I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the subject. Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day, even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself' while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be done safely or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks. --
Try to stay out of shipping lanes. Get a chart that shows where they are and stay at least 20nm on either side. When your destination converses maintain a good lookout. Don't worry about Merchant Vessels in the open ocean, as they are on autopilot. Worry instead about fishing vessels a few hundred miles from shore. Regardless, the odds favor you. Worry more about semisubmerged containers along shipping routes.
"New Conservative" <78738@virgin_not_for_mail.net> wrote in message news:11a7219ar7pnrk0crcpjucim9unp1g75db@4ax.com...> Hi all,>
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am> therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the> subject.> Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day,> even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself'> while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be done safely> or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a> while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if> I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks.> -- >
Don White wrote:> Not sure if it's practical to set your autopilot and then set your radar to> issue an audio alarm when something comes within 10 miles or so.>
Audio alarms for radar have a tendency to sound, based on "sea - return", so many people all too often turn them off. If you plan to singlehand, add an AIS with CPA alarms. No guarantees, but coupled with radar, it might help increase your safety factor..... course, this doesn't address the surfacing sub issue.......
in message <11a7219ar7pnrk0crcpjucim9unp1g75db@4ax.com>, New Conservative ('78738@virgin_not_for_mail.net') wrote:
Hi all,>
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am> therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the> subject.> Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day,> even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself'> while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no?
It's a legally dodgy area. The colregs say that you must keep an effective watch at all times, and clearly the extent to which a singlehander can do that is questionable. However, if you're sailing a small boat which is unlikely to do serious damage to anything you might be in collision with I don't see it as a morally dodgy area. Of course your own boat may sink, but that's a risk you take... in fact the sea is very large and (apart from choke points like the English Channel) the number of vessels in any given area is very small so the chances of a collision are very low.
Can it be done safely > or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a> while until I've awoken?
There's no safety benefit from 'dropping all sail and just bobbing about'; you might as well be making way in the direction you want to go (and the movement of the boat will be more comfortable).
Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if > I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks.
There are two strategies. One is period based alarms - when you go to sleep you set an alarm to wake you at a particular time - and the other is event based alarms. If you use a self steering gear rather than an autopilot you may use an 'off course alarm' linked to an electronic compass; you may have an alarm set to go off if windspeed exceeds a predetermined threshold; you may have a proximity alarm linked to an active radar transponder. People who race singlehanded employ both these strategies.
One thing is that most successful singlehanded sailors sleep for very short periods - often only twenty or thirty minutes at a time, although ideally with many of these 'cat naps' in a twenty four hour period. You can train yourself to get used to this sort of routine before you leave (and take it from me it's horribly tough and you end up after a few weeks feeling horribly fatigued).
-- simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged ;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended ;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other ;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little ;; life a tiny bit.
The horizon depends on the height of your eye - the dipping distance tables in the almanac give the distance off for height. You will see objects above sea level 'over the horizon' according to their height so as the ship approaches, you will see more of it.
It is all in the yachtmaster shorebased course - possibly day skipper too!
Nick
Dan wrote:> Evan Gatehouse wrote:>
Ships can come over the horizon in about 10 minutes to your position>>if moving at say 22 knots.>
AFAIK the horizon is 22 odd miles away. A ship moving at 22kts would> therefore take about an hour to get to you.>
Nick wrote:> The horizon depends on the height of your eye - the dipping distance> tables in the almanac give the distance off for height. You will see
objects above sea level 'over the horizon' according to their height
as the ship approaches, you will see more of it.
70 foot high ship viewed from 3 metres high. I can't be arsed to do the maths but I bet it isn't *far* off 22 miles.
The horizon depends on the height of your eye - the dipping distance>>tables in the almanac give the distance off for height. You will see>
objects above sea level 'over the horizon' according to their height>
as the ship approaches, you will see more of it.>
70 foot high ship viewed from 3 metres high. I can't be arsed to do the> maths but I bet it isn't *far* off 22 miles.>
What would you estimate?>
Not quite that far. Dipping distance(nm) is 2.08 * SQRT(height in metres). 3 metres gives a horizon at 3.6 nm. The 21 metre ship has a dipping distance of 9.5 nm. So at 13.1 nm you will see the tops of the masts and at 3.6 nm you will see the hull down to waterline.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:52:34 UTC, "Dan" <danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Nick wrote: : : > Not quite that far. Dipping distance(nm) is 2.08 * SQRT(height in : > metres). 3 metres gives a horizon at 3.6 nm. The 21 metre ship has : a : > dipping distance of 9.5 nm. So at 13.1 nm you will see the tops of : the : > masts and at 3.6 nm you will see the hull down to waterline. : : So it aint gonna hit you in 10 mins.
If it's a HSS it'll have time to hit you, circle the area machine-gunning survivors, nip back home and come back with a wreath in ten minutes.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:00:09 UTC, "Dan" <danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: Ian Johnston wrote: : > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:52:34 UTC, "Dan" <danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk> : : : > If it's a HSS it'll have time to hit you, circle the area : > machine-gunning survivors, nip back home and come back with a wreath : > in ten minutes. : : In which case keeping a watch wouldn't have done you much good anyway!
Ian Johnston wrote:> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:00:09 UTC, "Dan" <danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:>
: Ian Johnston wrote:> : > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:52:34 UTC, "Dan"
<danny_deever2000@yahoo.co.uk>> :> :> : > If it's a HSS it'll have time to hit you, circle the area> : > machine-gunning survivors, nip back home and come back with a wreath> : > in ten minutes.> :> : In which case keeping a watch wouldn't have done you much good anyway!>
How long does it take to arm a Stinger missile?
LOL! Yes. A day out cruising. Pasties: Check, Suntan Cream: Check, Stinger Missile...
Armond Perretta 1 March 2005 21:00:32 [ permanent link ]
New Conservative wrote:>
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I> am therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of> the subject.> Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every> day, even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail> herself' while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be> done safely or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in> the dark for a while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a> shorter passage if I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas?
Sailing alone over longer distances is not something that many people experience, so there tends to be a broad range of responses when this kind of question is asked. One thing you can be sure of is that people who sail alone will give you vastly different responses compared to those who do not.
Having said that, I think you may be getting ahead of yourself. Why not give this issue some thought _after_ you have sailed for a few years and made a few coastal cruises. By then you will have made a few of the mistakes, and experienced one or two of the terrors, that we ell have, and you will be in a position to answer quite a few of your own questions.
Also by then you will have gained enough experience to put forth questions that are worth spending time answering.
Renewontime Dot Com 1 March 2005 21:40:39 [ permanent link ]
So best case scenario: you're sailing (at 6 knots) towards a ship > (steaming at 32 knots) that's on a reciprocal course, so you're closing > at roughtly 42 knots.
OOPS, I mean't to use a ship at 36 knots in this example.
--
=-------------------------------------------------= Renewontime A FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-------------------------------------------------=
Chrisssssss................ 1 March 2005 23:13:30 [ permanent link ]
Hopefully this post is a joke.
If you haven't sailed before, then simply forget any attempt to sail such a distance single-handed. Only when you really know what you are doing should you consider it. Any attempt to do so when inexperienced, and you deserve everything you (will certainly) get.
Chrisssss.....
"New Conservative" <78738@virgin_not_for_mail.net> wrote in message news:11a7219ar7pnrk0crcpjucim9unp1g75db@4ax.com...> Hi all,>
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am> therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the> subject.> Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day,> even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself'> while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be done safely> or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a> while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if> I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks.> -- >
renewontime dot com wrote:> <snip>> Second, what speed ships operate at runs the gammut, but what I consider > to be the "big guys": super containerships, tankers and cruise ships, > normally run around 32-36 knots.>
Really? I just did a quick google, and apparently QM2 is "The Fastest current ocean Liner apart from QE2 (approx 30 knots vs. 32.5 knots )" so which particular cruise ships (etc) do you have in mind?
Let me try to clear up some serious misconceptions:>
First, your "visible horizon" depends on two things: height of eye and > your atmospheric visibility. With a height of eye of 8 feet (rough > guess of your height of eye on a small yacht) your visible horizon in > clear conditions is roughly 3 miles. To calculate how far you might see > a "big ship", you'd add the distance of the horizon for the ship's > superstructure (say 9 miles for a 60 foot high ship). So in this case, > the furthest you'd be able to see this ship is roughly 12 miles, and > quite possibly alot less than that. If you don't believe me, look it up > in Bowditch.
I figure that most cruising sailboats, even those keeping a good lookout won't spot a white superstructure at 9 miles but will probably spot a hull at 5 or so miles.
I agree that atmospheric haze often limits visibility *even* if you don't notice it.
Second, what speed ships operate at runs the gammut, but what I consider > to be the "big guys": super containerships, tankers and cruise ships, > normally run around 32-36 knots.
Nobody in the commercial fleet runs at 32-36 knots, especially not tankers! The very fastest container ships and LNG carriers are around 25-27 knots. Cruise ships are slower, around 22-23 knots top speed and most tankers are slower still. The exception would have to be the SL-7 Fast Sealift ships which did 33 knots on trials.
Third, it's been my experience (30+ years at sea) that almost every > merchant vessel at sea maintains a -very good- watch and lookout. There
Not in my experience. I've often called up passing merchant vessels at sea on VHF 16 and it usually takes several calls for about 10 minutes before _some_ will reply. I've asked how my visibility on radar is and got the reply: "let me warm it up....".
The problem for merchant ships is that small sailing vessels are just > hard to see. VERY hard to see. They usually present a poor RADAR > target and have dim or no navigation lights.
Agreed. We're small targets.
Fourth, by law all ocean going merchant ships are required to be
fitted> with and operate their RADARs. If a ship has a RADAR failure, they are > required by law to head directly to port and not get underway until it's > been fixed (there's more to it than this over simplification, but I'll > spare you the details). I know of no ship's master that would risk > his/her license and livelyhood by allowing their RADARs to be secured > while operating at sea. Your comment to the contrary is complete nonsense.
See my post above. I think a lot of flag of convenience ships don't have their radar on all the time, probably to save the cost of replacing the magnetron.
But I think we agree that cruising sailboats are small, hard to see targets, that large vessels are often not seen until they are within a few miles of you, and that everybody should keep a good lookout.
Having said all that, I don't think single handed sailboats pose much of a risk to anybody, with the exception of fast racing yachts (wouldn't want to be hit by B&Q at 30 knots)
Wali Woll-Nutbrayn 2 March 2005 14:43:38 [ permanent link ]
New Conservative <78738@virgin_not_for_mail.net> wrote in message news:<11a7219ar7pnrk0crcpjucim9unp1g75db@4ax.com>...> Hi all,>
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am> therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the> subject.> Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day,> even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself'> while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be done safely> or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a> while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if> I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks.
I suggest you read the book 'Desperate Voyage' by John Caldwell and then ponder whether you want to leave this life early. (He did exactly what you are proposing)
In rec.boats.cruising renewontime dot com <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:> The problem for merchant ships is that small sailing vessels are just > hard to see. VERY hard to see. They usually present a poor RADAR > target and have dim or no navigation lights.
They say that in my area many commercial ships from a certain country do not really keep RADAR watch, only listen to a possible radar warning while reading magazines and having tea. Does that seem possible?
Where would you like the yachts to have their navigation lights? Masthead or deck level? Masthead is seen from further away, but misleads with regard to distance.
Renewontime Dot Com 2 March 2005 20:51:14 [ permanent link ]
I missed this one:
Not in my experience. I've often called up passing merchant vessels at > sea on VHF 16 and it usually takes several calls for about 10 minutes > before _some_ will reply. I've asked how my visibility on radar is and > got the reply: "let me warm it up....".
I won't try to make excuses for how others may stand their watch (and yes, I've got my share of similar stories), but would only suggest that there are other possible reasons for why you aren't getting responses to your hails on 16, including the possibility that they did not receive your hail, the watch officer didn't speak English, or that they decided it wasn't necessary to respond.
--
=-------------------------------------------------= Renewontime A FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-------------------------------------------------=
Correct, the Mobri has always done badly it plain doesn't work. IIRC when studies were done of the Mobri at Fort Cumberland they actually reduced the radar cross section of the yacht compared to having no reflector.
The best on test was the Firdell Blipper.
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Correct, the Mobri has always done badly it plain doesn't work. IIRC> when studies were done of the Mobri at Fort Cumberland they actually> reduced the radar cross section of the yacht compared to having no> reflector.
clearly a "stealth" technology then, best avoid the US 6th fleet or they will shoot on sight.
-- Lithium ion internal and external batteries. Internal from £30 External from £75 (trade) All batteries factory new and guaranteed. http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/ e-mail qnirahyy@oyhrlbaqre.pb.hx (www.rot13.com)
"renewontime dot com" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message news:
I didn't mean to imply that -all- big ships operate at speeds over 30 > knots, I was trying to make a point in reply to the original posters > question and some of the misconceived replies, ie. "at least an hour will > pass from when I see a contact on the horizon to when it will hit me". My > point is that ships at sea operate at a wide variety of speeds, even in > excess of 30+ knots, and as a cruiser you need to be aware of this.
Very true
As for "high speed" ships out there, I think you guys are off on> this. All the newer ships are being built to operate at 30 knots or > greater. There are a number of "fast" container and oil carrier ships in > the works, and shipbuilders are starting to deliver "fast" ferries that > will operate at 40+ knots. And it won't stop there, I've read that the > designers have plans for ships that will operate at 50 to 60 knots.
The number of ships of any type running at 30+K is small and will remain so for some time. Biggest problem becomes HP to get them to that speed versus fuel consumption. (one reason the the previously mentioned SL-7"s are now all US Gov.... they're the only ones who can afford or justify running them). High speed ferries, on the other hand, running in the high 30's are becoming "a dime a dozen". Newer technologies, as you say, are on the drawing boards.>
See my post above. I think a lot of flag of convenience ships don't>> have their radar on all the time, probably to save the cost of replacing >> the magnetron.>
That's not been my experience at all, but you're welcome to believe what > you want.
<G> I'm probably in between both of you on this. First off, the problem is less "flag of convenience" and more "owner, operator". Since ships all have at least 2 radars, both of which are at least on "standby" at sea (exceptions noted), coupled with ever increasing enforcement and penalties for non use, the old "magnetron" excuse is falling by the wayside. However, it's not a perfect world and there are still too many fools out there running with radars turned off in open ocean conditions.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:08:21 GMT, otnmbrd <otnmbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
A great secondary ID method for sailboats at night is lighting up your >sails with a flashlight, etc..>Generally this will give a brighter target without destroying visibility >of your running lights.
Here's how I "get attention" on Lake Ontario if I see I am closing with a lake freighter at night.
1) Running lights are always on at dusk.
2) Mast top trilight is on, too, although I am only obliged to have one or the other.
3) If under power or motorsailing, I have the steaming light on at the spreaders.
4) If I detect no change, I will hail the ship on 16. If no response, I will hail them on 13, which is sometimes monitored more closely in my area. If I get a response, I will give my position in lat/lon and my bearing to them, my speed and my suggested reciprocal bearing (Uh, on the port quarter and closing, Skipper...that's me!)
5) I will shine a million candela spot on my sail if sailing or down my deck if under jib alone and/or under power. I will flick my anchor light. I will fire a bloody flare at them, duck their stern and report them to the Coast Guard, giving time, lat/lon and other details.
Only some of the above have ever been necessary, but I have gotten to within two NM before being seen on light air nights with a full moon, and have not shown well on their radars...basically, I had to give them a vector to follow to see me.
None of the above would be possible were I below not keeping a watch. "They can't see you" is my default assumption. COLREGS might help my widow get a better settlement, but I will get out of the way of shipping unless I have positive proof they've seen ME.
It does give me a huge appreciation for WWII destroyers that sank surfaced U-boats at a couple of thousand yards at night in the Atlantic. The conning tower of a U-boat is a much worse target than a white decked sailboat.
2) Mast top trilight is on, too, although I am only obliged to have> one or the other.
Required to have one *or* the other, as far as I know, as otherwise you'd be showing the lights of some other type of vessel. In practice, though, I'm sure anyone watching would be able to tell the difference between you and a fishing boat/dredger/pilot boat or whatever.
We have had discussions here in the past about this type of thing. I
call> it "improvisational lighting" and I don't see any difference between making> up the lighting rules as one goes along, and making up the crossing
overtaking rules as one goes along.>
This kind of thing is largely why most commercial operators have such
opinions of recreational sailors.
This has always interested me. Clearly the rules state that you should *only* show the correct lights.
However If I really thought that showing incorrect lights was the *only* way to be seen I'd do it like a shot. I'd much rather confuse a ship than scrape his barnacles off with my flesh.
Whether or not there could ever be such a case I don't know.
New Conservative 3 March 2005 21:53:41 [ permanent link ]
On 2 Mar 2005 02:43:38 -0800, nutbrayn@yahoo.co.uk (Wali Woll-Nutbrayn) wrote:
I suggest you read the book 'Desperate Voyage' by John Caldwell and>then ponder whether you want to leave this life early. (He did exactly>what you are proposing)
Okay, guys, well thanks for all the feedback. I'm building up a better picture of what would be involved now and there's clearly more to it than I imagined. The problem for newbies like me is that we keep seeing amazing feats accomplished at sea (you will know the kind of stunts people have got away with) and to a newcomer it seems to 'shrink the world' and give an unrealistically easy impression of what can be pulled off. I think the most outstanding example of this was that guy who rowed single-handed across the Pacific! I'd have thought that was *impossible* until some nut actually did it. Once a feat like that and others like it sink in, though, the newbie tends to think, "well if that guy did the 'impossible' then I should at least be able to handle the theoretically feasible." I guess what I'm saying is that it's just all too easy to underestimate the ability, strength, experience and determination of people like the Pacific rower (whose name escapes me), Chay Blythe and Ellen McArthur. The sheer *challenge* of going it single-handed with zero experience is still a deeply compelling one, though, I shudder to admit. --
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:44:07 -0500, rhys <rhys@nospam.com> wrote:
"They can't see you" is my default assumption. COLREGS might help my>widow get a better settlement, but I will get out of the way of>shipping unless I have positive proof they've seen ME.
That's the same approach I take, just like on a bicycle or motorcycle. Where I usually encounter them (Lake Ontario approaches to the St. Lawrence) they don't have too many maneuvering options anyway.
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:15:16 -0500, Jan <scrumpydrinker@hotmail.com> wrote:
Procedure is simple, identify lake freighter, not too difficult, determine>course of lake freighter, again, not too difficult, and, if necessary, adjust my>own course to take me astern of lake freighter.
The freighters are pretty predictable in their actions most of the time. OTOH we encountered a bunch of Kingston Class Frigates out on Lake Ontario in 2003 doing distinctly peculiar things in terms of changes in speed and direction. No doubt they knew what they were about to do and why, but I was keeping a pretty close watch because I couldn't predict their actions. (They were never much closer than a mile away.)
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:36:43 -0500, Ryk <ryk@wellingtonhouse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:15:16 -0500, Jan <scrumpydrinker@hotmail.com>>wrote:>
Procedure is simple, identify lake freighter, not too difficult, determine>>course of lake freighter, again, not too difficult, and, if necessary, adjust my>>own course to take me astern of lake freighter.>
The freighters are pretty predictable in their actions most of the>time. OTOH we encountered a bunch of Kingston Class Frigates out on>Lake Ontario in 2003 doing distinctly peculiar things in terms of>changes in speed and direction. No doubt they knew what they were>about to do and why, but I was keeping a pretty close watch because I>couldn't predict their actions. (They were never much closer than a>mile away.)>
Ryk
Agreed, they were worth keeping an eye on. However, Naval vessels have far more crew than commercial vessels, consequently there is usually, unless the practice has changed, several physical look-out plus the radar is manned 24hrs. when they are at sea, so I wouldn't be too concerned about them not seeing me, but I'd still keep out of their way.<g> I remember once in the Med. when we were doing anti-submarine exercises and steamed all night in black-out conditions, no lights anywhere. Jan
"If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined"
Those are "high speed ferries", not ships. They involve a whole different set of operating parameters than ships, including stopping distance. In dealing with them and discussing them, you need to realize and understand that comparing them to normal commercial traffic is comparing "apples to oranges"....., same applies to standard tugs and Z-drive or Voight Schneider.
otn
"Armond Perretta" <newsgroupreader@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote in message>
I am not sure where you operate, but it's worth noting that there are a> number of situations where one encounters commercial vessels that > routinely> operate at greater than 40 knots.>
I have been sailing Bay of Fundy for quite a few years now. This is an > area> where fog is common, and also an area where the "cat" ferries transit from> the US over to Nova Scotia. These beasts are over 300 feet long and have > a> cruising speed of near (or perhaps over) 50 knots.>
Several people have been killed by them in the past few years. Indeed, I> had the devil of a time getting the attention of the Bar Harbor - Yarmouth> ferry in high visibility conditions in one particular instance. The last > I> heard there was a lot of pressure from operators to add this type of > service> in Long Island Sound, a very high traffic area.
in message <gONVd.655$CW2.612@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, otnmbrd ('otnmbrd@earthlink.net') wrote:
Armond,>
Those are "high speed ferries", not ships.
As someone who also sails in an area with 'high speed ferries', I disagree very strongly. They're ships, and frankly they're the most frightening ships out there. And because they operate typically across busy straits, very often in order to get somewhere you _have_ to cross their track.
I haven't actually sailed a boat yet but plan to later this year. I am> > therefore still a bit green when it comes to the intricacies of the> > subject.> > Say I'm keen to visit the West Indies and I'm leaving from say> > Southampton, England. I'm on my own and will need to sleep every day,> > even if only for a few hours. Is it safe to let a boat 'sail herself'> > while I catch some shut-eye, or is this a no-no? Can it be done safely> > or would I have to drop all sail and just bob around in the dark for a> > while until I've awoken? Obviously it'd make for a shorter passage if> > I could somehow keep going 24/7. And ideas? Thanks.>
One of the many rules of the sea is to maintain a proper watch 24/7. I> don't know how the racer hotshots get away with it, but consider how far> a freighter can travel in an hour while you're napping. Yes their > supposed to maintain a proper watch also, but a little boat is hard to> see (assuming their looking) and a freighter is hard to turn, and has no> brakes.>
Solo is Ok for day sailing, but that's about it.
The answer is: 1. set a radar watch within a prescribed distance, then set the alarm; 2. crash.
Armond Perretta 5 March 2005 18:22:54 [ permanent link ]
otnmbrd wrote:> Armond,>
Those are "high speed ferries", not ships. They involve a whole> different set of operating parameters than ships, including> stopping distance. In dealing with them and discussing them, you> need to realize and understand that comparing them to normal> commercial traffic is comparing "apples to oranges"....., same> applies to standard tugs and Z-drive or Voight Schneider.
Well, I won't defend a statement I never made. Still, I wonder how much difference it makes to the target whether he or she is killed by a "ferry" or a "ship" (ignoring for the moment that many folks cannot accurately define "ship.")
I can tell you from my own experience that contacting and staying out of the way of commercial vessels, no matter what their type or classification, is not at all simple. What it boils down to, it seems to me, is that the small boat operator should get out of the way and worry later about the effectiveness of lights, communication devices, warning systems, etc. In the interim, one should treat the rules as just what they are: rules.
None of the above would be possible were I below not keeping a watch.> "They can't see you" is my default assumption. COLREGS might help my> widow get a better settlement, but I will get out of the way of> shipping unless I have positive proof they've seen ME.
We have had discussions here in the past about this type of thing. I call> it "improvisational lighting" and I don't see any difference between
making> up the lighting rules as one goes along, and making up the crossing or> overtaking rules as one goes along.>
This kind of thing is largely why most commercial operators have such low> opinions of recreational sailors.
* Perhaps with some reason. But *my* first duty is to survive and if breaking the rules means I do that rather than getting mown down by a big ship who should be giving way to me under the same rules then that's fine. There are many cases of yachts being mown down when completely innocent and abiding by the rules which is why recreational sailors have such a low opinion of commercial operators.
I know of no commercial ship that has been run down and sunk by a yacht, whether or not it was in the right ( or wrong!) TonyB
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:45:36 +0000, Pete Verdon <news@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
Required to have one *or* the other, as far as I know, as otherwise >you'd be showing the lights of some other type of vessel.
Correct. The hull lights are for boats like mine, or for entering harbours because they are more visible, being low, than from out in the lake against town lights.
In practice, >though, I'm sure anyone watching would be able to tell the difference >between you and a fishing boat/dredger/pilot boat or whatever.
It's primarily large lake freighters, power boats, other sailboats, and jet skis around here. A small amount of police/Coasties, military and the odd dredger or barge under tow, but not usually at night. My main concern here in Toronto are charter "party boats" and lake frieghters under way: the first are frequently driven by idiots and have morons as passengers, and the second can't turn or react quickly enough to give way to me if I don't make myself absolutely visible to them. On an overnight lake crossing, it can be an issue, although the middle of the lake is usually dark enough so that a good trilight stands out well.
There is still commercial fishing on Erie and the Upper Lakes, but not, I think, in Lake Ontario, although it's clean enough to swim in off the boat in most places and at most times.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:19:10 -0500, "Armond Perretta" <newsgroupreader@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote:
I don't want to be a hard case on this, but the fact is that you are>required to have one _or_ the other, and there is no room for>experimentation.
I agree and in reviewing my post, I misspoke what I actually do.
Perhaps I should have said "running (hull) lights are always on at dusk". I switch on the trilight when I see circumstances merit it (i.e. away from the harbour and into the dark lake). Then I SWITCH OFF the running lights, leaving the mast-top trilight alone if under sail, and the steaming light plus trilight if motor-sailing.
If sails are down and I am under power only, I will typically use running lights and steaming light, with the trilight OFF.
I trust this clears things up, as I have no desire to resemble a Christmas tree in word or deed. My CPS membership would be revoked.
The rotating disco ball and lasers I save for the dock.
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:09:16 -1000, renewontime dot com <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
And one last thing: NEVER leave port without a 406 EPIRB, and test it >monthly.>
If you and your yacht are not prepared to do these, then you are not >ready or fit to go to sea.
I agree with everything you said (pretty easy as we're not talking politics, guns or the mental state of some posters), but in my "inland waters" case of Lake Ontario, I consider a 406 EPIRB overkill.
A Danbuoy-style MOB pole, a MOB button on an always-on GPS, a handheld and a nav station VHF monitoring 9, 13 and 16 (as you've indicated), wearing PFDs at helm and on deck, jacklines, lifelines, flares both handheld and gun, a "crash box" with spare flares, GPS and handheld and the fact I frequently tow a RIB while on passage is, I think, enough.
And let's not forget that 50% of the time I can whip out the cell phone and dial 911. <G>
Were I to go offshore or even out of sight of land in ocean water or in fresh with few shore resources, like Lake Superior, I would sing a different tune.
New Conservative 6 March 2005 05:13:27 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:24:04 -0500, rhys <rhys@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:53:41 GMT, New Conservative><78738@virgin_not_for_mail.net> wrote:>
Your New Conservative website isn't working well with the Firefox>browser, by the way. It just produces a bunch of source code.
Thanks; we'll look into it. --
"Suffer no one to tell you what to think." Martin Smith, the New Conservative Party. masmith@new.extractthis.conservativeparty.org http://www.newconservativeparty.org
Renewontime Dot Com 6 March 2005 06:40:38 [ permanent link ]
I agree with everything you said (pretty easy as we're not talking> politics, guns or the mental state of some posters), but in my "inland> waters" case of Lake Ontario, I consider a 406 EPIRB overkill.
Hi R.,
I was not referring to the Great Lakes (or any other inland lake for that matter), but rather offshore, bluewater cruising. I must profess that I haven't sailed the Great Lakes since I was a kid, so I don't have any recent experience to draw on.
Generally speaking though, a cell phone is better than nothing at all, but has several shortcomings for emergency communications, in particular: the CG cannot take RDF bearings of your signal, so no position can be found from your signal alone. There have been several cases of sailors and fishermen here (Hawaiian Islands) who have run into trouble, had only enough power or signal for a brief call on their cell phone to the USCG, but the CG was unable to assist. Because the CG wasn't able to take bearings of the signal, no position or even rough idea of the distress caller's position was known, so CG assets weren't deployed.
A marine VHF would have probably been better, but is still limited to line-of-sight distances (which because the CG antennas are on top of mountains equates to about 24 - 30 miles). In these particular situations a 406 EPRIB would have been many times more effective in summoning help.
It may be overkill, but I'd still give it serious consideration on the Great Lakes.
--
=-------------------------------------------------= Renewontime A FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-------------------------------------------------=
Armond Perretta wrote:> Well, I won't defend a statement I never made. Still, I wonder how much > difference it makes to the target whether he or she is killed by a "ferry" > or a "ship" (ignoring for the moment that many folks cannot accurately > define "ship.")
A ship has three square rigged masts. I thought everyone knew that!
Otnmbrd wrote:> <G> Commercial fishermen. I forget at times that we all may have > different views as to what constitutes "commercial". > A commercial fisherman is indeed "commercial", but I treat them with > "small boats" except that I have far fewer concerns when dealing with > them, as I am generally comfortable with meeting them, especially when > it's a group, that they will stay clear of me .... but YOU should not > feel the same..... and if it's a one on one open ocean condition I treat > them under the "rules".
Surely you should be keeping clear of them (assuming they are "engaged in fishing")?
Rhys wrote:> Perhaps I should have said "running (hull) lights are always on at > dusk". I switch on the trilight when I see circumstances merit it > (i.e. away from the harbour and into the dark lake). Then I SWITCH OFF > the running lights, leaving the mast-top trilight alone if under sail, > and the steaming light plus trilight if motor-sailing.
Steaming light below tri light means...
From one direction you might be a trawler From another direction you might be a fisherman From another direction you might be a large ship From any other direction you are a fool who is showing the wrong lights
Armond Perretta 7 March 2005 20:33:24 [ permanent link ]
Nikki Locke wrote:> Armond Perretta wrote:>> ... I wonder>> how much difference it makes to the target whether he or she is>> killed by a "ferry" or a "ship" (ignoring for the moment that many>> folks cannot accurately define "ship.")>
A ship has three square rigged masts. I thought everyone knew that!
I am afraid you are a bit overconfident about this.
"Nikki Locke" <nikki@trumphurst.com> wrote in message news:VA.00006e8c.0159955c@trumphurst.com...> Otnmbrd wrote:>> <G> Commercial fishermen. I forget at times that we all may have>> different views as to what constitutes "commercial".>> A commercial fisherman is indeed "commercial", but I treat them with>> "small boats" except that I have far fewer concerns when dealing with>> them, as I am generally comfortable with meeting them, especially when>> it's a group, that they will stay clear of me .... but YOU should not>> feel the same..... and if it's a one on one open ocean condition I treat>> them under the "rules".>
Surely you should be keeping clear of them (assuming they are "engaged in> fishing")?
<G> Surely..... The problem is that frequently, as mentioned above, you run into them fishing as a fleet or group. If possible, and you've seen them soon enough, have sea room, can figure the general movement of the "group", etc., then you can alter course out around the "group". In reality, what frequently happens is that you find yourself moving through the group and at any one time you may be on a collision course with multiple targets. At times like this, if the ship holds it's course and speed, then all the fishing boats know exactly what to expect from the ship and they can maneuver in a way that best suits their needs ...... not exactly legal, but it works. The same applies to a ship running across a group of recreational boaters.
Nikki Locke <nikki@trumphurst.com> wrote in news:VA.00006e8b.0159857d@trumphurst.com:
A ship has three square rigged masts. I thought everyone knew that!>
Hmm...that's odd. I was aboard SeaLand "Performance", about 950' long. They kept calling it a "ship", but I didn't see any masts except the stick on the bow holding up the flag....about half a mile from the master's stateroom...(c;
She's an "inboard". 38,800 HP at 102 RPM. Great for trolling after getting her up to speed for a few miles!
Don't ask what "mileage" she gets. They only laugh at you...(c;
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:40:38 -1000, renewontime dot com <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
Generally speaking though, a cell phone is better than nothing at all, >but has several shortcomings for emergency communications, in >particular:
Of course. Digital is only about 1.5 miles range, IMO.
the CG cannot take RDF bearings of your signal, so no >position can be found from your signal alone.
I am in more trouble than a cell phone can solve if I can't provide a bearing, a lat/lon or a range.Even from the log and estimating a DR pos based on course and time since last plot.
Even if the boat's hit by lightning and immediately sinks, I have a handheld VHF and GPS in a sealed "go" box, and even a pelorus. So I suppose if I get hit by lightning in the fog and am knocked out until the water lapping over the coamings wakes me up.
That might be bad.
There have been several >cases of sailors and fishermen here (Hawaiian Islands) who have run into >trouble, had only enough power or signal for a brief call on their cell >phone to the USCG, but the CG was unable to assist. Because the CG >wasn't able to take bearings of the signal, no position or even rough >idea of the distress caller's position was known, so CG assets weren't >deployed.>
A marine VHF would have probably been better, but is still limited to >line-of-sight distances (which because the CG antennas are on top of >mountains equates to about 24 - 30 miles). In these particular >situations a 406 EPRIB would have been many times more effective in >summoning help.
Offshore (as in "out of sight of"), or in busy sea traffic, fishing fleet areas, I would definitely consider it, if only because it goes off if you are bobbing in the water unconscious.
Good argument for an automaitc PFD, too, but I have the manual and my wife has the dual man/auto SOSpender models.
Graham Frankland 9 March 2005 03:50:01 [ permanent link ]
"rhys" <rhys@nospam.com> wrote in message news:t92s21p8bil9q73p5p25t74in3gv2f7aju@4ax.com...> Even if the boat's hit by lightning and immediately sinks, I have a> handheld VHF and GPS in a sealed "go" box, and even a pelorus.> Do you think they will still be working after a lightening strike - unless of course they're in a sealed metal "go" box?
"rhys" <rhys@nospam.com> wrote in message> news:t92s21p8bil9q73p5p25t74in3gv2f7aju@4ax.com...>> Even if the boat's hit by lightning and immediately sinks, I have a>> handheld VHF and GPS in a sealed "go" box, and even a pelorus.>>
Do you think they will still be working after a lightening strike -> unless of course they're in a sealed metal "go" box?>
Graham Frankland 9 March 2005 13:56:10 [ permanent link ]
"Kirk Robertson" <kirkrAT@coxDOT.net> wrote in message news:Xns9613BF4F93E93atckirkcoxnet@68.6.19.6...> How about if you wrapped them in tinfoil before packing them in box?> Seriously would that adequately shield them from stray rf? Kirk.> Don't know what the minimum thickness of material needs to be to form a Faraday cage. At the first sign of lightening, our EPIRB & handheld VHF go into the oven - and no you can't light it without first opening the door!
"rhys" <rhys@nospam.com> wrote in message>news:t92s21p8bil9q73p5p25t74in3gv2f7aju@4ax.com...>> Even if the boat's hit by lightning and immediately sinks, I have a>> handheld VHF and GPS in a sealed "go" box, and even a pelorus.>>
Do you think they will still be working after a lightening strike - unless>of course they're in a sealed metal "go" box?
