A Question for Sailors

[k0ua]

If you would like to learn more about eLoran, click on the link. The info is a bit dated, but I believe it to be relevant. For those that are wondering, eLoran will be on the 90Khz to 110Khz frequency range. Not like the older now defunct Loran C in the 160 meter band.

http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2014-06/narins.pdf

 

[/pine]

There is talk of reviving/updating LORAN and calling it eLORAN...

Cyber Threats Prompt Return of Radio for Ship Navigation gCaptain

And the USN recently returned to teaching Celestial Navigation as a back up to GPS.

Later,
Dan

That is good to hear...I seriously doubt the military will be moving away from inertial systems ( a type of dead reckoning) though...for a back up for GPS...

 

[bindian]

The bigger question is why two huge ship hit two destroyers. The reduced training reason doesn't work for the huge ships. They didn't get squeezed by obama into reducing watches and training. More automation in huge ships ...............that can be hacked, is the obvious reason. Cyper warfare is the only plausible reason 2 ships on two different occasions hit another ship(s). Was every watch stander on every ship involved paid to look the other way?

I installed Loran C in helicopters in the early 80s. At that time, it was great for oil rig flights. But not for the open ocean.
hugs, Brandi

 

[smstonypoint]

Out of curiosity (and probably too much free time on my hands ), I did some research on the history of naval collisions and found https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NavalAccidents1945-1988.pdf -- "Naval Accidents 1945 - 1988."

In describing their research, the authors say (p.73):

"This report is based upon a two-year comprehensive search of public information sources, numerous requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), research into U.S. Navy archives and historical documents, and interviews with naval officials and experts. Even so, the report is incomplete, mainly as a result of government secrecy. Little effort has been made on the part of the navies to inform the public as to the extent of naval accidents, particularly those which occur on the high seas. Nuclear weapons and reactor-related accidents, in addition, are hidden by an even greater veil of secrecy.

Yet in the end, using primary sources, we have been able to identify over 1,200 accidents. The overwhelming majority of these are U.S. accidents. The suspicion is that the Soviet Union has an even greater accident record than the U.S., but specific information was not obtainable. A conservative estimate, however, would put the total of major accidents at over 2,000 since the end of World War II, or about one accident every week in the postwar era."

Between 1945 and 1988, there were 456 documented collisions involving one or more naval vessels -- 1948 saw the lowest number of collisions (1) and 1983 the highest (19) over the sample period. See Table 2, page 79. The average over the sample period was just over 10 collisions/year.

Human error and equipment failure are facts of life.

Steve

 

[Wagtail]

Officer on deck or not, isn't there supposed to be someone on watch looking around the ocean in the immediate vicinity of the ship ?

Mate, we've been over this. Minimum manning of warships has reduced the number of personnel onboard... There are not enough people to stand a lookout with binoculars during regular (deep sea) navigation (particularly during the Dog/First/Middle/Morning watches) = that's what the radar/electronics are for (that's the modern thinking/policy, anyway).

In 'confined' or hazardous (heavy traffic areas or entering/leaving harbour), Special Sea Dutymen (SSD) are 'closed up' (more personnel on watch). This may include physical lookouts.

The McCAIN was not yet in the the heavy traffic sea lanes so SSD either weren't called/closed up or were in the process of being called.

 

[/pine]

unless there is an obvious mechanical reason for either of the recent collisions...it could be a long, long, long time if the public ever actually learns the truth...

 

[Garandman]

Just spoke to an active duty Surface Warfare LT (a graduate of King's Point), on assignment here.

He believes the main issues are inadequate training and sleep deprivation.

 

[RichM752]

Rich,

How about the navigational skills of the Coast Guard?

Steve

I can not speak as to the nav watch personal of USCG vessels.
I know that on a merchant vessel, there are two people on a nav watch, a mate and a seaman. Some union ships allow the seaman to sit in a chair, so unless the seaman is vigilant you can say there is a one man bridge operation. Two operational radars, integrated with AIS, and a proper lookout is all that is required in todays "rules", a.k.a. ISM regs. The USCG has failed numerous times in my experience to enforce proper manning on merchant vessels. I've even had them say to me, "we don't get involved in labor issues". Never mind what the rules say regarding a "proper lookout".
Like I said, If Grey Steer Away, always worked for me. Rarely does the naval vessel answer a radio hail, when they do they will not identify themselves, AIS is non existent, and they rarely follow rules of the road.
These collisions involving Naval vessels are of no surprise to me. I mourn the loss of life.

 

[dmccarty]

For people who think human's could not make stupid mistakes when operating vessels, take a look at this video. The incident was in daylight, with a professional captain and crew yet they still hit the motor boat even though they had plenty of time to avoid a collision. I never read in any of the long discussions of this incident that crew fatigue or environmental conditions played a part in the collision.

The motor boat owner had gone below to go to the bathroom and let the auto pilot hold course. There was no one else on board. I read that eventually the motor boat owner was found 40% at fault and the ferry captain was 60%. In vessel collisions, blame is almost always put on both crews.

Later,
Dan

 

[RoyJackson]

For people who think human's could not make stupid mistakes when operating vessels, take a look at this video. The incident was in daylight, with a professional captain and crew yet they still hit the motor boat even though they had plenty of time to avoid a collision. I never read in any of the long discussions of this incident that crew fatigue or environmental conditions played a part in the collision.

The motor boat owner had gone below to go to the bathroom and let the auto pilot hold course. There was no one else on board. I read that eventually the motor boat owner was found 40% at fault and the ferry captain was 60%. In vessel collisions, blame is almost always put on both crews.

Later,
Dan

That boat owner must have really had the *****!!

 

[smstonypoint]

For people who think human's could not make stupid mistakes when operating vessels, take a look at this video. The incident was in daylight, with a professional captain and crew yet they still hit the motor boat even though they had plenty of time to avoid a collision. I never read in any of the long discussions of this incident that crew fatigue or environmental conditions played a part in the collision.

<snip>

The motor boat owner had gone below to go to the bathroom and let the auto pilot hold course. There was no one else on board. I read that eventually the motor boat owner was found 40% at fault and the ferry captain was 60%. In vessel collisions, blame is almost always put on both crews.

Later,
Dan

How would you have ruled on this case given the video evidence?

Steve

 

[dmccarty]

That boat owner must have really had the *****!!

Before or after he met the ferry? :shocked::confused3::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

How would you have ruled on this case given the video evidence?

Steve

10-20% small boat and 80-90% for the ferry.

The small boat was the stand on vessel, they were not operating in an area where the ferry had any special privileges, so the ferry was the give way vessel. The ferry should have realized much earlier that they were in a crossing situation and slowed down, changed course, etc but they did not. The small boat was not maintaining a proper watch and did not try to avoid the ferry so he shares the blame for the collision.

Later,
Dan

 

[ch1ch2]

I am not a sailor, I had a 18' sail boat for many years on a local lake.
I always thought boats under sail had right of way then ships, then smaller.
Basically the boat that was least able to maneuver had right of way.

Based on my lack of knowledge, the little boat was entirely wrong.

 

[bcp]

Amalgamated Navigation Rules

Bruce

 

[/pine]

Rules of the Road Summarized

Rules of the Road Summarized - BoatSafe.com

 

[turnkey4099]

unless there is an obvious mechanical reason for either of the recent collisions...it could be a long, long, long time if the public ever actually learns the truth...

The official navy report of the accident and its causes are usualy available within a year. Up to each person to decide if they believe it.

 

[smstonypoint]

10-20% small boat and 80-90% for the ferry.

The small boat was the stand on vessel, they were not operating in an area where the ferry had any special privileges, so the ferry was the give way vessel. The ferry should have realized much earlier that they were in a crossing situation and slowed down, changed course, etc but they did not. The small boat was not maintaining a proper watch and did not try to avoid the ferry so he shares the blame for the collision.

Later,
Dan

That sounds reasonable to me.

How close would you guess that the pleasure vessel was to the ferry as the "potty mouth" started recording? My guess is less than 100 yards. The only evidence I see (hear) that the ferry captain did anything was to sound his horn and judging by prop wash, reverse engine(s) near the time of the collision.

Steve

 

[Garandman]

I am not a sailor, I had a 18' sail boat for many years on a local lake.
I always thought boats under sail had right of way then ships, then smaller.
Basically the boat that was least able to maneuver had right of way.

Based on my lack of knowledge, the little boat was entirely wrong.

There are other factors that may come into play, such as the general category of "Vessels limited in their ability to maneuver."

A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

If the ferry was in a dredged channel to the landing, for example, the pleasure boat would be obliged to keep clear. Without knowing what waters they are in, not sure how you can decide the ferry is at fault.

The pros who operate the ferries, pilot boats, harbor cruise boats etc. have seen us and taken action to avoid us long in advance. It's the other pleasure boaters you can't be sure about.

 

[3930dave]

This is the large-island collision I posted about earlier....

Ferry officer Karl Lilgert given 4 years in jail over Queen of the North sinking | CTV News

2 people died, and last I heard, the ferry was never recovered.

Rgds, D.