What do they teach people these days!!!

JumbleDuck said:
The tourist boats from Fionnphort to Staffa have a ... robust ... approach to any yachts anchored in Bull Hole. In contrast, the boats running from the pontoons at Ulva Ferry could not be more courteous and considerate.
Click to expand...
-------turus mara from ulva run by a polite and generous family----i used to work for them
 
awol said:
Oh, to have the prescience to recognise the intentions of the other vessel so early. No wonder they call us WAFIs!
Click to expand...

GHA said:
Disagree, changing course early to keep well clear when it's obvious the other vessel isn't complying with the irpcs is good seamanship and good common sense and isn't..
Click to expand...

If only I had the telepathy necessary to work out what the other vessels intentions are so far away...

The rules say 'stand on' and so I stand on until it's obvious that the other person's not taking a blind bit of notice of the rules and I alter to avoid a collision. What I think of the other person for being such a plonker is another. matter.
 
awol said:
Oh, to have the prescience to recognise the intentions of the other vessel so early. No wonder they call us WAFIs!
Click to expand...

It's a bit sad that a vessel whose crew must have been professionally trained fail to understand IRPCS. I usually expect better behavior from commercial vessels, however the option I leave myself is the "turn away" if they get too close, even when I'm stand-on.. I'd love to have a loud enough horn to blow the required blast! (or even 5 of!!)
 
john_morris_uk said:
The rules say 'stand on' and so I stand on until it's obvious that the other person's not taking a blind bit of notice of the rules and I alter to avoid a collision. What I think of the other person for being such a plonker is another. matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Don't push it to the last moment just to prove a point. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
greeny said:
Whatever action you chose to take to avoid the collision or near miss", can and should be reported to the relevant authorities should it not. The incident can then be investigated and the guilty dealt with as required. If you walk away and turn the other cheek you may not be in a position to take effective action to avoid collision next time it happens. They will keep doing what they are doing until they are told the error of their ways by someone in authority.
Of course to make any report stick you will need evidence, photographs, ais track etc would be useful.
Everyone can make a mistake and I'm not suggesting that we as boaters go reporting every minor incident but these people sound as they are persistent offenders and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. Many but not all small commercial craft seem to take action in line with the OP's experience.

I have had similar experiences on the East Coast often under sail whilst they are under engine. I have found phoning their business premises at a later date not only clears the air but at least you can hear their side . Surely doing nothing helps no one.
 
greeny said:
Whatever action you chose to take to avoid the collision or near miss", can and should be reported to the relevant authorities should it not. The incident can then be investigated and the guilty dealt with as required. If you walk away and turn the other cheek you may not be in a position to take effective action to avoid collision next time it happens. They will keep doing what they are doing until they are told the error of their ways by someone in authority.
Of course to make any report stick you will need evidence, photographs, ais track etc would be useful.
Everyone can make a mistake and I'm not suggesting that we as boaters go reporting every minor incident but these people sound as they are persistent offenders and should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

What was reportable here?
Tour boat operator was grumpy?

I don’t disagree with reporting. Just don’t think this particular interaction, was reportable or requiring investigation.
The tour boat reportedly, took action as required by a give way vessel to avoid collision.
Maybe not quite as early as the OP on the stand on vessel would have liked.

Not late enough for the OP on the stand on vessel to have become concerned enough to signal his doubts or take action by his manoeuvre.

In my opinion.
If I become concerned enough.
If I make a sound signal or radio call.
If this results in positive response. I am happy. Situation was resolved. Nothing to report.

If I find the above doesn’t work. Or I’m not happy with the response.

I take action as required. If this involves action by me as a stand on vessel to avoid a give way vessel apparently not taking the required action.
This would be reportable.

I have made few reports about such incidents. Usually there is little point beyond reduction of later paperwork.
There was a boat
I couldn't see it’s name
I couldn’t see it’s number.
I have no means of identifying it.
I had to action as stand on vessel by operating astern propulsion the unidentifiable vessel passed safely ahead.

Day date time position.

The authority thanks me, files report and does nothing.

As a commercial vessel it is probably identifiable and the authority’s will probably contact both vessels asking about the event. Most of which will be treated in a similar way to a MAIB report. left to individual companies to investigate and report back.
 
Wherever possible I always give other vessels a wide berth. There is no reason to get too close.

That said, there are always incidents where for one reason or another this does not happen.

In this instance the ferry operator could see me for some time (minutes) and as I was on a steady course, there was no reason for him to drive like a "white van man" and potentially cause a collision. I was monitoring his movements as he came from my port quarter and I was confident that I had the ability to manoeuvre to avoid a collision if necessary; noting not doing so is also a breach of COLREGs. As the stand on vessel, if I stop "standing on" and start doing something else, the other vessel could easily get confused as to my intentions (assuming the skipper is competent, which in this case he clearly wasn't). So there is a balance point as to when you stop "standing on" and take evasive action. There was lots of room and time for the ferry to alter course; we are only talking a circa 5 degrees course change on his part, and or minor reduction in his speed to easily clear my stern; and there was nothing behind me!

This type of behaviour does happen, and if it was amateur boaters, you could put it down to inexperience etc. But this was a commercial operator who should know better and needlessly put two vessels and the lives of those onboard at risk.

In hindsight I should have reported it; but to be honest I didn't get the name of the vessel, (small red hulled, white superstructure, passenger carry boat, with open bow, circa 10-15m length I'd guess) so if anybody knows it, I'll happily drop the harbour master a line.

This type of behaviour, especially from commercial operator is inexcusable (after all we are talking about a failure to comply with probably the most basic COLREG.) should not be tolerated and should be called out and reported at every occurrence. (Which I will do next time.) If they are that incompetent their qualifications and suitability to hold them has to be questioned!
 
Uricanejack said:
What was reportable here?
Tour boat operator was grumpy?

I don’t disagree with reporting. Just don’t think this particular interaction, was reportable or requiring investigation.
The tour boat reportedly, took action as required by a give way vessel to avoid collision.
Maybe not quite as early as the OP on the stand on vessel would have liked.

Not late enough for the OP on the stand on vessel to have become concerned enough to signal his doubts or take action by his manoeuvre.

In my opinion.
If I become concerned enough.
If I make a sound signal or radio call.
If this results in positive response. I am happy. Situation was resolved. Nothing to report.

If I find the above doesn’t work. Or I’m not happy with the response.

I take action as required. If this involves action by me as a stand on vessel to avoid a give way vessel apparently not taking the required action.
This would be reportable.

I have made few reports about such incidents. Usually there is little point beyond reduction of later paperwork.
There was a boat
I couldn't see it’s name
I couldn’t see it’s number.
I have no means of identifying it.
I had to action as stand on vessel by operating astern propulsion the unidentifiable vessel passed safely ahead.

Day date time position.

The authority thanks me, files report and does nothing.

As a commercial vessel it is probably identifiable and the authority’s will probably contact both vessels asking about the event. Most of which will be treated in a similar way to a MAIB report. left to individual companies to investigate and report back.
Click to expand...


Your choice.
 
Tiderace said:
In hindsight I should have reported it; but to be honest I didn't get the name of the vessel, (small red hulled, white superstructure, passenger carry boat, with open bow, circa 10-15m length I'd guess) so if anybody knows it, I'll happily drop the harbour master a line.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to Plymouth sound, it sounds like it could be the Cawsand Ferry (Ex ship's lifeboat). It does move at some speed!
 
Fr J Hackett said:
I used to keep a boat on a mooring in the upper reaches of the Tamar the day trip boats always used to create a fair bit of rolling when passing but on two occasions I was up the mast they delighted in coming very close which could have had disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...

My little yacht is at Cargreen, and the tripper boats to and from Calstock have no intention of slowing down when going ploughing on through our moorings. Makes me cross when the wake arrives and I get knocked all over the place. They can usually see dinghies alongside, but seem not to care. And, yes, I've been up my mast when they come along!
 
There was no need for you to enter a situation where col regs would apply. The event need never have happened.
The commercial operator is working to earn his living, he regularly transits this stretch of water, why get in his way?
 
steve350 said:
There was no need for you to enter a situation where col regs would apply. The event need never have happened.
The commercial operator is working to earn his living, he regularly transits this stretch of water, why get in his way?
Click to expand...

COLREGS exist for a reason; so there is a standard set of rules by which EVERY vessel on the water operates, and thus EVERYBODY knows who has and has not got right of way. If there was not there would be mass confusion and loads of accidents and incidents.

A commercial operator is working for his living; that DOES NOT excuse his from ignoring/breaking the LAW. He has a legal duty as an employer under UK law to abide by the law and that includes COLREGS. Being a regular user of that water he should be even more knowledgeable and therefore aware of where yachts are going to and from, and thus apply the same principle "don't get into the situation in the first place".

As stated, I was NOT the instigator of this situation, he was. The corollary is like saying the car driving down the wrong side of the motorway hit me, but it was my fault for being in his way!

I do not intentionally get in the way of other boats, even if I know I have the right of way. That is non sensical and just not good seamanship.
 
Tiderace said:
COLREGS exist for a reason; so there is a standard set of rules by which EVERY vessel on the water operates, and thus EVERYBODY knows who has and has not got right of way. If there was not there would be mass confusion and loads of accidents and incidents.

Your assuming everyone obeys laws especially those of the sea in a busy waterway ,with a ferry that uses this bearing every day , and you want them to give way and regurgitate the COLREGS because perhaps their is an annoying yacht men (not you) waving a little colrgs book at them and shouting stand no vessel .:p
May I bring to you attention the commercial trucks pounding down the Motorway , ridding up your arse , cutting you off , jamming you in , how many people get the high way code out and wave it and then even report it to any authority, :encouragement:
My point is and has been stated many times above, it is best to avoid the situation in the first place , especially commercial vessels that have time constraints and money to be made stand on stand off who cares get out the way in a good manner and plenty of time with decisive manoeuvrers
Just my opinion ofc:D
Click to expand...
 
*looks at getting into sailing*
*thinks, maybe I should go on the forums and find other people who like sailing*

My god people, get a grip, go sailing and stay outta the way of other boats!
 
You were both involved in the situation. It was not inevitable that a risk of collision should develop. Of course, as soon as there was a risk of collision then you should abide by the col regs.
It could be argued that good seamanship would avoid getting involved in the situation in the first place. No need to impede his progress.

Your analogy with a motorist driving on the wrong side of the road is poor as the motorist would be breaking the law. Whereas the commercial operator you encountered had every right to occupy the stretch of water he occupied. How you dealt with his presence was dependent upon the decisions you made at the time.
 
Last edited:
Tiderace said:
Wherever possible I always give other vessels a wide berth. There is no reason to get too close.

That said, there are always incidents where for one reason or another this does not happen.

In this instance the ferry operator could see me for some time (minutes) and as I was on a steady course, there was no reason for him to drive like a "white van man" and potentially cause a collision. I was monitoring his movements as he came from my port quarter and I was confident that I had the ability to manoeuvre to avoid a collision if necessary; noting not doing so is also a breach of COLREGs. As the stand on vessel, if I stop "standing on" and start doing something else, the other vessel could easily get confused as to my intentions (assuming the skipper is competent, which in this case he clearly wasn't). So there is a balance point as to when you stop "standing on" and take evasive action. There was lots of room and time for the ferry to alter course; we are only talking a circa 5 degrees course change on his part, and or minor reduction in his speed to easily clear my stern; and there was nothing behind me!

This type of behaviour does happen, and if it was amateur boaters, you could put it down to inexperience etc. But this was a commercial operator who should know better and needlessly put two vessels and the lives of those onboard at risk.

In hindsight I should have reported it; but to be honest I didn't get the name of the vessel, (small red hulled, white superstructure, passenger carry boat, with open bow, circa 10-15m length I'd guess) so if anybody knows it, I'll happily drop the harbour master a line.

This type of behaviour, especially from commercial operator is inexcusable (after all we are talking about a failure to comply with probably the most basic COLREG.) should not be tolerated and should be called out and reported at every occurrence. (Which I will do next time.) If they are that incompetent their qualifications and suitability to hold them has to be questioned!
Click to expand...

Competent? Incompetent? or just a jerk? :)

Who knows?
Thing about commercial passenger operators. Don't go scaring the passengers, you are liable to end up on YouTube :)
Which will not be good for business.
If he keeps acting like a jerk. it will not be good for business. If he is the owner its his business. If he was hired the owner will be less than pleased if he keeps hearing from concerned customers about how the skipper nearly hit some sail boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top