Do you ignore col regs

[timbartlett]

I m pleased you spotted the significance of the second photo, it just about summarizes all 500 posts from both scuttlebutts and here in one photo.....

You probably spotted both sailing boats in the first photo here

Classic, and proof the RYA interpretation is correct, well earned respect for the scuttlebutts who have been patient enough to teach me how to more accurately estimate distances, previously I had interpreted this same incident as a near miss.

This is complete and utter bo11ocks.

(1) We have not been discussing an "RYA interpretation". The rules themselves are very clear. DAKA thinks we should break them.

(2) Despite DAKA's insistence to the contrary, it is breathtakingly obvious that the leading boat in the photograph is not obeying the colregs, and has collided with the ship as a result.

 

[fireball]

This is complete and utter bo11ocks.

I think this is about 25 to nil to Daka? ok - he might conceed a point or two - so let's be generous - 25 to 2 .....

Meanwhile I believe Daka and I are around matchpoint ... and have been for some time - stalemate I think it's called!

 

[davidej]

fishing vessels, sailing vessels and vessels less than 20m in length must not impede the safe passage of a vessel using a lane.

This means that they must indeed avoid the risk of collision occurring, and should actually take action before the colregs come into effect. A slightly troublesome concept to grasp - but in laymans terms - as you say - avoid the risk of collision developing, just stay out of the way - early.

once risk of collision exists normal rules apply, but the "not to impede" vessel is still required "not to impede"

CC

Doesn't sound too different to what I wrote - except i forgot the caveat about under 20m. I dont suppose many forumites have craft larger than this!

 

[DAKA]

This is complete and utter bo11ocks.

(1) The rules themselves are very clear. DAKA thinks we should break them.

(2) Despite DAKA's insistence to the contrary, it is breathtakingly obvious that the leading boat in the photograph is not obeying the colregs, and has collided with the ship as a result.

Please read post 231.

I have not recommended anyone to break from col regs.
Please note we have an actual commercial skipper on the thread who is able to clear up any misconceptions.

As to 2)
Take a chill pill, enjoy the beauty within the photo sequence, no one was hurt, there is nothing either of us can do about it now, it was over a year ago, history.......who cares !

I have agreed with many of your posts in an attempt to settle this but you are so absorbed in your cloud of red mist you continue to argue against everything I post including when I agree with you.

When I realized who you were and you were relying on your knowledge of col regs for a living I backed off thus allowing you to destroy my forum reputation as Col reg expert , its now time to stop digging before you self harm your own reputation.

Incidentally on checking through pms I came across an exchange regarding TSS crossing procedures where a forum member doubted the advice give by the MCA, the forum member stated he was better qualified than the individual that had sent the email from the MCA.
I let it go but I did check the individual from the MCA knew what he was talking about and learned the delayed response was due to no less than 5 MCA employees being involved in the solution response.

If certain forum members will not take any notice of the MCA , there is no point in me posting any more on this thread, especially as we now have a commercial captain able to share what is actually happened on the water.

 

[Capt Cautious]

Doesn't sound too different to what I wrote - except i forgot the caveat about under 20m. I dont suppose many forumites have craft larger than this!

I think I wrote elsewhere that it is always a good idea to put yourself on the bridge of the other vessel. You are quite correct in stating that you should really try and keep out of the way of a vessel following a lane - but what what you must remember is that, once risk of collision exists (from the point of view of the master of the commercial ship) he may now become become a "give way vessel". You however are still a "vessel required not to impede". You now have to think very carefully about what he may do. If you are a sailing vessel or a fishing vessel its not a crossing situation - and he can take whatever action results in a resolution - the main criteria being that it must be seamanlike (rule 2).

If you are a mobo however - it is a crossing situation, and he is limited in his response accordingly - as are you. The trick here is not to put the master of the commercial ship in this ambiguous situation where he may think he's now a give way vessel - and you are standing on to 1 mile (because thats quite a long way when youre only 6ft above the water) with the intention of taking action later.

There is never a situation where a vessel can "stand on regardless" - no matter what rule has been broken at an earlier stage in a collision development. If you belt another craft, and you are both underway, you will certainly be held accountable. There is a stage where both vessels MUST take action to avoid collision. Additionally if more people simply understood rule 2a Im sure life would be a lot simpler. Its the most important rule in the book.

I've seen several administrations where rule 2b is taught as being the only rule you need to know. "If the **** hits the fan you can do what you like". This is widely interpreted by many amateur seafarers as a get out clause. It should be read like this...."you may take action which is not in compliance with the rules if - and only if - compliance with the colregs will result in an immediate danger of grounding or collision".

CC

 

[Capt Cautious]

and while I remember...

It is a common misconception, but there is nothing in the colregs that says " you have to comply with the steering and sailing rules unless you have negotiated a manoeuvre on the VHF". Even if negotiated - a manoeuvre must still comply.

CC

 

[timbartlett]

I think this is about 25 to nil to Daka? ok - he might conceed a point or two - so let's be generous - 25 to 2 .....

Meanwhile I believe Daka and I are around matchpoint ... and have been for some time - stalemate I think it's called!

I'm not interested in scoring points or majority voting.
TBH, I've lost interest in this thread, too.

 

[timbartlett]

Please read post 231.

I have. Yet again, I reiterate:
- you cannot make good decisions based on crap information. You might sometimes have luck on your side and find that a crap decision based on crap information comes close to being a good decision (two wrongs make a right!).

I have not recommended anyone to break from col regs.

That is what this entire thread has been about!

Please note we have an actual commercial skipper on the thread who is able to clear up any misconceptions.

And the overall theme of his posts has been pretty consistent: he believes that people should obey the colregs. In particular he has said... "A small percentage actually do know the rules and behave as I would expect any competent navigator to behave."

Take a chill pill...your cloud of red mist ...

No red mist. Just frustration that after nearly 250 posts, you still refuse to accept that Rule 17 means what it says.
It's no more optional than keeping a proper lookout or displaying nav lights at night. It doesn't apply only to ships over a certain size, and HLB's exemption for rich people is a figment of his imagination.
If certain forum members will not take any notice of the IMO and MCA, there is no point in me posting any more on this thread

 

[fireball]

I'm not interested in scoring points or majority voting.
TBH, I've lost interest in this thread, too.

You might not be - but the rest of us are having a giggle ....

Your lost interest in the thread is erm ... not very evident .. it's like a scab - you keep coming back to pick at it!!

 

[DAKA]

I think this is about 25 to nil to Daka? ok - he might conceed a point or two - so let's be generous - 25 to 2 .....

Meanwhile I believe Daka and I are around matchpoint ... and have been for some time - stalemate I think it's called!

To be fair I tried to pick up my ball and go home days ago but Tim still managed to keep scoring home goals


You won game set and match with the

'Starboard 270' manoeuvre' which really left us nothing to argue about (except Tim).

 

[Cruiser2B]

It is a common misconception, but there is nothing in the colregs that says " you have to comply with the steering and sailing rules unless you have negotiated a manoeuvre on the VHF". Even if negotiated - a manoeuvre must still comply.

CC

Are you trying to tell us you've never made a green to green passing in a head-on situation? Or you've never made a crossing arrangement that required you as stand-on vessel to change your course or speed? If you've had your ticket for longer than a dog-watch, you know that Rule 2 departures from the rules are guided as much by "the practice of ordinary seamen" as they are from the necessity to "avoid immediate danger."
While International colregs don't make mention of VHF, some national versions do - here's the Canadian rule 34(L):

(l) Notwithstanding this Rule and Rule 9, if positive mutual identification of the vessels has been made in the Canadian waters of a roadstead, harbour, river, lake or inland waterway, a vessel may use a bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone instead of the prescribed whistle signals to reach agreement in a meeting, crossing or overtaking situation. If agreement is not reached, then whistle signals shall be exchanged in a timely manner and shall prevail.

 

[westernman]

Doesn't sound too different to what I wrote - except i forgot the caveat about under 20m. I dont suppose many forumites have craft larger than this!

Is that 20m over spars and everything (I am 20.03m from bowsprint to the end of the thingy for holding the towed generator), or is it just the length of the hull?

Should I pretend that I am <20m, or own up to being >20m?

 

[timbartlett]

Is that 20m over spars and everything (I am 20.03m from bowsprint to the end of the thingy for holding the towed generator), or is it just the length of the hull?

Should I pretend that I am <20m, or own up to being >20m?

Rule 3j.
I'm sorry, but I am not going to offer a "Tim interpretation", far less an "RYA interpretation" in case DAKA finds an entirely new and novel way of interpreting the words "The words 'length' and 'breadth' of a vessel mean her length overall and greatest breadth", or in case HLB insists that that definition only applies to boats being driven by people who are too poor to buy their own.

 

[Capt Cautious]

Are you trying to tell us you've never made a green to green passing in a head-on situation? Or you've never made a crossing arrangement that required you as stand-on vessel to change your course or speed? If you've had your ticket for longer than a dog-watch, you know that Rule 2 departures from the rules are guided as much by "the practice of ordinary seamen" as they are from the necessity to "avoid immediate danger."
While International colregs don't make mention of VHF, some national versions do - here's the Canadian rule 34(L):

Individual states may make their own additions to the colregs, this is fundamental. The USA has its own Inland regs as well, and a telegraphy act to reinforce it. These are not for use outside of local limits. The assumption here is that all users of the intership communication facility are going to be fluent English / French speakers - and this would be the case in both Canadian and USA regs. There are several slightly different rules within the different versions.

Now try calling up a Vietnamese or Chinese ship in the English channel and try to negotiate a manoeuvre - then work out whether you understood exactly what he meant, and he understood exactly what you meant. Try the same thing up the Gulf - and try and be certain that the vessel you just agreed a green to green passing with is actually the vessel fine to stbd, and not some joker with his feet up on a dhow alongside in Bahrein.

Departures from the rules are not for straight forward situations adequately covered by compliance with the rules. Try to explain in an Admiralty court that you didnt comply with the regs simply because some other guy told you not to.

It is perfectly OK (and seamanlike) to call another vessel and advise him of your intentions. I do so regularly, particularly when entering and leaving anchorages or entering port.

I have had a Class 1 ticket rather substantially more than a dogs watch. I've not thrown any insults in anybodies direction - and expect likewise. This is not Facebook.

CC

 

[PaulGooch]

No wonder there are problems, they've got bloody dogs on watch

 

[fireball]

No wonder there are problems, they've got bloody dogs on watch

Perhaps some mobos should get one too - sounds like they're infinitely more reliable!!

 

[PaulGooch]

Perhaps some mobos should get one too - sounds like they're infinitely more reliable!!

I dare say they'd have a better judgement of distances than DAKA

 

[DAKA]

I dare say they'd have a better judgement of distances than DAKA

I'm very good at judging distance now , I've been listening to advice and learning

 

[PaulGooch]

I'm very good at judging distance now , I've been listening to advice and learning

Well we've learned something then Pete

Seriously, although the threads been a bit, erm...... yeah, you know what i mean, at times........ i've learned a bit from it and it's been entertaining on the whole.

I certainly have a better and clearer understanding of Colregs, so thanks to all that contributed (even Tim )

 

[westernman]

Rule 3j.
I'm sorry, but I am not going to offer a "Tim interpretation", far less an "RYA interpretation" in case DAKA finds an entirely new and novel way of interpreting the words "The words 'length' and 'breadth' of a vessel mean her length overall and greatest breadth", or in case HLB insists that that definition only applies to boats being driven by people who are too poor to buy their own.

"Length Overall" often means without spars. It certainly does for Part I registration.

Which is why there is also a "Length Over Spars" - usually abbreviated to LOS.

Do the colregs follow the Part I registration definition - or the length including the prodder?

I really need to know if those 3cm are important or not!