Sail vs power colreg situation

[lustyd]

To bring consistency and predictability to bear when a risk of collision exists.

Of course there are the occasional "hard cases" when the situation is confused, but they are relatively rare, although I concede that they may be more common in the Solent, which is crowded tends to attract more "occasional" sailors than other places. I agree with Tim Bartlett. In practice, the regulations are not hard to apply and the default position is clear - apply them.

I agree too when a genuine collision situation exists. The problem is that some people apply them far too early, and some people apply them far too often. For example, when two boats are in open water, one on a bearing of 0 and the other 180 you only need to turn to starboard if they are directly in front of you. I quite often find people cutting accross my bows (causing a colision situation) in order to pass port to port. This has happenned when there would have been several cables between us had we simply both held our course.

 

[timbartlett]

OK Tim, this may be a lack of knowledge on my part but how close must you be for it to be considered a risk of collision, and how do you know when the other skipper deems it to be a collision risk which is the point at which you must adhere to the rules?

No, it's not lack of knowledge. It's because it's a "how long is a piece of string" question, for which more information would be needed to provide even a guess at an answer. But you're right, it is pretty fundamental!

according to Tims previous posts, 6nm.

Hmmm. That's the trouble with giving definite answers to "it depends" type questions. I think you'll find that I have suggested 6 miles as a suitable distance when dealing with ships in open water. That's partly based on a long-standing legal precedent but expert advice is that for ships in open water 6 miles is now a minimum, because the rationale given for the original distance was that the steering and sailing rules begin to apply "...when, if either of [the vessels involved] does anything contrary to the regulations, it will cause danger of collision.

For small craft, in confined waters, the distance will be less. In the video incident that sparked all this off, I suggested that there was no risk of collision while the dinghy was making its last tack before the near miss, so the incident could have been avoided if the dinghy had dawdled through the tack.

...6NM would mean that everyone in the Solent would always be subject to colregs. Given that at least half of them would be stand on vessels that means half of them would never be allowed to turn!!!

Two points:
First: "course" in the colreg context does not mean compass course. In very simple terms it means carry on what you are doing so long as that is predictable and obvious to an outsider -- eg following a curving channel is "holding your course" in colreg terms, even though it involves constantly altering course in navigational terms. That not in the colregs, I'm afraid, it's in another of those damn legal precedents that professionals learn about at college, but amateurs don't!

Second: Earlier on, you wrote "A dinghy sailor won't consider collision a possibility until 5 feet from my hull, and I don't consider it a collision risk until I'm 100 yards or so from someone." I suggest that the dinghy sailor would be wrong. At that distance, it is almost self-evident that a wrong move by either of you could easily result in a collision. You cannot know that he will definitely take avoiding action in time, and he cannot know that you know he will and that you have enough faith in his skill and judgement not to resort to avoiding action of your own!

Between two typical cruising yachts, your 100 yards may not seem unreasonable... but now let's make one of those cruising yachts a 30 knot motor cruiser -- are you happy that he should not start applying the colregs until he is 100 yards (6 seconds) away from possible impact with you? He knows he can turn to miss you in 20 yards -- but do you?

See what I mean about "how long is a piece of string?" and why I tend to argue in favour of applying the colregs at distances that some people seem to find excessive.
__________________________________

Incidentally, I'm fascinated by the fact that some people find my explanations of when the colregs apply are excessive, but others argue that the my support of the stand-on rule would force them to go "under the bows" of ships. The standard advice given to professional seafarers is that "the stand-on vessel should not allow a give-way vessel to approach to a distance of less than about twelve times her own length in a crossing situation without taking avoiding action (under rule 17b)". For a 10m cruising yacht, 12 lengths is obviously more than 100yards. Yet you suggest that the colregs only start to apply at 100yards, while the ExtraMasters who advise the Admiralty Court are publishing advice that says twelve lengths is too late to take avoiding action.

I wonder if your insurance company's loss adjusters have their book on their shelves?

 

[timbartlett]

I agree too when a genuine collision situation exists. The problem is that some people apply them far too early, and some people apply them far too often. For example, when two boats are in open water, one on a bearing of 0 and the other 180 you only need to turn to starboard if they are directly in front of you. I quite often find people cutting accross my bows (causing a colision situation) in order to pass port to port. This has happenned when there would have been several cables between us had we simply both held our course.

Again, that is down to a wrong application of the rules, not down to the rules themselves. The rule says "approaching so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard". If there was no risk of colision, you don't have to alter course to starboard.

That's the danger of the over-simplified "Janet and John" rules. The real rules aren't complicated -- why do we make them more complicated by teaching such watered-down tosh as "in boats we drive on the right"?

 

[fireball]

Tim - I know you'll argue till the "Cowes" come home ...

I think the whole "flouting the law" comes down to understanding the point at which both parties assume the colregs come into force - as you've said - open water commercial ships its going to be around 6Nm ... but for bog standard leisure craft that distance is just rediculous (I think you'd agree?) - I doubt many ppl would be able to establish a collision risk between such craft at that distance ...

And of course - as you've said - it's not just distance you need to consider - it is speed as well ...

I would think that what you may consider as "flouting the law" is mostly just a way of avoiding a colregs situation in the first place.

 

[lw395]

"the stand-on vessel should not allow a give-way vessel to approach to a distance of less than about twelve times her own length in a crossing situation without taking avoiding action (under rule 17b)"[/i]. For a 10m cruising yacht, 12 lengths is obviously more than 100yards. Yet you suggest that the colregs only start to apply at 100yards, while the ExtraMasters who advise the Admiralty Court are publishing advice that says twelve lengths is too late to take avoiding action.

I wonder if your insurance company's loss adjusters have their book on their shelves?

Twelve lengths of a yacht is a dozen options, twelve lengths of an IoW car ferry is enough to turn around and stop. Twelve lengths of a typical seagoing ship at cruising speed is a forgone conclusion.

The bit of water we started discussing is probably less than twelve lengths wide. (or to be more precise, the bit of water it reminds me of sailing on is narrower than that!).
I have driven a motorboat superficially like the one in the video, a friend kept it on the Thames. I would say 12 lengths is a reasonable estimate for being able to avoid things. It didn't exactly stop on a sixpence, nor did it turn ever so fast without heeling. A good case for keeping within the speed limit!
When the dinghy tacks on to a closing course with a thing like that within 12 lengths or so, he really is taking on the need to avoid the motorboat at the end of his tack. Dinghy sailors know that and don't have a problem with it. Or shouldn't.
The only criticism I have of the motorboat is that it is going a bit fast for the circumstances.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim - I know you'll argue till the "Cowes" come home ...

I think the whole "flouting the law" comes down to understanding the point at which both parties assume the colregs come into force - as you've said - open water commercial ships its going to be around 6Nm ... but for bog standard leisure craft that distance is just rediculous (I think you'd agree?) - I doubt many ppl would be able to establish a collision risk between such craft at that distance ...

And of course - as you've said - it's not just distance you need to consider - it is speed as well ...

I would think that what you may consider as "flouting the law" is mostly just a way of avoiding a colregs situation in the first place.

Why do you "think" I'd agree: I've said so, quite openly, and without reservation. In the incident in the video, I've said there was no risk of collision, IMO when the two were a river-width apart (<50m).

I'm quite happy to discuss distances etc. But I'm afraid I am developing quite a short fuse towards those whose sole argument seems to be that they don't likerule 17 so it shouldn't apply to them. My fuse is particularly short when it comes to people who clearly have not read the rules, so they are arguing on the basis of some half-remembered, dumbed-down version.

I am not suggesting that either of those apply to you. But I seem to spend half my life on here responding to posts by people who argue that in ship-yacht encounters it is actually wrong (bad seamanship, suicidal, etc.) to stand on -- in spite of the fact that until they have identified that there is a risk of collision, they cannot possibly know whether altering five or ten degrees (usually in the direction the colregs specifically advise them not to go!) would make matters better or worse!

 

[Litotes]

I agree too when a genuine collision situation exists. The problem is that some people apply them far too early, and some people apply them far too often.

The problem lies with the people, not the rules. The rules cannot possibly cover every eventuality, but they are, on the whole, clear, simple and effective. Human fallibility shouldn't stop us from observing them. And if we do, perhaps the general standard of knowledge and intelligence in the application can be raised. It can certainly forced ever downwards if we don't observe them.

 

[fireball]

But I seem to spend half my life on here responding to posts by people who argue that in ship-yacht encounters it is actually wrong (bad seamanship, suicidal, etc.) to stand on -- in spite of the fact that until they have identified that there is a risk of collision, they cannot possibly know whether altering five or ten degrees (usually in the direction the colregs specifically advise them not to go!) would make matters better or worse!

But isn't that the whole point? Very early identification of a collision risk and then take any number of actions to mitigate it ...

You've said that 6Nm is a good indicator for commercial in open water - I'd think not to dissimilar for commercial -> leisure yacht - probably a mile or two less - in the same situation...
so - if you've identified a ship on the horizon @ >6Nm to be a potential collision risk you're (IMHO) at liberty to alter course/speed any way you like ...

If you take "stand on" rule to the n'th degree you'd potentially get someone sailing out to the Nab and back not being "allowed" to alter course until he reaches France ..
So clearly there has to be some "common sense" that doesn't disadvantage the stand on vessel and rules only come into effect once the give way vessel is obliged to start altering course/speed .. that point is arbitrary and will vary enormously depending on circumstances ..
The problem is identifying that point - the two skippers may well have differing opinions on when that point occurs - and that's where you get the "flouting the law" accusations ...

 

[Tommyrot]

In the video incident that sparked all this off, I suggested that there was no risk of collision while the dinghy was making its last tack before the near miss, so the incident could have been avoided if the dinghy had dawdled through the tack.

You are suggesting that the dinghy should have ignored the Broads Authority Rules, that the mobo should keep clear of sailing vessels.

I'm shocked!

 

[timbartlett]

You are suggesting that the dinghy should have ignored the Broads Authority Rules, that the mobo should keep clear of sailing vessels.

I'm shocked!

No. You're not shocked. You're trying to score points.

I am suggesting that the mobo should have conformed to Broads bye-law 23a
Subject to the requirements of Byelaw 15:
(a) The master of a power-driven vessel underway shall keep
his vessel out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a sailing vessel;
(iv) a quanted vessel.

23a does not apply to the sailing boat, because he is not a power driven vessel!
The sailing helmsman should have taken advantage of the permission accorded by Broads Bye-law 18 (1)(b)
(1) (a) Where pursuant to these Byelaws one of two vessels is
to keep out of the way of the other the master of the other
shall subject to sub-paragraph (1)(b) keep his course and
speed.
(b) The master of the latter vessel may take action to avoid
collision by his manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes
apparent to him that the vessel required to keep out of the
way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with
these Byelaws.

There. Can we stop this game now?

 

[epervier]

No disrespect Tim, but this dead horse is well and truly flogged, all that's left is the bones and picking through those won't change it, and considering it's all over a non collision what's the point? Every time colregs gets on these fora it ends up a hiding to nothing, is it worth all the aggro?

 

[lotusman]

I, for one, have found it a fascinating thread

Rule 5 seems important for anyone with an interest - two threads on scuttlebut, one on mobo all stimulated by the original, it's a lot to keep up with!

Perhaps the next edition of the excellent films by PBO & Dylan on youtube could include near misses and invite debate?

 

[timbartlett]

But isn't that the whole point? Very early identification of a collision risk and then take any number of actions to mitigate it ...

You've said that 6Nm is a good indicator for commercial in open water - I'd think not to dissimilar for commercial -> leisure yacht - probably a mile or two less - in the same situation...
so - if you've identified a ship on the horizon @ >6Nm to be a potential collision risk you're (IMHO) at liberty to alter course/speed any way you like ...

I don't agree with the "mile or two less" bit, because that neglects the original rationale for the 6mile guidance and the fact that ships are generally bigger and faster than they were in 1870-something, but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it (see below)

If you take "stand on" rule to the n'th degree <snip> The problem is identifying that point - the two skippers may well have differing opinions on when that point occurs - and that's where you get the "flouting the law" accusations ...

I don't think anyone has ever suggested taking it to the "nth" degree other than in an effort to "justify" ignoring the rule altogether! I have never suggested that any more than 6miles is appropriate, and have frequently said that smaller distances are appropriate for smaller vessels in enclosed waters. I agree that identifying a precise point is difficult, but fortunately we don't have to. So long as each skipper settles on a distance that is reasonable, it doesn't matter very much if their figures don't exactly match.

The "flouting the law" accusations are (generally) made by me when people make posts such as the one I've just answered on the mobo forum where someone wrote "Not a real problem, but one you dont seem to like, is mostly mobo's meet up with ships, at about 90 deg.'s. The ship does not change course or stop. It just carries on. We stop, wave, then go round the back of them. Not sure whether that is turning to port, or just bashing into them.".

"Going round the back" of a give-way ship means altering course to port. So not only is this poster saying "ignore Rule 17a", but he is advocating a course of action that directly contradicts the express instruction given in 17c.

To pretend that this is acceptable or normal on a forum which some novices turn to for what they believe will be "expert" advice is, frankly, insane. It is akin to someone on a motor bike forum saying "yeah, it's fine to drive on the right -- everybody does it, all the time. Oh, and don't bother stopping for traffic already on a roundabout. It's only commonsense that if you do you'll get rear-ended."

 

[timbartlett]

No disrespect Tim, but this dead horse is well and truly flogged, all that's left is the bones and picking through those won't change it, and considering it's all over a non collision what's the point? Every time colregs gets on these fora it ends up a hiding to nothing, is it worth all the aggro?

You have a very good point. I must say I find these threads immeasurably depressing, because it seems to me that some people people openly bragging about their contempt for the colregs and others demonstrating their ignorance of even the basics is an open invitation for more legislation, compulsory testing, and licensing.
I have been resolutely opposed to all those things since I qualified as an instructor, 40 years ago. I now find myself increasingly convinced that they are a necessity.

 

[Tommyrot]

No. You're not shocked. You're trying to score points.

I am suggesting that the mobo should have conformed to Broads bye-law 23a
Subject to the requirements of Byelaw 15:
(a) The master of a power-driven vessel underway shall keep
his vessel out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre;
(iii) a sailing vessel;
(iv) a quanted vessel.

23a does not apply to the sailing boat, because he is not a power driven vessel!
The sailing helmsman should have taken advantage of the permission accorded by Broads Bye-law 18 (1)(b)
(1) (a) Where pursuant to these Byelaws one of two vessels is
to keep out of the way of the other the master of the other
shall subject to sub-paragraph (1)(b) keep his course and
speed.
(b) The master of the latter vessel may take action to avoid
collision by his manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes
apparent to him that the vessel required to keep out of the
way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with
these Byelaws.

There. Can we stop this game now?

You suggested that the dinghy should have seen the situation developing and deliberately tacked slowly in order to avoid the need for the mobo to give way.
Much in the same way as others have suggested they might do when confronted by large shipping.

 

[fireball]

The "flouting the law" accusations are (generally) made by me when people make posts such as the one I've just answered on the mobo forum where someone wrote "Not a real problem, but one you dont seem to like, is mostly mobo's meet up with ships, at about 90 deg.'s. The ship does not change course or stop. It just carries on. We stop, wave, then go round the back of them. Not sure whether that is turning to port, or just bashing into them.".

"Going round the back" of a give-way ship means altering course to port. So not only is this poster saying "ignore Rule 17a", but he is advocating a course of action that directly contradicts the express instruction given in 17c.

Well - they didn't actually state they altered course to port - only that the "went round the back" ... which could imply they did - or as they said they stopped first doesn't that indicate that they've already taken avoiding action - then not subject to colregs whilst there is no collision risk - at which point they are free to manoeuvre as they choose ...

I don't know about you - but I've found a mixture of reactions from commercial vessels - some do give way - others stand on beyond the point I'm comfortable with ...
Being in charge of a slow vessel it's important to respond in a predicable manner as you won't have the time/space/speed to get yourself out of a sticky situation ...
Being in charge of a faster vessel there is perhaps a little more leeway - if you're doing 15 knots and come across a commercial vessel also doing 15 knots who stands on despite being give way you don't really want to turn to starboard and sit there - you need to do something more - either drop speed or continue altering to starboard - in fact if you alter 270° to starboard you end up doing 90° to port - albeit in a more roundabout manner ...
Now - do correct me if I'm wrong - but nowhere in the colregs does it dictate how far you may or may not alter to starboard - so it would be possible to "go round the back" without ever (technically) breaking the colregs rules ...

I rather suspect that course change rule breaking is a bit of a non-issue - because as long as either or both skippers make a course change early and obvious then there is little problem - but I do appreciate that generally we should (aim to) turn to starboard - where practicable - I've had a couple of instances where you do the preverbial "dance" where the other skippers course change clashes with mine - at which point I just make a more significant turn (usually the other way) and we go on our merry way ...

 

[IanH]

Anyone and everyone must simply stop whenever they see another vehicle or vessel for fear that it might hit them.

I invite you to come to the Isle of Man and witness exactly this behaviour. It is truly astonishing.

 

[onesea]

according to Tims previous posts, 6nm.

There is never any mention of distance in the rules. If you ever find yourself in front of the MCA for an exam you always avoid distances as it is an argument you cannot win..

That's the thing with the colregs, it is very clear about 2 boats approaching from over the horizon, less clear with more boats altering course at shorter ranges.

Yup it leaves allot to the mariners professional judgement or seaman like conduct.

I don't know about you - but I've found a mixture of reactions from commercial vessels - some do give way - others stand on beyond the point I'm comfortable with ...

DO you know what training he has had? Is he just following waypoints? What Cranky Captain has written in his standing orders call me if? What happens if the ship does not make the next tide at the next port?
As a yachtie ithink no 1 has to be HAS HE SEEN YOU?

Being in charge of a slow vessel it's important to respond in a predicable manner as you won't have the time/space/speed to get yourself out of a sticky situation ...

Yup and being slower have you ever noticed that boats tend to pass closer, its a tough one that one..

Being in charge of a faster vessel there is perhaps a little more leeway - if you're doing 15 knots and come across a commercial vessel also doing 15 knots who stands on despite being give way you don't really want to turn to starboard and sit there - you need to do something more - either drop speed or continue altering to starboard - in fact if you alter 270° to starboard you end up doing 90° to port - albeit in a more roundabout manner ...
Now - do correct me if I'm wrong - but nowhere in the colregs does it dictate how far you may or may not alter to starboard - so it would be possible to "go round the back" without ever (technically) breaking the colregs rules ...

Hmm that one is a great get out clause but often debated in processional circles used at a distance use with caution.... In close quarters situations it is THE ONLY way out, a round turn just make it slow enough the other vessel can see what you have done..

I rather suspect that course change rule breaking is a bit of a non-issue - because as long as either or both skippers make a course change early and obvious then there is little problem - but I do appreciate that generally we should (aim to) turn to starboard - where practicable - I've had a couple of instances where you do the preverbial "dance" where the other skippers course change clashes with mine - at which point I just make a more significant turn (usually the other way) and we go on our merry way ...

I think you make some valid points there, One suggestion I would make if you ever find yourself "doing the dance" as you put it:
1) It really has not gone to plan you should not find your self there (stating obvious I know )
2) It is the MOST IMPORTANT time to apply the rules. A) If collision occurs you are likely to be less liable, B) The other boat knows what you are likely to do..

Bit of my history:
I have not written a book,
Brought up sailing, father was master mariner,
Have taken farther friends (also masters sailing often enough),
Have taken my friends (often master mariners) sailing,
Have qualified had my knowledge of ColRegs examined at higher levels than the RYA,

Since I have moved south friends have commented on the "Numpty WAFTI's" one comes to mind:

Master mariner our for a sail "What are they doing?"
Me "following the rules"
MM "But hey want to go that way?"
Me "But we are here..."
MM "So he is going to go all the way round the back of us to over take us?"
Me "Yup then watch how close he does".
MM "F8*&kin WAFI's"

Of course though I am making all this up...

 

[lustyd]

I invite you to come to the Isle of Man and witness exactly this behaviour. It is truly astonishing.

It was near the Isle of Man that I had my only run in with a ship. It was a F7 with a lee shore going North along the Mull of Galloway when a ship was heading NW toward Ireland. We were stand on as we were sailing and he didn't alter course. We called him on the VHF since our only other course of action was turn towards a lee shore. He said he'd been hoovering and hence had not seen us. He would, however alter course asap. He did not, so we eventually turned toward the shore at the last minute and avoided a collision.
Forgive me for not fully trusting the big 'uns.

 

[l'escargot]

I invite you to come to the Isle of Man and witness exactly this behaviour. It is truly astonishing.

It must be something about islands, it is the same on mini roundabouts on the Isle of Wight