colregs again.. tacking in front of a mobo

[PerL]

My point with channels was simply that there is some practical limitations when applying rule 17 that the rule itself doesn't really take into account, rendering it ... difficult to apply to anything else than motor vessels not restricted by anything. 17d gives some indication about that.

One of the points of the colregs is that it is not the responsibility of the sailing boat to judge the manoevereability of the power boat but rather the other way around.

The situation is a bit like a car at high speed suddenly hitting the brakes and being hit from behind. You might think he's an idiot, but it is the responsibility of the following car to keep a safe distance.

Anyway, I've just been out sailing for three weeks following some very narrow and trafficked archipelago paths and not once have I had a problem with a motorboat. Only incident involved a sailing boat tacking into a very narrow passage when I (and everybody else) was using my engine... The b*****d!

Sweet dreams.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Talking twaddle

Okay - from the Top

(a) The MoBo is clearly give way vessel
(b) The Give Way vessel is required to " take early and substantial action to keep well clear"
(c) All vessels are also required to "due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved"

If a MoBo is so close that a yacht tacking forces the MoBo to do a Crash Stop then it fails on (b) whether or not the yacht is also in the wrong by tacking.

If the yacht was forced to tack for a good navigational reason (depth, windshift, wind shadow etc) then the MoBo also fails on (c).

NB just because in certain circumstances the MoBo may be in the wrong does not automatically mean I think the yacht is in the right. The way Colregs are written is such that it will usually require fault on both sides to cause a collision.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SteveGorst]

As a pragmatist by nature I tend to look for practical solutions to problems rather than relying on the book of rules. A couple of weeks ago I was faced with a situation where I had a mobo coming up on my starboard quarter obviously lining up to overtake me and I wanted to turn to starboard which would involve me cutting across his bows. I could slow down and wait for him to overtake but the trouble was I was running out of water and he had also slowed down so as not to create to much wash as he passed me.

As boats do not have indicators my solution was to resort to hand signals. I stuck out my right arm to indicate a right turn. He immediatel raised his hand in acknowledgement and altered course to pass me on my port side. I then altered course to starboard at no danger to anyone.

Is this a bit radical or just common sense?

Steve


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://"www.nwcc.info">North Wales Cruising Club</A>

 

[PerL]

You are correct in that under some circumstances, a boat under engine should not enter a narrow channel occupied by just one sailing boat. Just as I wouldn't sail into a harbour moth when I know that there is a ferry coming out.

The difference is that a sailingboat can normally choose to put his engine on and I agree with you that he should. But he doesn't have to and that's really the point.

I don't think that the colregs need to catch up, but it would be nice if people showed a bit more consideration every now and then. Then again, I am surprised at how much consideration people actually do show each other!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

up untill that last point I could agree with you - and I think the issue amongst the more experienced crews is as much what constitutes a channel as understanding the limitations of the others craft.
Taking your last statement to the extreme applying it to a low tide long channel wide enough for 2 craft to just pass side to side maybe - you have a MB dutifully sitting behind a yacht tacking and another MB coming the other way. It stops, as best it can in the wind and tide as soon as it sees the yacht but......
Also on the same note re what you draw - the issue again relates to channels rather than shores - the sides tend to come up rather steeply giving a more defined line for all craft.
Sadly I don't think there is a simple solution - in restricted waters one man's playground will always be a channel for someone else. It would be interesting if, as the Hamble have in place and as exists in areas of the channel too, craft in designated seperation channels and travelling in the designated direction, had priority over craft crossing etc Both Portsmouth and Poole have 'small boat channels but, IMHO they do more harm than good as currently set out because they are set up as a narrow , relatively ill defined, 2 way channel. Far better would be to have ingoing craft on one side and outgoing on the other ie hugging a limited amount of space on the correct side of the channel.

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

 

[pragmatist]

It appears to me that the initial question was posed in the hope of initiating some interesting controversy - which it plainly has.

But having waded through the entire thread and then gone back to check on the profiles of all posters - one NZ, one Sweden, a few W Country ones and a few unspecified - it seems plain that the problem is not the ColRegs but the Solent.

ColRegs in the Solent in summer sounds a bit like implementing the land based rules of the road in Tescos on a Saturday. Just leave the Solent for a bit of p&q and sense.

<hr width=100% size=1>a pragmatist is an optimist with a boat in the UK

 

[KevB]

Re: Talking twaddle

"NB just because in certain circumstances the MoBo may be in the wrong does not automatically mean I think the yacht is in the right. The way Colregs are written is such that it will usually require fault on both sides to cause a collision."

I agree/forums/images/icons/wink.gif


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gcwhite]

I follow your logic but as a mobo I always give way to sail but my earlier point was that despite the rules sailing vessels should apply common sense and not suddenly tack infront of a mobo for no good reason. I also note the comment re use of horns.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

In fact no yacht could be tacking in the circumstances you describe - although a small dinghy could (a yacht could not build up speed fast enough to tack in such a narrow channel).

I did try to qualify most of my comments to exclude serious constraints on the MoBos involved.

The point of the small boat channels in Portsmouth and Poole is to keep small boats out of the way of the big Ferries. I don't have much experience of that in Poole, but the Portsmouth one requires you to use your engine (if you have one) and actually works pretty well.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

No I do this regularly and the MOBO skipper always accepts my intentions, smiles and alters his manoeuvre.

The only boat that hasn't this year was a yacht under power with skipper on his foredeck sorting out headsail. He was coming up behind on my port but at a slight angle. I had been watching him thinking he will get sorted in a minute and turn off. This meant I kept putting little alterations to starboard, to the point I was about to luff.

From previous writings on here, I shouted WATER at him and he quickly went back and changed his course. It ruined my day as SWMBO decided I had been miserable and ruined a quiet days sail. I can't win !

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[Mike21]

Re: Talking twaddle

Re point (b) difficult to take early action if raggie tacks directly in front.
Stand-on vessel is also obligated to take action to avoid a collision. Tacking across other boats is imo not taking action to avoid a collision which would put the raggie in the wrong. Col regs do not give anyone the right to endanger others
Luckly majority of sailors are sensible and use their engines in crowded narrow waterways, but there is always a few who seem to take perverse pleasure is causing as much mayhem as possible.
Shame I didn't have a camera with me recently as 3 yachts decided they would tack across the hamble at about 5pm on a saturday evening with everyone heading back to their moorings.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

I wonder, after reading this thread how much of this is caused by marina berthed yachts. I will explain.

When I was in Porthmadog which has a long winding channel with plenty of movement during HW +/- 2 as it is very tidal. I was happy to motor pretty much all the way out to the fairway. It gave me enough power for my sailing for the day and on return it would pop that power back into the batteries for the night / rest of weekend on the mooring.

Since most yachts on marina's seem to 'plug in' before they finish tying off all their lines, is this why they are happier to sail up busy narrow channels. I accept that some yachts do not have engines, but also accept that most do!

Just a thought.

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Talking twaddle

As I keep saying - if the MoBo is keeping well clear as required by Colregs then the yacht could not tack directly in front. If the yacht is about to hit the putty then he is forced to tack. The point of Rule 2 is that the MoBo has to consider that point.

If the yacht tacks without good reason then he too is in the wrong - but that doesn't exonerate the MoBo.

Note that Rule 18 says "the power vessel shall keep clear of the sailing boat". This is not qualified by saying "if risk of collision exists" (cf rules 14, 15 which only apply when risk of collision exists).

I certainly would not condone yachts tacking up the Hamble on a busy Saturday.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

Re: Talking twaddle

But how does a Mobo keep clear of ALL sailing boats ALL of the time? Surely seamanship is more important than COLREGS in this situation.

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Re: Talking twaddle

I think this is a question of anticipating what the sailing boat is going to do and most sailors will do this automatically, but I know that some motorboaters who have no sailing experience find this very difficult and get somewhat frustrated at the apparently random movements of sailing boats. A little give and take is required on both sides.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[l'escargot]

or kept clear.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[peterb]

Re: Talking twaddle

It's interesting that the solution suggested to the problem is for the sailing boat to 'use its propelling machinery', i.e. become a motor boat. If I do that, then I have the same problem as the MoBo; I have to watch the sailing boats, work out what they are going to do, and adjust my manoeuvres to ensure that there is no collision. And somehow or other that is what I do; sailing boats (other than dinghies) cause me little problem if I'm thinking ahead. I don't think it's a speed problem; I can easily do 7 knots under power, and that's close to the speed limit in most narrow channels. I suspect that most MoBos can crash-stop in less distance than sailing boats, so maybe sailing skippers get used to thinking further ahead, even when under engine.

However, we get equally bothered by dinghy sailors. We can avoid one, or perhaps two, dinghies but faced with a fleet of tacking dinghies the only practical thing to do is to drop speed down to minimum maoeuvring speed and let the b*****s avoid you. The problem, I suspect, is that dinghy sailors may be taught both Colregs and the racing rules, but seem to rapidly forget the Colregs part, since infringing Colregs doesn't get you disqualified. A lot of the problem is really down to the clubs; they certainly shouldn't set courses in narrow channels, and could help by using safety boats to tow dinghies in critical places. And a few reminders, particularly on Rule 9, wouldn't go amiss.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: Talking twaddle

your later point is well founded and the basis for many of the frustrations that lead to behaviours outined here.

in many senses the M25 variable speed limits and quidelines are a well founded (for once) basis - ie when the traffic volumes get to a certain point it is best if everyone just accepts the slowest speed and doesn't change lanes or direction!
Re bedouin's observation re Portsmouth - my understanding is that is it a relatively short stretch of water (Poole SB channel is I believe over 4 miles) and there have been a number of incidents where craft are going 'against the majority flow'. In Poole the chances of there actually being a comercial are significattly lower - I travel it's full length on average 3 times a weekend and may share the overall channel with one maybe every sixth weekend. Add this to the Poole bridge factor which sees a whole mass of craft 'hit' the channel at the same time and you often get 3 craft passing in a designated channel 20 yards wide. As the rest of the channel is another 80 yards wide you can get some interesting situations when traveling back into the harbour 'against the flow'!

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

 

[Observer]

Re: Talking twaddle

You make an interesting point about the application of 2(b) but, on a legalistic interpretation, you give it too much weight vis a vis 17(a)(i) and 18(a). 2(b) is a 'general' provision whilst 17(a)(i) and 18(a) are specific. Therefore, the general provision 2(b) cannot be interpreted in a way which conflicts with the specific provisions 17(a)(i) and 18(a) (I can assure you that this is an accepted principle of legal interpretation).

It is clear from 18(a) that the power vessel must "keep out of the way" of the sailing vessel. Equally, it is clear from 17(a)(i) that the sailing is a "stand on vessel" and is required to maintain course and speed - and THEREFORE SHOULD NOT TACK if that manoeuvre embarrasses the power vessel.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

I am in a power vessel travelling at 25kts E-W in the Solent passing close to Bramble Bank. I observe a sailing vessel crossing my path S-N. Perceiving a risk of collision, I alter course to port to pass comfortably astern of the yacht. Unknown to me, the skipper of the yacht has misjudged the depth of water over the Bank and realises he will 'run out of water'. Having crossed my path, he throws in a tack and makes to cut across my bows.

Under your interpretation, I should have inferred that the yacht would have to tack (presumably having some prescient ability to judge the draft of the yacht and being intimately aware of the exact depth of water) and made sure I "keep out of the way". I don't think so.

I would suggest that the general rule 2(b) should 'inform' other specific rules; not over-ride them. For example, if in a restricted channel I am overtaking a sailing vessel on a tack which is taking it towards the edge of the channel, rule 2(b) should inform me that I may expect it to tack and so should give additional room when overtaking.



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

 

[l'escargot]

Re: Talking twaddle

Your argument falls to 17 (d) which meets your definition of a "specific provision" which I am "assured is an accepted principle of legal interpretation". /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Not to take avoiding action would make the give way vessel equally guilty of a breach of these regulations if the stand on vessel should change course and a collision results.

Bottom line is stay clear.

<hr width=100% size=1>