superheat6k
Well-Known Member
Well this said man probably won't have even heard of the IRPCS, nor indeed Harbour bylaws. Let's all hope said man doesn't buy a boat.
Chichester Marina hazard to navigation warning
- Thread starter DAKA
- Start date
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Mmm... Not the strongest argument I've ever read.
You seem to imply that
a) whatever a qualified instructor thinks is gospel truth, and
b) qualified instructors always have consistent views on these matters.
Now, with all due respect for qualified instructors in general, it doesn't take more than common sense to disagree on both counts... :ambivalence:
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Me thinks you might loose the argument
I am thinking rule 2 says nothing in the rules exonerate an ejjit.
Defining the greater or lesser ejjit will keep lawyers amused and well paid for a while
It might also amuse the forum.
Dockhead
Well-Known Member
You have not engaged the argument at all, but have merely spouted two fallacious rhetorical devices -- argumentum ad verecundium, and argumentum ad hominem, and the weakest conceivable forms of these fallacies, since the verecundia are unnamed (some "qualified instructors") and the hominus, and his "training", and background, is unknown to you.
Since you have not engaged the argument, I can only guess what your mistaken beliefs are based on. There was one case in the 1920's (an era when yacht racing resulted in a fair amount of litigation) where one J-Class yacht owner argued that tacking was equivalent to holding course and speed, since it's the only way to get along a course line upwind. It was supposed to be a matter of "navigational necessity". He argued by analogy to ships following channels. This argument was rejected by the judge on the basis of the rules and principles I have cited, and as far as I know, has never been used successfully in any collision case. He lost again on appeal.
There is also an argument that the motorboat is obligated to anticipate the navigational intention of the yacht -- the yacht has tacked three times across the channel, the fourth time should not be a surprise. This part is absolutely correct -- the mobo IS obligated to consider the obvious intention of the yacht, but what is an obligation of the mobo does not become a privilege of the yacht -- the COLREGS do not work that way. If the yacht's skipper could see that the mobo did not leave room for him to tack (or more precisely -- could not see with reasonable certainty that the mobo did leave room for him to tack), then he must not tack. He must first of all hold course and speed to the extent he can. If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by.
This has some similarity to the case of a ship's turning off from a fairway -- rather than a ship following a channel. It may be obvious that the ship intends to turn off the fairway into a port approach, and an overtaking vessel is obligated to anticipate this if possible, and leave room for the maneuver. However, the obligation of the overtaking vessel does not create any privilege in the vessel being overtaken, which has no right to make the turn, if he is not certain that the overtaking vessel has left enough room for the turn to be accomplished safely. So exactly with tacking.
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
100% agreed, 'cept that it's actually verecundiam, hoping that you don't mind a correction completely useless in this context...
...but I can't resist the rare opportunity to correct someone on language, around here!
On the core matter instead, thanks for the further explanations and the historical background.
@bedouin (plus Elecglitch who seemed to support his viewpoint):
having said that I have zero interest to support one side of this debate (and fwiw don't forget that I was among the first to dismiss the moboer behaviour in this situation), I am genuinely curious to hear why you think that what Dockhead is saying is rubbish, because it all sounds very logical to my "non qualified instructor" ears.
Saying that you can't be bothered to argue with him doesn't really help clarifying the whole matter, does it?
bedouin
Well-Known Member
This would be covered in any training on Colregs.
The obligation on the stand on vessel is to continue to carry out its obvious navigational intent so that it's behaviour is predictable. So any vessel would be allowed to alter course to follow a channel and in the case of a sailing vessel it is fine to tack at the edge of the fairway.
Any other interpretation is clearly nonsense - a sailing vessel cannot guarantee to maintain constant speed, and the idea that Colregs would require the stand on vessel to run aground or collide with another vessel is preposterous.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
+1 again
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Sorry folks, but maybe I don't understand English anymore, because it seems to me that you are doing your best efforts to NOT understand (or distort) the point Dockhead is trying to make.
Which is - as I understand it - that as soon as a collision risk arise (and most of us seem to agree that such risk was "created" by the mobo overtaking right before the sailboat was going to tack), the fact that the sailboat had the right to tack (and I don't think he's objecting to that) is superseded by his obligation to act to avoid a collision.
I simply can't believe that a qualified instructor (or anyone with a pinch of salt, for that matter) would suggest to go on tacking no matter what, and if that leads to a collision, hey-ho!?!
Which is - as I understand it - that as soon as a collision risk arise (and most of us seem to agree that such risk was "created" by the mobo overtaking right before the sailboat was going to tack), the fact that the sailboat had the right to tack (and I don't think he's objecting to that) is superseded by his obligation to act to avoid a collision.
I simply can't believe that a qualified instructor (or anyone with a pinch of salt, for that matter) would suggest to go on tacking no matter what, and if that leads to a collision, hey-ho!?!
bedouin
Well-Known Member
I fully understand the point D*ickhead is trying to make but it is plain and simply wrong. That is not what the rules either say or mean. It is not even a point worthy of debate as you won't find any knowledgeable person to take the contrary view.
The sailing boat was entitled to tack - what else could he do? Keep going and crash into the moored boat?
MapisM
Well-Known Member
C'mon, let's forget what "knowledgeable persons" think, it's your (and other contributors') view I'm interested in.
If I'd be interested in knowledgeable persons' view, I'd rather read the Daily Mail...
Again, it seems to me that you are not hearing what Dockhead said.
In fact, he already answered your question: "If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by."
Why do you keep saying that the only alternative was to crash into the moored boat (or run aground)?
Of course that's not an option, and Dockhead never suggested that.
Otoh, do tell: if you would be in that situation at the helm of the sailboat, and you would understand that by tacking you would run straight into a collision, what would you do, keep going just because you're entitled to?!?
Sailorsam101
Well-Known Member
I'm a qualified instructor and I say that there was not a danger situation for the yacht to tack into.
The motor boat was not constraint by draft or restricted to manoeuvre in any way..he could stop...and turn around.
While what the yacht was doing was a stupid there was no danger situation of any kind.
Now move this into the Solent and have a yacht doing that in front of a tanker a narrow channel then yes the yacht is 100% as he is standing into danger.
The motor boat was not constraint by draft or restricted to manoeuvre in any way..he could stop...and turn around.
While what the yacht was doing was a stupid there was no danger situation of any kind.
Now move this into the Solent and have a yacht doing that in front of a tanker a narrow channel then yes the yacht is 100% as he is standing into danger.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
The skipper had two options - to keep going and crash into the moored boat or tack and make the MOBO get out of the way. There are no other choices.
Since you think he was wrong to tack it means you think he should have crashed into the moored boat.
jfm
Well-Known Member
I'm posting just on the question of whether the sailboats had the right to tack, or were under a duty to heave to or luff up.
1. Dockhead, many thanks for your clear analysis and explanations of your thinking. (I agree ref ad hominem, btw). You mention above that the sailboat is obliged to hold her course+speed, and Rule 17(a)(i) in isolation says precisely that. But then you modify that rule, eg you say "He must first of all hold course and speed to the extent he can. If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by". That modification to 17(a)(i) seems to be home made, or at least you don't say where it comes from.
2. Bedouin and elecglitch present their own modification to 17(a)(i), in the form of a rule saying the sailboat has the right to tack, but they too don't say what is the legal basis for their modification. So who is right?
3. My view, and it is just a view (though one informed by being a sailboatist, moboist and legalish bod) is that 17(a)(i) as a matter of UK law can't be read in isolation, but any modifications you want to make to it must be found in the law, or in a purposive interpration of it, rather than be home made based on what you think is sensible. One of the difficulties here is that COLREGS is a terrible document, full of many illogicalities and inconsistencies, that mariners have worked around by applying common sense. There is a line of legal argument that the many illogicalities of COLREGS may as a matter of law be answered by overlaying accepted seamanship practice. But before even resorting to such things we need to look at clause 2(b), which expressly gives a rule as to construction. 2(b) is a truly terrible piece of law: the sentence starts out as a rule of construction then seems to morph into authorising a DEPARTURE from the rules. Sheesh, a DEPARTURE from a rule is a totally different thing from interpreting a rule in an enlightened way, but that point was not appreciated by the draftsman and such is the clumsy way in which COLREGS have been drafted generally. Anyway, faced with that difficulty, I think a court would decide that rule 2b is a construction rule then tags on a departure rule only in the limited circumstances specified, namely "necessary to avoid immediate danger".
4. Putting that another way, I'm saying a court would read 2b as meaning:
5. So COLREGS 17(a)(i) literally says "keep her course and speed", and the question before us, I would say, is what does that mean if you apply 2b? I would say that if A is overtaking B in a curved narrow channel then "course" for B means curved course; I cannot believe the draftsman meant otherwise, and it is a pity he did such a poor job of writing the rule, but I think the draftsman's intent and the mandate given by 2b to interpret according to limitations and circumstances, and the authority to depart from the face value meaning of the words to avoid immediate danger, means that B follows her curved course.
6. If you believe that, it is only a short step to say that the yacht in an established pattern tacking to avoid collisions/grounding at edges of a clearly marked channel (as distinct from tacking capriously) is in compliance with 17(a)(i). I don't think there are any "special circumstances" within 2b, because indeed there were two yachts doing the same in quick succession, but I do think there were dangers of navigation/collision, vessel limitations, immediate danger, and reasonable behaviour. FWIW, I think the dange of collision grounding trumps the danger of tacking when a mobo is on your port quarter with plenty of sea room and few constriants other than his rudeness. BUT let's be clear: 2b does not require the sailboat skipper to weigh up 2 competing dangers; it requires only that there is an immediate danger (grounding/collision at limits of channel, in this case) and once THAT threshold is met, as it was here, it allows a departure from 17 (a)(i). You must then ask whether both tacking and luffing up are permitted departures, or is just luffing up permitted, but I think in the circumstances (distance from the Mobo and its being on port quarter with searoom) tacking was a permitted departure.
7. FWIW, I think the onus is higher for a give way vessel than a stand on vessel to invoke 2b "departure", but that is academic here because the sailboats here were unquestionably stand on.
8. Nothing in Colregs that says the alternative to literally holding course/speed (and thereby crashing) is luff up or heave to - I think you have invented that alternative Dockhead, and you haven't explained your legal basis for it. It is most certainly a contravention of hold course/speed read literally. If you are arguing that some alternative to holding course/speed must be allowed under the Colregs (as I am) then you haven't explained where in the rules there is even impliedly a distinction between heaving to or luffing up on the one hand, and tacking on the other .
9. I therefore think the sail boats were correct to tack so far as 17(a)(i) is concerned. I'm not saying I would have done it if I were them or that it was great sailing, nor am I commenting on their choice not to motor; I'm merely saying they did nothing wrong so far as 17(a)(i) is concerned. In contrast the mobo was awful and did plenty wrong (I won't bother listing all its sins here). All this is just my considered opinion though, nothing more.
1. Dockhead, many thanks for your clear analysis and explanations of your thinking. (I agree ref ad hominem, btw). You mention above that the sailboat is obliged to hold her course+speed, and Rule 17(a)(i) in isolation says precisely that. But then you modify that rule, eg you say "He must first of all hold course and speed to the extent he can. If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by". That modification to 17(a)(i) seems to be home made, or at least you don't say where it comes from.
2. Bedouin and elecglitch present their own modification to 17(a)(i), in the form of a rule saying the sailboat has the right to tack, but they too don't say what is the legal basis for their modification. So who is right?
3. My view, and it is just a view (though one informed by being a sailboatist, moboist and legalish bod) is that 17(a)(i) as a matter of UK law can't be read in isolation, but any modifications you want to make to it must be found in the law, or in a purposive interpration of it, rather than be home made based on what you think is sensible. One of the difficulties here is that COLREGS is a terrible document, full of many illogicalities and inconsistencies, that mariners have worked around by applying common sense. There is a line of legal argument that the many illogicalities of COLREGS may as a matter of law be answered by overlaying accepted seamanship practice. But before even resorting to such things we need to look at clause 2(b), which expressly gives a rule as to construction. 2(b) is a truly terrible piece of law: the sentence starts out as a rule of construction then seems to morph into authorising a DEPARTURE from the rules. Sheesh, a DEPARTURE from a rule is a totally different thing from interpreting a rule in an enlightened way, but that point was not appreciated by the draftsman and such is the clumsy way in which COLREGS have been drafted generally. Anyway, faced with that difficulty, I think a court would decide that rule 2b is a construction rule then tags on a departure rule only in the limited circumstances specified, namely "necessary to avoid immediate danger".
4. Putting that another way, I'm saying a court would read 2b as meaning:
- you must interpret every rule taking account of dangers of navigation and collision, special circumstances and limitations of vessels;
- Furthermore you can depart from face value of a rule, not capriciously and only reasonably, and only if and to extent necessary to avoid immediate danger
5. So COLREGS 17(a)(i) literally says "keep her course and speed", and the question before us, I would say, is what does that mean if you apply 2b? I would say that if A is overtaking B in a curved narrow channel then "course" for B means curved course; I cannot believe the draftsman meant otherwise, and it is a pity he did such a poor job of writing the rule, but I think the draftsman's intent and the mandate given by 2b to interpret according to limitations and circumstances, and the authority to depart from the face value meaning of the words to avoid immediate danger, means that B follows her curved course.
6. If you believe that, it is only a short step to say that the yacht in an established pattern tacking to avoid collisions/grounding at edges of a clearly marked channel (as distinct from tacking capriously) is in compliance with 17(a)(i). I don't think there are any "special circumstances" within 2b, because indeed there were two yachts doing the same in quick succession, but I do think there were dangers of navigation/collision, vessel limitations, immediate danger, and reasonable behaviour. FWIW, I think the dange of collision grounding trumps the danger of tacking when a mobo is on your port quarter with plenty of sea room and few constriants other than his rudeness. BUT let's be clear: 2b does not require the sailboat skipper to weigh up 2 competing dangers; it requires only that there is an immediate danger (grounding/collision at limits of channel, in this case) and once THAT threshold is met, as it was here, it allows a departure from 17 (a)(i). You must then ask whether both tacking and luffing up are permitted departures, or is just luffing up permitted, but I think in the circumstances (distance from the Mobo and its being on port quarter with searoom) tacking was a permitted departure.
7. FWIW, I think the onus is higher for a give way vessel than a stand on vessel to invoke 2b "departure", but that is academic here because the sailboats here were unquestionably stand on.
8. Nothing in Colregs that says the alternative to literally holding course/speed (and thereby crashing) is luff up or heave to - I think you have invented that alternative Dockhead, and you haven't explained your legal basis for it. It is most certainly a contravention of hold course/speed read literally. If you are arguing that some alternative to holding course/speed must be allowed under the Colregs (as I am) then you haven't explained where in the rules there is even impliedly a distinction between heaving to or luffing up on the one hand, and tacking on the other .
9. I therefore think the sail boats were correct to tack so far as 17(a)(i) is concerned. I'm not saying I would have done it if I were them or that it was great sailing, nor am I commenting on their choice not to motor; I'm merely saying they did nothing wrong so far as 17(a)(i) is concerned. In contrast the mobo was awful and did plenty wrong (I won't bother listing all its sins here). All this is just my considered opinion though, nothing more.
Last edited:
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
Well put.
[2068]
...
There is some additional guidance from the Chichester Harbour Conservancy:
Rule 9: "All boats should keep to the right, and as close to the edge of the channel as is practical ... The term narrow channel is relative and depends upon a vessels’ means of propulsion, size, manoeuvrability and the prevailing conditions. For instance all vessels should treat mooring fairways as narrow channels whereas the main channels may only be considered narrow channels by large vessels."
I would say that tacking across the entire width of the channel in that location is not in any way "keeping to the right, and as close to the edge of the channel as is practical".
Rule 9: "All boats should keep to the right, and as close to the edge of the channel as is practical ... The term narrow channel is relative and depends upon a vessels’ means of propulsion, size, manoeuvrability and the prevailing conditions. For instance all vessels should treat mooring fairways as narrow channels whereas the main channels may only be considered narrow channels by large vessels."
I would say that tacking across the entire width of the channel in that location is not in any way "keeping to the right, and as close to the edge of the channel as is practical".
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Interesting analysis J, thanks for your contribution.
If nothing else, it strengthens what I always thought about colregs, i.e. that they aren't worth much more than the sheets of paper where they are written: can you imagine anyone in a situation like the one of the video (or worse!) mentally doing the all the evaluations you made, in real time, and act accordingly (not to mention the assumption that also the skipper of the other vessel involved would follow exactly the same logic)?!?
On a more serious note, just one comment re. your point 8 above.
I don't think Dockhead meant the heave to alternative as something specifically implied by 2b, and in this sense you are right in saying that he didn't explain a legal basis for it. But what he wrote is:
"If the yacht's skipper [...] could not see with reasonable certainty that the mobo did leave room for him to tack, then he must not tack. He must first of all hold course and speed to the extent he can. If he can't carry on because he's run out of channel, then he must luff up and let the mobo go by."
Now, my understanding of what he meant is: if the yacht skipper understands that tacking implies a high risk of collision, under 2b he must "do anything else feasible" (so to speak) to avoid it.
Therefore, I believe he mentioned "luff up" just because he thinks that would have been a viable alternative, not because specifically prescribed.
Otoh, I still can't understand (but I will not ask bedouin anymore, since after his last reply to myself it's pretty obvious that he only hears/understands what he likes) what those who keep saying that it was correct to keep tacking no matter what would have done, if they would have realized that by tacking they were going to collide for good.
I know this is not what happened in this case, but let's assume that as the sailboat skipper you would have evaluated that by tacking you were going straight into the mobo: what would you have done?
'Fiuaskme, I would heave to, get furious and insult the moboer afterwards, rather than collide and be happy because I'm in my own right.
But each to their own on that...
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Bedouin, it is not true that there are no other choices, and you already know that.
Besides, of course I don't think they should have crashed into the moored boat, and yet again, you already know that.
FFS, I don't even know why I bother answering your questions, when you obviously couldn't care less about mine... :ambivalence:
Dockhead
Well-Known Member
If there's no risk of collision, I agree completely. His maneuver is then not constrained by the Rules.
However, if the sailboat creates a risk of collision by tacking, then I cannot agree with this, and I think you would agree also. There is a certain amount of interpretation possible in what constitutes a risk of collision.
Dockhead
Well-Known Member
After failing to make the point by appeals to unnamed authorities and by attacking the unknown speaker, start calling schoolyard names. Excellent rhetorical style :thumb: Let me guess - Cambridge Debating Society? I'm clearly outmatched here
What else he could do has been named -- luff up a bit and let the mobo go by. This is what is known as a false dichotomy. These were not the sailor's only choices, and of the various choices of maneuver he had, he was not entitled to choose that maneuver which is most convenient to him, but which is most dangerous to other traffic. Whether or not that other traffic is violating the Rules itself.
Last edited:
Dockhead
Well-Known Member
This a very thoughtful, interesting, and valuable argument.
I agree with the great majority of it. Where I depart is the idea, which I think is implied by your reasoning, that once the sailor cannot hold his course and speed, because he has run out of channel, he is suddenly free to do anything he wants.
I agree with you that the Rules don't tell us explicitly what to do in this case, but I do think that what you need to do is pretty clear as a matter of standard interpretation of the Rules -- you must do the least harm, and avoid creating a risk of collision which didn't exist before.
That is because, besides the ordinary Rule 2 reasons for that, the give-way vessel was entitled to rely on your holding course and speed in order to work out his own maneuver. That's a fundamental principle of collision avoidance, in practice first, reflected into the COLREGS out of practice. So as the stand-on vessel, you are obligated to do whatever you can, to allow the give-way vessel's maneuver to succeed. So, luff up. If the give-way vessel is not giving way at all, but just barging along, then that all the more requires you to luff up and stay out of the way -- and that's specifically stated in the Rules (17(b)).
What constitutes a "risk of collision" does require some interpretation, and wise men might disagree on the interpretation of this or that situation, but if vessels must maneuver in order to avoid a collision, I think it is pretty hard to argue, that no risk of collision exists. The Rules talk about being unable to discern a changing bearing (Rule 7(d)(i)), and say that if there is any doubt about whether a risk of collision exists, then there is one (Rule 7(b)), so I think it would be hard to argue that a boat which forces another to maneuver to avoid it, has not created a risk of collision.
I haven't addressed all of the issues raised in your post, for which I apologize. I'm on my boat 1500 miles from my law library, but I'll try to dig up some applicable cases. The principles of what we are talking about have been covered many times in cases involving ships following channels, and ships failing to hold their course and speed whilst being overtaken.