Robin Knox-Johnston - Rule 17 IRPCS

IanR

IanR

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Oct 2001
Messages
415
Location
Onboard
seascape2016.blogspot.com
Just watched RKJ on breakfast TV in Bilbao - he's off tomorrow with the Velux Round the world.

Interesting to listen to him, the reporter had an email from a viewer asking RKJ about how he plans to comply with the IRPCS singlehanded.

RKJ gave a straight, short and somewhat enigmatic answer "Well refer to Rule 17"

I was intrigued enough to have a look and to save surfing time here is what I found out

IRPCS Part B Steering & Sailing Rules
Section 11 Vessels in sight of one another
• Rule 17 Action by stand-on vessel
• When one vessel is to keep out of the way, the other
shall maintain its course and speed.
• The stand on vessel may by her manoeuvre alone take
action to avoid a collision if the other vessel is not
taking appropriate action.
• When a collision appears unavoidable by the action of
the other vessel alone, the stand-on vessel may take
action to avoid a collision.
• A stand-on power driven vessel in point (2) above
should not alter course to port if circumstances permit.
• This rule does not relieve the give way vessel of its
obligations to keep out of the way.

Clearly a good reason to sail in a 60 foot Rocket ship, my understanding is he's saying Watch out I'm coming, get out of the way!

By the way I have greatest admiration for the guy, just interested in his perspective Any comments?
 
Well it has worked for him in the past.

The two problem areas - what happens when you cease to become the stand on vessel?

What happens when you have right of way and get mown down anyway - hard to defend the rules from a watery grave.

However, when taking on this sort of thing, it is a risk that should be considered by single handers and should either put them off, or minimise, accept and get on with it. I'm with the latter school of thought.
 
A long running issue! If Rule 5 is applied, and there is no wriggle room in Rule 5, then Rule 17 becomes almost irrelevant.
 
It's easy to shoot single handed sailors down in flames when they try to justify their endeavour by quoting the COLREGs.

That very rule he quoted can be held up against him, the final line contains the word "obligation". With modern racing yachts capable of reaching speeds far in excess of most merchant shipping, what about RULE 13? How about rule 19 when there is no stand on vessel? Rule 18 subsection B and last but not least rule 5, lookout.

The Irish Dept. of Marine have now banned single handed round Ireland races for these very reasons.

Plus there is the rule of thumb that fibreglass gives way to steel, especially upon contact...
 
One word.

Irresponsible.

I'm sorry to criticise RKJ, but I don't see how single-handing in busy waters on the assumption that everyone will get out of the way is anything else.
 
I'm starting work on the inscription now:

"Here lies the body of R K-J,
Who died maintaining the right-of-way;
He was right - dead right - as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

More seriously I would feel safer sailing with Sir Robin or in the vicinity of him than almost anyone else. I'm sure he will show a few people what grey power is all about over the next few months.

Good luck and a safe passage to him and to all of the other competitors in the Velux 5 Oceans.
 
At the risk of opening myself up to serious criticism, there are times in life that one has to ignore the law in order to accomplish goals. Heading off single handed is one of those times.

I don't agree with RKJ hiding behind Rule 17. For what it's worth, my single-handed modus operandi is as follows:
- if closer than 40 miles to land, I will stay awake and will be on watch.
- I get as much sleep as possible so that should I need to stay awake for longer than 24 hours, I am well rested at the beginning of those 24 hours.
- when asleep, every time I stir, I get up and have a look around for at least 10 minutes. I found that I stirred at least once an hour, even if it was just turning over.

Somewhere, it could even have been on the forum, I read about a bloke that worked out the mathematical chance of a collision at sea. The odds were incredibly low. IIRC they were in the region of 0.0001%. His logic was that for a collision to be fatal, you needed to be hit by the bow of a ship. A glancing blow would probably result is the loss of your rig and a change of underwear.

IMHO, if eveyone complied with every single rule thought up by the Thought Police, the PC twats, the H&E officials, the anti-this and pro-that brigade, the nay-sayers, then the world would grind to a halt. "Oh, too late" you say, "it's already happened". I agree. Now go single-handing and live a little.
 
[ QUOTE ]
One word.

Irresponsible.

[/ QUOTE ]
One word.

GROAN.
 
Irresponsible reply ... takes the rule "sort of out of context" ....

At Marine College - I had Merch Ticket exams that straddled old and new rules ... (old didn't have the "get-out of jail" bit of taking action if action of give-way vessel alone etc.) and great debate was made in lectures.

We were basically told that this addition of stand-on vesel being advised to take action if action of give way vessel alone is unsufficient - was to cover sub-standard shipping / watch-keeping and also times of unavoidable events ..... NOT to be used on purpose and as a Get-Out clause. It was suggested that 17 would not actually avoid the collision but reduce it as far as possible - as many vessels would leave it too late to really avoid that prang.
We were also told quite plainly that in event of Marine Incident - IF a vessel had to use 17 - then serious view of other vessel would be taken over and above normal.

It is worth noting that no Marine Incident is apportioned 100% to one vessel .... due to both obligations to avoid collision and provision of 17 - BOTH vessels carry blame in differing %ages .....

I personally dislike the use of Singlehanding as an excuse for putting unfair onus on other seafarers - there is enough trouble out there without adding to it. But of course there are many s/h sailing events and occurrences that go by without incident .... Ocean crossing .... wide expanse ... probably not see anything for days on end ... coastal - different ball-game all together. Ocean - near all would have some radar on - so radar detector is invaluable safety tool.

Unfortunate answer on his part to a difficult unfortunate question.
 
Valuable comments, but would a better defence be

We have satellite navigation, boradband comms, AIS, precision radar monitoring and a shore team that never sleeps and we reduce the risk significantly?
But we do take our responsibilities seriously..........

Then

As we (mostly) all would wish the challenge of single handed sailing can continue without dissapearing into the slurry of the risk management do-nothing brigade.

just a thought
 
It is his own life that he is gambling on (and possibly another single hander going the other way) - therefore his decision alone.

Worth discussing the best way of reducing the risks for any would-be single handers, but I could not criticise for the decision they make, so long as they have thought about it.
 
'His logic was that for a collision to be fatal, you needed to be hit by the bow of a ship. A glancing blow would probably result is the loss of your rig and a change of underwear.'

I suggest you send that post to the relatives of the guys who sailed from Bembridge.
 
His reply actually missed the point, in that he was really being asked about the issue of having to sleep yet having an obligation to keep a look out at all times.
 
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of opening myself up to serious criticism

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was planning some light-hearted criticism. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

For what it's worth, I believe that it's past time for all the single-handed records to be frozen. By all means let's have ocean racing, but if we, as a community, support single-handing, whilst knowing what sleep deprivation and fatigue can do to a person's ability to take care of themselves and others, then we haven't got a leg to stand on when we argue for what's right. We should regulate ourselves responsibly, and argue for what's sensible, rather than trying to make up excuses for the inexcusable. If RKJ reads this, I'd like him to take a few moments to consider this.
 
Nope, but they should pay for their own health care when they suffer. This is not about accepting hazard and assessing risk. This is about the fact that, IN MY OWN OPINION, ocean racing or sailing single-handed is wrong.
 
It just said on CNN that he has slipped on some hydraulic fluid and bust his cocyx! Obviously too old and wobbly!
 
I certainly agree with stopping boxing: it's aim is to knock the opponent out, ie deliberately to cause brain damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 52
Replies
0
Views
752
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top