na - no talking
Don’t ever turn left in a radar class. Quick and easy way to a failure.
I fail then - I am a “little left saving a lot of right” in this situration
Before there’s “risk of collision” coming left is not an issue. I’d be OK at 3 miles out with DIW or slowly moving F/Vs
yea - you can go right - but think you have to go big right. It was set up to see if the younger guys would consider going left ( most didn’t) - flelt like the ones who would consider left were not as “cook book” as the big right folks, a little more situationally aware, and maybe a bit more real life and less class room. In short - more "looking out the window " guys
An appeal case for the OOW on Helge Ingstad is ongoing in Bergen at the moment.
Here is a news report today:
Source: Helge Ingstad-vaktsjefen: - Var ikke naturlig å stupe nedi radaren
The bridge of a warship is sparsely equipped compared to a modern merchant ship and ship sensors such as radar are monitored else where such as the combat information centre. Over close to 60 years ago on anything larger than a corvette this would have been manned by the blind pilotage team who would have been monitoring the planned entry into port and collision avoidance. The CO was able to monitor wheel over advise from the blind pilotage team as well as who ever had the conn on the bridge.
There were other sensors that would have given the information that we now get from AIS back then.
There is no excuse ever for a frigate to collide with anything.
Take with a grain of salt.
The following is how I perceived the situation. My response starts with bridge team and the Captain being on the bridge and available to aid in the maneuver.
It is my interpretation the three fishing vessels or any multiple vessels grouped dead on the bow create a special circumstances (Rule 2b) and defined by court interpretation.
Considerations:
(1) Given ships current course and distance to the fishing vessels create a time line for the mate of less than 18 minutes. (3 miles at 10 kts)
(2) The closing speed of vessel “A” is 5 kts at a range of 2.5 nm which creates a time line for vessel “A” of 30 mins. T/S/D solutions uses mental math - 6 min rule with a relationship to speed and distance.
(3) Course change: Using the Rule of 60 or AKA the Radian Rule. A C\C of 9 degrees at three miles should give the ship a lateral separation of .45 nm.
9 x 3/60 = .45. Again this calculation is done mentally and is similar to the 6 min rule.
(4) Referencing Vessel “B” a 9º C/C should change the CBDR situation. His relative motion line should move to the right and open the CPA from a possible collision.
(5) Using the VHF contact all vessel in the area of the intention to Declare Special Circumstance (multiple ship situation rule 2b) Notify fishing vessels and vessel “B” of the turn to starboard to open CPA to approximately .5 nautical miles.
When executing the maneuver Use all available means as appropriate to determine risk of collision including the VHF Radio.
Ship action can be done by mental math and should be confirmed by visual observation and all electronics through out the maneuver. Keep in mind if the situation does not develop as planned continue through a possible 360 turn.
Also, remember the VHF messages should be recorded in Bridge to Bridge RT log, voice captured on the voice data recorder, monitored and possibly recorded at local Coast Guard Stations and by other vessels in the area.
Another consideration is the description of the term fishing vessel would imply they are “engaged in fishing” if so locating the nets becomes an addition factor to consider when developing a CPA.
As to vessel “B” a 9 degree to starboard should open the CBDR situation.
None of the items listed take much more skill than steering on a set of range lights (aka leading lights).
Turning on a fixed point is probably easier, steering for another ships stern is certainly easier. Using the angle of a line of channel buoys to stay in the center is about the same level of difficulty.
Take with a grain of salt.
That was my experience in my earlier days as a helmsman watching pilots and the use of head bearings going into an anchorage. I took those and UNREP skills with me as I developed my career.
If VHF is banned, one would have to do “early and obvious turns or speed changes” in this exercise to prevent Andrea Doria type issues 
Also is anyone sober on the fishing boat? Factor that in too.
You must be buying salt by the ton.
I do, based on my background and experience, every mariner I have ever met has their own spin on things. Just look at the responses in gCaptain.
I have always enjoy reading current threads compared to past ones. I am always looking for consistent opinions, collaboration, comprise, consistency and finally guidance. Thanks for responding.
Short-term just call the captain works but long-term depending on the run/schedule this might start being an issue. Best approach is to train the mates early in the voyage how to avoid traffic safely with lower cognitive workload.
No mental math required, the ARPA is a powerful tool and would be invaluable in this scenario. The vector length can be changed to see how things unfold (or trial maneuver).
But first things first, avoiding the F/Vs is simple, do that then deal with the next situation.
Take with a grain of salt.
The calling of the Captain for me is a Standing Order requirement and establishing a comfort zone between the Captain and the Mate.
As a Junior Officer, I was given the opprotunity to demonstrate my skills with all available bridge assets with or without the Captain on the bridge. With the Captain on the bridge, I took this as a training opportunity.
Using my underway time and in simulators, the goal to develop the ability to work problems out using everything at my disposal including mental math and common sense.
I have watch some of my fellow mariners focus and prioritize the use on the latest powerful tool in their decision making process. This has been done so to their peril. Their actions have been documented in near misses, articles, news media, and marine accident reports. Each report has provided a lessons learned discussion.
As to avoiding the F/Vs was simple. The 9 degree c/c did open the CPA but it also changed the CBDR situation on vessel “B”. In determining the c/c I looked at the lateral separation with vessel B. Hypothetically, if vessel “B” was stationary at 12 miles the 9 degrees provides left bearing drift and a 1.8 nm separation. The fact that she is moving just increases the separation and a modification of my course at a latter time.
I do enjoy the situational discussions.
Ultimately, in my opinion, some parts of the industry will face a future sophisticated bridge electronic suite interfaced with the new AI capabilities where the job description may say “human beings do not apply”.
Agreed, that’s really one of the main points of this thread, the watch officers need visual skills to verify what the ARPA is showing them.
The main issue I see is that inexperienced watch officer don’t distinguish between vessels at a distance from those nearby. They are only able to use ARPA in either case.
At sufficient distance, with no risk of collision (even with CBDR), it doesn’t matter if the turn is left or right, just get a prudent CPA. It’s a different story in areas with traffic where large CPA cannot be achieved.
The traditional way of dealing with this is to call the captain to the bridge. In some trades this is no longer feasible.
That was also my experience aboard U.S. Coast Guard Cutters. There were two radars in the wheelhouse but all collision avoidance radar plotting was done in CIC. They also ran a redundant navigation plot as described by Hutchins.
The Technology of Team Navigation - Hutchins - #3 by Kennebec_Captain
9 degrees !! Really? in some seriousness - if you are going right in that situation turn should be more substantial than that - you should make it clear to the ship overtaking you what you are doing with a significant aspect change. It will help him decide if he is taking those fishing boats to port or stbd as well.
Take with a grain of salt.
The 9 degree course change started with trying to open a group of what is described as DIW fishing vessels at 3 miles with a CPA at .25. I intend to change the CPA to around .5 NM considering the vessels maybe engaged in fishing.
In this situation, if the standing order required a larger CPA then increase the angle to an 18 degrees c/c would increase a lateral separation to a mile on these vessel.
Next is to considering the ripple effect on the other vessels, the 9 degree c/c on vessel “B” who is described as CBDR hull down and just a radar target.
I decided to apply the c/c on vessel “B” at 12 nm. The 9 degree course change at 12 miles would change the CBDR to a CPA to port at 1.8 NM. The c/c should also create bearing drift on vessel’s “B” radar plot.
Chuck - it is not a math problem - it is collision avoindance, if you are going right - turn the darn ship if you are going to turn the darn ship !!