What Now Skip? If I Ruled the World

[MiskinDriver]

Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?

I have always worked on the principle that being in the right is all very well - but its much better to be alive - and sometimes the two don't coincide. This applies as much on the road as it does on the water. In the same way that, though I may have priority according to the Highway Code, I do not cross junctions as a pedestrian and expect traffic to give way (unless supported by traffic lights!), neither do I expect a large tanker/bulk carrier etc (or even the Woolwich Ferry) to give way to me in my 27ft of boat capable of 30kts or so.

Know the COLREGS, apply them with common sense and, if in any doubt whatsoever (or because its an easier solution) then be prepared to stifle your natural aggression (or need to prove that you're right) and give way early and clearly even if the regs don't force you to. I know the argument which says that not following the regs can cause confusion and, if you leave it to the last minute, this may be true. But act early enough, and the problem doesn't arise.

As for the specifics of the questions - most of all I would want to go for the simplification of the lights. Does anyone actually know the more obscure lighting arrangements from memory? (I confess I carry the 'flashcards' so I can check the more extreme examples). If you do know them all, either you're an instructor or you should get out more. And even if you know them, how many can you actually recognise against a shore glowing with flashing neon, red, yellow and green lights, sodium street lights etc etc etc

KISS is the key ..........

 

[timbartlett]

Excuse me for being a bit naive but what is so wrong with the existing ColRegs that they need altering?

Nothing parsifal.
However Mr Bartlett has come up with a good Journalistic idea.
Suspect it is rather hard to dream summat up each Month

Couldn't have put it better than either of you, myself

AIS and VHF on all pleasure craft over 1 tonne?
I can see that working a treat on the Grand Union or Oxford Canals, or indeed Middle/Upper Thames. And who pays for this unncessary luxury? Joe Blogs with a Norman 20

Are you arguing against AIS, or VHF, or in favour of a size or coverage limit? If so, where would you pitch the size limit or the border for compulsory carriage?

Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?

Thank you. That's what I was hoping for! Maybe it is a bit early in the winter for the forum ... but if MBY is going to publish it, we need to be having it now, or it will be too late for the February issue, which is where I think it might fit best.

I have always worked on the principle that being in the right is all very well - but its much better to be alive - and sometimes the two don't coincide.

It seems that there are quite a few people who agree with this principle, and who regard Rule 17 as some kind of "suicide rule". We've had that argument extensively on this forum and others. I won't deny that those discussions were one of the things that triggered this thread: it is obviously something that many people find interesting.
On one hand, Rule 17 was a fairly early addition to the Rules, and has survived with only one significant change through many revisions, so presumably it is there for a reason.
On the other hand, if we really do have to bend or break Rule 17 in order to stay alive, what's the point of having it? Would it be better to scrap it than to have one rule that brings the others into disrepute? Or maybe we could come up with something better?

But it's an interesting philosophical debate: nothing more. I don't kid myself that anything we say will influence IMO one way or the other.

 

[David_Jersey]

Couldn't have put it better than either of you, myself

Well, if you are looking for something to write about - maybe an article that addresses the needs of over 70% of the readership and who to date have been conspiculously absent from the boat mags.........

How many people on the forum are One Legged Black Transexual Dwarves? (POLL)

 

[Kawasaki]

Interesting philosophical debate ...... come a bit early in winter though hasn't it?





Know the COLREGS

Yep!

Does anyone actually know the more obscure lighting arrangements from memory?

P off!


(I confess I carry the 'flashcards' so I can check the more extreme examples).

Well done.


If you do know them all, either you're an instructor or you should get out more.

You takin the P?


And even if you know them, how many can you actually recognise against a shore glowing with flashing neon, red, yellow and green lights, sodium street lights etc etc etc

No!

KISS is the key ..........

I like that.

Good reply That Man

This Col regs thing is a minefield innit

 

[calamitys38]

Rule 17

"It seems that there are quite a few people who agree with this principle, and who regard Rule 17 as some kind of "suicide rule". We've had that argument extensively on this forum and others. I won't deny that those discussions were one of the things that triggered this thread: it is obviously something that many people find interesting.
On one hand, Rule 17 was a fairly early addition to the Rules, and has survived with only one significant change through many revisions, so presumably it is there for a reason.
On the other hand, if we really do have to bend or break Rule 17 in order to stay alive, what's the point of having it? Would it be better to scrap it than to have one rule that brings the others into disrepute? Or maybe we could come up with something better?"

Sorry Tim, but I would have to totally disagree with you on this.

Rule 17 is not a Suicide Rule, in fact just the opposite.

Para (a (i)) states that a Stand On vessel should maintain her course and speed. This is to give the opportunity to the Give Way vessel to assess the situation and decide on the best course of action. Very hard to do if the other vessel was jinking about all over the ocean but happened to be on you your starboard side.

Para (a (ii) then states that should the Stand On vessel decide that the Give Way vessel is not taking action as soon as it would wish, the Stand On vessel may take action by her manouevre alone to avoid the situation.

Jump to para (c)

This paragraph states that the Stand On vessel when taking action becuase she got a bit "twitched" should AVOID an alterartion of course to Port for a vessel on her own Port side. It does not say she should not alter to Port but you would be an idiot to do so!

Para (b) states that should the Stand On vessel hesitate and now finds that she is so close that action by the Give Way vessel alone will not avoid the collision, then she MUST take whatever action to avoid the collision. In other words, you may now go to Port, Starboard, Speed Up, Slow Down - whatever, just don't have a collision in accordance with Rule 2.

Final para (Para (d)) states that jsut because Rule 17 exists, it does not relieve the Give Way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way. In other words, if the the Stand Vessel either feels she has to take action or must take action, the Give Way vessel has already broken the Rules.

Rule 2 can be quite succinctly summed up as follows:

Para (a) states that you must obey the Rules - no exceptions. Para (b) states that having obeyed the Rules, if for some reason you are still going to have a collsion, you must now disobey the Rules. In other words - you are not allowed to have a collsion - period.

Why try and re-classify vessels. Rule 3 quite clearly and simply classifies vessels by what is propelling them and/or the nature of their work and/or by some special circumstance. Deciding that yachts should be Class 0 (or whatever) raises problems of what is a yacht, when does a dinghy become a yacht, when does a yacht become a vessel etc., as other posters have raised.

Who gives way to whom is clearly stated in Rule 18. Everyone gives way to Fishing Vessels (as defined in Rule 3) and Fishings should, so far as possible, give way to NUC and RAM. All other vessels then give way to NUC and RAM and then Power gives way to Sail. All (with the exception of NUC and RAM) should avoid impeding a vessel CBD (see a much earlier thread when I once tried to explan what "impeding" meant). Therefore, this Rule is simple to understand as well and I would suggest, does not need changing either

If you haven't guessed, I totally agree with other posters asking what's wrong with the current Rules (although there is a bit in Rule 24 that could do with better clarification). Also, it must be remembered that the Rules are International Law and must mean the same when translated into many other languages. Yes I know that English is the language of the sea, but if English is not your first language, you are going to translate the Rules into your own language.

I fails to sse the connection between the what I have just written and your view that there is an implied suicide pact in there somewhere or that further clarification of who gives to whom need further amplification.

 

[Observer]

In every place I look, Rule 17 of IRPCS reads as follows:

(a)

(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.

Which (construction-wise) doesn't make sense. Has anyone seen it written in a way that avoids the construction error? It seems to me that it should read:

Either:

Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

or:

Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other, the other shall keep her course and speed.

 

[calamitys38]

Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.

[/i]

I agree, it should read like this. The author had an obvious hatred of commas!!!

 

[Observer]

I agree, it should read like this. The author had an obvious hatred of commas!!!

That's sometimes a feature of legal drafting. Personally, I think well-placed commas (they are used in Colregs, but relatively infrequently) are essential to avoid awkward construction.

In this rule, it's not just the missing comma but the redundant "of" (or missing repetition of "the other"). I would use "vessel" - a few more words but avoids ambiguity. Thus:

Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other vessel, the other vessel shall keep her course and speed.

 

[Observer]

Addressing the point that underlies Tim's post (the actions of (in particular) small vessels in relation to rule 17), I would suggest the following additional rule.

Rule 17

(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the point in time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonably to be expected that the vessel that (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will have commenced to take such action.

Thus (by way of illustration), if the watch-keeper on a small vessel observes a large vessel on a constant bearing, and the large vessel would be 'give way', the small vessel is not obliged to stand on under rule 17(a)(i) prior to the time at which the large vessel should reasonably be expected to commence avoiding action. This allows the small vessel to take action itself to eliminate the development of the risk of collision that would bring rule 17(a)(i) into play.

I think the above simply codifies and 'legitimises' what (very frequently) happens in practice anyway.

 

[oceanfroggie]

Amend colregs so that leisure vessels including sail must give way to commercial shipping vessels in all circumstances.

Would you like to enlarge on the proposal, please?(definitions? identification?)

Sorry no time for detail, I'm interested in broad policy ideas, so delegate the "enlargement" of detail to others with specific skills in this area.

Large ships having to give way to a sail boat, or leisure mobo is as safe and logical as moses using the titanic instead of an ark.

 

[djk]

Fibreglass gives way to Steel

 

[jfm]

Addressing the point that underlies Tim's post (the actions of (in particular) small vessels in relation to rule 17), I would suggest the following additional rule.

Rule 17

(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the point in time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonably to be expected that the vessel that (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will have commenced to take such action.

Thus (by way of illustration), if the watch-keeper on a small vessel observes a large vessel on a constant bearing, and the large vessel would be 'give way', the small vessel is not obliged to stand on under rule 17(a)(i) prior to the time at which the large vessel should reasonably be expected to commence avoiding action. This allows the small vessel to take action itself to eliminate the development of the risk of collision that would bring rule 17(a)(i) into play.

I think the above simply codifies and 'legitimises' what (very frequently) happens in practice anyway.

Observer, you are correct about the redundant "of". It's typical of the drafting of many parts of Colregs however (qv other threads). The standard of drafting really is very poor (different terms used to mean the same thing for example, much confused wording, etc)

I very much like your new rule 17e. It's an excellent way of legitimising a common and sensible action. Excuse my pedantry though, but you need to check your drafting. There's a difference between "shall not be deemed to exist" and "shall be deemed not to exist". (And, just to digress for a minute, and i know I'm in teach-suck-eggs territory with you Observer but the point is worth making, the word "deemed" is often misused. It should only be used where it is specifying a potential fiction - a set of circumstances that might be different from reality. Thus, it would be wrong to say "MBY tested the Azi 58 and Sq58 and deemed the Sq to be the better boat" (despite the excellent taste that would indicate!), but it would be correct to say "If the defendant enters no plea he shall be deemed to have pleaded Not Guilty". /Digression).

Your excellent 17e, which does indeed properly use "deem", might be better as follows (and I've made a few other tweaks, as you'll see):

Rule 17

(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall be deemed not to exist at all times prior to the time at which, having regard to the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which (but for this rule) is or would be obliged to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.

In fact, there is quite a lot of careful thinking still needed on the drafting. For example

1. Add "latest" prior to "time" ? This eliminates the ambiguity (as to Stand-on's lawfulness) arising from the fact the give way vessel is free to take uber-early avoiding action 10miles before the collision point, if he wishes. But adding the risk that stand-on might turn to port while give-way makes an early turn to starboard, hence a prang. That's a tricky conflict that has to be cracked before enacting your 17e...

2. Tidy up the "is or would be" becuase you don't make it clear in what circs the "would be" applies. Indeed, if stand-on makes a voluntary early manoeuvre away, prior to the trigger time in your 17e, then arguably give-way vessel never becomes the give way vessel, so your rule oxymoronically disappears up its own backside Tricky drafting, sure you get my drift, but all needs to be figured out.

Nevertheless, your concept is an excellent idea imho.

BTW, Iain Stitt would be excellent at working this out. He's retired, so they should hire him to do the re-write.

 

[Observer]

jfm,

I appreciate your thoughtful critique of the suggested new rule. I acknowledge the general validity of your comments but it's probably worth checking that we have both covered the same ground before ruling in or out any particular drafting (this discussion is a bit nerdy, for lawyer types, so others please excuse us).

First, with regard to "shall not be deemed to exist" cf "shall be deemed not to exist", I was specifically (I'm not sure whether it should be exclusively?) seeking to counter the effect of rule 7(d)(i):

Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change

because that is the rule that locks a vessel, that would be 'stand on' if the risk of collision (by reason of the not-appreciably-changing compass bearing) is deemed to exist, into holding course and speed when the circumstances would permit (or dictate) taking some pre-emptive action that avoids 17(a)(i) from coming into play. Therefore, I felt "shall not be deemed to exist" was more correct (although I'm open to further discussion and correction).

I did consider adding a clarifying cross-reference "Notwithstanding rule 7(d)(i)", but that legalistic type of expression is not really used in Colregs and, if I had included it, I would have ended up with "For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i) and notwithstanding rule 7(d)(i)", which is a bit unwieldy.

With reference to your 'drafting issues', I did consider "latest time" but ruled it out because of the drawback you identified. It seems to me, if this pre-emptive action is to be legitimised, that it should be taken (considerably) earlier than the latest time at which the give way vessel could take its own action under rule 16. By that (latest) time, the 'risk of collision' is (self-evidently) well established, so it is necessary that rule 17(a)(i) should have effect. That does leave a substantial grey area - at what point does it become reasonable to expect that the give way vessel will have commenced taking action? - but I think there are other, similar grey areas in Colregs (that's one of its strengths).

On the "is or would be", that did need further thought to avoid the contradiction you described. On reflection, it's not "but for this rule" because there is no licence to act accruing to the give way vessel under this rule. The licence to act accrues to the stand on vessel. So, I've redrafted as follows:

Rule 17

(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which, but for action taken in reliance on this rule, would be required to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.

I'm sure further improvement could be made. What do you think?

 

[timbartlett]

So, I've redrafted as follows:

Rule 17

(e) For the purposes of Rule 17(a)(i), a risk of collision shall not be deemed to exist prior to the time at which it is reasonable to expect that the vessel which, but for action taken in reliance on this rule, would be required to take action in accordance with Rule 16 will commence to take such action.

I'm sure further improvement could be made. What do you think?

NB This is me as me (an individual) rather than me (as journalist-working-for-MBY)

Having seen how you arrived at this, I appreciate what it says. But as a simple sailor, I think if I were coming to it without that background knowledge, I would be struggling.
If you are re-drafting the existing Rule 17, how about:-
17a(i) Where one of two vessels is required to give way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
17a(ii) The latter vessel may, however, manoeuvre so as to prevent the risk of collision from developing, up to the earliest time at which it would be reasonable to expect the other vessel to begin her give-way manaoeuvre.
17a(iii) The vessel that is required to keep her course and speed is relieved of this obligation as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action in compliance with the rules.

FWIW, although I'm inclined to agree that the elasticity of some of the colregs contributes to their strength, I think many people would find it less easy to justify breaking Rule 17 if the point at which the stand-on obligation began and ended were defined rather more precisely.

 

[calamitys38]

NB This is me as me (an individual) rather than me (as journalist-working-for-MBY)

Having seen how you arrived at this, I appreciate what it says. But as a simple sailor, I think if I were coming to it without that background knowledge, I would be struggling.
If you are re-drafting the existing Rule 17, how about:-
17a(i) Where one of two vessels is required to give way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
17a(ii) The latter vessel may, however, manoeuvre so as to prevent the risk of collision from developing, up to the earliest time at which it would be reasonable to expect the other vessel to begin her give-way manaoeuvre.
17a(iii) The vessel that is required to keep her course and speed is relieved of this obligation as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the other vessel is not taking appropriate action in compliance with the rules.

FWIW, although I'm inclined to agree that the elasticity of some of the colregs contributes to their strength, I think many people would find it less easy to justify breaking Rule 17 if the point at which the stand-on obligation began and ended were defined rather more precisely.

So, you have a large Supertanker on your port side, crossing. It is the Give Way vessel and will be wanting to make a manoeuvre fairly early on due to its limited manouevrability. You, on the Stand on vesel have absolutely no idea when the OOW on the Supertanker will be making his turn, probably do not appreciate his limitatins but are quite happy to jink all over the ocean making his decision making process that much harder, until you decide "OK that's close enough - I'll hold my course and speed now and expect him to give way to me".

Please, think this through form the commercial ships point of view. The ColRegs are not just written for small vessels - and indeed if they were most would probably still not read them anyway!!!

It's fairly straightforward. Risk of Collision is deemed to exist when there is no appreciable change of bearing. The manouevrability of your own vessel will determine when you start thinking about taking action, but as a general rule of thumb, that will be at about 3 to 4 miles. Obviously in congested waters (such as the English Channel) this distance may shrink.

Once risk of collision has been deemed to exist, Rule 8 and Rule 17 come into play. The Give Way vessel should take early and positive action so as the stand vessel, observing either visulaly, or by radar, can clearly see that something has happened. Similarly, the stand on vessel must maintain her course and speed so as the Give Way vessel can decide when and where it will alter course.

A classic MCA Orals question asked of OOWs is "You see a vessel 3 points to port at a distance of 10 miles, crossing. What action will you take?" Most students then go into autopilot and replying that they would "take a series of bearings and/or ranges to determine if a close quaters situation or risk of collsion is developing". The MCA examiner will then state that the bearing is steady and the range is closing and ask "does a risk of collison exist?"

The answer is a resounding "NO". At that range risk of collision dos not exist. However, if things remain the same, then a risk would exist so they would continue to monitor the situation. Once the range gets down to 5 or 6 miles, then the situation changes and a risk of collision may now be deemed to exist and so they would have to now hold their course and speed and start to expect the other vessel to take some action.

Once the range decreases to approx 3 miles and if the Give Way vessel has not altered course, they would be sounding 5 short blasts and calling the Captain and continuing to hol;d their course and speed and contnuing to monitor the situation. When the range decreases to under approx 3 miles they would be taking action in accordance with Rule 17 (a (ii) and 17 (c) - (i.e. taking action by their manoeuvre alone, but avoiding an alteration to Port. Hopefully they would never allow themselves to get into a position of having to obey Rule 17 (b).

With pleasure boaters, are you seriously suggesting that most would follow this sort of scenario? Most would not bother taking any action until perhaps only a few hundred yards away (not even holding their course and speed until they reached this distance).

With what has been written before in this thread I am altering my view. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea should only apply between commercial vessels (including chartered/skippered yachts) and have qualified and certificated OOWs. ALL other vessels should give way to them!!

To indicate that the vessel has a certificated and qualified OOW it should by day, fly a Flag or Shape of some sort and by night exhibit a coloured flashing light (type of flag and colur of light to be discussed but personally I couldn't care less).

At the end of the day, "might has right" and if a supertanker (or most any other "proper" ship) runs over a yacht, then I can assure you that they will not even feel the bump and the only sympathy that should be offered should be found in the dictionary somewhere between "Sh*t and Syphilis". The yacht should never have let themselevs get into that position.

Happy sailing.

 

[timbartlett]

Calamitys38,
I think you and I are on very much the same wavelength here.
Personally I see nothing wrong with the existing Rule 17, and a very great deal that is right. I have never been able to understand why some people think that they should ignore it, far less why they encourage others to do so.

But I also acknowledge that they exist, and that they have genuine concerns about the application of Rule 17.

So, in the fictional WNS world in which we are rewriting the colregs, I initially suggested a rule that would allow the stand on vessel to give way (because that is what many seem determined to do, rules or no rules), but would not allow it to "jink all over the ocean".

I have the feeling that Observer and JFM are also working towards a form of words that would allow the stand on vessel to take early action to prevent the risk of collision from developing in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong!).
Once we start venturing along that route, I suggest that the big question is when the obligation to stand on begins.

Like you, I think it is considerably earlier than most small craft skippers believe: I certainly wouldn't argue with the distances you mention -- though there are others on these forums who do (see www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216006 and various other scuttlebut threads during October).

Why not specify that Rule 17 begins to apply when the vessels are six miles apart, for instance? I appreciate that watchkeepers without radar might not know exactly when the vessels are six miles apart, but at least it should be blindingly obvious that at three miles, it is far too late for the stand-on vessel to start jinking about!

 

[timbartlett]

...the only sympathy that should be offered should be found in the dictionary somewhere between "Sh*t and Syphilis". The yacht should never have let themselevs get into that position.

That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
How about a yacht that was sunk by a ship whose watchkeepers were wearing dark glasses on the bridge at night, and which was making a very gradual alteration of course that would have given the yacht the impression that she was overtaking rather than converging?
Or a yacht that was hit by a ship that was doing 25 knots through thick fog, whose master thought a CPA of a quarter of a mile was perfectly adequate, and whose ARPA was later shown to be giving duff information anyway because someone had switched it into the wrong mode.
Being amateur does not make someone stupid or incompetent. Nor does being professional make them infallible!

 

[tcm]

I'd like to see the various "keep out of the way" and give way to" and "not impede" sorted out. They seem to be different, but unquantified. Likewise, a "catch all" clause for the stand on vessel. Haven't got the rules in front of me, but is it rule one or two, the one that starts (oddly) with the phrase "Nothing in these rules..." - the one that says look, you have got to avoid a collision. So don't be standing on for ever, and hiding behind the fact that you were the stand-on vessel even after an accident or near-accident. That means that at a certain point, even if you're the stand-on vessel - you dump the speed and/or fling hard to starboard. What point though?

Both these rule beg the question - how close is "too close"?

How about inshore open water (non-open water includes with xxx metres of a habour entrance, or in a narrow channel etc) "not impede"/give way/keep clear of" means (say) you must aim to maintain 100metres between you and any other vessel if passing ahead or overtaking. Offshore (more than a mile, say) it means maintain (say) 300metres even if passing behind. This also defines the limit of standing on - the give way boat must aim to maintain these distances, and the stand-on vessels responsibility is to take action if it appears that they won't be maintained. Taking action might include reporting the offending vessel, perhaps with pix. Hah! Or indeed, ooer.

So, too close is under 100m aside or ahead inshore, or within 300m offshore.

 

[pampas]

One class not mentioned are dive boats, very indistint when there is no wind and if there is most are about 12"-6" and not visible until nearly upon them.

 

[calamitys38]

That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
How about a yacht that was sunk by a ship whose watchkeepers were wearing dark glasses on the bridge at night, and which was making a very gradual alteration of course that would have given the yacht the impression that she was overtaking rather than converging?
Or a yacht that was hit by a ship that was doing 25 knots through thick fog, whose master thought a CPA of a quarter of a mile was perfectly adequate, and whose ARPA was later shown to be giving duff information anyway because someone had switched it into the wrong mode.
Being amateur does not make someone stupid or incompetent. Nor does being professional make them infallible!

Sorry Tim

I agree, a very generalised and what could be viewed as a slightly worrying statement - but I wasn't talking about accidents or negligence (or even just not seeing the smaller vessel due to....whatever). These will always happen due to the nature of the beast - we are all human and consequently, sometimes screw up. My statement was with particular regard to the non application of the Col Regs whatsoever. In these situations I feel that the yachtsman deserves everything he/she gets.

An example - Believe it or not, I was at anchor a few years ago in Lyme Bay on a 255 000 DWT supertanker which was in ballast (approx 1/5 mile long and a good 80ft out of the water) and a yacht hit us!! As the OOW I had sounded our whistle 5 times (which immediately brought my Captain to the Bridge, but absolutely no show from the yacht) and then we both continued to watch as the yacht continued to close until it finally struck us amidships.

The funny thing was that a naked man then appeared on the yacht from down below and started berating us that "power gives way to sail - don't ya know" and " typical - officers on a commercial vessel thinking they own the world." He was shortly joined by a naked young lady and they inspected their bow and then sailed away advising they would be reporting "our negligence" to the Coastguard.

Suffice to say, I could fully understand why he had not seen us and that the activity he was apparently enaged in was much more pleasurable than obeying Rule 5 (Lookout), but my view of the "professionalism" of some boatowners has been consequently pretty clouded ever since.

Mind you, both myself and my Captain had a bloody good laugh and we never did hear anything from the Coastguard! Hopefully, if it was reported, then the yachtsman was given a short, sharp horrorscope reading on his expected survival rate.