I'm the spinnaker boat - new rule for COLREGS

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Yesterday, I was sailing back up the Solent from Yarmouth against a ENE wind, so beating the whole way. At one point, whilst we were on starboard tack, it became evident that we were on a collision course with a yacht running downwind under main and spinnaker. They were on port tack.

We stood on, both course and speed, until it became blindingly obvious they were making no attempt to avoid me. I could see the crew - a man and a woman - so I was sure they had seen me. To avoid a collision, we bore away, picked up speed, and passed twenty or so feet in front of their bow. At no point did the other boat make any attempt to alter course.

I called out to them, explaining that they were the give way boat and they should have taken action to avoid me.

The man called back to me "we are the spinnaker boat".

I ended the conversation with "read your COLREGS".

He was in the wrong, but......

I would never do that. Speeding up to cross a bow will one day end in tears. Head to wind, tack, or preferably slow down for me, but speed up to cross the bow of a spinnaker. Never.

 

[Angele]

He was in the wrong, but......

I would never do that. Speeding up to cross a bow will one day end in tears. Head to wind, tack, or preferably slow down for me, but speed up to cross the bow of a spinnaker. Never.

Aside from the fact that you weren't there (so you could not judge the appropriateness of my course of action), turning left both increased my speed (by about 2 knots) and moved the point at which our paths crossed multiple boat lengths away from the other boat (whilst bringing it closer to mine).

Unless they had warp drive fitted to their boat, it would have been physically impossible for them to cover that distance in the time taken for me to be clear of their path.

Tacking, OTOH, could have resulted in tears if they did finally take it upon themselves to comply with their obligations under COLREGS and do the most obvious maneouvre, which would have been a turn to port. (Add to that the fact the I am a lot less maneouvreable when in the middle of a tack).

(Ok, fair cop. When I said we "passed 20 or so feet in front of their bow", it was probably more like 20 yards/metres).

 

[lw395]

He was in the wrong, but......

I would never do that. Speeding up to cross a bow will one day end in tears. Head to wind, tack, or preferably slow down for me, but speed up to cross the bow of a spinnaker. Never.

I think there are plenty of situations where speeding up is a perfectly safe answer.
Watching the harbour entrance here, the number of problems caused by people dawdling against the tide is quite comical. If you are only making 0.2knots over the ground you very soon find there is a stack of boats behind you. That means the incoming boats have lots to avoid at once, instead of one.

But mostly, 'close encounters' are not bulls eyes, you are going to miss but not by a comfortable margin. If speeding up increases that margin, it is a better answer than slowing down, which initially reduces the margin.
If someone speeds up, it normally shows they have made a decision they will stick, so you can act accordingly. If they slow down, it often means there is another change of speed and/or direction about to happen.

 

[Angele]

I think there are plenty of situations where speeding up is a perfectly safe answer.

To give an example (not based on the actual distances/speeds in my scenario, but using nice round numbers to make it easy):

Say two boats, both doing 6kts, are 100m from the point of impact. At 6kts that is 32 seconds from disaster.

Spinnaker boat sailing dead downwind. Beating boat at 45 degrees off the true wind. (By my reckoning, therefore, the two boats are 185 metres apart).

Beating boat bears away onto a reach (and is therefore now on a heading that is exactly perpendicular to the spinnaker boat). Point where the path of the two boats now cross has been reduced to 71m, in the case of the beating boat, and increased to 171m in the case of the boat that is running.

If the speed of the beating boat increases to 7.5kts by the heading change, from hard on the wind to a reach, then it covers the 71 metres in 18 seconds. The spinnaker boat only manages 57 metres in this time, and so the bow of the downwind boat crosses the line of the spinnaker boat some 116 metres ahead of it.

Plenty of time for the stern of the downwind boat to pass clear ahead.

Bear in mind that this converted a collision scenario, between two boats that are only 185 metres apart, into a miss by 116 metres and it seems an entirely appropriate manoeuvre.

It would have been absolutely impossible for the spinnaker boat to cover 171 metres in the same time it take the boat on a reach to cover 71 metres.

I accept that there may be circumstances in which this maneouvre may be unwise - heavy seas, spinnaker boat slewing around badly, windspeed varying dramatically, boat on a beat overcanvassed and therefore liable to broach, etc - but to suggest this manoeuvre would never be appropriate is incorrect.

 

[peterb]

They work brilliantly, except when you're facing the stern.

Or sitting with your arms crossed!

Incidentally, the first set of 'ColRegs' (though not then known by that name) were published in 1840 by Trinity House. They included the windward/leeward rule as taking priority over the opposite tacks rule. That differentiation held through a series of authorities (Parliament, Board of Trade, Washington Marine Conference, Brussels Marine Conference, IMCO (which became IMO)) until the Rules were brought under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, whose Rules came into force in 1954 and remained in force until 1972. Those rhyming couplets that may help us remember were written and published in 1867 by a Thomas Gray of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade.

Rule 17 of the 1954 Rules said:


When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other, as follows:-

(a) A vessel which is running free shall keep out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled.

(b) A vessel which is close-hauled on the port tack shall keep out of the way of a vessel which is close-hauled on the starboard tack.

(c) When both are running free, with the wind on different sides, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other.

(d) When both are running free, with the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward.

(e) A vessel which has the wind aft shall keep out of the way of the other vessel.


By the early 1970s ColRegs were under a lot of pressure. Their last major rethink had been back in 1948 and they had been much modified in piecemeal fashion ever since. It was time for a major review and a consistent rewrite. IMO called an international conference to do this. Forty-six countries, including all the world's largest shipping nations, played an active part and the result was the 1972 ColRegs which, with only minor modifications, form the ColRegs to which we sail today. These ColRegs were ratified by all the 164 member nations of IMO which have coastlines and nearly all the total 230 member nations of the UN. They form the most universally recognised and supported body of international law ever written. The new rules reversed the priority, to make the rules unambiguous. Port tack gives way to starboard tack; only when both are on the same tack does the windward/leeward rule apply.

 

[KellysEye]

I always kept clear of any boat with a spinnaker, it was easier for me to change course and I viewed it as being polite. You usually get a wave in thanks.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I always kept clear of any boat with a spinnaker, it was easier for me to change course and I viewed it as being polite. You usually get a wave in thanks.

Agreed, except when sailing against them in the same race!

 

[Uricanejack]

... Possibly as much as 12 knots. And the sea was no worse than slight (wind with tide), despite blowing strongly on Saturday and overnight.

I think you are both correct, although the other boat wasn't any bigger than me (and I'm pretty sure she wasn't steel).

I will admit, the kite was drawing beautifully. So much so, that he probably didn't want to alter his heading and may have been relying on the fact that I probably didn't want his bow hitting me broadsides, so I would probably get out of his way.

Whether he really thought there is a spinnaker rule, I will never know.

Should I "name and shame him"? I know his sail number.....

There is a rule "restricted in the ability to manouver".
though I doubt he had the correct shapes hoisted Ball Diamond Ball

There is also rule 2.
"The ordinary practice of good seamanship."

and the basic rules of life "self preservation'.

 

[l'escargot]

There is a rule "restricted in the ability to manouver".
though I doubt he had the correct shapes hoisted Ball Diamond Ball...

Flying a spinnaker certainly doesn't entitle you to rights under that rule.

 

[Uricanejack]

That's not how I read it at all. I think he knew perfectly well that a spinnaker doesn't make you stand-on boat, but decided he was going to ignore his obligations because it was more convenient for him. The "spinnaker boat" comment was just a throwaway line.

A mate of mine used to drive a knackered old Discovery with a girder across the front, topped with a big lump of ironmongery and a reel of steel cable. When the mood took him he could drive it quite aggressively, and a common battle-cry while (say) advancing rapidly towards another vehicle on a single-track road was "EAT MY WINCH!". I don't suppose for a moment that he thought the de facto battering ram on the front of his car actually gave him legal right of way.

Pete

I drive an old jeep with bars and a winch, could be an intersting confrontation if we ever meet

 

[Uricanejack]

That seems to be reading a lot into it if you ask me!

Seems to me that these "stupid bugger didn't know the colregs / wouldn't get out of the way" threads are getting more common. I'm not pro regulation by any means, but I can see why this sort of incident could be an argument for licencing.

I know several chaps with licences who drive like PRV landrover pal. All you will change with a compulsory licence is licened A'holes.

 

[Uricanejack]

1. When both lights you see ahead
Starboard wheel and show your red.

2. Green to Green or red to red
Perfect safety, go ahead.

3. If to your starboard red appear
it is your duty to stay clear;
to act as judgement says is proper
to starboard, port, back, or stop her.

4. Both in safety and in doubt
always keep a good lookout.
In danger with no room to turn
ease her - stop her- go astern.

Now these four rules we all must note
are no use in a sailing boat
as we’re dependent on the wind
another set of rules we find

1. A “close hauled” ship you’ll never see
give way to one that’s “running free”.
‘Tis easier running free to steer
and that’s the reason she keeps clear.

2. With wind the same side, running free
one’s to windward, one to lee,
the leeward ship goes straight ahead,
the other alters course instead.

3. Both “close hauled” or both quite “free”
on different tacks we all agree
the ship that has the wind to port
must keep well clear, is what we’re taught.

4. At other times the altering craft
is that which has the wind right aft.

Thanks I enjoyed that. i dont think i have ever sen or headrd the whole thing before

 

[tcm]

hum, hacking around in the Solent and quoting colregs as though you are on the high seas is a bit unfriendly, and perhaps not valid anyways.

Rule 2 of colregs is important - the General Prudential - in other words you MUST NOT run with a situation, gradually increasing the risk of collision "because you're right according to the colregs", and you did exactly that - even though you has assessed the situation, you ran closer and closer still ... because of your preference for *other* collages which favoured you being right. In other words, the other colregs don't exonerate you risking/having a collision. So in fact, if you (as you did) knew about the situation (and esp if he didn't) then it's YOU who is wrong. Although of course he's wrong for not keeping a lookout. But you ain't 100% right by any means.


Standing on as you did would be appropriate in open sea - but only if you approached from over two miles away and on that same course, and I imagine you didn't. Mind you, neither did he, so, whatever. Generally, if you change course within two miles of another boat, then (unless other rules apply) - you ain't the stand on vessel. The "other rules" would be such as a large ferry twisting about in shallow water, and so no point you "standing on" to him either. Not much point in many of the squawkers hereabouts regarding colregs when (in the Solent) they are often almost not really at sea anyways - lots of it is officially part of Portsmouth harbour and so on.

edit: l'esgagot covered this ages ago

 

[JumbleDuck]

There is a rule "restricted in the ability to manouver".
though I doubt he had the correct shapes hoisted Ball Diamond Ball

There is a difference between "restricted in ability to manoeuvre" and "can't be arsed to manoeuvre". A boat with a spinnaker up could manoeuvre easily enough if someone fell overboard.

 

[nigelmercier]

Rule 2 of colregs is important - the General Prudential - in other words you MUST NOT run with a situation, gradually increasing the risk of collision "because you're right according to the colregs...

"Here lies the body of William Jay,
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

 

[lpdsn]

WAFI Alert

hum, hacking around in the Solent and quoting colregs as though you are on the high seas is a bit unfriendly, and perhaps not valid anyways.

Not a lot of people know that the ColRegs don't apply in the Solent. You'd best get onto Solent Coastguard and get them to put out regular VHF broadcasts. Whilst you're at it, give Portsmouth QHM a ring too.

I'm amazed at all the weird and wonderful interpretations on here (there's important facts about the behaviour of the stand-on vessel behind yours, but you've just gone off into fantasy land from there).

I'm consoled by the belief that many posters don't spend that much time on the water, however I think I'm with Flaming on this one: the only way to have a reasonable standard interpretation of the ColRegs is to have a regular compulsory examination. Anyone getting less than 90% should have their boat detained until they can successfully resit.

Anyway, just off to the boat to try out some of the rules I've learnt here. I've a kevlar reinforced bow and a watertight collision bulkhead so as long as I keep my bow pointing towards them and don't allow any of them to catch me on the beam it should be grand. I'll let you know how I get on.

 

[KellysEye]

>I'm amazed at all the weird and wonderful interpretations on here (there's important facts about the behaviour of the stand-on vessel behind yours, but you've just gone off into fantasy land from there).

I would summarise it by saying you don't want to be arguing about COLREGS from a life raft. In the Caribbean US charterers have no idea of COLREGS. On one occasion in the BVI we turned to avoid being hit by a US boat and he turned to put himself back on a collision course, a good Anglo Saxon shouted phrase made him turn away. As a steel boat I seriously thought about ramming him when he turned towards us.

 

[John.edwards]

TCM, where in the colregs does it say anything about 2 miles distant?

 

[tcm]

It doesn't. I read it one of various "interpretation" documents, of which there are (unsurprisingly) many dozens, perhaps hundreds.

There must (reasonably) be a limit of the range within which a vessel can adopt a new course such that it now demands that another vessel on *its* existing course is suddenly the give-way vessel. It said that that distance is "about two miles".

 

[awol]

Possible reasons for the confusion could be that few of the Solent sailors are aware that that body of water is connected to the high seas, never having ventured that far; or, having read the postings on this forum believe the collective forum idiocy represents an "appropriate authority" for ignoring the IRPCS. Using that as justification for saddling those smart enough to sail elsewhere with compulsory testing seems a tad unfair

Rule 1

Application
(a) These rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.

(b) Nothing in these rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels.