On being "Hove to"...

Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

It's interesting to note that other people may use different definitions of terms. Probably best not to put too much weight on terms which are not defined in the colregs I suppose. I have a vague idea that theres another name for having the jib backed to greatly reduce forward speed.
Incidently, the attraction of sitting with the jib backed when not wishing to make any particular progress between races is sometimes based on: You don't want any sails flapping, you don't want to go too far or too fast, and most significantly, with the jib backed the helmsman has a much better view to leeward, as the jib is almost in line with the helm. Most dinghies seem to be pretty stable in this mode, at least until the centreboard touches bottom......
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

[ QUOTE ]
Ah well Seagreen did start this entire thread with the words "Just for the sake of argument.."

Thanks to everyone for their comments and taking the time to "put me right" - the disagreement does largely seem to be be due to my "classic" nautical dictionary understanding of the meaning of "Hove to" compared to how it is used in modern sailing parlance. Thus we will have to agree to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thick skinned blighter, aren't you !!

Despite lots of us "putting you right", you still want to disagree. That doesn't mean we have to agree with you on this!

Maybe one day you will realise there is no shame in saying "I was wrong, and now stand corrected".
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

I don't accept that I am wrong, merely don't see much point in arguing the toss when so many people keep putting words into my mouth that I haven't said - or making weird and slightly idiotic comparisons with things that are not vessels under the colregs, like light-houses and sandbars. I simply don't have the time to go through all of the posts one by one picking out points to refute what people have said.

Twister Ken's definition of "hove to": Quote:
"If we're trading definitions, here's Mirriam Webster, far more authoritative than Wiki style efforts.
"heave to : to halt the headway of a ship (as by positioning a sailboat with the jib aback and the rudder turned sharply to windward)"

What part of "Halt" in any dictionary you care to name does not mean stopped or stationary? Not "making a knot or two", not "almost stopped" but actually at a halt.

Thus to go back to my original point and try to put it in a nutshell - if you are not actually halted or stationary (apart from drift) you are not properly "hove to". If you are making any way at all you are not properly or actually "Hove to", just slowed down. Now bearing that in mind -

The colregs define a sailing vessel as "Rule 3: The term "sailing vessel" means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used."
The mention that no propelling machinery is being used implies that the vessel is normally "propelled by sails" and also implies that the vessel "under sail" is making way through the water through sail propulsion, ie is actually sailing.

Now if a vessel is properly "hove to" - completely stopped, halted with no headway so not making any way through the water, (just a little drift), etc she no longer qualifies for precedence under Rule 3 as a "sailing vessel". Consequently, no other vessels (including boats that are actually sailing) have to automatically give precedence under Rule 18 to a vessel in this state - a properly and completely halted/stopped "hove to" vessel - as the action of heaving to (halting or stopping) means that the sail boat is no longer a "sailing vessel".

Just because a sail boat has a few sails up does NOT automatically make her a "sailing vessel" - the well known exception that if she is motoring as well as having sails up makes her a motor vessel proves that a sail boat is not always automatically a "sailing vessel". This is another exception-type situation like that, which maybe you haven't appreciated before when reading this section of the colregs?

In this situation neither vessel has precedence under the colregs and neither is the stand on vessel. This is what I have been saying all along - not as some people have tried to extrapolate from what I've said that the mobo has precedence, or that the hove to vessel would give way - absolute nonsense words put into my mouth by other people who haven't either read my posts properly or failed to appreciate the significance of being stopped. Think about it logically for a moment - how can a skipper who is properly "hove to" (eg properly halted/stationary) argue that he is the stand on vessel? Standing on implies movement, and hove to means halted. As has been said by another poster "common sense" would hopefully prevail and would have to be applied by both skippers. In most situations the mobo skipper (or another yacht skipper come to that) would exercise common sense and just drive around the hove to "sail boat", but the sail boat skipper who is hove to could not rely on the colregs to give him precedence (or what some posters persist in calling right of way) and thus any legal protection if the 1-in-1000 situation arose and there was an accident or claim.

Please don't bother to post back if you're just going to say again and again ad nauseum that you always move a little, make a little headway, move forward etc when trying to heave to - all that goes to prove is that you are not properly "hove to" (eg stopped/halted/stationary with a little drift) This debate is about the situation vis-a-vis the colregs when you are properly "hove to".
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

If you think it possible to stop a boat completely by heaving too go out and try it ,let us know how you get on.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

Oh boy. am I glad that the I don't inhabit the same bit of water as you.

The IRPCS imply nothing - you manage to infer an amazing amount of rubbish from some very plain english.
1. A boat with sails up and no machinery propelling her is a sailing vessel and also under sail.
2. Whether she moves or not, provided she is not attached to land or at anchor, she is a sailing vessel under way.
3. The rules are simple - a power vessel should give way to a sailing vessel except for specific exceptions.
4. Whether hove to is stationary or not affects nothing in the IRPCS.

And finally, when you pass a vessel with the jib backed and the main filling whether it is stationary or moving, slow down 'cos they are probably making tea, sitting on the bog or otherwise engaged and will not appreciate a large mobo wash.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

If you are going to use a quote to back up your argument then read the quote ....." "heave to : to halt the headway of a ship (as by positioning a sailboat with the jib aback and the rudder turned sharply to windward)...What part of "Halt" in any dictionary you care to name does not mean stopped or stationary? Not "making a knot or two", not "almost stopped" but actually at a halt."

How on earth does halting headway equate to being stationary? The quote you use makes no mention of halting the ship, but its headway. If you aren't making headway when hove-to, you will certainly be making leeway /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif The only way to be stationary with sails set and backed is to be at anchor at the same time surely?
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

StrakerYrius,

Please, and I'll say it that way this time, please stop spreading false interpretations of the Colregs.

[ QUOTE ]
The mention that no propelling machinery is being used implies that the vessel is normally "propelled by sails" and also implies that the vessel "under sail" is making way through the water through sail propulsion, ie is actually sailing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

The Colregs definition ONLY requires the sails to be SET. They may in fact be providing zero propulsion, or if you like, headway or sternway. BUT THEY MUST BE SET IN ORDER FOR THE VESSEL TO BE "Under Sail". no more, no less. Remember, under sail is like under way, it does not imply motion.


[ QUOTE ]
Now if a vessel is properly "hove to" - completely stopped, halted with no headway so not making any way through the water, (just a little drift), etc she no longer qualifies for precedence under Rule 3 as a "sailing vessel".

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong

If she has her sails SET, as she must in order to heave-to, she is a sailing vessel, and so the mobo must give way, and of course she must stand on, until risk of collision deteriorates to the point where action by the give way vessel alone is not sufficient to avert the collision. THERE IS NO OTHER INTERPRETATION; OK ???

The remainder of that paragraph is utter rubbish, completely wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
Just because a sail boat has a few sails up does NOT automatically make her a "sailing vessel" - the well known exception that if she is motoring as well as having sails up makes her a motor vessel proves that a sail boat is not always automatically a "sailing vessel". This is another exception-type situation like that, which maybe you haven't appreciated before when reading this section of the colregs?


[/ QUOTE ]

If she has her sails set and her propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used, she is a sailing vessel.

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation neither vessel has precedence under the colregs and neither is the stand on vessel.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no no ... The mobo is the give way vessel, in the situation as described.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it logically for a moment - how can a skipper who is properly "hove to" (eg properly halted/stationary) argue that he is the stand on vessel?

[/ QUOTE ]

If hove-to (for lunch or a short break, not to weather a storm as a survival tactic, which is an altogether different case) and is the stand on vessel, she must stand on until it becomes obvious that the give way vessel is not taking appropriate action, in which situation she MAY manoeuvre ... (i.e. by getting to hell out of the way), and in any case, if the situation deteriorates to a stage where the collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she SHALL take SUCH ACTION AS WILL BEST AID TO AVOID COLLISION.

[ QUOTE ]
Standing on implies movement

[/ QUOTE ]

No, standing on means maintaining course and speed: course, the leeway being made whilst hove-to; speed: zero if we follow the strict definition you seem to prefer. Zero is a speed!!!!


[ QUOTE ]
hove to means halted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hove-to means, strictly speaking, no headway (or sternway). But as any sailor knows, when hove-to all vessels have quite a bit of leeway, and that means way, or speed if you prefer. As a practical matter, it is difficult to get a vessel to make zero headway while hove-to, as it requires much tweaking and re-tweaking to achieve and maintain the zero value of headway. It is also difficult to know when there is exactly zero headway, as the vessel is moving, leeway.


[ QUOTE ]
Please don't bother to post back if you're just going to say again and again ad nauseum that you always move a little, make a little headway, move forward etc when trying to heave to - all that goes to prove is that you are not properly "hove to" (eg stopped/halted/stationary with a little drift) This debate is about the situation vis-a-vis the colregs when you are properly "hove to".

[/ QUOTE ]

When the vessel's sails are set in such a way as to achieve and hold as near as practicable the hove-to condition, the vessel is in fact hove-to. The fact that she may be making a small amount of headway is neither here nor there, she is hove-to, by the set of her sails. And whether she is "properly" hove-to or not, the mobo is the give-way vessel, as she is a sailing vessel for having her sails set -- she is "under sail".

Please do not answer this post. I will not answer any further posts of yours. I do, however, ask you to read and study carefully the Colregs, preferably in conjunction with a ship's captain or some such who has had the responsibility of putting the Colregs into practise daily for many a long year. Two such gentlemen have come to mind while writing these words -- both were masters of supertankers for many years, and very knowledgeable in the practical application of the Colregs.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

[ QUOTE ]
Please, and I'll say it that way this time, please stop spreading false interpretations of the Colregs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded. The sheer amount of misinformation on the ColRegs on this forum really worries me; it often outweighs the correct posts.

No wonder commercial mariners call us WAFIs (or MAFIs in the case of DAKA/StrakerYrius).

Maybe there is something to be gained from having a dedicated ColRegs forum with a resident expert who can take questions and give definitive answers. Something YBW could look at perhaps?
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

>Twister Ken's definition of "hove to": Quote:
"If we're trading definitions, here's Mirriam Webster, far more authoritative than Wiki style efforts.
"heave to : to halt the headway of a ship (as by positioning a sailboat with the jib aback and the rudder turned sharply to windward)"

What part of "Halt" in any dictionary you care to name does not mean stopped or stationary? Not "making a knot or two", not "almost stopped" but actually at a halt.<

Halting the headway is not the same as being stationary. Surely you are intelligent enough to realise that without having it pointed out to you?
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

[ QUOTE ]
Now everyone, what colour should I paint my hallway?
/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, that's obvious !!

Green on the right, red on the left and white at the back /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

(Unless it's an air cushion hallway, in which case you need to paint it flashing yellow)

/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Andy
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

I just don't get it - I repeated the definition of what being "hove to" means more times than I would like to count - being halted/stopped/stationary <u>with a little drift.</u> . Then someone goes and posts this
Quote:
"How on earth does halting headway equate to being stationary? The quote you use makes no mention of halting the ship, but its headway. If you aren't making headway when hove-to, you will certainly be making leeway The only way to be stationary with sails set and backed is to be at anchor at the same time surely?"

If its not possible to bring a ship/boat to a halt or stop it then why does every definition of "hove to" define it as just that? Someone must have been able to do it at some point for the term to have been coined - maybe a really good professional sailor, like the ones mentioned? I don't mean to impugn your sailing abilities, but if its not possible then how can there be a term that describes it as just that?

Drifting or making leeway or whatever you like to call it, with a few sails hoisted is not the same thing as sailing. That's not what this argument is about anyway - its now about what level of precedence a vessel that is "hove to" has under the colregs in Rule 3.

Frankly I just don't see much point in continuing the debate when no-one is actually taking a moment to think about and take on board what has been said. I'm just having to repeat myself to the point of frustration..
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

However I can't let this one go without comment.

Quote from phlomong:
what has most irked me about this thread is that other readers may go away with an incorrect or downright dangerous understanding of the Rules based on some of your statements.

I truly ask myself what is more dangerous;
To debate on this forum the finer points of the colregs that are open to clarification and interpretation, with the effect that some people might go away and read them more carefully because some upstart moboer has dared to suggest that sailing skippers may not have all the "rights" that they think they have.

Or

To leave people believing that is OK or safe to go below when under way, because they have "hove to" and are only making one or two knots plus leeway, but that's alright because we're on the starboard tack and that gives us "right of way" so other boaters will automatically get out of our way.

Which of these two do you truly think is the more dangerous? Which is going to cause more accidents? Because its the second one that I have been responding to ever since my first response to VicS. Before responding I suggest you re-read the whole thread, including the posts before I joined in to see exactly what I'm referring to.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

As the "someone" you seem to be replying to...

You have just said
"Drifting or making leeway or whatever you like to call it, with a few sails hoisted is not the same thing as sailing"

YES IT IS!!! That boat is the stand-on vessel from the position of the mobo, but the skipper still has an obligation to keep a good look-out and take avoiding action if necessary (which is why single-handers often fall foul of the regs....but that is yet another argument /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif)
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

They are all wannabee lawyers here, most retired, more time on their hands than they know what to do with, no wonder they nitpick, me included!
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

Absolutely astounding this thread could run so long. As far as I am aware, the Colregs do not define "hove to" or "heaving to". Consequently, being in that particular state has no more bearing on a vessel's obligations than being "close hauled", "reaching" or "running".

In each case, the vessel's sails will be set in a certain way, it will have a particular direction of motion and a speed. But still a sailing vessel, providing it is not using machinery for propulsion.

So the only correct thing to do is ignore the condition of being "hove to" and apply the colregs. Of course some other colregs MIGHT apply (e.g. NUC) but those should be applied regardless of the vessel's point of sail.

As an aside, if being "hove to" changed a vessel's obligations, there would undoubtedly be some explicit provision for that in the colregs. Such as showing a shape or lights. But there isn't.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

Never let it be said that I allowed the debate to calm down!

Surely the outcome of this rather interesting thread is that we should be collectively writing to a number of dictionaries asking for them to change the definition of hove-to.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

Perhaps as a matter of interest, but not as a matter of colregs. Terms used in the colregs are defined in the colregs. As I pointed out, "hove to" is not used in colregs, therefore does not need to be defined for the purpose of colregs. It should just be ignored - i.e. not considered a special case.
 
Re: On being \"Hove to\"...

Oh dear.

The OP had the implicit question of how 'Heaving-to' should be 'marked' following the guidance/directions/rules in the ColRegs (ie because it was not so defined)

All the subsequent comments streamed originally from the incorrect definitions in various dictionaries.

Ergo: the dictionaries should be changed. Who mentioned changing ColRegs?

I suppose Seagreen has an answer: some people might think he was in trouble, some might run him down, some might think he was sailing normally and one or two might actually recognise what he was doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 50
Replies
2
Views
729
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top