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

Vic Smith wrote in
:

And also that the ferry had no AIS capability.


Was it over 300 gross tonnes? That's a violation of international maritime
law, now. The owner should be hung! (We keel hauled them, but the new
boats have those damned screws and the haulees kept fouling them.)

Larry
--

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:44:32 +0000, Larry wrote:

Vic Smith wrote in
:

And also that the ferry had no AIS capability.



Not reading the report properly. That's a violation of international
maritime law, now. The poster should be hung!

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Ouzo_.pdf

(We keel hauled them, but the new
boats have those damned screws and the haulees kept fouling them.)

Larry

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:06:24 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:44:32 +0000, Larry wrote:

Vic Smith wrote in
m:

And also that the ferry had no AIS capability.



Not reading the report properly. That's a violation of international
maritime law, now. The poster should be hung!

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Ouzo_.pdf

Maybe "capability" was the wrong word.
"2.6.6 AIS
AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to
assist in their being more visible. 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. This situation should improve as AIS
is being integrated into more ships’ systems in the future."

So what am I missing? And who is guilty?
If it's me I choose being keel-hauled - under a canoe, in Key West.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote in
:


http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Ouzo_.pdf

Maybe "capability" was the wrong word.
"2.6.6 AIS
AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to
assist in their being more visible. 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. This situation should improve as AIS
is being integrated into more ships’ systems in the future."

So what am I missing? And who is guilty?
If it's me I choose being keel-hauled - under a canoe, in Key West.

--Vic


AIS info, on most ships, is displayed on a seperate screen which simply
list the ship name, range and bearing.
If the watch officer doesn't stop to see that display and correlate that
info with what's on his radar, targets can be missed.
Ships are slowly updating to ECDIS where the radar, chart, AIS, GPS info
are all overlayed on one computer screen.....one stop shopping.

otn

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:55:33 GMT, otnmbrd
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote in
:


http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Ouzo_.pdf

Maybe "capability" was the wrong word.
"2.6.6 AIS
AIS is being carried by an increasing number of yachts, partly to
assist in their being more visible. 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. This situation should improve as AIS
is being integrated into more ships’ systems in the future."

So what am I missing? And who is guilty?
If it's me I choose being keel-hauled - under a canoe, in Key West.

--Vic


AIS info, on most ships, is displayed on a seperate screen which simply
list the ship name, range and bearing.
If the watch officer doesn't stop to see that display and correlate that
info with what's on his radar, targets can be missed.
Ships are slowly updating to ECDIS where the radar, chart, AIS, GPS info
are all overlayed on one computer screen.....one stop shopping.

Thanks for clearing that up. Since the report makes it clear the
Bilbao paid no heed to AIS, and makes only weak reference to it, as
in "This situation should improve" in some unspecified "future," it
sounds to me that any sailor must assume a merchant isn't seeing his
AIS signal. Which brings us back to your advice on keeping your
distance, which is the best advice.

--Vic