Chichester Marina hazard to navigation warning

[bedouin]

The point which is being debated is more subtle, and is strictly focused on whether the sailboat - after the mobo maneuver, and regardless of whether such maneuver was colreg-compliant (though most of us agree it wasn't) - should have reacted or not.
It's crystal clear that you think the sailboat shouldn't, and I also understand that in your view couldn't. But that's just your opinion.

It would be more correct to say that the sailing vessel couldn't react in any other way (which is why colregs are the way they are). Just Luffing was not an option in those conditions, he wouldn't have been able to resume sailing again without hitting other boats. He couldn't continue on that tack as he would have hit the moored boats, so his only option was to tack as he did.

While tacking did force the MOBO to react there was both sufficient time and space for him to do so and no collision resulted. If you think the MOBO had to react too quickly then it just emphasizes how wrong he was to be there in the first place.

 

[jfm]

J...but imho it would be a nice to have feature.

+1 :encouragement:

 

[jfm]

It would be more correct to say that the sailing vessel couldn't react in any other way .... Just Luffing was not an option in those conditions, he wouldn't have been able to resume sailing again without hitting other boats. ... so his only option was to tack as he did.

FWIW Bedouin, I think the debate is better if you don't make that assumption. Not making that assumption keeps the debate (on what 17(a)(i) requires of the sailboat) pure. Just imho.

 

[MapisM]

So I'm agreeing your scenario, basically. But it really is a totally different point from what I was dealing with, which is whether a stand on sailboat tacking at the edge of the channel is in breach of 17(a)(i)

Point taken J - and I fully agree on being a different one.
I'm just not sure about whether Dockhead was thinking along my train of thoughts or yours, but I'm sure he will clarify as soon as he can.

As an aside, the fact that "Nothing on Colregs prohibits creating a collision risk", formally correct as it is, and even having in mind the rationale behind that, does sound completely silly, doesn't it?

 

[MapisM]

FWIW Bedouin, I think the debate is better if you don't make that assumption. Not making that assumption keeps the debate (on what 17(a)(i) requires of the sailboat) pure. Just imho.

Positively +1.
Btw, it would be acceptable if it were actually an assumption, as in the "what if" scenario of my post #145.
But it isn't: Bedouin keeps throwing that into the debate as if were gospel truth, while it's just his opinion, and several other sailors said the opposite.

 

[Bridgeman]

I remember a similar scenario causing debate during my early days of study. I believe it was tested in law but cannot find it now. Only thing I found was a reference in A Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea:
By Reginald G. Marsden. I have attached a page from the web search. Interesting thread and thoughts. At least it gets everybody having a look the rules again.

 

[jfm]

As an aside, the fact that "Nothing on Colregs prohibits creating a collision risk", formally correct as it is, and even having in mind the rationale behind that, does sound completely silly, doesn't it?

I see your point, and normally we would all refrain from making a course or speed change that we know is going to create a risk of collision. Technically it is not prohibited by the rules, and of course the rules do not require the give-way vessel to act immediately when a RoC comes into existence or becomes apparent; they merely require it to act in ample time.

Interesting thing here is that if you apply the Roanoke principle fully then sailboat sort of didn't change his course at all. His tack wasn't what brought about the risk of collision with Dashcam, because the risk already existed prior to the tack, applying Roanoke. That of course takes you into some interesting mental challenges but they are not too hard: Sailboat is holding his course even though he tacks ie his course is zig-zag; risk of collision exists even before the tack so Dashcam should back off; if Dashcam doesn't back off then Sailboat has a 17(a)(ii) right to take action and might later become obliged under 17b to take action ( 17b was never reached in the video). Taking action might be to luff up, and it is entirely possible (in different scenario from the video) that 17b operates just at or just before the moment of the tack, which means that Sailboat is then required to luff up and not tack. That's fine, but it answers a different question from the 17(a)(i) tacking point, and is very fact specific, and isn't the case in the video.

In summary then the question of whether tacking at channel edges by a stand on sailboat breaches 17(a)(i) remains, but if you apply Roanoke and so answer it in the negative then the rest of Colregs/rule 17 hangs together quite nicely. 17(a)(ii) and 17(b) bite just as everyone expects them to - happy days. There is no logic flaw in this scenario that tells you not to apply Roanoke

 

[jfm]

I remember a similar scenario causing debate during my early days of study. I believe it was tested in law but cannot find it now. Only thing I found was a reference in A Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea:
By Reginald G. Marsden. I have attached a page from the web search. Interesting thread and thoughts. At least it gets everybody having a look the rules again.

Thanks. That 100% supports my position and Bedouin's, and 100% says Dockmaster is incorrect.

The "beat out your tack in a narrow channel" element of the rule is a prerequisite contained I would argue in Roanoke, and that is why I have always said the sailboat must tack "at edge of channel" in all my ramblings on this topic. It would not be right for the sailboat to tack capriously mid channel. The sailboats in the video were correctly tacking consistently at the edges

We have two consistent UK HoL decisions, including a speech from the Lord Chief Justice, and two leading texts, all setting out a principle that tells us the sailboats in that video were not required by 17(a)(i) to luff up.

 

[jfm]

A poster has kindly emailed me the full Roanoke judgement, to save me waiting for the paper version. It's 20 pages of pdf so hard to post here, but I'm happy to send it to anyone who PMs an email address. Mapism I've sent it to you because I have your email addr.

Dockhead, your assertion on obiter dictum (#138) isn't correct: the passage I quoted, and similar passages from the other judges hearing the case, are unquestionably ratio, not obiter. Also, your assertion that Roanoke only establishes the obligation on the give way vessel to consider wide circumstances(#133) is also not correct: the case is wholly about Roanoke's obligation in what is now rule 17(a)(i) and whether its admitted slowing down to pick up the pilot was a breach of that obligation

Several precedents are quoted with approval saying that hold course and speed means "in the circumstances" and is not literal. One of the three judges (Kennedy LJ) cited the winding river example. All three said that slowing then stopping to pick up a pilot -when it was crystal clear that was your manoeuvre - amounted to holding speed. The actions of the stand on boat must be predictable and part of a normal navigational event, but in our video there is no doubt on those scores.

Kennedy LJ also said (as obiter) that if the stand on boat does something contrary to the intentions indicated to the give way boat, that would be a breach. So luffing up is arguably a breach. If the give way boat was sensibly and correctly heading for where the transom of the sailboat would be as it tacked, holding back some distance to let the tack complete, then found the tack didn't occur due to luffing up, and ploughed into the transom of the sailboat, the sailboat would arguably be at fault. All that depends on precise facts and positioning of course.

The case was heard in the court of appeal, even though one of the three judges was a law lord and the Lord Chief Justice. it has never been overturned and the wider world hasn't overtaken it, so it is good law.

 

[MapisM]

Mapism I've sent it to you because I have your email addr.

Thanks J, atm I'm on a mobile not configured for mailbox access (and reading 20 pages on a 5" screen would be too much for my old eyes anyway! ), but I'll enjoy the reading, out of curiosity. :encouragement:

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Blimey I'm never going to leave port again without my own onboard lawyor

 

[Dockhead]

The main commentators (Cockcroft, Llana & Wisneskey, and Farnell) do not agree with my interpretation of Rule 17.

I had no right to make such categorical assertions of this interpretation, without knowing that, even if I am right. Mea culpa.

For my sins, I am going to do the research, consult with the main experts, get thoroughly acquainted with all points of view on this, and write an article about it.

I will come back when I've finished the job. Whatever I posted which was wrong, I will retract.

 

[Dockhead]

I remember a similar scenario causing debate during my early days of study. I believe it was tested in law but cannot find it now. Only thing I found was a reference in A Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea:
By Reginald G. Marsden. I have attached a page from the web search. Interesting thread and thoughts. At least it gets everybody having a look the rules again.

What you found exactly reflects what my survey of the secondary sources has turned up, and does go some way to harmonizing some of the different points of view on here.

"A sailing-ship must not go about close ahead of a steam-ship so as to make it difficult for the latter to keep out of her way. But a steam-ship, attempting to pass a sailing-ship turning to windward in a narrow channel, must be prepared for the sailing ship going about, and the latter is under no obligation to give notice of her intention to go about."

 

[MapisM]

I had no right to make such categorical assertions of this interpretation, without knowing that, even if I am right. Mea culpa.

For my sins...

Dockhead, let me tell you one thing that I dare even the strongest objectors of your views to argue against:

I began posting here 14+ years ago, and I've been a lurker before that for a while (geez, where did all that time go?!?).
And if I had a pound for every time anyone (myself included!) posted a categorical assertion on something without being 100% positive on it, I'd probably have a bigger boat by now.

Don't lose your sleep over your sins, if any! :encouragement:

 

[benjenbav]

Dockhead, let me tell you one thing that I dare even the strongest objectors of your views to argue against:

I began posting here 14+ years ago, and I've been a lurker before that for a while (geez, where did all that time go?!?).
And if I had a pound for every time anyone (myself included!) posted a categorical assertion on something without being 100% positive on it, I'd probably have a bigger boat by now.

Don't lose your sleep over your sins, if any! :encouragement:

But the one unforgivable sin is, of course, being on an interesting voyage on your boat and NOT POSTING PHOTOS...

Dockhead, the world awaits...

 

[MapisM]

Absolutely correct, I couldn't agree more.
Btw, Finland offers the opportunity for really stunning pics and videos, as scubaman already showed to us all.
Looking forward to a "Who cares about colregs, when you can cruise such a beautiful area" thread... :encouragement:

 

[Dockhead]

But the one unforgivable sin is, of course, being on an interesting voyage on your boat and NOT POSTING PHOTOS...

Dockhead, the world awaits...

Here you are:




The particular kindness of this diversion is noted with gratitude.

We have sailed 1500 miles from Cowes to the Russian border, at the ends of the Baltic Sea, since 1 May. It's been a wonderful trip, with the weather gods smiling on us almost the entire way. We arrived in Finland with 3/4 tank of fuel . ..

 

[petem]

Nice one!

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's generally forbidden by Rule 2 to create a risk of collision, where one did not exist before.

What a curious idea. How do you think risks of collision arise?

 

[JumbleDuck]

I agree with you, except that the bit I've marked in bold is a bit of a stretch. Colregs is a terrible document and it is impossible to teach it at RYA-style course level so far as situations like this are concerned.

One of the many terrible things about IRPCS is that they presume that only two vessels are involved. In practice it is common for boats to be simultaneously stand-on and give way. Dammit, they don't even define what a "risk of collision" is.

Years ago I was teaching DS skipper theory in evening classes and someone asked "Are you allowed to tack into someone's path, creating a risk of collision, or are you obliged to prevent a risk of collision ever arising?" We consulted RYA HQ who, after taking some time to consult, said "There is no obligation to prevent a risk of collision arising, but after it has arisen you have to follow the rules".