Conference unifix::sailing

Reprinted without any sort of permission 

A yacht making its way to New Zealand to avoid the Cyclone season was lost 
after it is believed to have been in a collision with a ship 30 north east of 
Cape Brett. 
The sole survivor from the Melida Lee spent 40 hours in an unsheltered 
inflatable dingy before being washed ashore in the BAy of Islands on Saturday 
morning. She told police a "large, long ship" bore down on the yacht and tore 
it apart between 2am and3 am Friday. She toldd rescuers who found her washed 
ashore on a tiny beach on rugged cape brett that her son went down with the 
14metre yacht and her husband was lost trying to retrieve their daughter who 
was constantly swept from the 2m inflatable boat in atrocious weather. 
rescuers said she was in gony from back inuries, but she was able to give a 
coherent account of the tradgedy.

Between 250 and 300 ocean yachts cruise into New Zealand waters in the early 
summer to escape the cyclone season further north.


etc....

    Revel
    
       When I was in HK 2 weeks ago, there was a story about the Australian
    authorities waiting for a cargo ship to come into their harbor, as they
    thought that was the ship that ran over the sailboat.
    
        Do you know if they found any evidence of this being true ?
    
       john

re .24:

A friend sent me the following from the Internet:

Alan,

Everytime a yacht is lost at sea "The Net" analyzes it to death. (forgive
the choice of words)  The following is a good summary of the issues
prompted by the latest event in which a father and two children were lost
and the mother survived. (Possibly you've heard all about this)

ed

================================================================================

> As far as visual sighting goes, I think it would be possible to see
> the running lights. But, it it were driving rain, foggy, or there was 
> lots of spray flying I can see where it might not be possible.  It is a
> long way from the bridge of some ships to the bow.  Of course (in the 
> Navy) we positioned someone on the bow as lookout in times of low visibility.
> But, I don't remember doing so in rough weather.
> 
> What I am wondering is if we can just assume that if a ship ran them down
> the ship was at fault, or if this is simply another example of the risks
> we take when we go to sea. I don't know the answer, but would like to 
> know what others think.

Jeff,

Let me go on record again in this matter. While I am completely sympathetic
to Mrs. Sleavin for the loss of her family, she has paid an enormous price
for "possibly" being less than vigilant while at sea. I say possibly because
only she knows whether or not she was actively scanning the horizon for
vessels at the time of the collision or was hunkered down behind the dodger
attempting to stay out of the wind, spray and rain during a severe storm.

Mrs. Sleavin's often quoted statement that the other vessel "suddenly
appeared" must be taken with a grain of salt. Given the localized winds (50
knots) and sea state (15 to 20 feet), no one was racing around out there at
30 knots. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Pan Grace is the
"other vessel". At 19,000 GRT, there's no way this vessel was doing more than
about 15 knots in those conditions, probably much less. Given the local
conditions the freighter may not have been visible at more than two or three
miles and, as we don't know whether the vessels were on a direct collision
course or the Melinda Lee was run down from abeam or astern, the closure time
might have been as little as five minutes or as great as 20. All of which
then begs the question of why, knowing that they were in an active shipping
lane and travelling during reduced visibility, there was only one person on
watch on the Melinda Lee.

[This sounds like a comment by an inexperienced sailor. There were 
apparently only two adults on board. To expect both to keep watch is 
unreasonable. Being on board a small boat in rough weather is incredibly 
tiring. One must sleep and rest. Further, it is unreasonable to expect 
a crewperson in an open cockpit to keep a continuous round the horizon 
lookout. It just isn't humanly possible for an extended period of time. AB]

As far as seeing the running lights of the yacht from the bridge of the ship,
as I have often stated, the running lights on most modern yachts are low
powered jokes. Most often hung from the bow pulpit, frequently in a
combination unit, or even worse faired into the hull itself, they are almost
impossible to see from the bridge of a ship under the best of conditions.
During a storm with the yacht frequently disappearing in the swell, they are
almost useless. We don't know if the Melinda Lee had masthead running lights
or a strobe or even if they were in use at the time of collision. It is an
all too frequent occurrence for yachtsmen to neglect to show their navigation
lights in order to "save" their batteries, switching them on only when
another vessel is seen.

We all know that yachts all too frequently fail to show on ship's radar and
we don't know if the Sleavins were flying reflectors.

Given the fact that there are so many un-answered questions in this matter,
we really shouldn't be attempting to assign blame to anyone at this stage.
Identifying the other vessel however, is a needed first step in establishing
exactly what did transpire out there. Plus, my biggest problem with this
whole matter is the fact that whatever vessel did strike the Melinda Lee,
they didn't stop and investigate. Many of you will shake your heads and say
that they simply didn't know. As the Melinda Lee weighed more than 20 tons,
trust me when I tell you they SHOULD have known. I've sailed in vessel's much
larger than the Pan Grace and, for instance, during a North Atlantic storm we
once had a 12 ton coil of galvanized steel come adrift in the forward hold
and begin rolling about. EVERYBODY on board knew it almost immediately.
However, I will qualify the foregoing by stating that yes, if the Sleavin's
were unfortunate enough to be in the path of a large vessel in excess of
100,000 DWT, such a vessel could easily run right over them with no one on
the vessel being any the wiser.

[Well, maybe, maybe not. The crew of a large vessel in rough weather
might very well be totally unaware of hitting a yacht. The issue of
Ocean Navigator that arrived yesterday mentions that a large cruise ship
enroute to Bermuda last summer hit a 60' whale, which became lodged on
the bulb bow of the cruise ship and where it stayed for a day or two.
The crew and passengers were quite unaware of this until the Bermuda pilot
informed them of the whale. The whale may have been sleeping when hit. AB] 

I've included a post from another yachtsman cum merchant mariner to this
message as someone sharing some excellent thoughts and experiences in the
matter of "Yachts versus Ships". In the interim, we'll just have to wait
until more is known of the story. And for all of you who have shared your
"good luck" stories of vessels sighted and dodged at the last minute, I will
share this thought, good luck is the antithesis of good seamanship!

Regards,

James

**************************************************************************

On 12 Dec. 95, Jonathan Ogle at Matson Lines wrote to the SHIPS list:

Before anyone rushes to point fingers in this tragedy, allow me to make a
few points from the perspective of both a yachtsman with blue water
experience and a former deck officer on merchant ships, foreign flagged and
US.

Watchstanding:  Chances are that the ship was keeping a better watch than
the yacht.  If you have ever been on a 40' yacht in 50 knot winds and 15-20'
seas, you know what wet misery is.  The ship would have been having a rough
night as well, but at least that watchstander was warm and dry.  My
experience is that most mariners try to stand an alert watch.  Failure at
sea can lead to death, the watchstander included, and this fact focusses the
mind wonderfully.  However, it is a rare tough puppy on a howling night like
the one described who keeps her face above the dodger scanning the whole
horizon continuously.  (On a yacht you can be run down from behind; on a
ship with a normal speed this is much less of a worry.)  It is also a tough,
rare sailor who doesn't find that sort of weather exhausting.  I would not
be surprised if Mrs. Sleavin was huddled under the dodger, poking up for a
view every ten minutes, or even twenty minutes.  The ocean seems awfully
empty from the deck of a small boat, and the imperative to constantly keep
watch fades as nothing is seen and the temperature drops, the seas rise and
exhaustion sets in.

     It is unfair to assume the Pan Grace kept a poor watch merely because
she was Asian owned and manned.  The Korean merchant service is a high
caliber group with good training and good habits.  Pan, from what I've seen,
is a good quality owner.  It is, however, highly likely, that the best watch
in the world would fail to see a small boat amid the breaking waves and
flying spray of a 50 knot storm, particularly at night under (presumably)
8/8ths cloud cover.  Most radar sets would return a lot of sea clutter near
the center and not pick up a small target further out.  Assuming the yacht
was burning her navigation lights, they would be obscured by sea and swell
and spray.  Her sails must have been reefed to a minimum, so there would
have been little to distinguish her from a breaking wave.  In such
conditions it is incumbent on the yacht to presume it can't be seen. The
ship, on the other hand, if it is showing it's proper lights, should be
visible, at least within a few miles.  (From the deck of a yacht a ship a
mile away seems awfully close.)  If the yacht operator is keeping a real,
360 degree watch and not ducking below for warmth and coffee, a ship will
not "just appear" unless it is darkened or visibility is very reduced.  Even
in chaotic weather, the ship's lights should be visible when the yacht rises
on a wave.  Of course, if the ship was unlit, neither vessel would sense the
other until the ship was on top of the yacht.

     There were some earlier postings regarding rules of the road, keeping
radios and radar turned on, etc.  The rules are clear that on the open sea
in unrestricted waters, with few exceptions, the sailing vessel would be the
stand-on vessel if there is a risk of collision.  However, it would be
foolhardy in the extreme for a small sailing yacht to assume it is seen and
will be treated appropriately by a heavily laden ship.  If the yacht can not
raise the ship on the VHF it should just alter course and stand clear early
enough to remove the risk of collision.  The yacht would be right to stand
on, but as I was taught, might well be "dead right".  It is hard for a
yachtsman, proud of his 40' craft, to realize just how nearly invisible he
is from the bridge of a large, fast moving ship.

     In addition to monitoring the radar, a watch officer tends to scan the
horizon.  The smallest blemish on the horizon stands out clearly on a fine
day.  On a rougher day this is not true.  I have been surprised several
times to find a yacht or small vessel just two or three miles ahead of me,
well inside the circle of the horizon, unseen on the radar and unseen when
it crossed into my range of visibility.  I have come uncomfortably close to
sailboats in mid-ocean who appeared to be just another whitecap and did not
materalize as a steady white sail until very close.  And I very nearly ran
down a sailboat while approaching the Tampa Bay fairway on a clear summer
night because it's masthead running lights blended into the distant lights
of Tampa and St. Pete.  For a yachtsman to assume he is seen is unwise.  To
stand-on is equally unwise.  (To shoot a flare at the wheelhouse of vessel
when close enough to hit it is also unwise.  Imagine your surprise when you
find out, in that blink of a second before dying, that the ship you shot a
flare at was loaded with 30,000 tons of naptha or gasoline.  Big bam.)

     It is tragic to think of a woman losing her family the way Mrs. Sleavin
has.  A full investigation should be made into the conduct of both the yacht
and the ship.  If the officer on watch was not at his station conducting his
duties and his ship killed those three people, he should be tried as a
criminal.  If he was conducting his duties to the full extent of his
abilities, burning the proper lights, monitoring his radar and VHF and
observing the ship's progress from the bridge wings, but could not sense a
small yacht on a foul night, I don't see how he can be held accountable.  If
Mrs. Sleavin was direlict in her duties she has paid her price far more than
is fair.  But the sea is not fair and is not forgiving.  This is an eternal
truth.

    How big an echo does one get on a ship when approaching a boat
    with corner-cube reflectors? I would have thought that the reflector
    signal would be easily visible even amidst considerable clutter.

re .27:

Well, the recent Practical Sailor tests of radar reflectors are not 
encouraging. You need a much bigger reflector than is practical to 
ensure a reasonable return signal. And the reflected signal is not 
uniform spatially -- there are some significant regions of minimal 
reflection. 

This aside, think about how a radar reflector is rigged on a small 
sailing yacht. Ours is about 20' above the water. In heavy weather, our 
reflector could be below the wave crests much of the time. At best, it 
will not be far above the crests. Add the clutter from the breaking 
waves and a reflector might well be no more than windage in the rigging. 
Marine radar antennas are optimized for discriminating targets in
azimuth, not elevation, so that distinguishing a radar reflector from a 
nearby wave crest is unlikely. Even in azimuth, two targets need to be 
separated by, oh, roughly a degree (likely more) to be seen as two and
not one. At a distance of a mile, one degree is about 100 feet. 

Rain squalls can obscure the radar reflection from a large ship even at 
fairly short range. Spray would have the same effect on a yacht radar 
reflector.

Finally, in a wonderful little book "The Psychology of Sailing" there is 
a discussion of the probability of a radar operator seeing a target on a 
radar screen. The results are grim. Basically, operators fatigue quickly 
(in much less time than the usual length of a watch on a ship) and target 
detection probability (ie, the chances of the operator noticing a target 
on the screen) is much less than 1. Good reason to change operators and 
lookouts frequently (hourly or less). 

From the bridge of many (most/all) large ships there are major blind 
spots. If you're less than a mile or two ahead of a large ship, you most 
likely cannot be seen. The manuverability of large ships is minimal and 
they don't slow down very quickly. A crash stop might take five to ten
miles from full speed. 

"Assume that you have not been seen" is a very good assumption. 

    In the latest issue of Crusing world and Practical Sailor, there are 
    letters from peckerheads decrying people singlehanding on the basis
    that they can't stand watch 24*7 and it cost big bucks to look for 
    them when they get in trouble. It is evident a 2 person crew can get
    in just as much trouble as a singlehander.
    
    One of the worst letters is from an ex-navy man as he touts how "we
    never do it that way in the Navy". What a crock...
    
    If the Navy (who most will tell you have more overhead to get the
    job done than a commerical ship) screws up [how does a proper navy
    watch miss the AC boats and spectator fleet in San Diego, or when
    that Aircraft Carrier ran over that freighter in a harbor 2 years ago],
    with it's "proper" staffing, one can see the magnitude of the problem
    at hand. 
    
    We see videos of commerical fishing boats plowing into one another. And
    the Andrea Doria wasn't exactly a speck in the water (ie it was on
    radar for quite some time). For that reason, a lot of commerical boats
    turn on the long range radar at the expense of better detail close up.
    Who can fault them???
    
    In a serious blow at night, one is ussually very busy trying to keep
    a course that is easy on the boat in confused seas. It gets real easy
    to miss a boat if you don't know they are around you. This is part of the
    risks of sailing we all do to some extent (unless you only sail in
    areas where you can walk back to shore should something bad happen).
    
        Radar has not proven to be the godsend it is always touted to be.
    In the future, there is no reason why a radio signal relaying a ship's
    size and GPS positioning could not be transmitted at some low power so
    as to only be seen by boats in close proximity (sort of a real time
    local epirb). Even if it only warns the commerical boats of other ships in
    the area, it may do the job. Longer term, it would be great to have a
    system like the air traffic control folks have, but it will be years
    till the prices come down for this. It would allow 3rd party
    monitoring, and more importantly, positioning of the last known
    whereabouts of a ship in peril. We shall see.
    
    

    And I'll not forget the freighter that 'appeared' out of the squall in
    our passage, fortunately behind us. Not there and suddenly there.
    1000yrds away and less than 30 seconds from our track. 
    
    It was the only ship we saw on the lake that day. 27-35knt winds,
    3meter seas. 115 mile trek. lake michigan.
    
    

    re. 29
    
    John,
    
    Tell me you're kidding, or that I misinterpreted what I read.  Were you
    really suggesting that people want a transmitter aboard which enables
    all the world to know who you are and where you are?  Would possibly
    the next step be to implant a transmitter into newborn babies?
    
    As you stated in your reply, there is risk involved in sailing out of
    sight of land.  I'll accept the risk for now.  When I can't stand it
    any longer, I'll find a new leisure time activity.
    
    Electrical drain considerations for the transmitter and reciver aside,
    I don't want to be expected to report my whereabouts to anybody who
    cares to have a radio tuned to my frequency.
    
    I have heard of transmitters similar to what you describe.  They have
    been used to track animals in the wild, and also to track crimminals
    who are under house arrest.  Since I claim to be neither, please don't
    expect me to willingly go out and buy or install one aboard my vessel.  
    
    djc                                                                   

    There are radar transponders that are small enough and light enough
    to be used on light aircraft. I'm not sure what the rules are these
    days, but at one point there was a big argument about whether gliders
    should be required to carry them.
    
    A transponder wouldn't broadcast your location to everybody, just
    provide a better rader signal in the local area...

    A transponder is just a small transmitter operating at the appropriate
    frequency. It can carry an ID signal, "identify--friend or foe" IFF
    signal, etc. Since the radar receiver is looking for a reflection, even
    a pretty small transmitted signal is a big improvement...

    re .31
    
       Sorry Dave, but a quick run to P-town is not the same as sailing
    to Australia. The waters are MUCH more protected and you are always
    within 8 hours of shore in an emergency here in New England. Totally
    different environment of having to stand watch day after day in a 
    hostile blue water environment like crossing the Pacific or Atlantic. 
    
       Try sailing in a real harbor (Boston doesn't qualify, not enough
    traffic). Watch all the commerical ships trying to stay out of one
    another's way. If they all were transmitting and DGPS was being used,
    a lot more conversations would be taking place and less rescue missions
    being logged.
    
        Most sailors like the solitude of being able to rough it, but when
    the conditions deterioate, it is nice to know you have a connections to
    others. The real reason for that VHF on board is not to call for the
    launch eh?  Power should be minimum if the distance is confined. If an
    auto radar detector (which actually is a small transmitter) can run
    for months on a 9-volt, I don't think the engineering challange is all
    that great.
    
        I never said you had to buy one. I would probably try and get the
    commerical users to use them. If you don't think you need it fine. Same
    as EPIRBS, surival rafts, and broadband radios. Everyone can buy to
    suit their comfort level.
    
        If Big Brother wants to check on you Dave, there isn't a thing you can
    do to stop them, esspecially out there on the water. Since they can track
    prop wash from submarines 1000s of fathoms below, that C&C of yours must
    look like Long Island to them. Who knows, maybe they are watching you 
    right now ;>) .

    Speaking of ships sneaking up on you, on watch just after dawn at the
    beginning of a frustratingly calm day about 400 miles south of Bermuda,
    I finally noticed the frieghter of the Starboard quarter about 1 mile 
    away.  It was heading in the same direction more or less and it scared
    the dickens out of me, not because it was bearing down but because I
    had not noticed it before it got so close.  I was too busy messing with
    the lines to try and get the sails to draw with what little wind there
    was.  Add inclement weather, decent sized swells, darkness and the need 
    to stay reasonably warm and dry, it is not hard to imagine a collision 
    occuring even if a vigilant watch was being kept.  
    
    Brian

    The rules regarding transponders in aircraft are still quite liberal.
    The airspace is broken into several categories. Only a few of these
    have a requirement for transponders. 
    
    For instance, You generally cannot fly over/through the Boston airspace 
    without a transponder which reports a unique 4 digit id number and your 
    altitude. Some low altitudes allow you fly around Boston without the 
    transponder. 
    
    Other areas that require transponders are within a ten mile radius of 
    Portland, ME., Manchester, NH., Albany, NY., Hartford, CONN., and 
    Providence RI. In all of these areas you can avoid the transponder 
    requirements in the 5-10 mile radius if you want to fly at a lower 
    altitude (<1500ft in some cases). But within the 5 mile radius a
    transponder is required. Other than that, you are encouraged to use a 
    transponder that at least reports your altitidue, but you are not required.
    
    Because things happen so fast while flying, most pilots I know prefer
    to fly with the transponder reporting altitude and do not consider it
    to be an intrusion of their solitude. I always turn mine on and
    frequently ask the ground controllers to help me look for other traffic
    in the skies.
    
    Maybe a transponder that only reported the existence (lat/long) of a 
    vessel (power or sail) would be a good idea to turn on in foul weather??
    I wonder if they could make the transmitter and receiver cost effective
    enough, and stingy on power requirements to reach the general boating 
    public?
    
    --Harlan
    
     

    John,
    
    You assume, I guess, that the presence of a transponder on all or most
    vessels will prevent the occasional incident of two vessels occupying
    the same space at the same time.  Reference Alan's reply about the
    tedium of watching for something, when 99.nnn% of the time nothing is
    there.  Likelihood is high for false negatives in the small
    percentage.  RADAR is that way, and the transponders you espouse will
    be the same way, in my opinion.  
    
    If these transponders are to be low powered, what makes you think a vessel 
    the size most of us in this conference can reasonably expect to own
    will have a mast height sufficient to get the signal out of the wave
    troughs which will likely be causing us to most want the darn things to
    work.  Twenty five foot seas, fifty feet from trough to crest, are far
    from uncommon.  In storms, small seas like that bring relief for
    weather-weary crew.  Most boats I can aspire to own will have masts
    below 65 feet or so.  Add in the pitching and rolling which then will
    aim the signal skyward and oceanward, and what is the range your low
    power transponder will cover?  In these relatively calm seas.
    
    Harbors and the high seas have little in common.  Most skippers are
    ever more vigilant in harbors than out in the middle of nowhere.   But
    more accidents happen close to shore than at sea.  Of course the
    accidents which do happen at sea usually result in the loss of vessels
    and or life.
    
    If you are willing to rely on some electronic gizmo to keep another vessel
    from running you down, more power to you.  Remember this past summer
    when a large vessel equipped with GPS, RADAR, LORAN-C, a depth sounder,
    and presumably proper lookouts failed to notice they were 17 miles off 
    course in what can be expected to be congested shipping lanes.  Their 
    autopilot dutifully tracked the electronic signals fed it by GPS and ran 
    the ship aground.  Anybody watching RADAR would have seen the mass of
    land where it didn't belong.  Anybody watching the depth sounder would
    have seen shoal waters where they didn't belong.  Anybody standing a
    decent watch would have seen the lighthouses on Nantucket.   But with
    transponders reporting small vessels, they would have come alert and
    averted grounding, maybe.
    
    John, technology is not, and will not be your savior.
    
    The whale which the same cruise ship hit was not equipped with a 
    transponder.  Even had he survived, i doubt his/her progeny would have 
    transponders.  If you care to rely on electronics to keep the odd whale or 
    flotsam from sending you swimming is your perogative.
    
    I recognize full well that a trip to P'town from the north shore is not
    offsoundings.  But I can relate a first hand story of coming on deck
    between Bermuda and Saint John, and seeing a German freighter within a
    mile and a half of our port beam.  Until our skipper contacted their
    skipper on the radio, the crew of the other vessel had not seen the 137'
    Roseway with a visual observation of nav lights 50 or more feet
    off the deck (WX clear, seas calm, cloudless skies, new moon), had not
    seen us on radar, the Roseway has a steel doghouse and tons of steel
    ratline and shrouds in addition to a serious radar reflector, and at
    all times during the dark hours, the Roseway operated its RADAR which
    they also did not detect..
    
    If you can't plan to watch out for yourself, maybe you shouldn't venture 
    off small protected bodies of water.
    
    I know full well about the rights of the government in regards to me
    when my vessel is afloat, and my lack of privacy rights.  To this
    point, I still have a right not report my whereabouts at all times.
     
                   djc
    

    somewhere to the north and east of Saginaw bay, in the middle of the
    night, (about 2am, my watch) I noticed a southbound freighter that
    would cross ahead perhaps a half mile ahead. We were about twenty miles
    off shore at the time and on port tack, headed out for more sea room. 
    
    Anyway, on comes his search light. It's sweeping back and forth in
    front of him. I was about twenty degrees, relative off his starboard
    bow. He never points the light at us but it sweeps all over the place.
    I get nervous, are there some bouys or something up there I should know
    about. I dive below for a detailed looksee on the charts. Nothing.
    After he cross my bow, the searchlight goes out.
    
    Only later did I think that he might be trying to provoke some sort of
    reaction from me to see if I was watch keeping. We were crossing the
    shipping channel and I was definately up and vigilent. I don't run the
    VHF as I canna hear it on deck anyway.
    
    

I generally worry more about being hit by another yacht (especially a 
power yacht). There are relatively few large ships and commercial 
fishing boats along the NE coast and (in summer) many other yachts, 
sometime hordes of them on the fishing banks. I'm not convinced that 
their crews are always keeping a good lookout, and the power yachts are
usually traveling at high speed. Big ships may travel at high speeds, 
but they can't turn quickly, so avoiding them is easier in some ways. 

I'm intrigued by the idea of ships and yachts transmitting their
positions to help avoid collisions. But designing such a system might be
technically quite difficult. For example, how do you sequence the
transmissions so that everyone receives everyone else's transmitted
position? Everyone can't just transmit willy nilly. To be really useful,
the system should not just announce that another vessel in nearby, but
it should also provide an estimated course, speed, distance of closest
approach, and collision risk and display this data in an intelligible
manner. Doing all this would required substantial computing power. The
total system price would have to be low to be attractive and affordable
(say less than $1000 to $2000), and electrical power consumption would
also have to be very low. If the position data were transmitted fast
enough, the occasional loss of signal caused by rolling and waves would
be acceptable. Such a system might be a very good collision avoidance
aid, but like any aid it wouldn't come with a guarantee. I also can't 
see it being developed and sold at a reasonable cost any time soon. And 
its use for large ships would have to be mandated by governments (or 
huge insurance premium surcharges) to ensure its widespread use.

Alan

    re last couple
    
       I am not looking for idiot proof system. Lord knows that can't be done
    (ie build a fool proof system, and only a fool will want to use it).
    Dave's example of ships trying to become trains shows this, plus the 
    fact the depth sounder had to be screaming when they went aground.
    But any extra margin of safety should be investigated.
    
       Unlike radar, a radio transmission does not have to be as
    directional. and there should not be a reason to filter transmits 
    because of bad visibilty. 
    
        As for jamming up the bandwidth, I see 4 million cell phones being
    used in a 20sq mile area in HK every trip there. There has got to be a
    way of building a low cost version with less bandwidth.  And this
    brings the price down. Look at cell phone costs compared to  10 years
    ago. Sure, you will never have the same demand, but it shows volume can
    help lower the price.
    
       I hear 50 yr old technology (vhf) that tells me when people are
    within 10 miles and willing to talk. With modern circuits and 
    digital transmission, it shouldn't take much power to get the job done
    between 2 chips.
    Even if the digital burst takes .5 seconds every 2 minutes, the
    collision of transmits in the open sea would not be bad. In a harbor,
    well, the big boys would have to power down the system because of all
    the bells going off, but they would be expecting boats all over the 
    place at this point and should have their lookouts posted.    
    
       I agree location and heading would be nice, but today we need the
    nav equipment up and running all the time. Real power consumption.
    Same problem as today's radar on a crusier. Who has that kind of power
    on their 35' sailboat??
    
       Far off. I don't think so. The global cell phones are just now
    hitting the market. We don't see the need as much in the US since
    land based roaming takes care of our needs. In Asia, it is a different
    story. Now if the capacity of all the new digital cell phones being
    proposed were to lower the price, and the next generation of GPS's 
    were to lower power consumption by some factor, one could make use
    of the "dead air" over the oceans to do transmits. It is just a
    matter of time until the global cell phone becomes an option in the
    emergency kit bag for trans oceanic cruisers.
    
    My garmin 45 has a modified 286 chip probably because it is cheap.
    With 133mz Pentiums now the norm, how cheap will 386 chips go for? Could
    it handle the gps needs and the transmit funciton on a dedicated
    board,and how cheap could it be had? 
    
    Nothing will do it all (one wrong wave and it is kaput), but if it
    could be built cheap and did the job well, it may be worth
    investigating. 
    

    re: .17
    
    You are right on target for answering the question of low cost
    technology and low power consumption. Cell phone technology meets both
    requirements nicely. The typical GSM phone (international digital
    standard) has over 2 million lines of code to make it run, and it sips
    the electricity (a few milliamps on receive). Cell phone technology is
    already being used in other non-related electronic devices. I just
    bought an ICOM 706 mobile amateur radio that is controlled by a chip
    used in cell phones. It is amazing what they have packed into a very
    small footprint.
    
    I do believe that technology is available today that could provide low
    cost, low power transponders for ships and yachts. As Allen pointed
    out, the problem is really setting standards and incenting people to
    use them. Although it is an intriguing idea, it is probably a long way
    off.
    

Re .2

John,

According to recent press reports, Mrs Sleavin is starting legal proceedings 
against a South Korean logging ship.

The Maritime Saftey Council, a government body here in NZ, is investigating 
the incident and is yet to publish the findings.


Cheers  

    I read about a company building an alarm system  for cars that tied a
    cell phone to a GPS.- actually I think they first used LORAN. If your
    car was stolen, the cops could place a call to its cell number, get the
    GPS to locate itself, then when the cop was alongside, it would kill
    the engine. 
    
    Since cell phones already send some kind of ID info all the time-
    thats how the cells decide which tower to best serve you, a location
    system shouldnt be hard. Of course, since the market for a location
    device is  so small relative to the rest of cell phones, it not likely 
    to be developed. But in this case the intelligence to do the location
    would be at the cell site, not in the individual portable unit. 
    
    Maybe a cell company could offer a service, you dial a number and get
    the locations of any other marine phone within the same cell as you.
    Might work alongshore.

Ethernet protocol is a good model for sending position data. It uses collision
sensing (!!??) and retransmission after a backoff interval to resolve 
simultaneous attempts to use the media. 

Ethernet chips go for about $10 in volume. A useful collision avoidance
computer with transponder could probably be manufactured for less than $100,
given a reasonably large market for it. This assumes availability of an existing
GPS. The computer would periodically report its position, and listen for other
positions. It would compute its own course and the courses of all other
transponding machines and report any whose present course will bring them within
some specified distance.

Unfortunately, there is no market for such a machine unless either a) there are
already a lot of them deployed or b) the government requires that they be carried.

--RS

    The GPS transmission is a good idea, and I would even settle for a part
    of it -- no GPS, just a short radio signal (beep or something) that
    could be picked up within a reasonable distance (3-4 miles maybe?).
    
    Your own transmission burst would be very short, would occur at
    intervals of a few minutes, and would not be very powerful, which would 
    make battery drain minimal.
    
    In the interval between transmission, your receiver would be active,
    and would set off an alarm you couldn't miss if it receives a signal. 
    You could, of course, adjust it for sensitivity and volume -- perhaps
    it could even adjust itself based on the frequency of recent
    receptions.
    
    It would be nice also if it could give you some idea of the direction
    of the other vessel, and maybe even its size range.
    
    Such a gizmo ought to be cheap enough, and effective if enough ships
    have them.
    
    Dick 

As a single- and short-handed racer I have worried about collisions at sea since
my first Bermuda 1-2 race in 1989.  I have made 8 offshore passages to Bermuda
and the Caribbean, of which 3 were single-handed races from Newport to Bermuda
with double-handed return (Bermuda 1-2 every odd year), 3 were crewed Bermuda
races, and 1 was in the new double-handed class of the 1994 Newport to Bermuda
race.  I have also raced several coastal 100 mile or so single-handed races, and
made numerous single-handed overnight deliveries between Caribbean islands. My
present boat is 1984 Beneteau First 42 somewhat modified (keel, rudder) and
equipped for offshore short-handed racing. 

Sailing single-handed for long distances one clearly needs to find time to rest. 
My schedule is to sleep in 1/2 hour cycles.  20 minutes of sleep with about 10
minutes of wake time to scan the horizon, make course and sail corrections, log
entries etc.  I generally try to sleep during the day as much as possible
spreading approximately 5-6 hours of total sleep per 24 hours that way. 
However, sailing conditions are what generally dictates the sleep/wake schedule.

Close to shore, as in the coastal races and at the start of the Bermuda 1-2,
there is no sleep at all until 100 miles offshore.  Too much traffic!  Wisely,
the Bermuda 1-2 starts with the single-handed leg from Newport to Bermuda when
the crews are rested and wired-up.  The return leg to Newport through the
crowded US coastal waters is double-handed.

Since 1993 I installed a radar detector on my boat.  I have it connected through
one channel of my stereo amplifier to my speakers on deck and below, and in the
other I connect my VHF which is on all the time on 16.  (There is a lot of CG
traffic all the way to 150 miles offshore from their strong Woods Hole station
on 16, very annoying.)  The radar detector is a MUST!  It has never failed to
warn me about a nearby vessel, both at night and/or in fog, offshore and inshore
(e.g fogged-in Buzzards Bay).  At night I can easily pick up the ships' lights
unless it is foggy as it often is south of Nantucket.  The radar detector has
quadrant lights so a rudimentary bearing and changes thereoff can be had.  This
is better than nothing even if I cannot find the vessel in fog because it will
usually respond to a call or PAN PAN.  If I had radar, I would turn it on then. 
Generally all fishing vessels, including sportfishers keep their radar going,
and of course, big vessels always do.  

Of course nothing is foolproof.  Last summer during an SSB sched I had turned my
radar detector off because the SSB lights it all up.  It was dusk and I had just
turned on my running lights before the sched.  The SSB sched lasted 30 minutes
or so and I was amazed to come on deck to see a 100 K tanker cross about 1000
yards behind me.  Upon contacting the bridge I learned that yes he had seen my
lights from a good distance (about 3 miles) and no, he never got  a return from
my radar reflector.  He complimented me for the visibility of my masthead
combination running lights.  So now I pop my head up every 15-20 minutes during
radio scheds.  For reference, my masthead is 65 ft high and the radar reflector
is hoisted to the 1st spreader, about 30 ft high.  The radar detector is mounted
on the stern rail to keep it from picking up signals of too faraway vessels when
I use it near-shore.

I have had many close encounters with ships over the years, but fortunately I
had always (with the above exception) spotted them well in advance.  However,
some ships (3-4) failed to respond on 16 were I always call to alert them of my
and other yachts' presence. Since I know that I have excellent VHF transmission
I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that some ships may be sailing without
anybody on watch!  Interestingly, the weather in those cases was good with
excellent visibility and relatively flat seas.  Perhaps they were running on
radar alarm and they never got a return from me.  Most of the incidents occured
at night and at least one the ship was a modern 100+ Kton tanker.  On more than
one occasion I had to alter course.  On the other hand, when ships respond they
always ackowledge me as the stand-on vessel and change course if necessary.

I have found that ships rarely call me, which leads me to believe they have not
seen me before I call.  Navy ships always call.  On one occasion I crossed paths
with the JFK 150 miles south of Nantucket.  In a nasty Nor'easter he had me
identified as a sailing vessel before I could see his haul, even though I was
double reefed and it was late dawn!  Surfaced submarines also call but they
never identify themselves.

Single-handed sailing does entail some higher risks compared to sailing with
crew.  I go to sea under the assumption that I can only rely on myself for all
matters of safety and performance.  Of all the electronics I carry, I find that
the radar detector and the VHF are the most valuable routine safety tools. 
Radar would certainly be very valuable and I will probably add one some day. 
However, there is no device nor vigilance that can help against the ultimate
nightmare of a collision:  A large, possibly hard, semisubmerged body or object.
 One  has to be ready to accept some risk to reap the rewards of sailing
offshore.

/Dimitri

    On TV this morning they showed the new and improved pilot locator used
    by the military. It is a large handheld with a builtin gps and a trick
    super high speed burst transmission that sends the coordinates to a
    satillite system so fast, the enemy cannot even track it (or so they say).
    
    Matter of volume up to bring the cost down....

    I have read this entry with much interest. I sail in SF Bay and up and
    down the coast so avoiding everything is of great interest to me. I am
    a little amused at the comments about radar deflectors and detectors.
    While sailing from Honolulu to Cape Flattery, Washington this summer,
    reminds me of these comments.
    
    About three days from Honolulu (on the trip down), we lost the radar
    reflector so we installed a new one while in port. After we left
    Honolulu we were northbound for about 12 days and encountered our first
    vessel, a Panamaian container ship heading to Japan. This is about the
    time one would reach the shipping lanes from east to west. I called the
    ship on the VHF just to past the time of day. While talking to the
    second mate, I explained that we had a new radar reflector and was
    wondering how well we were being received on the ship's radar. The
    reply from the ship was..."Wait a moment and I'll turn on the radar and
    tell you". 
    
    So, no matter how good of a reflector or radar detector you may have,
    there is no substitute for a good pair of eyes! A radar reflector or
    detector will do you no good unless the other ships' radar in turned
    on!
    
    Richard
    

    How about a sonar device for detecting screw noise from other boats. 
    That should be fairly effective, with the larger ships' prop noise able
    to be heard at greater range.  Wouldn't do much for sailboats, but it
    should work for the big monsters, and would require no action on their
    part to work for you.
    
    Do they make any kind of sonar for small boats?  This would be
    listening only, no transmission required.
    
    Dick
    

    re .23
    
    Would an automotive radar detector respond to marine radar?
    
    - gene

    Gene,
    
    The U.S. Navy used to use off the shelf Whistler radar detectors on
    some of their vessels.  That leads me to believe automotive detectors
    pick up some frequencies of marine radar.
    
    djc
    

The airplane transducer that I am familiar with is called TCAS
(Tmumble Colliasion Avoidance System).

10 years ago I did some preliminary work to improve on TCAS II.  
Company went under, president went to jail, this poor contractor got
stuck for over $16K.

TCAS transmitts an aircraft ID, and optionally altitude, when pinged
by the master (located at the airport).  With TCAS II there is a
display inside the cockpit showing the aircraft who have responded. 
The display is something like a radar screen.  At the time, the full
TCAS II system was major big bucks $100K +.

The option to carry a transponder onboard should be just that, an
option.  You are not currently required to carry a radar reflector,
ubt I do.  A small transmitter, perhaps operating on the 3, and 10
cm radar bands would look like the 4th of July on a radar screen.
With a little fancy waverform work on the transmitter, you could
presumably even write on the screen of a conventional radar.  Full
information could be encoded in a similar manner to what is being
done with DSC on VHF's.

Such a low pwer transmitter (milliwatts), should not put a serious
drain on a battery.  Like my radar reflector, I would like to be
able to run this up my mast in times of poor visability.  I have the
almost perfect smuggler, fiberglass hull, wood spares, most metal
below water line.  Hey a "stealth" sailboat!

The current limitation that I see with such a system are FCC
regulations.  First, I am transmitting on an assigned frequency. 
Second, the buggers are going to make me redo my ship's license. 
Why can't they let me add things for free, especailly if it makes
their life easier?

I would guess that such a transmitter could be built and marketed
for less than $200.00.

Would I buy one?  I honestly do not know.  However, for open water
it would come after an EPIRB.  Along the coast, probably no need for
me.  I like sailing in fair weather.

Doug
dtn 881 6355

Just reviewed a couple of the notes which were concerned about
transducers crowding a frequency.  In short, no big deal.  

Radar seems to work ok with "everyone" operating continuously at 3
and 10 cm.  A transducer would respond to being pinged, with a very
short burst.

If you want to include boat information in the response thing get a
little more complicated.  There are several possible ways of solving
this.  

The cheap and dirty is to somply respond and assume no signal
overlap.  After all, a signal overlap implies that you and another
target are close together.

In terms of collision detection and multiple response, you have
plenty of bandwidth.  This stuff was first done with Aloha net for
computers back in the (60's?).  Effective data transmission is .303
* the physical bandwidth.  A 10cm radar has approximately a 30 GHz
frequency (assmuming I did my math right freq = speed of light /
wave length).  Thus each second is open to over 1 GByte of data. 
The raw radar pulse is far bigger (micro seconds?).

    We have just had news here in New Zealand that a crewman from the South
    Korean freighter Pan Grace has been charged in connection with the
    fatal ramming of the Melinda Lee. 
    The second mate has been charged with neglecting safety measures and
    with accidental homicides - he was the ship's duty officer at the time 
    of the incident. No Pan Grace crewmen admitted seeing the accident, but
    they testified that because of bad sea conditions, their ship could
    have hit the yacht without their being aware of it. Although circumstantial
    evidence strongly suggested the ship's involvement, scientific analysis
    of paint chips found on the hull confirmed that the ship was indeed the
    one which hit the yacht.
    The investigator also criticised the Sleavins for having their yacht on
    automatic pilot in heavy weather and not maintaining a deck watch.
    
    Indeed a harsh reminder to all of us who venture onto the ocean, that
    there are high risks involved (is that why we keep going back?), and it
    is a serious responsibilty for each of us to minimise the possibility
    of never returning to land.
    
    Safe sailing,
    Robyn