Colregs, big mobo/small sailboat, on Hamble and similar

[Sticky Fingers]

It seems to me that a 15m sailing vessel could well be more constrained by her draft than a 30m power vessel. Which one keeps clearing those circumstances?

Under the Colregs relating to narrow channels, the sailing vessel is obliged not to impede the passage of the motor vessel. Commonsense and good seamanship should prevail of course.

 

[dunedin]

Under the Colregs relating to narrow channels, the sailing vessel is obliged not to impede the passage of the motor vessel. Commonsense and good seamanship should prevail of course.

Of coursec a 30m motor vessel will have professionally qualified crew on board - and formally documented passage plans.
What is the day shapes for a 30m vessel pretending to be 24m?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Of coursec a 30m motor vessel will have professionally qualified crew on board - and formally documented passage plans.
What is the day shapes for a 30m vessel pretending to be 24m?

As always, the devil’s in the detail. In this particular case, the vessel in question is under 24m LLL so is not subject to the MCA Code of Practice for the Safety of Large Commercial Sailing and Motor Vessels, which would have included commercial manning obligations.

 

[dunedin]

As always, the devil’s in the detail. In this particular case, the vessel in question is under 24m LLL so is not subject to the MCA Code of Practice for the Safety of Large Commercial Sailing and Motor Vessels, which would have included commercial manning obligations.

So has rights of a 24m vessel, it isn’t a 30m vessel.
(And sadly some of the techniques to try to fit under the 24m band sound rather questionable - perhaps MCA should look into the rule stretching and apply their own tape measure)

 

[Sticky Fingers]

In Colregs, “length” means “length overall” so, no.

 

[SC35]

It seems to me that a 15m sailing vessel could well be more constrained by her draft than a 30m power vessel. Which one keeps clearing those circumstances?

The one with the most common sense.

 

[obmij]

I'm surprised that this thread is still going, especially after the photo of the not unusually large MY in the not particularly narrow channel.

Between small yachts (and I include the OP in this) the times rule 9 will be in play is practically zero. I cannot think of any time in a small vessel I have been severely restricted in deviating from my course to the extent where I would put myself at risk of collision.

The colregs are drafted in sensible language and designed to be interpreted in a straightforward way. Their sole purpose is to to prevent the risk of collision

 

[WindyWindyWindy]

In Colregs, “length” means “length overall” so, no.

It's not 30m on that either.

 

[jfm]

In Colregs, “length” means “length overall” so, no.

Correct.

 

[jfm]

So has rights of a 24m vessel, it isn’t a 30m vessel.
(And sadly some of the techniques to try to fit under the 24m band sound rather questionable - perhaps MCA should look into the rule stretching and apply their own tape measure)

Nope. Firstly the relevant Colregs cut off is 20m not 24m, and secondly in Colregs "length" means LOA not LLL.

MCA have indeed had a go at challenging "techniques" to make boats get under the 24m LLL rule: they issued a notice a couple of years ago - MGN645(M). Aside from its very poor drafting (imho), it was completely ultra vires (imho) in that they cannot change the law, and the yacht building industry seems to have ignored it thankfully. There isn't a problem here that needs fixing.

 

[jfm]

It's not 30m on that either.

Not following this point (sorry!)

 

[jfm]

I'm surprised that this thread is still going,

Me too The inital question was answered early on.

especially after the photo of the not unusually large MY in the not particularly narrow channel.

I don't think you can seriously argue that the hamble isn't a narrow channel, and that a boat of the size in that photo can only navigate within it, not outside of it. Therefore rule 9 applies.

The colregs are drafted in sensible language and designed to be interpreted in a straightforward way. Their sole purpose is to to prevent the risk of collision

Each to their own on that. FWIW and just to give another pov, I think that colregs are terribly badly drafted and that we often avoid collision despite not because of them.

 

[jfm]

It seems to me that a 15m sailing vessel could well be more constrained by her draft than a 30m power vessel. Which one keeps clearing those circumstances?

Peter, the Colregs term "constrained by draft" (CBD) seems to me sometimes to be misunderstood. A 15m sailboat (under engine, because you can never be CBD when sailing) in the Hamble might well be limited to staying in the main channel between the red/green markers, but that isn't CBD. If the boat isn't going to be aground no matter where she is across the width of the channel, she is definitely not CBD.

The definition (Rule 3h) is "The term 'vessel constrained by her draught' means a power-driven vessel which because of her draught in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water, is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following." This is a different thing from being constrained merely to the channel. And in response to your "more", there are no degrees of constrained-ness - it's a binary condition.

To answer your question, the 15m boat gives way. Rule 9 expressly overrides rule 18. Therefore even if the 15m sailing boat (under engine) truly is CBD, and even if she is displaying the optional CBD symbols in rule 28, she is still give way not stand on to the 30m motorboat. In essence, a CBD boat under 20m is given less priority in Colregs than a CBD boat above 20m.

 

[MapisM]

Not following this point (sorry!)

Just guessing, maybe he meant that 29 something ain't actually 30?
If so, that's a seriously useless, hair splitting post!

 

[jfm]

Oh I was looking for some sensible meaning. Amazing if that was his point- hard to believe. The question asked didn’t need millimetre/centimetre precision.

 

[MapisM]

Well, 'twas just a guess, as I said.
Happy to swallow it if triple W will give us a much better and logical explanation - even if I have a funny feeling that there isn't one...

 

[Mark-1]

I don’t have the original email, but there is this:

"The term narrow channel is relative and depends upon a vessels’ means of propulsion, size, manoeuvrability and the prevailing conditions.

The rules don't say that at all.

They don't even say that "Narrow channel" is relative, people up thread reckon it's absolute and (IIRC) Cockcroft doesn't sort it out.

 

[SC35]

The rules don't say that at all.

They don't even say that "Narrow channel" is relative, people up thread reckon it's absolute and (IIRC) Cockcroft doesn't sort it out.

No, they don’t.

It is a guidance note.

Feel free to do the exact opposite of HM guidance and end up having a chat with them when they turn on the blue lights.

 

[Mark-1]

No, they don’t.

It is a guidance note.

Ahhh, I thought they were stating what the rules were.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Two points and I'll make them quick cause frankly I cannot beleive what Im reading. Be interesting to hear a pilot chime in actually, anyway.
a, 15 knts is likely to be his minimum manouvering speed without tugs, any slower and he will loose steerage/way and become a floating, out of control blundering deadweight with someones name on it.
b, How come you didnt make the right judgement when he was but a spec on the horizon? And this is what Ive been twittering on about above. When I'm out there Im constantly scanning the middle to far distance for things that are bigger than me and if a biggun comes into view I wind up the grey matter. Anyway thats how Ive always done it, clearly the current way is not do it like that and to some degree let nature take its course. Extraordinary.

Apologies for coming to this late but there is so much wrong with this post it deserves comment.

15 knot the minimum manoeuvring speed is sheer baloney.

Are you seriously suggesting that in open waters ships don’t obey IRPCS and don’t expect yachts and small pleasure boats to also obey IRPCS?

I’ve been sailing for nearly 60 years now and in my experience >99% of ships are extremely competently driven with bridge watchkeepers very willing to alter for a sailing vessel in open waters but frustrated and annoyed by boats that behave erratically and making up their own rules. It’s only the < 1% who have gone to sleep/toilet etc you have to watch out for. In all my time those occasions number less than the fingers on one hand.