Nice trip up the Ouse spoiled

[jfm]

Interesting debate and replies thanks. If no-one minds I wont reply to all the points (unless someone asks...) due to lack of time, not due to dodging any issues

Some people mentioned local rules that might differ fro colregs - I fully agree and I think I said so above. I'm only talking from a colregs pov

L'escargot I very much agree your "one persons common sense is in danger of becoming the other persons unpredictability - when you are having to base your actions on those of the other person, you are in a far better position if you have a reasonably good idea of what they are going to do (by implementing the rules) than second guessing them. Their idea of common sense might be totally different from yours - having a common understanding of what actions you are both required to take in a specific situation is far better". That's why I think colregs are badly written. There are too many cases where you have to second guess, including this rule 9. Rules need to be objective and clear as far as possible, and Colregs fail on that score imho.

I disagree L'escargot that rule 9a should be read as not requiring use of an engine in a case where, say, a vessel could practicably keep to the starboard 1/3rd of a channel with an engine but practicably needs the entire width under sail alone. What other bits of common equipment can the skipper capriciously choose not to use when he claims "I couldn't practicably keep anywhere near the starboard side of the channel"? The rudder? The centreboard? Anyway, his is perhaps a debate for another day but if two "sensible" (ahem!) posters like you and me with tens of years experience each can disagree on it, surely you must get my point about ambiguities in Colregs?

As regards the comments about needing to interpet colregs with a bit of flexibility and not rigidly/dogmatically, I fully agree. I tried to make that point above and of course my posts were really just giving some friendly support to oGaryo in the context of his Hamble predicament as reported by him and Lisa. So I played up the "dogmatic" side of things to make my point in support of Gary. I mean, I was saying oGaryo was complying with the rules and the ginghies weren't, not that he should then barge through rudely (which, if you know the guy, he wouldn't do). Don't forget though, this need to interpret the Colregs with flexibility is a failing of the Colregs, not a success.

Finally, as regards "The truth is that rule 9 a,b or z were not created to cater for either the op's or Gary's sitch", that is 100% incorrect. Rule 9 was very specifically designed to cover this type of situation. It does it badly and there are millions of words written by ship-owners, lawyers and others about the general crumminess of Rule 9 as it is applied in commercial shipping in channels, but there is no getting away from the fact rule 9 is intended to cover the Hamble-style scenario and could do it perfectly well if it were written better. It is of course law and so it would be applied on the Hamble by prosecutors if there were some big injury or suchlike (again, I'm ignoring any local overriding rules in saying that)

 

[benjenbav]

I suspect Gary was both behaving courteously and following Colregs whilst crawling up the river on the starboard side of the fairway. But, for the dinghy racers, their river may well only have consisted of that side owing to the vicissitudes of the current or the wind (or both). There were plenty of occasions in my dinghy racing days when everyone knew that sailing on the wrong side of the river was tantamount to packing up early and going home and it wouldn't be unusual to see one side empty and the whole fleet trying to work its way along the favourable side.

Choosing between, on the one hand, keeping clear and losing the race and, on the other, grabbing the best bit of water despite someone else having an equal or better right to use it, even the most saintly amongst us might occasionally fall prey to the temptation.

 

[jfm]

fall prey to the temptation.

Yup, that temptation indeed, but not the 'approached from the rear shouting all manner of abuse for being on their stretch of water (comments of colregs, notice to mariners and tw@t were hurled in [Gary's] direction)' nor 'loud mouth laa dee daa type woman starting shouting (yes shouting) " get off the race course!!!! ".. this spurred her colleagues on and they all had a go.'

 

[benjenbav]

Yup, there's never any excuse for unintentional rudeness.

 

[ricky_s]

Then you've misunderstood the scenario painted. Seriously, if you had been there, you wouldn't try arguing the point on this. You might also be interested to know that Gary wasn't the only boat to have every conceivable escape route blocked by the racing dinghies. I watched the whole thing...it was mayhem coz the dinghies hadn't a clue what they were doing or which way they were supposed to be heading never mind they themselves trying to negotiate all the 'waiting' dinghies in the 'pool'.
However, from the pontoon it made great viewing
L

You lot need to come over to Portsmouth. Cheaper and 10 knots as soon as you leave your berth, no racing sailors and in the solent in a couple of minutes.

 

[lisilou]

You lot need to come over to Portsmouth. Cheaper and 10 knots as soon as you leave your berth, no racing sailors and in the solent in a couple of minutes.

What....and miss all this?? NEVER!!
L

 

[ricky_s]

What....and miss all this?? NEVER!!
L

So glad we left Chi for all the reasons above, not that much fun and takes up too much of my week end navigating my way through a WAFI jam (tongue in cheek, honest!).

 

[superheat6k]

A most interesting thread. As a Hamble resident and sailor I have done some digging. Firstly in the pub this evening with one of the lifeboat Coxwains, where suggestions of 'Grandfathers rights' for dinghy sailors to act as complete idiots is i now read hogwash.

This is the sole reference in the Hamble River byelaws to Dinghies and sailing ...

Dinghy racing
Some dinghy races start and finish in the River but it is a race instruction that they keep clear of other River users, who should nonetheless show courtesy to those racing.

Sailing
There is no Rule against sailing in the River but the prudent yachtsman will have his motor instantly available and lower sails when the fairway becomes overcrowded. It is unseamanlike for a yacht or dinghy to hoist a spinnaker in the congested waters above the Warsash Maritime Academy.


The byelaws clearly state the IRPCS apply. so in particular in Gary's case rules 9 and 13. Also under the sailing rules vessels overtaking are obliged to keep clear So the idiot on the dinghy shouting at Gary was foul of both the overtaking rule and the byelaws. Courtesy is a two way thing.

What L'Escargot hasn't taken into account is that when Gary realised his situation he was in a sealed fairway, so the option of retreating into the clear side passage areas did not exist. At this point the fairway is only around 30-40 m wide.

His actions to slow right down / stop was his only option, and indeed his decision to steer into the marina trots was the only prudent action available to him. Next time Gary set up your Video camera and get it on film, you can then show the enquiry who was at fault should a collision have occurred.

The dinghies ahead of him were being imprudent and were essentially completely ignoring their obligations under rule 9.

However, they were attending a regatta so were in high spirits to obtain a good starting position, but this does not relieve any of them of their obligations to allow another vessel to navigate safely and unimpeded. The race officers and safety boats have an obligation here surely the are not just to protect the dinghies, but also to police them.

This also applies to the OP on the Ouse. His right to navigate is the same as the dinghy or superyacht sailor. His and their obligations are also clearly set out. But taking hours to consider navigation decisions made in seconds or less by persons of varying qualification and experience to make such decisions is in my view trite. What should have happened is that the race officers / helmsman of the clearly aggressive dinghy racers approaching Gary from astern, and therefore clearly overtaking, should have acted promptly to calm there voracious crews.

If Gary was stopped and one hit him from astern I believe they would have a very tough time of it in any subsequent enquiry.

As for the River Ouse clearly at 25-50m width any sensible navigation must be at slow speed, and with due prudence. The OP did in his first post explain his lack of experience, and in my view acted as prudently as he possibly could have. Shame is that it has upset him and shaken his novice confidence.

Pity this YBW Forum set doesn't include a dinghy forum where said persons could have it explained once and for all that this nonsense of 'Motor Gives Way to Sail' is a complete myth in the context of confined waters, apparently only peddled by dinghy sailors introducing other sailors often to their very first nautical experiences. Some attention at this stage to the relevant rules from the IRPCS should be mandatory for anyone offering instruction.

Next time Gary get your fenders out and consider anchoring. And if a dinghy you are trying to avoid tacks in front of you then sounding 5 is quite reasonable - he won't like it but remains obliged to maintain his course and speed. If he then calls no space then he falls foul of rule 9. He not you is the one acting imprudently.

 

[l'escargot]

....No one following the IRPCS 'gives way'. Some stand on, others stay clear.

Next time Gary get your fenders out and consider anchoring. And if a dinghy you are trying to avoid tacks in front of you then sounding 5 is quite reasonable - he won't like it but remains obliged to maintain his course and speed. If he then calls no space then he falls foul of rule 9. He not you is the one acting imprudently.

Just a couple of observations as I get a special mention.

Rule 16 specifically mentions action by a "give way vessel"

Rule 9 only comes into play if Gary is indeed "a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway"

Maintaining course and speed does not mean staying on the same heading or even staying at the same speed - it was established in a court case in 1908 that "..."course and speed" mean course and speed in following a nautical manoeuvre in which, to the knowledge of the other vessel the vessel is at that time engaged in..." So basically if you know the vessel in front of you is tacking he will be considered to be maintaining his course and speed when he tacks...

Great stuff these ColRegs aren't they?

 

[superheat6k]

Just a couple of observations as I get a special mention.

Rule 16 specifically mentions action by a "give way vessel"

Rule 9 only comes into play if Gary is indeed "a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway"

Maintaining course and speed does not mean staying on the same heading or even staying at the same speed - it was established in a court case in 1908 that "..."course and speed" mean course and speed in following a nautical manoeuvre in which, to the knowledge of the other vessel the vessel is at that time engaged in..." So basically if you know the vessel in front of you is tacking he will be considered to be maintaining his course and speed when he tacks...

Great stuff these ColRegs aren't they?

I have edited my post as you are right 'give way' is mentioned, as opposed to 'right of way' which isn't. I won't extend the debate over rules 9 etc.

I have also found there was issued by the HM a Notice to Mariners no 23 of 2014 advising mariners to avoid the Bursledon Pool area due to an expected myriad of dinghies during the times of the regatta. I guess Gary had not seen that. However, this was an advisory as opposed to later paragraphs declaring Bursledon Pool closed to navigation during the fireworks in the evening when the torchlight parade took place.

As always the kids loved the torchlight parade, and this year SWMBO came along too. Done this the past 4 years now and committed to doing it next too. Always room for an extra in the boat for this BTW.

 

[l'escargot]

...I have also found there was issued by the HM a Notice to Mariners no 23 of 2014 advising mariners to avoid the Bursledon Pool area due to an expected myriad of dinghies during the times of the regatta. I guess Gary had not seen that...

I wasn't going to mention that as I wasn't sure what time Gary's incident happened and it did only ask for other boats to keep clear for a relatively short period. I guessed nobody else had seen it either.

Oh, and I wouldn't suggest Gary anchors in the fairway. Not only would rule 9 not apply, it would open up a whole new can of worms...

 

[Nigelpickin]

Oh come on jfm, you say that my assertions are incorrect, sorry, one hundred percent incorrect and then top and tail your post with the exception on which my point was based....you are normally one of the more balanced contributers.

I do not believe that rule 9 is specifically designed to cater for an organised regatta, (although I am genuinly open minded in that regard if I have missed something?); and I would be very surprised if the Ouse was not subject to some very specific by laws...also the op has not provided a sketch to allow us to cary out the foresnsics

My opinion, I say again, opinion, is that Colregs work because of the flexibily they allow for interpretaion. They are a powerful tool as we strive toward both good seamanship and safety. They are complemented with a substantial history of legal precedent and broadly speaking are used before the fact to ensure safety and refered to after the fact to aportion blame.

In short, they appear to be working.

The forum culture of 'right, lets use Colregs to prove we are in the right', is great fun but in reality its a maguffin serving raggie versus mobo rivalry. This thread is a good example of that but the reality is, there was no danger of collision or some big injury in either case because both parties were fully aware of the prevailing situation and dangers thereof...in spite of rule 9.

The truth, (assumed), is that there are more people on the river who are unaware of even the existence of Colregs than there are those who are conversant and attempt to adhere to it. Regardless of the apportionment of blame pertaining to prosecution, be very careful. When you meet someone one the river not behaving in the way you would like, don't assume that they are even working the same rule set that you are...keep your calm and your distance and chill.

Peace

 

[oGaryo]

I guess Gary had not seen that. However, this was an advisory

Hi Trevor, you're correct, I'd not seen it. I'd be interested to understand where the extremities of the Burlsedon Poole are, I suspect that even though we weren't past E pontoon (we were between C and D) that this may still be classed at within the area that the advisory notice covered. You're not the first to mention this notice, the lady with a plum in her mouth mentioned it to me quite forthrightly as she sailed past.

I've learned much from this thread and for that I thank you all, it does drive home to me at least that Colregs support common courtesy (broadly speaking) and as such, my actions to avoid hitting and being hit by one of these dinghies have been shown to be correct at the time.

 

[Nigelpickin]

I have edited my post as you are right 'give way' is mentioned, as opposed to 'right of way' which isn't. I won't extend the debate over rules 9 etc.

I have also found there was issued by the HM a Notice to Mariners no 23 of 2014 advising mariners to avoid the Bursledon Pool area due to an expected myriad of dinghies during the times of the regatta. I guess Gary had not seen that. However, this was an advisory as opposed to later paragraphs declaring Bursledon Pool closed to navigation during the fireworks in the evening when the torchlight parade took place.

As always the kids loved the torchlight parade, and this year SWMBO came along too. Done this the past 4 years now and committed to doing it next too. Always room for an extra in the boat for this BTW.

+1 and thank you for saving me the time it would have taken to look this up.

 

[jfm]

Oh come on jfm, you say that my assertions are incorrect, sorry, one hundred percent incorrect and then top and tail your post with the exception on which my point was based....you are normally one of the more balanced contributers.

That is such nonsense. The top and tail was my saying that my posts reflected only colregs not local rules. Your wrong assertion was that rule 9 wasn't created to cover Gary's circs. The two things are freestanding points and your "and then" linking of them defies logic.

Your claim that your incorrect assertion about rule 9 was based on the scenario where local rules apply is nonsense - read your own post

I agree on the "peace" point, but if you engage keyboard before brain it is harder.

 

[Nigelpickin]

Nice

Not entirely sure what I've done to upset you dear but hey ho...this clearly means a lot to you. Again, peace.

 

[mark.adams]

As for the River Ouse clearly at 25-50m width any sensible navigation must be at slow speed, and with due prudence. The OP did in his first post explain his lack of experience, and in my view acted as prudently as he possibly could have. Shame is that it has upset him and shaken his novice confidence.

Thank you , that was the point i was trying to make initially, my lack of confidence as a newb and not really knowing what the sailors were up to led to an unsettling experience.
I guess if there had been more room between the three sailing boats approaching i could have navigated successfully between them but they were too close to each other in my (limited) opinion to get safely past them, with my current (limited) navigating skills.

 

[Richard Shead]

Personally I would have dropped the anchor. But what choice of anchor ?

Cracking thread !

 

[mark.adams]

Personally I would have dropped the anchor. But what choice of anchor ?

Cracking thread !

I tried to drop the anchor on page 7 but it's dragged ever since

 

[Just_sayin']

Thank you , that was the point i was trying to make initially, my lack of confidence as a newb and not really knowing what the sailors were up to led to an unsettling experience.
I guess if there had been more room between the three sailing boats approaching i could have navigated successfully between them but they were too close to each other in my (limited) opinion to get safely past them, with my current (limited) navigating skills.

Hi Mark, my time to apologise.

I read your post as one of those typical Mobo/Raggy-Raggy/Mobo rants that we sometimes get on here, and really three yachts getting in your way for a few minutes didn't seem to warrant a ruined trip comment.

In my opinion

It's normal business in The Solent and as I later commented you can see I have had my feet in both camps.

But I was wrong to criticise you so please accept my apology.

Now, do you DEFINITELY understand Rule 9b subsection 4 addendum xv para 2 applicable to vessels heading downstream against the current on a Tuesday??? :sleeping: