I think I might be taking my life in my hands but....

[ QUOTE ]
Mirelle agrees with your interpretation, Nigel SBC agrees, Sgeir agrees, DuncanMack agrees, Pye-End agrees, Freestyle agrees, Bedouin and Sailfree agree, Davydine seems to agree, Dyflin agrees, JackIron does, TwisterKen also is on the side of the angels, as is Skysail, same as RustyKnight and NPF1....and if that does not convince you, so do I!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been lurking around in the background here, enjoying the discussion. But you can put me down in this group too. Turn to starboard, show the red, then aim just behind his stern so that the red keeps showing.

Only caveat is to look at the one behind him. Allowing a CPA of 2 cables (a very bare minimum) means that from starting to cross (2 cables from his stern) to being 2 cables clear of the next ship following you are going to travel nearly half a mile. At 4 knots that's going to take about seven minutes. A big container ship will be making 25 knots or more (Emma Maersk cruises at 25.5 knots) and will travel 3 miles in that time. And that's assuming that the ships are exactly one behind the other. If they are in slight echelon, with the rear ship being slightly further away, then you'll have to travel even further, making the problem even worse. Watch out for the one behind!
 
Re: If you are able to count the rivets, forget the Colregs

I thought she had a new hull quite recently? Don't tell me they rivetted it!

But presumably the Shieldhall is part rivetted - anyway, I take your point.
 
[ QUOTE ]
.......If you turn to port, you are making the other vessel become an overtaking vessel, who is then obliged to keep clear. ......

John Campbell

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but that is totally wrong ... read the rules again .... and it states clearly that no change shall alter the requirements of one vessel to keep clear of the other .... OK my own words as I don't have the book propped up in front of me ... But what it means basically is that you cannot by changing course etc. alter the obligations and situation other than to comply with your original obligations..... as here - You are required to keep clear of the ship ... turning to port does not make him an overtaking ship in the rules ... he is STILL the stand-on vessel and you are STILL the give-way vessel.

I have to say that I amazed that so much has been posted on what is really a simple straight forward situation calling for you to keep clear and give way.

Turing to port ... I have to say conjures up a) a poor confused OOW who will no doubt later on in conversation remark about some stupid p**t in a sailboat who doesn't know his colregs ... b) sailboat will sail a much greater distance and time than necessary and the real matter .. c) is actually not complying correctly as per normal prudent seamanship with the colregs ...

Sorry but a turn to port is definitely a fools choice IMO...... unless other ships and circumstances dictate. Then it would be a round turn not a 90.

/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
I think from what's been said so far it's clear that all these course changes would depend on so many other things so although I'd probably do the same it wouldn't be definately my choice , just probably . Don't know if anyone else has an answer but to me it would mean that I could well be right in the middle of the TSS and probably in the most dangerous part so I would want out of there as fast as possible

Am I wrong ?
 
To answer the question about the vessel coming on your port side.........I would either slow down to let the vessel past, or turn to starboard and do a 360 to pass behind him. I would most certainly not turn to port to pass him starboard to starboard.
I learned that lesson many miles ago, off Sardinia. We were heading out of Olbia and a ferry was inbound, coming on our port side. ARPA said it would be close and he showed no signs of altering, so I called him up. He said he was going to stand on, and he asked us to go behind him. I agreed, and I told him four ways - I said we would pass him on "two whistles" i.e. we would turn to port, I said we would go astern of him and we would pass starboard to starboard, green to green. He agreed, I altered to port, but whoever was on the wheel of the ferry was not talking to whoever was on the radio - because at that moment, he (correctly) altered to starboard.
We put the boss's lunch on the deck in the resulting manouvre, and I almost ruined a pair of uniform trousers.
Despite me agreeing to the request of the ferry, if we had hit, I would most certainly have been found to be in the wrong.
Now, I would always go to starboard and do a 360, if slowing down did not give the required clearance.

John
 
Agree.
This debate reappears constantly.
Two words are the answer: ANDREA DORIA
If this means nothing to any reader look it up in Wickipdia.
If in doubt NEVER TURN TO PORT!!
 
Sounds like sound advice.

Right of way in a TSS - already quoted is the bit about vessels under 20m not impeding larger vessels. Reeds goes on to say that 'However, when 2 vessels meet or converge in a TSS with a risk of collision, Rule 10 does not modify any other provision of the IRPCS. Don't understand that you can do both! Either you are stand on or not, and I have always read this to mean that the normal rules of the road still apply even in a TSS. Do I understand this correctly?

Now if this is the case then if you are sailing you are therefore the stand on vessel, and any variation from the rules as you have shown leads to confusion and possible death.

How many people here enforce being a stand-on vessel in a TSS?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like sound advice.

Right of way in a TSS - already quoted is the bit about vessels under 20m not impeding larger vessels. Reeds goes on to say that 'However, when 2 vessels meet or converge in a TSS with a risk of collision, Rule 10 does not modify any other provision of the IRPCS. Don't understand that you can do both! Either you are stand on or not, and I have always read this to mean that the normal rules of the road still apply even in a TSS. Do I understand this correctly?

Now if this is the case then if you are sailing you are therefore the stand on vessel, and any variation from the rules as you have shown leads to confusion and possible death.

How many people here enforce being a stand-on vessel in a TSS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok .... think on these then ....

a) Why do TSS schemes get put in place ? Is it because someone just fancies one or maybe it's because it's an area that needs a safety factor built in ? And usually a restricted water area.
b) Sailing across a TSS ..... OK I admit that if TSS is not a busy one - then maybe .... but I consider it prudent to be a motor-sailer in areas of TSS for my own peace of mind and manouevreability.
c) Do you think something like this can really give way say in Dover Straits TSS to you .....

Linga1.jpg


all 300,000 ton of her ? ( I sailed on her and had an encounter with a Yacht who "demanded" I alter course because he was "racing" ..... no kidding - honest !! I was just entering the Channel TSS scheme loaded ..... Coastguard backed up my comment to him .....!)
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like sound advice.

Right of way in a TSS - already quoted is the bit about vessels under 20m not impeding larger vessels. Reeds goes on to say that 'However, when 2 vessels meet or converge in a TSS with a risk of collision, Rule 10 does not modify any other provision of the IRPCS. Don't understand that you can do both! Either you are stand on or not, and I have always read this to mean that the normal rules of the road still apply even in a TSS. Do I understand this correctly?

Now if this is the case then if you are sailing you are therefore the stand on vessel, and any variation from the rules as you have shown leads to confusion and possible death.

How many people here enforce being a stand-on vessel in a TSS?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Colregs were lets be honest written more in view of shipping than small yachts. It may sound a bit unfair and biased - but I believe that.
So quoting about TSS and Colregs still apply ... you have to bear that in mind. Witness the Cross Channel Ferries - they do red to red etc. etc.
Use of the Colregs gives a predictable manouevre and outcome ... it is what any OOW or skipper expects to see. But a 30ft yacht insisting on his "rights" because he's sailing when a ship is within a TSS ... I humbly submit is foolish. How much easier for everyone is it for the yacht to take early action to avoid getting close ... yacht has plenty of water to play in .. the ship may have draft or other shipping constraints etc.

I am of the "keep away from ships" school of thought ... they are bigger, I can only scratch their paint - they can kill and sink me..... without even knowing they have done it.
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

Nice boat pic.

I agree, and I am sure 99% of boaters will.

So why is it that the rules put in the disclaimer about the under 20m comment rather than enforce it?

I suppose what you have to have in the back of your mind is that if you are skipper on a yacht and go against the rules resulting in the death of say your crew, you may have to justify your position to a court of law. Therefore would it not be more sensible to have rules that are meaningful?
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

And Nigel, that last comment is where experience counts in my mind.... the argument that it is 'against' colregs to turn to port in the described situation being debated, may well hold water..... but you are suggesting in your post above that in some cases it is better to be prudent (and hence alive!) than correct..... (with which I wholeheartedly agree!!!!!)

It is only experience that helps people make those kind of informed judgment calls as to what is and isn't acceptable in terms of deviation from the 'letter of the law', and to have some appreciation of how their actions might be both perceived by another vessel, or create a potentially even more dangerous situation a few minutes later....
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

>But a 30ft yacht insisting on his "rights" because he's sailing when a ship is within a TSS ... I humbly submit is foolish<

My understanding that is that a 30 footer (less than 20m) has no "rights" on a ship that is proceeding in a TSS.
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

One thing that's confusing me is , at what time is a yacht proceeding in a TSS , as opposed to crossing it
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

It may be of interest for those who do not know, but in the merchant navy, and among large motor yachts, small sailboats are universally referred to as WAFIs.
The acronym stands for Wind Assisted F…ing Idiots, because all too often they do the unexpected, such making a sudden turn to port in a close quarters situation….
Don't be mislead into being one of them /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
John
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

Ye Gods.

I haven't read through all of this, so it may have been said above. But turning to starboard to pass astern when you are stand on vessel is a HUGE no no, because if the give way vessel takes proper action, he will be turning to port to pass astern of you. So you both turn into each others path. the colregs specifically advise against this.

Now I am fully aware that this is in a TSS, but there is ambiguity in the words 'shall not impede' and anyway I would not assume that the bloke on the bridge of the ship even knew he was in a TSS. Given the likely speed differential, an **early** turn to port would be acceptable. Far preferable is to slow right down or stop, or even turn and retrace your steps.
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

"So you both turn into each others path. the colregs specifically advise against this."
That is exactly why you will not see a merchant ship make an alteration to port to pass starboard to starboard. They will be expecting you to pass port to port and will alter to starboard or slow down if they see a close-quarters situation developing.
As somebody else pointed out earlier, read what happened to the Andrea Doria when she made a turn to port!
John
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

[ QUOTE ]
As somebody else pointed out earlier, read what happened to the Andrea Doria when she made a turn to port!


[/ QUOTE ]

?? But that was a head-on situation. Of course if there is any possibility of either ship interpreting the situation as a head-on encounter then a turn to port would be madness. I think this may be why many yotties instinctively reject the turn to port. However, there are many circumstances when it is the 'correct' solution.

We are dealing here with a clear-cut crossing situation in which a turn to starboard is the worst of the 3 options you have. A turn to port is better, stopping is best.

PS. At least no-one said 'call them up on the VHF!'
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

Small yachts, if they value there lives, shouldn't proceed along shipping lanes with the exceptions being the need to cross them, which they should do as near to at right angles as possible, or some other unavoidable emergency situation.

One might almost argue that to do so would be 'impeding ' the larger faster vessels coming up behind you. It would be particularly dangerous at night.

Of course, there is the other much vexed requirement of all vessels to proceed at an appropriate safe speed for the condition, usually only discussed in terms of visibility, but actually also req'd in terms pf other factors such as traffic density and water depth, etc. But hey, time's money.

There is no ambiguity about the requirement not to impede vessels travelling in the lane. This means you should navigate so as not to create a close quarters risk of collision scenario.

Once you have allowed the risk of collision scenario to occur, you have impeded the vessel in the lane and it is incumbent on both vessels to resolve the situation using irpcs.

There is a hierarchy of actions implied in col regs for avoiding collision
First - by large, clear and early alteration of course - it specifcally warns against small gradual alterations of course.

Such alterations of course should usually be to starboard unless conditions would make this dangerous (which in the original scenario it would not).

Slowing down and/or stopping are the regulations 2nd choice option.

So in answer to the original post - if you have allowed a risk of collision situation to develop as described in the original post, the clear and preferred option in the col regs is to make a large alteraton to starboard and pass astern of the vessel in the lane.
 
Re: I think I might be taking my life in my hands but.... #2

Oops. Apologies. I skimmed this thread and thought the yacht was under sail. When both are motoring, (and the ship is likely to believe the yacht is motoring!!) then of course the ship is stand on and the only correct action is for the yacht to alter course to stbd and pass behind. That will teach me to skim read.

HOWEVER. This is not because of some inherent preference for a course change to stbd.

This for instance

[ QUOTE ]
Such alterations of course should usually be to starboard unless conditions would make this dangerous (which in the original scenario it would not).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is highly misleading. The colregs do not say this. If a stand-on vessel decides to give way, as very often happens with yachts and ships, then he must consider the possibility that the give way vessel is about to alter course to pass behind him. That sometimes means that altering course to stbd would be disastrous. For example, had the yacht been under sail he MUST NOT alter to stbd to pass behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top