Just barge past why don't you...?

Marmalade

Marmalade

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
2,362
Location
Essex
Visit site
Just barge past why don\'t you...?

OK so I'm coming down the Orwell from Ipswich on starboard and I've gone below for a - well you know... when SWMBO on the helm calls out in a hissy fit. Charge up on deck to find thames barge under sail (on port tack) heading right at us coming in the opposite direction.

We're in a fairly wide part of the river by now - not far short of Felixstowe and from recollection a barge doesn't draw that much - probably less than my 1.5m so he can't argue that he's constrained by his draft any more than I can.

With 200m to go and no sign of movement I gave him 5 toots just to see if he was awake - still nothing - so I turned to starboard and passed him to see 5 blokes on deck giving me the stare.

Moral? Just cos you're a trad boat doesn't stop you being an idiot any more than sailing an AWB makes you a berk.

Simon
 
Read Rule 9 (b)

Let me save you the trouble of looking it up:

"A vessel of less than 20 metres in length, or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can only navigate within a narrow channel or fairway"
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

[ QUOTE ]
Let me save you the trouble of looking it up:

"A vessel of less than 20 metres in length, or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can only navigate within a narrow channel or fairway"

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL

Notice (a) that the Thames Barge was also under sail - so he too was obliged to follow the same rule

(b) What makes you think that the barge could not safely have altered course as he should have to comply with the regulations.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

I thought barges weren't 'only' able to navigate in the fairway. That's the point of them. Certainly the ones on the Colne and Blackwater go everywhere yachts go and then some.
 
Re: Just barge past why don\'t you...?

Report them on VHF to Coastguard as danger to navigation - video them on mobile if you can.
 
Re: Just barge past why don\'t you...?

Which one was it? Was it, perchance, a 'tin' one named after a well-known scottish plant?
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

The barge is more than 20 metres in length.

Forcing a larger, less handy, sailing vessel which is working for a living (i.e. chartering) to go about, in what I agree is a reasonably broad part of the river Orwell, but which is still not that wide (we don't know the state of the tide) is bad manners, in my humble opinion. A fin keeled 28 footer can tack any time and could easily have gone under the barge's stern.

By analogy - many people here complain if a racing dinghy insists on its rights.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

Not disagreeing with you on the right-of-way discussion per se, but I'm not sure I would class a charter boat as 'working for a living' in the same way as I would a fisherman or ferryboat.

The charter boat is out for pleasure, like the rest of us.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

Working (chartering) for a living has nothing to do with the rules unless he was dredging, fishing etc. Maybe he was restricted in ability to manouvre, but so could a 28 foot yacht with a single-handed delivery skipper (working for a living).
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

It used to be considered a matter of common courtesy, on the East Coast at any rate, that a boat out sailing for pleasure does not interfere with a boat that is working for a living.

If this rule is now unknown to some, I suppose we must chalk up another victory for the Hooray Henries - see Aldeburgh thread.

The barge's passengers are out for fun; her crew are working for their living - and working pretty hard, with the responsibility for a large, unhandy old vessel and a charter party of non-seagoers.

Do we think that the crew of the QE2 are not working when at sea?

And I repeat - the barge was over 20 metres long, and does not tack as readily as a fin keeler.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

[ QUOTE ]
It used to be considered a matter of common courtesy, on the East Coast at any rate, that a boat out sailing for pleasure does not interfere with a boat that is working for a living.


[/ QUOTE ]

And still is in Wisbech. Woe betide the discourteous. Keelhauled is the minimum penalty /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

Ofcourse don't disagree that it is indeed a courtesy to relinquish stand-on rights to a vessel of obviously much larger tonnage. To base right of way on who makes a living on the water and who does not; There I dont agree. It is the mutual responsibility of both parties to avoid collision, I don't know what the situation was exactly, but maybe barge had water did not need to tack, just alter course. That would have been a courtesy too.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

nice to see the 'rules' being made up as we go along.............

not in any way disagreeing with the manners bit but to my simply mind the 5 toots meant - "oi I'm stand on what are you doing?". The barge could easily have spilled some wind or in some other manner removed the collision situation rather than tacking - following said manoevore with some indication of their own regarding manners/consideration etc.

9(b) has always struck me as a bit of a problem given the other definitions (ie only power driven vessels are recognised as being constrained by draft). Logically 9(b) should simply restate this rather than use negative terms in respect of smaller and or sail powered vessels.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

1. Was it working for a living? Dunno, but if it was for pleasure charters I would suggest no. If it fishing, trawling or was carrying cargo to port yes.
2. Was it over 20m? I dunno, but it was hardly the QE2, constrained by daught or restricted in it's ability.....
3. Did it need to tack? It was either going to have to tack at some point anyway, or could have observed the rules meant for all and eased off a bit.
4. Was it a large, unhandy old vessel? Sounds like inadequately crewed or they lacked the wherewithall to make a judgement and implement it in a timely manner.

(Answers to 1 thru 4 represent an alternative, equally valid viewpoint).

All IMHO!
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

So what happens in this case if the yacht is chartered with a paid skipper on board? How do you decide who is the least pleasure-like crew?

I don't think this 'rule' makes a great deal of sense...
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

Agreed. To my mind the courtesy we offer to working boats is because they have to be there, because the fish or lobsters live in the sea, or because the cargo needs to travel by sea, and because working boats often have their course of action limited by what they do (nets, pots, channels, &c.).

Since charter vessels go where they please, they don't need any more leeway than the rest of us (notwithstanding boat type). Also, how are we supposed to know who is a charter vessel and who's not?

Further, does this courtesy extend to the people who can afford to employ a professional skipper for their yacht? If not, why not? What about delivery captains?

I'm all for extending a bit of extra courtesy to people who work the sea, but that just doesn't include pleasure boats in my mind.
 
Re: Read Rule 9 (b)

I don't think five blasts asserts stand-on status at all. Rather to alert other vessel that there is "doubt" whether sufficient action is being taken to avoid collision. I believe skipper was correct to sound the signal. People get offended when "beeped" at on the road and sadly this is now happening on the water where signaling has more accurate meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top