Am I a power vessel....?

[peterb]

Oh what a lovely war!

or at least, what a lovely thread.

The real problem is that Colregs are not necessarily self-consistent.

Take for example Rule 3(b): "The term "power-driven vessel" means any vessel propelled by machinery." Not, notice, capable of being propelled by machinery, or usually propelled by machinery, but "propelled by". Presumably, therefore, actually being propelled by machinery at the relevant time.

Then compare this with Rule 35 (b): "A power-driven vessel underway but stopped and making no way through the water........." So a power-driven vessel remains a power-driven vessel even when the engine is stopped and she is making no way through the water. Not really consistent with Rule 3(b).

The argument about the difference between a stopped engine and one which is running but in neutral has to be treated with care. WWII submarines had diesel engines and electric motors. In normal surface cruising mode they cruised with a direct drive from the diesel, but the diesel gearbox was not usually fitted with astern gear. So in harbour they used their electric motors, operated from batteries, getting 'astern gear' by reversing polarity. When they went to 'neutral' they did it by switching off the power to the motors; they then had no engine running or propelling machinery in use, but this didn't turn them into sailing vessels. Nor, incidentally, did it make them 'not under command'; the definition of NUC includes being "unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules" and of course they could just by throwing the switch.

Again, think of the case of a long-distance racing boat using its main engine to charge its batteries. If, as suggested in some of these posts, this turns it into a power-driven vessel, then in meeting another power-driven vessel it could be be forced to use its engine for propulsion, thus disqualifying it. It might even find that when it tried to put its engine into gear that the gearbox failed (I've had it happen).

I think that the only way for the sailing vessel definition to make sense is for four extra words to be understood at its end: "any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used - to propel the vessel". Any other understanding can lead to real difficulties. The suggestion, for instance, that running the engine for battery charging means that some part of the propelling machinery is being used, and that therefore the vessel is now a power-driven vessel, can be countered by pointing out that the propeller and its shaft are also part of the propelling machinery, and that it is possible to use the propeller with a shaft alternator to charge the batteries while under sail. Does this usage of part of the propelling machinery also turn the vessel into a power-driven vessel?.

The question of the usage of the cone is, I think, a red herring. A sailing vessel showing a cone point-down is declaring itself, for purposes of Colregs, to be a power-driven vessel. If it now puts its gearbox into neutral it has two possibilities: it can retain its cone, but must then manoeuvre as a power vessel, or it can take the cone down and become a sailing vessel; but if it takes the latter course then it must re-hoist the cone again before re-engaging gear. (We're talking about the letter of the law here, not what is done in practice.)

It may interest people to know that the cone (and the separate definitions for sailing and power-driven vessels) only came into force in 1954. Before that, the rules promulgated in 1910 applied. They covered the subject of motor-sailing rather differently:

Steam Vessel under sail by Day
Art. 14. A steam vessel proceeding under sail only, but having her funnel up, shall carry in daytime, forward, where it can best be seen, one black ball or shape two feet in diameter.

Notice, nothing is said about whether the boilers are fired up, so that the screws or paddles are ready for operation!

 

[johndf]

Re: A clearer version of theabove

Good point Simon, and I came across another example of both vessels being the give way vessel after I read your post here. I still don't like the idea of having two giving way and neither standing on. It suggests that when giving way we should do so in such a way that if the other vessel also gives way, we are still not on collision course - not always easy.

 

[Guest]

Another way of looking at it may be ....

by what lights you would wear by night. Would anyone operating the auxiliary engine in a sailboat as a generator by night (but not operating the propeller), light the steaming light?







Birgitta

 

[bob_tyler]

Re: Another way of looking at it may be ....

Definitely no. You are still proceeding under sail and not motor-sailing or proceeding under power.

 

[Guest]

Thanks ... The question was rhetorical

With respect to SimonC, the keywords in my post were 'auxiliary' and 'by night.' Of course, nobody would light a steaming light on a sailboat sailing when the engine acting as a generator only is on. This applies equally to racing as well. Racing rules (generally) say that generators may be used as long as the 'propelling machinery' is not engaged. Racing has to comply with IRPCS.

IMO, 'propelling machinery' propelling on an auxilairy sailboat means when the clutch is engaged with the engine running that the propellor alone turns a sailboat into a powerboat. If you use SimonC's definitions or the definitions that he's trying to make, then it means that any auxiliary sailboat is a powereboat regardless of its primary means of proplulsion.



Birgitta

 

[Guest]

Am I thick - why run the engine in neutral?

Surely even the best alternators only take a small proportion of the power generated by an engine? If you must run the engine while sailing, does it really make sense to run it in neutral?

Maybe those who drafted the Colregs used that kind of logic.

Congratulations, Peter, for a timely restatement of that old adage - the law is an ass.

morawel@hotmail.com

 

[Bergman]

Someone many years ago made a boat, I think a Redwing, with a windmill sail that drove a prop through a mechanical linkage.

Which was he?

I think it was Sir Thomas Lipton but I'm not sure.

 

[peterb]

I'm not sure who you're thinking about, but about ten years ago there was a Catalac catamaran in Bradwell Marina that had the same system, a large windmill mounted above the cabin driving a water propeller.

I've always wondered about its status under IRPCS. It could 'sail' straight into the wind, so its manoeuvrability wasn't restricted, but it could be becalmed in the same way as a normal sailing boat. Did the linkage between the windmill and the propeller count as propelling machinery? And how could you determine which tack it was saiing on, particularly when it was on a dead run or heading straight into the wind?

There is a reference to a similarly powered monohull, with some performance details, in Ross Garrett's book "The Symmetry of Sailing".

And what about the Flettner Rotorship? That used a rotating cylinder instead of a sail. The cylinder looked like a very large diameter mast, but was driven at the bottom by a small motor. The rotation caused the cylinder to act like a sail, and provide thrust from a beam wind. The motor didn't provide any thrust of its own, so could it be considered a propelling machinery?

 

[rich]

if you dont want the hand held radio can i have it. ta,,,

 

[Guest]

Exactly. It\'s Rule 25(e) *

Birgitta

 

[peterb]

The wrong definition?

I suspect that many of us have been looking at the wrong definition; that of a sailing vessel. That's the one that talks about propelling machinery not being used. But look instead at the definition of a power vessel. Rule 3(b): The term "power-driven vessel" means any vessel propelled by machinery. OED definition of 'propel': "drive or push forward". So to be a power-driven vessel you have to be driven or pushed forward by machinery. No question now of whether the propelling machinery is being used; if it's not driving you forward then you are not power-driven.

I suspect that we should also accept propulsion backwards as being power-driven as well, but even the OED can't think of everything!

 

[Twister_Ken]

So if it\'s going astern

It's not a power driven vessel? And how about the Lymington-Yarmouth ferry which seems to leave its props driving to hold it against the loading ramp. Power-driven, but not moving.

 

[Rabbie]

It was Lord Brabazon of Tara. I believe the boat is now in the Newport (I.O.W.) Small Boat Museum.

 

[Bergman]

Thanks for that, I was sure someone would know.

But is it a sailing vessel or a power driven vessel.

Hope it was more successful than his aeroplane.

 

[peterb]

Brabazon

It wasn't his aeroplane. As I rember it, he was chairman of a post-war committee making proposals for future British civil aircraft. The largest of the aircraft proposed became the Bristol Brabazon.

Lord Brabazon was credited with making the first flight by a British subject in Great Britain, and he held PPL No 1.

Incidentally, for its time, the Brabazon was certainly big. I remember seeing it at the Farnborough Air Display; it was very clearly visible to us when the announcer said that it was in a holding pattern over Reading, about 16 miles away.

 

[Bergman]

Re: Brabazon

What about Sir George Caley

Who really invented the aeroplane

 

[peterb]

Re: Brabazon

And his coachman as the first pilot? Stringfellow with the first powered aircraft (even though only model size); Lilienthal with the first man-carrying aircraft (though not powered); Maxim with the first powered aircraft producing enough lift to carry a man (though unmanned); Langley as the first to produce a practical aircraft design (though in his hands it didn't fly) and then the Wrights with the first controllable man-carrying aircraft. That lot ought to produce some controversy!