colregs again.. tacking in front of a mobo

[Observer]

Re: Please explain??

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Yes - but the trouble is that if you explicitly state all possible exceptions then it becomes impossible to post anything at all. I did day "under sail" but I suppose I should have added that no motoring cone was visible.

<hr></blockquote>

Straying from the point a little, do you think the test which should be applied by PDVs of whether a sailing vessel with sails set is or is not motorsailing (and therefore a PDV) is whether or not it is flying a cone? That particular rule is honoured more in the breach than the observance so unlikely to be a good indicator.

Actually, I assume that any sailing vessel which is apparently under sail will consider itself to be a sailing vessel for purposes of Colregs even if it is clearly motor sailing (e.g. making a good speed through the water when there's clearly insufficient breeze or heading directly upwind).



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

As stated elsewhere - the courts interpret Rule 17 to mean to continue the obvious navigational intent. Now clearly a sailing boat tacking up a channel about to run out of water has the clear navigational intent to tack (even if it is not clear to all other people who may not have had the vessel in view) and so rule 17 does not preclude them from tacking.

Equally no sensible set of rules could force the sailing boat to run itself aground.

In the particular case of a Sailing Boat tacking up the channel it in proximity to a MoBo, it should be apparent that to tack early to avoid the MoBo having to alter course is truely a breach of Rule 17.

In some cases that may be the courteous thing to do - but the problem is that if the MoBo were to take the correct avoiding action the combination of the two actions would leave the two vessels still on a collision course but with the yacht clearly in the wrong.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike21]

Re: Please explain??

"In the particular case of a Sailing Boat tacking up the channel it in proximity to a MoBo, it should be apparent that to tack early to avoid the MoBo having to alter course is truely a breach of Rule 17."

You have to be joking!!! , are you saying that to tack so late as to cause a mobo to take drastic avoidance action is complying with rule 17, but to take tack early as to avoid a situation isn't??????

I give up, please tell me where you sail so I can avoid the area

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[StugeronSteve]

Re: Please explain??

Who drives the boat whilst the lawyers are checking the rule books.

Surely common sense does prevail occasionally. Every so often I get the urge to sail back to my base and the Beaulieu river can get very busy. I have been overtaken by mobos doing well in excess of the speed limit and, whilst under sail, I have overtaken mobos obeying the speed limit. I have had mobos read my situation and allow me room to tack, and where things have been tight, I have put the boat in irons and let a patient mobo slip by before getting back into the groove.

I know we have had the argument many times about common sense versus the Col Regs, but where the former has been used the latter is rarely needed.

<hr width=100% size=1>Semper Bufo

 

[Mike21]

Re: Common sense

well said

Yes in general I think it does, though at certain times I do wonder, mind you that does go for both mobo's and yachts

<hr width=100% size=1>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Mike21 on 22/07/2004 12:54 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Observer]

Re: Please explain??

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

What you have totally failed to address is why, in the absence of other boats and navigational hazards, a MoBo needs to come so close to a sailing boat that the sailing boat tacking would cause him problems.

<hr></blockquote>

That's easy. Suppose a yacht is heading due E on starboard tack on a close reach at 5.4 kts (3 yds/sec) in a SE breeze. A PDV is approaching from the south. The PDV skipper notes a risk of collision and alters course to port to pass astern of the yacht. The PDV is travelling at 25 kts (14yds/sec). The PDV is now 30 secs (420 yds) from the point of intersection of the two vessels respective courses and heading due north. At the point of intersection, if both vessels maintain course and speed, the PDV will pass 90 yds astern of the yacht - a comfortable clearance. After 10 secs., having cleared the course intersection point by 30 yds, the yacht decides to tack 135 degrees onto a beam reach bringing it on to a course of 225 degrees - a beam reach. That of course brings an associated increase in speed. I haven't time to work out all the trigonometry but I guess it could easily mean, with the right combination of speed/heading, that the two vessels are now back on a collision course with a time separation of only 10-15 secs. In the meantime, the PDV skipper has observed the yacht pass safely across the intersection point so turns his attention to some other navigational matter (or resumes the conversation with his crew or whatever) - after all, no yacht skipper would be so stupid or irresponsible as to cross safely ahead and then tack back onto a collision course!

Part of the problem is you persist in seeing this as a PDV/sailing vessel issue whereas, as I tried to make clear earlier, it is a "stand on vessel/give way vessel" issue - whether that is two PDVs, two sailing vessels or any other permutation of other classes.

The point on which I take issue with you is your assertion that it is correct and/or reasonable for a stand on vessel to use the priority afforded to it by Colregs to force a give way vessel to take additional evasive action. The obligation on a stand on vessel is to maintain course and speed. A significant change in course by the stand on vessel (e.g. a tack, if it is a sailing vessel) which brings it back on a collision bearing is neither safe nor reasonable nor permitted by Colregs.

An analogous situation between two PDVs is the stand on vessel crossing from the starboard side of another (give way) vessel altering course to port (so as to create a further collision risk) after the give way vessel has altered to starboard to avoid the close quarters situation. It doesn't matter that the manoeuvre was deemed necessary for some other navigational reason. It shouldn't be done.

Your insistence on claiming that Colregs allows a sailing/stand on vessel to change course pretty much at will and that any give way vessel affected is obliged to take such avoiding action that may be required as a result conveys the attitude "I'm a sailing vessel - I can go where I like, change course when I like, and all PDV's must keep out of my way". That would be astonishingly arrogant as well as fundamentally incorrect.

If you agree that such action by a stand on vessel is not acceptable, you have to also accept that it applies to ALL stand on vessels - sailing vessels are not a special category.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

Or conversely to fishing vessels that claim to be actively engaged in fishing with their gear deployed while securely tied up in harbour /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Motoring Cones are a nuisance because they are the only example I can think of where by hoisting the day mark you are ceding rights you would otherwise hold - which means that there is no incentive to hoist. Coupled with the fact that often the moment when you switch the engine on is probably when you don't have the leisure to go forwards and hoist a cone.

I would suggest that it can be very difficult for an Observer on a PDV to tell whether a sailing boat is using it's engine when the sails are hoist. They are at liberty to guess but if they incorrectly assume that a sailing boat is using it's engine then they will be clearly in wrong.

This is of course equally difficult for a sailing boat. The approach I take is that if a sailing boat has no Genoa and the main sheeted hard in then it is under power and in all other circumstances I consider it to be under sail.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

I think you've misread my posts - either that or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.

What I have said is that Rule 17 the stand on vessel the right to alter course if they are carrying out their clear navigational intent. That is not my interpretation it is the interpretation of the courts. That is a long way from saying that they can change course for any reason.

The alternative is clearly ridiculous - that the stand on vessel needs to run itself aground, or into the shore, rather than being allowed to alter course.

So as the skipper of the Give Way vessel you either have to be 100% sure that the stand on vessel has no valid navigational reason to alter course or you have to give him plenty of room to do so should he need to.

In the counter example you gave it is difficult to think of why tacking from a close reach to a broad reach is a navigational necessity. But if the tack were essential then the PDV will have to give way. Under rule 8 (d) I don't consider a situation where the yacht is within the distance you can travel in 10 secs counts as "finally past and clear".

There is a significant difference in the rules depending whether the vessels in question are both PDVs or a PDV and a Sailing vessel. In the former case Stand On / Give Way only applies if risk of collision exists (e.g. Rule 15). In the latter case under Rule 18 the PDV is give way vessel whether or not risk of collision exists.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Please explain??

please don't stick to the 'day mark' - anchored off Christchurch Ledge overnight last Friday (high water was around 2300h) is was amusing to watch the various sailing craft head out of the harbour and many were pretending to be under power (they weren't).



<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Mike21]

Re: Please explain??

So under rule 17, if sailing vessel was overtaking a pdv then pdv could take alter his course if this was his navigational intent and the sailing vessel would need to give way, but then it would put him in breach of rule 18. power gives way to sail which seems to be absolutely sacred.
By displaying a motoring cone , a sailing vessel is not ceding any rights, it is obeying col regs.
I find it astonishing that any sailor would think that only one small rule within the col regs actually applies to them.
Rule 17 says nothing about navigational intent, but maybe you can post the link of where the courts re-wrote the rules


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

Yes - it works that way round too. If the sailing vessel is overtaking the PDV then rule 13 supercedes rule 18 and the sailing vessel must continue to keep well clear if the PDV has to alter course for navigational reasons.

Re navigational intent - Google will give you references. However it is not unreasonable when you consider tha alternative. In fact a literal interpretation of maintain course and speed is clearly impossible since the speed of a sailing vessel is linked to wind speed; and it will be unable to maintain course if close hauled and headed.

Let me turn this on it's head and ask you what you would do.

You are skipper of a 10m sailing vessel (let us assume without an engine) tacking up a "narrow" channel (say about 250-300m wide). A PDV approaches such that Colregs Rule 18 applies, you become Stand On vessel. Before the PDV is fully past you reach the point where you intended to tack and to continue in a straight line would mean a heavy grounding. What would you do? Clearly it is physically impossible to obey your strict interpretation of Rule 17.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Please explain??

You wrote: "There is nothing necessarily wrong with forcing another boat to take avoiding action - after all that is what colregs is about."

I wrote "your assertion that it is correct and/or reasonable for a stand on vessel to use the priority afforded to it by Colregs to force a give way vessel to take additional evasive action"

Looks pretty much the same to me so no misreading or misrepresenting there.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What I have said is that Rule 17 the stand on vessel the right to alter course if they are carrying out their clear navigational intent. That is not my interpretation it is the interpretation of the courts. That is a long way from saying that they can change course for any reason.<p><hr></blockquote><p>We can agree that there may be "clear navigational intent" in some cases. In other cases, it may be very far from clear. The essence of Colregs is that they provide a framework of rules in which the actions of vessels (assuming compliance with the rules) is predictable. Excluding cases where "navigational intent" is or should be "clear" (and I agree that a narrow channel MAY be such a case), if the predictability applies in some cases but not in others then, unless there is some specific rule which governs those special cases, a distinction cannot be drawn, subject, as you have pointed out, to rule 2(b).
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the counter example you gave it is difficult to think of why tacking from a close reach to a broad reach is a navigational necessity. But if the tack were essential then the PDV will have to give way.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You didn't mention "navigational necessity". You wrote:

"What you have totally failed to address is why, in the absence of other boats and navigational hazards, a MoBo needs to come so close to a sailing boat that the sailing boat tacking would cause him problems."

I gave you a hypothetical example of where "a sailing boat tacking" (and asserting or expecting the priority afforded by rule 18) would "cause .. problems" (and be unsafe as well).

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Under rule 8 (d) I don't consider a situation where the yacht is within the distance you can travel in 10 secs counts as "finally past and clear".<p><hr></blockquote><p>First, "finally past and clear" applies only to overtaking vessels. Second, are you suggesting that a 10 seconds (or more) "exclusion zone" should be imposed around sailing vessels? Perhaps because their behavious is so unpredictable (or their masters so inept) that their actions cannot be safely predicted? How is this implied by Colregs? Who has the responsibility to maintain this exclsuion zone? How should it be measured?

Edited to add: I agree your reference to rule 8(d) is correct - "finally past and clear" also applies in general collision avoidance. The stand on vessel still has the obligation to maintain course and speed.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There is a significant difference in the rules depending whether the vessels in question are both PDVs or a PDV and a Sailing vessel. In the former case Stand On / Give Way only applies if risk of collision exists (e.g. Rule 15). In the latter case under Rule 18 the PDV is give way vessel whether or not risk of collision exists.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's semantics - there is no such difference when the rules are appplied. If a PDV is required to "keep out of the way" of a sailing vessel, that makes the sailing vessel a "stand on vessel". If there is a crossing situation between two PDVs, one is the give way vessel and the other the stand on vessel.

All of your posts on this thread come down to the fact that you don't want to accept, or don't believe you are required to accept, that a sailing vessel has the ordinary obligations of a stand on vessel. You want sailing vessels to be a special case. Sorry - but they're not.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Observer on 22/07/2004 15:48 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[rwoofer]

Re: Please explain??

Can't say I'm an expert in this area, but having raced in some very competitive fleets eg. Hunter 707, the "stand-on" clause was always interpreted to ensure that the right of way vessel does not abuse the privilege. A classic racing example is a starboard tack boat deliberately luffing on a port boat who is trying to pass ahead.

Also from the racing world, where maintaining a stand-on stance (appropriate navigational course) results in a change of direction eg. lack of water, the right-of-way vessel has to give time for the other vessel to keep clear - typically done by hailing "Water!"

I thinking racing and in particular the protest room is a great way of learning colregs, but since all boats are the same you don't get complications of the overarching rules. However I could see how the above rules could still be used if the give way boat is a mobo.

What every protest room has been consistent on is that it is the duty of both boats to avoid a collision

My two pennies worth.....


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Excellent......

.....in that your draw attention to the fact that the racing rules clearly recognise that there are areas of the col regs that need better definition for craft that may be involved in close quarters manoevring.As you rightly say the definition of having completed a passing manoevre doesn't really translate between an Optomist and the Condor Fast Ferry.

In open water with good visibility and someone on watch/helm all the time there shouldn't be a problem. Bedoin refers to a narrow channel with the suggestion of 250/300m width; again, and excluding the involvement of a racing fleet (!) we should all be able to handle that. Poole small boat channel is 25m wide (for a length of over 800m in the harbour) and often has 20 craft /100m travelling both in and out of the harbour as well as the odd small craft crossing at an angle!!!! Definitions of keep clear and rights of way do get somewhat difficult to evaluate!

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

Sorry - I found that difficult to read - but you are certainly misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that any Stand On vessel has the right to alter course and speed to avoid running aground.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Please explain??

Sorry - the formatting got buggered up when I tried to edit it.

Look, as a sort of lawyer, I find the argument interesting academically but it's not much help as a basis on which to guide one's navigational decisions.

I agree that a court may find, in certain circumstances, that the express obligation on a stand on vessel to "maintain course and speed" is displaced if it can show that a particular action it took (tacking or whatever - it really doesn't matter) was in furtherance of a "clear navigational intent".

Two final comments:

1. any such exception must be capable of being applied to any stand on vessel - it's not just a "sail v power" thing;
2. for myself, if the circumstances arose where I could not substantially maintain course and speed, I would prefer to take a way out which does not leave me relying on another vessel taking further evasive action because it is 'give way' vis a vis me (particularly another vessel which has already taken action), rather than rely on a court finding that I was entitled, because of some exceptional circumstances, to take action which caused or contributed to a collision.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>

 

[Aeolus_IV]

Re: Please explain??

clink ... (sound of 2p landing)

It seems to me that one of the problems with this situation is the definition of "keeping well clear", and here I have a comment:

How far from the stand on vessel should an overtaking vessel be? One boat length? Maybe ten?

Surely the answer is dependent of the speed of the vessels involved?

If I were sailing in the manner described I could be doing in the region of 4 to 5 knots - from the sounds of some of the comments there seems to be a implicit assumption the the motor boat is going significantly faster - so fast indeed that they couldn't take avoiding action in time! I'd suggest that the faster the overtaking vessel was travelling, the further away from the stand on vessel it should be. If I had a yacht (motor or sail) overtaking me at speed in close quarters I'd consider that a contravention of the rules and plain bad seamanship.

What would they do if I did stand on, did run aground (as suggested by some), and the boat tacked without my intervention? Standing on for ever is not an option for the sailing vessel.

What ever happened to the general principle that vessels should navigate at a speed consistent with safe handling of their vessel in the conditions in which they find themselves? Surely if an overtaking boat (and it could be sail as well) sees a yacht tacking up a confinded channel (for whatever reason) then it is their responsibility to reduce speed to enable them to respond to developing situations in a safe and timely manner.

Also, if you are overtaking in a narrow channel, and cannot do so in a safe manner, are you not obliged to maintain your position until it is safe? Negotiation of overtaking between vessels is clearly covered in the regs through sound signals.

Back to the original post, in open waters there should be no need for an overtaking motor boat to be so close to the sailing yacht that a risk of collision would exist if the yacht tacked.

Perhaps I missed the point,
Jeff.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://users.swing.be/FDB/centurion/index2.html>Centurion 32 Web site</A>

 

[duncan]

Re: speed

I don't think this helps here and speed has not, I believe, been a factor in the underlying discussion.
As a general observation I would suggest that the larger the speed differential and the nearer to 90 degrees 2 craft are crossing the less the likelyhood of a colision within the context of this thread. This is not meant to suggest that speed is a replacement for an understanding of the rules, seamanship etcetcetc!
I would offer the following as as example - I am sailing closehauled on starboard at 7 knots. You are traveling at 30 knots straight into the wind and I am currently directly in front of you around 200yds. As long as you keep aiming at a point 50 yds starbord of me I am never going to get a chance at hitting you whatever course change I effect or when. If you go down to 10 knots the whole thing changes significantly and at 8 you are shadow boxing and having to consider all of the issues above rather than being able to look forward to the next potential hazard.

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[bedouin]

Re: Please explain??

I agree with most of what you say - but what neither you nor anyone else has come up with is an alternative action for the sailing vessel in the original case.

Would you care to describe (a) What actions the sailing boat could take that would break your interpretation of Rule 17 and (b) What you would do if you were skipper of said boat.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Please explain??

please clarify 'origional' - going back to the post by snowleopard at the start of this thread I see absolutely nothing that has changed my view that he is correct in his statement - right down to the fact that there is a grey area between the half mile and 10 yards he quotes. At 10 yards I agree that the sailboat tacking becomes the stand on vessel on his new tack and that 'most other craft' should take what action they can to avoid a collision. If they can't and the vessels collide I believe the sailboat would be adjudged by a court of law to have caused the collision by his actions - being akin to running out across a road in front of a car doing say 15mph that tries to stop but hits you anyway. Not trying to stop / avoid the collision is not an option for any vessel (presumably unless they can mount a defense based on causing even more personal injury by doing so).
Everything else seems to centre around 'the grey area' - which will differ by speed and circumstances - "he should have realised I was going to (have to) turn and hit him" v "he should have warned me he was going to turn".
Finally from me - are you going to tack under the bows of the Condor because you want to or are you going to find an alternative course of action?

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif