Badger
Member
If I am hove to on my yacht with the wind from Starboard to the main where do I stand in terms of my rights and responsibilites under the col regs/racing rules.
Hove to and the col regs/racing rules
- Thread starter Badger
- Start date
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
You're on std so you have right of way over sailing vessels on port. If you're windward of anybody you have to keep clear.
peterb
New member
If you're windward of anyone on starboard tack you have to keep clear, but if they're on port tack then the "Opposite tacks" rule takes priority and you stand on.
Racing Rules only apply to vessels that are racing. But the preface to Section 2 (if I remember correctly) says that if either vessel is not racing then IRPCS applies. I suspect that a lot of racing skippers don't remember that bit of the IYRU Rules!
Racing Rules only apply to vessels that are racing. But the preface to Section 2 (if I remember correctly) says that if either vessel is not racing then IRPCS applies. I suspect that a lot of racing skippers don't remember that bit of the IYRU Rules!
G
Guest
Guest
A vessel hove-to remains under way (i.e. not made fast to the shore, not at anchor and not aground) so there is no change to IRPCS. If you take a RYA coastal skipper practical course you should be taught to always heave-to on starb'd tack for this very reason. Don't know about racing rules, however.
kingfisher
Well-known member
Two Balls
A vessel hove-to is IMHO a vessel not under command, making way ?!?
Obi-Wan
http://sirocco31.tripod.com
A vessel hove-to is IMHO a vessel not under command, making way ?!?
Obi-Wan
http://sirocco31.tripod.com
ponapay
New member
Re: Two Balls
A vessel hove-to is under command unless there is any other reason for it being not under command.
It might be allowable to hoist red-white-red and claim restricted in ability to manoeuvre but I doubt that too.
A vessel hove to on the starboard tack has no special rights other than as a sailing vessel on the starboard tack and IRPCS applies in full.
A vessel hove-to is under command unless there is any other reason for it being not under command.
It might be allowable to hoist red-white-red and claim restricted in ability to manoeuvre but I doubt that too.
A vessel hove to on the starboard tack has no special rights other than as a sailing vessel on the starboard tack and IRPCS applies in full.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Two Balls
"Restricted in ability to manoeuvre" means unable to keep out of the way due to the nature of its work e.g. cable layer, flying off or taking on aircraft, engaged in underwater operations, etc.
"Not under command" is unable to keep out of the way due to an unforeseen circumstance, e.g. rudder dropped off, engine failure in a power driven veseel, etc
Neither of these applies to a sailing vessel deliberately hove-to.
"Restricted in ability to manoeuvre" means unable to keep out of the way due to the nature of its work e.g. cable layer, flying off or taking on aircraft, engaged in underwater operations, etc.
"Not under command" is unable to keep out of the way due to an unforeseen circumstance, e.g. rudder dropped off, engine failure in a power driven veseel, etc
Neither of these applies to a sailing vessel deliberately hove-to.
Bergman
New member
Re: Two Balls
Col Regs do not form part of my normal reading material so please help me with this.
The question of "not under command" has come up several times, and while people have given examples I cannot recollect a definition.
Is "command" defined in IRPCS?
I would think something like:-
Where the crew are able, should they so choose, to change the speed and direction of the vessel.
Is there anything like (or unlike) this written anywhere?
Col Regs do not form part of my normal reading material so please help me with this.
The question of "not under command" has come up several times, and while people have given examples I cannot recollect a definition.
Is "command" defined in IRPCS?
I would think something like:-
Where the crew are able, should they so choose, to change the speed and direction of the vessel.
Is there anything like (or unlike) this written anywhere?
peterb
New member
NUC
The definition of not under command is given in Rule 3(g). In full, it reads:
'The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.'
Being hove-to would not be counted as being an exceptional circumstance, and anyway should not prevent a boat from manoeuvring since it should be possible to come out of the hove-to position. The critical points are:
a) "exceptional circumstance"
b) "unable to manoeuvre as required by the Rules"
c) "unable to keep out of the way of another vessel".
The definition of not under command is given in Rule 3(g). In full, it reads:
'The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.'
Being hove-to would not be counted as being an exceptional circumstance, and anyway should not prevent a boat from manoeuvring since it should be possible to come out of the hove-to position. The critical points are:
a) "exceptional circumstance"
b) "unable to manoeuvre as required by the Rules"
c) "unable to keep out of the way of another vessel".
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Two Balls
Don't you think that going sailing without at least a working knowledge of all the Colregs is a bit like driving on the motorway without knowing the basics of the Highway Code?
We all do it, and wish we had more sense!
Don't you think that going sailing without at least a working knowledge of all the Colregs is a bit like driving on the motorway without knowing the basics of the Highway Code?
We all do it, and wish we had more sense!
tome
New member
Two Balls and a Spanner
Cornishman
We'll never stop a determined Englishman going to sea. Nor should we try. It's to be hoped that said bufoon will refect on his miserable abilities and through fear or vanity sign up for a course of instruction.
Herein lies the strength of our nation. Colregs come somewhat further down the line, two balls or three.
Cornishman
We'll never stop a determined Englishman going to sea. Nor should we try. It's to be hoped that said bufoon will refect on his miserable abilities and through fear or vanity sign up for a course of instruction.
Herein lies the strength of our nation. Colregs come somewhat further down the line, two balls or three.
SNAPS
New member
Re: Two Balls
Surely you are only "not under command" if you are down below or engaged in something which distracts your attention, eg having a meal, sleeping etc. The fact that you are "hove to", just means that you have chosen to stop the boat and as long as you are on deck and alert, then surely the boat is still "under command", even although you are "hove to".
JACKTAR
Surely you are only "not under command" if you are down below or engaged in something which distracts your attention, eg having a meal, sleeping etc. The fact that you are "hove to", just means that you have chosen to stop the boat and as long as you are on deck and alert, then surely the boat is still "under command", even although you are "hove to".
JACKTAR
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Two Balls and a Spanner
Not sure I follow your 3 balls remark, but ask anybody who has been faced with a huge (and I mean HUGE) fine for not following Colregs what was the next thing they did. Examples of yachtsmen being fined include going the "wrong" way in a Traffic Separation Scheme (I think it was Grant Dalton) through ignorance of Colregs and crossing TSS at anything but at right angles (the late Angus Primrose). Fines were several thousands of pounds, and no excuses.
It won't be long, if Prescott gets his way, before we will all have to have a certificate of some sort to be allowed to put to sea and that will include a working knowledge of Colregs, I guess.
Not sure I follow your 3 balls remark, but ask anybody who has been faced with a huge (and I mean HUGE) fine for not following Colregs what was the next thing they did. Examples of yachtsmen being fined include going the "wrong" way in a Traffic Separation Scheme (I think it was Grant Dalton) through ignorance of Colregs and crossing TSS at anything but at right angles (the late Angus Primrose). Fines were several thousands of pounds, and no excuses.
It won't be long, if Prescott gets his way, before we will all have to have a certificate of some sort to be allowed to put to sea and that will include a working knowledge of Colregs, I guess.
Bergman
New member
Re: Two Balls
Don't you think there is a difference between a working knowledge and being able to quote every line verbatim.
I note you were unable to answer my question
Don't you think there is a difference between a working knowledge and being able to quote every line verbatim.
I note you were unable to answer my question
Bergman
New member
Re: NUC
Thanks for that Peter
Nice to find someone with the manners and knowledge to answer a question rather than being smug and offensive.
You are a gentleman
Thanks for that Peter
Nice to find someone with the manners and knowledge to answer a question rather than being smug and offensive.
You are a gentleman
halcyon
Well-known member
Re: Two Balls
Yes, you do not need to know the regs verbatim, but it depends what sailing you do as to your level of knowledge.
For ref not under command is reg 3, and the vessel cannot manoeuvre as per the requirements of the regs.
Brian
Yes, you do not need to know the regs verbatim, but it depends what sailing you do as to your level of knowledge.
For ref not under command is reg 3, and the vessel cannot manoeuvre as per the requirements of the regs.
Brian
peterb
New member
Rule 5
I don't think that eating or sleeping would be recognised as "exceptional circumstances". And anyway, a situation such as you describe would contravene Rule 5:
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
I don't think that eating or sleeping would be recognised as "exceptional circumstances". And anyway, a situation such as you describe would contravene Rule 5:
"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."
VMALLOWS
New member
Re: Two Balls
This all sounds rather academic. Last weekend the Yarmouth-Lymington ferry would have sliced me in two if I hadn't spun around 180deg whilst on a straight run under full genoa. It wasn't that he hadn't seen me.....he made several 'course corrections' he just made them in the wrong direction! At the last moment he piled on full forward revs which would have compounded the problem if I had not taken action. The passengers waved !. suppose I should have reported it.
This all sounds rather academic. Last weekend the Yarmouth-Lymington ferry would have sliced me in two if I hadn't spun around 180deg whilst on a straight run under full genoa. It wasn't that he hadn't seen me.....he made several 'course corrections' he just made them in the wrong direction! At the last moment he piled on full forward revs which would have compounded the problem if I had not taken action. The passengers waved !. suppose I should have reported it.
alant
Active member
Re: Two Balls
Are you seriously suggesting that the IOW ferry should have given way to sailing 'pleasure' craft?
Rule 18 (a) (iv) may apply - "steam gives way to sail".
Also, though they may not be "within a narrow channel or fairway" Rule 9b - you were not on the bridge to make this judgement Rule 18 (b)(ii), the Yarmouth/Lymington ferries also have a problem with the tides, which oblige them to manouvre up tide. Forcing them to stop or slow down every time a pedantic yachty stands on, not only affects their schedule, but could force them or another yacht into a difficult position - Rule 8 (a).
Surely it's good manners to not make nuisances of ourselves when commercial traffic is around.
Are you seriously suggesting that the IOW ferry should have given way to sailing 'pleasure' craft?
Rule 18 (a) (iv) may apply - "steam gives way to sail".
Also, though they may not be "within a narrow channel or fairway" Rule 9b - you were not on the bridge to make this judgement Rule 18 (b)(ii), the Yarmouth/Lymington ferries also have a problem with the tides, which oblige them to manouvre up tide. Forcing them to stop or slow down every time a pedantic yachty stands on, not only affects their schedule, but could force them or another yacht into a difficult position - Rule 8 (a).
Surely it's good manners to not make nuisances of ourselves when commercial traffic is around.