Do you ignore col regs

[hlb]

 

[timbartlett]

Tim -if common practice for some situations is not to follow the collregs, then surely the collregs need reconsidering.Not much point in regulations that people dont follow,and I'm not convinced waving a book saying " it says so in here" gets us very far.
Given the seas dont seem full of run down pleasure craft, it seems that pleasure craft skippers have worked out what actually works out there on the blue stuff, more so perhaps than a rule book.

The stand on rule was introduced in 1889. It's been reconsidered umpteen times since then. And it has survived: the wording of the 1889 Article 21 is still part of the current Rule 17.

It has been used and applied for 120 years, by professional mariners who rounded the Horn under sail, who fished the seas under sail, who carried cargoes around our coasts, who escorted convoys, fought wars, and picked up the pieces from war and shipwreck.

 

[timbartlett]

<rant>

In other words, you can't find anything difficult or dangerous about Rule 17, nothing that exempts you from it, and no reason to flout it.

But you can't be arsed to learn or apply the rules, and are happy to believe that professional seafarers -- most of whom are far too poor to own motorboats of their own -- will somehow go on managing to avoid ignorant amateurs.

Incidentally, the idea of having a might is right rule, or an amateur gives way to professional rule has been formally considered by IMO, and so far it has been rejected as unworkable.

 

[westernman]

A Real what know skipper kind of situation:-

I am coming out of a wide harbour which has a kind of right angles dog leg in it.
I.e. It turns through right angles first to the right and then shortly after to the left (as you go out). You can go in or out in a straight line if you clip the corners close. I.e. within about 50m of the corner. The width is about 500m.

As I am coming out on a S shaped course to keep to the right hand side of the centre, a fishing boat is coming in on a straight course to clip the corners.
We are each fairly close to a corner on our starboard forward quarters at the start of the situation (also the moment at which we are both visible to each other). We are heading directly at each other.

At the speed I am doing (3kts), if I turn to starboard to clip the first corner as close as I can, it looks like I am turning to put myself under his bows assuming he does not alter course. Also I risk getting very close to the ground!

If I hold my course, and he holds his course, it will be very close but he will pass on my starboard side with only a little water on his port side to the corner and very close to us.

What would you do?

I initially turned to starboard to put myself further to the right hand side of the centre line. (Having had hammered into me on various courses that you do not turn to port to avoid a collision unless there are some very special reasons). I expected the trawler to then make a 10-15degree turn to starboard as well so that we pass comfortably port to port.

I then seemed to be on a direct collision course. He is still heading for my corner at about 3x my speed. I cannot turn further to starboard without heading directly for the bank and leaving me in difficulty afterwards. After a moment, I bottled out - (for me it became apparent that the other vessel was not going to take any avoiding action), and turned 45 degrees to port, putting me on a course directly to the other corner cutting across from one side of the channel to the other. We passed starboard to starboard with a comfortable 50m of water between us.

I have the feeling that the trawler expected me to alter course slightly to port - to be closer to the second corner heading out of the harbour which would have avoided any close quarters situation. I.e. to have followed a straightline course like him but to pass starboard to starboard. I was following a more conservative course (which he was not expecting) as I could not be sure that there is not a enormous ship just hidden around that corner.

In retrospect, obviously I should not have changed course to starboard.

Comments please.

 

[PaulGooch]

Rule 2a is the one that says that nothing in these rules exonerates any vessel from the consequences of neglect in complying with the rules

Rule 2b is the one that allows you to depart from the rules in special circumstances.

I don't think "I didn't think the rules ought to apply to me" ranks as a special circumstance.

Perhaps you do.

No, i don't nor did i say that.

You really are an arse.

 

[hlb]

I some times wonder if half the folk on here actually have a boat, or have been on one above twice. I recon they have just read the book.

I'd love to follow Col regs more. It's just that other folk wont let me and I'd need a much faster boat to get to starboard of them anyway.

 

[MapisM]

In other words, you can't find anything difficult or dangerous about Rule 17, nothing that exempts you from it, and no reason to flout it.

But you can't be arsed to learn or apply the rules, and are happy to believe that professional seafarers -- most of whom are far too poor to own motorboats of their own -- will somehow go on managing to avoid ignorant amateurs.

Incidentally, the idea of having a might is right rule, or an amateur gives way to professional rule has been formally considered by IMO, and so far it has been rejected as unworkable.

Halloooo!!!
Is it my English that you don't understand, or can you only hear your own voice?

Why do you insist in teaching us all something which has been done to death, and against which I said nothing - not one world?

My point is EXTREMELY simple: regardless of all the good reasons behind rule 17, what happen in real world is that whenever a pleasure boat has a ship approaching on port side, its helmsman steers to port. And the shipmaster doesn't blink - ever. No course alteration, no horn, no radio call, nothing.
That's all I said, nothing else. And it's not an opinion, it's just a description of the reality.
That's how collisions between ships and small crafts are avoided in real world, 99.99% of the time, whether you like it or not.

Now, question time:
Is that what should happen according to colregs? 'course not.
Should colregs be modified to adapt to the reality? I wouldn't bother.
Most important, is that 0.01% club of those (yourself and webcraft included) who prefer to stand on and either force a supertanker to alter its course, or make some emergency maneuver at the last minute, in their own right? Absolutely. It's the other 99.99% that is formally wrong, despite being a vaste majority. And I'm not being ironical - that's the way it is.
Does that make you feel better?

 

[hlb]

Halloooo!!!
My point is EXTREMELY simple: regardless of all the good reasons behind rule 17, what happen in real world is that whenever a pleasure boat has a ship approaching on port side, its helmsman steers to port. And the shipmaster doesn't blink QUOTE]


You sure you've got that worded right, or is it me.

 

[westernman]

Halloooo!!!
My point is EXTREMELY simple: regardless of all the good reasons behind rule 17, what happen in real world is that whenever a pleasure boat has a ship approaching on port side, its helmsman steers to port. And the shipmaster doesn't blink QUOTE]


You sure you've got that worded right, or is it me.

I think he means if a ship is crossing from left to right across his path, i.e the pleasure boat is the stand on vessel, that we would in fact steer to port to go behind the ship instead of requiring the ship to take avoiding action.

 

[Chrissie]

Just put my two penneth worth into the poll. 'Tis mildly disturbing to see nearly 3/4 of all respondents (yes, me included), claim to take early action to avoid colision despite or without regard to the colregs. For the record the big majority of these were raggies.

We'll have to make up our own minds what these statistics tells us - do we all ignore the regs and it's just raggies who are more honest about it? Or do raggies think they can do what they like and get away with it more than mobo's can. It would have been interesting to see a question about raggie on raggie collision courses vs raggie on mobo collision courses and their respective skipper's consideration of the colregs.

I for one had misinterperated the poll, I thought it meant did I insist on standing on regardless, or was I prepared to change my course when neccesary, I made this mistake as when I am on a normal sail I keep an eye on the shipping, and 98% of the time there is no requirement to think about changing my course beyond my normal meanderings I dont consider that as 'standing on', just sailing.
If there is a chance that my slowing down a little, tacking or slightly changing my course would keep me 'out' of the possible collision zone without requiring the ship to change his course, then whats the problem? but I would do that early enough for the ship to recognise that.
I also like to think that when I do decide that a collision is probably iminant, I then make a very decisive and swift timely exit, which is why I chose the option 80% of us did.
In reality at that point I am not breaking col regs because as I understand them, the onus is on both skippers to do their utmost to prevent a collision. I wonder if what the op is suggesting is that making those small timely adjustments are against the col regs?

 

[hlb]

I think he means if a ship is crossing from left to right across his path, i.e the pleasure boat is the stand on vessel, that we would in fact steer to port to go behind the ship instead of requiring the ship to take avoiding action.

That makes more sense. Yes of course you would.

 

[PaulGooch]

I think he means if a ship is crossing from left to right across his path, i.e the pleasure boat is the stand on vessel, that we would in fact steer to port to go behind the ship instead of requiring the ship to take avoiding action.

That's how i read it.

Large ship, ahead and to port. At some point in the not too distant future i will, if i continue with my current course, cross his bow. Assuming he's not constrained by draft, in a narrow channel etc, i am technically they stand on vessel for the purposes of Colregs.

He, and the closest point of approach are still some way off, there is currently no imminent threat of collision. Should i continue with my present course and speed, at some point, a threat of collision will occur. He will need to give way to avoid the collision, if he can. It may then become evident that he will be unable to avoid a collision ans 7(b) will come into force

When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

It seems to me, that taking early action by making an obvious turn to port will clearly indicate to the ships skipper my intentions and he will continue on his course. I will make the necessary changes to my course to pass across his stern. It will have been a negligible inconvenience to myself and i will have avoided any possible chance of a collision even developing.

This is exactly the scenario MapsM is describing, i believe. I completely agree with his assessment of how it works in the real World. It works like this because it works, it makes sense and it's what just about everyone expect, it's what just about everyone does and it makes sense. If people like Tim don't have enough common sense to apply or understand it, well we'll all just have to continue keeping a close eye out for the occasional numpty with zero sense, common or otherwise.

I'd also adopt the stance that by taking early and clear action, a risk of collision never existed and was prevented, therefore, Colregs never actually came into true force.

 

[hlb]

Of course.

I've even been known to stop while they go passed. I've never seen ships swerving all over the place, trying to miss me.

As I thought Mr Bartlett cant do much Moboing, he'd never survive the week out.

 

[Robin]

I for one had misinterperated the poll, I thought it meant did I insist on standing on regardless, or was I prepared to change my course when neccesary, I made this mistake as when I am on a normal sail I keep an eye on the shipping, and 98% of the time there is no requirement to think about changing my course beyond my normal meanderings I dont consider that as 'standing on', just sailing.
If there is a chance that my slowing down a little, tacking or slightly changing my course would keep me 'out' of the possible collision zone without requiring the ship to change his course, then whats the problem? but I would do that early enough for the ship to recognise that.
I also like to think that when I do decide that a collision is probably iminant, I then make a very decisive and swift timely exit, which is why I chose the option 80% of us did.
In reality at that point I am not breaking col regs because as I understand them, the onus is on both skippers to do their utmost to prevent a collision. I wonder if what the op is suggesting is that making those small timely adjustments are against the col regs?

Chrissie, what you do is what the rules allow. What you have been led by the nose to vote for is a bit of DAKA having fun.

 

[PaulGooch]

Of course.

I've even been known to stop while they go passed. I've never seen ships swerving all over the place, trying to miss me.

As I thought Mr Bartlett cant do much Moboing, he'd never survive the week out.

There's them that talks and them that does.

 

[l'escargot]

I think he means if a ship is crossing from left to right across his path, i.e the pleasure boat is the stand on vessel, that we would in fact steer to port to go behind the ship instead of requiring the ship to take avoiding action.

And where does that leave you if the ship is altering course to starboard to go around your stern as he knows he should?

 

[DAKA]

And where does that leave you if the ship is altering course to starboard to go around your stern as he knows he should?

Please can we think about real world for a minute and forget the keyboard/text books......

Out there in the real life situation a 245m tanker cant alter course quick enough to make any significant effect.

If the mobo helms for the tankers starboard quarter there is no danger, if the tanker has altered course to starboard it can either alter back or remain on the new heading, the mobo might have to add a little more port but in reality as the closing distance reduces the mobo will be turning starboard in order to maintain a course to the tankers stern as the tanker is moving forward.

I used to be berthed at Dover for a few seasons, we often popped across to France for lunch and many weekends, the Channel is very narrow there and being watched all the time, if we were causing a problem for shipping Dover CG would soon have let us know.

 

[timbartlett]

As I thought Mr Bartlett cant do much Moboing, he'd never survive the week out.

There's them that talks and them that does.

And there's them that have earned their living by going to sea, and them that are rank amateurs.
There's them that have studied the subject in order to obtain professional qualifications and them that haven't.

 

[timbartlett]

Please can we think about real world for a minute and forget the keyboard/text books......

Good idea.

Out there in the real life situation a 245m tanker cant alter course quick enough to make any significant effect.

Out there in the real life situation, a 245m ship can turn through 360º in about 1000m. The rate of turn increases (and the radius reduces) as the turn progresses, but even so, she could she could turn through about 20º in less than half a mile, and less than two minutes.

if the tanker has altered course to starboard it can either alter back ...

Hang on, a moment ago you were arguing that it couldn't alter course quickly enough. Now you are suggesting that in a shorter distance it can not only stop its original swing but reverse it!

I used to be berthed at Dover for a few seasons, we often popped across to France for lunch and many weekends, the Channel is very narrow there and being watched all the time, if we were causing a problem for shipping Dover CG would soon have let us know.

Jolly good. Were you aware of the different rules that apply to Traffic Separation Schemes? Or did you ignore those too?

 

[westernman]

And where does that leave you if the ship is altering course to starboard to go around your stern as he knows he should?

I would imagine a ship to be well equipped with radar with ARPA etc etc.
In which case if he is going to alter course, he will probably have done so almost before you see him by just a couple of degrees to go ahead or astern of you. If he sees you wavering around, he is going to assume that you will keep out of his way. If you alter to port towards his stern after he has altered course a couple of degrees to starboard to go around you stern, I don't imagine he is going to alter course again. I expect he will be operating to one of 3 possibilities.

1) He could not give a **** about you and will carry one regardless

2) He did alter course to starboard to go around your stern and having done that he considers it now your responsibility to stand on and avoid collision.

3) He sees your course and speed wavering all over the place (+- 5 degrees) and can't work out were you are going.

In which case

1) Steering to port is a good idea

2) Steering at least 10 degrees to port will ensure that you go astern of him although he expected to go astern of you. If he was monitoring the situation he will have understood what is happening. If he is not, then he will have done his one course change and that was it.

3) You better steer to port to miss him, because he probably won't be changing course.

So, on balance I can't see any harm in aiming for his stern as soon as you see him, well before a close quarters situation develops. Tim can stand on, and expect the ship to change course a couple of degrees to miss him.

We are out there for fun, the big ships have schedules to keep and fuel costs to keep down. So if by changing course a few degrees to port when he is a few miles off to ensure we don't end up under the bows, I think that is the sensible course of action.

Tim??