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 Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:31:37 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

Jere,
I have brought back a couple of LED clusters to replace the
incandescent bulbs at the masthead. If they are not any good I can
always change back to the ordinary bulbs. I hope to reduce the drain
whilst sailing and anchoring.

cheers
Peter



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.

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

Fully agree with the strobe..... the point is to be seen.
For cruising sail, use the masthead tricolor....also more visible.
High powered search light..... shine on sails and everyplace else BUT
ship's wheelhouse




Larry wrote in
:

Peter Hendra wrote in
:

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.


If is saves one life, to hell with the rules. If they get
curious...they can TURN ON THEIR RADIOS AND ASK!....which is what I
wanted them to do in the first place.

Speaking of radios, do you chat with ships you can see out beyond land
on Channel 13? Most sailors treat that radio as some kind of plague
they're required to carry. I'm an old ham operator, so like to chat.
Coming home from Florida, off the GA coast a hundred miles or so, we
had 14 active "checkins" to "The Channel 13 Ship Net" at 1AM on the
midwatch. One of the 1st Mates wanted to trade me Lionheart for a
containership, but I had to turn him down...(c; They're really BORED
TO TEARS up on those tall bridges in the dark, I found. Having a chat
on 13 perked everyone, including me all red-eyed and a little seasick
in the slop. Oddly, though we could see lots of other yachts, both
motor and sail, we couldn't raise them on 13 or 16 or get them to
respond to our calls for a chat. Maybe it was that old "hermit
syndrome" so may yachties have, trying to leave the whole world on
another planet. You know them, I'm sure.

The big 12V quartz-iodine 55W searchlight with the big reflector can
also make anyone stand up and take notice.....especially if they are
headed right for you. After a quick sweep across to make a big flash
pointed at them, shine the beast up on their side of the mainsail,
lighting up the whole sail rigging like day so they can't miss that
you are a SAILBOAT and expect to be treated like same. Deck lights on
the spreaders can't hold a candle to the beast lighting up the sail
for visibility to some idiot banker on his Hatteras 58. Lionheart
looks like the tail of a Delta 757 taxiing its tail billboard
around....(c;

Larry

Peter Hendra wrote in
:

No, I have never called on channel 13 - what is it internationally
used for? We/I usually call on Channel 16 at sea.

On this side of the pond, at least, Channel 13 is the Bridge to Bridge,
Ship to Ship channel, usually used for navigation broadcasts by the
ships. No shore stations are supposed to be allowed. Not sure about
your region's ship-to-ship channel, but I suspect it's the same.


I also have used the spotlight on the mainsail. I just hope that
someone is looking my way at the time. Some of them do come a bit
close at times though which is somewjhat disconcerting. WSe have found
that if the "owner" gets on the radio, we get good responses but that
is not a hard and fast rule.

Many of the merchant sailors I talked to were under the impression us
"yachties" were just too snobbish to talk to mere Merchant Mariners.
And, the yachties I've talked to thought the MM guys hated them, which is
just not true. They're as curious about your boat as you are about
theirs! I've even been aboard some of them docked at Charleston for some
chow or the nickle tour. You should see a 38,800hp, 7 cyl inline diesel
with 5' diameter pistons on a 7' stroke, if you haven't. It's a 2-
stroke!

You're right about them being bored to tears. It must be hell going
faster than 5 knots and making more than 120 miles per day. They never
have to worry much about wind direction or sea state not that we worry
overly about it. Ther's not much you can do when you are there. They
do however take advantage and note of currents which can save/cost
them extra time and fuel. But this is compensated for by having a
regular cook and all the comforts of home.

Well, we do it for fun. They do it as WORK, which makes it lots less fun
as the years pile up. They DO worry about wind...especially the car
carriers. Those ship sides have LOTS more sail area than the combined
sail area in any marina. The car carriers flat sides are HUGE! I have a
ham radio friend who is one of the two masters on Sealand "Performance",
a 950', 38,800hp single screw container ship. Larry tells me, "I can
stop it in less than 2.5 miles!" It's just like driving a bassboat in
slow motion...(c;

Speaking of the food, the food is excellent on "Performance". I ate
dinner with the crew who didn't go ashore. Their food is "packed" into 4
refridgerated 50' containers, stuffed full. The container crane lowers
the container onto a little railroad car made for them that transports
the container to the galley, stern end first. The cooks just open the
rear container doors and the food is ready to unload....in the order of
the menu they are going to serve. The crew simply eats their way through
the container from back doors to front wall, then open up the next
one....four in a load. It's all very efficient for the tiny crew these
huge ships now carry...about 21 crew and officers. A computer controls
the engine and pages the duty engineer if it doesn't like some parameter.
Noone sits in the engine room and watches it any more.

I've always wanted to go to Europe on a commercial ship. There's a
Polish steamship line that carries 6-8 passengers for around $1600, one
way. That's a helluva 2 week vacation really cheap. Many lines have
dropped passenger service because everyone, today, is just in too much of
a hurry to be crammed into an airplane after humiliating strip searches.
No thanks....I wanna DRIVE a ship!...(c;

Larry
--
Who cares about Europe? I just wanna go and come back around the
ports....(c;

On this side of the pond, at least, Channel 13 is the Bridge to Bridge,
Ship to Ship channel, usually used for navigation broadcasts by the
ships. No shore stations are supposed to be allowed. Not sure about
your region's ship-to-ship channel, but I suspect it's the same.

I'll try it when I leave here. Even though I do have aN N.Z. marine
operator's radio licence, when we sailed as a family my wife did most
of the radio work and pulled down the weather faxes. It was just the
division of labour thing. I do it now of course.


Many of the merchant sailors I talked to were under the impression us
"yachties" were just too snobbish to talk to mere Merchant Mariners.
And, the yachties I've talked to thought the MM guys hated them, which is
just not true. They're as curious about your boat as you are about
theirs! I've even been aboard some of them docked at Charleston for some
chow or the nickle tour. You should see a 38,800hp, 7 cyl inline diesel
with 5' diameter pistons on a 7' stroke, if you haven't. It's a 2-
stroke!
I have a German friend who captained an ULCC that used to carry oil
from Kuwait to Europe around the Caope of Good Hope and to Japan. The
draught laden at 80 feet was too deep to go through the Melaka Straits
so they had to go the long way through the Lombok Strait between Bali
and Lombok Islands in Indonesia. It was 1,150 feet long and at top
revs the prop was revolving at 73 revs per minute. I still have
difficulty in understanding how the thing moved


Noone sits in the engine room and watches it any more.

I don't ever sit in my engine room either


I've always wanted to go to Europe on a commercial ship. There's a
Polish steamship line that carries 6-8 passengers for around $1600, one
way. That's a helluva 2 week vacation really cheap. Many lines have
dropped passenger service because everyone, today, is just in too much of
a hurry to be crammed into an airplane after humiliating strip searches.
No thanks....I wanna DRIVE a ship!...(c;

I have been on board a Polish ship like that in Tauranga N.Z. a few
years ago. An American couple we met on the docks invited us aboard
and showed us around. What a way to see the world. So much better than
aboard a cruise ship where you are in more of a hotel than a ship.
When I was aged between 12 to 15 we used to go across Cook Strait that
seperates the North and South Islands of New Zealand - a very wild
stretch of water sometimes in the roaring 40's. We used to go every
Christmas school holidays (in N.Z. 6 weeks) to a camp run by the
Police where we lived in tents and learned to sail dinghys, fished,
tramped, (bush walking), scuba dived etc. under harsh discipline -
pants down and touch toes in front of all while a belt was liberally
applied. It was for rough kids who they were keeping an eye on - don't
know why I was there. My best memory is of steering an old ferry, the
Rangatira for half an hour- they were quite large ships, not a little
Staten island type with its large wooden ship's wheel. It had an open
bridge deck with an enclosed wheel house. I even remember the
Captain's name - Captain Russell. I knew then that I wanted to be at
sea. What a way to give a kid the determination to get something.

Larry, what I like most about you is your apparent enthusiasm for both
life and what you are interested in. You have a personality that
stands out. God knows the world needs it as most are so damned
negative by their mid thirties.

cheers and thanks
Peter

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.

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?

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.

"The crew of Ouzo were thought to have been skilled and conscientious in
their approach to navigation and watchkeeping, and, if they were conforming
to their usual practices, they will have set watch routines with two crew
members in the cockpit at all times...A million candela flashlight was kept
ready...to warn ships of their presence...As regular sailors in those waters
and with local knowledge, the crew might even have realised that it was the
Pride of Bilbao, bound for Spain.

"The quality of the lookout on Ouzo as Pride of Bilbao approached will never
be known, however if the crew were alert to her approach it would have
appeared that she was going to pass well clear. In fact, up until 0101, she
was steering a course to pass them at a distance of about 0.5 nautical mile.

"On reaching the waypoint position at 0101, Pride of Bilbao began a slow
turn to starboard. We do not know if the Ouzo's crew noticed this but, if
they had done so, with no other obvious reason for the course alteration,
they might have thought the ferry was altering course to give way to them in
compliance with Rule 19 of the COLREGS. This, in turn, might have led them
to believe that the ferry's bridge team had seen them, thus possibly
relieving them of some anxiety.

"The alteration of course took more than 3 minutes to complete...such a slow
manner can lead to doubt and indecision on board other vessels..."

The officer "saw a cluster of bright white lights before moving to the
steering controls and losing sight of the yacht. It is possible that these
lights resulted from the use of the flashlight, which the yacht's crew kept
at hand for such emergencies"

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

Vic Smith wrote in
:


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.

You ask me to do a study to show a problem with a particular
person/group/system and guaranteed I'll find something plausible which at
least deserves a closer look but in no way should be taken as "Gospel"
cause.

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.

and on an aft house ship they have limited forward view. What does this
tell you to do when encountering each type vessel?

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.

Although I might agree with your idealism, commercial ships are not run
on the basis of "safety first, screw the cost". An additional lookout
might be great for some conditions but it cost money and if the companies
can show few real benifits..... forget it..... as for an aft lookout
seeing a man overboard on some yacht astern at night.....fat chance.
As for radar picking up a small,plastic sailboat in moderate seas..... we
can argue this point of "steaming safely" for years to come.

I'm sorry, but for my 2 cents, you'd be better off concentrating on the
many possibilities of what the yacht did wrong, learning from these and
altering your own operational parameters..... for instance.... in open
waters.... never allow a ship to get within 1 mile of you....2 miles is
safer..... sure that may not always be possible if the ship is changing
course navigationally, but that possibility is something you need to
consider.

otn

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:53:25 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote in
:


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.

You ask me to do a study to show a problem with a particular
person/group/system and guaranteed I'll find something plausible which at
least deserves a closer look but in no way should be taken as "Gospel"
cause.

Yes. I meant to point out that vision element out to "us" common
sailboaters, not the merchantmen.
Something to keep in mind about glasses and eye adjustment when night
sailing for your own vision benefit, and likewise assume the merchant
lookouts can't see you.

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.

and on an aft house ship they have limited forward view. What does this
tell you to do when encountering each type vessel?

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.

Although I might agree with your idealism, commercial ships are not run
on the basis of "safety first, screw the cost". An additional lookout
might be great for some conditions but it cost money and if the companies
can show few real benifits..... forget it..... as for an aft lookout
seeing a man overboard on some yacht astern at night.....fat chance.
As for radar picking up a small,plastic sailboat in moderate seas..... we
can argue this point of "steaming safely" for years to come.

I'm sorry, but for my 2 cents, you'd be better off concentrating on the
many possibilities of what the yacht did wrong, learning from these and
altering your own operational parameters..... for instance.... in open
waters.... never allow a ship to get within 1 mile of you....2 miles is
safer..... sure that may not always be possible if the ship is changing
course navigationally, but that possibility is something you need to
consider.

I essentially agree with everything you've said.

--Vic