Resolution
Well-Known Member
Puts me in my place! "Relative newcomer" still and I have been on the forum for nearly ten years.
Colregs don't apply to the elite?
- Thread starter skyflyer
- Start date
Puts me in my place! "Relative newcomer" still and I have been on the forum for nearly ten years.
dom
Well-Known Member
skyflyer
Well-Known Member
Unless one vessel is directly behind the other, then when there is a constant bearing then by definition there is no overtaking going to take place!
Add to that that we are sailing a 32ft boat and he was motorsailing a 45ft or bigger and, once I had taken evasive action, that he pulled away at a fair rate of knots I would say if anyone was likely to be overtaking it was him!
However I accept that he may have thought I was overtaking because of the visual aspect and because he hadn't worked out we were on a constant bearing
skodster
Well-Known Member
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with that. If we use the analogy of the road here.
A safe and sensible driver will drive expecting the worst of his fellow drivers. He will always ready to cater for fools/idiots/unaware and make allowances for them regardless of being in the right.
I would sooner stop to allow a driver to cut in front rather than to carry on and end up in a pile up with me being in the right. A bit of a hollow victory if you ask me.
I think being 'in the right' can often be more dangerous than allowing for others. I would rather give way than end up with a big scrape down the side of my vessel.
GHA
Well-Known Member
See #147..
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...on-t-apply-to-the-elite&p=5388151#post5388151
The rules are always right because they say that sometimes you shouldn't follow them .....
Serin
Well-Known Member
Ah - the good old days
I remember the desert nomad and the snail from those long lost days of yore and, of course, the BYM saga, the odd bloke from NI with a folding tri (a novelty then) who caused such a lot of trouble etc. Some of the old favourites haven't changed - ensigns, motoring cones, colregs, insulting each others' chosen cruising grounds etc. I don't remember the poor old RNLI coming in for such a lot of stick in those days, though. And not so many anchor threads as the new generation wasn't very well established yet and most people were still anchoring quite successfully with their trusty CQRs. I don't think Sunsail had quite taken over the Solent yet, either. (I have never clapped eyes on a Sunsail boat :encouragement
No good asking me what my screen name was, though, because I can't for the life of me remember. It's quite fun to be back for a bit, but, still, I am quite often reminded now of why I stayed away.
gandy
Well-Known Member
Are you sure about that? I see what you mean, in that a constant bearing might suggest you were going to collide with rather than pass the other vessel, but isn't it considered overtaking by definition if you're approaching the other vessel from more than 22.5 degrees aft of their beam? What other rule would apply?
skyflyer
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are indeed correct, I was being sloppy, and its made clearer (IMHO!) by the full definition
This specific incident could never have been considered in that category, hence the need (had he been truly sailing and not motoring) to apply the "windward" order of precedence.
gandy
Well-Known Member
Still don't follow I'm afraid, please bear with me. Were you outside that segment, i.e. less than 22.5 degrees abaft his beam, for example sailing on or ahead of his beam but with your courses converging?
southseaian
Well-Known Member
I know this is not exactly what is being questioned but an explanation my be helpful to other readers.
If approaching a vessel from LESS than 22.5 degrees abaft it's beam.
then.....
If both vessels are sailing on different tacks the port or starboard tack rule would apply
If both vessels are sailing and are on the same tack the windward (up wind) vessel should keep clear.
If one vessel (vsl A) is approaching another (vsl B) in the sector MORE than 22.5 degrees abaft either beam then that vessel (vsl A) is the overtaking vessel and should keep clear of vessel B.
If a Motoring vessel (vsl A) (including a sailing vessel motoring) is approaching another motor vessel (vs. B) in the sector of LESS than 22.5 degrees abaft the port beam then that approaching vessel (vsl A) should keep clear.
This is the same as saying that a motor vessel with a vessel on her starboard bow shall keep clear.
Starboard bow relates to the green light area, i.e. straight ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the starboard beam.
Any vessel (including a sailing vessel sailing) shall keep clear if that vessel is the overtaking vessel.
There is loads of stuff on line including this;
http://www.otenmaritime.com/interna...ii-conduct-of-vessels-in-sight-of-one-another
If approaching a vessel from LESS than 22.5 degrees abaft it's beam.
then.....
If both vessels are sailing on different tacks the port or starboard tack rule would apply
If both vessels are sailing and are on the same tack the windward (up wind) vessel should keep clear.
If one vessel (vsl A) is approaching another (vsl B) in the sector MORE than 22.5 degrees abaft either beam then that vessel (vsl A) is the overtaking vessel and should keep clear of vessel B.
If a Motoring vessel (vsl A) (including a sailing vessel motoring) is approaching another motor vessel (vs. B) in the sector of LESS than 22.5 degrees abaft the port beam then that approaching vessel (vsl A) should keep clear.
This is the same as saying that a motor vessel with a vessel on her starboard bow shall keep clear.
Starboard bow relates to the green light area, i.e. straight ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the starboard beam.
Any vessel (including a sailing vessel sailing) shall keep clear if that vessel is the overtaking vessel.
There is loads of stuff on line including this;
http://www.otenmaritime.com/interna...ii-conduct-of-vessels-in-sight-of-one-another
Last edited:
gandy
Well-Known Member
I think the problem is that we don't actually know the relative positions and course of the two vessels involved, all we really know is that a risk of collision existed and that Skyflyer feels the over vessel should have given way. Then the discussion about overtaking got a bit confused, without really spelling out whether the relationship between the two vessels did or did not fall into that definition ..
In particular the second comment. I don't see why a constant bearing means you don't count as the overtaking vessel. Apart from anything else, if "overtaking" only meant a course that would pass clear without risk of collision, then there'd be no need for avoidance rules for that scenario.However I accept that he may have thought I was overtaking because of the visual aspect and because he hadn't worked out we were on a constant bearing
skyflyer
Well-Known Member
I'm confused now! The definition in colregs makes it clear, you can only be (but not neceeasrili have to be) an overtaking vessel if (if it were night) you can see the stern light and ONLY the stern light. My emphasis in the quote below
I also note the following which did not apply in this case
Let me try to simply state how we were relative to each other:
When I first became aware that we are not on parallel courses, the other vessel would have been about a mile away in about my 7:30 or 8 o'clock position.
At this point we were not on constant bearings so as we slowly converged he moved to about 8.30 relative to me. Whether this was due to an alteration in course or speed on my part or his it would be impossible to say ( we were sailing to the wind rather than to a heading) but as we closed it became obvious that we had stabilised on constant bearing of about 8;30. Had it been night I would have been able to see his starboard light. I believe that clearly means I was not an overtaking vessel?
So - had we both been motoring, he should have given way. Had - as was the case - he been motoring and we sailing, he should have given way. Had we both been sailing, he should have given way (as the windward vessel).
Of course I could indeed have made small course alteration early on to avoid this but as the stand on vessel why would I? There was plenty of sea room and the tiniest of alterations from him would also have prevented a close quarters situation from developing.
You could get into all sorts of convoluted arguments, what if Boat A was initially ahead of Boat B but then deviated off a mile to to one side at an angle of 30 degrees and then turned back again so that by the time it was coming back and a close quarters situation developed, Boat B argues that because Boat A had at some stage been behind A, B is now the overtaking vessel? IMHO you have to consider each close quarters situation as starting from the point at which it becomes obvious it is developing, surely?
I also note the following which did not apply in this case
Let me try to simply state how we were relative to each other:
When I first became aware that we are not on parallel courses, the other vessel would have been about a mile away in about my 7:30 or 8 o'clock position.
At this point we were not on constant bearings so as we slowly converged he moved to about 8.30 relative to me. Whether this was due to an alteration in course or speed on my part or his it would be impossible to say ( we were sailing to the wind rather than to a heading) but as we closed it became obvious that we had stabilised on constant bearing of about 8;30. Had it been night I would have been able to see his starboard light. I believe that clearly means I was not an overtaking vessel?
So - had we both been motoring, he should have given way. Had - as was the case - he been motoring and we sailing, he should have given way. Had we both been sailing, he should have given way (as the windward vessel).
Of course I could indeed have made small course alteration early on to avoid this but as the stand on vessel why would I? There was plenty of sea room and the tiniest of alterations from him would also have prevented a close quarters situation from developing.
You could get into all sorts of convoluted arguments, what if Boat A was initially ahead of Boat B but then deviated off a mile to to one side at an angle of 30 degrees and then turned back again so that by the time it was coming back and a close quarters situation developed, Boat B argues that because Boat A had at some stage been behind A, B is now the overtaking vessel? IMHO you have to consider each close quarters situation as starting from the point at which it becomes obvious it is developing, surely?
Serin
Well-Known Member
Isn't it all really quite simple? The OP was sailing and the other vessel was motorsailing. If the OP was overtaking the other vessel, he would have had the responsibility to give way, as the overtaking rule trumps all the other steering rules in normal circumstances, which this was. If the OP was not overtaking, than it was his responsibility to stand on.
We all seem to know how to define overtaking and the OP states that he was not overtaking vessel. So the OP was the stand on vessel and the other was in the wrong. The outcome seems to have been a very minor inconvenience and some irritation on the part of the OP, but, well, you know, worse things happen at sea
If the other skipper had hoisted a cone that would at least have signified that he knew he was a power driven vessel for the purposes of the rules and intended to behave as such. Maybe he didn't know. Maybe he didn't have a cone. I suspect it was his bland oblivion to his misbehaviour that was so irritating.
We all seem to know how to define overtaking and the OP states that he was not overtaking vessel. So the OP was the stand on vessel and the other was in the wrong. The outcome seems to have been a very minor inconvenience and some irritation on the part of the OP, but, well, you know, worse things happen at sea
If the other skipper had hoisted a cone that would at least have signified that he knew he was a power driven vessel for the purposes of the rules and intended to behave as such. Maybe he didn't know. Maybe he didn't have a cone. I suspect it was his bland oblivion to his misbehaviour that was so irritating.
skyflyer
Well-Known Member
Isn't it all really quite simple? The OP was sailing and the other vessel was motorsailing. If the OP was overtaking the other vessel, he would have had the responsibility to give way, as the overtaking rule trumps all the other steering rules in normal circumstances, which this was. If the OP was not overtaking, than it was his responsibility to stand on.
We all seem to know how to define overtaking and the OP states that he was not overtaking vessel. So the OP was the stand on vessel and the other was in the wrong. The outcome seems to have been a very minor inconvenience and some irritation on the part of the OP, but, well, you know, worse things happen at sea
If the other skipper had hoisted a cone that would at least have signified that he knew he was a power driven vessel for the purposes of the rules and intended to behave as such. Maybe he didn't know. Maybe he didn't have a cone. I suspect it was his bland oblivion to his misbehaviour that was so irritating.
Serin
You are abolsutely right - and to be honest it would have been forgotten long ago by now, by me if I hadn't been so stupid as to post a thread about it a day later when i was tired and weather-bound somewhere!
God knows I make enough mistakes and that includes Colregs. Let bygones be bygones