bedouin
Well-known member
No - nothing in Rule 28 says anything about not impeding - now quote the rule VERBATIM that says that you should not impede a vessel constrained by draught.
Atalanta of Chester/Hanne Knutsen trial
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
fireball
New member
What duty of care?
OK - forget big races - lets go to club level - where the RO will likely be a normal club member, courses are set either from a list of pre-determined ones or one is made up on the spot - usually in collaboration with the competitors. Marks in Chi Harbour are generally set on the edges of channels, but the course sailed between the marks can easily take the whole channel. Support vessel(s) are there to assist with emergencies & breakdowns.
Competitors are required to comply with colregs, the code of conduct in the harbour and racing rules. There is NOTHING that gives them priority over non-racing boats due to the fact that they are racing. Btw - code of conduct does ask asymmetric type racing skippers to keep clear of other vessels due to the difference in speed.
For leisure boaters not racing it can be a little frustrating when a start line is laid and competitors are milling across the whole channel - as I have experienced - but whilst the clubs are required not to lay a start across the whole channel, there is no requirement for competitors to keep clear - it is pure etiquette that allows others through. And there is generally a way through.
Btw - there is no Lazer RS boat - it could be a Laser or an RS - and "international level" doesn't mean much. I've taken part in "international" racing - my little bro crewed for a winning international series - and I wouldn't rate our capabilities that highly - in fact, as the "on board-international-level" crew suggested that a vessel at anchor should've given way I'd consider his abilities somewhat lacking! Probably mostly driven by embarrassment. Btw - when was this incident? Racing dinghies have been required to stay out of the east head anchorage for a few seasons now.
You get tits in all sports - so why should the antics of the few spoil racing for the majority? in this case of the Atalanta - all the other racing vessels managed to avoid hitting shipping so it seems to me that perhaps you're blowing this "racing across navigation channels" thing out of the water just a little ....
Giblets
Well-known member
I would suggest that, on close inspection of the various pics/vids posted, the HK is in fact showing the correct day shape hoisted above the bridge amongst all the lights, antennas, etc. The regs require that the day shape is displayed where best seen not necessarily in the forepart of the vessel. In order for the HK to claim her restricted and confined status she must be showing the appropriate lights/shapes and I would be very surprised if she wasn't. I'm sure that this would be on the check list of one or both of the pilots ticked off very soon after boarding (out near the Nab).
richardsn9
Member
Sorry if this has already been covered in this or another thread, but what are the consequences for the skipper if found guilty?
What are the possible fines?
Does this mean a criminal record?
Does this mean his insurers will not pay out?
Just interested as a regular Solent sailor what is at stake if I find myself too close to a ship. Would this still have come to court if the skipper had admitted he was in error?
What are the possible fines?
Does this mean a criminal record?
Does this mean his insurers will not pay out?
Just interested as a regular Solent sailor what is at stake if I find myself too close to a ship. Would this still have come to court if the skipper had admitted he was in error?
colingr
Active member
I'm sure they were showing the right shape but
State May not Must
State May not Must
penfold
Well-known member
We appear to be having 2 different arguments; you contended that HK's failure to fly a cylinder(I'm not sure whether she was or was not flying a cylinder or not as the video footage available is unclear) means she isn't constrained by her draft. I think that's nonsense and was providing supporting evidence. It is 'may' display 3 vertical reds or a black vertical cylinder, not 'shall'; no obligation, although not flying a cylinder is shocking seamanship and gives professionals a bad name.
The argument about impeding or not impeding is down to the frankly terrible wording used in the rule;
Quite what the practical or legal difference between '... shall keep out of the way of...' and '... shall,... , avoid impeding the safe passage of...' is entirely opaque to me; the fact there isn't any explanation within the rules is rubbish. I'd assume it meant the same thing and give-way is give-way in either case, but assumptions are a bad thing in circumstances governed by COLREGs.rule 18 d said:
blueboy
New member
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about racing in Chichester harbour. I am an occasional race officer and more often safety boat driver for a club that operates in the harbour. I'm not going to get into a dialogue on this but here's a few facts.
The main channel is suitable for yachts at all times, up as far as Itchenor, unless there is a strong southerly. I'm not sure what "when the tide is right for larger vessels to use said channel" means. Unless you own something impressively large, it's a deep channel for the purposes of yachts.
At high water, starts lines are normally laid outside the main channel, which is more convenient for all concerned. At low tide, the main channel is the only place for sailing, particularly for keelboats, which form part of the race fleet at two of the larger clubs. There will always be part of the channel left free for traffic to use and cruiser traffic generally has good sense and courtesy to use that lane.
The protocol for running racing is agreed between the Harbour Master and the clubs. It is very far from a matter of clubs or race officers just doing what they want. That protocol includes defined periods when racing is excluded from the East Head anchorage. When it is not excluded, racing dinghies are likely to use it, in one direction or the other, to avoid foul tide.
The club line at Hayling Island SC is not used for starts at busy weekends. Generally, it's used for weekday evening racing and sometimes early or later in the season at weekends.
I hope that clears up some apparent misunderstandings.
lw395
Well-known member
The organisers in fact caused the whole thing by changing the long established pattern of Cowes Week races to have some catamarans performing off the Green.
The general practice in Cowes Week has always been the bigger boats running past the Green in a W wind and W going tide, passing easily to the South of the 'area of concern', or indeed finishing from the West under spinnaker.
From my experience of crewing in a number of Cowes Weeks, albeit in smaller boats, there seems to be a strong element of doing what worked last year (or maybe the year before...)if you want to perform consistently in the series. We had a strategy for dealing with shipping, being unable to use your normal strategy due to being prohibited from the inshore area near Egypt Point would not be helpful.
Another point to note is that it is a lot easier to get a good view of a ship and judge its actions from onshore than from a small boat with some dozens of other small or not so small boats between you and the ship. I don't know if that was relevant in the build up to this incident, but I've known it be an issue.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
Chaps, he's already proved himself correct in post 556. (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ter-Hanne-Knutsen-trial&p=4409441#post4409441).
(i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
If a constrained by draught vessel doesn't have the cylinder 18d1 imposes no requirement on other vessels.
EDIT: I had to laugh at the totally undefined "if the circumstances of the case admit" IRPCS need a total rewrite, they're a joke.
Last edited:
bedouin
Well-known member
In fact the meaning of impede IS defined in COLREGS - but it was a change that was made fairly recently and it somewhat changed the earlier interpretation of the rules.
The old interpretation - that was never actually part of the rules - was to take "not impede" to mean "don't allow a risk of collision to occur". A lot of people still believe that to be the case. However what the rules actually says is that "not impede" means to "allow sufficient sea room for the other vessel to manoeuvre safely". Which is a much less onerous requirement.
So rule 8 makes it clear that in this case the yacht, even though stand on , was required to give the tanker sufficient room to manoeuvre and in this case because of the very difficult conditions she should have kept well away.
rotrax
Well-known member
1. The duty of care implicit to any organiser of any competition. In this age of litigation and no win no fee it can be dangerous to be complacent. Just because it has always been done that way does not exclude the duty of care.
2. The level of the race has no bearing-a race is a race. If, as appears to be the case, nothing happens 99.9999999% of the time, great. It is unfortunatly when something does go wrong that the **** hits the fan, leaving a poor RO, Club, competitor or leisure boater with serious problems and the possibility of court action.
3. I imagine it was this incident that sparked off the "Keep out of the anchorage" rule. IIRC May 2011-the Sunday after "Kids Out" which we had supported. I dont recall saying the dinghy crew said we should have given way. I said they suggested it was our fault. You have jumped to a delusion.
4. I may be totaly out of order and the sport is regulated well enough to look after itself-I hope so.
But it would be awfull if at some time in the future I was in a position to say "I told you so"
You may not have realised it but I am trying not to be contentious. I am just playing devils advocate.
Observer
Active member
As bedouin said, it does exactly that for purposes of colregs. A vessel constrained by her draft (VCD) can not claim the special treatment afforded by the rules if the shape/lights are not shown. Note that a VCD is not obliged to show the relevant signal (see rule 28 "may"), whereas a NUC vessel and a RAM vessel (for example) must show the relevant signal (rule 27 (a) and (b) "shall").
Keen_Ed
Active member
ITYF that organising authorities are very aware of the concept of a duty of care. Hence the 25hr delay in the start of the 07 Fastnet. Or the current delay to the start of the Mini transat.
But if you're suggesting that racing - properly managed - is incompatible with commercial shipping, then cruising is too, surely?
But if you're suggesting that racing - properly managed - is incompatible with commercial shipping, then cruising is too, surely?
Observer
Active member
I disagree. I don't think the regs can be expected to provide unequivocal guidance for all circumstances. The qualification "if the circumstances of the case admit" allows the possibility for shades of interpretation based on the facts of a given case. That is sensible and necessary, imo. The initial interpretation is necessarily made by the masters of the vessels concerned but are subject to review in the light of the outcome of the case by the relevant authority/the court.
Seems good to me.
DJE
Well-known member
Establishing that a duty of care exists is only the first step in finding somebody liable for damages. You must also prove that the other party was negligent and that that negligence caused you to suffer loss. It could be difficult to prove negligence when the course set is no different to normal custom and practice.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
In which case you should lament the omission of that clause from all the other rules requiring actions.
Observer
Active member
That would require some explanation. Can't see it just now but stand by
bedouin
Well-known member
Don't forget that IRPCS is actually the law - we are not used to reading legislation directly. The style and language legal rather than colloquial. However they are not really ambiguous and if you think through any of the rules it is difficult to see how they could be worded better without changing their meaning (of course that is a different thread
).There are a number of places where the rules say "where the circumstances of the case admit" - roughly "where possible".
In fact that clause probably applies in this case - the MOBO was an additional factor in this case that meant that the action taken by the yacht was not as effective as anticipated.
rotrax
Well-known member
I was a motorsports Clerk of the Course and had formal training into what constituted a duty of care. In the dangerous and dynamic high speed sport of Speedway the action of officials in many obscure areas can increase the risk to competitors, marshalls and spectators. It was my duty to avoid this, hence the training.
As I said earlier, a duty of care is implicit on an organiser. It would be considered negligent if this duty was not exercised-risk assesments are fine but should take into account, and record, all possibilities.
The club, the RO-even the governing body could be held to account if an injured party had evidence that doing things another way, in another place, on another day or at another time would have had substantially less risk. This is pretty subjective in the area we are discussing and opens the door to litigation.
When I started motorcycle racing I used to hurtle around the TT course on the IOM wearing black leathers, no back protector, a poxy pudding basin helmet made of varnished cardboard-the only padding was double thickness leather on the arse, hips, elbows and shoulders.
It would not do today-and quite right too!
My sport changed to keep abreast of the technical advances that allowed significantly higher speeds. The required riding kit and helmets, the tracks. training of marshalls, provision of paramedics, safety cars and helicopters etc. As this changed, so did the training of organisers so the clubs and the governing body could demonstrate THEIR IMPLIED DUTY OF CARE in providing it to the guys at the sharp end who need it to run safe race meetings.
If, of course, boat racing has not changed in its technical aspects and everything in the garden is rosy-fine.
It is not what I expected coming from a different area of sport.
The " We have always done it this way" may not help when a racing dinghy loses its mast or broaches under the bow of a 50 foot Sunseeker exiting Chi Harbour on the flood.
rotrax
Well-known member
Deleted.
Last edited:
