6 ms·

Everyone's talking about the human element, but - isn't collision warning the kind of problem that can be relatively easily solved with technology today? Espec

by mv4 9y ago

Everyone's talking about the human element, but - isn't collision warning the kind of problem that can be relatively easily solved with technology today? Especially when large, relatively slow moving objects are involved - with no attempts at stealth?

scott_s 9y ago
This NYT article from a few days ago covers this question, Naval Vessels, Shadowy by Intent, Are Hard for Commercial Ships to Spot: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/asia/navy-collision-uss-mccain-oil-tanker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/asia/navy-collision... Specifically: Unlike the aviation industry, the shipping industry has not instituted emergency avoidance systems. Regulations in the United States, Europe and other large aviation markets require that the newest planes have electronic systems that communicate with each other almost instantly when a collision appears likely and recommend a coordinated response. One pilot might be told, for example, to “climb, climb,” while the other might be told to “descend, descend.” By contrast, collision avoidance systems in ships do not have the ability to coordinate actions with each other, experts said. Introducing that capability would be difficult.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  The Navy has its reasons for not advertising the location of its ships, but that does not seem to rule out a warship's systems from identifying a developing collision risk. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (aka "rules of the road", informally) has a final clause that says each ship's commander should take action to avoid an imminent collision, regardless of whatever other rules apply. In this regard, I would have thought that the inertia of large commercial ships might actually simplify the analysis. I recall reading a comment elsewhere by a former US Coastguard sailor who said that his ship's captain tried, wherever possible, to not be the stand-on vessel in any encounter, as to be so imposes an obligation to maintain course and speed; that way, he had some freedom of action. I doubt that this is possible in the busiest shipping lanes, however.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    In addition, Navy ships are by comparison to container and tanker traffic, ridiculously maneuverable. They are by comparison, ridiculously overstaffed. The John McCain has a crew of 281. A tanker/container will have a crew of ~25.
  - yardie 9y ago
    > former US Coastguard sailor who said that his ship's captain tried, wherever possible, to not be the stand-on vessel in any encounter That's terrible advice and as a captain he should know better. This is equivalent to giving everyone admin credentials because you can't be bothered to escalate privileges properly. There are stand on and give way vessels and during a passage a captain should know which side they are on. The other skippers and captains are expecting certain maneuvers between stand on and give way and when you don't perform those maneuvers properly it causes confusion. I, as an amateur sailor of a 30ft+ sailboat, know when I am on either side of the rule. And I only know the most common rules as it pertains to me, my vessel, and the waters I regularly encounter (i.e. not oil fields). I fully expect a USCG captain, with thousands more sea time than I to know ColRegs completely page for page.
    - killjoywashere 9y ago
      The difference between your 30' boat and that 250' cutter is that captain had a Furuno radar 120' up on a mast, giving him a 30 mile horizon. His bridge team calculated contact problems so far out they never came within 5 miles of the contact. You didn't even know a cutter was there.
      - yardie 9y ago
        Uh yes I know the cutter is there. They announce almost every damn second on the VHF they are there and to keep a 1000ft clearance. I assume your friend never has to dock, maneuver in harbors, or navigate a TSS. Because those are the places where the rules are used. ColRegs are not even a factor at 5nm CPA. Your friend could save his crew a lot of time and brain power. Instead of trying to calculate every other ships CPA knowing who the stand on vessel and a bit of VHF work is also good seamanship. Finally, your friend may or may not even see me 30 miles out. Sailboats have such a small radar signature I had to install a radar reflector to avoided being run down by commercial.
Jtsummers 9y ago
That's discussed in this article. Technology is seen as part of the problem because it is distracting, incomplete, and has bred a culture of complacency. You see the same issue in aircraft safety. Over time flying became safer, but certain types of accidents became more common because pilots didn't know how to handle the situations.
zaphar 9y ago
I imagine this is actually a harder problem on the water. With ships of this size and mass and the inertia they have, in an environment where hard stops and turns are very difficult, any warning might trigger after it's too late to do anything about it.
- dkhenry 9y ago
  The ships are surprisingly agile. If you were paying attention you could maneuver out of most of the things heading towards you in open waters. However in the environment these ships were in its less of a "look there is a boat coming right for me" situation and more of a "which side of the shipping lane am I supposed to stay on again" kind of deal.
  - Someone 9y ago
    "The ships are surprisingly agile" For an example, see https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs (same class of ship as the McCain and the Fitzgerald, but two respectively one years newer. I doubt that makes a difference, as all three are "Flight 1", according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer)
- soneil 9y ago
  Half of the point of being able to spot each other miles away, is to make this a nonissue. It seems obvious that if you ask a tanker to make a 90° turn, it's going to take them a few miles. But it's easy to forget that if they corrected course 6 miles away, a 5° correction would have been plenty. This should be a solved problem. More accidents are caused by the failure to keep a proper watch, than anything else. (last number I saw was 40%.) We have the technology - it's been mandatory past 300tonnes for over 10 years. Unfortunately the navy regularly opt-out. Apparently even in busy lanes at night.
crooked-v 9y ago
That requires that somebody at the wheel is paying attention to the alarms.

by mv4 9y ago

scott_s 9y ago

This NYT article from a few days ago covers this question, Naval Vessels, Shadowy by Intent, Are Hard for Commercial Ships to Spot: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/asia/navy-collision-uss-mccain-oil-tanker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/asia/navy-collision... Specifically: Unlike the aviation industry, the shipping industry has not instituted emergency avoidance systems. Regulations in the United States, Europe and other large aviation markets require that the newest planes have electronic systems that communicate with each other almost instantly when a collision appears likely and recommend a coordinated response. One pilot might be told, for example, to “climb, climb,” while the other might be told to “descend, descend.” By contrast, collision avoidance systems in ships do not have the ability to coordinate actions with each other, experts said. Introducing that capability would be difficult.

mannykannot 9y ago
The Navy has its reasons for not advertising the location of its ships, but that does not seem to rule out a warship's systems from identifying a developing collision risk. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (aka "rules of the road", informally) has a final clause that says each ship's commander should take action to avoid an imminent collision, regardless of whatever other rules apply. In this regard, I would have thought that the inertia of large commercial ships might actually simplify the analysis. I recall reading a comment elsewhere by a former US Coastguard sailor who said that his ship's captain tried, wherever possible, to not be the stand-on vessel in any encounter, as to be so imposes an obligation to maintain course and speed; that way, he had some freedom of action. I doubt that this is possible in the busiest shipping lanes, however.
- CalChris 9y ago
  In addition, Navy ships are by comparison to container and tanker traffic, ridiculously maneuverable. They are by comparison, ridiculously overstaffed. The John McCain has a crew of 281. A tanker/container will have a crew of ~25.
- yardie 9y ago
  > former US Coastguard sailor who said that his ship's captain tried, wherever possible, to not be the stand-on vessel in any encounter That's terrible advice and as a captain he should know better. This is equivalent to giving everyone admin credentials because you can't be bothered to escalate privileges properly. There are stand on and give way vessels and during a passage a captain should know which side they are on. The other skippers and captains are expecting certain maneuvers between stand on and give way and when you don't perform those maneuvers properly it causes confusion. I, as an amateur sailor of a 30ft+ sailboat, know when I am on either side of the rule. And I only know the most common rules as it pertains to me, my vessel, and the waters I regularly encounter (i.e. not oil fields). I fully expect a USCG captain, with thousands more sea time than I to know ColRegs completely page for page.
  - killjoywashere 9y ago
    The difference between your 30' boat and that 250' cutter is that captain had a Furuno radar 120' up on a mast, giving him a 30 mile horizon. His bridge team calculated contact problems so far out they never came within 5 miles of the contact. You didn't even know a cutter was there.
    - yardie 9y ago
      Uh yes I know the cutter is there. They announce almost every damn second on the VHF they are there and to keep a 1000ft clearance. I assume your friend never has to dock, maneuver in harbors, or navigate a TSS. Because those are the places where the rules are used. ColRegs are not even a factor at 5nm CPA. Your friend could save his crew a lot of time and brain power. Instead of trying to calculate every other ships CPA knowing who the stand on vessel and a bit of VHF work is also good seamanship. Finally, your friend may or may not even see me 30 miles out. Sailboats have such a small radar signature I had to install a radar reflector to avoided being run down by commercial.

Jtsummers 9y ago

That's discussed in this article. Technology is seen as part of the problem because it is distracting, incomplete, and has bred a culture of complacency. You see the same issue in aircraft safety. Over time flying became safer, but certain types of accidents became more common because pilots didn't know how to handle the situations.

zaphar 9y ago

I imagine this is actually a harder problem on the water. With ships of this size and mass and the inertia they have, in an environment where hard stops and turns are very difficult, any warning might trigger after it's too late to do anything about it.

dkhenry 9y ago
The ships are surprisingly agile. If you were paying attention you could maneuver out of most of the things heading towards you in open waters. However in the environment these ships were in its less of a "look there is a boat coming right for me" situation and more of a "which side of the shipping lane am I supposed to stay on again" kind of deal.
- Someone 9y ago
  "The ships are surprisingly agile" For an example, see https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs (same class of ship as the McCain and the Fitzgerald, but two respectively one years newer. I doubt that makes a difference, as all three are "Flight 1", according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer)
soneil 9y ago
Half of the point of being able to spot each other miles away, is to make this a nonissue. It seems obvious that if you ask a tanker to make a 90° turn, it's going to take them a few miles. But it's easy to forget that if they corrected course 6 miles away, a 5° correction would have been plenty. This should be a solved problem. More accidents are caused by the failure to keep a proper watch, than anything else. (last number I saw was 40%.) We have the technology - it's been mandatory past 300tonnes for over 10 years. Unfortunately the navy regularly opt-out. Apparently even in busy lanes at night.

crooked-v 9y ago

That requires that somebody at the wheel is paying attention to the alarms.