• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
    • B.J. Porter

      Moderation Team Change   06/16/2017

      After fifteen years of volunteer moderation at SA, I will no longer be part of the moderation team. The decision to step aside is mine, and has been some time in the works but we did not wish to announce it in advance for a number of reasons. It's been fun, but I need my time back for other purposes now. The Underdawg admin account will not be monitored until further notice, as I will be relinquishing control of it along with my administrative privileges. Zapata will continue on as a moderator, and any concerns or issues can be directed to that account or to the Editor until further notice. Anyone interested in helping moderate the forums should reach out to Scot by sending a PM to the Editor account. Please note that I am not leaving the community, I am merely stepping aside from Admin responsibilities and privileges on the site.

estarzinger

Members
  • Content count

    6,160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About estarzinger

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.bethandevans.com

Recent Profile Visitors

15,197 profile views
  1. Rule 17 (dont turn to port) relates to the stand on vessel. And was not a head-on hypothetical (where stb is also general rule) The hypothetical question above was action with respect to a give way vessel in a behind the beam crossing. The hypothetical question had the stand on (crossing) vessel behind the beam, so a turn to starboard by give way would have been right across her bows. Trying to sneak across stand on's bows in a collision situation is rather discouraged. Yes, I agree starboard by general preference, but stand-on's obligation is to prevent the collision as cleanly as possible, and in the hypothetical (as I interpreted it) that was port. You can interpret it differently and come to a different answer - a problem with limited detail hypotheticals.
  2. LB I have you on Ignore . . but to save Whisper the agro of answering you . . . . I was indicating that I thought the reaction of a containership (eg commercial) could be different than the reaction of a Destroyer. The containership will generally react with a turn as their best collision avoidance, while destroyer can combine speed change and turn.
  3. My area here is automated control & (learning) game theory, not force structure . . . but . . . . #1 I am not totally convinced those are exclusive choices. Because (a) just as an example . . . . The main 120mm smooth bore gun on the new russian T14 MBT is in an unmanned automated turret and can target and fire a quite wide range of munitions (including antiair). and (b) a swarm can either be homogeneous or heterogeneous, and (c) with our military budgets we could have all kinds for the price of one aircraft carrier. #2 on size - that can be defined on different parameters - tonnage, manpower, cost, force projection capability, etc. Tonnage is probably the least interesting of these metrics of size. Navy always has three environment . . . Blue, green and brown water. And one scenario/proposal is (essentially) to match 3 drone base platforms to those three environments. Another proposal is just one basic size, which are nested in a hive ship for blue water transits. There are some pros and cons to both extreme, I have a personal opinion on size/delivery which is not quite either of those two, and includes also airborne and undersea capabilities. But IB I expect you might have a more informed opinion than I on those questions.
  4. seems to me they need swarms of automated (drone) smallish vessels. these $xb ships with 18th century manning levels dont make much sense.
  5. ^^ would only take him around 550 days at 1.87 mph. Only half a trip by "1000 day" standards
  6. It does not take long for a modern radar to get course and speed indication - and I can immediately assess its distance (if radar does not show it so close I have time to get plot, more visual information and vhf contact). So, you are hypothesizing that this potential collision/stern light/radar target is very close. In which case, I believe I am give way vessel, I make turn to pass which ever side takes me most away from that stern light. (eg if the light is to port of my bow then I turn to starboard) without getting me in trouble with other traffic. Watch target (visual and radar) to get more information. I try to make VHF contact (but that's not primary action it is really a close encounter). At some point I will pass, see more nav lights, get radar data, or make vhf contact, and I can make further decisions. I am give way vessel. If I were commercial my primary tool would be to turn, probably to port as that gives the situation more time to develop (but would depend on other factors); however as Navy, I do have a real speed option. As Navy my decision depends in part on how far away the target is and if I am in fact trying to get somewhere on a schedule. If it is some good distance away and I need to be somewhere, as Navy Destroyer, I would probably speed up enough to open at least 1nm cpa - if not possible thru pure speed then turn a bit also. As Navy, call if the Captain if situation meets standing orders, I probably am not going to flip on AiS, but there are some serious deck lights I could flip on if I was worried I was not seen, and make VHF call if there is time but still concerned container does not understand situation. But honestly as Navy I dont really care what the container ship knows or does not know. My sensors can tell me when they fart, and I have twice their speed and twice their maneuverability. You can never be sure anyone sees anything. But you do need to follow the colreg framework, working the situation as you best understand it. There's no rocket science here - you stay alert, make your moves early, and do the best with the information you have.
  7. Yea, it is an 'interesting' choice. We chose to adapt our lifestyle to 'the sea', and it sure made a lot of things easier, and was a more common choice when we started cruising, when the alternatives were much worse than they are today, but most today are not willing to. (striving for a run on sentence there lol) I wish you luck with the lithium. Early on our first boat we bought the Gel marketing hype, and they failed pretty quickly and expensively. Ever since I have been pretty leery of new battery tech . . . each time something new is hyped I said to myself "until the majority of golf carts and fork lifts switch over I am not going to even seriously look at it".
  8. over the course of this there have been SAR flights from both hawaii and from tahiti. I imagine it is all tahiti now. The French don't have the resources that the US have but they are damn good. The family has done an amazing job getting SAR resources on task.
  9. oh, I so miss messing about with batteries and charging . . . . NOT lol We had great success with T105's . . . . but we followed the 'minimize demand' philosophy. I never considered adding water (every couple months) to them to be any big burden (gave me an opportunity to inspect things which should be done anyway), but their placement was designed to be accessible.
  10. ^^ It is french SAR zone controlled from Tahiti. JRCC Tahiti Type: JRCC | SPOC, Country: French Polynesia SRR: French Polynesia Tel: +689 40 54 16 16 contact@jrcc.pf I suspect you will get good news soon The sailing weather has been very slow on the approach route.
  11. Are you dyslexic? Hypothetically Vessel A going south, Vessel B going E (or NE). They collide. Which side is vessel A hit on - you think port side - really? Can I offer a simple drawing LOL I really hope you are not assigned ROW or collision avoidance duty. But I have no idea what track Navy was on, only that this makes it look like #1 they could have predicted/expected the port turn by Crystal, and that #2 they may have been in (or near) crystal's TSS lane.
  12. Both Going north? No. The collision happened near (or in) the eastern half of the TSS, with a NE course for the container ship, after making a port turn just exactly per the TSS.
  13. Have not seen this mentioned before. There is a (voluntary) TSS along the Crystal"s track, indicating the Port turn exactly where she made it . . . somewhat suggesting that the Navy should have been expecting it and that navy might well have been in the wrong TSS lane.
  14. It is Accident ID: DCA91MM029 NTIS Number: PB92-916406. I am sure the report is available, but you may have to go thru a request procedure. I used to have a paper copy but it is long gone and all I have not is my summary notes. There 'should have been' a USCG investigation, but as you noted there were 'rumors' of navy playing politics (and something odd about the AP vessel ownership) and the investigation was instead taken by the NTSB (who are very good investigators). ------------------------------------------- On the Navy collision . . . OT but . . . . . yea . . . I can understand how this happened from the commercial ship side . . . . . They are under severe cost pressure likely only one or two on the bridge, likely not strong discipline, possible equipment repaired needed, navy not transmitting ais, commercial ship stand on vessel. Bad, but I can visualize how it could happen. But I have to say, I don't understand at all how this could happen on the navy vessel, even with all the discussion about about stronger or weaker bridge crew. They don't have any of the above excuses. Clear calm night. Fully manned, state of the art tracking equipment - target trackable visually, on ais, and on radar. Navy give way. How can they possibly not know this ship was on a collision course? No matter how many u turns it did, they certainly had the resources to track it 7x24, #1 tracking should have been automatic, alarms going off at some stage in the encounter and #2 should have been obvious to watch standarders who's only job was to avoid this exact situation. I really don't get it. And yes, it has happened before. Can someone describe a plausible bridge scenario how this happens, short of them turning off all their tracking gear and instead everyone watching porn on the big screens?