Do you ignore col regs

[DAKA]

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 )

Yes I'm going to agree with you, especial thanks to Tim, Fireball and Captain Sensible.

Having professionals posting on the forum is very valued.

I should be more tolerant at times and realise that they maybe havent had time to read and understand all the posts as others have attempted to portray the situation.

 

[fireball]

Having professionals posting on the forum is very valued.

Oh yes indeed ... although sometimes it might help if they were a professional in the subject they're talking about .... oh .. thats me out then!

 

[Tidewaiter2]

Radar, the Small Yacht Sailors friend

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?

I agree, Chrissie, 6nm out for a raggie, you gauge the traffic crossing ahead and 'upstream' of you, and decide which one to 'lock horns with' (to quote John Goode)with, at 6kts or so, depending on wind, etc.
Then you adjust sails/speed to ensure you slide behind him, and well in front of the next one in the line/echelon coming at you.

Must confess, never had radar or AIS til our current boat, radar is an absolutely great aid- 6nm range rings on as you close the shipping lanes, cursor on the likely ones, check you estimated distance/CPA against the radar, peace of mind, even in good vis.
If the fog/squalls hit mid Channel, absolute comfort blanket when staring into the mist!

Worth every penny! Got AIS now to try out this season, that looks the biz too!

Cos the old poem i wos taught, still applies:

'Here lies the body of Harold Day, who insisted on his right of way.
He was right, dead right as he sailed along,
but he's just as dead as if he was wrong!!'

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

I haven't insulted you - at least it wasn't intended that way - I apologize for the confusion. I was trying to imply that it is common practice for experienced mariners to make passing arrangements that are not strictly in accordance with the rules - green to green's; stand-on in a crossing, turning to port because that's the most direct way to his destination; overtaken vessel slowing down to allow the overtaking vessel to pass quicker; the list is endless. I was hoping you would fess up, but as yet you've evaded the question. So will you admit if you've ever done any of the above?

STCW requires watchkeepers on international voyages to be able to communicate in English. I know that this has not been well-enforced in the past, but believe it has improved greatly over the past decade. I'm am very familiar with conversing over the radio with non-English speakers.

 

[Capt Cautious]

Unfortunately I'm afraid I'm not in a position to be able to cherry pick the bits I want to comply with. My particular career involves a responsibity to train others, and as such need to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible to comply with the regulations. However - I've frequently slowed down to allow another vessel to pass more quickly - particularly when approaching the Str Dover from the North and I've a large Blue thing breathing down my neck at 22kts. Shock- horror - probe !!. This is perfectly acceptable and would be considered good seamanship, as hammering on regardless (must maintain co and sp....must maintain co and sp.. etc..) will result in a dangerous "bunch of b4rst4rds" around the S Goodwin.
I do however understand and condone the use of agreed passing for such instances as pilotage - where local knowledge and local work practices make it an ideal solution to many problems. There is also nothing at all wrong with calling another vessel to inform him that " I'll be passing down your starboard side in 10 minutes and will keep well clear" - it tends to assist in the decision making process for both parties.
With regards STCW and the use of English - it is on a downward spiral, along with general levels of competency internationally. I'll be blaming "multiple guess" exams for a large part of that.

CC