Col Reg's...sorry!

[chriscallender]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Well said - no need for a tin helmet! Thats the point I was trying to make when I said that real life situations can be more complicated than the textbook exam questions!

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alant]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Sorry to disagree, they are not simply guidance rules.

" the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended in 1995." clearly states " If you are in charge of any vessel capable of being used for transport on water and if that vessel is on the high seas, or any navigable waters connected with the high seas, then you MUST OBEY THE RULES except where they are modified by any SPECIAL RULES made by the Government of any State".

Clearly not guidance, but mandatory rules enforceable under law - Rule 2 (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Furthermore, there is no 'Right of Way', simply 'stand-on' and 'give-way' vessels.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oilyrag]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

Ah but...Rule 2a means that you cannot exonerate yourself by claiming that you were obeying the letter of the Rules if by so doing a collision results. In other words you must obey the rules unless circumstances dictate otherwise.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alant]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

But by so doing, you are still obeying the Rules!
They are Rules, not 'hints' for tidy manouvering.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: Col Reg\'s...sorry!

No, I don't think I am mistaken.
(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

I would put it to you, your Honour, that my client's vessel was 'past and clear', past: insofar as my client's vessel no longer fell in the 135deg sector from the stand-on vessels heading, and clear, in that she was xxx metres clear of the s.o.v.

YH: mumble mumble mumble ... clear... mumble mumble

Yes YH, I agree, clear is an ambiguous term within the context of the IRPCS.. my client's interpretation of clear is that the windward vessel would have no difficulty in keeping clear of my client's now 'crossing vessel'.

Mirelle et al... I do not really advocate this point of view as a realistic way for people to behave on the water... I am simply being devil's advocate, in putting a view that may have been the case. You are both beating and overtake someone to leeward, to be well-mannered, and not take his wind, but shortly after you decide to do so, you regret it cos he is not only sailing slower than you, but very low, too. You slog on through, and when you are past and clear, hail him to warn him that you are now going to head up - knowing he is slower and lower, he will actually not be affected at all.

I also think that, if we are going to take unweildy tankers as our paradigm, then we are going to be talking massive exclusion zones around our little yots!
-))

<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[Twister_Ken]

Defence barrister responds.

M'learned friend is being disingenous, m'lud. If, indeed his client was past and clear, then his client need not have demanded action from my client; his client could have proceeded at a course and speed desired without requiring my client to alter course and speed. M'lud, I would ask that you don your black cap and impose a meaningful sentence on the captain of the overtaking vessel.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: Defence barrister responds.

(We have moved to a higher court, I see.... and we have been promoted to position of the plaintiff...)

M'lud, my learned friend for the defence is renowned for his <font color=red>twisting</font color=red> of evidence, so if you would care to review the evidence given, no requirement was placed on the defendent to alter his course or speed, the hail regarding the change in circumstance was merely a courtesy call, attracting the attention of the defendent - in the same spirit as the original courtesy of passing to leeward, rather than overtaking to windward and thus spoiling his wind.

No, m'lud, I ask you to find for my client, and thus uphold not only the letter of the Rule, but the spirit of sailing good manners at the same time (applause is heard from the public gallery.....)

<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Defence barrister responds.

M'lud, once again m'learned friend dissembles. I draw the court's attention to exhibit A, the original witness statement; " When he was on my beam he called across to say that, as he was downwind of me, I should give way." The plaintiff was clearly not past and clear if he required my client to give way. May I remind m'learned friend that he is required to maintain a scrupulous regards for the facts in this case, and not to depart on flights of fancy regarding the allegedly courteous nature of his client's call to the defendant. Would it be remiss of me, m'lud, to suggest that he may be held in contempt - let's face it, most lawyers are anyway.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: Defence barrister responds.

Alright, b****ks, I give up. Never really believed my client - knew he was a little rustler or some such other similar (tee hee) ......

<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all