alan_d
Well-Known Member
Is that more or less likely than always almost never?
Collision Reg Question - Expert Required
- Thread starter Ammonite
- Start date
Is that more or less likely than always almost never?
jimi
Well-Known Member
As I understand it , an overtaking vessel has an absolute duty to stay clear of the overtaken vessel. So the overtaken vessel can theoretically do what it wants whilst it is in the overtaken/ing sector. If it turned sharply to port and was dispalying its port light then it woiuld become stand on vessel and become more constained in its manouvres, likewise if it turned sharply to starboard it would put itself into a giveway vessel.All IMHO of course.
VO5
Well-Known Member
Yes Jimi, quite so,. The rules do not decree the overtaken vessel is constrained not to alter course while it is being overtaken...but...it is understood that because the overtaking vessel has the onus to proceed with overtaking until finally past and clear it is not "done" to zig zag in front of it.
Of course there are exceptions. The overtaken vessel may want to deviate from its course for a reason. If it is at all possible this alteration ought to be carried out after having been overtaken and cleared.
Think of a motorway. Think of the reaction of a lorry driver of an eight wheeler barrelling along and suddenly obstructed by a small passenger car that zig zags from lane to lane as the lorry is trying to overtake and you will get the picture.
jimi
Well-Known Member
Yep .its called commonsense!
Ric
Well-Known Member
If one of them is in a regatta - he has priority of course...
William_H
Well-Known Member
Overtaking still
Well clearly I do not understand what "Not withstanding " means. I took it to mean not contradicting anything in these rules. Meaning the other rules take precedence if applicable. I remember long ago being abused by a power boat as I passed him. He reckoned I had to keep clear. I reckoned power keeps clear of sail.
Now I love a good luffing joust on the water. If my above understanding is wrong. (and it seems like it)
Then great confusion in a luffing joust. If I luff the other boat up, he is next to me, he is windward boat and has to keep clear, such that he slows down then I become the overtaking boat. Does that mean that suddenly I have to keep clear? Or does he always remain the overtaking boat because he arrived from behind even if I am pulling away from him. Still confused. No not a troll. Is that humble pie you are offering? olewill
Well clearly I do not understand what "Not withstanding " means. I took it to mean not contradicting anything in these rules. Meaning the other rules take precedence if applicable. I remember long ago being abused by a power boat as I passed him. He reckoned I had to keep clear. I reckoned power keeps clear of sail.
Now I love a good luffing joust on the water. If my above understanding is wrong. (and it seems like it)
Then great confusion in a luffing joust. If I luff the other boat up, he is next to me, he is windward boat and has to keep clear, such that he slows down then I become the overtaking boat. Does that mean that suddenly I have to keep clear? Or does he always remain the overtaking boat because he arrived from behind even if I am pulling away from him. Still confused. No not a troll. Is that humble pie you are offering? olewill
webcraft
Well-Known Member
'Notwithstanding' means 'despite anything to the contrary ' - in this case 'irrespective of' might be a good translation. This means that the overtaking rule takes priority over all the other rules.
If you are overtaking a power boat it makes no difference if you are under sail - you still have to keep out of his way until past and clear.
Of course, perhaps it is all upside down where you are
- W
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Its not confusing at all. You have an obligation to not cause a collision and luffing up is likely to be construed as deliberately causing your vessel to be in a collision risk assuming that there is no reason for you to luff up and stay clear of a danger. Of course by maintaining a look out you would be aware of impending situations and should therefore navigate as appropriate.
VO5
Well-Known Member
The problem that arises as a result of confusion is a very simple problem that nowadays it does not seem fashionable to solve because instructors are not willing or not capable of going the extra mile, is my observation.
It is not a matter of posters being argumentative, pedantic or even stupid.
It is a matter of the average yahtsman nowadays being given the rules, (for the instructor to provide the rules) and thus on the surface the obligation (to teach) is apparentlly fullfilled.
The reality is that only part of that obligation is fulfilled, as is manifest on these boards with posts that to me seem genuinely the result of doubt, of unsatisfied extra education that is missing in this regard
This doubt emanates from uncertainty.
Uncertainty ermanates from lack of complete knowledge.
Therefore incomplete knowledge lies at the root of this persistent confusion, not just about this aspect of the rules but of many facets of the rules, their correct interprtation, and ultimately their correct execution, which is the result that gives the most concern.
Its no good to present a class with rules to be learnt parrot fashion, by rote.
What is needed is in depth dissemination with students using models, creating scenarios, examples, and allowing students to demonstrate how they would deal with situations in which the rules would apply, for them to explain their reasoning and proposed actions.
Of course this involves extra work for the tutor, and perhaps even extra time.
We live in an era of modernity in which extra effort, devotion of time and scrupulous attention to detail in the pursuit of excellence is not fashionable.
As a result no one can be surprised at the fog that permeates this very important subject that goes beyond learning what the rules say, but what they actually mean, and further than that what is conventionally understood and agreed by consensus, and by striving to develop a higher level of awareness and proper seamanship that goes far beyond what the printed word can convey, I respectfully submit.
It is not a matter of posters being argumentative, pedantic or even stupid.
It is a matter of the average yahtsman nowadays being given the rules, (for the instructor to provide the rules) and thus on the surface the obligation (to teach) is apparentlly fullfilled.
The reality is that only part of that obligation is fulfilled, as is manifest on these boards with posts that to me seem genuinely the result of doubt, of unsatisfied extra education that is missing in this regard
This doubt emanates from uncertainty.
Uncertainty ermanates from lack of complete knowledge.
Therefore incomplete knowledge lies at the root of this persistent confusion, not just about this aspect of the rules but of many facets of the rules, their correct interprtation, and ultimately their correct execution, which is the result that gives the most concern.
Its no good to present a class with rules to be learnt parrot fashion, by rote.
What is needed is in depth dissemination with students using models, creating scenarios, examples, and allowing students to demonstrate how they would deal with situations in which the rules would apply, for them to explain their reasoning and proposed actions.
Of course this involves extra work for the tutor, and perhaps even extra time.
We live in an era of modernity in which extra effort, devotion of time and scrupulous attention to detail in the pursuit of excellence is not fashionable.
As a result no one can be surprised at the fog that permeates this very important subject that goes beyond learning what the rules say, but what they actually mean, and further than that what is conventionally understood and agreed by consensus, and by striving to develop a higher level of awareness and proper seamanship that goes far beyond what the printed word can convey, I respectfully submit.
VO5
Well-Known Member
That was part one....
Now here is part two...
As a consequence of this half baked delivery of information and all this confusion as how too interpret, big gaps are left in the wider understanding among yachtsmen .
Education is not book learning.
What is offered nowadays is book learning described as education, which, in my view is a travesty and a gross disservice to the sailing community as a whole.
In dealing with the rules, and in the excercise of inculcating deeply well learnt rule sets which empower yachtsmen to immediately recognise scenarios and empower them to deal with them effectively, without doubts, hesitation, trepidation, let alone reecklessness as a consequence of incomplete knowledge, requires also not only in depth development understanding of convention (beyond what the printed rules infer) but additionally the passing on of caveats.
These caveats which have emanated over time as a consequence of seafaring tradition over time also contain what ought not to be done, which are just as important.
Again, knowing the rules does not automatically entitle the automatic inheritance of these caveats which can only be effectively be passed on by demonstration, by explanation of principles, by close tuition.
Again, it does not seem fashionable nowadays to follow this route, and therefore is another reason to add to the others I list above, again, I respectfully submit.
Now here is part two...
As a consequence of this half baked delivery of information and all this confusion as how too interpret, big gaps are left in the wider understanding among yachtsmen .
Education is not book learning.
What is offered nowadays is book learning described as education, which, in my view is a travesty and a gross disservice to the sailing community as a whole.
In dealing with the rules, and in the excercise of inculcating deeply well learnt rule sets which empower yachtsmen to immediately recognise scenarios and empower them to deal with them effectively, without doubts, hesitation, trepidation, let alone reecklessness as a consequence of incomplete knowledge, requires also not only in depth development understanding of convention (beyond what the printed rules infer) but additionally the passing on of caveats.
These caveats which have emanated over time as a consequence of seafaring tradition over time also contain what ought not to be done, which are just as important.
Again, knowing the rules does not automatically entitle the automatic inheritance of these caveats which can only be effectively be passed on by demonstration, by explanation of principles, by close tuition.
Again, it does not seem fashionable nowadays to follow this route, and therefore is another reason to add to the others I list above, again, I respectfully submit.
jimi
Well-Known Member
.. or experience ..
VO5
Well-Known Member
Yes, experience.... I agree....
.....however......experience is a process....of making mistakes...and hopefully learning from them....and not repeating them.
Would it not be more satisfactory to avoid making mistakes from the start ?
Particularly because some mistakes afloat can be very traumatic or expensive or both ?
.....however......experience is a process....of making mistakes...and hopefully learning from them....and not repeating them.Would it not be more satisfactory to avoid making mistakes from the start ?
Particularly because some mistakes afloat can be very traumatic or expensive or both ?
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Yes, experience.... I agree....
Would it not be more satisfactory to avoid making mistakes from the start ?
Particularly because some mistakes afloat can be very traumatic or expensive or both ?
I think you are wide of the mark on this and sweeping with a very broad brush. Many leisure sailors will learn the IRPCS and understand them without the aid of an instructor, or more to the point, without learning from personal experience of collisions. After all the IRPCS are in themselves derived from experience of collisions i.e. learning from others mistakes.
VO5
Well-Known Member
As usual, you make some very valid points.
However, what I am attempting to explain is what happens to novice driver for example.
Passing the driving test does not make a driver.
In the same way learning the rules does not make a watchkeeper.
What I call a watchkeeper is a person capable of making the correct tactical decisions instantly with neither let nor hindrance of any sort.
Then on the coast of the British Isles there are features to consider, heavy commercial traffic, strong tides, wind, amongst other impediments. It is not an idyllic empty pond.
In the same way that a novice driver evolves (hopefully) to become an experienced driver, so the novice sailor evolves to become an experienced sailor, but the difference is that ashore the driver can park and get a taxi home but at sea the watchkeeper has to carry on, and more importantly he has to make the correct decisions as a result not only of knowledge but as ingrained conditional reflex.
It is the latter that needs attention more than the former which one could argue is purely academic.
The idea of people developing instantaneous conditional reflex to make the correct decisions in good time is the aspect, not of learning the rules, but of being taught the ropes in a structured and proper manner is what concerns me.
Nowadays there is a culture of instant gratification....buy a boat...get the ticket...sail away...then what you do or don't do is up to you.
This is wrong, whether the subject is the IRCPS or drills for rigging a preventer.
The attitude today is, as they say in France "Apres moi le deluge", unfortunately.
Ammonite
Well-Known Member
At the risk of being called a troll again (it was a genuine question so apologies if I've got any ones back up - it wasn't my intention and I am definitely not a troll) I think I could have phrased my original post better.
What I was really trying to ascertain was whether two vessels on the same tack, heading towards the same way-point could be sufficiently far apart so that the faster (leeward) vessel would not be considered an overtaking vessel or could be considered a crossing vessel once they had sight of the slower vessels port side-light. Judging by the majority of the comments made so far I take this to be a no
It's just that in recent months I've had two "overtaking" vessels (who initially would have only seen my stern light were it dark), taking the inside route from Portsmouth towards the east, steer an intercepting course while I've been returning from Bembridge (both boats on starboard, steering constant courses and several hundred yards short of the Chichester beacon, where I'd normally make room for the leeward vessel if both were entering the harbour).
I know this sort of thing happens everyday in the Solent and in each case I took avoiding action well short of any potential problem. I just wanted to know whether I was in the right or wrong as far as the rule book is concerned.
What I was really trying to ascertain was whether two vessels on the same tack, heading towards the same way-point could be sufficiently far apart so that the faster (leeward) vessel would not be considered an overtaking vessel or could be considered a crossing vessel once they had sight of the slower vessels port side-light. Judging by the majority of the comments made so far I take this to be a no
It's just that in recent months I've had two "overtaking" vessels (who initially would have only seen my stern light were it dark), taking the inside route from Portsmouth towards the east, steer an intercepting course while I've been returning from Bembridge (both boats on starboard, steering constant courses and several hundred yards short of the Chichester beacon, where I'd normally make room for the leeward vessel if both were entering the harbour).
I know this sort of thing happens everyday in the Solent and in each case I took avoiding action well short of any potential problem. I just wanted to know whether I was in the right or wrong as far as the rule book is concerned.
pappaecho
Well-Known Member
Portsmouth boat, travelling faster than Bembridge boat, so therefore must keep clear of the lower boat
bedouin
Well-Known Member
If the bearings are changing significantly as the boats approach then collision is unlikely - so it is likely that when the close quarters situation occurs you will be in roughly the same relative bearings. So in the specific case you mention it is likely that the faster boat will cross ahead without the need for any adjustment in courseAt the risk of being called a troll again (it was a genuine question so apologies if I've got any ones back up - it wasn't my intention and I am definitely not a troll) I think I could have phrased my original post better.
What I was really trying to ascertain was whether two vessels on the same tack, heading towards the same way-point could be sufficiently far apart so that the faster (leeward) vessel would not be considered an overtaking vessel or could be considered a crossing vessel once they had sight of the slower vessels port side-light. Judging by the majority of the comments made so far I take this to be a no
VO5
Well-Known Member
THe three latest posts above illustrate the scenario which may occur and creates confusion beyond what the rules lay down.
Obviously reference to the rules is not enough.
Strict adherence to the rules may actually be unhelpful if that adherence is not enhanced by understanding.
Understanding is achieved by explanation.
What is needed apart from the rules is for situations like these to be illustrated (possibly with models) in live tuition. In this way the demonstration with explanation, question, answer and guidance is what is obviously missing nowadays.
In the question repeated and modified by the OP two topics are put forward at once, not one.
When the overtaking vessel's red or green are shut off and are replaced by the sternlight the overtaking vessel has now achieved the status of a potential crossing vessel if its track with the overtaken vessel is converging.
If not, then the vessel that has been overtaken (if the relative speeds of both are not constant) now becomes the overtaking vessel for all intents and purposes because only the sternlight of the overtaking vessel can now be seen.
With regard to speed, a vessel that is significantly slower than another one may be viewed as an obstacle, in which case the onus is upon the faster vessel to be prudent and keep clear.
I hope and expect this clarifies the matter.
Obviously reference to the rules is not enough.
Strict adherence to the rules may actually be unhelpful if that adherence is not enhanced by understanding.
Understanding is achieved by explanation.
What is needed apart from the rules is for situations like these to be illustrated (possibly with models) in live tuition. In this way the demonstration with explanation, question, answer and guidance is what is obviously missing nowadays.
In the question repeated and modified by the OP two topics are put forward at once, not one.
When the overtaking vessel's red or green are shut off and are replaced by the sternlight the overtaking vessel has now achieved the status of a potential crossing vessel if its track with the overtaken vessel is converging.
If not, then the vessel that has been overtaken (if the relative speeds of both are not constant) now becomes the overtaking vessel for all intents and purposes because only the sternlight of the overtaking vessel can now be seen.
With regard to speed, a vessel that is significantly slower than another one may be viewed as an obstacle, in which case the onus is upon the faster vessel to be prudent and keep clear.
I hope and expect this clarifies the matter.
VO5
Well-Known Member
I was called away but I must also add the following caveats:~
If both vessels are following roughly the same course (meaning that the convergence is not acute) then when the overtaking vessel is finally past and clear and the overtaken vessel can only now see his sternlight, although the vessel overtaken technically becomes the overtaking vessel within the meaning of the rules, there is no need to (except in the event of increase of speed for example) to take the same precaution in excess to keep clear as risk of collision does not now exist.
The same is the case if the overtaking vessel is on a diverging course. Again risk of collision does not exist. (because the whole object of the rules is to help vessels avoid danger, close quarters situations developing and consequently risk of collision arising). Then because of this whole object of the rules, a faster vessel (by virtue of its speed and probable ability to outmanouvre) , has the onus of keeping clear of vessels not so empowered.
That is why additionally in the rules there are codes of conduct to be followed when encountering disabled vessels (not under command), vessels aground (even if in deeper water), vessels engaged in seismic or diving operations, vessels fishing, vessels trawling, and so on., directing other vessels whose speed and manoeverability is not affected (and as a consequence of), to keep clear.
If both vessels are following roughly the same course (meaning that the convergence is not acute) then when the overtaking vessel is finally past and clear and the overtaken vessel can only now see his sternlight, although the vessel overtaken technically becomes the overtaking vessel within the meaning of the rules, there is no need to (except in the event of increase of speed for example) to take the same precaution in excess to keep clear as risk of collision does not now exist.
The same is the case if the overtaking vessel is on a diverging course. Again risk of collision does not exist. (because the whole object of the rules is to help vessels avoid danger, close quarters situations developing and consequently risk of collision arising). Then because of this whole object of the rules, a faster vessel (by virtue of its speed and probable ability to outmanouvre) , has the onus of keeping clear of vessels not so empowered.
That is why additionally in the rules there are codes of conduct to be followed when encountering disabled vessels (not under command), vessels aground (even if in deeper water), vessels engaged in seismic or diving operations, vessels fishing, vessels trawling, and so on., directing other vessels whose speed and manoeverability is not affected (and as a consequence of), to keep clear.