our frequent " came across the racing fleet, what shaould I have done?" posts

[chrisbitz]

Don't see what all the fuss is about.

If I come across a race fleet, I keep out of the way as much as possible, simply because I'd hate to look like the sort of dick head that doesn't!

 

[jfm]

...crossing a traffic seperation scheme where you are required not to impede but the big boat coming down the scheme still has to give way to you as a sailboat crossing the scheme.

Birdseye sorry to bring up a thread from a while ago - I meant to ask you at the time but forgot

I'm intrigued by what you write there. I have criticised colregs on here for many things, including the confusing list of responsibilities of the give way boat, eg keep out of way of, give way to, not impede, not impeded safe passage of, and so on. It seems to me they might all mean the same thing, so why use different language. Or maybe they don't mean the same thing, but in that case what are the differences? It is confusing.

However, in the bit quoted above you seem firm that they mean different things, and I'm intrigued to know why please. You imply that 10j's obligation in the TSS "shall not impeded safe passage of" is subservient to the mobo's "keep out of way of" obligation, I think, because you say the mobo must still give way to the sailing boat. This is the first time I've seen that point made so unequivocally. Can you explain a bit further please? Are you saying that if A must not impeded the safe passage of B, B might still have to give way to/keep out of the way of A?

I have never thought that is how the rules work (indeed 10j trumps 18(a)(iv) because of the first line in 18) but as I have already said this is an area of confusion in Colregs language I'd be very keen to hear your views some more please

 

[CondorAA5A]

This is clearly a ludicrous situation – that local byelaws can tump COLREGS in respect regattas/racing etc.

Clearly any competent skipper will do their level best to avoid a racing fleet but in the odd occasion where paths cross, it cannot be right that a yacht racing can claim they didn’t give way due to the fact that they knew a local bylaw gave them special rights.

It’s just such local tinkering that leads to confusion and is the reason why we have the COLREGS…

 

[Tony Cross]

This thread has explained something that puzzled me recently. On our way south-east to Chania on Crete from Kapsali on the island of Kithera a few weeks ago (in daylight) we were almost run down by a very large cargo ship crossing our track from my port side (we were both under power). He flat out did not give way and I had to come to a full stop and alter course around his stern to avoid a collision. The officer of the watch was on the bridge wing watching us through binoculars so I know he'd seen us.

Now I understand; he was racing under some obscure byelaw that applies in the area of Antikithera....!

 

[Uricanejack]

if there was a collision the bye laws would not be fronted by the old barrister in court but the international collision reg. Top trumps I believe or not, which is it?

Maybe. But didn't the Barrister have some thing to say about the local moving exsculsion thingy, and the big red tanker

 

[Greenheart]

It's repulsive if racers treat non-racers as some unwarrantable blot on their day. If they're like that, I put my sunglasses on and attend exclusively to something on my cockpit floor.

I avoid racers, because I've no reason to be obdurate about it. But as a dinghy sailor with no atom of interest in competition, I can only speculate about how I'd behave if I did race.

I reckon I'd regard non-competing sailboats under sail or power, plus motor boats, fishing boats, jetskis, along with buoys and floating logs, as part of the challenge of a sea-race. As a cruiser, I accept it's never smart to cut closer than necessary past potential hazards...if I raced, I don't believe I'd change that outlook. I'd certainly jettison victory before courtesy.

There are plenty of clubs on reservoirs for folk who want race-results to reflect pure sailing skill, rather than ability to navigate safely in the real world, where other people also go.

 

[Birdseye]

Birdseye sorry to bring up a thread from a while ago - I meant to ask you at the time but forgot

I'm intrigued by what you write there. I have criticised colregs on here for many things, including the confusing list of responsibilities of the give way boat, eg keep out of way of, give way to, not impede, not impeded safe passage of, and so on. It seems to me they might all mean the same thing, so why use different language. Or maybe they don't mean the same thing, but in that case what are the differences? It is confusing.

However, in the bit quoted above you seem firm that they mean different things, and I'm intrigued to know why please. You imply that 10j's obligation in the TSS "shall not impeded safe passage of" is subservient to the mobo's "keep out of way of" obligation, I think, because you say the mobo must still give way to the sailing boat. This is the first time I've seen that point made so unequivocally. Can you explain a bit further please? Are you saying that if A must not impeded the safe passage of B, B might still have to give way to/keep out of the way of A?

I have never thought that is how the rules work (indeed 10j trumps 18(a)(iv) because of the first line in 18) but as I have already said this is an area of confusion in Colregs language I'd be very keen to hear your views some more please

This is what I was taught when preparing for my yachtmasters ticket and as luck would have it , it was a question asked of me by the master mariner who conducted my YM practical. And I have come across this interpretation several times since then but I cannot quote you a court ruling that confirms it. Not because there are no court rulings but because I am not a lawyer.

I guess it all comes down to the "safe passage " bit. Having to make a 5 or 10 degree course change is whilst staying within the separation scheme and not getting too close to other ships is not unsafe. Clearly if that big ship had to slam the engine in astern, or if your actions forced the ship to come out of the separation scheme or out of a narrow channel then you would have created a safety issue and would fall foul of the regs.. But that isnt the normal case. Usually the big ship will see you miles off and have you on radar. They will know exactly the CPA and if avoiding you by a reasonable margin and assuming they are the give way vessel, they will alter course by a few degrees to slide by you.

It seems to be a correct interpretation and certainly I have on many occasions had vessels in the traffic schemes alter course a bit to avoid me crossing their path.

 

[l'escargot]

This is clearly a ludicrous situation – that local byelaws can tump COLREGS in respect regattas/racing etc.

Clearly any competent skipper will do their level best to avoid a racing fleet but in the odd occasion where paths cross, it cannot be right that a yacht racing can claim they didn’t give way due to the fact that they knew a local bylaw gave them special rights.

It’s just such local tinkering that leads to confusion and is the reason why we have the COLREGS…

The very same ColRegs that say in Rule 1: "...(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules."

 

[richardm47]

"The very same ColRegs that say in Rule 1: "...(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules."

But the Falmouth rule is diametrically opposite to Colregs. That is definitely not 'as close as possible'. So I think the Falmouth rule could be challenged in court and found to be invalid. Not a lawyer though ... What does anyone else think?

 

[Daydream believer]

Many years ago I was sailing up the River Blackwater in a Finnish Trading Schooner. She was about 85 ft on deck, over 100 ft with her bowsprit and displaced something over 200 tonns. We were very obviously limited in our ability to manoeuvre but this did not stop some idiots, who were racing off Steeplstone, trying to insist on their racing rights. One particularly verbose gentleman was f'ing and blinding and screaming 'racing' at us. I simply pointed out to him that if he continued on his chosen course, he would be more likely to be dying than racing. You would honestly think that the instincts of self preservation would override anything else. I neither know nor care about the racing regs but I have been sailing for over 60 years and know a great deal about self preservation.

One often sees twats in cruisers oblivious to the rest of the world sailing their course very close to a racing mark whilst a race is going on. If they just used some common sense they could often clear the mark quite easily without spoiling someones race. Instead they just blindly insist on their rights.
It often costs a lot of money to enter these sailing events & competition is high. Just think how you would feel if someone ruined your results because they were just to uncaring to just alter course a bit.
A bit of give & take does help & inspite of your size I bet you could have been a bit more considerate to the racers. After all the Blackwater is quite a wide river & most regattas take place in the widest part of the bay. It is very obvious where there are racing marks & the courses are clear if you just looked beyond the end of your nose. But just dreaming along in a world of self interest is not actually that clever, whether you have been sailing for 60 years or 60 minutes.
But that certainly does not give racers the right to be abusive. They should just make the best of a difficult situation & get on with it. It is what separates good ones from the poor ones. Bit like cruiser sailors really

 

[l'escargot]

"The very same ColRegs that say in Rule 1: "...(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules."

But the Falmouth rule is diametrically opposite to Colregs. That is definitely not 'as close as possible'. So I think the Falmouth rule could be challenged in court and found to be invalid. Not a lawyer though ... What does anyone else think?

To be diametrically opposite to ColRegs there would need be a rule saying you should stand on to racing boats. There is no such rule. In fact there are no rules in ColRegs relating to meetings between racing and non racing boats for it to conform to. Surely it is an "additional" rule to cover local circumstances.

 

[lw395]

One often sees twats in cruisers oblivious to the rest of the world sailing their course very close to a racing mark whilst a race is going on. If they just used some common sense they could often clear the mark quite easily without spoiling someones race. Instead they just blindly insist on their rights.....

I would not say it's 'often' perhaps once a season for me.
And they normally don't know their colregs either.
It's quite difficult for a cruising yacht to have 'rights' over the whole fleet.

Most cruisers that are going to be a problems are sailed so badly that they're creating a huge area of disturbed air. So it rarely pays to be too close.

 

[Stan. L-B]

Good answer - if you have the BALLS to do it!

 

[jfm]

This is what I was taught when preparing for my yachtmasters ticket and as luck would have it , it was a question asked of me by the master mariner who conducted my YM practical. And I have come across this interpretation several times since then but I cannot quote you a court ruling that confirms it. Not because there are no court rulings but because I am not a lawyer.

I guess it all comes down to the "safe passage " bit. Having to make a 5 or 10 degree course change is whilst staying within the separation scheme and not getting too close to other ships is not unsafe. Clearly if that big ship had to slam the engine in astern, or if your actions forced the ship to come out of the separation scheme or out of a narrow channel then you would have created a safety issue and would fall foul of the regs.. But that isnt the normal case. Usually the big ship will see you miles off and have you on radar. They will know exactly the CPA and if avoiding you by a reasonable margin and assuming they are the give way vessel, they will alter course by a few degrees to slide by you.

It seems to be a correct interpretation and certainly I have on many occasions had vessels in the traffic schemes alter course a bit to avoid me crossing their path.

Many thanks for that background. It makes me hold the view that Colregs need a thorough re-write even more strongly than I already did.

I'm happy to admit that I have always interpreted "give way to", "shall not impede" and "shall not impede safe passage of" as the same thing. Sure, the draftsman has used different language and normally a court would then look for a difference, but the language chosen doesn't tell you the differences between these concepts. Having said that 8fiii is very curious. It supports what you say, though how you implement it in practice is hard to fathom

With respect, while your TSS example has a basis in 8fiii, I struggle to see how it holds much water. If you are in a sailing boat crossing a TSS and the ship has to alter course a few degrees, that's fine you say. If he has to slam into astern that's not ok. But generally speaking the only reason for his having to do the latter is his failure to do the former, or drop 1 knot, earlier on in the proceedings. The sailing boat has acted no differently in either case, if you see what I mean, yet in one case you are saying the sailboat is "in the right" and in the other he is "in the wrong"

In addition to all that, you focussed on the "safe" word. But Colregs also imposes on some boats a "shall not impede" obligation with no mention of "safe", eg 9b, c, d, i. Then the draftsman flips back to "safe" in 9j, but why does he do that? You might say they are the same, but they can't be because 8fi and 8fii tell you that impede passage and impede safe passage are different things.

So what is the difference between being a give way boat and a boat that "shall not impede"? No need to answer - I'm not sure there is an answer, and 8fiii doesn't help me see any answer. I could go on with drafting anomalies, but you get my point.

I'm not picking a fight at all or criticising you: all I'm just saying that the colregs are poorly drafted and we manage to avoid crashing despite them not because of them

 

[Uricanejack]

Many thanks for that background. It makes me hold the view that Colregs need a thorough re-write even more strongly than I already did.

I'm happy to admit that I have always interpreted "give way to", "shall not impede" and "shall not impede safe passage of" as the same thing. Sure, the draftsman has used different language and normally a court would then look for a difference, but the language chosen doesn't tell you the differences between these concepts. Having said that 8fiii is very curious. It supports what you say, though how you implement it in practice is hard to fathom

With respect, while your TSS example has a basis in 8fiii, I struggle to see how it holds much water. If you are in a sailing boat crossing a TSS and the ship has to alter course a few degrees, that's fine you say. If he has to slam into astern that's not ok. But generally speaking the only reason for his having to do the latter is his failure to do the former, or drop 1 knot, earlier on in the proceedings. The sailing boat has acted no differently in either case, if you see what I mean, yet in one case you are saying the sailboat is "in the right" and in the other he is "in the wrong"

In addition to all that, you focussed on the "safe" word. But Colregs also imposes on some boats a "shall not impede" obligation with no mention of "safe", eg 9b, c, d, i. Then the draftsman flips back to "safe" in 9j, but why does he do that? You might say they are the same, but they can't be because 8fi and 8fii tell you that impede passage and impede safe passage are different things.

So what is the difference between being a give way boat and a boat that "shall not impede"? No need to answer - I'm not sure there is an answer, and 8fiii doesn't help me see any answer. I could go on with drafting anomalies, but you get my point.

I'm not picking a fight at all or criticising you: all I'm just saying that the colregs are poorly drafted and we manage to avoid crashing despite them not because of them

I think this was about racing originally.
Now we have drifted in not impeding.
The rules are the work off a committee. worse still an international committee. They served well in the vast majority of circumstances. The rules provide guidance to help make sense of what would otherwise be chaos
Ultimately they might have been written by Joseph Heller. The big Catch is don't hit anything.

Your interpretations correct or not are “Safe, or prudent” therefore correct. Precision in interpretation is not required wisdom and good judgement is more important.

Relying upon an old captain you once met in the pub for the correct interpretation is less than wise. This can be demonstrated by talking to more than one old captain. Like most sailors they all have different opinions.

 

[Uricanejack]

"The very same ColRegs that say in Rule 1: "...(b) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of special rules made by an appropriate authority for roadsteads, harbours, rivers, lakes or inland waterways connected with the high seas and navigable by seagoing vessels. Such special rules shall conform as closely as possible to these Rules."

But the Falmouth rule is diametrically opposite to Colregs. That is definitely not 'as close as possible'. So I think the Falmouth rule could be challenged in court and found to be invalid. Not a lawyer though ... What does anyone else think?

I would not want to be the chap trying to rely on the argument though a lawyer might find it an interesting case.
It will all hang on how its applied.

A generic note in the office window. In the bar at the local sailing club. Even in the sailing directions. saying all races have the right of way would not cut it.
There would have to be a policy regarding applying to the harbour authority to conduct an event on a specific day and appropriate NTM issued.
The important point being The information about the local rule and the approved event would have to be readily available. To the ordinary skipper of any boat arriving for the first time in Falmouth. The Skipper would have to be able to find out about the local rule and the race. Using the ordinary due diligence a day skipper would be reasonably expected to use in planning his passage into Falmouth.

I think the Americas cup took precedence over the rules for the duration of the event. If you were to manage to obstruct the race you would be front page news.

Your average weekend round the cans club event. would that all ways qualify? probably not.