Newboy6458
Well-Known Member
When running downwind down a narrow channel, is a sailing vessel required to keep to the right, and pass other traffic port to port?
Question for IRPCS experts
- Thread starter Newboy6458
- Start date
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Yes, in accordance with Rule 9 a) and b), see quote below and note that 'vessel' also means sailing vessel. Not considering any other matter that might influence a decision, assuming a normal sailing yacht is a sailing vessel that is not constrained by her draught and say a power vessel that is not constrained by her draught or restricted in her ability to manoeuvre, then narrow channel rule will apply. Both vessels should be proceeding at a safe speed in keeping with the ability to react in narrow channels with perhaps blind bends.
johnalison
Well-Known Member
The regulations are one thing, and I'm sure most of us try to stay within them, but there is the odd occasion when a sailing yacht, or dinghy, is close-hauled and approaching a bend in the channel. Good manners will sometimes mean that a boat under power or sailing free should allow the close-hauled boat to hug the windward bank to reduce the number of tacks involved. This usually occurs by mutual consent between knowledgable sailors, though it is not something we can always rely on.
Newboy6458
Well-Known Member
Cheers guys, exactly as I thought.
Afraid I can't quote rule numbers, but going up the river at Beaulieu yesterday morning there was a large contingent of plastic gaffers coming downstream. Most were perfectly well behaved, either motoring or sailing down the relatively narrow channel on the right hand side. I was motor sailing Dakeely, Warrior 35, up the channel. I had to move well to the left twice to avoid craft hugging the green markers. Both were sailing downwind so were capable of keeping to either side as they choose.
In fact when I suggested to the second that he should be on the other side, he blithely stated sailing vessels were exempt!
Any Shrimpers owners care to comment?
Phil
Afraid I can't quote rule numbers, but going up the river at Beaulieu yesterday morning there was a large contingent of plastic gaffers coming downstream. Most were perfectly well behaved, either motoring or sailing down the relatively narrow channel on the right hand side. I was motor sailing Dakeely, Warrior 35, up the channel. I had to move well to the left twice to avoid craft hugging the green markers. Both were sailing downwind so were capable of keeping to either side as they choose.
In fact when I suggested to the second that he should be on the other side, he blithely stated sailing vessels were exempt!
Any Shrimpers owners care to comment?
Phil
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that it isn't quite as clear cut - you were motoring, they were sailing and there is the proviso of "...and practicable" /devil's advocate/draws up chair with popcorn...
Newboy6458
Well-Known Member
Hi guys.
Being sad I've had a look at my GPS track.
I was tracking nne, 025˚T, making 4kts through the water. Soton met gives wind as 320˚ at 9kits. Maybe half a knot flood.
My opposite traffic was therefore tracking ssw, 205˚, giving his relative wind at 115˚, i.e some 25˚ aft of his starboard beam. Close hauled he most certainly was not.
He therefore could have tracked along the right hand side of the channel, which I reckon with moorings, to be about 100m wide at that point.
My question is, why didn't he, when the vast majority of his companions did. And, when challenged, what was the legal basis for saying sailing vessels are exempt rule 9?
Being sad I've had a look at my GPS track.
I was tracking nne, 025˚T, making 4kts through the water. Soton met gives wind as 320˚ at 9kits. Maybe half a knot flood.
My opposite traffic was therefore tracking ssw, 205˚, giving his relative wind at 115˚, i.e some 25˚ aft of his starboard beam. Close hauled he most certainly was not.
He therefore could have tracked along the right hand side of the channel, which I reckon with moorings, to be about 100m wide at that point.
My question is, why didn't he, when the vast majority of his companions did. And, when challenged, what was the legal basis for saying sailing vessels are exempt rule 9?
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
No basis for saying he was exempt, but at a 100m wide does it meet the definition of a "narrow channel" ? And - that far up the river, are you sure that IRPCS apply?
Giblets
Well-Known Member
Newboy, methinks you should have whipped up your black cylinder, switched on your three vertical reds and claimed your draft! 
tcm
...
Hum! Oh well, a hefty dose of chill required. Sailing boats of course not exempt, altho lots of sail training does seem to blindly teach the "rule" that "power gives way to sail" almost to the extent that some sailing skippers might feel that IRPCS is entirely devoted towards making sure that sailing boats can do almost anything, anywhere. The rules are more acutely important in poor visibility between large vessels not able to stop on a sixpence and not turn almost in their own length, as many pleasure vessels are able to do. But note that there need for angriness involved : If you detected a risk of collision, and slowed, stopped or even went in reverse - you merely observed rule 8 (e).
Ceirwan
Well-Known Member
Purely from a Col-reg perspective the two sailing vessels were the stand on vessels and you the give way as motor sailing makes you a power driven vessel.
It might have of course been polite for them to move aside, but they were under no obligation to do so.
And as Rule 17 states that the Stand on Vessel shall keep her course and speed then them taking action could actually make it more likely for an incident to occur.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
The way sailors stop reading the colregs on the page that says "motor gives way to sail" makes me laugh. The OP is obviously a knowledgable exception by asking the question
L
Newboy6458
Well-Known Member
Hi guys, thanks for the input.
Elessar, too kind.
Giblets, maybe I should have said fairway, but thanks for making me smile.
Tcm, no angriness or shouting. Just surprised at his firm belief in being exempt rule 9. In fact being a wuss I'd moved left well early in case he did move left as well. If I'd gone too slow, let alone reversed, the cross wind and flood might have put me in the mud. Warrior 35s are long keels and need a bit of forward way for predictable steering.
Blowingoldboots, I think you got it spot on. It most certainly was both safe and practical for them to have kept to their right. All their companions did so without difficulty.
Johnalison, again exactly right, consideration for the other boats circumstances should be taken into account. However they were running and not beating.
L'escargot, good questions. However if colregs didn't apply, what conventions should we apply? In fact they do (rule 1a?).
Elessar, too kind.
Giblets, maybe I should have said fairway, but thanks for making me smile.
Tcm, no angriness or shouting. Just surprised at his firm belief in being exempt rule 9. In fact being a wuss I'd moved left well early in case he did move left as well. If I'd gone too slow, let alone reversed, the cross wind and flood might have put me in the mud. Warrior 35s are long keels and need a bit of forward way for predictable steering.
Blowingoldboots, I think you got it spot on. It most certainly was both safe and practical for them to have kept to their right. All their companions did so without difficulty.
Johnalison, again exactly right, consideration for the other boats circumstances should be taken into account. However they were running and not beating.
L'escargot, good questions. However if colregs didn't apply, what conventions should we apply? In fact they do (rule 1a?).
Last edited:
dom
Well-Known Member
Good point: 9(b) specifies that boats <20m "shall not impede....", which is not the same as inferring stand-on status to the larger vessel. That said the smaller boat doesn't necessarily become stand-on either (8f ii). The larger vessel here could not turn to stbd due to restricted depth requiring an illegal turn to port as the sailing boat wouldn't alter course to stbd. As other threads have concluded this is precisely the type of fluid multi-boat/multiple constraint situation where all vessels must engage brains and do their utmost to ensure that no collision occurs (Rule 2). Perhaps the OP shld have reduced speed (8e), then again he wasn't going very fast.
PS: small channels are often full of little sailing dinghies, ribs, boats racing across the channel, big yachts, mobos and even the odd Tesco inflatable paddling dinghy. I think it's fair to say that polite yachts and mobos normally give way to the sailors, large boats pass dinghies at crawling speed, everyone gives way to the Tesco toys and the world and his brother expects ribs to keep out of the way of everyone else - sometimes including those overtaking!
Newboy6458
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, or muddy?, the basis for power giving way to sail is
rule 18 a iv .
HOWEVER
This is preceded by "Except where rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:"
The colon means you look to see if rules 9, 10 or 13 apply.
If so they take precedence.
As stated, rule 9 says drive on the right in a channel or fairway. If safe or practical. EVERYONE.
It was. I was. They weren't. They could have. They didn't.
I applied rule 8 and moved over to the left. I could of course have shattered the morning's peace with 5 blasts on the air horn, but that would probably have induced appoplexy in the gents concerned as well as righteous indignation as they obviously believed themselves in the right, whilst on theright, if you see what I mean.
I thought I was being polite and only posted because I was looking for his exemption. I don't think I've found it, yet.......
Thanks for the discussion.
Phil
rule 18 a iv .
HOWEVER
This is preceded by "Except where rules 9, 10 and 13 otherwise require:"
The colon means you look to see if rules 9, 10 or 13 apply.
If so they take precedence.
As stated, rule 9 says drive on the right in a channel or fairway. If safe or practical. EVERYONE.
It was. I was. They weren't. They could have. They didn't.
I applied rule 8 and moved over to the left. I could of course have shattered the morning's peace with 5 blasts on the air horn, but that would probably have induced appoplexy in the gents concerned as well as righteous indignation as they obviously believed themselves in the right, whilst on theright, if you see what I mean.
I thought I was being polite and only posted because I was looking for his exemption. I don't think I've found it, yet.......
Thanks for the discussion.
Phil
Last edited:
NealB
Well-Known Member
TCM I agree about the dose of chill. I don't think it would spoil my day, or prompt me to make an angry sounding post on here, if I had to 'move to the left'.
However, I wonder who it is that you think is teaching that 'power gives way to sail'?
I've sailed for over forty years, and had lessons, both formal and informal, from a large number of people. I've never been taught that.
Also, amongst my many sailing friends, I'm pretty sure that not one of them believes power always give way to sail.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Weeell sort of.
Really comes down to size of boats relative to channel and each other who is using and who is just tootling about,
Rule 9 thingy about sailing vessels and vessels of less than 20m has a bit of a bearing. Not impleading ect.
Bottom line, yep rule 8 and others like 2. don't hit it.
Sailing vessels are not exempt from any of the IRPCS unless they are on inland water where IRPCS do not apply. Where there usually are local rules. (oddly local rules have a tendency to forbid sailing in narrow channels)
My personal thought, the ordinary practice of good seamanship yadda yadda Yadda. If you are sailing down wind down in a channel which might be considered narrow or even not so narrow, There are two sides to pick. One on which you will be considered a wise gentleman and the other one not so much. They had a 50 50 of getting it right.
One consolation, at least they picked a side. even the wrong side is better than the middle
Assuming both vessels were small roughly similar size and draft.
Ultimately if the unhappy event occurred. and I was giving my X spurt opinion. A Power Driven vessel would still be required to give way to a sailing vessel in a narrow channel. Once a close quarters situation developed. The provisions of rule 9 would not change this.
I would still severely criticize the Master of the sailing vessel.
For impleading the passage,
For being on the wrong side of the Channel.
For piss poor seamanship See Rule 2.
I would have more criticism for the sailor. but that's a start.
Unhappy event did not occur, so I wont criticise your actions, you took action as required even if the other vessel did not. your interpretation of why you had to take the action was good enough for the circumstance.
If there had been a collision I would find more reasons to criticise the power vessel
Last edited:
laika
Well-Known Member
This may be sacrilege (and not answering the OP to boot) but is it unreasonable to suggest that where a sailing vessel has an auxiliary means of propulsion which *can* be used to facilitate keeping to the correct side of a channel it is both prudent and sociable to use it when there is a significant amount of traffic about?
Tacking a fair sized yacht up or down a river to or from a mooring is a lovely thing but I like to do it on a crisp autumn day mid-week, not a summer sunday afternoon when the fairway is crowded. I think we've all seen inconsiderate people carving chaos into chichester harbour entrance or up one of the rivers as they demonstrate their mad sailing skillz tacking back and forth at maximum speed across the fairway seemingly oblivious to the scattering lines of vessels under power.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
The real matter that sailors have to consider is what is a narrow channel. A lot of 20 footer tacking along a 100 m wide bit of navigable channel probably should not consider that to be a narrow channel between each other. However, if a 20m work boat came round the corner, towing a barge, then all who had an approaching situation to manage should revert to the narrow channel rule. That is my understanding of how a narrow channel should be considered, it is not width per se, it is the constraints on each vessel that defines narrow channel.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
It is always a good idea to apply rule 1b, which in this case are quite specific in this situation and save you getting all bogged down with the interacting rules in IRPCS...
http://www.beaulieuriver.co.uk/regulationslw395
Well-Known Member
Colregs quickly become open to interpretation I think!
Firstly is it a narrow channel, in the context of boats that are small enough to turn a circle in it?
Secondly, once you are on the wrong side of a channel, the correct remedy may well not be to change sides.
Thirdly, situations involving multiple boats can be hard to interpret.
Fourthly, people who feel they have been wronged in colregs often seem to set arbitrary starting points for applying the rules.
I just hope the OP had a motoring cone....
Firstly is it a narrow channel, in the context of boats that are small enough to turn a circle in it?
Secondly, once you are on the wrong side of a channel, the correct remedy may well not be to change sides.
Thirdly, situations involving multiple boats can be hard to interpret.
Fourthly, people who feel they have been wronged in colregs often seem to set arbitrary starting points for applying the rules.
I just hope the OP had a motoring cone....
