Some thoughts on the Colregs - what Rules would you change?

[lw395]

Only if the inability to fulfil the obligations arises out of "an exceptional circumstance" :

(f) The term "vessel not under command" means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.

And the defintion of 'exceptional' in this context is?

It could mean 'unusual'or it could mean any circumstance which excludes you from being able to respond.
I.e. it's not totally clear whether it is some event which the skipper has not control over, e.g. a gear failure, or might include events which are 'self inflicted' like choosing to do maintenance or simply not manning the engine room.

 

[prv]

Because motoring is what the masthead light signifies.

I disagree. To the majority of the world's mariners, in practice they (not "it") signify "a ship".

The "power-driven vessel" is assumed by default, and "under way", ie not anchored or moored, is also to be assumed at sea.

If you think they mean anything else to the typical seafarer, then why not call them the "not towing anything" lights, or the "not fishing" lights?

And furthermore because when you’re drifting with engines stopped, the rules require that that light be extinguished (Rule 27, whether restricted or NUC).[/FONT]

They certainly do not, as Minn (with a lifelong career in the shipping industry) has already explained.

Pete

 

[capnsensible]

A power driven vessel, AIUI is a vessel with a motor, other than a sailing vessel with an auxilliary.

Nah. A power driven vessel is any vessel capable of being propelled by machinery.

I do hope this thread continues to be a learning thread rather than its usual!

 

[capnsensible]

I disagree. To the majority of the world's mariners, in practice they (not "it") signify a ship

Pete

I would say that it's simply a power driven vessel. Probably over 50m with two or under with one.

 

[Kukri]

And the defintion of 'exceptional' in this context is?

It could mean 'unusual'or it could mean any circumstance which excludes you from being able to respond.
I.e. it's not totally clear whether it is some event which the skipper has not control over, e.g. a gear failure, or might include events which are 'self inflicted' like choosing to do maintenance or simply not manning the engine room.

I'll have to delve into the textbooks when I get home to be able to answer that properly, but I do recall that there is case law to the effect that "making slow progress due to heavy weather" is not "exceptional" and to the effect that a partial disablement of the propelling machinery is not "exceptional". Hope that helps for now, but my hunch is that "self inflicted disablement" such as repairs to an engine that was poorly but which had not actually stopped due to an accident,would not count.

 

[Kukri]

I’m not convinced by his argument that the concept and introduction of ‘stand on’ was from the way square rigged sailing ships behave.

There may be reason to look at IRPCS because of the advent of modern technology, but you’d have to have exemptions in the rules for when a vessel meets another vessel without all the electronics. A new day shape for ‘my AIS and VHF aren’t working?’

It’s a provocative article and not to be taken too seriously IMHO.

On the contrary, it is meant to be taken very seriously indeed. As I am sure your sermons were. Did you never use humour to get your point across?

I have never seen an alternative explanation for the introduction of the concept of the "stand on" vessel, and the lack of a stand on concept in the 1840 Trinity House rules for power driven vessels makes me think that this is the right explanation, but it is not confined to square rigged vessels - when two vessels are meeting on opposite tacks neither can alter course to windward and if both alter course away from the wind they are altering into each other.

This explanation has been kicking around for twenty years, and nobody has yet offered another, but if you have one let's have it.

I agree with your point that any change in the Rules must be capable of operating in the absence of electronics on one or more vessels meeting so as to involve risk of collision.

 

[BelleSerene]

I disagree. To the majority of the world's mariners, in practice they (not "it") signify "a ship".

The "power-driven vessel" is assumed by default, and "under way", ie not anchored or moored, is also to be assumed at sea.

If you think they mean anything else to the typical seafarer, then why not call them the "not towing anything" lights, or the "not fishing" lights?



They certainly do not, as Minn (with a lifelong career in the shipping industry) has already explained.

Pete

I stand corrected on my secondary point about the need also to extinguish the masthead light when not making way, Pete. Thanks to all for a flurry of informed responses.

But the meaning of a masthead light being that the vessel is power-driven remains. For any rules to be meaningful you have to expect people to abide them, not what they 'assume' the rules mean - or it would be anarchy at sea!

 

[lw395]

Nah. A power driven vessel is any vessel capable of being propelled by machinery.

I do hope this thread continues to be a learning thread rather than its usual!

"(b) The term “power-driven vessel” means any vessel propelled by machinery.

(c) The term “sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used."

So, are oars 'machinery'?

Usually the term refers to the six classical simple machines which were defined by Renaissance scientists:[4]

Lever
Wheel and axle
Pulley
Inclined plane
Wedge
Screw
An oar is a lever.

Or
noun, plural ma·chin·er·ies.

an assemblage of machines or mechanical apparatuses: the machinery of a factory.

 

[bedouin]

"(b) The term “power-driven vessel” means any vessel propelled by machinery.

(c) The term “sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used."

So, are oars 'machinery'?

IIRC Colregs explicitly classifies oars alongside sails

An interesting digression - if your definitions are correct then is a sailing boat drifting a power driven vessel and as such needs to display a steaming light ?

 

[lw395]

I'll have to delve into the textbooks when I get home to be able to answer that properly, .......

That is what I would like to change about the colregs, the fact that experienced people still need textbooks to make sense of them.
How is a skipper supposed to folow the rules, with several textbooks to hand?

Likewise I feel the RRS have failed when a protest committee have to refer a decision to appeal.
If a reasonable committee can't be sure of making the right decision with the book, an hour in a quiet room and a some decent coffee, how the hell are we supposed to get it right all the time on the water?

 

[capnsensible]

"(b) The term “power-driven vessel” means any vessel propelled by machinery.

(c) The term “sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being used."

.

Quite. No sailing vessel with auxiliary engine. On, PDV oFF SV.

Oars, now there's a thing. Apart from lights to be displayed a vessel under oars is poorly represented in the Rules. Personally, I reckon it's largely open to interpretation, but if I'm nipping ashore in my dinghy with paddles, I would generally not impede.

 

[lw395]

IIRC Colregs explicitly classifies oars alongside sails

An interesting digression - if your definitions are correct then is a sailing boat drifting a power driven vessel and as such needs to display a steaming light ?

AFAIK, oars only get a mention in the context of lights? Happy to be corrected on this.

I would hazard that a yacht drifting which has a motor fitted and no sails up is more under power than 'under sail'. The fact i has a mast and furled sails do not prevent it from motoring to windward or whatever. A yacht underway and making way under bare poles in a storm probably deserves to be treated as sailing though.

But as anyone with tax experience will tell you, many people have been wrong due to applying logic, common sense and good intentions to regulations.

 

[capnsensible]

IIRC Colregs explicitly classifies oars alongside sails

Only in Rule 25 about lights.

 

[capnsensible]

In the modern age, there are lots of good training AIDS on the Internet. I use the Imray one. It's even so slightly dated with graphics but it has real sound for signals, a very good harbour bouyage plan (a and b) with the ability to change to night, plus of course the rules themselves.

:encouragement:

Oh, no relation.

 

[Kukri]

That is what I would like to change about the colregs, the fact that experienced people still need textbooks to make sense of them.
How is a skipper supposed to folow the rules, with several textbooks to hand?

Likewise I feel the RRS have failed when a protest committee have to refer a decision to appeal.
If a reasonable committee can't be sure of making the right decision with the book, an hour in a quiet room and a some decent coffee, how the hell are we supposed to get it right all the time on the water?

You make a good point, but I was aiming for precision. The "default position", I think, is that "if you can make way and maintain a heading, then you are "Under Command", and if you have voluntarily disabled your vessel, then you are also "Under Command".

Because - for historical insurance reasons - most collisions anywhere in the world are referred to the Admiralty Court of the High Court in London, where the Admiralty Judge sits with Nautical Assessors who are always Elder Brethren of Trinity House, these situations are usually well defined in the case reports.

 

[capnsensible]

I think vessels with oars are very clearly represented. Rule 25, which is entitled 'Sailing vessels underway and vessels under oars', says

A vessel under oars may exhibit the lights prescribed in this Rule for sailing vessels, but if she does not, she shall have ready at hand an electric torch or lighted lantern showing a white light which shall be exhibited in sufficient time to prevent collision.​

Aar, me ansome. But that's only the lights. Not steering and sailing rules. As IW points out, is a vessel under oars power driven? I'm inclined to say yes.

What do you reckon?

 

[Kukri]

Aar, me ansome. But that's only the lights. Not steering and sailing rules. As IW points out, is a vessel under oars power driven? I'm inclined to say yes.

What do you reckon?

One possible reason for this is an old case involving a fatal collision between two rowing eights on a river; in a claim for damages the defendants sought to limit liability under the Merchant Shipping Acts and were told that they could not do so as the Acts applied to "seagoing vessels not propelled by oars", so rowing boats got forgotten about.

But yes, I have always assumed that a rowing boat is a power driven vessel.

 

[BelleSerene]

Aar, me ansome. But that's only the lights. Not steering and sailing rules. As IW points out, is a vessel under oars power driven? I'm inclined to say yes.

What do you reckon?

Yes, I probably wrongly inferred the poster meant lights in the Colregs, when he might have meant, um, Collision regulations.

I don't know; as priorities for vessels with oars aren't stated in the rules, it becomes a legal matter to interpret which if any category they fall under. Which is (a) outside my competence to decide, and (b) a really silly way to have our rules!

 

[john_morris_uk]

On the contrary, it is meant to be taken very seriously indeed. As I am sure your sermons were. Did you never use humour to get your point across?

I have never seen an alternative explanation for the introduction of the concept of the "stand on" vessel, and the lack of a stand on concept in the 1840 Trinity House rules for power driven vessels makes me think that this is the right explanation, but it is not confined to square rigged vessels - when two vessels are meeting on opposite tacks neither can alter course to windward and if both alter course away from the wind they are altering into each other.

This explanation has been kicking around for twenty years, and nobody has yet offered another, but if you have one let's have it.

I agree with your point that any change in the Rules must be capable of operating in the absence of electronics on one or more vessels meeting so as to involve risk of collision.

I’ve no better one, but I was trying to say that the argument that ‘stand on’ comes from sailing vessels doesn’t seem very persuasive to my mind. If it’s the correct one then so be it.

I’m more concerned about the number of people who have admitted that they don’t follow IRPCS by either using some wierd interpretation of ‘shall not impede’ or some notion that ‘the rules are only for commercial or big vessels’.

 

[nortada]

Given the number of passages, I wonder what percentage end in collision? Possible an indication of the success of the IRPCS.

One could argue, to prove the effectiveness of the IRPCS, a potential collision situation must exist in the first place.

A further refinement would be an indication of the percentage of small boat owners who take any notice of the IRPCS or even know they exist! From experience, in crowded conditions many don’t.

Even the basic passing red to red seems beyond some!