CQS tonight

[theoldsalt]

Many thanks for taking the trouble to help clarify.

So it seems by turning to port the Redjet was also in danger of leaving the channel since the ferry and RIB were close to the edge of the channel.

But I would just question the wisdom of the RIB overtaking the ferry on the wrong (?) side. Shouldn't the overtaking vessel keep to port of the overtaken vessel?

 

[jfm]

But I would just question the wisdom of the RIB overtaking the ferry on the wrong (?) side. Shouldn't the overtaking vessel keep to port of the overtaken vessel?

Absolutely not. There is no such rule telling you to overtake on the port side.

 

[jfm]

So it seems by turning to port the Redjet was also in danger of leaving the channel since the ferry and RIB were close to the edge of the channel.

That misses the point. "Danger of leaving the channel" was never the issue here. The Redjet error was that it disobeyed rule 9a telling him to keep to the starboard side of the channel. There was actually (I think) plenty of distance between the ferry and the edge of the channel, if you ignore the RIB.

Redjet's breach of rule 9a then left him facing an oncoming vessel and a CQS, something it should have realised was a pretty likely consequence

 

[jfm]

Ramblings on Rule 9

This case serves as a good example of the bad drafting of ColRegs that I've been ranting on about for years on here. Consider rule 9, which is particularly relevant here.

9. Narrow channels.
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.​

9a imposes an obligation on Redjet to be the other side of the water, but 9b imposes an obligation on a <20m boat not to impede Redjet. The problem is that Rule 9c ontains no hierarchy: 9b does not, for example, tell the <20m vessel to not impede Redjet PROVIDED Redjet is obeying 9a. The 9b obligation on the <20m vessel applies even if Redjet is disobeying 9a.

So you have two rules, 9a and 9b, one of which puts Redjet in the wrong and the other of which puts Solitaire in the wrong, and there is no ranking or hierarchy to the rules. Many posters on here argue back at me that Colregs are good and have stood the test of time. I say again that this is a prime example of their lousy drafting.

I write this without any criticism whatsoever on Solitaire et al (whom I know, and know is a smart guy/great skipper). On any common sense analysis he was completely in the right here. The point I'm making is that Colregs are so badly written. We all avoid crashes in spite of Colrtegs not because of them.

 

[MapisM]

Well, talking of 9a (and also based on what Elessar said in his OP), that's the reason why I checked the AIS track history on the CQS night.
I was expecting to find an odd line among two more or less overlapping groups of lines (one on the W side of the channel, when heading S, and one on the E side when heading N), but the tracks were all over the place.
Either those guys have a CQS every time, or they just couldn't care less....

 

[benjenbav]

This case serves as a good example of the bad drafting of ColRegs that I've been ranting on about for years on here. Consider rule 9, which is particularly relevant here.

9. Narrow channels.
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.​

9a imposes an obligation on Redjet to be the other side of the water, but 9b imposes an obligation on a <20m boat not to impede Redjet. The problem is that Rule 9c ontains no hierarchy: 9b does not, for example, tell the <20m vessel to not impede Redjet PROVIDED Redjet is obeying 9a. The 9b obligation on the <20m vessel applies even if Redjet is disobeying 9a.

So you have two rules, 9a and 9b, one of which puts Redjet in the wrong and the other of which puts Solitaire in the wrong, and there is no ranking or hierarchy to the rules. Many posters on here argue back at me that Colregs are good and have stood the test of time. I say again that this is a prime example of their lousy drafting.

I write this without any criticism whatsoever on Solitaire et al (whom I know, and know is a smart guy/great skipper). On any common sense analysis he was completely in the right here. The point I'm making is that Colregs are so badly written. We all avoid crashes in spite of Colrtegs not because of them.

I often wonder whether 9(b) should not commence "A vessel of fewer than 20 metres ...

 

[superheat6k]

This case serves as a good example of the bad drafting of ColRegs that I've been ranting on about for years on here. Consider rule 9, which is particularly relevant here.

9. Narrow channels.
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.​

9a imposes an obligation on Redjet to be the other side of the water, but 9b imposes an obligation on a <20m boat not to impede Redjet. The problem is that Rule 9c ontains no hierarchy: 9b does not, for example, tell the <20m vessel to not impede Redjet PROVIDED Redjet is obeying 9a. The 9b obligation on the <20m vessel applies even if Redjet is disobeying 9a.

So you have two rules, 9a and 9b, one of which puts Redjet in the wrong and the other of which puts Solitaire in the wrong, and there is no ranking or hierarchy to the rules. Many posters on here argue back at me that Colregs are good and have stood the test of time. I say again that this is a prime example of their lousy drafting.

I write this without any criticism whatsoever on Solitaire et al (whom I know, and know is a smart guy/great skipper). On any common sense analysis he was completely in the right here. The point I'm making is that Colregs are so badly written. We all avoid crashes in spite of Colrtegs not because of them.

Surely of crucial importance here also is Rule 6 - Safe speed. Elessar's opening thread mentions a head on situation of 50 knots I recall (and in the dark). I assume this is an estimate of his speed stated to be 18 knots plus the head on approaching Redjet at around 32 knots.

So the Redjet chose to pass the wrong side of a largish vessel (driven by his colleague) likely not expecting anything to be there, oh yes in the dark and at 32 knots.

Had there been a collision speed would clearly have been a major contributory factor. Just because they can go that fast doesnt mean they have to.

Doesn't bode at all well for the Redjet IMHO. He called the CQS, now he may have to face the conseqences of his actions.

 

[prv]

So it seems by turning to port the Redjet was also in danger of leaving the channel since the ferry and RIB were close to the edge of the channel.

Not much danger - Red Jet draws bugger all, and most of Southampton Water has plenty of depth for him (the main exception is Weston Shelf, and it would take a major detour for him to be over that side so far north). They regularly zip around outside the main channel, quite reasonably and usually perfectly responsibly, to avoid slower traffic.

But I would just question the wisdom of the RIB overtaking the ferry on the wrong (?) side. Shouldn't the overtaking vessel keep to port of the overtaken vessel?

Errm, no. Where did you get that idea from?

Pete

 

[theoldsalt]

Absolutely not. There is no such rule telling you to overtake on the port side.

Just checked "Rule 13 Overtaking" and you are quite right. I was probably advised many years ago as "good practice" and wrongly thought it was in ColRegs.

 

[prv]

This case serves as a good example of the bad drafting of ColRegs that I've been ranting on about for years on here. Consider rule 9, which is particularly relevant here.

9. Narrow channels.
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.​

9a imposes an obligation on Redjet to be the other side of the water, but 9b imposes an obligation on a <20m boat not to impede Redjet. The problem is that Rule 9c ontains no hierarchy: 9b does not, for example, tell the <20m vessel to not impede Redjet PROVIDED Redjet is obeying 9a. The 9b obligation on the <20m vessel applies even if Redjet is disobeying 9a.

Your point seems irrefutable in the general case, but I'm not convinced it fully applies to this incident.

(a) applies to any vessel proceeding along the channel, but (b) applies only if the larger vessel "can safely navigate only within a narrow channel". The Red Jet draws less than my boat, and with few exceptions has practically the whole of Southampton Water to play with. He's not restricted to the channel at all and there's no obligation on our chaps not to impede him.

Pete

 

[Elessar]

This case serves as a good example of the bad drafting of ColRegs that I've been ranting on about for years on here. Consider rule 9, which is particularly relevant here.

9. Narrow channels.
(a) A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit or the channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and practicable.

(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.​

9a imposes an obligation on Redjet to be the other side of the water, but 9b imposes an obligation on a <20m boat not to impede Redjet. The problem is that Rule 9c ontains no hierarchy: 9b does not, for example, tell the <20m vessel to not impede Redjet PROVIDED Redjet is obeying 9a. The 9b obligation on the <20m vessel applies even if Redjet is disobeying 9a.

So you have two rules, 9a and 9b, one of which puts Redjet in the wrong and the other of which puts Solitaire in the wrong, and there is no ranking or hierarchy to the rules. Many posters on here argue back at me that Colregs are good and have stood the test of time. I say again that this is a prime example of their lousy drafting.

I write this without any criticism whatsoever on Solitaire et al (whom I know, and know is a smart guy/great skipper). On any common sense analysis he was completely in the right here. The point I'm making is that Colregs are so badly written. We all avoid crashes in spite of Colrtegs not because of them.

I would disagree that the redjet can only safely navigate within the narrow channel as it routinely strays outside it.

We were navigating in accordance with local reg, ie outside the main channel or close to the edge of it. In the day we would have been further outside but there is a lot of unlit clutter so we stuck to the edge of the main channel.

As for safe speed, it mutually was. We didn't hit anything.

 

[longjohnsilver]

When do you expect to hear back from VTS?

 

[prv]

In the day we would have been further outside but there is a lot of unlit clutter

Isn't there just! In particular, it seems to be popular with fishing dickheads in unlit dinghies and equally-unlit eBay cabin cruisers, sometimes anchored right in the middle of the secondary channel

Pete

 

[jfm]

I would disagree that the redjet can only safely navigate within the narrow channel as it routinely strays outside it.

We were navigating in accordance with local reg, ie outside the main channel or close to the edge of it. In the day we would have been further outside but there is a lot of unlit clutter so we stuck to the edge of the main channel.

As for safe speed, it mutually was. We didn't hit anything.

Ok, but my point was about colregs and their drafting. If another boat that could only run safely within the channel did as RJ did, then my conflict between 9a and 9b would arise

As for RJ on this occasion, aren't you talking out of both sides of you mouth when you say that RJ could navigate safely outside the channel when you guys in a RIB chose to stay within it for safety reasons?

Safe speed is a completely separate point of course from rule 9's deficiencies.

 

[jfm]

Well, talking of 9a (and also based on what Elessar said in his OP), that's the reason why I checked the AIS track history on the CQS night.
I was expecting to find an odd line among two more or less overlapping groups of lines (one on the W side of the channel, when heading S, and one on the E side when heading N), but the tracks were all over the place.
Either those guys have a CQS every time, or they just couldn't care less....

crikey! I didn't know they were that bad regarding 9a. Maybe they like the deficiency in rule 9 that I'm pointing out. I mean maybe they do actually think 9b gives them stand on rights over <20m traffic when driving on the wrong side of the road.

 

[jfm]

I often wonder whether 9(b) should not commence "A vessel of fewer than 20 metres ...

Tee hee, that is strangely in the grey area of the fewer/less rule isn't it? Maybe the guy who drafted colregs also drafted that rule. I'd love to be across the table from him doing a £3bn senior facilities agreement. Candy from a baby .

 

[Elessar]

Ok, but my point was about colregs and their drafting. If another boat that could only run safely within the channel did as RJ did, then my conflict between 9a and 9b would arise

As for RJ on this occasion, aren't you talking out of both sides of you mouth when you say that RJ could navigate safely outside the channel when you guys in a RIB chose to stay within it for safety reasons?

Safe speed is a completely separate point of course from rule 9's deficiencies.

Yes take the point about the contradiction.
And yes. I am contradicting myself i guess.
We don't consider it safe to run above D speed outside the channel. Our speed and course was not an accident. 18 knots in a 45 knot RIB at the edge of the channel.
We know RJ is content to run outside the channel as it does, day and night. I guess they know where the clutter big enough to hurt them is.
So perhaps we should have been less surprised when he went green to green. In a crowded soton water it would have been less of one. But as we were the only 3 boats near, it seemed utterly bizarre. It did take us a couple of seconds to beleive our own eyes.

 

[Elessar]

Tee hee, that is strangely in the grey area of the fewer/less rule isn't it? Maybe the guy who drafted colregs also drafted that rule. I'd love to be across the table from him doing a £3bn senior facilities agreement. Candy from a baby .

Nah this is easier than colregs. Less than 20 metres in length. A boat has less length not fewer length. It could be a vessel with fewer than 20 measurement units in its length. And I'm not even English!

 

[Elessar]

crikey! I didn't know they were that bad regarding 9a. Maybe they like the deficiency in rule 9 that I'm pointing out. I mean maybe they do actually think 9b gives them stand on rights over <20m traffic when driving on the wrong side of the road.

They cant claim 9b as they demonstrate by their own behaviour that its safe in their view to navigate outside the channel.

On the subject of RJ I am generally in awe of their competence. So many leisure boats sail (or motor) down the main channel which is quite unnecessary and contrary to good seamanship and local guidelines.
And so many of them are ignorant to the colregs and therefore behave unpredictably.
The red jet picks his way round them with great skill and very few, incredibly few in fact, incidents.
So I am not the least critical of them weaving a course. They have to.

And as a reminder even this was sort of a non event. Yes it got close but the colregs were followed when we got close and we missed each other.

Then he hooted

What's the starting price for your horns JFM. Would be a real hoot on a RIB

 

[BlueSkyNick]

On the subject of VTS professionalism, I was running a night exercise on Sunday (motor sailing due to lack of wind) and heading from Hamble back to Cowes. Day Skipper student decided we were to go from Calshot NCM to West Bramble WCM to keep out the channel and avoid Bramble bank, then head south. A massive container ship was coming round Calshot spit so we decided to stop and wait in the safe shallow area.

So as not to get five hoots from the ship, I called VTS to explain our intentions. The young lady on duty was grateful, and also advised of another ship heading south past Fawley. We had a very pleasant, yet brief conversation, and apart from professional she sounded gorgeous! Then we headed across to Cowes and the fog closed in to less than 100m vis. Moored up successfully, had a cup of tea and reviewed the evening with the students. Finally turned in about 0030, thinking I must try to arrange a visit to meet her in person. Sweet dreams followed!