Safe Boating/Coll Reg 22/Nautical Protocol

[rigger 47]

Wheels you need to have a look at the propsed changes to Maritime quals, go to the mnz website - http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Commercia ... review.asp

[Guest]

Let me get this straight. You are a Qualified skipper and

1: You don't know the Fecking Law!?!?!

2: you are a qualified skipper that should know better and you chose to scoot across the bow of a large and bloody fast oncoming Vessel. !?!?

It is this kind of thing that makes my blood boil, because I would love to have a commercial licence, but i can't because i can't get commercial Time. I like to operate my boat in a Professional manner, obeying distances, flags, markers, rights of way and obove all, just a bit of damn common courtisy.

Yet I hear of people getting a licence that have been only a deck hand or even less and never even been at a wheel, or even thrown the damn dock line and still get a ticket because they have clocked up their "commercial time" then get behind the wheel of a vessel and drive it around with no regards to the Law and even common courtisy. Of course Mel, I am not saying that you yourself have not had proper experience behind the wheel in a commercial sense.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Your comments are surprising Wheels - if you read my previous post to yourself inconjunction with the ones prior which don’t suggest the scooting you envisage & notice I’ve been pointing out what Coll Regs have to say, perhaps you won’t feel so heated. Of course you would be entitled if anyone did such a maneuver. You observe Nautical Protocol, expect others to also & that’s what this discussion is about. If you looked into the requirements for certification, you may find that your years of experience allow you to qualify for sea time & pass the Coll Regs, Lights, Shapes, Engineering & Electrical sections etc without having to attend the instructional classes. Thank you for acknowledging my proper experience over 40 years.

[Guest]

Regarding the "Changing Bearings" principle - as used in assessing risk of collision, is it widely used & understood these days ? Is full confidence placed in that Principle ?

[Guest]

Checked your mooring pendant lately Mel? Saw signs of nibbles or chafe in it last week and we are due a Cyclone or 2 soon. I'm sure you don't want that beasty caving it's way thru a mooring area or beach front. And that yellow beast beside you is, literally, bullet proof so you'd probably come off 2nd best if the 2 got cuddling. Mind you that big fisho didn't look that well tied up so maybe that'll take everyone out 1st

 

Bit of hard reading this thread but interesting. The thing I can't understand is why a ferry would intentionally alter course to put you dead in it's sites or closer than it would have been otherwise. That just makes no sense and no way I can think of that would make it intentional bar the skipper had just pinged you banging his wife or daughter.

 

I'd take a guess based on what I've seen happen or appears to happen often, that the ferry saw a boat and assumed that the boat was likely to hold it's course until the 2 got bloody close at which time one or both would have to take big serious course changes to avoid a crash. So the ferry thought 'I'll gently swing a bit this way and slide behind him' or 'I'll gentle swing this way as usually the other boats suddenly realise we'll be close and turn a specific way'. I've seen ferries and other boats, inc me, do pretty much the same thing often. Call it a bit of 'getting ready just in case' if you like.

 

If you watch the harbour you can often pick which way a boat will turn, if pushed, by where it is in the harbour and what direction it's going in. Often that will be the opposite of the the Rules would say to do but then very few on the harbour know any Rules bar the very minimum, if even those.

 

I suspect and are assuming here you weren't caught banging the Skipper wife , the ferry used 'everyday rules' working on the premise he thought you knew none. By everyday rules I mean course changes, speeds, actions or whatever that you do develop after being on the job for a fair while. Those ED rules may, and often don't, line up that well with the written Regs but are actions that 99.9% of the time you know will put the boat in a more manageable position should the other boat sudden;y freak out and in doing so do something just weird, if all of that makes sense. Yes I know the ferry, you, me or anyone else shouldn't do that but the fact of life is that some do. Just like we don't speed but again most of us do. 99.9% of the time using ED rules does get the job done faster and safer than if we followed the proper Rules.

 

And while here along with zero rudeness intended, I do believe you have been the target of many comments, actions and so on that may have you a bit on the defensive. Are you sure you aren't reading more into it all than is actually there? I get the impression you feel this was a specific change on purpose to target you/your boat. I really can't understand or think why someone would do that, especially a skipper who knows doing so could very easily cost him money and/or his job.

 

Now we do have to know. Did you get caught naked with the ferry skippers wife or daughter... even better, with both at the same time?

[Guest]

Replying to Knot Me .... who's post was appreciated & can be read above -

Thankyou for your concern Knot Me, re the mooring, I’m attending to Cqe every day or 2 & if there’s a blow imminent antichafe wrapping or additional lines are run. Congrat’s for knowing the term - the “pendant” is in good nick but the ribbed plastic sheath is in about 3 sections which are also checked for best placement.

I’m also pleased you find this topic interesting even though it seems hard to grasp but sorry to disillusion you, I can’t add any salacity to the story. So without that, would the agenda driving the PSM Editor, MNZ, Marina Manager, Ferry Skipper & associates suffice ? That group appears to be the “Public Interest” generated increasingly since I returned late ’99 without which this topic wouldn’t have gained traction.

Cqe is easily identifiable, it’s course obvious. The ferry’s lookout should’ve seen Cqe 3.5nm away when the ferry was on a parallel course with a .82nm separation, as observed by Cqe (at that time by Browns Is light heading to Motuihe) Why would the ferry on an illegally elliptical course, if it wanted to be a stand-on vessel, follow Cqe, taking photos instead of keeping it’s course to round Browns Is enroute to Auckland - Chip on shoulder, pedantic attitude, esp towards the “ignorant female helms-person” whom he blamed as typical of other harbour users ? How long did it take him to decide & arrange,(instead of sounding a ships whistle which he didn’t have,) for the deckhand to take the first photo which still shows separation of .6nm & another turning towards Cqe of 6 deg.

So the course the ferry was on prior to taking photos would’ve taken it astern of Cqe with .25nm to spare – no risk of collision existing. Think of it logically – with the speed of each craft over 3.5 nm. Traveling at half that of the ferry, Cqe was well out from Browns Is leaving the ferry an unimpeded normal course to round the light.

The amount of varied opinion evident, does seem to suggest there’s some bias colouring the situation when an objective assessment might have some nautically beneficial value but craft generally regarded as feminine might be reason enough for some folk to be lead astray ?

[Guest]

.

 

Now we do have to know. Did you get caught naked with the ferry skippers wife or daughter... even better, with both at the same time?

 

 

get real here......more like the skippers granny

[Guest]

.

get real here......more like the skippers granny

------------------------------------------------

Yes her too L4, but diplomatically perhaps she was taken care of by a writer (not posting here) of this opinion - "The Changing Bearing Principle which involved the watching the coast line behind the ferry to assess risk of collision is flawed, dangerous & can lead to incorrect conclusions - this method of determining risk of collision was unreliable & should never have been used" This is basically what I regard as an infallible rule of thumb "Bearing Constant - Range decreasing" & is currently being taught in Marine Schools as it was back in '77 when I qualified Celestial & Coastal. Using a hand bearing compass, radar, fixed object on board or background coastline should all have equal validity ? Otherwise how does anyone in a dinghy cross a busy harbour or when on foot or in a car, cross a road or intersection with oncoming traffic ?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Quote .......

"The principle of monitoring the bearing of other vessels is core to assessing risk of collision. We teach, even in our entry-level course (Day skipper) that the most practical way to do this is to take a series of bearings, by sighting the other vessel over a fitting (such as a cleat, stanchion, or through the wind-screen) on your own boat. If the bearing remains constant - or nearly constant over a period of time - then risk of collision exists."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Question - Can the observation of a craft's progress or recession against the backgroung be relied upon ?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[wheels 543]

I can not make sense of any of the distances and bearings given when one vessel is 6kts and the other is 15.5kts.

I also can not see how anyone can know distances, angles and actual bearings from Pictures. To know exactly who was where and when, it all would have had to have been plotted.

But what is the greatest concern to me, is that even with some of these very lose facts given, there is a far greater story not being given, only assumed or implied. Like the fact that an article has been placed in a publication, may or maynot mean grwoing Public cocern or debate or whatever. It may have just been an article in a story starved arena. I don't know of any crowds of public boaties murmering about this.

For anyone to be able to accurately answer any question in regard to this Mel, we really need to see a plot. Did any of those publications print a plot to represent what boat was where when?? or have you such a drawing that can be placed here so as we can understand this better.

I also have to ask, did this go to court??? Was the question asked of the Ferry Skipper why he steered where he did and why he did not take his normal course and so on?? Was he asked his opinion of your intentions and whether a safe crossing could be made and so on?

Another question I have is, exactly what did you think your clearance of his Bow would have been if all boats had of remained on original proper course?

[Guest]

I can not make sense of any of the distances and bearings given when one vessel is 6kts and the other is 15.5kts.

I also can not see how anyone can know distances, angles and actual bearings from Pictures. To know exactly who was where and when, it all would have had to have been plotted.

But what is the greatest concern to me, is that even with some of these very lose facts given, there is a far greater story not being given, only assumed or implied. Like the fact that an article has been placed in a publication, may or maynot mean grwoing Public cocern or debate or whatever. It may have just been an article in a story starved arena. I don't know of any crowds of public boaties murmering about this.

For anyone to be able to accurately answer any question in regard to this Mel, we really need to see a plot. Did any of those publications print a plot to represent what boat was where when?? or have you such a drawing that can be placed here so as we can understand this better.

I also have to ask, did this go to court??? Was the question asked of the Ferry Skipper why he steered where he did and why he did not take his normal course and so on?? Was he asked his opinion of your intentions and whether a safe crossing could be made and so on?

Another question I have is, exactly what did you think your clearance of his Bow would have been if all boats had of remained on original proper course?

quote="wheels"]I can not make sense of any of the distances and bearings given when one vessel is 6kts and the other is 15.5kts.

I also can not see how anyone can know distances, angles and actual bearings from Pictures. To know exactly who was where and when, it all would have had to have been plotted.

But what is the greatest concern to me, is that even with some of these very lose facts given, there is a far greater story not being given, only assumed or implied. Like the fact that an article has been placed in a publication, may or maynot mean grwoing Public cocern or debate or whatever. It may have just been an article in a story starved arena. I don't know of any crowds of public boaties murmering about this.

For anyone to be able to accurately answer any question in regard to this Mel, we really need to see a plot. Did any of those publications print a plot to represent what boat was where when?? or have you such a drawing that can be placed here so as we can understand this better.

I also have to ask, did this go to court??? Was the question asked of the Ferry Skipper why he steered where he did and why he did not take his normal course and so on?? Was he asked his opinion of your intentions and whether a safe crossing could be made and so on?

Another question I have is, exactly what did you think your clearance of his Bow would have been if all boats had of remained on original proper course?

-------------------------------------------------------

It was unpredicted by the ferry that such detail could be plotted Wheels, but it has been transposed on to a chart template of NZ4342. At this stage if anyone here knows how to attach such material, I’d like to know – eg. a diagram couldn’t be copied to this post.

It hasn’t gone to court. The skipper is excused for not being able to steer a straight course because “the ferry is flat bottomed, it drifted, perhaps yawed, the smallest compass graduation is 5deg therefore it’s difficult for such a vessel even under ideal conditions (as at the time) to steer a course with an accuracy better than 5deg” (Who uses a compass when conspicuous coastal features are visable ahead ?)

He says he was on his normal course which he takes because of Squatting Phenomenon – the photos he took, inadvertently show otherwise.

Re ferry's opinion of my intentions – after rounding Sth Motuihe, turning from 260T to 286T, observed Cqe crossing from Port to Stbd (Browns Is to West Motuihe), at 30 deg relative on Port bow, 2nm away. (Cqe saw the ferry 3.5nm away whilst it was on 260T) He thought at that point risk of collision existed..

If the ferry had remained on 286T Cqe’s clearance would’ve been .25nm without any increase in her speed – that being an option, as the ferry would normally be turning to 264T at Browns Is astern of Cqe on her Stbd quarter.

[Guest]

Regarding a situation where no compass, fixed object or electronics are available eg in a dinghy, with an outboard motor, crossing a harbour….

If it works in that situation reliably, is it feasible that it might have advantages

on a recreational craft where although compasses etc are accessible,

the sea motion, yawing etc is a problem & could adversely affect the relative bearing from that craft ?