Sail vs power colreg situation

[epervier]

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.

From my point of view when they,(the powers that be) introduce licensing, and it's when, not if, that'll be when I'll sell up and get out of boating, because as soon as it requires compulsory licences and registration, policing and penalties will follow,and government are good at collecting your money, if nothing else!

 

[IanH]

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

roundabouts here are great fun. even better just now with what seems like a couple of million bikes and bikers arriving on each ferry. I do so love the TT.

 

[PaulGooch]

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.

Yes, apologies Tim, i should have added that was for open waters. I wasn't trying to suggest you'd say 6nm in the river

 

[timbartlett]

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.

Big difference: the dinghy is several miles closer, and it is already obvious that the mobo is not going to take any further avoiding action.

Others have made it blindingly obvious that they simply ignore Rule 17.

Well - they didn't actually state they altered course to port - only that the "went round the back" ... which could imply they did -

No. He actually said he didn't know whether he altered to port, which suggests to me that he uses the same "round the back" policy regardless of the direction of approach of the ship. But he maintains that all ship/mobo encounters are 90degree crossings. Hmmmm - but we'll let that go. If so, and the ship is approaching from the starboard side, then the mobo is required to give way. Altering to starboard and going round the back is perfect. If the ship is approaching from port, then (a) the mobo is required to stand on. If instead, he"goes round the back" then he has compounded the problem by altering course to port.

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,

My Dad was a carpenter. I am lousy at woodwork. Professional expertise is not something you inherit from your parents (or their friends).
You may have been examined, but if you said "Oh, I don't bother with Rule 17.Doesn't apply to me", I rather doubt that you passed.
Or, of course you could be making all this up...

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.

OMG. You stood on and lived to tell the tale! Amazing!

Of course there are watchkeepers who are lessthan perfect, radars that are not perfectlyy on song, Captains having a badday, etc.etc. It happens. This isthe real world. That is why Rule 17 includes two escape opportunities in case things go wrong. But it has been in the rules since 1877. It has survived umpteen revisions. Thatis because without Rule 17 you might as well rip up all the other rules, and go back to a free-for-all. If you impose an obligation on one vessel to get out of the way of the other, I think it only right that you must give him a chance to do so.

 

[Tommyrot]

Big difference: the dinghy is several miles closer, and it is already obvious that the mobo is not going to take any further avoiding action.

It's not clear at all what the mobo would do before the dinghy had tacked.
He could have (should have!) simply moved to the middle of the river, and passed behind the dinghy, as soon as it had done so.

As soon as it was clear what was happening the dinghy took avoiding action, as per the rules.

 

[timbartlett]

It's not clear at all what the mobo would do before the dinghy had tacked.
He could have (should have!) simply moved to the middle of the river, and passed behind the dinghy, as soon as it had done so.

As soon as it was clear what was happening the dinghy took avoiding action, as per the rules.

Put it down to different interpretations of what we saw on the video, then.
I thought I saw an underpowerd mobo move right over to the starboard side until he was virtually in the reeds and could go no further, but it still wasn't enough. low powered, so he probably couldn't have accelerated quickly enough to make any difference, no room to alter course to starboard, and altering to port or slowing down would have made things worse. I think he had stuffed himself, and I would like to think that if I had been driving the sailing boat, I would have seen that, and taken optional avoiding action (Rule 17a2) while on the other side of the river, rather than waiting to take compulsory avoiding action (Rule 17b).

 

[onesea]

I rather doubt that you passed.

3 times so far, since you insist on being so rude, I will bow out of this thread (unless insulted again).

I should not need to point anyone to the letter in question, a notorious picture, I think it is worth a read...

There is another thing you could say about standing on (particularly when ships are concerned), is there any reason in the rules I should not stand on?

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1wlkr/TelegraphMay2012/resources/16.htm

 

[Tommyrot]

Put it down to different interpretations of what we saw on the video, then.
I thought I saw an underpowerd mobo move right over to the starboard side until he was virtually in the reeds and could go no further, but it still wasn't enough. low powered, so he probably couldn't have accelerated quickly enough to make any difference, no room to alter course to starboard, and altering to port or slowing down would have made things worse. I think he had stuffed himself, and I would like to think that if I had been driving the sailing boat, I would have seen that, and taken optional avoiding action (Rule 17a2) while on the other side of the river, rather than waiting to take compulsory avoiding action (Rule 17b).

Fair enough, we differ.

I think the mobo could easily have turned to port when the dinghy tacked, but has probably never seen the Broads rules, let alone Colregs.

 

[Drummond]

What about rule 9? Narrow channels and sailing boats etc.

 

[Tommyrot]

What about rule 9? Narrow channels and sailing boats etc.

The incident happened on the Norfolk Broads, they aren't covered by Colregs. The Broads Authority Navigation Byelaws are similar, but have some substantial differences.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/...avigating/byelaws/Navigation_Byelaws_1995.pdf

 

[timbartlett]

What about rule 9? Narrow channels and sailing boats etc.

The incident happened on the Norfolk Broads, they aren't covered by Colregs. The Broads Authority Navigation Byelaws are similar, but have some substantial differences.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/...avigating/byelaws/Navigation_Byelaws_1995.pdf

There is no Narrow channel rule or TSS rule in the Broads regs -- there are no TSSs and almost the whole area is "narrow channels" so there would be no point.
But under colregs, the possible relevant bits might be
(b) A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.
(d) A vessel shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the sound signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel.
As the mobo is under 20m and the dinghy is a SV, they are both required not to impede a vessel that can safely navigate only within the channel. And as neither of them can navigate outside the channel, that means they both have a duty to avoid impeding each other! So 9b is no help.
I think one would be on very dodgy ground to contend that an SV tacking along a fairway is "crossing" it. If one was trying to win a court case it might be worth a punt (excuse the pun) but as a seafarer trying to avoid a collision, I'd say it was a non-starter. So 9d doesn't apply. If the mobo had been in any doubt it could have used the 5 blasts sound signal (this does apply on the Broads)... but it didn't

Tommyrot: Several of us probably already have copies of the Broads Regs (I know I'm not the only one who lives in Norfolk!) But instead of getting people who may have no intention of setting foot anywhere near the Broads to download and read a 40-page pdf, why don't you let us know the differences that you would class as "substantial"?

 

[Tommyrot]

Tommyrot: Several of us probably already have copies of the Broads Regs (I know I'm not the only one who lives in Norfolk!) But instead of getting people who may have no intention of setting foot anywhere near the Broads to download and read a 40-page pdf, why don't you let us know the differences that you would class as "substantial"?

Surely it's up to anyone interested to read up on the byelaws themselves, why should anyone take my word for it?
That's the reason I gave the link to the byelaws.

You've already pointed out that there are no Narrow Channel rules or TSS rules. Don't you consider that substantial?

There are subjects covered in the byelaws that would obviously not be included in the Colregs, such as mooring, bright lights on banks, bridges or "Fun events".
Even in the "Lights and Shapes" there are differences. For instance, the lighting rules for a sailing boat have no mention of length of boat, so a sailing boat of less than 7 metres should display the stern and sidelights.

But of course, your intention in asking the question was more to do with "scoring points" as you like to put it.

 

[timbartlett]

Surely it's up to anyone interested to read up on the byelaws themselves, why should anyone take my word for it?
That's the reason I gave the link to the byelaws....But of course, your intention in asking the question was more to do with "scoring points" as you like to put it.

Actually, it wasn't. It was because bitter experience here has shown me that even if you provide a link to a document, many people won't actually read the document concerned. And as the Broads bye-laws are quite substantial, those who aren't familiar with them may not spot the differences.
As you say, I have pointed out a couple of differences that are of immediate relevance. Why on earth would I do that if I was playing the points-scoring game?

 

[Tommyrot]

Surely those not familiar with the Broads Byelaws, but with a good working knowledge of the Colregs, would easily spot the differences.

Points scoring? Maybe because "why don't you let us know the differences that you would class as "substantial"?" sounds far more like an exam question, or a personal challenge, than a serious request.

 

[timbartlett]

Surely those not familiar with the Broads Byelaws, but with a good working knowledge of the Colregs, would easily spot the differences.

Points scoring? Maybe because "why don't you let us know the differences that you would class as "substantial"?" sounds far more like an exam question, or a personal challenge, than a serious request.

As I implied before, posting a link on YBW doesn't mean anyone will click on it: even if it is a link back to an earlier post in the samethread, there are quite a few who won't bother, but insist that you have to quote the entire post or not at all.

Even fewer will bother downloading a 40-page pdf: fewer still will bother reading it to play spot the difference -- particularly as many are probably not familiar enough with the exact wording of the colregs to be able to spot the significant differences in amongs all the numbering changes, semantic changes (such as from "vessel" to "master of a vessel"), and re-orderings.

I have never been interested in the points scoring game, and I thought you had given up on it, which is why I tried to engage with you in what I thought was a more amicable discussion and to support you in making a valid point. Was I wrong?

 

[capnsensible]

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317975

 

[Tommyrot]

As I implied before, posting a link on YBW doesn't mean anyone will click on it: even if it is a link back to an earlier post in the samethread, there are quite a few who won't bother, but insist that you have to quote the entire post or not at all.

Even fewer will bother downloading a 40-page pdf: fewer still will bother reading it to play spot the difference -- particularly as many are probably not familiar enough with the exact wording of the colregs to be able to spot the significant differences in amongs all the numbering changes, semantic changes (such as from "vessel" to "master of a vessel"), and re-orderings.

I have never been interested in the points scoring game, and I thought you had given up on it, which is why I tried to engage with you in what I thought was a more amicable discussion and to support you in making a valid point. Was I wrong?

No, and I agree with all of the above.

Maybe I should take a break, relax, and come back when I've been sailing for the weekend.
There's even a chance I might end up in Norfolk, but only just. Heading for Wainfleet and the Skegness Y.C. BBQ. Extending the trip and going to Thornham is a possibility, but I've got health issues which might intervene.
Foul weather gear packed, it's a bank holiday...

 

[Chrusty 1]

No, and I agree with all of the above.

Maybe I should take a break, relax, and come back when I've been sailing for the weekend.
There's even a chance I might end up in Norfolk, but only just. Heading for Wainfleet and the Skegness Y.C. BBQ. Extending the trip and going to Thornham is a possibility, but I've got health issues which might intervene.
Foul weather gear packed, it's a bank holiday...

Give my regards to Dylan, you should find him playing in the mud somewhere!.............Well either that or shouting at mobos, that's the Dylan version of tilting at windmills!

 

[Tommyrot]

I might just be back here and even more grumpy.

Just been shopping for the trip and the brake pedal in the car has gone to the floor!!!

No chance of getting it sorted today, high tide tomorrow at Saltfleet is 04.22...

Bloody **** *******s **** arse ****

 

[Chrusty 1]

I might just be back here and even more grumpy.

Just been shopping for the trip and the brake pedal in the car has gone to the floor!!!

No chance of getting it sorted today, high tide tomorrow at Saltfleet is 04.22...

Bloody **** *******s **** arse ****

Aaaaaaaw shucks! $hit buggery damn! What an absolutely awful thing to happen, and many more downright piss taking comments!

Naaaaaa seriously, that is a blasted nuisance No chance of a quick fix and catch the afternoon tide?