Col Reg Posts are Pointless?

Totally agree .. would rather add 20minutes onto a passage than be trapped like a rabbit in the spotlight of looming steel bows!
 
When I fell asleap at the wheel my daughter who had no idea of col regs saved my ass by doing the common sense thing and turned away from an oncoming freighter. She woke me once she had avoided the danger. I in my stupidity thought she was waking me to show me the ship but it was only to ask how to re-set the autopilot.
 
no - cdf comes into it /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

the major problem in discussing these colregs is when one condition is mentioned, each and every reader sees a differing circumstance in his mind which often requires a different answer ..... like a motoring yacht with sails up, e.g. when do you realise he is motoring, is he displaying a cone etc .....

but to take an approach that you alter each and every way you want for everything strikes me as /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif eventually a receipe for disaster.
 
Oh. It's just endless.
zip.gif
 
Here is some more.
I fist started driving on a motor bike and soon learned that you should treat all other drivers as blind cnts dont believe they will stop for you just because they should. They dont. It is too late when you are lying on the ground and you can see your bone sticking out of your leg.
 
erhm - do you think you are trouble prone ....... ?

may I ask you what you have in your pockets today ?

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
Most people think they know the rules including me but I have always found that discussions on collision regs, racing rules and points of law(at work) benificial especially as it demonstrates other's interpretations of the same words. As a result I have unfortunately found on occassions my initial opinion wrong and nearly always found the resulting discussion left me better informed.
 
There is a great deal of difference between knowing the rules and standing on and then taking early and appropriate action to avoid collision when it become obvious that the other vessel isn't going to avoid you, and standing on and screaming that its your right of way.

Let me put it another way.

In the rules there is no such thing as a right of way vessel. There are vessels that should stand on with caution, and there are vessels that should take action to avoid collision.

Furthermore the rules require everyone to avoid collision.

Turning away from everyone leads to anarchy and confusion. Surely better to know the rules, monitor the situation, and take avoiding action if the other vessel isn't taking appropriate action or just doesn't know the rules. Avoiding action should not be 'at the last second' - the rules even say this!

Its not a question of saying people who have bothered to learn and apply IRPCS are idiots who insist on their 'right of way'. If you think that, go and read the rules again. The basic rules are not hard. Even Naval Officers learn them...
 
It means that having reached the age of 48 I cant claim to never having had an accident. However I have never had an accident where I have been driving or sailing or flying although the only time I flew was when I was thrown and found that I did not have much control over the outcome.
 
I think some people call them the "The rules of the Road at Sea" and forget what IRPCS actually stands for. As you say its not about asserting your right of way, but avoiding a collision in the first place. The rules are only there so that you'll know what to expect the other boat to do. In theory.
I have found that the close calls I have had have not been with big ships, because I generally keep out of their way, "rule zero" as it is sometimes known, but with pleasure boats, similar size to or smaller than my own, and often under sail or motorsailing. Most of the time these situations could be avoided by not crossing the path of another vessel unless it is clear you are going to be well ahead, regardless of who is the stand-on boat. If only I can remember to follow my own advice in future, all should be well.
 
John, I do think that I have a reasonable grasp of the Col Regs and I have never suggested that applying them is the stuff of idiots! In open water, ie. mid channel, I feel that there is little point in a yacht standing on until the collision regs become appropriate, when action can be taken to pass astern of a BIG vessel without hindrance. You are a professional seaman and I am very interested to read your views on this matter, but the patronizing tone of your post is not appreciated.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The basic rules are not hard. Even Naval Officers learn them...

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I did hear that a seamanship instructor at BRNC taught a whole generation of deck officers that vessels in a TSS had right of way over vessels crossing which had some interesting results in the Dover Straits.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic rules are not hard. Even Naval Officers learn them...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Though I did hear that a seamanship instructor at BRNC taught a whole generation of deck officers that vessels in a TSS had right of way over vessels crossing which had some interesting results in the Dover Straits

[/ QUOTE ]

I did wonder whether I should have put that bit in. I am tempted to say that there are always exceptions to any rule - but before you jump in I do not want to get into arguments regarding exceptions to the IRPCS!

I stand by what I said - apply the rules as they are written.

Regarding large vessels in open water. If I am the stand on vessel, I will generally stand on and wait and see, but then take early avoiding action when its obvious that yet again there is no bridge lookout, or they're off making cocoa etc. I don't get too worked up about it - some merchant ships are like that - but quite often a ferry or ship will know exactly where you are and be avoiding you - they are also worried about the other ship over the horizon that you can't see yet.

Its not just yachts that have a problem. I was recently on a warship in the Med and the CO was moaning to me in the morning about being woken up all night by the local ferrys who did not obey the IRPCS. They just did their own thing. For a ship, it is a complete pain in the backside, as you have to watch such vessels like a hawk due to their unpredictability. Quite often the Officer of the Watch will try and make an alteration of course to keep the ship outside the reporting limit set by the Captain (Report all vessels with a CPA* of less than 1 mile might be a typical night order) When the other vessel 'does its own thing' you end up with a stressed CO woken up all night.

I won't say where we were in the Med as I don't want to start a diplomatic
incident....

*CPA = Closest Point of Approach
 
you may well find that most merchant vessels actually alter at about 2 miles from the stand on vessel/boat - dont know why but it seems to be the trigger point ......
 
That has been my experience, I have noticed that vessels tend to take action and alter their aspect at that sort of distance. However, rightly or wrongly, if there is no noticeable acknowledgement of my presence I will start to demonstrate my intention to give way well before I can see that there is nobody on the bridge. As John says, the ferries can be very good at this and leave absolutely no doubt for the nervous yachtsman.

John's point about the ship's master worrying about another target, that is over my horizon, is one reason why I have thought it better for the yacht to keep clear of him.

Input from someone who also has to view the situation from a ship's bridge is interesting, particularly when it flies in the face of one's instinct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top