Old WNS thread - was the 'expert' right? (long post)

[LittleSister]

But he was not having a colision, was he. He was simply walking round the back of a bus, instead of infront of it.

Why try to make a drama out of it.

Who’s trying making a drama out of it? We’re just exploring how you make judgements within the ColRegs. or decide to ignore the Regs.,

ColReg Rule 7(a) says that if there’s any doubt as to whether there’s a risk of collision in practice, then there’s a risk of collision under the rules. Rule 7(d)(i) says if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel doesn’t change appreciably, then there’s a risk of collision under the rules. Both these circumstances were mentioned by the original poster in his account.

Therefore as far as the Regs. are concerned, there was a ‘risk of collision’, regardless of whether there was any drama (or any buses for that matter!).

Because there was risk of collision, other Rules kick in, including the crossing Rules.

Crossing Rule 15 required Vessel A to keep out of the way of the OP (because Vessel A had OP on her starboard side). Rule 17 (a)(i)now obliged the OP to hold his course.

As soon as it became apparent to the OP that vessel A was not taking appropriate action in accordance with the rules, Rule 17 (a)(ii) allowed the OP to take action (i.e. vary his course) to avoid a collision. However, Rule 17 (c) says that in this situation he must not turn to port if he has other options. His other options in this case might be to slow down, stop, reverse, turn right, or turn back the way he came.

In my judgement (and not having been there, so not knowing the exact circumstances) it would seem that slowing or stopping would have been a good option, safe, compliant with the rules, and the ship would have been quickly past and the OP on his way.

There seems to be a bizarre notion held by many people that to avoid getting run down by big ships, you must ignore the rules. (Just try that approach on the M25!) On the contrary, the rules help us avoid getting run down by big (or any other) ships.

If people took the trouble to read what the Rules actually say, rather than guess or rely on bar-room (forum?) blather, they’d find that they’re actually very pragmatic and rather helpful.

There are still plenty of situations where you need to make judgements, sometimes difficult ones (usually where there’s a number of vessels involved), and it’s very helpful to explore those here on the forum. But you need the rules AND common sense, not the rules OR common sense!

 

[Cliveshep]

Taking the M25 analogy a little bit further and more in size proportion to the original posters dilemma, expecting a large ship to give way to a fast or even slow cruiser is insane. At 1nm distance it probably couldn't anyway, and being higher he can also see problems that could develop with other "real" ships. The analogy is like a bug expecting you to swerve on the M25 to avoid him splattering on your windscreen. You have to stay in lane as you are constrained by other traffic and the rules that apply to motorway driving, the bug is free to go where it will but at it's own risk. It could of course fly in the same direction as the traffic, keeping a matching speed and staying in lane, you in a car or truck are unlikely to notice a bug of course so it is only in the bug's interest to do so.

HLB is in my opinion correct, get out of the way of the "big" boys, you are almost certainly more manouverable, possibly faster, certainly highly vunerable to 30 thousand tonnes of steel thumping into you. This of course means departing from ColRegs at times but as said, you can't reasonably expect big ships to swan about all over the place just to miss you, their fuel costs are far higher than yours and they can't back and fill like a lady driver in Tescos, they are too big and cumbersome. In my opinion it is a mark of a good seaman not to put them in a postition where they either have to react to your antics, (which may of course change without warning in the manner of pleasure craft) or just stand on and let you do the prudent, sensible and courteous thing which is to keep well clear in the first place.

 

[jimg]

Well said that man!

"LittleSister" is a raggie I believe and this kind of situation is different for a fast mobo and a sailing craft.
We maybe the bugs on the M25 but a raggie is the hedgehog trying to cross the road!

 

[AndieMac]

Look out...I can hear them coming from scuttlebutt already!

 

[jimg]

Teehee!!

 

[hlb]

Little sister.

I can just imagine the English Chanel, with every one turning to Starboard at the sight of another boat or ship. It would be far more interesting than Come Dancing, maybe a bit like Skating On Ice. Course with Scating on Ice, no one is really going anywhere except round in circles, so it really does not matter!

Now, so. We turn to starboard, what next? Keep turning starboard till we meet up again?? Go round again?? Stay to srarboard of him, maybe till China!!

At some point we have to go to port, else have the last tango in Paris!!

 

[LittleSister]

Little sister.

I can just imagine the English Chanel, with every one turning to Starboard at the sight of another boat or ship. It would be far more interesting than Come Dancing,!

It certainly would. Luckily the ColRegs don't actually require everyone to turn to starboard!

QUIZ - As far as I can recall, there is only one, and very specific, situation where a turn to starboard is required by the ColRegs.

PRIZES - Identifying one ColReg rule requiring a turn to starboard wins you smug self-satisfaction. Identify two ColReg rules requiring a turn to starboard and I'll buy you a pint. Identify three or more ColReg rules requiring a turn to starboard and I'll buy you a pint and a packet of crisps, you can feel smug self-satifaction, and buy me a pint back!.

 

[timbartlett]

Old WNS thread

IIRC, the old WNS thread referred to involved a boat with a fouled prop or an engine failure or some such that limited its speed -- so it wasn't quite the same situation.
But in any case, regardless of the speed and whether he is a "raggie" or not, I have to say that I agree with Little Sister.

Rule 17 is just as much a part of the colregs as the rules that require us to keep a proper lookout and to show lights at night, yet this forum (and others) seems to be full of people who frequently boast that they ignore it or directly contradict it.

Rule 17 says that if you are the stand on vessel, you are required to keep your course and speed until it is apparent that the give way vessel is not obeying the rules. If, having got to that stage, you choose to give way, you must not alter course to port for a vessel on your own port side.

It sounds as though OP had decided that the ship was not giving way, so he was quite entitled to take his own avoiding action -- even though some might say he was being a mite premature, especially as his MARPA was giving suspect information. But altering course to port was never a legitimate option.

What would be wrong with slowing down?

The rules are quite explicit, and in my experience, most commercial watchkeepers obey them. But the trouble is that if recreational craft ignore them, we become as unpredictable as rabbits on a country road.

 

[gjgm]

Doesnt anyone know some large commercial skipper?Ship, that is, not the bloke. Maybe they dont want to be identified, but what would a 300ft ship do when he sees a small mobo 1-2miles away with "right if way" ?
I ve always thought one of the most sensible approaches is making early and clear changes of directions. I do wonder sometimes from the answers we get,whether mobos like to get out of the way, and raggies like to get out a copy of collregs.

 

[jfm]

Rule 17 is just as much a part of the colregs as the rules that require us to keep a proper lookout and to show lights at night, yet this forum (and others) seems to be full of people who frequently boast that they ignore it or directly contradict it.

Rule 17 says that if you are the stand on vessel, you are required to keep your course and speed until it is apparent that the give way vessel is not obeying the rules. If, having got to that stage, you choose to give way, you must not alter course to port for a vessel on your own port side.

.

Tim, I do think that is following the rules too slavishly. Following rules when there's no good reason to is often not the smartest thing to do. At 1nm (which of course feels quite close in open water, I'd prefer to do this stuff at 2-3nm, but OP said 1nm) a 150m ship subtends an angle of 6 degrees. So if you're heading for it T-bone fashion a course change of 3 deg to port misses the ship. A 10deg course change therefore misses it very comfortably.

Yet 10deg is a small change. If the massive ship did a fast sharp turn to starboard (which is what rule 17 is worried about, yet the laws of pysics prevent the ship actually from doing it) then in a small boat you'd have hardly done anything (a mere 10deg course shift) and you could react to the ship's turn by turning (say) 20deg starboard. If the danger which Rule17 is concerned with exists, then dont turn to port, but where it plainly doesn't exist, I'd go with OP and turn to port, well before getting to the CPA, and keep my eye on the road. Note I'd do the 10deg (or whatever) coruse shift, not 90deg.

All that said, if there's some doubt (the ship is agile and could turn sharp starboard, say) then dont do this. And I 100% agree that pulling say 3 knots off the speed is also a good answer, probably the best answer, but it was "outlawed" by the exam question

 

[spynappels]

Tim, I do think that is following the rules too slavishly. Following rules when there's no good reason to is often not the smartest thing to do. At 1nm (which of course feels quite close in open water, I'd prefer to do this stuff at 2-3nm, but OP said 1nm) a 150m ship subtends an angle of 6 degrees. So if you're heading for it T-bone fashion a course change of 3 deg to port misses the ship. A 10deg course change therefore misses it very comfortably.

Yet 10deg is a small change. If the massive ship did a fast sharp turn to starboard (which is what rule 17 is worried about, yet the laws of pysics prevent the ship actually from doing it) then in a small boat you'd have hardly done anything (a mere 10deg course shift) and you could react to the ship's turn by turning (say) 20deg starboard. If the danger which Rule17 is concerned with exists, then dont turn to port, but where it plainly doesn't exist, I'd go with OP and turn to port, well before getting to the CPA, and keep my eye on the road. Note I'd do the 10deg (or whatever) coruse shift, not 90deg.

All that said, if there's some doubt (the ship is agile and could turn sharp starboard, say) then dont do this. And I 100% agree that pulling say 3 knots off the speed is also a good answer, probably the best answer, but it was "outlawed" by the exam question

Give that man a banana! That is the simplest and most sensible post on this subject, and incidentally the course I would normally take operating a 13 ft Dory around assorted cargo and fishing vessels in Carlingford Lough. The helm (or Skipper) has the responsibility to react to situations in a safe and efficient way and when there is such a difference in the size of the vessels, sometimes flexibility is better than sticking to the letter of the regs. IMHO of course.

 

[timbartlett]

Once you have decided that the other vessel is not going to give way, you are quite entitled to take avoiding action yourself.
My feeling is that many people make that assumption too early, but that is purely a matter of opinion.
What is undisputable is that there are several legitimate ways of giving way to a vessel on your port side, and only one that is expressly prohibited.
You could quite legitimately alter course to starboard, or slow down, you could stop, or you could do a combination of these.
The only thing that is specifically prohibited by the rules is altering course towards a vessel on your port side. Yet that seems to be the one thing that so many of you are determined to do!

 

[hlb]

The only thing that is specifically prohibited by the rules is altering course towards a vessel on your port side.

...............................................................................................................

You seem obsessed with Col regs. We are not having a collision, both the ship and us know that. Why think about col regs, when it aint going to happen and cant happen, unless of course we want to commit suicide, in which case, the ship can do little to prevent that.

Col regs are about emergency situations, but we have no emergency and we are not going to have one, in fact we cant have one, as said above. We are all just merrily going on our way, not bothering anyone.

 

[MapisM]

Yet that seems to be the one thing that so many of you are determined to do!

Yep, and proudly.
If also Carstens-Johannsen would have used a pinch of salt instead of colregs, he wouldn't have sunk the Andrea Doria.
But as we all know, he turned to stbd.

 

[hlb]

Originally Posted by timbartlett
Yet that seems to be the one thing that so many of you are determined to do!

.....................................................................................................................

Ah, remember now, he's the new journo, doing the WNS. With Tony Jones it was the Indian rope trick. This ones Obsessed by regulations. Cant see anywhere that he's got a boat, or ever had one, let alone one capable of 18/20 knots. Like they say. If you aint got a clue, teach. Or write a load of rubbish about it. Dont matter, it's a bit like politicians, yer making money.

 

[timbartlett]

Yes, that's me, the "new" journo.

The one who was Technical Editor of Motor Boat and Yachting from 1987 to 1997.

If you want to know my career history, it's on my website.

If you want to know about my private life ... keep guessing

 

[timbartlett]

Yep, and proudly.
If also Carstens-Johannsen would have used a pinch of salt instead of colregs, he wouldn't have sunk the Andrea Doria.
But as we all know, he turned to stbd.

If Carstens Johanssen had interpreted his radar correctly, he might have acted differently.
But if the Andrea Doria hadn't been doing twenty odd knots, and making a gradual alteration of course to port in order to pass "green-to-green" with an unidentified vessel, she wouldn't have collided with the Stockholm at all

 

[hlb]

Yes, that's me, the "new" journo.

The one who was Technical Editor of Motor Boat and Yachting from 1987 to 1997.

Thought so, clueless. Never been there, just read the book. Have'nt bought the mag for years. It's full of **** and folk with no experience at all.

Engage ears. We have no danger, we change course to pass behind, it is a slight corection of course, not danger It leaves the big ship, unhindered to carry on it's way.

 

[timbartlett]

HLB,
I'm really not very interested in your ill-informed comments about me or about a magazine which you admit you "haven't bought for years".

What does concern me is that you seem determined to use this forum to spread your own ignorance to other people.

The colregs are not about "emergency situations" or having collisions. They are about vessels of all shapes and sizes acting in a predictable way so as to avoid collisions, rather than darting about at random like rabbits on a road.

And if I seem "obsessed" by them, it's because I firmly believe that sticking to the few simple and sensible rules that we have got is the best way to stave off the wildly complicated and utterly ridiculous pieces of ill-concieved legislation that will be foisted upon us if we don't.

 

[gjgm]

yet it seems some feel that colregs are not so obvious that they can be automated...
http://oceanai.mit.edu/mikerb/projects/colregs.html