tcm
...
Re: Correct and real-world answer
i edited - it would be the same if it were me being in the right as well....
i edited - it would be the same if it were me being in the right as well....
Colregs revisited
- Thread starter Colin_S
- Start date
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Colregs only apply to tidal rivers but assuming this is a colregs situation you have a conflict of rules and there is no definition as to which takes precedence. It all hinges on the term 'narrow channel' which is not defined in terms of measurements. A narrow channel for a 10,000 ton ship may be a wide-open stretch of water for a dinghy.
In these circumstances there is a risk of collision if one boat akes one view and the other the opposite. The same thing happened in the Tricolor accident: one vessel was approaching just on the line of cut-off between the overtaking and stand-on sectors and apparently the two watch officers took opposite views of the situation resulting in both thinking they were the stand-on vessel.
The moral of the tale is that you may be sure you're right but heaven help you if you don't have a plan B for when the other guy doesn't do what you think he should. In these days when there are so many people out there who know nothing beyond port & starboard and power gives way to sail and apply those wrongly anyway, having a plan B is vital.
The fact that you were racing may have subtly affected your judgement in that racing rules are used to gain advantage over other competitors whereas col regs are there for 'Prevention of Collision at Sea'.
In these circumstances there is a risk of collision if one boat akes one view and the other the opposite. The same thing happened in the Tricolor accident: one vessel was approaching just on the line of cut-off between the overtaking and stand-on sectors and apparently the two watch officers took opposite views of the situation resulting in both thinking they were the stand-on vessel.
The moral of the tale is that you may be sure you're right but heaven help you if you don't have a plan B for when the other guy doesn't do what you think he should. In these days when there are so many people out there who know nothing beyond port & starboard and power gives way to sail and apply those wrongly anyway, having a plan B is vital.
The fact that you were racing may have subtly affected your judgement in that racing rules are used to gain advantage over other competitors whereas col regs are there for 'Prevention of Collision at Sea'.
G
Guest
Guest
I think that a general useful rule of thumb is that the power and sail rule is comes a long way down the pecking order ie. it only applies where there isn't another rule like the power vessel is restricted in ability to manouevre, not under command, the sailing boat isn't the overtaking vessel, the other isn't a trawler with nets down, not in a VTS, the sailing boat isn't motorsailing etc.
If in doubt, like in a restricted channel, then the sailing vessels should assume that the power vs sail rule doesn't apply.
Too many wind powered sailors learn at an early age that "power gives way to sail" and cling to it like a straw without realising that it only applies in very limited circs. IMHO sailing yachtsmen beginning to learn the rules should approach it from a different point of view: learn all the other rules first, and then learn that, if nothing else applies, then power gives way to sail. Even if the power/sail rule has precedence over some other (can't think what at the moment), that is the safer way since both vessels will hopefully be trying to give way, one of them unnecessarily, but safer than the opposite.
Oops, after typing all that I realise that your "p&s" you were referring to port and starboard, not "power and sail"! Sorry, but maybe these witterings have some relevance anyway...
If in doubt, like in a restricted channel, then the sailing vessels should assume that the power vs sail rule doesn't apply.
Too many wind powered sailors learn at an early age that "power gives way to sail" and cling to it like a straw without realising that it only applies in very limited circs. IMHO sailing yachtsmen beginning to learn the rules should approach it from a different point of view: learn all the other rules first, and then learn that, if nothing else applies, then power gives way to sail. Even if the power/sail rule has precedence over some other (can't think what at the moment), that is the safer way since both vessels will hopefully be trying to give way, one of them unnecessarily, but safer than the opposite.
Oops, after typing all that I realise that your "p&s" you were referring to port and starboard, not "power and sail"! Sorry, but maybe these witterings have some relevance anyway...
Evadne
Well-Known Member
Well put, although I preferred TCM's version /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif .
I would like to add that I think a lot of misunderstandings come from people not knowing what the phrase "not withstanding the above/foregoing" means in the IRPCS. when it says port gives way to starboard, and then "not withstanding .... vessels in a narrow chanel" etc. then I take it to mean that you should keep to the right in a channel, but if a Close Quarters Situation develops then port gives way to starboard, regardless.
I would like to add that I think a lot of misunderstandings come from people not knowing what the phrase "not withstanding the above/foregoing" means in the IRPCS. when it says port gives way to starboard, and then "not withstanding .... vessels in a narrow chanel" etc. then I take it to mean that you should keep to the right in a channel, but if a Close Quarters Situation develops then port gives way to starboard, regardless.
hlb
RIP
Re: Correct and real-world answer
You've forgotten a bit. Whilst, for some of us, the rules are very simple, Like keep right or stop.
Others will now be reading the Col regs, front to back and debating how none of this applies to them and maybe they can get away with clause 275 Sub sec 3.4 paragraph 6, with slight ajustments.
You've forgotten a bit. Whilst, for some of us, the rules are very simple, Like keep right or stop.
Others will now be reading the Col regs, front to back and debating how none of this applies to them and maybe they can get away with clause 275 Sub sec 3.4 paragraph 6, with slight ajustments.
Stemar
Well-Known Member
I usually prefer to stand back on the ColRegs punch-ups and enjoy the fun, but...
As I understand it, any vessel that's claiming rights as a vessel constrained by her draught or limited in ability to manoevre has to show the appropriate signal. Otherwise there's no reason to consider it. (Not something I'd want to try on with the ships in the Solent /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
Gets interesting if both are constrained by draught, tho
As I understand it, any vessel that's claiming rights as a vessel constrained by her draught or limited in ability to manoevre has to show the appropriate signal. Otherwise there's no reason to consider it. (Not something I'd want to try on with the ships in the Solent /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
Gets interesting if both are constrained by draught, tho
G
Guest
Guest
My understanding of the way it works is: yes, they should show the correct signals, but even if they're not, that doesn't change the fundamentals. For example, if a vessel is obviously at anchor but isn't showing an anchor ball, then he's breaching the colregs, but that doesn't mean that the other vessel is entitled to assume that the anchored vessel is underway. Both vessels would be in breach of colregs in a collision, but the court who had to work out who was wrong would probably regard the lack of anchor ball a relatively small breach, and not pay too much attention to it when allocating responsibility.
If another vessel is obviously restricted in its ability to manoeuvre, then it doesn't make a lot of difference that they weren't flying the appropriate signals.
In other words, common sense rules OK
If another vessel is obviously restricted in its ability to manoeuvre, then it doesn't make a lot of difference that they weren't flying the appropriate signals.
In other words, common sense rules OK
tcm
...
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
aha, you're in the punchup now. 9b doesn't mention that the boat need be copnstrined by draught - just restricted, and longer than 20 metres.
take that, ouch!
aha, you're in the punchup now. 9b doesn't mention that the boat need be copnstrined by draught - just restricted, and longer than 20 metres.
take that, ouch!
tcm
...
i agree with your sentiment.
Though with specific ref to to the other boat, if one of those boats is over 20metres - then other "shall not impede" - and it's not an issueof being constrained by depth. However, since it's clear thatt nobody but nobody knows this, it's probly quite right that i was a bit cautious about trundling straight up the hamble with regular five toots in a 23metre boat....
Common sense wise of course: but interesting thing is the way the accident reports are laid out. The facts were that "xyz boat hit abc boat which was staionaryy but not showing an anchor ball" is up[ front and early - facts is facts. So straightaway there is not 100% one side or tother . Hence i always put up anchor ball.
Though with specific ref to to the other boat, if one of those boats is over 20metres - then other "shall not impede" - and it's not an issueof being constrained by depth. However, since it's clear thatt nobody but nobody knows this, it's probly quite right that i was a bit cautious about trundling straight up the hamble with regular five toots in a 23metre boat....
Common sense wise of course: but interesting thing is the way the accident reports are laid out. The facts were that "xyz boat hit abc boat which was staionaryy but not showing an anchor ball" is up[ front and early - facts is facts. So straightaway there is not 100% one side or tother . Hence i always put up anchor ball.
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
Go back to the book and look again. It says nothing about the size of the constrained vessel, only that the one which shall not impede is under 20 metres or sailing!!
Go back to the book and look again. It says nothing about the size of the constrained vessel, only that the one which shall not impede is under 20 metres or sailing!!
gandy
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
The original post implied that both were sailing, and both racing. In that case, the Racing Rules would apply between the two of them.
Tony S
The original post implied that both were sailing, and both racing. In that case, the Racing Rules would apply between the two of them.
Tony S
hlb
RIP
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
Amounts to about the same thing dunit.
Bloody frightening that at the onset of a possible colision, many folk seem to have to spend a couple of hours reading a bloody book!!
Amounts to about the same thing dunit.
Bloody frightening that at the onset of a possible colision, many folk seem to have to spend a couple of hours reading a bloody book!!
hlb
RIP
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
How would each of them know that??
How would each of them know that??
gandy
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
[ QUOTE ]
How would each of them know that??
[/ QUOTE ] Well I'd ask that of the original poster, who said "we were racing". For myself, sometimes it's clear and sometimes it isn't. For example if both boats are in the same race, they'd know.
Tony S
[ QUOTE ]
How would each of them know that??
[/ QUOTE ] Well I'd ask that of the original poster, who said "we were racing". For myself, sometimes it's clear and sometimes it isn't. For example if both boats are in the same race, they'd know.
Tony S
hlb
RIP
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
We might have been racing, but they might not.
I might have decided to stop racing.
All sounds a bit iffy to me.
We might have been racing, but they might not.
I might have decided to stop racing.
All sounds a bit iffy to me.
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
[ QUOTE ]
Amounts to about the same thing dunit.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. If it did it would effectively mean under 20m gives way to over 20m. That isn't the case.
[ QUOTE ]
Amounts to about the same thing dunit.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. If it did it would effectively mean under 20m gives way to over 20m. That isn't the case.
hlb
RIP
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
How do you know who's constrained then??
How do you know who's constrained then??
gandy
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
It depends on what Colin meant by "we". If he meant that both boats were racing, then for this discussion we would have to assume he was correct.
Tony S
It depends on what Colin meant by "we". If he meant that both boats were racing, then for this discussion we would have to assume he was correct.
Tony S
Evadne
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
At the risk of being pedantic, most racing organisations, or their insurers, insist that IRPCS takes precedence over racing rules. And if they don't, then the MCA and most nations' judiciary do.
The other thing is, if you ever see tcm bearing down on you then hoist 2 anchor balls (= not in command) which takes precedence over absolutely everything else. But remember to let go of the tiller at the same time. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Quite what happens when two vessels "not under command" are on a collision course, I'm not quite clear on.
At the risk of being pedantic, most racing organisations, or their insurers, insist that IRPCS takes precedence over racing rules. And if they don't, then the MCA and most nations' judiciary do.
The other thing is, if you ever see tcm bearing down on you then hoist 2 anchor balls (= not in command) which takes precedence over absolutely everything else. But remember to let go of the tiller at the same time. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Quite what happens when two vessels "not under command" are on a collision course, I'm not quite clear on.
duncan
Well-Known Member
Re: Colregs punchup ensues
now now....ding ding...........
round 4....ding ding..............
now now....ding ding...........
round 4....ding ding..............