Here is our email to the Coast Guard documenting our encounter with the tanker ‘Siteam Leader’. In the report below ‘CPA’ is ‘Closest point of approach’ and is constantly calculated electronically by our AIS unit and displayed on our chart plotter. AIS receives a VHF signal from all vessels over 300 tons, ours displays all contacts on our chart plotter/radar display. Generally we are not concerned about vessels passing with a CPA over a mile away. If the CPA is under a mile we usually contact them at 12 miles via VHF radio and ensure they are aware of our presence.
I have x’d out the name and call sign of our contact in Hawaii since this is being posted on the web. Since this is simply a report of the facts, the tanker’s information is intact. All is a matter of public record, anyway. – Rob
Begin Report—–
I received your email address from Xxxxx (HAM Call sign here) on the Pacific Seafarer’s Net. We would like to report a strange incident with the tanker ‘Siteam Leader’ on July 14, 2010. While no laws were broken in the incident we believe the ship caused an excessively dangerous situation for no reason.
Our vessel:
SV Yohelah
Seattle
Doc #667842
Other vessel:
Tanker ‘Siteam Leader’
MMSI: 565917000
IMO: 9343194
Call Sign: 9VNR2
596 feet, 40 foot draft
Markings: Fitzen Chemical
At 0200z on July 14, 2010 we first noted an AIS target on heading 274*T traveling at 14 knots at a distance of over 20 miles. The vessel MMSI 565917000 was to the south east of us. We were on course of 095*T at speed of 4.5 knots. AIS was calculating a 7 mile CPA based on the other vessels course and speed.
By 0300z the vessel had turned toward us and had decreased the CPA to three miles. In the intervening hour we had not received the supplemental AIS signal giving us the vessel type and name, along with other information. AIS continued to show the vessel turning slowly toward us.
Our position at 0300z was 38* 43’N, 168* 17’E, on a course of 082T at 5.0 knots. Turning more easterly had increased our boat speed and widened the gap between us and the vessel. However, it continued to turn toward us. At just under 5 miles we had a visual on the vessel and confirmed it was a tanker. Still no supplemental AIS information. At 2 miles the CPA was under 0.5 miles and the vessel continued to turn toward us. At this time we received the rest of the AIS signal and were able to identify the ship as indicated above, the tanker ‘Siteam Leader’.
At this point we were amazed a commercial ship would deviate this far from course for a fly-by of a sailboat. As the ‘Siteam Leader’ continued to close, so did the CPA. At 0.3 miles away the ship sounded one prolonged blast on the ship’s horn. Since this is meaningless to two ships in daylight hours within sight of each other, we interpreted it as an attention signal and gave them one long blast back. I then called Siteam leader on the VHF and asked, “What are your intentions?”. The person answering the radio stated they were just making sure everything was ‘OK’. The voice was of a non-native English speaker, although the words were very precise and clear.
I answered that everything was fine here and that no assistance was needed. At the time our boat was sailing along with properly trimmed sails and no sign of distress, as actually had been the case since we left Japan. We had not made any radio VHF transmissions for a week or so, so there was no reason for anyone to suspect problems. I also told ‘Siteam Leader’ there was another sailboat 50 miles NE of us – I fudged ‘Red Thread’s’ position a little since they were over a hundred miles away – it just made us sound less ‘alone’ at the time.
‘Siteam Leader’ acknowledged my transmission and passed 0.22 miles off our stern, we have pictures. Our position was 38* 43’N, 168* 20’E. At this point they were on a course of 336*T, 62 degrees off their original course. We continued to watch them as they turned to port, hopefully to resume their course of ~274*T. We watched in dismay over the next several minutes as they actually turned through almost 270* and pointed back in our direction. Their speed dropped to 10 knots. ‘Siteam Leader’ did not answer VHF calls after the first conversation.
As they were making this turn I looked at the time and realized the Pacific Seafarer’s HAM net was starting on 14300 USB. Since we check in daily with the net I picked up the microphone and called priority traffic. This was at 0328z. We contacted Xxxxx XxxXxxxxx, XXXXX, net relay station in Hawaii and gave him ‘Siteam Leaders’ details. We were due up on the roll call in 20 minutes so no other action was taken. Shortly after 0330 ‘Siteam Leader’ started turning to starboard and toward the south. We watched as the tanker continued to steam south and then west. It stayed on a course of 240*T for a half hour or so and was 15 miles away before it actually resumed it’s original course of 274*T.
While no laws were broken, we do not understand the maneuvers of ‘Siteam Leader’ and consider the situation to have been dangerous. At best they were trying to scare us, at worse they may have hit us – the problem is that by the time laws are broken we cease to exist in a contest between a 40′ fiberglass sailboat and a 600′ tanker. In over 27,000 ocean miles in the Pacific we have never seen a commercial ship waste this much fuel and time to maneuver close to a sailboat for no reason. I also find it curious that their AIS signal was inadequate and that they stopped acknowledging the VHF.
While it would be nice to have answers to our questions, we want to at least make a record of the incident in case this ship is ever involved in similar incidents. Perhaps it’s location should be ascertained in past cases of sailboats missing at sea.
Rob(AD7XA) and Teresa(KE7WWA) Sicade
SV Yohelah
enroute Japan to Seattle
