Need help from some of you Military man ?

[LadyAnesjka]

What are these red and green on some of the ships i see ?

[Guest]

navigation lights, (I'm not one of the military men though)

[Hapa_Fodder]

Aloha,

Naval lighting is based on color to help determine from a distance what the aspect of the ship is. So that being said if at a distance I see Red lights showing and no green, I am on it's port or left side. Hopefully that doesn't confuse too much.

Mahalo,

-Hapa

[iRA6E]

Just now, LoveBote said:

navigation lights, r

This  -  These allow ships in the dark to not only see each other  but to know which direction they are traveling.   

[SeaborneSumo]

Port and Starboard running lights.  Ditto what the others said about allowing other ships to know aspect.

 

[jmanII]

Taken from Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulation handbook (in link below):

Rule 21 International (page 34) -  Sidelights means a green light on the starboard side and a red light on the port side each showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 112.5° and so fixed as to show the light from right ahead to 22.5° abaft the beam on its respective side. In a vessel of less than 20 m in length the sidelights may be combined in one lantern carried on the fore and aft centerline of the vessel.

Rule 23 International (page 38) - A power-driven vessel underway shall exhibit: (i) a masthead light forward; (ii) a second masthead light abaft of and higher than the forward one; except that a vessel of less than 50 meters in length shall not be obliged to exhibit such light but may do so; (iii) sidelights; and (iv) a sternlight.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/Handbook/CG_NRHB_20190212.pdf

* Yes the degrees are important - it defines situations that apply to other rules.

[LadyAnesjka]

11 hours ago, jmanII said:

Taken from Coast Guard Navigation Rules and Regulation handbook (in link below):

Rule 21 International (page 34) -  Sidelights means a green light on the starboard side and a red light on the port side each showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 112.5° and so fixed as to show the light from right ahead to 22.5° abaft the beam on its respective side. In a vessel of less than 20 m in length the sidelights may be combined in one lantern carried on the fore and aft centerline of the vessel.

Rule 23 International (page 38) - A power-driven vessel underway shall exhibit: (i) a masthead light forward; (ii) a second masthead light abaft of and higher than the forward one; except that a vessel of less than 50 meters in length shall not be obliged to exhibit such light but may do so; (iii) sidelights; and (iv) a sternlight.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/Handbook/CG_NRHB_20190212.pdf

* Yes the degrees are important - it defines situations that apply to other rules.

Other nation are force to follow these rule ?


This is all very interesting.

[Kuramitsu]

9 minutes ago, LadyAnesjka said:

Other nation are force to follow these rule ?


This is all very interesting.

lol not really forced by anyone Navigation lights have been around since the 1800s, just a way for ships to see each other.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

11 hours ago, LoveBote said:

navigation lights, (I'm not one of the military men though)

Seems just like aircraft navigation lights.  I still remember the ditty "Red on right, take flight" because if you see both green and red lights, and the red lights are to your right, the aircraft was coming right towards you and you need to GTFO of dodge.

[Kuramitsu]

Also every nation uses them to help with preventing accidents like crashes, same method as say a lighthouse helps sailors.

[Wombatmetal]

I will add the color system seems to extend beyond ships. The channel buoys in the bay of my town when the ship sails into port, the buoys on starboard are green, and the ones on port are red. 

[LadyAnesjka]

EIther I never have notice this here ships in Splitsko, or i never pay attention, I will start looking to see these when they come in.

[nerfinvisibileships]

airports have them too, ya noob

[HazeGrayUnderway]

1 minute ago, LadyAnesjka said:

EIther I never have notice this here ships in Splitsko, or i never pay attention, I will start looking to see these when they come in.

Aircraft do the same thing if you want to look for it.

Spoiler

 

 

 

[ShortFingerIvankaFondler]

1 hour ago, LadyAnesjka said:

Other nation are force to follow these rule ?


This is all very interesting.

Looks like the first international agreement' on this seems to be the 1897 Brussels Comite Maritime International conference.  The rules wouldn't have been mandatory but likely widely used because navies don't have an interest in accidentally ramming their ships into other ships. The current rules are the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and were adopted as a convention of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1972. A convention is a treaty signed by many countries and the IMO is a specialized United Nations organization for regulating shipping. Virtually every country on the planet is a member of the IMO except those which are landlocked.

[_RC1138]

3 hours ago, Impotus45 said:

Looks like the first international agreement' on this seems to be the 1897 Brussels Comite Maritime International conference.  The rules wouldn't have been mandatory but likely widely used because navies don't have an interest in accidentally ramming their ships into other ships. The current rules are the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and were adopted as a convention of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1972. A convention is a treaty signed by many countries and the IMO is a specialized United Nations organization for regulating shipping. Virtually every country on the planet is a member of the IMO except those which are landlocked.

Ehhh International Maritime law is very... let's say hazy. For one, they are not all consistent in rules; for example stopping distances are dictated by law, but they are not all the same. What typically happens is you follow the Laws of the Water's you are in, which is why crews typically are kept operating in the same routes (the hull may change). When designing ships you typically design them around the laws of their primary port of registry; so the safety equipment, sensory equipment, ship handling characteristics are built to that standard.

And if you get really technical, you will often tool a ship to handle for particular PORTS (and their authorities) if it is being designed for reasonably predictable routes (this is particularly true for Post-PANAMAX/Post-SuezMax/Q-Max ships, where their size dictates a limited range of available ports). Likewise any ship that's hitting the Capesize range is likely to have a reliably designated route from the earliest design stages and will be built to the standards of that authority (may even impact layout of the bridge and engineering areas).

5 hours ago, Kuramitsu said:

Also every nation uses them to help with preventing accidents like crashes, same method as say a lighthouse helps sailors.

Ehhh not really. Malaysian flagged ships are notorious for dimming or outright turning off their running lights, likewise keeping their beacons off (or having had the signal stolen (ghost ships)). And the american navy is the worst; it's one thing to be out of the seaway with your lights dimmed, but american warships like to sit in the middle of seaways with their running lights off and their beacons off. And because they are warships, they feel they can expect to be given way in all conditions, despite seemingly being ignorant to how large cargo carriers handle. And that's why they keep getting damaged/having losses of life.

[vikingno2]

54 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Ehhh International Maritime law is very... let's say hazy. For one, they are not all consistent in rules; for example stopping distances are dictated by law, but they are not all the same. What typically happens is you follow the Laws of the Water's you are in, which is why crews typically are kept operating in the same routes (the hull may change). When designing ships you typically design them around the laws of their primary port of registry; so the safety equipment, sensory equipment, ship handling characteristics are built to that standard.

And if you get really technical, you will often tool a ship to handle for particular PORTS (and their authorities) if it is being designed for reasonably predictable routes (this is particularly true for Post-PANAMAX/Post-SuezMax/Q-Max ships, where their size dictates a limited range of available ports). Likewise any ship that's hitting the Capesize range is likely to have a reliably designated route from the earliest design stages and will be built to the standards of that authority (may even impact layout of the bridge and engineering areas).

Ehhh not really. Malaysian flagged ships are notorious for dimming or outright turning off their running lights, likewise keeping their beacons off (or having had the signal stolen (ghost ships)). And the american navy is the worst; it's one thing to be out of the seaway with your lights dimmed, but american warships like to sit in the middle of seaways with their running lights off and their beacons off. And because they are warships, they feel they can expect to be given way in all conditions, despite seemingly being ignorant to how large cargo carriers handle. And that's why they keep getting damaged/having losses of life.

It ironic you post this about US Warships then on your signature you have "Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...."  lol

[Sinton]

All I know is that what is said here is consistent to what I know.  13 years in the Army taught me none of this, but as an ex private pilot and yacht racing enthusiast red is port side and green is starboard.  These lights give information on the vector of the craft you are viewing in no light/ low light situations.

[_RC1138]

16 minutes ago, vikingno2 said:

It ironic you post this about US Warships then on your signature you have "Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...."  lol

The difference is raw tonnage in a collision in a seaway doesn't care about gun diameter. That's why the Fitzgerald came back looking like this:

and the Crystal came back to port like this:

Mass times Velocity doesn't give a crapabout how many VLS tubes you have. And sitting in a seaway, dark, with no running lights, with your transponder/beacon off is going to result in problems.

As far as my sig goes, it's an old family motto:

 

[vikingno2]

Its just because the Gun decided not to argue back, point still stands

[Jakob_Knight]

56 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The difference is raw tonnage in a collision in a seaway doesn't care about gun diameter. That's why the Fitzgerald came back looking like this:

and the Crystal came back to port like this:

Mass times Velocity doesn't give a crapabout how many VLS tubes you have. And sitting in a seaway, dark, with no running lights, with your transponder/beacon off is going to result in problems.

As far as my sig goes, it's an old family motto:

 

 

 

The collision of the Fitzgerald and the Crystal is a prime example of how, no matter how many mechanisms you put into place to help avoid collisions at sea, it still comes down to the crews of the ships actually using them.  The Fitzgerald was operating without her radar being operational, the bridge crew seems to have been distracted and not responded to orders, and the lookouts didn't seem to be doing their jobs, while the Crystal seems to have been on autopilot and her crew didn't take actions that were expected of them either.  Both ships contributed to what happened because the crews were lax or not doing their jobs right.

But regardless, one thing that was drilled into me during my ESWS quals is that it is the first responsibility of a ship to navigate in such a way as to avoid a collision.  Regardless of other considerations or ROW, that rule is a binding one.  That is why, beyond the actual failings of the bridge crew in this specific instance, the senior officers of the Fitzpatrick, the commander of DESRON 15, the commander of CTF70, and the commander of the USN Seventh Fleet were all relieved of duty or dismissed even before the actual criminal procedures were convened on the specific incident.  The series of collisions that happened under those commanders stood out as evidence this rule was being forgotten, or expected procedures to prevent them were not being followed under their watch.

I don't know what happened to the Captain of the Crystal,  but I very much doubt he was sailing anything but his own private sailboat after this.  Companies take a dim view of damage to their assets due to crew error, and a Captain is always responsible for the actions of his crew aboard his ship.  

 

As a side note, I urge anyone who hasn't seen 'Zulu' to do so before discounting what 'primitive' or 'poorly equipped' forces can do when motivated and well-led.  And, how even a hopeless situation can sometimes be salvaged by bravery and doing the best you can for as long as you can.  The movie may not be entirely accurate, but the Battle of Rorke's Drift still happened much as shown in the movie (minus the Zulu salute at the end...in actuality, the Zulu just decided they had other problems to deal with), with the degree of how badly outnumbered the British force was, if anything, downplayed on screen.

[jmanII]

1 hour ago, Jakob_Knight said:

The collision of the Fitzgerald and the Crystal is a prime example of how, no matter how many mechanisms you put into place to help avoid collisions at sea, it still comes down to the crews of the ships actually using them.  The Fitzgerald was operating without her radar being operational, the bridge crew seems to have been distracted and not responded to orders, and the lookouts didn't seem to be doing their jobs, while the Crystal seems to have been on autopilot and her crew didn't take actions that were expected of them either.  Both ships contributed to what happened because the crews were lax or not doing their jobs right.

But regardless, one thing that was drilled into me during my ESWS quals is that it is the first responsibility of a ship to navigate in such a way as to avoid a collision.  Regardless of other considerations or ROW, that rule is a binding one.  That is why, beyond the actual failings of the bridge crew in this specific instance, the senior officers of the Fitzpatrick, the commander of DESRON 15, the commander of CTF70, and the commander of the USN Seventh Fleet were all relieved of duty or dismissed even before the actual criminal procedures were convened on the specific incident.  The series of collisions that happened under those commanders stood out as evidence this rule was being forgotten, or expected procedures to prevent them were not being followed under their watch.

I don't know what happened to the Captain of the Crystal,  but I very much doubt he was sailing anything but his own private sailboat after this.  Companies take a dim view of damage to their assets due to crew error, and a Captain is always responsible for the actions of his crew aboard his ship.  

While I am not an expert on the incident with FITZGERALD, I did spend 11 years as a SWO.  Three of those years specifically on an Arleigh Burke Flight I as both an OOD and TAO.  

You are somewhat misinformed as the radar was operational.  I do however agree with "...the bridge crew seems to have been distracted".  Fatigue is a major factor in these types of incidents.  There is no standard (like in NATOPS) of crew rest.  Some sailors just don't sleep the entire time the ship is underway.  More than a couple of times I found my lookouts and OS crew in CIC asleep at their posts.  My time spend on the bridge was some of the most active time on ship as I knew I could only count on the team to a certain point. 

If you are interested, below is the USN After Action report and findings on the collision - as well as the JOHN S. MCCAIN collision.  Very interesting read. 

I would turn your attention to Page 21 of the report - the radar was not tuned and adjusted by the bridge crew - it was operational.  Besides there were no less than 3 radars (up to 5 depending on configuration) that they could use.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf

[Kuckoo]

9 hours ago, LadyAnesjka said:

Other nation are force to follow these rule ?


This is all very interesting.

It's just taken from a Coast Guard publication.  It doesn't mean they originated the rules "forcing" others to follow them.  Other nations' coast guards have similar publications.

Just details the rules of the road at sea.  It's an international system, the rules are the same wherever you go.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, LadyAnesjka said:

EIther I never have notice this here ships in Splitsko, or i never pay attention, I will start looking to see these when they come in.

You need to look at ships underway, and at night. Ships at anchor have a different set of lights.

here is a chart with the fuller set of possible navigation light combinations. At anchor, in port, you will only see white lights (normally), arranged according to the vessels length, type and profile.

You have until next Monday to prepare for your exam, so study hard 

[LadyAnesjka]

8 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

You need to look at ships underway, and at night. Ships at anchor have a different set of lights.

here is a chart with the fuller set of possible navigation light combinations. At anchor, in port, you will only see white lights (normally), arranged according to the vessels length, type and profile.

 

You have until next Monday to prepare for your exam, so study hard 

Hahaha, Well I be sure to take some video and post here of some of what I see and learn.

I live small town outside Splitsku , is called Klis, but work down in city.
Maybe one or two day this week I go down to sea side and take some video of the ships coming and going. Most is big cruiser for tourist, but some of our military boat some through, if get lucky will get some video for all here. See if lights is how mentioned here.