Scary moment, colregs, seamanship, opinions welcome

[john_morris_uk]

One quote from the judgement for those who think that they can ‘just keep out of the way’.

37. The Collision Regulations are an International Maritime Organisation (“IMO”) 1972 Convention (“the 1972 Convention”). They are given the force of law in the United Kingdom and applied to United Kingdom ships “wherever they may be” by the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/75), made by the Secretary of State for Transport under sections 85 and 86 the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Is anyone going to suggest that the term ‘United Kingdom Ships’ doesn’t mean ‘any UK registered vessel? ‘. I can’t see that holding any water in court…
As mentioned before, the rules apply when two vessels are in sight of each other, so there’s no escaping one’s responsibility.

 

[Refueler]

One quote from the judgement for those who think that they can ‘just keep out of the way’.

Is anyone going to suggest that the term ‘United Kingdom Ships’ doesn’t mean ‘any UK registered vessel? ‘. I can’t see that holding any water in court…
As mentioned before, the rules apply when two vessels are in sight of each other, so there’s no escaping one’s responsibility.

It may be of interest to consider that when two vessels collide and both are determined as Under Way regardless of Making Way or not - blame is apportioned to BOTH in varying % depending on Maritime Courts understanding of events.

 

[john_morris_uk]

It may be of interest to consider that when two vessels collide and both are determined as Under Way regardless of Making Way or not - blame is apportioned to BOTH in varying % depending on Maritime Courts understanding of events.

Indeed.

 

[Uricanejack]

Hmm. Yes well whatever,

It was a long ruling and it ain’t over yet. You have to have some pretty deep pockets to pursue the game. The folks with the deep pockets have to have some big darn big money at risk of coming out of those pockets to make th point of it all worth while.

The judge ruled the lower court erred on the law.
Sent it back to the lower court after determining crossing did apply.
So the lower court will have to reassess how it assessed or split the blame including the requirements of rule 15.
So it continues

The overall purpose of the rules was considered and commented on.

The principle being, A couple of dumb sailors or seafarers should be able to figure it out easily. So the simple meaning takes priority. So they can quickly determine what they should do.
Then it took me to to three hours to read why. And if I want to actually understand it. I will have to read it a few more times.
So even the ruling say this is an argument for later.

Some of the most interesting and important parts are about the determining of risk of collision.

This is the first reference I have ever seen to the use of AIS for collision avoidance. which is at this time not in the Collision regs.
The ruling mentions AIS saying AIS could have been helpful along with the rest of the stuff they didn’t look at.
And would have been just another indication of the steady bearing.
which is interesting, I have my doubts about it giving a good indication of a steady bearing. With all the heading and speed changes. My observation AIS gives very short term information when there is lots of changes. Rather than the the longer term observation of the steady compass bearing. Even the ARPA can be very short term. compared to a traditional plot or compass bearing.

The ruling clearly considers the non use of VHF to clarify intentions as important.
Which is interesting, Misunderstanding a VHF communication which was relevant to a 3rd vessel not to the two vessels involved. clearly caused some of the confusion on the Bridge of the Waiting Tanker.

The judge considered Rule 2, I was a little bit surprised by his comments. RE rule 2. which appeared to make the requirements for departure a bit tougher than I believe the Rule 2 requires. He is a judge,

In any case, The ruling makes it very clear the despite all the mod cons.
The steady compass bearing was the key to how the court reached its ruling. To my mind not a surprise.
The radar, ARPA, GPS, AIS and VHF all considered.
The ruling referred right back to the steady compass bearing. And gives a very logical set of reasons why. Despite all the fancy new tech.

The chart with positions at the end of the ruling kind of says it all.
Shouldn’t have been to hard to figure out according to rules. Turns out it was.

Doesn’t say much about impede. Just a brief mention as a reference to confirm some times crossing doesn’t apply. without commenting about when or when not. Impede not relevant

The dispute was about crossing or not crossing.

 

[finestgreen]

This is the first reference I have ever seen to the use of AIS for collision avoidance. which is at this time not in the Collision regs.
The ruling mentions AIS saying AIS could have been helpful along with the rest of the stuff they didn’t look at.

I guess if you have AIS it becomes an available means for use in maintaining a "proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions"

 

[capnsensible]

It seems to me that for us humble sailors, the rules are mostly simple and easy to apply. Hence collisions are so rare.

However, once put into the hands of lawyers, judges, pedants, argumentatives, point scorers and bores, the whole thing takes on a new level of forum posting.

Good luck with that, bon voyage!