Chichester Marina hazard to navigation warning

[Dockhead]

I understand the point you are trying to make - but let's turn it around and ask what you would have done had you been the skipper (and for the sake of argument let us assume starting the engine isn't an option - that is another discussion entirely). In those conditions neither luffing nor taking way off the boat on that tack are feasible - the only way the boat can be stopped safely would be to tack then rather than sheeting in, let the sheets fly while pointing about 60-90 degrees to the wind - but to do that would violate the stand on vessel's obligation and make collision more likely

We're talking about the boat-handling question.

I would have brought the boat head to wind (which seems to have been blowing, gently, right down the channel) just as I reached the edge of the channel, and luffed up. Thus staying out of the way and letting the mobo pass by. Why do you think luffing up wouldn't work? You have to do it early enough to let the momentum dissipate, but if you are watching the mobo and thinking ahead, I don't see why that's a problem.

As I luffed up, I would have started the engine to give myself more maneuvering options (I realize in your hypothetical that this is off the table, but just for the record). If I were concerned about momentum carrying me into the moored boats, maybe not having enough time from start of the maneuver, I might take a more vigorous action and tack into a hove-to position at the edge of the channel. Different boats handle differently, I realize, but on my boat and in my hands, I can put the boat right onto a pontoon under sail with that maneuver, such that I can step off and tie up single-handed, so I can control the position of the boat within less than a foot, and the moored boats are no problem.

I would certainly not let sheets fly, which would give up control (and flog my lovely carbon laminate sails, new last year, God forbid!).

Does any of that violate required action of stand-on vessel? I'm not sure it does -- we have different interpretations -- but we don't have to get to that question -- because by placing the vessel at the edge of the channel out of the way, the risk of collision is eliminated, and as Uricanejack correctly said, you can violate the Rules to achieve such a result.

I think the main thing is watching the mobo and anticipating what he is doing. If he is barging along heedlessly, and you cannot discern any intention of giving way, then it's possible to form a pretty good idea of where you can be, where he won't be, and thus avoid the collision.

I think you said something yourself about "predictability" -- this is key. This is why we are obligated to stand-on. And if some other vessel is plowing ahead heedlessly, that's actually much less dangerous, than one maneuvering randomly. I don't think that it would have been that hard to get out of the way of that mobo.

 

[Uricanejack]

It's an interesting question, and will reward some reading.

Take an extreme example, however -- what if some other motor vessel, say one just the same size as yours, is motoring on a parallel course to starboard of you, you are both planing at high speed, and suddenly, and for no reason apparent to you, and with no warning, alters course to pass right under your bows. The only way for you to avoid a collision is to slam both drives into reverse and wind up to max RPM, and you barely manage it, and wreck both gearboxes.

Is he responsible for the damage? Let's think it through:

1. He had the right to change course.

2. He had the right to create a risk of collision (as we have discussed).

3. You as the vessel on the port side were obligated to give way.

So why isn't it entirely your problem, and your bills to pay for the gearboxes you ruined in the process of preventing the collision? He didn't violate any rule. Unless it was Rule 2.

And what if there had been a collision after all? You were obligated to give way, but didn't/couldn't. Is he responsible? And if so, on what basis?

Probably but catching him and proving it a going to be both expensive and difficult. Rule 6 safe speed would possibly scupper your case.

 

[lw395]

A sensible MoBo driver, like myself, would expect the sailing boat to tack at the edge of the channel.
So I would be poised to go behind it soon after it tacked.
It would be a bit of a nuisance if he hove to or went into irons instead of tacking predictably.
But luckily, I obey the speed limit in harbours.
And the mobo I drive is a RIB so would bounce off....

 

[Dockhead]

A sensible MoBo driver, like myself, would expect the sailing boat to tack at the edge of the channel.
So I would be poised to go behind it soon after it tacked.
It would be a bit of a nuisance if he hove to or went into irons instead of tacking predictably.
But luckily, I obey the speed limit in harbours.
And the mobo I drive is a RIB so would bounce off....

Yes -- getting back to first principles -- if we are dealing not with the original question, but with an actual sensible mobo-er -- and you see he's correctly maneuvering to pass behind you, you certainly carry on with your tack. A bit of eye contact is immensely valuable at such a moment.

And that's what happens in 99.9% of cases.

I have to say, as a transplant from Yankeeland, that the motorboat-drivers in the UK are vastly more skillful and courteous, than the ones I grew up with. It's a different culture entirely. In seven years and many thousands of miles of plying your waters intensively, I've only had one minor unpleasant moment with a motorboat (not counting the time the owner of a giant Princess caught me filling up with water on his hammerhead berth in Swanwick Marina just when he was coming home ). So I do think that the incident caught on video here is extremely rare. A much bigger collision risk in these waters are aggressive sail racers.

 

[lw395]

It's an interesting question, and will reward some reading.

Take an extreme example, however -- what if some other motor vessel, say one just the same size as yours, is motoring on a parallel course to starboard of you, you are both planing at high speed, and suddenly, and for no reason apparent to you, and with no warning, alters course to pass right under your bows. The only way for you to avoid a collision is to slam both drives into reverse and wind up to max RPM, and you barely manage it, and wreck both gearboxes.

Is he responsible for the damage? Let's think it through:

1. He had the right to change course.

2. He had the right to create a risk of collision (as we have discussed).

3. You as the vessel on the port side were obligated to give way.

So why isn't it entirely your problem, and your bills to pay for the gearboxes you ruined in the process of preventing the collision? He didn't violate any rule. Unless it was Rule 2.

And what if there had been a collision after all? You were obligated to give way, but didn't/couldn't. Is he responsible? And if so, on what basis?

If by altering course he's passing under your bows, it sounds like you are overtaking him.

In the yot racing rules, to be keeping clear of another boat, you must be giving them enough space to begin to manoeuvre in any way that they reasonably might, such that you have time to react and continue to keep clear.
It's not just a matter of not hitting them while they hold their course. I don't know if 'keeping clear' has similar implications in colregs?

 

[Dockhead]

If by altering course he's passing under your bows, it sounds like you are overtaking him.

In the yot racing rules, to be keeping clear of another boat, you must be giving them enough space to begin to manoeuvre in any way that they reasonably might, such that you have time to react and continue to keep clear.
It's not just a matter of not hitting them while they hold their course. I don't know if 'keeping clear' has similar implications in colregs?

The scenario I described could happen without any overtaking. An alteration which turns a parallel course into a converging one, is enough.

Concerning the "yot racing" rules -- it's a good question whether the COLREGS require something similar. But in the hypothetical -- no one is give-way and no one is stand-on at the beginning, because the courses are parallel and there is no risk of collision, so there's no obligation on anyone's part to stay out of anyone's way. The risk of collision is created suddenly, by the alteration of course by the starboard boat.

 

[MapisM]

what if some other motor vessel, say one just the same size as yours, is motoring on a parallel course to starboard of you, you are both planing at high speed, and suddenly, and for no reason apparent to you, and with no warning, alters course to pass right under your bows. The only way for you to avoid a collision is to slam both drives into reverse and wind up to max RPM, and you barely manage it, and wreck both gearboxes.

Glad to be corrected by those who handle big mobos on a daily basis, but in that scenario, I wouldn't do that.
Steering hard over to port is what I'd do, without touching (or if anything, accelerating further) the throttles.
Not that this has any relevance in the discussion, but just for the records.

 

[jfm]

It's an interesting question, and will reward some reading.

Take an extreme example, however -- what if some other motor vessel, say one just the same size as yours, is motoring on a parallel course to starboard of you, you are both planing at high speed, and suddenly, and for no reason apparent to you, and with no warning, alters course to pass right under your bows. The only way for you to avoid a collision is to slam both drives into reverse and wind up to max RPM, and you barely manage it, and wreck both gearboxes.

Is he responsible for the damage? Let's think it through:

1. He had the right to change course.

2. He had the right to create a risk of collision (as we have discussed).

3. You as the vessel on the port side were obligated to give way.

So why isn't it entirely your problem, and your bills to pay for the gearboxes you ruined in the process of preventing the collision? He didn't violate any rule. Unless it was Rule 2.

And what if there had been a collision after all? You were obligated to give way, but didn't/couldn't. Is he responsible? And if so, on what basis?

Good question dockhead!
Quick answer - I gotta run for airport in a minute (LHR-NCE). I think

1. I'm the give way boat in your example. He has no 17b obligation but because there was no collision.
2. Subject to which law is applicable of course (let's park that complexity, and assume English law) I claim from him for committing the tort of negligence. My losses flow directly from his negligence and were foreseeable, so he must pay up
3. He says in his defence "I was stand on, you were give way" and I quote in return rule 2a which by quasi-statute denies him the right to use Colregs to shelter himself from the consequences (ie his £££ liability to me) of his negligence.
4. I win; QED

That's a bit off the cuff but I think correct

Complete aside: if I slam my engines into reverse pushing the sticks onto the stops, as they did in commissioning seatrials with me on board, the electronics gently slow the engines down, pause, change gear, and gently rev up in reverse . Thus the gearboxes would be saved, but all lives lost in your example. That's the world we live in - we aren't allowed to make our own decisions anymore

 

[lw395]

The scenario I described could happen without any overtaking. An alteration which turns a parallel course into a converging one, is enough.

Concerning the "yot racing" rules -- it's a good question whether the COLREGS require something similar. But in the hypothetical -- no one is give-way and no one is stand-on at the beginning, because the courses are parallel and there is no risk of collision, so there's no obligation on anyone's part to stay out of anyone's way. The risk of collision is created suddenly, by the alteration of course by the starboard boat.

The boat on the port side of the other is keep clear surely?
As soon as they become so close that one cannot steer towards the other, you could say there is 'risk of collision'.
Aeroplanes regard a certain separation as 'risk' and anything closer as 'near miss'?

Yachts and powerboats differ from most commercial traffic because they can turn quickly and suddenly. Not what the rules were wriiten for.

 

[bedouin]

We're talking about the boat-handling question.

I would have brought the boat head to wind (which seems to have been blowing, gently, right down the channel) just as I reached the edge of the channel, and luffed up. Thus staying out of the way and letting the mobo pass by.

Yes - we are talking about boat handling - the reason Colregs are the way they are is that it is not that easy to manoeuvre sailing boats. I am not sure what sort of boat you sail but I could not luff up like that in mine and get away with it and I would not then have had any control - all I could have done would have been to crash as gently as possible into on of the moored boats and hang off them for a while. I guess you must sail something fairly small.

But the other issue you don't address - as lw395 points out - and is often the case in these Colregs discussions, any action you could take as the skipper of the yacht would make collision more likely if the MOBO took the correct action (which is to pass your stern after you've tacked)

 

[Robert Wilson]

I haven't read all 23 posts since this was launched but IMHO, why didn't the mobo slow down, let the raggie sail across to the left of the channel, then gently accelerate past him. Then repeat for all others up the channel? Each time with a gentlemanly wave and cheery greeting.

I have "done" that channel and I'm sure that keeping the angst and aggro out of the proceedings would be much more preferable to conflict.

As an aside, if it was the mobo that gave two "hoots", it was indicating it was turning to port - which it didn't.
Confusion heaped on aggro. Sad.

 

[Dockhead]

I haven't read all 23 posts since this was launched but IMHO, why didn't the mobo slow down, let the raggie sail across to the left of the channel, then gently accelerate past him. Then repeat for all others up the channel? Each time with a gentlemanly wave and cheery greeting.

I have "done" that channel and I'm sure that keeping the angst and aggro out of the proceedings would be much more preferable to conflict.

As an aside, if it was the mobo that gave two "hoots", it was indicating it was turning to port - which it didn't.
Confusion heaped on aggro. Sad.

Absolutely! I think everyone agreed that the mobo showed poor seamanship in addition to violating at least two of the COLREGS.

I think this case is actually a pretty good museum of poor seamanship in collision avoidance. Even if the mobo had been the stand-on vessel, which he was not, and even if the sailboats were guilty of their own violations (which they were), the mobo driver handled his vessel and the situation very poorly.

LUBBERLY ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOR IN COLLISION AVOIDANCE:

1. The COLREGS give me rights and privileges as the stand-on vessel.

2. Someone I expect to give way is not giving way -- my rights and privileges are violated; I am cross.

3. I am going to keep right on going until I can force that vessel, which is supposed to be giving way, gets out of my way, damn it. Teach him a lesson.

4. I had to dodge to avoid him at the last minute -- rotten bugger. Why, he made me maneuver, when I wasn't supposed to.


SEAMANLIKE ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOR:

1. I don't have any rights or privileges -- the Rules just provide an order of maneuvering to allow orderly prevention of collisions.

2. I don't really like being the stand-on vessel -- it's a passive position which leaves the other vessel in control of the encounter -- I'm depending on the other vessel to solve the situation.

3. If he fails to maneuver -- great! It means I'm allowed to take over and deal with it myself.

4. I like handling my vessel, and I get satisfaction from planning and executing a good maneuver which neatly solves a potential collision.

5. As we safely pass by the other vessel, a cheery wave showing my satisfaction at the safe pass. No agro; I am single-mindedly focused on safely passing the other vessel -- he's an amateur and I don't expect much from him -- there are plenty of amateurs on the water, and I don't mind -- it only takes one pro to deal with almost any collision risk situation.


"Angst and aggro" are pretty sure signs that good seamanship is not being applied. Other than really extreme cases (like a sailboat which unexpectedly tacks right under your bows), it only takes one good skipper to do perfectly effective and stress-free collision avoidance.


And exactly the same criticism of the sailors, although they were less blatantly in violation of the rules than the mobo-er. But their failure to deal with the situation themselves is, in my opinion, a similar failure of seamanship. Note, however, that there has been some honest difference of opinion in this thread about whether they, practically, could have done anything.

Which brings us to a different point -- if you really couldn't do anything about it -- you don't have enough control over your boat to maneuver to let the barrelling mobo pass by -- query whether you should be tacking at all. I would not, personally, be comfortable sailing in a manner which gave me so little control that I was at the mercy of other vessels to avoid collisions, and would not consider doing so seamanlike if I had any choice, that is, if my engine were working. Precisely because you might encounter people like that mobo-er, and in my opinion good seamanship demands always being able to deal yourself with a situation, if the other vessel cannot -- whenever possible of course.