Sinking of Melinda Lee, 3 deaths
Geoff Kuenning
I'll start with a summary. All of my information is from reports in
the Los Angeles Times (the people involved were local to my area), so
there's a frustrating lack of nautical details. I'm also working from
memory, so please forgive any minor errors.
A 47-foot sailing vessel, the Melinda Lee, was run down and sunk near
New Zealand in the past few days. The yacht was crewed by a husband
and wife, Michael and Judith Smeavin (?), of Santa Clarita, California
(near Los Angeles), who were on a 5-year RTW trip with their two
children, Benjamin, 9, and Anna Rose, 7 (?). Judith was on night
watch in heavy seas when a motor vessel, probably a cargo ship,
collided with them abeam. (The vessel has not yet been identified.)
It is theorized that Benjamin was killed in the collision. The life
raft was also lost when the Melinda Lee went down. Judith managed to
awaken her husband and daughter, and they launched and boarded the
dinghy (an inflatable, I believe). They were washed overboard at
least once and reboarded, hanging on to lines to try to stay aboard.
After about 8 hours, Anna Rose began to lose her strength and was
eventually washed overboard. Michael swam after her and never
returned.
After drifting for about two days, Judith landed on a coast.
Meanwhile, a search was initiated when the family failed to arrive
according to plan, and Judith was found relatively promptly, suffering
from exposure and two cracked vertebrae.
I don't know what to say about this. From the news reports, the
Smeavins did everything right. They had EPIRBs and a life raft. They
were both experienced sailors (Michael took up sailing in his college
days; Judith had crewed on a one-year offshore passage as explicit
preparation for the trip.) They filed a float plan, and they kept a
proper watch. The news accounts don't mention anything about radar,
but it's reasonable to assume that they had a reflector in the rigging
when they were hit. Since they were sailing on a budget, they may not
have had their own radar, or they may have been trying to avoid using
it to economize on power.
Does anybody have more details on this incident? Was there something
one might do to avoid this sort of thing, or is this just one of those
unlucky happenstances that strike the best-prepared, sort of like
having a drunk driver pick your car to drive into?
--
Geoff Kuenning g.kue...@ieee.org ge...@ITcorp.com
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/ficus-members/geoff/
Dr Bruce Fairlie
The vessel suspected of being involved in this incident was due into
port in Melbourne,Victoria, this morning. It is a container vessel
sailing under a Russian flag, according to the local radio news this
(29/11) morning. An investigation is to follow. I will keep you
posted.
--
Bruce Fairlie,
Head Air to Surface Operations, Air Operations Division, Phone: +61 3 9626 7467
DSTO, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Fax: +61 3 9626 7085
506 Lorimer St, Fishermens Bend, Victoria, 3207, AUSTRALIA.
Ron Dwelle
them. I can't lay my hands on it now.
Fritz Zaucker
According to the Miami Herald, the wife said that she had been on
watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
them.
This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
Fritz
--
Dr. Fritz Zaucker Phone: (305) 361 4405
NOAA/AOML/OCD Fax: (305) 361 4582
4301 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
.
>I'd expected to see something about this by now, but since I haven't,
>I'll start with a summary. All of my information is from reports in
>the Los Angeles Times (the people involved were local to my area), so
>there's a frustrating lack of nautical details. I'm also working from
>memory, so please forgive any minor errors.
>A 47-foot sailing vessel, the Melinda Lee, was run down and sunk near
>New Zealand in the past few days. The yacht was crewed by a husband
>Does anybody have more details on this incident? Was there something
>one might do to avoid this sort of thing, or is this just one of those
>unlucky happenstances that strike the best-prepared, sort of like
>having a drunk driver pick your car to drive into?
>--
> stayed out of the water?
Bob Richardson
>watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
>them.
>
>This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
The report in the Seattle papers indicated that winds were blowing
about 50 knots. In such weather, waves are likely to be
in the 25 foot range. Pitch black, 3:00 AM, 50 knots, 25+ foot
seas, probably raining but certainly the wind blowing the tops
of waves off. When you're on the top of a wave, they're in
a trough. It doesn't surprise me too much that you could be
surprised suddenly by a cargo boat.
Also, in that weather and those seas, you don't have a ton of
manoeuverability. As I've mentioned several times on this net,
in my experience the commercial cargo boats RARELY have their
radar turned on, if they have it at all.
Bob
Richard Gladwell
on watch and "heavily dressed" which helped her to survive the 40 hours.
The yacht was hit on it's port side and filled with water within 20 seconds.
The other two members of the family were only clad in light clothing and
succumbed to the cold within a few hours.
The inflatable dinghy had been tied onto the forward deck of the Melinda Lee
as was being dragged down by the sinking yacht when the securing rope broke
and it floated free.
Judith Sleavin is still in hospital and is expected to remian there for some
time with exposure and two broken vertabrae.
The Melinda Lee sank at 0212hrs on Friday morning NZT, 30 miles NE of Cape
Brett (at the entrance to the Bay of Islands).
Australian maritime inspectors are expected to board a Russian freighter
this morning, when it docks in Melbourne. There were several ships in the
area at the time. However the newspaper report states that "the Australian
authorities were not awaiting any instructions from New Zealand and no New
Zealand investigation of the ship was planned at this stage. We are
getting information on all ships that passed through that part of the
Bay of islands at that time." (quote from the acting direrctor of the NZ
Maritime safety Authority.
Richard Gladwell NZL
Richard Gladwell
Geoff Kuenning
Ron Dwelle <dwe...@river.it.gvsu.edu> writes:
> I think there was an article in Cruising World last July (?) by or about
> them. I can't lay my hands on it now.
I believe that one of the LA Times articles quoted a sentence from the
article. It may have been in their brief "passage notes" section. I
haven't looked for it myself.
Scott Truesdell
> According to the Miami Herald, the wife said that she had been on
> watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
> them.
>
> This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
It sure does!
Ships don't "suddenly appear."
--scott
Peter Rachtman
--
Internet ProLink NZ
New Zealand's Professional Internet Service
phone: +64-9-302-3352
fax: +64-9-302-3341
modem: +64-9-302-2507
Geoff,
Here in New Zealand, the story has been front page. Has certainly touched
the people.
However, not too many details as yet. Accident is being investigated by
NZ Maritime Safety Authority.
It was thought they had been hit by a Russian freighter leaving Auckland
for Melbourne, Australia. Ship later broke down three days out of
Melbourne. However, ship has been intercepted and boarded by
Australian Govt (evidently routine inspection as one engine
dead). They 'cleared' boat from involvement in collision. Our
Government says they are still investigating all ships which were tracked
in area.
The boat was 30 miles NE of Cape Brett, on the eastern edge of Bay of
Island, popular cruising area. Amazing that dinghy drifted to shore and
that she was discovered on fairly rugged coast.
It is an amazing and horrible story. One child lost when boat sunk. She,
her husband and another child clinging to semi-inflated tender (not a
life raft). Husband tries to rescue child who was swept from boat and
both lost.
Inflatable had been tied on fore-deck and started to sink with boat, but
broke free and floated to surface.
Reports are that Mrs. Sleavin in Whangarei Hospital where she will be
"for quite some time."
I may try to update this story when all is known.
Hope this helps,
JF Petrich
school. I remember him as a really nice guy with lots of enthusiasm for
life. This is such a sad way of finding out about him.
Fair winds and following seas Mike....
Smooth sailing,~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~
Joe Petrich
Ron Force
> I'd expected to see something about this by now, but since I haven't,
> I'll start with a summary. All of my information is from reports in
> the Los Angeles Times (the people involved were local to my area), so
> there's a frustrating lack of nautical details. I'm also working from
> memory, so please forgive any minor errors.
Our link has been inoperative for a couple of days, so apologies if
someone else has posted additional details.
The wife was on watch, but apparently fell asleep, and was awakened by
the collision. There were five freighters in the area. Calls to four of
them on a hailing frequency elicited no response (indicating sloppy, or
no watch being kept?).
I saw a PTV program last year on life aboard a container vessel. These
are being run on very limited budgets, with skeleton crews. The first
officer on this one had a difficult schedule--the program showed him
falling asleep every time he sat down.
One should not assume a vigilent watch aboard commercial vessels--don't
fall asleep in shipping lanes!
******************************************************************************
Ron Force rfo...@uidaho.edu
Dean of Library Services (208) 885-6534
University of Idaho Library "With all this horse manure, there
Moscow, ID 83844-2371 must be a pony here somewhere."
******************************************************************************
Marvin Alan Nixon
Brian Cleverly
I spoke with a friend who (enroute from Rarotonga) was caught in the
same storm as the unfortunate family, and he said that at times
visibility was ****ZERO****.
Having done a lot of sailing in NZ waters, I can attest to the fact
that some of their storms are *violent* in the extreme and zero
visibility is not uncommon.
In those conditions (my friend said he was hove-to for 8 hours), even
if you can see the big guy, in all probability you would not be able to
alter course fast enough (or safely) to get out of his way. You have
to rely on radio contact and hope he can alter course a couple of
degrees.
I can also attest to the fact that of all the commercial shipping I've
encountered on the high seas, the majority seem to have either no watch
at all or, at best, a highly incompetent one. Some of those big guys
can take 10 minutes to answer repeated calls on VHF16!!!!
With a sad heart,
Brian Cleverly
Scott Truesdell
> zau...@aoml.erl.gov wrote:
>
> > According to the Miami Herald, the wife said that she had been on
> > watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
> > them.
> >
> > This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
>
>
> It sure does!
>
> Ships don't "suddenly appear."
I retract this statement.
In the conditions at the time of the incident (middle of the night,
howling wind, high seas, alone on deck) it is quite possible that ships
"suddenly appear" out of nowhere. One hopes that one's vigilance prevents
such occurances, but they DO happen.
--scott
Bill Di Marco
true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) wrote:
>In article <p4zqdft...@suabo.aoml.erl.gov>, zau...@aoml.erl.gov wrote:
>
>> According to the Miami Herald, the wife said that she had been on
>> watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
>> them.
>>
>> This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
>
>
>It sure does!
>
>Ships don't "suddenly appear."
>
To those who are saying this,
Thank your lucky stars that you have obviously never been in a such as storm.
Bill Di Marco dig...@ids.net Real-Time
DSS DSP Systems
29 Touro St.,Newport, RI 02840
(401) 849 1905 voice (401) 848 7540 fax
CDB100620
correct. Many ships have no one paying attention on the bridge once they
are on the high seas. Often have radar turned off. Lots of less
reputable shipping lines employ less than top of the line crew, including
drunks, goldbricks and incompetents.
When you sail, as when you ride a motorcycle, you should assume nobody
sees you, and if they should happen to, that they will try to hit you.
Paranoid? Yes. Prudent? Also yes.
Incidentally, if you haven't experienced a storm on the high seas at
night, you can't understand how easy it would be to fail to see a huge
ship bearing down on you.
I also suspect that human nature played a part in the tragedy: in three
years of night watches nothing has happened, so probably nothing will
happen. On this miserable cold night, it will be okay to huddle down in
the cockpit and maybe catch a few winks. You curl up out of the raging
wind, get comfortable, doze off--and the hand of God, in the shape of a
10,000-ton freighter, sweeps out of the sky and smacks you
ass-over-teakettle. That's the way the game is played.
Keith Pennington
Brian Smith
: The report in the Seattle papers indicated that winds were blowing
: about 50 knots. In such weather, waves are likely to be
: in the 25 foot range. Pitch black, 3:00 AM, 50 knots, 25+ foot
: seas, probably raining but certainly the wind blowing the tops
: of waves off. When you're on the top of a wave, they're in
: a trough. It doesn't surprise me too much that you could be
: surprised suddenly by a cargo boat.
In addition to that, it's incredibly hard to see if spray and rain is blowing
into your eyes. In high winds it's almost like being hit in the eyes with
blunt needles. You have to look up, take a quick look and then shut your
eyes within about a second while you let the pain subside. Then you do it
again. Only happened to me once. I have had goggles around ever since
but I have never had to use them.
B.S!
Flip214
world. I recently had my first oppertunity to visit the bridge of a large
freighter in port. I was terrified to learn that you had to look forward
more than a mile before you could even see the water ahead of you. As far
as radar is concerned. To see a small radar reflector in seas over 25'
with rain would truly be imposible. Anyone who has ever been at sea in a
storm ( and this sounds like a pretty good one) understands how difficult
it is to see even the next wave sometimes. It would be very easy to not
see a freighter. I recently almost collided with the entire state of
Florida while trying to come back in poor conditions. I think what
happened is everyone's worst nightmare and no one could find alot of fault
anywhere.
Greg
Dave Robertson
Folks
As a 'net user, I hate the soapbox and never use it. However, there's
always a first time....
(IMHO - flame away) I know that we boaters are given to looking critically
at the actions of others - we watch our neighbours when they fluff it
coming into the slip, we all goggle at each other's sail trim. It's comes
with the community....
But, let's remember that we're all in this together. Let's remember
* That three other boaters have died in a tragic accident
* That *someone*, we don't know who, made a mistake that night
* This was an accident - no one would make this happen intentionally.
I consider myself to be an experienced boater and I've made plenty of
stupid mistakes. By the grace of God, I'll live to make quite a bunch more
- it comes with the territory.
By all means, let's be sure to learn what we can from this, but let's
leave judgement for the court of enquiry.
Dave
--
Dave Robertson
drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com
Applied Information Technology Program, Capilano College
Vancouver, BC
Terry Schell;x3332
>Ships don't "suddenly appear."
> --scott
I bet to differ...
There is reason to believe that visiblity was reduced in this
instance (by rain, high-seas, and spray). If visibility is
reduced to 1/6 mile and the cargo ship was cruising at 20 knots - there
would be all of 30 sec. to: a) see the ship b)judge the course and
bearing of the ship, and c) manouver your boat out of the way. All
this assumes that the ship wasn't approaching from behind the sails,
where it would not be seen for even longer.
If visibility were reduced to 150 yards - there would be only be 15
seconds to do all three steps. It simply wouldn't be possible in a
boat that only goes 4-6 knots. I would say the ship "suddenly
appeared."
You also don't seem to be placing much blame on the *ship's* crew.
Sailboats suddenly appear about as often as ships do. It takes two
boats to make a collision - there is plenty of blame to go around.
If it were up to me, I would say that the faster moving ship is *always*
to blame in a collision in reduced visibility. Specifically, if you
cannot see, say, 2 minutes ahead of yourself - then you are not giving
enough time for *others* to avoid a collision with you. Therefore,
you are taking full responsibility for any accident. You need to
either slow down or trust your radar/lawyers.
IMHO,
Terry Schell
Larry DeMers
>Scott Truesdell (true...@ics.uci.edu) wrote:
>: In article <p4zqdft...@suabo.aoml.erl.gov>, zau...@aoml.erl.gov wrote:
>
>: > According to the Miami Herald, the wife said that she had been on
>: > watch when suddenly this big cargo boat appeared and bore down on
>: > them.
>: >
>: > This seemed like a rather strange statement to me.
>
>
>: It sure does!
>
>
>
>: --scott
If you have 50 kn of wind, it is dark out, and the waves are 20 ft.+,
perhaps this would allow your imagination to picture a ship suddenly appearing
where none were before!
LarryD.
Brett Leach
> The report in the Seattle papers indicated that winds were blowing
> about 50 knots. In such weather, waves are likely to be
> in the 25 foot range. Pitch black, 3:00 AM, 50 knots, 25+ foot
> seas, probably raining but certainly the wind blowing the tops
> of waves off. When you're on the top of a wave, they're in
> a trough. It doesn't surprise me too much that you could be
> surprised suddenly by a cargo boat.
>
> Also, in that weather and those seas, you don't have a ton of
> manoeuverability. As I've mentioned several times on this net,
> in my experience the commercial cargo boats RARELY have their
> radar turned on, if they have it at all.
>
1 - Cargo vessels usually *DO* have their radars on.
2 - The mate on watch, particularly in a vessel with a lax flag state
(Liberia, Panama, wherever) may not know how to operate it.
3 - In heavy seas, such as described above, even the best radar, with the
best operators, would have a tough, if not impossible time picking out
anything that was not large and ferrous (with the possible exception of a
land mass.) Older radars are iffy even in lesser sea conditions.
Brett Leach
email - bre...@mail.utexas.edu
snail - 2308 Pruett St. Austin, TX 78703 USA
phone - 512-477-3155
fax - 512-708-8826
Brett Leach
email - bre...@mail.utexas.edu
snail - 2308 Pruett St. Austin, TX 78703 USA
phone - 512-477-3155
fax - 708-8826
moo...@clark.net
pat tilson
John Worthington
That is, interpreting radar returns isn't. It's not like a big arrow pops
up and points to the targets. Frequently there is a problem with
background clutter, especially with high sea states.
I think if would be difficult for unexperienced crews. Besides, they're
just really looking to see if there is anything big (like a land mass)
around.
jw
Dave Robertson
Maybe its time to take this thread out of the specifics of *this*
accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn from
this. I will, with some shame, offer up the first one.
My wife and were crewing for a skipper headed out of Whangerei (on the
north end of the North Island of New Zealand) to Noumea in New Caledonia.
Things got pretty yucky after the first night and by the third day, we
were letting the boat (a big traditional sort of Tahiti ketch) sail
herself under staysail - in a location frighteningly close to the sinking
of the Melinda Lee. We were taking a decent pounding but we could have
kept a watch in the cockpit. The skipper said to forget it and while we
kept a watch, it consisted of popping a head out the hatch every 15
minutes.
Hindsight being 20/20, I would not do it this way now! Could we say it's a
good idea to keep a watch in the cockpit unless it's dangerous? Opinions
are welcome!
If we get some good responses here, maybe I'll tell you about the day (on
the same trip) that we spotted a deep sea container ship going by and
asked him if he could see us in his radar.....The answer was *very*
scary.....
Diana Sikora
Association and had visited our Home Base offices in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. This tragic accident is truly "the offshore sailor's worst
nightmare." Their friends in the cruising community will miss them.
/|\
SEVEN SEAS CRUISING ASSOCIATION / |\ \
1525 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 217 / | \ \
/______| \_\
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33316 |______\
Phone: 305-463-2431 (--------)
Fax: 305-463-7183 ~~~~~~~~~~~\______/~~~~~~~~~
ss...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
ALWAYS LEAVE A CLEAN WAKE!!!
IIS/NA FAI
watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
Andre' Levy
In article <4a31ep$e...@news.nstn.ca> Jo...@plexus.altair.on.ca (John Turgoose) writes:
>
>I have been a deep sea (Norwegian tankers/bulk carriers
>Canadian Coast Guard) radio officer and deckhand. In a storm off
>Japan; seas about 50 feet; seing ANYTHING was darn near
>impossible; the radar just showed clutter (from the waves and
>spray) and speed was about 10 knots to keep way in the seas. I
>was wheelsman =- and it was all I could do to keep course and NOT
>broadside into the troughs ( which might have sunk us due to
>high lumber deck load).
>The point - if ANY small vessel was around - it wouldn't
>couldn't be seen visually or by radar - and our ship could not
>slow down or steer around things due to danger to itself.
>Sailboats HAVE to keep out of the way....
>My deepsest sympathy to all concerned with the Melinda Lee.
Jon
moving boat can come up on one, even under the best of situations. I
used to boat on the East Coast and have sailed in and out of New York
Harbor many times. In the best of weather what seemed like a vague
distant ship suddenly looms just before you. If you are closing at a
combined speed of 25 or 30 knots (5 to 6 knots for you and 20+ knots
for some new freighters) and you are low in the water, it takes
surprisingly few minutes to close the distance between boats. Add rough
weather, a dismal night with limited visibility and the time is VERY
short to close, if visibility is down to a mile in that foul weather,
there would be approximately two minutes of visibility of each boat to
the other. Add the fact that a watch must be kept around 360 degrees
of horizon, the time spent on the 1 or 2 degrees to be watched to see
the approach of a random ship is very short with minutes between scans
of any given area with some scans missing the ship because of an
intervening swell and the odds become pretty good to NOT see the ship.
Add fatigue, sea sickness and this tragedy is all the more
understandable.
Jon Larson
Cape Dory 30 PERI
San Francisco Bay (Coyote Point)
In <1995Dec4.1...@ned.cray.com> demers@labman (Larry DeMers)
writes:
RaulB10421
weather.
Contrary to what one writer posted, I have seen cargo freighters who did
not have their radars functioning while navigating (not detectable by
radar detectors) and even some with their running lights off or
malfunctioning. Moreover, I have been surprised by cargo freighters
running at high speed ludicrously close to the beach and reefs in the
Miami area. It seems that although most freighters I have encountered are
manned by competent crew, there are some renegades out there that are a
menace to everything around them.
Therefore, the fact is that even the best equipped yachts with competent,
wakeful watches can still be surprised by a freighter at night in
inclement weather.
John Turgoose
> In <truesdel-301...@yeti.ics.uci.edu> true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes:
>
>
> > --scott
I don't normally post - but felt I had to this time.....
I have been a deep sea (Norwegian tankers/bulk carriers
Canadian Coast Guard) radio officer and deckhand. In a storm off
Japan; seas about 50 feet; seing ANYTHING was darn near
impossible; the radar just showed clutter (from the waves and
spray) and speed was about 10 knots to keep way in the seas. I
was wheelsman =- and it was all I could do to keep course and NOT
broadside into the troughs ( which might have sunk us due to
high lumber deck load).
The point - if ANY small vessel was around - it wouldn't
couldn't be seen visually or by radar - and our ship could not
slow down or steer around things due to danger to itself.
Sailboats HAVE to keep out of the way....
My deepsest sympathy to all concerned with the Melinda Lee.
Rgds
John
.signature under construction
Petr Baum
>Maybe its time to take this thread out of the specifics of *this*
>accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn from
>this.
Melinda Lee case is very sad one surely it is not an exception: I am
sure that many boats which disappear without trace are actually run
down by large ships who are not aware of accident or do not report it.
What to do ...
1) we have to assume that even responsible large ship cannot do much,
because
a) lookout will have difficulty to see small boat visually if
visibility is not much more than multiple of the length of ship itself
(if small boat is close enough it will be in a "blind spot" under the
bow of large ship, if it is farther away it will be hardly visible
because of weather).
b) radar is not much of help in heavy weather due to background
clutter and small target presented.
c) we have to assume that significant number of large ships are
steered by autopilot and have no lookout at all. This apparently
happens even in such busy places as English Channel - let alone
elsewhere.
2) _Small boat have to look after themselves_.
3) What can be done:
a) there can be radar sensing device, which will alert crew if it is
in the range of radar and possibly activate aircraft style strobe on
top of mast to make small boat significantly more visible visually. It
should be agreed by international agreement that large ships have to
have a radar on during poor visibility (not much pain or cost for them
anyway)
b) transponder (I hope that it is a correct term) instead of radar
reflector will provide much better feedback to large ship radar.
c) Single person in cockpit of small boat cannot be expected to look
after his/her boat *and* scan horizon a few times a minute for number
of hours if weather is really poor. Even if it would be possible
available time may be insufficient for successful evasive action. Only
answer is a radar, which can give early warning and which can help to
decide if large ship is on collision course in time to decide what
action is necessary. Large ship will be visible on small boats radar
from sufficient distance in almost any conditions.
--
Petr Baum
/ -------- * * * ------------ \
< <pe...@melb.dialix.oz.au> >
\ ----- * * * * * * * ------- /
^ \--- PGP 463A14D5 ----/ ^
^----------------^
Petr Baum
Paul Rodman
>3) What can be done:
>
>a) there can be radar sensing device, which will alert crew if it is
>
>reflector will provide much better feedback to large ship radar.
>
>decide if large ship is on collision course in time to decide what
>action is necessary. Large ship will be visible on small boats radar
>from sufficient distance in almost any conditions.
>
I wonder how hard it is to pick up the subsonic noises emitted by the
engines / props of larger ships? I would think this would be safer than using
a radar detector and less expensive and power hungry than running
your own radar.
I suppose you could still run into the big boat if it was dead in the water
but you probably won't sink him...;)
Any former sonar operators out there? Anyone know how hard it is to pick
up these sounds? Can you do it with a physically small device? (Don't really
want to tow anything). We don't really need a heading to the boat so one
microphone would be enough, I'd think..
It would also be fun to have such a device in order to listen to other natural
underwater sounds.
-paul
rod...@sgi.com
LinX Unlimited
>Say, folks?
>Maybe its time to take this thread out of the specifics of *this*
>accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn from
>this. I will, with some shame, offer up the first one.
>My wife and were crewing for a skipper headed out of Whangerei (on the
>north end of the North Island of New Zealand) to Noumea in New Caledonia.
>Things got pretty yucky after the first night and by the third day, we
>were letting the boat (a big traditional sort of Tahiti ketch) sail
>herself under staysail - in a location frighteningly close to the sinking
>of the Melinda Lee. We were taking a decent pounding but we could have
>kept a watch in the cockpit. The skipper said to forget it and while we
>kept a watch, it consisted of popping a head out the hatch every 15
>minutes.
>Hindsight being 20/20, I would not do it this way now! Could we say it's a
>good idea to keep a watch in the cockpit unless it's dangerous? Opinions
>are welcome!
>If we get some good responses here, maybe I'll tell you about the day (on
>the same trip) that we spotted a deep sea container ship going by and
>asked him if he could see us in his radar.....The answer was *very*
>scary.....
>Dave
>--
>Dave Robertson
>drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com
>Applied Information Technology Program, Capilano College
>Vancouver, BC
Hear, hear,
Let's move on. Anyone wishing to explain the vagaries of *weather*
and how things DO *appear* really will never succeed when trying to
explain it to someone who hasn't been there -- or some situation
mighty, mighty close. The level of full appreciation just does not
exist.
I would be more interested in Dave's "variation on a thread"; and, I'd
like to hear, Dave, about the response from the ship.
For my own part, I was helping a friend move a newly purchased boat
from San Diego up the coast. We simply "went around the corner" the
first night and stopped in Oceanside. Next morning we set off for
Port Hueneme with expected landfall just off the mouth of the harbor.
The weather we encountered was soupy fog with big lumps and occasional
rain showers. At times visibility would open out to a hundred yards
or more, and, at other times, it would close to mere feet. We poked
along at about 5 knots and, as navigator, I parked myself at the radar
set. There were no hiccups save when we passed close aboard a lovely,
new 36' - 38' fiberglass trawler. He appeared "out of nowhere", in
some clutter on the radarscope. No, hardly a container ship, but had
we been the careless type and pushing the boat at speed (a 55'
catamaran) there could have been rather more than the, "Jeez, where
the #$@& did HE come from" and the resultant hard turn.
As for the rest of the trip, we encountered two ships moving through
the traffic separation scheme off Long Beach. Though we never sighted
them, based on the surprise appearance of the trawler, we simply
assumed they couldn't see us and maneuvered to avoid.
Cheers, all.
Roger
LinX Unlimited <|
14615 Manchester Road, Suite 203 |
Manchester, MO 63011 |
|
some serious golf .....|
Brian Sullivan
>From: le...@fujitsu.com (IIS/NA FAI)
>Subject: Re: Sinking of Melinda Lee, 3 deaths
>Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:33:16 -0800
>While I certainly agree that a small vessel needs to both keep a proper
>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>vessel not under command don't seem to apply).
I thought the same thing .... BUT!
I have been told, that while motor defers to sail this is
within the same class. Motor Pleasure defers to sail pleasure.
Motor Commercial gives way to sail commercial. BUT pleasure
gives way to commercial.
Can anyone clarify this ...
Makes sense ... expecting 100,000's of tons or oil
tanker to make way for 5 ton sail boat is hardly reasonable. From personnel
experience in much smaller seas I know I can see a tanker quite a
ways off ... and as others have mentioned when contacted by radio
they had no idea I was about. As well I could turn it about in a few
hundred yards ... a large ship might need a quarter mile.
All that said ... any loss of live is sad!
Doug Isherwood
>While I certainly agree that a small vessel needs to both keep a proper
>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
>that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
>to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
>
>Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
>
That's when you're DEAD right.
It takes a freighter a LONG time to alter course or stop. Give them a
lot of room when in doubt about their awareness of your presence.
--
Doug Isherwood
e-mail: dou...@io.org
Petr Baum
>Maybe its time to take this thread out of the specifics of *this*
>accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn from
>this.
Melinda Lee case is very sad one surely it is not an exception: I am
sure that many boats which disappear without trace are actually run
down by large ships who are not aware of accident or do not report it.
What to do ...
1) we have to assume that even responsible large ship cannot do much,
because
a) lookout will have difficulty to see small boat visually if
visibility is not much more than multiple of the length of ship itself
(if small boat is close enough it will be in a "blind spot" under the
bow of large ship, if it is farther away it will be hardly visible
because of weather).
b) radar is not much of help in heavy weather due to background
clutter and small target presented.
c) we have to assume that significant number of large ships are
steered by autopilot and have no lookout at all. This apparently
happens even in such busy places as English Channel - let alone
elsewhere.
2) _Small boat have to look after themselves_.
3) What can be done:
a) there can be radar sensing device, which will alert crew if it is
in the range of radar and possibly activate aircraft style strobe on
top of mast to make small boat significantly more visible visually. It
should be agreed by international agreement that large ships have to
have a radar on during poor visibility (not much pain or cost for them
anyway)
b) transponder (I hope that it is a correct term) instead of radar
reflector will provide much better feedback to large ship radar.
c) Single person in cockpit of small boat cannot be expected to look
after his/her boat *and* scan horizon a few times a minute for number
of hours if weather is really poor. Even if it would be possible
available time may be insufficient for successful evasive action. Only
answer is a radar, which can give early warning and which can help to
decide if large ship is on collision course in time to decide what
action is necessary. Large ship will be visible on small boats radar
from sufficient distance in almost any conditions.
Paul Kamen
horn" that would contain the same information that used to be
communicated by the blast of a horn, but in a much nicer package.
This would be a simple GPS combined with an even simpler VHF radio, using
a designated VHF frequency. At random intervals, apporox. ever few
seconds, each vessel broadcasts an ecoded message containing position,
speed, and vessel type (and, in a few years, global cell-pone number).
The receiver/decoder could have a simple graphical display, or a
text-based "traffic status" analysis.
Note that hardware cost is only a few hundred dollars - GPS+VHF - and the
power consumption is tiny.
We had a debate out this on rec.boats a year or so ago, with inconclusive
results. But it turns out that the Coast Guard and/or FCC has actually
planned such a system at one time, and allocated bandwidth - but the
market showed no signs of responding and the program was dropped.
Maybe that was before anyone realized just how cheap GPS receivers were
going to be.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/user/pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Ed Filkins
>From: le...@fujitsu.com (IIS/NA FAI)
>Subject: Re: Sinking of Melinda Lee, 3 deaths
>Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:33:16 -0800
>While I certainly agree that a small vessel needs to both keep a proper
>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
>that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
>to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
>Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
>Andre' Levy
First off you are assuming that the motor driven vessel even knows that the
sailing vessel is there.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Story of times I've almost killed myself #312,564
My wife and I where sailing a Compac 16 off of Turkey Point in the north
Chesapeake Bay, The wife was at the helm (tiller) and I was below (on a Compac
16?) working on the elect system (ok. the tape player stopped working).
After about 10 minutes with my head below, I looked up at the wife at the
stern and noticed a very big SHIP not 300 YARD behind us!!! We where in the
middle of the C&D canal shipping lane. Well for once the little 5 hp outboard
started on the first pull and we where out of there.
It was a clear, nice summer day.
Edward Filkins S/V 'JoyBells' a Coronado 35'
efil...@vnet.net
http://www.vnet.net/users/efilkins/sailing.html (Living Aboard & Cruising)
Larry Budd
linx...@ix.netcom.com (LinX Unlimited) wrote:
>drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com (Dave Robertson) wrote:
>
>>Say, folks?
>
>>accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn
from
Last summer we were crossing Lake Ontario from Rochester to
Toronto. This is as close to an offshore passage as we can get,
stuck in the middle of North America, but can be just as hazardous
and difficult at times with land a lot closer to bump into.
It was a perfect sailing day, clear unlimited visibility and
we were totally out of site of land; on a Port tack, beam reaching
at over 6 knots. I went below to grab a drink and a sandwich while
my mate was dozing (we had departed at 0500). When I returned to the
cockpit, there appeared to be a large ship off our Port bow a few
miles away. I checked the LORAN and the chart and sure enough we
were just crossing the downbound shipping lane and were looking like
a collision course. A quick tack got us out of the way, but when he
passed, we were close enough to see his bow wave. The whole incident
transpirred in just a few minutes. If someone had not been on watch
it could have been a most unpleasant outcome. And that was on a
perfect day, in a small great lake.
After we tacked, I contacted the ship by VHF. They had been
watching us on radar from before we had seen them! Interestingly,
CABARET does not fly a radar reflector but they saw us very well
even though we're a plastic boat with a standard alluminum stick.
Lesson - ALWAYS KEEP WATCH AND BE PREPARED TO REACT QUICKLY!
LB on CABARET
Paul Kamen
>...
>I have been a deep sea (Norwegian tankers/bulk carriers
>Canadian Coast Guard) radio officer and deckhand. In a storm off
>Japan; seas about 50 feet; seing ANYTHING was darn near
>impossible; the radar just showed clutter (from the waves and
>spray) and speed was about 10 knots to keep way in the seas....
A perfect example of a situation where an encoded broadcast of GPS position
and speed might be more useful than radar.
tve...@cam.org
>
> Roger wrote:
> >
> > I would be more interested in Dave's "variation on a thread"; and, I'd
> > like to hear, Dave, about the response from the ship.
> >
>
> a nice clear day. We were about 100 miles in a wood boat off the coast of
> North Australia heading in after a passage from New Caledonia.
>
>[snip]
>
> He got quite angry about the encounter, claiming that the ship would have
> seen him on radar and should have stayed out of his way (as a sailing
> vessel) I buttoned my lip - it was one of the worst moments I've had on a
> boat when he asked *me* what I thought.....
>
> The next day, we called the container ship to see if he could get us on
> radar. Nope! The first mate, who responded quickly to our call, said that
> he had to turn the sea clutter way down before we turned up on the tube.
> This, despite a radar reflector and that the skipper had stuffed the
> hollow wood mast with ?!alimuninum foil?!
>
> He was a little sobered by these events.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Dave Robertson
> drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com
> Applied Information Technology Program, Capilano College
> Vancouver, BC
>
>>>>
been the subject of many conversations at the "club". The stark reality is that large ships
almost always use the long range setting so that sea clutter is "squelched". A merchant
seaman I've known for years says the most effective device is a masttop strobe light.
He says commercial shipping always has somebody pacing the bridge and that a white
strobe in the night is difficult to ignore. Even with a visual contact though, you may not get
the ship to alter course but at least they're alerted to your presence.
Tim
Dave Robertson
Roger wrote:
>
> I would be more interested in Dave's "variation on a thread"; and, I'd
> like to hear, Dave, about the response from the ship.
>
Well, since you asked, we had a big container ship pass across our bows on
a nice clear day. We were about 100 miles in a wood boat off the coast of
North Australia heading in after a passage from New Caledonia.
The night before, we'd had a close (1/4 mile) encounter with an tramp
freighter while the skipper was on watch. A loud yell from the cockpit had
Annalise (my wife) and I on deck in seconds.... I hit the radio to
establish contact and Annalise helped the skipper, who was at this stage
asking which end of the ship was the front. As it turned out, it was
travelling very slowly (less than six knots for whatever reason) and
Annalise just pointed the skipper out of the way - no biggie. In the end,
it turned out that he was just tired and got disoriented and it didn't
help that he wasn't too good at his lights...
Larry DeMers
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 17:16:17 -0500
Organization: Gateway Polynesia, Rarotonga, Cook Islands
**This is the first in a series of letters from my friend Austin Whitten,
of Toronto, Canada. He is in the South Pacific, on the Island of Rarotonga in
the Cook Islands, where he is currently repairing a damaged engine and making
repairs to his boat. This series of letters is interesting from many viewpoints,and if you should care to, I am sure that Austin would be receptive to some
correspondence from members of this group.
Housekeeping notes: My address as shown in the "From" field is sick..Please
post any correspondence to me at the following Addr:
dem...@cray.com
Austin's address is: awhi...@gatepoly.co.ck
*******************************************************************************
Larry,
We didn't get to New Zealand as planned this year. There were
several setbacks - first my mum had a medical problem and I had to
fly back from French Polynesia, then we had engine problems and
there were delays in leaving for the Cooks. The engine gave up the
ghost on Aitutaki, our first island. There were no mechanics on the
island, so we sailed to Rarotonga, the main island in the group.
It's very civilised here, so we decided to stay for the cyclone
season, rather than sailing on to New Zealand without an engine. We
have a nice one-bedroom furnished apartment with a back yard for
less than half what it would cost back home. An Internet gateway
company has just started up on the island with rudimentary services
currently (I'm using a crude off-line mailer), but is scheduled to
be upgraded to SLIP-PPP soon, so I'll be able to go back to
Eudora, thank heaven.
I'll have several projects to keep me busy this summer (down here).
We are doing a bit of pioneering as nobody stays in the Cook Islands
so I've had to identify haulout facilitiies, storage for the boat
(right in back of our flat) and cradle construction. So, I should
be able to write about our experiences. I also have some computer
projects on the go - a system for supporting weather activities
by a dedicated buff on the island who has been supplying weather
information to yachties for years (Arnold, of Arnold's Net - you
may have read about him), and some Internet work for the novices
on the island (just about everybody).
I'll write more, but perhaps I'll wait to see if you are still
on-line. Has there been any interesting threads in rec.boats since
I've been away, or has it been all "Guns 'n Roses" as before?
Best wishes, Austin Whitten awhi...@gatepoly.co.ck
Jim Maynard
>From: Brian_S...@Carleton.CA (Brian Sullivan)
>Subject: Re: Sinking of Melinda Lee, 3 deaths
>I have been told, that while motor defers to sail this is
>within the same class. Motor Pleasure defers to sail pleasure.
>Motor Commercial gives way to sail commercial. BUT pleasure
>gives way to commercial.
>Can anyone clarify this ...
You have been told wrong. You need to learn the rules of the road
not by the rather unreliable word-of-mouth method, but by purchasing
a copy of the Rules and studying it. And then purchasing books
on the Rules and studying them.
There is no distinction in the International Regulations for the
Prevention of Collision at Sea ("IRPCS" or "COLREGS") or, for that
matter in the U.S. Inland Rules between "commercial" and "pleasure"
vessels. Rule 18 establishes a pecking order in which pwer-driven
vessels give way to sailing vessels, sailing vessels to vessels
engaged in fishing, vessels engaged in fishing to vessels constrained
by their draft (or "draught" - same pronunciation, different spelling),
vessels constrained by their draft to vessels restricted (by the nature
of their work) in ability to maneuver and to vessels not under command
(unable by some unusual circumstance to maneuver as required).
But Rule 13 begins with the words "except where Rules 9, 10, and 13
otherwise require", so you should also learn those Rules, too.
(Rule 9 is for Narrow Channels, Rule 10 for Traffic Separation Schemes,
and Rule 13 governs the Overtaking Situation. Rules 9 and 10 apply
in all conditions of visibility, but Rule 13 (Overtaking) and Rule 18
(which establishes the pecking order) apply only for vessels in sight
of one another.
Please, please, study the Rules!
A Student
> By all means, let's be sure to learn what we can from this,
>
> --
> Dave Robertson
> drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com
> Applied Information Technology Program, Capilano College
> Vancouver, BC
"Mercury" it was mentioned that those who had been asleep below climbed
into the rubber dinghy wearing only bedclothes and underwear. If this was
so their only real chance for survival was to be rescued very quickly , no
one would last long in those waters , at night , during a 50kt storm. As
mentioned somewhere else it was quite understandably a matter of 'we've
spent hundreds of nights at sea so far, nothing happened on those nights
, therefore nothing will happen tonight so I might as well be comfortable
in bed and take heavy clothes off.
What should we wear at night whilst at sea?
w Kelly
Hobart Australia
Peter Robson
broad sided by a Chilean Sub off the west coast of Vancouver Island . The
Sub was in Canadian waters participating in war games, I think the games
were over and she was heading back to the U.S. There were American Navel
officers on board.
The sail boat was in a shipping lane, whether he was traveling in or
transiting the lane I don't know, it was night and the sub was on the
surface, weather was good. The sail boat sunk 3 minutes after the
collision, only the skipper was aboard and said he basically swam out of
the cockpit as she went down. The Sub stopped and picked him up and dumped
him off in Victoria and then sailed off into American waters. There was an
inquest but all I heard was the sailboat was found at fault, never heard
any reasons. The skipper had no insurance so now no boat and no
restitution.
Did you hear any more about this incident?
--
"The older I get - the better I was"
Dave Robertson
fro Preventing Collisions at Sea - Collision Regulations
"In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to
all dangers of navigations and collision and any special circumstances,
including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a
departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger."
From the horse's mouth...
Dave
Bob Richardson
>>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>>vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
>>that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
>>to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
>
>>Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
>
>sailing vessel is there.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
What's the point of calling something a 'shipping lane' if ships
don't have the right-of-way there? IMO, ships not only have the
right of way, but 'non-ships' are: a) not suppose to travel in
the shipping lanes, and b) cross the shipping lanes at a right
angle, or as close to perpendicular as possible.
Peter Robson
Al Gunther
Sound where a boat, supposedly at anchor was picked up on the partially
submerged bow bulb of an empty tanker coming down the Sound at night and
was brought on into the bay, still perched on the bulb. If I recall the
story correctly, the small boat was cited for obstructing the shipping
lane.
Al in Kingston, WA <----- 47 52'30"N/122 30'45"W
Larry DeMers
>In article <schell.818035188@condor> sch...@condor.psych.ucsb.edu (Terry Schell;x3332) writes:
>> In <truesdel-301...@yeti.ics.uci.edu> true...@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes:
>>
>> >Ships don't "suddenly appear."
>>
>> > --scott
>
>I don't normally post - but felt I had to this time.....
>Canadian Coast Guard) radio officer and deckhand. In a storm off
>Japan; seas about 50 feet; seing ANYTHING was darn near
>impossible; the radar just showed clutter (from the waves and
>was wheelsman =- and it was all I could do to keep course and NOT
>broadside into the troughs ( which might have sunk us due to
>high lumber deck load).
>The point - if ANY small vessel was around - it wouldn't
>couldn't be seen visually or by radar - and our ship could not
>slow down or steer around things due to danger to itself.
>Sailboats HAVE to keep out of the way....
>My deepsest sympathy to all concerned with the Melinda Lee.
>Rgds
>John
>.signature under construction
Well, there you have it. That IS the practical truth that we are to deal
with if we go out on the ocean and cross traffic lanes with a storm in
progress. We can hope that something fortuitous happens, we can take all
kinds of precautions, but in truth, there are going to be conditions that
are not in control and here is where a bit of luck enters the equation.
I think if people considered ships to be as stated above, maybe the true
necessity of a *good* night watch-not a spot check will become clearer.
LarryD.
Ed McCrudden
Peter Robson <Peter_...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>There were American Navel
>officers on board. ^^^^^
Wearing bikinis, no doubt.
Petr Baum
>This would be a simple GPS combined with an even simpler VHF radio, using
>a designated VHF frequency. At random intervals, apporox. ever few
>seconds, each vessel broadcasts an ecoded message containing position,
>speed, and vessel type (and, in a few years, global cell-pone number).
Sounds like great idea to me - only real problem is that this would
have to be compulsory for everybody - and that is going to be
difficult and would take a long time to implement (at best).
On the other hand I would agree, that some steps should be taken to
prepare standards and allocate frequencies.
What about a similar system, based on the Internet: each boat uploads
its data every five or ten minutes or so over some (any) radio link to
Internet and downloads info about shipping and other navigational data
(weather warnings, PAN-PAN etc) in its vicinity. Even plain e-mail can
be transferred at the same time.
Radio link over satellite would be best but "ship to ship Internet"
may work almost as well: if there is no ship in your vicinity you get
no link but you do not have to worry about collision either. And you
will soon learn that when you suddenly get greeting from your granny
on screen, you should scan horizon for that container ship with
satellite link...
The advantage is, link to Internet is going to happen very soon
anyway. As this system will be more flexible costs and acceptance will
be much easier. The interface between most GPS and PC are not
difficult (my handheld Eagle Accunav can do it all right). Software to
display data on screen is no problem.
The big advantage is that it can be implemented in stages and that
different ships can use different systems: compatibility is not an
issue. All we need to do _now_ is to define a protocol to allow
efficient transfer of data ... and we can start tomorrow!
BTW - I am not sure how easy it is to connect modem to radio and what
frequencies may be used. Anybody got experience with this?
P.S. I apologise for sending my previous response 3 times - my Free
Agent obviously believes in "belt, braces and piece of string"
approach!
Dave Robertson
(Peter Robson) wrote:
> Well Dave, how about a local story. The one about the sail boat that was
> broad sided by a Chilean Sub off the west coast of Vancouver Island . The
> Sub was in Canadian waters participating in war games, I think the games
> were over and she was heading back to the U.S. There were American Navel
> officers on board.
> The sail boat was in a shipping lane, whether he was traveling in or
> transiting the lane I don't know, it was night and the sub was on the
> surface, weather was good. The sail boat sunk 3 minutes after the
> collision, only the skipper was aboard and said he basically swam out of
> the cockpit as she went down. The Sub stopped and picked him up and dumped
> him off in Victoria and then sailed off into American waters. There was an
> inquest but all I heard was the sailboat was found at fault, never heard
> any reasons. The skipper had no insurance so now no boat and no
> restitution.
> Did you hear any more about this incident?
> --
> "The older I get - the better I was"
>
> peter_...@mindlink.bc.ca
Peter
Excellent story! I did hear this one on "As It Happens", Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation's radio news show....Sad story and espicially bad
considering the insurance thing. As I understand it , the reason that she
wasn't insured was that she was over 60 years old and of wood construction
- a combination which I am given to understand is very hard to ensure. The
owner, I believe, was living aboard. The interview that I heard with him
was pretty sad....
The worst part, though, came the following evening, when AIH played its
"Talkback" tape - you know, where you call in with your opinion....Well,
somebody called in and gave a two minute diatribe on how the "hipppie"
should have had insurance! Is there no such thing as comapssion or
sympathy anymore?
Brett Leach
>
> What's the point of calling something a 'shipping lane' if ships
> don't have the right-of-way there? IMO, ships not only have the
> right of way, but 'non-ships' are: a) not suppose to travel in
> the shipping lanes, and b) cross the shipping lanes at a right
> angle, or as close to perpendicular as possible.
The term "Shipping Lanes" is not a legal term, and it really does not
apply any more. It used to be that routes between major ports were
standardised, but with weather routing information available, ships no
longer base their routes on 'average weather conditions.' They know what
is going on all the time. This saves a bundle on fuel costs.
What you may be thinking of is "Narrow Channels" in which a vessel which
can safely navigate out of that channel must give way to a vessel that
must stay in the channel, due to considerations of draft. Note that
smaller vessels can use the channel, but have to watch out for those
(properly marked!) vessels that have to stay there.
Brett Leach
email - bre...@mail.utexas.edu
snail - 2308 Pruett St. Austin, TX 78703 USA
phone - 512-477-3155
fax - 708-8826
Erich Titl
>
> Say, folks?
>
> Maybe its time to take this thread out of the specifics of *this*
> accident. How 'bout we look at some things that we can all learn from
> this. I will, with some shame, offer up the first one.
>
> north end of the North Island of New Zealand) to Noumea in New Caledonia.
> Things got pretty yucky after the first night and by the third day, we
> were letting the boat (a big traditional sort of Tahiti ketch) sail
> herself under staysail - in a location frighteningly close to the sinking
> of the Melinda Lee. We were taking a decent pounding but we could have
> kept a watch in the cockpit. The skipper said to forget it and while we
> kept a watch, it consisted of popping a head out the hatch every 15
> minutes.
>
> Hindsight being 20/20, I would not do it this way now! Could we say it's a
> good idea to keep a watch in the cockpit unless it's dangerous? Opinions
> are welcome!
Opinions? If you don't keep a watch, when you have the hands for it, ist negligence.
>
> If we get some good responses here, maybe I'll tell you about the day (on
> the same trip) that we spotted a deep sea container ship going by and
> asked him if he could see us in his radar.....The answer was *very*
> scary.....
>
Did he know how the radar equipment looked like?
> Dave
>
> --
> Dave Robertson
> drobe...@hubcap.mlnet.com
> Applied Information Technology Program, Capilano College
> Vancouver, BC
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...we have reached normality. I repeat, we have reached normality.
Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.
Please relax...
Erich Titl
THINK
Puentenstrasse 39
CH 8143 Stallikon
mailto:e...@think.ch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Rider
: >watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
: >my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
: >to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
: >relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
: >vessel not under command don't seem to apply).
I have never traveled on the open sea in anything smaller that the Big
Red Boat (Disney Cruise) so I can't speak from experience but...
The best lesson I ever learned regarding vessel privilege is
IF IT'S BIGGER THAT YOU, STAY AWAY!!!!
This applies to everything from Jetskis to Supertankers regardless of
propulsion methods.
Later,
Bryan
My stuff - HPs net
Larry DeMers
of Toronto, Canada. He is in the South Pacific, on the Island of Rarotonga in
the Cook Islands, where he is currently repairing a damaged engine and making
repairs to his boat. This series of letters is interesting from many viewpoints,and if you should care to, I am sure that Austin would be receptive to some
correspondence from members of this group.
Housekeeping notes: My address as shown in the "From" field is sick..Please
post any correspondence to me at the following Addr:
dem...@cray.com
Austin's address is: awhi...@gatepoly.co.ck
*******************************************************************************
(This letter from Austin is in response to a letter from Bob Richardson
-a member of this Newsgroup that has traveled in the Cook Islands, and
participated in helping to restock the Islands with Taro Root after a storm.
-ed).
Hi Bob!
>
>Loved your letter! I've forwarded it to Arnold, but you can e-mail him
directly (agib...@gatepoly.co.ck). You have interesting stories of the Cook
Islands. Not many people sail to as many of the Cook's as you did. Rarotonga
is the big destination, Suvarov and Aitutaki (for those who draw 6 ft. or
less) are next, Penrhyn for a few, Palmerston for a few, and that's about
it. This year, one boat went to Manihiki on an errand of mercy (one member
of the family that resides on Suvarov needed to go there to see a dentist),
but that was it.
>
>The whole of the Cook Islands are characterised by bad harbours, which has
more or less set the tone and the character of the islands. They lose
inter-island freighters on a regular basis. You mentioned two that were lost
when you were here. One went down this year, in September. Commerce and
trade has always been a risky business, which has resulted in a certain
remoteness and off-the-beaten-track feeling for life here.
>They rely on angels like you to help out during emergencies. This year, the
government is strapped for money and could not afford to divert a freighter
to take the family that caretakes Suvarov off for the cyclone season. A
single-hander named Joe (boat name "Pozzalano", from Hawaii) volunteered to
sail from Raro to Suvarov and back to take them off. It it wasn't for him,
they would have had to weather the cyclone season up there. It won't be the
first time that natives have strapped themselves to coconut trees during a
tropical storm, but thanks to Joe, it wasn't necessary this time.
>
>Raro currently has a fascinating harbourmaster, Don Silk. He probably was
still in business, as a partner in Silk and Boyd, the chief freighter
company in the Cook Islands, when you were here. He's the most with-it
harbourmaster you are ever likely to meet, and has written an
impossible-to-put-down book about his experiences in the shipping trade in
the Cook Islands, which of course, is a litany of one disaster after
another. He finally had to give up, and there is no longer a regular
passenger service between the Cook Islands, which is regretable.
>
>If you are interested, I could have him send you a copy ($20 U.S). It's a
colourful rendition of island life and the shipping trade, which is so
crucial to the islands, but dangerous.
>
>Dengue fever is still a problem here. They had an outbreak last year that
made the BBC news. My wife, Patricia, who is a nurse, came down with it in
French Polynesia. Normally, it's just like a bad case of the flu. The killer
variety is hemmoraghic dengue fever, that is easily detectible and treatable
if you seek medical attention.
>
>The boat name "Carina" sounds familiar to me. I associate it with an
article in the SSCA that had details about either Beveridge or Minerva
Reefs. Is that accurate?
>We were not planning to go to Rarotonga because of it's reputation as a bad
harbour until our engine problem developed . Actually, it's not that bad
these days (they've put in moorings) unless it's crowded, but in that case,
everyone more or less stands by lines and rides out northerlies, and in the
worst cases, Don Silk advises them to put to sea to shelter around the south
side of the island. Out of the water, as we are, of course it's perfectly
okay. It's an option if your boat weighs 15 tons or less. Otherwise, Don
adeptly looks after the cruisers. Shipping's loss is cruiser's gain!
>
>Yes, keep in touch, we are here for five more months.
>
>Regards, Austin Whitten and Patricia Sadleir
>
END AUSTIN-4
Peter W. Meek
Check out http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/s-story.html
for an encounter we had many years ago with an
old steam-engined lakes freighter in a four-day
can't-see-the-bow fog. The only glimpse we had of
it was looking UP at 45 degrees to see the
stern going by. Pre-GPS (in fact pre-cheap-
LORAN), we failed in our navigation to keep
out of the freighter lanes on Lake Huron.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
...I studied with diligence Neptune's laws,
and these laws I tried to obey... <Joshua Slocum>
Jason Levy
increasing civilian applications for thermal imaging technology. If a
sailboat was equipped with a thermal imaging device (night vision), the
scope would most definitely show a "hot" object, such as a freighter - or
even a waterski boat. I'm not sure how effective this would be for
spotting sailing vessels, unless they have a significant heat source
aboard, but at least it would help the smaller vessel "see" the larger.
From what I've seen (in military demonstrations), these systems are much
less affected by foul weather. I'm not sure what the cost would be now, but
surely in the future, it would come down to the level that an average person
could afford this technology (as did GPS systems).
Just my .02 cents.
Jason
jg...@msg.ti.com
Texas Instruments
Stefan Mochnacki
(Larry Budd) writes:
|> Last summer we were crossing Lake Ontario from Rochester to
|> Toronto. This is as close to an offshore passage as we can get,
|> stuck in the middle of North America, but can be just as hazardous
|> and difficult at times with land a lot closer to bump into.
|> It was a perfect sailing day, clear unlimited visibility and
|> we were totally out of site of land; on a Port tack, beam reaching
|> at over 6 knots. I went below to grab a drink and a sandwich while
|> my mate was dozing (we had departed at 0500). When I returned to the
|> cockpit, there appeared to be a large ship off our Port bow a few
|> miles away. I checked the LORAN and the chart and sure enough we
|> were just crossing the downbound shipping lane and were looking like
|> a collision course. A quick tack got us out of the way, but when he
|> passed, we were close enough to see his bow wave. The whole incident
|> transpirred in just a few minutes. If someone had not been on watch
|> it could have been a most unpleasant outcome. And that was on a
|> perfect day, in a small great lake.
I have had quite a few encounters with freighters on Lake Ontario,
having to change course more than once. Fortunately, most of these freighters
appear to follow the charted shipping lanes, to the point that on occasion I
could tell my crew when a ship would be changing course. I'm talking about
being much closer than just seeing the bow wave; oddly, most freighters
I've encountered leave a wake no bigger than many pleasure craft do. And
you learn why people refer to "stinkpots" when they cross you to windward.
I had to tack away from a freighter at dawn one day. Had I fallen asleep,
we would have been creamed, but instead the freighter provided some
welcome variety during a long and solitary (though pleasant) watch. The
crew slept soundly below. We were many miles offshore. That particular
encounter showed dramatically that collisions are inevitable without a
vigilant watch on Lake Ontario.
I've also had encounters at night. One freighter had me thoroughly baffled
until I saw that his running lights were up on his (aft) bridge, with various
white lights on deck to confuse the issue. (Of course, if you *really* seek
confusion, go sailing amidst the party boats in Toronto Harbour at night; the
game is to pick out the running lights from all the other lights on each party
boat, all this against the lights of downtown Toronto. Fortunately, party boats
are usually very slow, unlike the ferries whizzing around: now *that's*
real collision-avoidance practice!)
I've developed a good ear for the throb of freighters. Their sound fortunately
can often be heard for miles, but no doubt that's no use in a storm, and
depends on conditions.
|> After we tacked, I contacted the ship by VHF. They had been
|> watching us on radar from before we had seen them! Interestingly,
|> CABARET does not fly a radar reflector but they saw us very well
|> even though we're a plastic boat with a standard alluminum stick.
I haven't tried that; next time I'll strike up a conversation (if there
isn't a crew member trying to sleep beneath the VHF!). I fly the reflector
when fog threatens.
|> Lesson - ALWAYS KEEP WATCH AND BE PREPARED TO REACT QUICKLY!
Those monsters go like hell ... it's a totally different timescale than what six
knots gets us used to.
Stefan Mochnacki
(Grampian 30 "Somewhere")
Stephen Jones
<DJGB...@astro.utoronto.ca>:
Organization: University of Alberta
Distribution:
[several stories about freighter-encounters on Lake Ontario]
I was sitting on the weather rail of a C&C 41 a few Susan Hoods ago, just
after dawn. We had rounded the fairway mark at Port Weller, and were
beating back to Toronto. A laker downbound from Hamilton hove into
view. The guy next to me on the rail took some collision bearings on the
freighter, and said "No problem. It will pass in front." "But wait,"
said I, "Take a collision bearing on its stern." "Uh oh. Passing aft."
Said I, nonchalantly, "Now find the point on the ship where the collision
bearing remains unchanged: that's where we will hit." "Tacking!"
For what it's worth, I had a nice freighter alter course for me while I
was racing in the Lake Ontario 300.
--
Stephen Jones | THE starting point for sailing
Dept. of Philosophy | on the Internet:
4-108 Humanities Center |
University of Alberta | http://www.ualberta.ca/~sjones/
Edmonton, Alberta |
CANADA T6G 2E5 |
Stefan Mochnacki
|> Excellent story! I did hear this one on "As It Happens", Canadian
|> Broadcasting Corporation's radio news show....Sad story and espicially bad
|> considering the insurance thing. As I understand it , the reason that she
|> wasn't insured was that she was over 60 years old and of wood construction
|> - a combination which I am given to understand is very hard to ensure. The
|> owner, I believe, was living aboard. The interview that I heard with him
|> was pretty sad....
|>
|> The worst part, though, came the following evening, when AIH played its
|> "Talkback" tape - you know, where you call in with your opinion....Well,
|> somebody called in and gave a two minute diatribe on how the "hipppie"
|> should have had insurance! Is there no such thing as compassion or
|> sympathy anymore?
|>
Nope. Why else do people elect the likes of Mike Harris, Newt Gingrich
et al.?
People are being screwed, and they are mean. When "single mothers" are
a Public Enemy, what can us poor sailors be? Bizarre.
Stefan Mochnacki
Grampian 30 "Somewhere"
(keeper of the live-aboard list)
Peter W. Meek
<on thermal imaging systems for cruising sailboats>
Even if the price comes down to something reasonable,
how long do you think it will take for these systems
to get down to a few hundred milliWatts of power drain.
One of the major requirements of cruising sailboats
is that systems must either run "forever" off a
couple of drycells or not be needed except for
short periods each day. Radar detectors (but not
radar transponders) might fill this requirement.
I doubt that a thermal imaging system will be
able to meet this in the next several decades.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
"I don't think you can have a Viking funeral, dear. There's
an open-burning ban." [Guindon]
Jason Levy
called NightSight which uses uncooled infrared technology. I've seen police
cars equipped with NightSight, so the power drain couldn't be too heavy.
Jason
Steve Weingart
In a rainstorm with 20 foot waves, I'm sure that even a tanker coming head on
will have much of a thermal image at any significant distance. You'r point of
view is blocked much of the time. But it could work.
I like the suggested (Paul Kamen, I think was the first) idea of having a
transponder tied to your GPS so folks could get an air traffic control like
picture of the surrounding area. With the price of GPS and VHF units, it
should be very affordable.
Steve
Ed Dougherty
>> <4aksob$q...@tilde.csc.ti.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: seminole.gate.net
>X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
>
>....
>
>I like the suggested (Paul Kamen, I think was the first) idea of having a
>transponder tied to your GPS so folks could get an air traffic control like
>picture of the surrounding area. With the price of GPS and VHF units, it
>should be very affordable.
=====
There is a difference between Primary surveillance radar (skin reflection)
and Secondary radar (Transponders) used on aircraft (and being proposed
here for boats). The ait traffic control (ATC) system uses both Primary
and Secondary radar to track aircraft. They are two distinct systems.
The Primary radar is what we all know (and was developed during WW II);
this radar looks for the echo bouncing off the object in question.
Secondary radar, as used in air traffic control, uses a different frequency
for the ` Interrogation Ping' (Search), this is on a standard microwave
frequency vrsus a VHF response for the `Down Link' response when the
transponder detects the (secondary) radar interrogation pulse.
It is not as simple as `Just adding a radar transmitter' to return the
surveillance pulse. A radio wave travels at the speed of light (12.36
usec per nautical mile (round trip)), so the act of detecting, amplifying,
and re-transmitting a radar signal will introduce errors of position etc
into the return signal. (These delays are all specified for (and calibrated
out of) the air traffic system; the system has a specific interrogation
(up link frequency), a specific down link reply frequency, with specified
delays to allow for detection, and generation of the reply.
(Think about a reasonably large collection of objects all interrogating
(looking for objects) on the same frequency, and responding on that same
frequency every time they detected a signal; the clutter would be unsuable.
In addition to using different frequencies for interrogation and response,
(for the ATC), there is only one station that interrogates (the air traffic
control system), and it only listens for replys in the direction in which
its antenna is pointed (for a few milliseconds).
Aircraft do not interrogate other aircraft; interrogations are only
conducted by the ATC system; then the ATC operator directs the aircraft
to avoid `Conflicts'.
Another problem to be considered is: Different radars operate on different
frequencies; this is not (much of) a problem for cheap radar detectors
for cars, but amplifying and re-transmitting the signal (and controlling
the delays in the signal (to keep it meaningful to the transmitting station)
is a big problem.
Systems as proposed (Transponders for vessels) are under development
for vessel traffic control in congested harbors, and elsewhere to track
shipping; in theory it is easy (and it has been done) but getting all
vessels on the high seas equipped with transponders (and Secondary radar)
is a long way off.
I hope this was of interest to those conserned with this problem.
Regards,
Ed Doc
Rik Hall
about a "radar dectector" (as in the kind I am no longer allowed to use
in my area for my car) that would be inexpensive, would take minimal
drain and would beep like mad if it picked up a closeby signal. At
least it would warn my boat.
Just a thot.
Rik
Linden Lindy Sisk
: This may not be an available option now, but I know that there are now
: increasing civilian applications for thermal imaging technology. If a
: sailboat was equipped with a thermal imaging device (night vision), the
: scope would most definitely show a "hot" object, such as a freighter - or
: even a waterski boat. I'm not sure how effective this would be for
: spotting sailing vessels, unless they have a significant heat source
: aboard, but at least it would help the smaller vessel "see" the larger.
: From what I've seen (in military demonstrations), these systems are much
: less affected by foul weather. I'm not sure what the cost would be now, but
: surely in the future, it would come down to the level that an average person
: could afford this technology (as did GPS systems).
Just to pick a little nit, most night vision systems are not thermal
imagers - they just amplify naturally available light. Armored vehicles
do carry thermal imagers, but they are not suitable for personally-
carried devices because of the bulk, cooling, and power requirements
associated with the technology.
--
Lindy Sisk li...@shell.portal.com
Stealth Paddler
"If you didn't see me, it's not because I wasn't there!"
"Gene Police! You - Outta the Pool!"
Matt Pedersen
>I've also had encounters at night. One freighter had me thoroughly baffled
>until I saw that his running lights were up on his (aft) bridge, with various
>white lights on deck to confuse the issue. (Of course, if you *really* seek
>confusion, go sailing amidst the party boats in Toronto Harbour at night; the
>game is to pick out the running lights from all the other lights on each party
>boat, all this against the lights of downtown Toronto. Fortunately, party boats
>are usually very slow, unlike the ferries whizzing around: now *that's*
>real collision-avoidance practice!)
My scariest night near miss was on a race about 4 years ago
here on Puget Sound. It was also a lesson on how hard it can
be to pick out lights against shore, as well as judge distance.
Anyhow, we were sailing along under spinnaker at night, when we
spotted a tug and tow ahead. It was pretty hard to tell which
way the tug was headed, all I could spot were the mast lights
but no running lights, and I could not see any lights on the
tow at all. The tug appeared stationary or at least was moving
very slowly. Our course was taking us close to the tug, but we
couldn't tell which side of it to go on until we knew his
course.
I told the skipper where the tug was, and everybody started looking
for the tow, to see if we were in any danger. Nobody else could
pick out the running lights either on the tug or the tow. After a
long time searching (at least, it seemed like a long time) somebody
finally spotted the tow. It was a log boom, which is marked by kerosene
lanterns on the logs themselves, which are about 10 to 20 inches
out of the water. Now, imagine trying to see these lights,
low intensity, low on the water, with shore background lights
and the gentle shimmer of a slight chop on the water.
We tried pointing out where the tow was to the skipper, who just
couldn't see it. By now we had closed a substantial
distance on the tug and tow, and were probably a couple hundred
yards away. Finally he just said "What should we do", to which
I, foredeck man, said "GYBE", while the cockpit said "Round up".
He rounded up, which just closed the distance even faster, so
we had even less room to execute the gybe. We weren't really
prepared for the gybe (I had to trip the pole for the dip pole gybe
as well as drop the guy into the jaws), but we got it done
anyways and had maybe 50 yards to spare. The thought of what
would have happened had we hit the log boom while I was sprinting
up to the bow still sends shivers down my spine - those logs
don't stay still, they lift up and down and turn and spin and
generally grind everything up, including unfortunate foredeck crew.
Matt
Peter W. Meek
: In article <4amogu$n...@pravda.aa.msen.com>, pwm...@mail.msen.com says...
<in paraphrase: TIS draw too much power for a cruising sailboat>
: Well as I said in my other post, Texas Instruments has developed a product
: called NightSight which uses uncooled infrared technology. I've seen police
: cars equipped with NightSight, so the power drain couldn't be too heavy.
A police car has a 50Amp alternator running full time -- about
14 kilowatt hours per 24 hr day available. A cruising sailboat
may run its motor (with a smaller alternator, to boot) for a
half hour getting out of harbor and then not run the motor for
a couple of weeks on a long passage. Quite a bit of difference.
The police car can top off its fuel tank at almost any time, too.
Long distance cruising requires gear that uses fractions of Amps
while running. Even the few amps that nav lights draw are
a major drain on the system over a long haul. I repeat, I
doubt that even the NightSight (sounds great for a power boat,
I'd like to hear more!) can operate on that kind of energy
budget.
--
--Pete <pwm...@mail.msen.com> http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/
{If you're reading this, you probably don't know
how to use your kill file.}
Andy Champ
: I just got into this string, but if I intrepret what I read below
: correctly, someone needs to read the right of way rules again. Any
: large commercial vessel, such as a freighter, has right of way over
: any sailboat stupid enough to get in the way. To think otherwise is
: sheer folly. If you are in a sailboat and you see a large ship
: coming, think of it as a 600 pound gorilla--it will go where it damn
: well pleases and you better move your boat out of the way.
: Fjus...@mail.erols.com
The way I understand it is a sailing vessel has right of way over a power
vessel. But if I'm out in my dinghy I'd be a damn fool to get in the
way of a 10000 ton freighter! It's also bad manners to mess up
someone who is trying to work, just as it is bad manners to plough
through someone's start line when you are cruising.
Andy
Mont Echols
> I have never traveled on the open sea in anything smaller that the Big
> Red Boat (Disney Cruise) so I can't speak from experience but...
>
> The best lesson I ever learned regarding vessel privilege is
>
> IF IT'S BIGGER THAT YOU, STAY AWAY!!!!
>
> This applies to everything from Jetskis to Supertankers regardless of
> propulsion methods.
That's called
"Right of Weigh" as in weight
Mont
JaymeW
all summer! Check out ITT.
KW
Floyd Justice
correctly, someone needs to read the right of way rules again. Any
large commercial vessel, such as a freighter, has right of way over
any sailboat stupid enough to get in the way. To think otherwise is
sheer folly. If you are in a sailboat and you see a large ship
coming, think of it as a 600 pound gorilla--it will go where it damn
well pleases and you better move your boat out of the way.
Fjus...@mail.erols.com
bo...@aa.net (Bob Richardson) wrote:
>>>While I certainly agree that a small vessel needs to both keep a proper
>>>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>>>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>>>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>>>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>>>vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
>>>that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
>>>to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
>>
>>>Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
>>
>>First off you are assuming that the motor driven vessel even knows that the
>>sailing vessel is there.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Greg Bullough
>
>way of a 10000 ton freighter! It's also bad manners to mess up
>someone who is trying to work,
Part of the 'work' is observing appropriate right-of-way rules. Ergo,
an 80-foot passenger ferry under power in clear water should give way
when the burdened vessel, 'working' or not. Excessive yielding and
tacking about by right-of-way vessels just confuses the whole picture.
just as it is bad manners to plough
>through someone's start line when you are cruising.
Again, it depends. If the yacht club sets its start line across a
prime chunk of cruising ground with limited ability to get around
it, then they apparently expect that they will have to deal with
some of the racers being burdened vessel.
It is unreasonable to expect a cruiser to tolerate a 15-minute diversion
on a two-hour passage in order to give way to a racer operating in a
routine round-the-cans race. Racing does not in any way require an
empty stretch of water; it's just that certain racers feel put-upon
when chance (like a header) places a right-of-way vessel in their path.
Again, rules of the road do not recognize (except in very narrow cases)
the PURPOSE of the vessel in determining right of way. Everyone shares
the water to their own purposes, follows the same set of rules.
Greg
Steve Cork
: surveillance pulse. A radio wave travels at the speed of light (12.36
: usec per nautical mile (round trip)), so the act of detecting, amplifying,
: and re-transmitting a radar signal will introduce errors of position etc
: into the return signal. (These delays are all specified for (and calibrated
: out of) the air traffic system; the system has a specific interrogation
: (up link frequency), a specific down link reply frequency, with specified
: delays to allow for detection, and generation of the reply.
<deleted stuff>
It would, however, be a simple exercise to implement a response via packet
radio techneques over VHF broadcasting identification and position to anyony
close enough to listen. Multiplexing protocols would take care of multiple
responses and it would all occur on one frequency. Not much gear required
to do this either!
Steve (recent Spray owner)
--
Steve Cork
sc...@perth.DIALix.oz.au
My thoughts are my own, nobody else has thunk 'em but me.
Steve Weingart
>>
>Well as I said in my other post, Texas Instruments has developed a product
>called NightSight which uses uncooled infrared technology. I've seen police
>cars equipped with NightSight, so the power drain couldn't be too heavy.
Not too heavy for a car could be 10+ amps, if it's in that range it would be
for a cruising boat.
Steve
NesAuction
dmsco...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> I just got into this string, but if I intrepret what I read below
> correctly, someone needs to read the right of way rules again. Any
> large commercial vessel, such as a freighter, has right of way over
> any sailboat stupid enough to get in the way. To think otherwise is
> sheer folly. If you are in a sailboat and you see a large ship
> coming, think of it as a 600 pound gorilla--it will go where it damn
> well pleases and you better move your boat out of the way.
> Fjus...@mail.erols.com
>
> bo...@aa.net (Bob Richardson) wrote:
Although Bob's advise about sailboats keeping out of the way of large
commercial ships is good, he is wrong about the Rules of the Road.
Sailboats DO have right of way over motor driven vessels except when the
vessel is fishing, not under command, restricted by her draft , in a traffic
separation zone or in a narrow channel. Shipping lanes are merely routs in
open water where commercial vessels operate, and here these vessels do not
have right of way over sailboats under sail.
>
>>>>While I certainly agree that a small vessel needs to both keep a proper
>>>>watch *and* operate defensively regarding shipping all the time, it was
>>>>my understanding that a motor driven vessel was obligated to give way
>>>>to a sailing vessel. I am not sure that the situation you describe
>>>>relieves them of that obligation (restricted in ability to maneuver and
>>>>vessel not under command don't seem to apply). I would hate to think
>>>>that a freighter has decided that it is no longer their responsibility
>>>>to give way. What would the response be if contacted by VHF?
>>>
>>>>Obviously, if you are not seen the legalities are not much relief.
>>>
>>>First off you are assuming that the motor driven vessel even knows that the
>>>sailing vessel is there.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>
>>What's the point of calling something a 'shipping lane' if ships
>>don't have the right-of-way there? IMO, ships not only have the
>>right of way, but 'non-ships' are: a) not suppose to travel in
>>the shipping lanes, and b) cross the shipping lanes at a right
>>angle, or as close to perpendicular as possible.
>
>
>
--
David M. Scotford dmsco...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Andy Champ
: Just to pick a little nit, most night vision systems are not thermal
: imagers - they just amplify naturally available light. Armored vehicles
: do carry thermal imagers, but they are not suitable for personally-
: carried devices because of the bulk, cooling, and power requirements
: associated with the technology.
Over here the rescue services use thermal imagers for looking for people
trapped under collapsed buildings. These are hand-held devices maybe
1 cu ft. and drivern by internal batteries.
Andy
Thomas J. Murphy
bre...@mail.utexas.edu (Brett Leach) writes:
> In article <4ack9b$c...@big.aa.net>, bo...@aa.net (Bob Richardson) wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What's the point of calling something a 'shipping lane' if ships
> > don't have the right-of-way there? IMO, ships not only have the
> > right of way, but 'non-ships' are: a) not suppose to travel in
> > the shipping lanes, and b) cross the shipping lanes at a right
> > angle, or as close to perpendicular as possible.
>...
> What you may be thinking of is "Narrow Channels" in which a vessel which
> can safely navigate out of that channel must give way to a vessel that
> must stay in the channel, due to considerations of draft. Note that
> smaller vessels can use the channel, but have to watch out for those
> (properly marked!) vessels that have to stay there.
I rather suspect that what he is thinking of is traffic separation
zones,
for which the regulations are similar to those he mentions.
Tom Murphy
Standard Disclaimer.
Christiane Laakmann
Thermal imaging may see the freighter but would be far more expensive and
awkward to use then radar. I used to design those. Radar is the single
most important tool in a cruising boats navigational inventory. Peter
Laakmann
Brian Suggs
> ><on thermal imaging systems for cruising sailboats>
> >Even if the price comes down to something reasonable,
> >how long do you think it will take for these systems
> >to get down to a few hundred milliWatts of power drain.
> >One of the major requirements of cruising sailboats
> >is that systems must either run "forever" off a
> >couple of drycells or not be needed except for
> >short periods each day. Radar detectors (but not
> >radar transponders) might fill this requirement.
> >I doubt that a thermal imaging system will be
> >able to meet this in the next several decades.
> Well as I said in my other post, Texas Instruments has developed a product
> called NightSight which uses uncooled infrared technology. I've seen police
> cars equipped with NightSight, so the power drain couldn't be too heavy.
>
> Jason
Hey, don't listen to people from that evil T.I. company! ;)
The military already has systems that are small and lightweight enough to
be mounted on top of a rifle. These battery powered sights use stacked thermo-
electric units (Peltier effect -- sp?) to cool the sensor. I don't know about
the price coming down to recreational boating budgets, but the technology to
get the power, size and weight down is already here. (And these units aren't
even bleading-edge technology any more.)
If you can afford a little more power and bulk (and the price tag of brand new
technology) you can get systems yielding exceptional thermal contrast and
resolution detail.
-Brian
(Former Hughes Aircraft engineer, working on staring focal plane array R&D)
Disclaimer: Not speaking for any employer.
hiho
>Story of times I've almost killed myself #312,564
[snip]
>stern and noticed a very big SHIP not 300 YARD behind us!!! We where in the
>middle of the C&D canal shipping lane. Well for once the little 5 hp outboard
>started on the first pull and we where out of there.
Excellent story. This thread has reminded me of two essential
anecdotes.
1) Definition of "burdened vessel": The burdened vessel is defined
as the vessel that had right of way prior to the collision. ;)
and
2) a friend of ours who now owns a little marina/restaurant on the
Gulf coast used to be a container ship captain. He had the terror of
arriving in port -- in Indonesia somewhere -- after a particularly
rough passage and finding a mast and rigging hanging from one of his
bow anchors. They'd never suspected a collision and never heard of a
missing boat.
So, as someone noted so clearly, if it's bigger than you are stay away
from it. Or better, right of 'weigh'.
hiho
--
hi...@pharos.uwc.edu "Hey this isn't a cheese danish
somewhere in the kettle moraine -- it's samadhi!"
Ed McCrudden
Stefan Mochnacki <ste...@nova.astro.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>I haven't tried that; next time I'll strike up a conversation
Man, if you're close enough to read the name of the freighter so you
can call him on the radio, you're practically surfing on his bow wave.
Trying to read the name off a Great Lakes freighter is like trying to
read a matchbook cover at sixty yards....:-)
>Those monsters go like hell ...
They sure do, and God help you if you don't get out of the way. I agree
with you re wakes.. their wakes are astonishingly small for such behemoths.
Ed <em...@io.org>
DOSFISH
radar detector aboard your boat, will work in the near future.
Transponders are very expensive and don't eliminate the primary reason for
most of these collisions--bad watch keeping! I won't get into which side
had the bad watch keeping because it won't bring these folks back to life
and we'll never know for sure in any case. Requiring ships from all
countries to carry specific gear is a folly. IMO only applies to those
countries that have signed on but even those countries can reserve ther
position on any issue and not follow the rules as established by the body.
The VHF reply sounds great but one question: a lot of boats out there
don't answer the radio they have installed now, what makes you think they
would if the radio told them there were boats somewhere within radar
range?
This was a tragedy. There are many lessons to be learned. I don't think
equipment is the answer in this case (except maybe a covered life raft
suitable for heavy weather). Personnally, I will keep a better watch
both on my small S/V and when I'm at sea on a large ship.
Kevin Miller
DOSFISH
thread.
Kevin Miller
Charles Allen
> I have never traveled on the open sea in anything smaller that the
> The best lesson I ever learned regarding vessel privilege is
>
> IF IT'S BIGGER THAT YOU, STAY AWAY!!!!
>
> This applies to everything from Jetskis to Supertankers regardless
No, Wrong. All vessels at sea are obliged to obey the IRPCS, you can't
just opt out. That would be chaos and result in even more collisions!
Charles Allen
Linden Lindy Sisk
: If the Melinda stood a radar watch, they would have seen the freighter.
Well, no. The single most important tool in a cruising boat's
navigation inventory is a well-educated, well-fed, and rested
individual standing watch. And on most cruising sailboats, a radar
is simply out of the question due to its power consumption. So, I
most emphatically disagree with that statement.
The situations in which a radar is critical to boat safety are
pretty rare. Lots and lots of cruising sailors have managed quite
well without radar, and the number of boats lost when having a radar
would have provided the information that would have saved her is
not very large, I think.
Paul Kamen
>Well, no. The single most important tool in a cruising boat's
>navigation inventory is a well-educated, well-fed, and rested
>individual standing watch.
>...
>And on most cruising sailboats, a radar
>is simply out of the question due to its power consumption.
And remember that quote from Blondie Hasler, winner of the first
Singlehanded Transatlantic: "It's poor seamanship to get cold, tired, or
wet." (heh!)
As for radar, I used to share Lindy's feelings. However last summer I
raced to Hawaii on a Moody 425 that was equipped with a 200 watt "solar
farm" over the dinghy davits. We used the small Furuno radar
indescriminately, mostly to help us intercept squalls. The panels stayed
ahead of our extensive radar use easily, and we atribute our 3rd in class
to that (and to our easy and frequent 2-pole jibes),
That's just more anecdotal blather, but if you look at the actual power
consumption numbers I think you'll find that for boats in that size range
and above, radar power consumption is not a big problem. Especially if
you supplement solar with a wind charger or towed rotor.
Still, radar is old technology. How much information is actually returned
by a radar blip, and how much could be broadcast far more reliably and
cheaply (in terms of both power consumption and hardware cost) with the
kind of "electronic foghorn" that I've proposed?
Note that the EF (Electronic Foghorn (tm)) is *not* a transponder system -
it doesn't wait for an incoming siganl to activate it. Just like a
foghorn, it keeps broadcasting data on position, course, speed, and type
of vessel. Cost = GPS + VHF. No need to legislate anything (except
allocate the frequency).
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/user/pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
peter laakmann
situation. On a really dark night you can't see anything and not all
vessels are lit ( including many sailboats trying to conserve power). In
addition as Fishmeal pointed out it gives advanced warnings of squalls
and their approximate "punch" so you are prepared. Eyballs can't tell
particularily at night, but even in the daytime, radar is more reliable.
On long crossings I am usually below. I don't bother to watch by eye, I
only watch my radar periodically. In addition the radar has alarms set.
With a wind generator and a couple of solar panels or even a shaft
generator, a sailboat can make enough power for radar.
PLaakmann @ AOL.com
George Slade
>
> Christiane Laakmann (c.h.la...@internetMCI.COM) wrote:
> : If the Melinda stood a radar watch, they would have seen the freighter.
> : Thermal imaging may see the freighter but would be far more expensive and
> : awkward to use then radar. I used to design those. Radar is the single
> : most important tool in a cruising boats navigational inventory. Peter
> : Laakmann
>
> navigation inventory is a well-educated, well-fed, and rested
> is simply out of the question due to its power consumption. So, I
> most emphatically disagree with that statement.
>
I agree radar is a nice tool but cannot make up for a poor skipper.
One day I was making a 12 mile crossing in thick fog. A friend
with less experience but a radar was doing the same. I was doing
just fine till my friend called me a said I was going off course
onto some rocks. Like a fool I listened to him and altered course.
luckily a passing ferry called me and informed me of the error and
helped me back on course. In the end my friend landed four miles
off course I came in dead on course. I like radar but radar with
an idiot is worse than no radar with a good skipper.
George Slade
Ken Ferschweiler
: Note that the EF (Electronic Foghorn (tm)) is *not* a transponder system -
: it doesn't wait for an incoming siganl to activate it. Just like a
: foghorn, it keeps broadcasting data on position, course, speed, and type
: of vessel.
Of course, that information is strictly for safety: I'm sure that Fishmeal
would never consider using it to competitive advantage during a race :-).
========================
Ken Ferschweiler Internet: ken...@cs.orst.edu
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
RonP IPC
Mass times velocity = right of way
A collision at sea can ruin your whole day!
Andy Champ
: As for radar, I used to share Lindy's feelings. However last summer I
: farm" over the dinghy davits. We used the small Furuno radar
: indescriminately, mostly to help us intercept squalls. The panels stayed
: ahead of our extensive radar use easily, and we atribute our 3rd in class
: to that (and to our easy and frequent 2-pole jibes),
: That's just more anecdotal blather, but if you look at the actual power
: consumption numbers I think you'll find that for boats in that size range
: and above, radar power consumption is not a big problem. Especially if
: you supplement solar with a wind charger or towed rotor.
Fishmeal,
imagine a nice nightmare situation. You're not in the sunny tradewinds off
Hawaii with lots of sun and wind to charge your batteries. You're sitting
in the fog of Newfoundland in a flat calm with no sun, and there's this
big fella coming throught the fog at 30 kts (Titanic wasn't it?) how are
you going to keep your batteries charged there?
Andy
Robert Kirk
jens...@dsv.su.se says...
>
>
>On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Paul Kamen wrote:
>
>> Note that the EF (Electronic Foghorn (tm)) is *not* a transponder system
-
>> it doesn't wait for an incoming siganl to activate it. Just like a
>> foghorn, it keeps broadcasting data on position, course, speed, and type
>> allocate the frequency).
>
>transmitting on the same channel?
>
>// Jens M Andreasen
No real problem; you broadcast a short unacknowledged packet
of less than one line at 1200 baud every couple of minutes.
There will be some packet collisions, but in practice a freq
can handle dozens of reporters. If everyone in Annapolis harbor
on a sunny Sunday afternoon was broadcasting, you'd have
saturation problems, but this system would be for lousy
visibility and/or poor watchkeeping at sea, neither of which
is a high density situation.
(By the way, for Fishmeal: you need a radio modem called a TNC
in addition to the radio & gps. One company is marketing a TNC
the size of a cigarette pack with built in GPS card. If you want
to watch yourself on a map, a PC is useful. I can even operate
with an HP 100LX palmtop.)