Near Collision

[Guest]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

There are two answers to that, the position under the colregs, and the commonsense one.

Position under the colregs: he'll have a black cone up, won't he?

Common sense answer: if you're running your own engine while under way, keep out of the way of sailing boats way (in situations where they are stand on vessel). If another vessel with sails up is coming towards you, most people probably look for signs to indicate whether he's motor sailing eg. abnormal speed in light winds, engine exhaust, sound. But if you're unsure, then assume that their engine isn't running and that it's a sailing vessel.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Out of date

I suspect that Colregs hark back to the days of steam ships and sailing ships, when engine power in a sailing vessel was either non existent, or vested in a small donkey for driving winches, etc.

I'm not sure the rule makers envisaged auxilary sailing yachts with (generally) reliable power instantly available at the touch of button (no need to stoke boilers, nowadays, Number One!). And sails which can be rolled away in a few seconds from the comfort of your own Nuagahide fully gimballed helmsman's seat. Sorry helmsperson's seat.

Maybe in the next revision - after all we've only had reliable diesel engines for the last 40 years or so, and it doesn't do to be hasty.

 

[Guest]

Re: Out of date

Yes, agreed, although no law anywhere is perfectly written. If everything was perfectly clear we wouldn't need lawyers and judges and courts (what a lovely thought).

Anyway, the real issue is not whether the letter of the colregs has been complied with, but whether the skipper has been negligent, which is not necessarily the same thing.

A judge would also be focussing on for example whether it was prudent to be proceeding in a busy situation with anchored yachts on either side and lots of other vessels around without reducing speed and/or preparing the boat so that a controlled gybe could be carried out should the need arise (removing genoa from pole, winding in mainsheet a little, having crew on deck, sheets cleared etc.), or perhaps even dropping the sails and motoring to allow greater control. He would focus on whether the skipper of the other yacht might forsee he was putting Jimi in an impossible position. No reasonable skipper would insist on the colregs if he could foresee, and therefore the other chap might be liable even though he'd complied with the letter of the colregs. etc. etc.

From the description of the incident it isn't really possible to work out the answers to those questions. But isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

 

[tome]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

Sorry Simon, I'm with Jimi on this

"Is a yacht's main engine 'propelling machinery'?" - Yes, but only if it is driving a propellor.

So a vessel running its main engine out of gear is a sailing vessel under rule 3(c).

 

[Seafort]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

Were not engines used in the Vendee Globe for charging purposes, with a seal on the propshaft. Could this possibly be used as a precedent.

Btw.....If i am concerned enough to start the the engine, I will probably use it, ipso facto (?) the cone goes up. I would still expect people to recognise that if "motor sailing" I am still limited in manouevrability (some chance). If really concerned the sails come down.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

Probably, but what the Vendee Globe competition rules permit or forbid has nothing to do with the colregs.

 

[Guest]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

No problem, always more than happy when people disagree with me.

But what would really matter is what the judge thought about it, and he would most likely be contruing the regs as a lawyer would. As a lawyer, I am fairly confident he'd do it the way I outlined unless the skipper of the small craft were either a particularly attractive blonde in a miniskirt or a defenceless old lady. In either of those cases, I am sure that he would take your interpretation of it 100%.

I do not think that for full size ships or motor craft in general the distinction between being in gear and out is a tenable one for determining whether a vessel is power driven or not. And the meaning of power driven vessel has to be the same for everyone. No judge would let his interpretation of the definition of power driven vessel be determined because yachtsmen who are motorsailing find the definition a little inconvenient. That would be letting the tail wag the dog.

So the only way that you can persuade me (or a judge) that a yacht with its engine running out of gear is not a power driven vessel is if you can persuade me (or the judge) that a ship or motor boat under way with its engine is temporarily out of gear is not a power driven vessel. And I don't think there is any hope of persuading either of us of that...

 

[tcm]

Another non-event

Agreed. He wd have been able to bang for ages about it. Still there's always a chance with his charter. Hope he's paid the CDW. Tally ho!

 

[tome]

What a load of propwash

Simon

I'm not a lawyer but feel quite sure that I could provide an adversarial position to yours in front of m'learned lud, without recourse to my hotpants. I don't argue from a position of convenient interpretation, but rather from common sense and usual practice. Neither do I argue that a ship with it's engine temporarily out of gear is not a power driven vessel - this ignores the special case and hence definition of a sailing vessel within the meaning of the IRPCS.

A sailing vessel is treated as a special case only when it has 2 means of propulsion, one of which (sail) restricts its ability to manuoevre. If it is fitted with an auxiliary engine, then very often that engine is used in a variety of roles including battery charging, refrigeration, and fresh water generation in addition to its use as an alternative means of propulsion. In this context it's hard to argue that the running of an engine alone changes the status of a vessel.

Going back to rule 3(c) the key issue is the definition of 'Propelling Machinery' which is the only part IMHO which is subject to interpretation, and therefore the issue on which a judge would rule.

It is here that we differ in opinion, and I think you're being a tadge presumptious to don your wig so readily in support of your argument.

I strongly maintain that 'Propelling Machinery' includes an engine, transmission, and propellor (or paddle etc) and that until such time that all the components of the propelling machinery are brought into use a sailing vessel remains under sail regardless of whether the engine is running. Your proverbial dog hasn't wagged it's tail until you've rammed the bugger into gear.

Your perspective would lead to some absurdities which would fly in the face of the drafting of the Colregs, even though our debate may suggest they could be better worded, eg a sailing vessel with a broken transmission (not rare!) which uses it's engine to charge the batteries etc - are you really suggesting this is a power driven vessel within the meaning of the rules?

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: What a load of propwash

tome, your arguement all falls apart when you mention common sense. The law and common sense are very distant cousins.

 

[jimi]

CDW

Now then, thats another question ...should I?

Jim

 

[jimi]

Re: Do\'nt be daft

Without wishing to be too controversial here I think some of the learned forum is getting their knickers in a twist about two separate situations.

1) Normal rule of the road
2) Collision avoidance when something has gone wrong


1)Normal rule of the road. The basic principle here is unambiguity. Rules are clear, if you're using your motor for propulsion indicate that you are doing so by using a motoring cone or a steaming light or make a clear change of course in plenty of time. If an apparent stand on boat does neither and has a sail up it would be foolish to then treat the boat as a powerboat. I feel the collision regs are quite clear here, my interpretation is: if you've got an engine then you're a power boat unless a) You're not using it for propulsion AND b) You are a sail boat. The nonsense about a tanker not being a power boat when it is out of gear is totally irrelevant under the collision regs because it simply is not covered under 3(c). I know we all meet the dicks who are motoring and have a sail up and pretend to be sailing so they stand on against everyone, but just because a small minority abuse the rules then that is no excuse for anarchy.Eg if everyone jumped red lights there would be a lot more accidents.


2) Collision avoidance. Something has gone wrong and you need to take some positive action to avoid collision. You may well be the stand on vessel, but you still have a duty to do something. In that case you need to use every means available to you to avoid hitting the plonker. Now if you were the stand on sailing vessel being assailed by a giveway sailing vessel the fact that you're started using your engine solely to avoid hitting her does'nt IMHO change the basic rule of the road, it means that you are taking positive action to avoid an accident. Now some of you will no doubt argue that as soon as the engine is switched on, or in less extreme cases, put in gear that I have now become a power driven vessel and have an absolute duty to avoid the sail boat. ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS ... I'm just trying to avoid hitting buggerlugs who by his own stupidity & negligence has created a collision situation and as such is resposible for the consequences.




Jim

 

[spark]

An interesting exchange of views on col regs and definitions but my (limited) experience of the judiciary suggests that, in the absence of case law to which to refer for precedents, we might as well toss a coin and be done with it. By the time these things get to court there is no telling how they will pan out.

Maybe we should be discussing the things over which we have control, the things we can do to avoid collisions - i.e. questions of seamanship.

In terms of common sense and courtesy (which are the basis of good seamanship in respect to other vessels) the other yacht was clearly at fault by tacking across the bows of the power boat when he could easily have luffed-up, let it pass and gone around its stern. He was patently at fault by not recognising that Jimi was on the starboard tack but also, again, at fault in terms of seamanship by not recognising that Jimi was limited in his options to manoeuvre - i.e. narrow channel with hazards on both sides and sailing downwind - this is the key one for me. Close-quarters manoeuvring, slowing down and stopping are much more difficult when on a dead run then when sailing to windward. In a situation like this the yacht sailing to windward can easily make a minor course adjustment and come to an effective stop to allow the other vessels to move clear.

Given that the other yacht did not exercise common sense or courtesy I reckon Jimi did the right thing by using his engine to accelerate out of the collision course. The only lesson I might take from it is not to pole out the genoa when running down a busy channel so as to allow myself maximum manoeuvreability.

Any disagreements?

 

[tome]

Re: What a load of propwash

Granted - shouldn't have mentioned my distant cousin

 

[Guest]

I agree entirely

with part 2) of what you are saying. If you start your engine as a collision avoidance action when you are the stand on vessel then that does not suddenly mean you become the give way vessel, you are merely complying with your obligation under the colregs to take action to avoid collision where the give way vessel has failed to do so. It does not matter at that stage whether you have suddenly become power driven or not because the concept of stand on vessel has become irrelevant, you are no longer being required to stand on.

My comments in earlier postings are aimed at the situation where a vessel is sailing along with its engine running but not in gear before a potential collision situation has developed.

Of course I don't agree with part 1 of your post, but I'm glad that you find the rule clear! I must point out however that I wasn't trying to suggest that a tanker IS a sailing vessel, and I would agree that it is not. Hope that helps.

 

[Guest]

Re: What a load of propwash

OK, moving away from the colregs and back to common sense for a minute, I think that Ken (was it Ken?) was spot on in what he was saying about the supreme manoeuvreability of modern yachts, reliability of engines, the ability to furl sails away quickly, etc. etc. The old rule about power giving way to sail looks increasingly archaic these days, where a supertanker may have to give way to a highly manoeuvrable sailing craft fitted with a reliable auxiliary engine.

Now, we sailing yachtsmen have it drummed into us from an early age that power gives way to sail. The problem is, that half of us don't realise that there are so many exceptions to that rule that probably as often as not it doesn't apply any more (eg. we should give way to power vessels that we're overtaking, ones that are restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, trawlers with gear down, restrictions imposed by VTS, etc. etc. etc.). Your typical bermuda rigged sloop is not really unmanoeuvrable at all. If there are special circs. and she has ceased to be manouevrable, then perhaps she should go straight into the vessel restricted in ability to manoeuvre or not under command categories.

And a sailing vessel that is running her engine in case she has to manoeuvre suddenly is of course even more manoeuvrable. There is no common sense reason to say that everyone still ought to give way to her just because the helmsman has to go to the enormous effort of pushing the gear lever forward in order to take advantage of the extra manouevrability provided by the engine. It takes maybe a couple of seconds to do that.

As for donning my wig, my apologies. I promise to bow to your wisdom in all matters concerning electronic engineering, honest! But I can't resist correcting one small point, a judge would not just rule on the words "propelling machinery". He would rule on whether the vessel a sailing vessel or a power driven vessel, and he would look at both those definitions, as well as all relevant bits of the colregs that might make sense of them. And he would decide all sorts of other things, too, for example who had been negligent, whether there was contributory negligence from the other party, and god knows what else.

 

[tome]

Sod\'s Law

Simon

Nice to see a small degree of harmony as I cradle my Horlicks and wonder what the morrow brings. I, for one, will not arise before my street has been properly aired.

A final thought! Most propulsion failures (in my limited experience) occur after the engine has been started and at the moment the engine is put into gear. So, until I have established that I have engine propulsion I assume I don't. This will ring a bell with some, perhaps including m'lud...

 

[halcyon]

Re: What a load of propwash

Isn't the statement " half of us don't realise that there are so many exceptions to the rules " the problem. This means that every other boat you meet hasn't the foggiest who has right of way.

Sadly isn't this a primary reason for a "driving" licence before taking out a boat, or at least Day skipper/Yacht master theory?

Brian

 

[Twister_Ken]

Not totally improbable.

So there we are, in our modern sailing vessel (a Benjenbav for preference, because it's just about to sink), under all plain sail, but with the engine running because we are approaching Hamble Point buoy and are getting ready to drop/furl our sails for the trip up to Moodys to visit Steve101's new boat. Before we can do so, a 70' 4-storey Sunseeker coming out of the river steers close across our bow. Outraged, while we stand on we shout rude words in which can be distingushed such bon mots as colregs, imbecile, power and sail.

Shocked, the Sunseeker driver, goes astern to slow down his gorgeous vessel, and escape the forthcoming T-boning. Sadly, his action is too late. There is a spectacular crunching of fibreglass, both white and royal blue. The crush zones of our Benjenbav have done their job, and lessened the impact, so that nobody aboard has been badly hurt. However, the bow has subsequently fallen off and we are sinking fast.

The Sunseeker now has a gaping hole between the ground floor and the basement into which Southampton Water is happily rushing. Within a few seconds, it loses stability, rolls over and gurgles to the bottom.

All aboard both vessels drown, except the skipper of the sailing yacht. It turns out that the driver of the Sunseeker was none other than a world famous premier league footballer, with 3/4 of his team mates aboard, celebrating the commissioning of his latest toy. That season the club, shorn of its best players, is demoted and goes bankrupt with debts of many millions. The England Squad, missing several of its key players, takes to the field in black armbands and fails to qualify for the next world cup.

At about this time, you receive a writ from lawyers acting on behalf of the grieving wives and families of the footballers, the football club, and Sven Goran Ericssen. They are claiming damages equivalent to the GDP of California.

You argue that under Colregs it was the footballer's fault. The judge asks for a copy of Colregs, and finds rule 3(c): The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used.

I can only hope that the RYA have funded a very good barrister on your behalf. Judging by the Dibden Bay enquiry, that is unlikely.

 

[halcyon]

Re: Not totally improbable.

But 3b "power driven vessel" means any vessel propelled by machinery.

If a yacht has engine running, but not in gear she cannot be power driven vessel, thus remains a sailing vessel.

What our yacht skipper falls foul on is rule17a(ii) or 17b.

Brian