On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:32:27 -0400, Matt O'Toole
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:04:25 -0400, Peter Hendra wrote:

Great idea. I have been in situations where the ships can visually see
me but I do not appear on their radar screen - sea state and waves
etc. - I have the old metal "forget what it's called" aluminium sphere
permanently swinging at my cross trees.

The best way to be seen on someone else's radar is to have your own radar
turned on.

Matt O.

Ok, I gotta ask...... how will this help?

otn

You should read the full report
http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/.../2007/ouzo.cfm -
it's very sobering, with good information on night vision and ship-to-yacht
interactions.

The Pride of Bilbao did have AIS equipment ( JRC JHS-180, whatever that
means). However "Had Ouzo carried AIS it would have made no difference to
the outcome as AIS information was not displayed on the radar of Pride of
Bilbao." (p 30)

The radar reflector on Ouzo sounds like yours, Peter - "but, in practice,
its overall performance is poor, and it is now evident that at best there
was only a 50% probability that the ship would have been able to detect Ouzo
on the radar at close range."- read the report for a full explanation.

Sal's Dad


Full AIS transponders.....the sooner, the better for everyone.

If you can afford a yacht, you can afford a small AIS transponder. Noone
HAS to die. Ouzo would have had the same size target on the AIS screen in
that ferry as a big aircraft carrier. No need, any more, to rely on some
plastic reflective ball to make you a tiny blip on someone's 1957 tube
radar screen, fading in and out as the mast lays over. EVERY yacht going
to sea in this traffic needs a full AIS transponder running 24/7.

There's too much big traffic, today, to go on without it.

Larry
Larry,
Great idea. I have been in situations where the ships can visually see
me but I do not appear on their radar screen - sea state and waves
etc. - I have the old metal "forget what it's called" aluminium sphere
permanently swinging at my cross trees.

"Sal's Dad" wrote in
:

The radar reflector on Ouzo sounds like yours, Peter - "but, in
practice, its overall performance is poor, and it is now evident that
at best there was only a 50% probability that the ship would have been
able to detect Ouzo on the radar at close range."- read the report for
a full explanation.



All of this might have been avoided if the Ouzo had violated all the
stupid 1920's lighting regulations of those tiny little light bulbs on
your mastheads, bows and sterns and had an incredibly bright strobe light
on top of his mast(s), the kind you see on aircraft. NOONE on the bridge
of any ship could miss a horizon-focused high intensity strobe's blinding
flashes, even in the fog.

LED marker lights my ass. Everyone should have a very high intensity
strobe on top of each mast they can turn on to wake their lazy asses up
on those big bridges....coupled to some serious whooping audio horns
wouldn't hurt, either.

No boat lighting is anywhere NEAR bright enough. I wonder if Ouzo had a
high intensity search light available. I've played 2,000,000 cp across a
few bridges to get their attention when they won't answer the damned
radio calls. There should be a handheld quartz-iodine searchlight in
every cockpit, even in the daytime. You can't help but notice them for
10 miles shined in your face!

Larry
--

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:00:22 +0000, Larry wrote:

Thanks for the support Larry.

I have started to use a strobe attracting attention - to let them know
that I'm there. As I have the mast down - repainting, re-rigging etc I
have migrated it to my masthead where it sits above the nav and all
round white.

The interesting thing is, I have got a lot of criticism from other
yachtees who say that it is not "regulation" is a distress signal that
ships will detour to investigate and so on. Someone even called me
"selfish and arrogant in flaunting the rules". I wonder if any of
these people have spent much time on passage, especially at night as
they are commonly used to mark ends of fishing nets and long-lines as
well as being displayed by fishing boats having a braek.

I have used it when lying to my para anchor, on passage to ensure that
I am seen when ships come close. Not a single ship has condemned me
using it when I have spoken to them on the radio. Several have said
that that are pleased that they can see me.

I noticed that Aquasignal now have a combined all round white and
strobe below a tricolour (Please note the proper spelling!!). It looks
identical (on the shop shelf) to the one without the strobe.

cheers
Peter-

All of this might have been avoided if the Ouzo had violated all the
stupid 1920's lighting regulations of those tiny little light bulbs on
your mastheads, bows and sterns and had an incredibly bright strobe light
on top of his mast(s), the kind you see on aircraft. NOONE on the bridge
of any ship could miss a horizon-focused high intensity strobe's blinding
flashes, even in the fog.

LED marker lights my ass. Everyone should have a very high intensity
strobe on top of each mast they can turn on to wake their lazy asses up
on those big bridges....coupled to some serious whooping audio horns
wouldn't hurt, either.

No boat lighting is anywhere NEAR bright enough. I wonder if Ouzo had a
high intensity search light available. I've played 2,000,000 cp across a
few bridges to get their attention when they won't answer the damned
radio calls. There should be a handheld quartz-iodine searchlight in
every cockpit, even in the daytime. You can't help but notice them for
10 miles shined in your face!

Larry

On 2007-04-15 11:00:22 -0400, Larry said:

LED marker lights my ass. Everyone should have a very high intensity
strobe on top of each mast they can turn on to wake their lazy asses up
on those big bridges....coupled to some serious whooping audio horns
wouldn't hurt, either.

No boat lighting is anywhere NEAR bright enough. I wonder if Ouzo had a
high intensity search light available. I've played 2,000,000 cp across a
few bridges to get their attention when they won't answer the damned
radio calls. There should be a handheld quartz-iodine searchlight in
every cockpit, even in the daytime. You can't help but notice them for
10 miles shined in your face!

I mostly agree, but see a place for LED as the usual lights, mostly
because they work in the usual world: They're as bright as the
incadescents, blow out less often (!), and draw little enough that I'll
be putting on brighter lights than required for our size.

Still, having a monster strobe at the top of the mast sounds useful for
*emergency* signalling, along with the super-bright spotlight that is
out of the weather, but can be pulled out and plugged in without
leaving the cockpit. The horn and flares are in that same bin.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:00:22 +0000, Larry wrote:

"Sal's Dad" wrote in
:

The radar reflector on Ouzo sounds like yours, Peter - "but, in
practice, its overall performance is poor, and it is now evident that
at best there was only a 50% probability that the ship would have been
able to detect Ouzo on the radar at close range."- read the report for
a full explanation.

The report said the type used on the Ouzo is virtually worthless.
And also that the ferry had no AIS capability.


All of this might have been avoided if the Ouzo had violated all the
stupid 1920's lighting regulations of those tiny little light bulbs on
your mastheads, bows and sterns and had an incredibly bright strobe light
on top of his mast(s), the kind you see on aircraft. NOONE on the bridge
of any ship could miss a horizon-focused high intensity strobe's blinding
flashes, even in the fog.

LED marker lights my ass. Everyone should have a very high intensity
strobe on top of each mast they can turn on to wake their lazy asses up
on those big bridges....coupled to some serious whooping audio horns
wouldn't hurt, either.

No boat lighting is anywhere NEAR bright enough. I wonder if Ouzo had a
high intensity search light available. I've played 2,000,000 cp across a
few bridges to get their attention when they won't answer the damned
radio calls. There should be a handheld quartz-iodine searchlight in
every cockpit, even in the daytime. You can't help but notice them for
10 miles shined in your face!

This sounds right for this situation. The ferry lookout's vision was
compromised to 80% by his photochromatic glasses, and additionally
by insufficient time for night vision adjustment.
The Ouzo crew had no defense but offense.
A lot to be learned from reading that report.
Not only about being run down, but proper safety gear in case it
happens.
What gets me is that the ferry lookouts have no real aft view.
On my can we always had an aft lookout posted. You'd think large
ships would post lookouts as a matter of safety for a variety of
reasons - an aft lookout spots the man overboard for one.
They rely too heavily on electronics. That their radar couldn't
pick up a 25' sailboat in moderate seas doesn't say much for
their steaming safely.

--Vic

"Sal's Dad" wrote in message
...
You should read the full report
http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/.../2007/ouzo.cfm -
it's very sobering, with good information on night vision and
ship-to-yacht interactions.

Thanks for the link, it's a very educational read, but also sad, would much
rather have them be telling their cautionary story themselves..

A personally carried EPIRB, check, but didn't realize a crotch strap could
be that important, and will never look at a radar reflector the same way
again. And hydrostatically launched life raft, hmm, looks more appealing
now.

BUT, what I still don't get, is why couldn't the three gents onboard the
Ouzo just avoid the Bilbao altogether?

I mean the question is literal, what would cause them to NOT be able to
avoid her, I'm not blaming the victim here.

Assuming they were on watch and not below, in clear conditions (though
night), would it have been that difficult to see the hugely larger Bilbao
before getting so close? Even if all her running lights were off, there
were thousands of passengers on her (or a lot) so there would have been at
least the common area lighting on. Why couldn't the Ouzo see her?

Of course, if they did see her, I guess I can understand if they had lost
steerage, but that doesn't seem likely given the scenario outlined. Or does
it?

Those three gents had way, way more experience than me, so I'm trying to
understand the missing piece: I know the factors that contributed to
Bilbao's actions (or lack thereof before and after).

Why did Ouzo allow her to get so close in the first place?

John

--

}

For a valid email take out the _beer bottles_ before replying but leave the
number.

----------

If you forget about your dreams you die.
Live for them, & they will live for you.

In article ,
"John Reimer" wrote:

"Sal's Dad" wrote in message
...
You should read the full report
http://www.maib.gov.uk/publications/.../2007/ouzo.cfm -
it's very sobering, with good information on night vision and
ship-to-yacht interactions.

Thanks for the link, it's a very educational read, but also sad, would much
rather have them be telling their cautionary story themselves..

A personally carried EPIRB, check, but didn't realize a crotch strap could
be that important, and will never look at a radar reflector the same way
again. And hydrostatically launched life raft, hmm, looks more appealing
now.

BUT, what I still don't get, is why couldn't the three gents onboard the
Ouzo just avoid the Bilbao altogether?

I mean the question is literal, what would cause them to NOT be able to
avoid her, I'm not blaming the victim here.

Assuming they were on watch and not below, in clear conditions (though
night), would it have been that difficult to see the hugely larger Bilbao
before getting so close? Even if all her running lights were off, there
were thousands of passengers on her (or a lot) so there would have been at
least the common area lighting on. Why couldn't the Ouzo see her?

Of course, if they did see her, I guess I can understand if they had lost
steerage, but that doesn't seem likely given the scenario outlined. Or does
it?

Those three gents had way, way more experience than me, so I'm trying to
understand the missing piece: I know the factors that contributed to
Bilbao's actions (or lack thereof before and after).

Why did Ouzo allow her to get so close in the first place?

As I recall, they were in Southampton water, which is a (relatively)
small area with lots of shipping/cruisers etc. Makes it even more of a
puzzle in that they didn't seem to have a lookout despite their
experience.

Molesworth

SV Captive
39' NDMorgan

On 2007-04-15 21:06:33 -0400, "John Reimer"
said:

BUT, what I still don't get, is why couldn't the three gents onboard the
Ouzo just avoid the Bilbao altogether?

I mean the question is literal, what would cause them to NOT be able to
avoid her, I'm not blaming the victim here.

Which way do you turn when a big ship is altering course and may be
turning to pass you on the "far" side?

We're based on the Chesapeake just about on a channel. I mean, we
literally have to look left and right as we clear our breakwaters, and
the ships aren't going nearly 19 knots (most times). Avoiding the heavy
metal is a fact of life for us.

Down by the Annapolis Bay bridge, we had one of those "pucker" moments:
We'd been sailing down out of the channels, but had to cross a channel
at one point to get to another safe area. Just then, a ship came up
through the bridge.

And they started turning.

Towards us.

Which channel would they take? The one in front of us or the one behind?

Being chicken, I fired up and steered directly across the channel to
shallow (for them) water at the edge of the Bay. After a few minutes,
we could see they were steering towards the channel behind...

but we didn't know for quite a while what their intended new course would be.

Ouzo had no such santuary in open water. It could well be that they did
as I would do and beat a path as far west as I could -- and Pride of
Bilbao kept on turning --west-- which meant that Ouzo did exactly the
wrong thing in 20-20 hindsight. Holding their course may well have been
their best option, or maybe beating a path east was right.

But the report sure has me re-thinking my choice of photo-grey lenses
if I'm sailing at night. I'm lucky that my distance vision is lightly
affected by age, so I'll likely take my glasses off when the sun goes
down.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Larry wrote:
Molesworth wrote in news:ukmole-
:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6547267.stm

Full AIS transponders.....the sooner, the better for everyone.

Bull. The commercial boats don't mind knocking a few of us over. To
them, we're sea trash.