Crossing Shipping Lanes (again)

[capnsensible]

They work pretty well in most situations, but in a significant number they require fudging. JFM has written some very interesting stuff about case law in this area in the MB forum. That's where I learned that standing on does not necessarily mean maintaining course and speed.

Well indeed, lawyers will argue about anything and everything until their bottoms stop pointing downwards, but a sailor will make a simple course change. :encouragement:

 

[bobgarrett]

And yet all those thousands of years of experience have come up with rules which are incomplete, inconsistent and in places undefined, resulting (for example) in us having a duty not to impede vessels which much give way to us ...

But isn't this the same as for a pedestrian? I should cross the road without impeding the traffic but if I mess it up they are obliged to try to avoid hitting us?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Well indeed, lawyers will argue about anything and everything until their bottoms stop pointing downwards, but a sailor will make a simple course change. :encouragement:

What do you do when simultaneously give-way and stand-on?

But isn't this the same as for a pedestrian? I should cross the road without impeding the traffic but if I mess it up they are obliged to try to avoid hitting us?

The trouble is that "shall not impede" is just not defined anywhere. Is there a legal obligation for pedestrians not to impede vehicular traffic?

Please don't get me wrong - the IRPCS do work very well, most of the time. However, the mindset which says "just follow the rules and everything will work out" is a bit too simplistic - and a bit too smug - to be as safe as it good be. Sensible people acknowledge ambiguity and work round it.

 

[RobbieW]

Trouble is that you never know whether the OOW on the bridge has noticed you when you are 6 or 7 nm off. So maybe they did not alter course because they did not know you were there.
It is the reason why I installed an AIS transceiver.

Thats a fair point and may influence future installation, however I do have a dual band Echomax transponder so if the OOW was monitoring RADAR I 'should' have been seen

 

[{151760}]

What I was trying to question is that ships always follow IRPCS, in my experience they do not. IMO I should have expected the ferry (as give way) to make an obvious turn to starboard to pass astern, when that hadnt happened at 5 miles or so separation I made an obvious turn to avoid close quarters. The question is to some extent where do the boundaries lie for taking avoiding action ?

Again, you did the right thing. You can't know what's happening on the bridge of a distant ship, unless you call them on vhf, which some advocate. You monitored the situation. When it seemed, in YOUR judgement that a close-quarters situation was developing you altered course to avoid it. Good seamanship. If the ferry had subsequently altered course to then be again on a constant bearing, you still had time to return to your previous course.
Do all ships sail according to ColRegs? No. Most do, some don't for all sorts of reasons ranging from being unaware of your small boat, there being a possible problem with another large ship you are unaware of, to the OOW being blind drunk, or the ship's cat being left in charge deciding it can't be bothered.

 

[RobbieW]

My observation, different types of commercial vessels act in different ways. Ferries are typically relatively fast and highly maneuverable. Compared to large freighters. Ferries often operate in congested ad restricted waters.
What a Ferry regards as close quarters and a large freighter regards as close quarters may be two very different points of view.
5 miles to a big freighter might be close. While to a ferry still a long ways off.

I would Ask. If you are going to take the point of view risk of collision does not yet exist. Is it fair to expect the ferry to take the view risk of collision exists? Suggesting the ferry was not following the IRPCAS.

As to where the boundaries lie.
There are no specifics. Its up to you to determine what is reasonable based on your vessels ability to manoeuver.
My questions to you.
Did you take action because it appeared to you the ferry was not taking the appropriate action as required by the rules.?
Or.
Did you take action at long range to prior to risk of collision arising to prevent risk of collision arising?

I took action at long range to prevent risk of collision arising. Take your point about different ships with different characteristics but my experience is that if a ship hasnt changed course at 5 miles out in open water where its doing 20 knots it isnt going to. Now whether thats a breach of IRPCS is debateable, had I carried on and forced a close quarters situation a yacht is going to be the vessel that has the manouverability to deal with the situation. Is that in the spirit of IRPCS ?

I've had, once, the converse where I was sailing in company with another yacht about half a mile apart crossing from Menorca to Sardinia. A VLCC to which we were give way altered to port, apparently to pass behind. I called him to verify his action which he confirmed so I thanked him and we carried on. That was, however, exceptional.

 

[Angele]

The trouble is that "shall not impede" is just not defined anywhere.

Hmm! People keep saying that. Whereas to me it is pretty clear.

A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe
passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early
action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe passage of the other vessel.

Ok, so we can all debate what is meant by "sufficient sea-room" and "safe passage", but to say there is no definition.....

 

[dom]

Come on guys; you can't pass 100 posts without saying the Colregs Rosary:

"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.

He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

 

[JumbleDuck]

Hmm! People keep saying that. Whereas to me it is pretty clear.

Great. How would you explain the difference between "shall not impede" and "shall give way to"? They must mean different things, because otherwise the same phrase could be used for both.

 

[Angele]

Great. How would you explain the difference between "shall not impede" and "shall give way to"? They must mean different things, because otherwise the same phrase could be used for both.

I think that, between us, we have just guaranteed this thread will run for another 100 posts.

 

[lpdsn]

Sections 1.9 & 2.5 of this MAIB report are quite interesting as it deals with the actions of a third party that identified both its own risk of collision with one vessel involved and also the risk of collision developing between both of them.

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/col...essel-timor-stream-off-the-dominican-republic

 

[Yealm]

Good post !

What do you do when simultaneously give-way and stand-on?



The trouble is that "shall not impede" is just not defined anywhere. Is there a legal obligation for pedestrians not to impede vehicular traffic?

Please don't get me wrong - the IRPCS do work very well, most of the time. However, the mindset which says "just follow the rules and everything will work out" is a bit too simplistic - and a bit too smug - to be as safe as it good be. Sensible people acknowledge ambiguity and work round it.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think that, between us, we have just guaranteed this thread will run for another 100 posts.

Think of it as a generous donation to public discourse.

In general I am all in favour of writing rules with wriggle room. as long as people following the rules realise that wriggle room was written in. When they don't you end up with arguments, accidents and fundamentalist Christians.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Come on guys; you can't pass 100 posts without saying the Colregs Rosary:

"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.

He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

Was and always will be complete tosh.

Not just because there’s no such thing as ‘right of way’ but because even if this fictional Day character was stand on vessel, (where the rules OBLIGE you to stand on) eventually there comes a time where you are obliged to avoid collision and alter course etc in order to comply with the rules.

 

[dom]

Was and always will be complete tosh.

Not just because there’s no such thing as ‘right of way’ but because even if this fictional Day character was stand on vessel, (where the rules OBLIGE you to stand on) eventually there comes a time where you are obliged to avoid collision and alter course etc in order to comply with the rules.

Meant it tongue in cheek, but you’re right ...no question

 

[TallBuoy]

Was and always will be complete tosh.

Not just because there’s no such thing as ‘right of way’ but because even if this fictional Day character was stand on vessel, (where the rules OBLIGE you to stand on) eventually there comes a time where you are obliged to avoid collision and alter course etc in order to comply with the rules.

Pedant !

 

[westhinder]

Thats a fair point and may influence future installation, however I do have a dual band Echomax transponder so if the OOW was monitoring RADAR I 'should' have been seen

Quite. He may have been looking for a rather bigger vessel, judging by your echo, but at least he would know there was something out there. AIS has the added advantage that it identifies what is out there.
Incidentally, I crossed the Atlantic last year on a boat that had both AIS and an Echomax and we found that the Echomax would pick up radar signals before the AIS showed the ship, probably due to the height of the antennas. We used the beep of the Echomax as a first warning that something was out there and then started monitoring AIS to satisfy our curiosity. In most cases we never saw the ship itself.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Pedant !

I know!

Problem is some people trot it out and mean it and use that silly ditty as an excuse for wondering about the seas in unpredictable fashions in the belief that they are ‘keeping out of the way of everyone’.

 

[john_morris_uk]

What do you do when simultaneously give-way and stand-on?

Please don't get me wrong - the IRPCS do work very well, most of the time. However, the mindset which says "just follow the rules and everything will work out" is a bit too simplistic - and a bit too smug - to be as safe as it good be. Sensible people acknowledge ambiguity and work round it.

But one could argue that the rules make allowance for ambiguity: if in doubt give way, and all vessels will do everything possible to avoid collisions (paraphrasing).

 

[JohnGC]

They work pretty well in most situations, but in a significant number they require fudging. JFM has written some very interesting stuff about case law in this area in the MB forum. That's where I learned that standing on does not necessarily mean maintaining course and speed.

Any chance of providing a link please?