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

[capnsensible]

Always amuses me when people assume a professional skipper (ie a guy whose job is to drive a boat) is somehow better/smarter/more common sense-y than someone who drives a boat as a leisure activity

Perhaps it's because they have gazillions more experience in many more places and situations. And are very good at their job.

 

[dunedin]

I don’t know the depth of a typical 30m power yacht but is it materially deeper or more restricted than a 15m sailing yacht, that may have a draft of perhaps 3m? And surely a 30m superyacht will be one of the most manoeverable boats, with twin engines and both bow and stern thrusters. One of the few vessels that could stop in a cross wind and/or tide and still stay in full control. So should have no issues if goes dead slow and avoids trying to overtake the other vessels, including sailing vessels.

But when buying boats, trade offs need to be made. Some commercial vessels like ferries and oil tankers need to be very big. But for a private leisure craft bigger isn’t necessarily better. Each time you go up the size length you need to recognise that this will impose constraints on both WHERE and WHEN you go places.
As such, we specifically restricted our boat search to 12m LOA and 2m draft, to fit where we planned to cruise. Even then we didn’t consider beam, and 3.8m caused some constraints with Baltic box berths.

Choosing a 30m vessel means accepting a LOT of constraints on usage (outside commercial and dedicated SY harbours). One of these constraints would be NOT attempting to negotiate one of the busiest narrow channels in the UK on a weekend at the time when sailing boats are likely to be going in and out to the race course.

If there was an accident I expect the MAIB would expect such a large vessel to have prepared a proper Passage Plan before transiting the Hamble. Probably expected to be in writing for a channel that the skipper recognises as narrow and busy, and therefore a risk.
In terms of the passage plan:
1j Did the skipper assess the various hazards on the route - including sailing clubs etc
2) Did the skipper attempt to contact the sailing clubs to find out any times of racing and take measures to avoid these times
3) Was the passage planned for near high water to minimise depth constraints
etc.

Of course a very large 30m vessel, being over 4m, also has rules over skipper qualifications, to near commercial equivalent ? And if there was an accident perhaps the tape measures might be out to check the vessel if claiming to be “under 24m”.

So rather than agonising over one aspect of COLREGs a wise and experience skipper would avoid being in a 30m vessel at a busy time in the busiest channel in the UK. It is a matter of consideration as well as practicality, avoiding inconveniencing dozens of other boats, many of which don’t have an engine let alone bow thrusters, for one big one.

 

[winch2]

So rather than agonising over one aspect of COLREGs a wise and experience skipper would avoid being in a 30m vessel at a busy time in the busiest channel in the UK

Tho I cant help thinking a wise and experienced professional skippers primary interest is to hold onto his job... hence why there are no concessions at all given to commercial shipping during Cowes Week. To cite the gas tanker/Navy officer incident highlights that fact rather well I think.

 

[capnsensible]

I can't see how someone who had been in the RN and had left to join the reserves as well having his day job, whatever that was, has that continually dragged up. Was he even a bridge watchkeeping officer? The fact is he was racing his own yacht and made a major faux pas in the public eye. Would it have been worse if he was a brain surgeon?

 

[capnsensible]

I don’t know the depth of a typical 30m power yacht but is it materially deeper or more restricted than a 15m sailing yacht, that may have a draft of perhaps 3m? And surely a 30m superyacht will be one of the most manoeverable boats, with twin engines and both bow and stern thrusters. One of the few vessels that could stop in a cross wind and/or tide and still stay in full control. So should have no issues if goes dead slow and avoids trying to overtake the other vessels, including sailing vessels.

But when buying boats, trade offs need to be made. Some commercial vessels like ferries and oil tankers need to be very big. But for a private leisure craft bigger isn’t necessarily better. Each time you go up the size length you need to recognise that this will impose constraints on both WHERE and WHEN you go places.
As such, we specifically restricted our boat search to 12m LOA and 2m draft, to fit where we planned to cruise. Even then we didn’t consider beam, and 3.8m caused some constraints with Baltic box berths.

Choosing a 30m vessel means accepting a LOT of constraints on usage (outside commercial and dedicated SY harbours). One of these constraints would be NOT attempting to negotiate one of the busiest narrow channels in the UK on a weekend at the time when sailing boats are likely to be going in and out to the race course.

If there was an accident I expect the MAIB would expect such a large vessel to have prepared a proper Passage Plan before transiting the Hamble. Probably expected to be in writing for a channel that the skipper recognises as narrow and busy, and therefore a risk.
In terms of the passage plan:
1j Did the skipper assess the various hazards on the route - including sailing clubs etc
2) Did the skipper attempt to contact the sailing clubs to find out any times of racing and take measures to avoid these times
3) Was the passage planned for near high water to minimise depth constraints
etc.

Of course a very large 30m vessel, being over 4m, also has rules over skipper qualifications, to near commercial equivalent ? And if there was an accident perhaps the tape measures might be out to check the vessel if claiming to be “under 24m”.

So rather than agonising over one aspect of COLREGs a wise and experience skipper would avoid being in a 30m vessel at a busy time in the busiest channel in the UK. It is a matter of consideration as well as practicality, avoiding inconveniencing dozens of other boats, many of which don’t have an engine let alone bow thrusters, for one big one.

Indeed, it's hard to imagine that the person in command of a 30m vessel hasn't taken all relevant factors into his/ her harbour entry plan and crew brief. Somewhat moreso than the average boat user who sails.....or motors a couple of weekends a year and the odd summer week.

 

[winch2]

I can't see how someone who had been in the RN and had left to join the reserves as well having his day job, whatever that was, has that continually dragged up. Was he even a bridge watchkeeping officer? The fact is he was racing his own yacht and made a major faux pa's in the public eye. Would it have been worse if he was a brain surgeon?

Im sorry that your so terribly offended by my remarks but, him having been of the Navy does matter in the publics mind, however tis but a small aspect of the point being made which is that of big races being run directly in the path of big ships, and ok ignoring who was in charge, is simply a very good example with regard to the management of big boats, little boats, tight waterways and this thread.

 

[capnsensible]

Im sorry that your so terribly offended by my remarks but, him having been of the Navy does matter in the publics mind, however tis but a small aspect of the point being made which is that of big races being run directly in the path of big ships, and ok ignoring who was in charge, is simply a very good example with regard to the management of big boats, little boats, tight waterways and this thread.

Don't be sorry. I'm not even the teensiest weensiest bit offended.

I just think it's fair to point out that being in the Navy really has nothing to do with his inability to keep a lookout on his own yacht.

 

[WindyWindyWindy]

I don't really see why the risk of collision exists at all. They're both on the starboard side of the channel aren't they?
If the mobo entirely blocks the channel, then it's a bloody stupid place to be driving it without some kind of notice that the channel will have to be closed for its passage.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I don't really see why the risk of collision exists at all. They're both on the starboard side of the channel aren't they?
If the mobo entirely blocks the channel, then it's a bloody stupid place to be driving it without some kind of notice that the channel will have to be closed for its passage.

The potential situation that the op’s question was seeking to address is not this. Rather, it’s about the case where his vessel may anticipate encountering a vessel under sail, proceeding along the channel in any direction; those who know the Hamble will recognise that a tacking yacht or dinghy navigating those waters will not be proceeding in the same direction as the general flow of traffic. So the question is whether the motor vessel could reasonably expect not to be impeded by vessels under sail, which under other circumstances would be held to be the stand on vessels.

 

[obmij]

I also agree that the rules were drafted with the intent that 'narrow' is seen through the eyes of the larger vessel, so if the Hamble is narrow in your eyes then that is what it is. - I never said that

The colregs are very precise when they want to be. There is no ambiguity in Rule 19 or Rule 13 and therefore there would be no discussion. Rules 6 & 9 though seem to have been deliberately left open to interpretation and in my opinion this is the correct approach. I very much disagree. Yes Colregs are precise in some places, but they are awfully drafted in other places where its obvious that the shortcomings are poor drafting not things left deliberately to interpretation.

My own view is that Rule 9 was drafted with the intention of preventing collision when a vessel cannot safely manoeuvre to avoid it - so if when proceeding at a safe speed I can control my vessel and avoid collision irrespective of who is stand on then I would not consider myself to be in a narrow channel. Again, I disagree. You are reading things into Rule 9 that are simply not there. The idea that you're not in a narrow channel because you can "control" and "avoid collision" isn't correct imho. Narrow is a function of width of the channel.

Interaction with CBD - I think the two go hand in hand for the most part. My understanding is that the Dover Straights can be considered a narrow channel for some vessels and the reason for this is that they are constrained by their draught. I think this may also be the reason there are no discrete shapes or lights for 'I'm in a narrow channel, watch out'. The rules are not shy of prescribing shapes & lights (3 individual for fishing for example) so it would be surprising if there was no way of indicating you are affected by R9. As I said above, I cannot see that 20 miles wide is ever narrow, and #54 above has Cockcroft saying the same. A vessel might be CBD in a 20 mile channel, but that makes the vessel CBD; it doesn't make the channel narrow. But you're right that the rules contain no way of advertising that you're seeking stand-on status under R9, and that there is conceptual overlap between CBD and R9 which the rules just don't deal with at all well. That's arguably a failing of the rules but it's one of very many, and R9 as a whole is a shambles imho.

Consider for example how the draftsman of R9 seems to forget that the sailing vessel or <20m power vessel might itself only be able to navigate in the narrow channel, and that the boat asserting stand on under R9 does not itself have to be >20m. Therefore you could have two 18m vessels, both only able to navigate in a narrow channel, BOTH asserting R9 stand on status against the other, each correct, ie a total stalemate. What a terrible piece of drafting R9 is. Sure, we all work our way around it and don't crash so I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's fair to point out what a terrible job rule R9 is. We get along fine and don't crash despite not because of R9 (and a bunch of other awful rules)

I'm confident in my interpretation of the rule. Having said that It's quite easy to get lost in definitions of definitions when something is actually pretty straightforward.

In simple terms.

What is the rule for? To prevent leisure craft and small commercial from wrapping themselves around the big stuff.
Why and when is it necessary? When 'Big stuff' genuinely cannot fulfill their ordinary COLREG obligations due to the 'narrow channel'
Why stipulation of sailing and 20m cutoff? These type of vessels are not usually subject to the mandatory reporting requirements and other restrictions (Pilot/PEC, VTS direction etc) which would mitigate this risk. Also general common sense.

What it is not for is to create a hierarchy between a mobo and a slightly bigger mobo when they can both navigate safely, or a yacht and mobo for that matter.

I get your point that the rule may be poorly drafted. The obvious question then is how would you draft the rule to remove confusion?

So thinking practically, what to do?

You could continue to navigate safely in the Hamble as presumably you have been doing. If you feel you are cannot do so, or are not getting the consideration required you could contact the HM or port authority responsible for the Hamble.

There would be a high probability they would then impose a requirement for a pilot or other undesirable restrictions. Open the can and the worms come out..

 

[finestgreen]

What it is not for is to create a hierarchy between a mobo and a slightly bigger mobo when they can both navigate safely, or a yacht and mobo for that matter.

If they meant "don't impede a vessel that would be unable to safely navigate if you did" they would have written that. What they actually wrote was don't impede a vessel that is unable to safely navigate outside the channel so we can assume that's what they meant.

You're inventing what you think the rule should be, observing it doesn't match the actual rule, and concluding that it must be poorly drafted.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

If they meant "don't impede a vessel that would be unable to safely navigate if you did" they would have written that. What they actually wrote was don't impede a vessel that is unable to safely navigate outside the channel so we can assume that's what they meant.

Exactly.

 

[obmij]

If they meant "don't impede a vessel that would be unable to safely navigate if you did" they would have written that. What they actually wrote was don't impede a vessel that is unable to safely navigate outside the channel so we can assume that's what they meant.

You're inventing what you think the rule should be, observing it doesn't match the actual rule, and concluding that it must be poorly drafted.

I don't think it's poorly drafted. I think it is a straightforward rule and easy to understand.

Requiring (for example) a sailing vessel to keep clear of a 24m MB but not a 19m MB in an undefined 'narrow channel' when there is nothing to signify the status of either vessel fails pretty much every kind of common sense test.

 

[finestgreen]

I don't think it's poorly drafted. I think it is a straightforward rule and easy to understand.

Requiring (for example) a sailing vessel to keep clear of a 24m MB but not a 19m MB in an undefined 'narrow channel' when there is nothing to signify the status of either vessel fails pretty much every kind of common sense test.

That's not right.

A sailing vessel must not impede ANY vessel that can only navigate safely within the channel - it must keep clear of a 24m MB and a 19m MB and a 10m sailing vessel and I presume in theory at least a bathtub with a
keel.

 

[obmij]

That's not right.

A sailing vessel must not impede ANY vessel that can only navigate safely within the channel - it must keep clear of a 24m MB and a 19m MB and a 10m sailing vessel and I presume in theory at least a bathtub with a
keel.

My goodness. That really is a rabbit hole

 

[benjenbav]

My goodness. That really is a rabbit hole

9(b) does mention 20m in the context of the vessel that is directed not to impede rather than the vessel that can ‘safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway’.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

You lot should have witnessed the consternation caused by a 60m commercial vessel creaming up the western Solent heading for Southampton, at c. 15kn on the last sunny Saturday of September. He was in no doubt as to who was the stand on vessel.

 

[jfm]

So rather than agonising over one aspect of COLREGs a wise and experience skipper would avoid being in a 30m vessel at a busy time in the busiest channel in the UK. It is a matter of consideration as well as practicality, avoiding inconveniencing dozens of other boats, many of which don’t have an engine let alone bow thrusters, for one big one.

Calm down! No-one's agonizing about anything, nor contemplating inconveniencing others. There's loads of room on the Hamble and other similar places for a 30m boat, even on busy weekends. We can all get along fine. I was just asking about colregs, that's all. You seem so keen to make speech rather than answer the question! (Which is fine by the way - you're free to make speeches )

 

[jfm]

My goodness. That really is a rabbit hole

It is indeed, but finestgreen is 100% correct in what he/she says The rule is awfully badly thought out and badly written, as is much of Colregs. That' perhaps a different thread, with many rabbit holes.

 

[jfm]

I don't think this is as problematic as it seems?

Both vessels are required not to impede the other - they should navigate so as not to develop a risk of collision - but the possibilities are limited by its nature as a channel.

If they're in opposite directions they should be on opposite sides of the channel - if there's not enough space for them to pass that's not really a problem colregs can solve.

If they're in the same direction, one is overtaking the other.

If they're crossing, the one going across the channel takes the responsibility not to impede.

I agree the last 3 paras as far as that line of thinking goes. But there are more situations than that, eg someone pulling out of a marina into the channel when there is another boat close by. Of course courtesy will tell the former to hold back, but that's us not colliding despite, not because of, the colregs.

Fundamentally it is a bit dumb imho to create a rule which legislates a stalemate where both have an equal right are not to be impeded by the other. And also a rule under which a 60m sailing boat in a narrow channel could be required to give way to a smaller motorboat.