of another vessel, any vessel may make light or sound signals that cannot be mistaken for any signal authorized elsewhere in these Rules, or may direct the beam of her searchlight in the direction of the danger, in such a way as not to embarrass any vessel Any light to attract the attention of another vessel shall be such that it cannot be mistaken for any aid to navigation. For the purpose of this Rule the use of high intensity intermittent or revolving lights, such as strobe lights, shall be avoided."
Reading Rule 36 carefully , It becomes clear that the use of a Strobe light which could be mistaken for ANY aid for navigation - Is illegal and becomes a hazard to those vessels underway. Specific examples include
the flashing lights of light houses and other navigation beacon lights. There the use of a strobe appears to be allowed ONLY when there are no other aids to navigation that could be visible to ships and other watercraft.
__________________
|
|
|
09-25-2009, 09:02 AM
|
#39
|
Commander
Join Date: Sep 2004
Home Port: Puerto Montt
Vessel Name: Westerly Serenade
Posts: 115
|
The best way a yacht can draw attention to itself is just shining a white light at an approaching ship, an Eveready Dolphin will do it. Never mind that 'light on the sails' non sense .. just shine it a few times at the ship... they see the light .they look through their glasses ..they see your sidelights....
Mind you.. you need to be keeping a watch for this to work......
__________________
= Chile,
: Chile
|
|
|
09-25-2009, 09:58 AM
|
#40
|
Admiral
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,619
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanneP
A sailboat's masthead light can be, in many circumstances, be mistaken for just another star on the horizon
|
No Jeanne, this mistake cannot be made, at least not from a ship's bridge, as the masthead light (which a yacht should not be showing when under sail alone) is too low for that.
Quote:
Reading Rule 36 carefully , It becomes clear that the use of a Strobe light which could be mistaken for ANY aid for navigation - Is illegal and becomes a hazard to those vessels underway. Specific examples include the flashing lights of light houses and other navigation beacon lights. There the use of a strobe appears to be allowed ONLY when there are no other aids to navigation that could be visible to ships and other watercraft
|
And yet this does not prevent submarines and hovercraft being prescribed the use of flashing lights, as are purse-seiners when shooting or hauling nets as well as coastguard and rescue vessels. Admittedly, these flashing lights, with the exception of hovercraft(Rule 23) and fishing vessels (Annex II), are prescribed in national rather than international rules but the fact remains that they are there and sanctioned.
In fact, the only thing identifying a submarine from a hovercraft (as far as lights are concerned) is the frequency of the flash. To me that sounds a little dangerous seeing as hovercraft zoom around at 50 plus knots whereas most conventional subs have a very limited surface speed.
There is no doubt about the fact that the lights prescribed for yachts are, relatively speaking, difficult to see. Red and green are not greatly visible if compared with white or yellow lights.
Regarding the issue of shining a light into the wheelhouse windows of a large merchant ship; if you can do that you are way too close! Better to get out of the way early instead. As a ship's officer, I always kept a good lookout and kept out of the way of yachts when I was in open waters but nonetheless my advice to cruisers is to keep out of the way of big ships. You may have right of way but you may not want that to be your epitaph.
Aye // Stephen
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|