What Now Skip? If I Ruled the World

[timbartlett]

I am trying very hard to avoid re-opening an old debate here.
It is highly unlikely that we will ever accept each other's opinions on the existing Rule 17.

But in the imaginary WNS world, we have the opportunity to come up with an alternative -- and if you can explain its merits, I will gladly use it in the mag.

If you look back at the original post you will see that I suggested an alternative ("My" rule 5(ii)) which would have allowed the "stand on" vessel to take avoiding action at any stage -- which I think is precisely what you want. The bit that I have put in that you might not like is that it prohibits altering course to port or slowing down. This is not there just to piss you off, but to discourage vessels from trying to go astern of a vessel which is trying to go astern of them.

Criticise my Rule 5(ii) by all means, suggest changes to it if you like, but please let's not waste any more time on the Rule 17 argument. IMO aren't likely to be changing it any time soon.

 

[benjenbav]

But it's only a few posts ago that you wanted commercial to have right of way over recreational!

Tim, I think you've hit the nail on the head. What I was trying to say was actually to suggest that the "obviously commercial" should have right of way over recreational.

I wouldn't claim to have managed a precise definition of the "obviously commercial" although broadly I think we all know it when we see it and there are, of course, instances in history where the concept has been defined - thinking largely of rules of engagement in naval warfare.

Today, on a more peaceful basis, it is possible to look to QHM's website where, as a explanatory note to the Port regulations for Portsmouth it states that leisure users should:

"Avoid sailing in the commercial shipping channels, especially in poor visibility. Obey Rule 9 of the Collision Regulations(ColRegs) for conduct in narrow channels by keeping to the starboard side of the channel and crossing only when this does not impede the passage of a large vessel that can safely navigate only within the narrow channel."

Is there any serious doubt as to the meaning of this, so as to make people think a training yacht wearing the colours of UKSA is offered special priority?

I think it would offer greater certainty and safety of navigation if this principle were to be extended to open waters and I don't think that it should prove impossible to make the definitions work.

 

[MapisM]

I am trying very hard to avoid re-opening an old debate here. It is highly unlikely that we will ever accept each other's opinions on the existing Rule 17.
...
Criticise my Rule 5(ii) by all means, suggest changes to it if you like, but please let's not waste any more time on the Rule 17 argument. IMO aren't likely to be changing it any time soon.

Don't worry, I couldn't be more far from trying to re-open that debate.
Btw, it wasn't your view on colregs that upsetted me, as you probably remember.

See, actually I have no problem at all with current rule 17: I see why it's there and it does work perfectly in most circumstances.
In a sense, it's not even worth bothering to change it. In fact, most peeps around here seem to know it perfectly, and just apply it with a pinch of salt. But of course, if you prefer to stand on when you're on a collision course with a supertanker, just to steer to starboard at the last minute, fairenuff!

Re. your last statement above, how does it fit with this whole thread that you started?

 

[timbartlett]

I think it would offer greater certainty and safety of navigation if this principle were to be extended to open waters

I can't disagree: so long as we can all identify who has to give way, and do so at a range that leaves time for effective avoidance, that is fine.

and I don't think that it should prove impossible to make the definitions work.

That's where the problem lies. Even QHM seems to assume that "commercial=large; recreational=small" despite the fact that there are many sailing yachts that require as much or more water than the Wightlink ferries, and quite a few recreational motor yachts that are of comparable size to the Gosport ferries (and less manoeuvrable!) On the Hamble, there are thousands of yachts and motor boats that are bigger -- in some cases considerably bigger -- than the Hamble-Warsash ferries.

And most potential collisions probably don't involve pleasure craft and big ships: they involve relatively small vessels meeting other relatively small vessels. To have to decide who gives way on the basis of whether you think the six blokes standing around in the cockpit of an approaching boat is a charter party or just a group of friends out for a day's sea angling on a mate's boat sounds pretty dodgy to me!

On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature (much more interesting than "let's stick with what we've got") but I honestly don't see how it would work. I'm counting on those who advocate it to give me some help, here!

 

[timbartlett]

Re. your last statement above, how does it fit with this whole thread that you started?

I'd like you to imagine that IMO has invited the members of the ybw forum to rewrite the collision regulations, starting with a blank screen.

FWIW, As material for an article, I'm guardedly pleased with what has emerged/is emerging: with a few notable exceptions, it's been a sensible discussion raising some interesting points.
What we haven't quite achieved is the "blank screen" approach -- which I included at least partly because I wanted to avoid arguing about the existing regs.

Nor has anyone risen to the bait of my draft rules that have removed the privileged status of sailing vessels. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I reckon that if a watchkeeper can hit a starter button and become power-driven then he deserves no special rights over someone whose engine is already running but who needs to hit a button to disengage an autopilot.

 

[benjenbav]

On a selfish note, I would love to include a tonnage rule or a pro-am rule in my proposed feature (much more interesting than "let's stick with what we've got") but I honestly don't see how it would work. I'm counting on those who advocate it to give me some help, here!
__________________

OK: first draft - shoot me down in flames if you like!!

1 Tonnage rule applies so that vessels over 100m LOA have priority over smaller vessels.

2 As between 2 vessels each over 100m LOA or each under 100m LOA, existing colregs apply

3 If a skipper is in doubt whether rule 1 applies: existing colregs shall be deemed to apply.

 

[Observer]

Hey Tim, I'm only here for the argument (I mean "debate").

Rule 17 doesn't worry me in the slightest. I do as Mapis indicated and interpret "risk of collision" with a degree of elasticity. However, I feel some sympathy with our sailing brothers who don't have the turn of speed to get out of the way, if necessary, at the last minute. I have the overall impression that many of them would be more comfortable if Colregs allowed them to take pre-emptive action to keep out of the way instead of having to stand on and take the chance that a ship has seen them and will react appropriately.

Anyway, coming bact to your rule 5:

5. Except in traffic separation schemes, narrow channels, and overtaking situations, when vessels of the same class meet:
(i)Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to starboard, must give way by altering course to starboard. She may also reduce speed.
(ii) Any vessel meeting a vessel of the same class which is directly ahead or to port, may give way by altering course to starboard, but must avoid altering course to port or reducing speed.

In (i), reference to speed is unnecessary because it overlaps with 8(e) (unless that's disappeared). In (ii), the reference to speed contradicts 8(e). I agree a contradiction already exists between 8(e) and 17(a)(i) and not sure how the 'experts' resolve that.

Apart from the issues we've already debated, I don't think there's anything needs fixing other than a bit of cleaning up here and there. I agree lights and day-shapes could be made easier/clearer but that (lights anyway) would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Observer]

Nor has anyone risen to the bait of my draft rules that have removed the privileged status of sailing vessels. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I reckon that if a watchkeeper can hit a starter button and become power-driven then he deserves no special rights over someone whose engine is already running but who needs to hit a button to disengage an autopilot.

I didn't realise that was your intention.

3. All vessels fall into one of four classes:
class 0 = normal vessels -- power and auxiliary sail
class 1 = fishing vessels, unpowered sail
class 2 = restricted in ability to manoeuvre (including constrained by draft or tugs with tows)
class 3 = disabled (anchored, aground, mechanical failure)

I read class 0 as "PDVs and yachts motoring or motorsailing" and class 2 as "fishing and sailing".

However, what do I think of the idea. Well the obvious difficulty is that it requires a judgment to be made so introduces the opportunity for error or confusion.

At present, as a PDV, I assume that any vessel with a sail hoisted and moving through the water is a sailing vessel, unless it is clearly motorsailing (even then I will be cautious because yotties do sometimes fail to make the mental transition from 'sail' to 'power').

Under your new classification, if I see a vessel with sail hoisted and moving though the water, I have to judge whether it has auxiliary power (so is class 0) or has not (so class 1). That's more difficult. Then what about sailing vessel with engine that is inoperative. There's not much future in being treated as a PDV if you can't, in fact, manoeuvre like a PDV. On the whole, I don't think the idea flies (or floats).

 

[calamitys38]

Apart from the issues we've already debated, I don't think there's anything needs fixing other than a bit of cleaning up here and there. I agree lights and day-shapes could be made easier/clearer but that (lights anyway) would be prohibitively expensive.

Tim - agree with above quote and I'm only here for the Debate (I mean argument!!) LoL

FWIW, here's my attempt with a blank page:

Rule 1 - Definitions. This should be the same as current Rule 3.

Rule 2 - Application. This should be the same as current Rule 1.

Rule 3 - Responsibilty. This should be reworded along the following lines "It is the responsibility of every vessel to avoid a close quaters situation or risk of collsion developing. This is accomplished by adherence to these Rules. Should a close quarters situation and/or risk of collison subsequently develop, even though your vessel has adhered to these Rules, you must disobey the rules in order to minimise damage and/or avoid the collsion. Should both vessels collide, both will be held accountable as deemed appropriate in a subsequent Court of Law." This is not set in stone and I'm sure the lawyers amongst the community may wish to "play" with the wording, but I feel that this is a slightly better worded gist of what the current Rule 2 states.

Rule 4 - Responsibility Between Vessels. Mainly the same as the current Rule 18, but with para (d) removed and paras (a) and (b) amended to include vessels CBD. This removes the ambiguity of what does "Impede" mean and gives a clear satement to PDVs and Sailing Vessels to "keep out of the way of..."

Rule 5 - Lookout. This Rule should remain the same as current Rule 5, but with an additional final sentence of "A Proper Lookout shall encompass the full 360 degree horizon".

Rule 6 - Safe Speed. This should be the same as current Rule 6.

Rule 7 - Action to avoid Collision. No change to current Rule 7.

Rule 8 - Action to avoid Collision. Same as current Rule 8 but remove in total para (f) (i), (ii) and (iii)

Rule 9 - Narrow Channels. Fundamentally the same as current Rule 9 with amendments to paras (b) (c) and (d) to state that the vessels currently conatined in those paragrahs "Shall keep out of the way of a vessel that can only navigate within the confines of a narrow channel or fairway". Again, this will remove any missunderstanding of the word Impede with a direct instruction that they shall keep out of the way.

Rule 10 - Traffic Separation schemes (TSS). Like Narrow Channels above, fundamentally the same, but amended as required in paras (i) and (j) with an instruction that these vessels "Shall keep out of the way of a vessel following a TSS".

Rule 11 - Overtaking. Keep as per Rule 13.

Rule 12 - Head On. Keep as per Rule 14.

Rule 13 - Crossing. Keep as per Rule 15.

Rule 14 - Action by Stand On vessel. Keep as per current Rule 17 with (perhaps) the addition of a Refernece to the "new" Rule 3 (Responsibility) above.

Rule 15 - As per current Rule 12

Rule 16 - as per current Rule 19.

Re: Lights and shapes - I've lost the will to live at this stage. I may come back to address these later, depends on how much I get shot down in flames for my attempt above.

Anyway. happy sailing

 

[Observer]

OK: first draft - shoot me down in flames if you like!!

1 Tonnage rule applies so that vessels over 100m LOA have priority over smaller vessels.

2 As between 2 vessels each over 100m LOA or each under 100m LOA, existing colregs apply

3 If a skipper is in doubt whether rule 1 applies: existing colregs shall be deemed to apply.

I know you haven't really given this much thought so I'm not knocking the brainstorming approach. So let's have a look at the idea.

At present, ~99% (a guess, but probably in the right region) of all collision avoidance assessments are determined on the basis of "is the other vessel PDV or sail?" (excepting the special cases of RAM, CBD, fishing etc). Regardless of size, the same rules apply once that (reasonably simple) determination is made. Introducing a size threshold, that changes the pecking order, will massively increase the scope for error or uncertainty.

To illustrate, let's say I'm (clearly) a >100m PDV ("A") operating under your tonnage (or size) rule. I have to assess whether a target vessel ("B") is <100m (in which case I'm stand on in [all?] circumstances or >100m, in which I may be give way or stand on, according to current rules. If I'm unsure, existing rules apply. So I'm unsure and apply existing rules.

Now take the target vessel view. He knows he's <100m so expects to be give way to me in [all?] circumstances. Immediate conflict. A is operating under existing rules and B is not.

Then, what about night? Perhaps make the cut off at 50m to fit with current light rules? Then what about large sailing vessels?

I'm not sure there's any need to go further.

 

[benjenbav]

The trouble is that the current situation also results in different rules being applied, as many on this thread have already acknowledged.

For example, if I - in my 10m pdv - see the "Titan Uranus" on a fixed bearing relative to me some six miles away, my first thought is going to be that I will do something about changing that situation so that we don't both have to sweat about applying rule 17.

Another thought - again, top of the head stuff - is to identify "priority vessels" by paintwork/lights/AIS signatures.

In 1939-1941 a similar scheme was used by US warships engaged in escort duties in the Atlantic, which had a large US flag painted on their topsides so that the U-Boats would not attack them. It mostly worked.

 

[timbartlett]

I read class 0 as "PDVs and yachts motoring or motorsailing" and class 2 as "fishing and sailing".

Sorry for the confusion.

However, what do I think of the idea. Well the obvious difficulty is that it requires a judgment to be made so introduces the opportunity for error or confusion.

At present, as a PDV, I assume that any vessel with a sail hoisted and moving through the water is a sailing vessel, unless it is clearly motorsailing

Most of the present rules require a vessel to display additional lights or day shapes in order to claim special rights. The motorsailing cone is the exception, because it requires someone who thinks of himself as a sailing vessel to display a signal in order to relinquish "his rights".
My suggestion reverts to the general pattern that if a SV (without an engine or with an inoperable engine) wishes to claim privileged status, it has to display a special signal to do so.
I know I didn't list the day signals separately, but what I had in mind was something like a black ball by day in place of each of the yellow lights at night.

 

[Observer]

Most of the present rules require a vessel to display additional lights or day shapes in order to claim special rights. The motorsailing cone is the exception, because it requires someone who thinks of himself as a sailing vessel to display a signal in order to relinquish "his rights".
My suggestion reverts to the general pattern that if a SV (without an engine or with an inoperable engine) wishes to claim privileged status, it has to display a special signal to do so.
I know I didn't list the day signals separately, but what I had in mind was something like a black ball by day in place of each of the yellow lights at night.

As a matter of intepretation, I think a SV relinquishes his rights when he commences to use the engine for propulsion. If he is being propelled by the engine, he is no less a PDV because he has no cone than he is with it.

Nevertheless, I see how your idea would work in theory. What about in practice?

A couple of objections (not intended to be exhaustive):

1. I can easily pick out a SV at long range (several miles) so, under present rules, I would assume (as a PDV) I should keep out of the way. Under your rule, I would need to be within (say) 500m to confidently sight (or exclude) a day shape. That may be tolerable from the perspective of a small PDV but it may be of some concern to larger vessels.

2. For a SV to acquire the manoeuvrability of a PDV (ignoring the likely difference in speed potential), it's not just about starting the engine. A SV with sail set, even with engine, can't manoeuvre in both directions, or even simply stop, with the same facility as a PDV.

 

[Observer]

The trouble is that the current situation also results in different rules being applied, as many on this thread have already acknowledged.

For example, if I - in my 10m pdv - see the "Titan Uranus" on a fixed bearing relative to me some six miles away, my first thought is going to be that I will do something about changing that situation so that we don't both have to sweat about applying rule 17.

Another thought - again, top of the head stuff - is to identify "priority vessels" by paintwork/lights/AIS signatures.

In 1939-1941 a similar scheme was used by US warships engaged in escort duties in the Atlantic, which had a large US flag painted on their topsides so that the U-Boats would not attack them. It mostly worked.

All of these ideas add complexity/variability, so faill the KISS test for what gain?

It is or should be a fundamental requirement of new law/regulation that: (i) there is some mischief that requires fixing; (ii) the proposed new law will provide a reasonably certain remedy to the mischief without adverse side effects.

I don't see that either test is satisfied by a proposed 'tonnage rule' or anything along those lines. There is (in reality) no problem to be fixed. Ship/pleasure vessel collisions are extremely rare and the ones that have occurred would have been avoided by correct application of existing rules. So a 'tonnage rule' is a solution in search of a problem.

With regard to "different rules being applied", most people (I think) agree on rule 17. It's only the rigidity of rule 7(d)(i) that turns what is, in reality, a commonplace and sensible approach to collision avoidance into something that, on narrow interpretation, is unlawful. That runs contrary to common sense - as a matter of principle, the careful and competent actions of generally law-abiding people going about their lawful business should not be or be deemed unlawful.

 

[timbartlett]

It is or should be a fundamental requirement of new law/regulation that: (i) there is some mischief that requires fixing; (ii) the proposed new law will provide a reasonably certain remedy to the mischief without adverse side effects.

Wow! You're suggesting that we amateur law-makers in our game should be bound by tighter constraints than the professional law-makers in real life!!

as a matter of principle, the careful and competent actions of generally law-abiding people going about their lawful business should not be or be deemed unlawful.

-- ditto --
If this one were universally applied, it would cost the government millions in "lost" speeding penalties! And that's just a start!!

 

[benjenbav]

I think Observer, like me, may have attended law school prior to the days of governments which believed in new laws for their own sake!

 

[timbartlett]

I think Observer, like me, may have attended law school prior to the days of governments which believed in new laws for their own sake!

Those were the days, my friends ...

 

[Observer]

I think Observer, like me, may have attended law school prior to the days of governments which believed in new laws for their own sake!

I am somewhat gratified to be mistaken for a lawyer/law graduate but I should admit that I am neither. I am a self-taught 'practitioner' of commercial contract drafting (particularly asset finance, which is my employer's business), with some narrow expertise in accounting, tax (particularly VAT) and risk analysis (a bit of a 'jack of all trades', in other words). I like to think that I have an aptitude for analysis of legal issues and a 'forensic' approach to complex problems. Apart from that, I'm just a layman.

 

[Observer]

If this one were universally applied, it would cost the government millions in "lost" speeding penalties! And that's just a start!!

I confess that the aphorism was borrowed (with a little tweaking of my own) from the www.safespeed.org.uk website owner, Paul Smith (now sadly deceased). I was almost certain that it would strike a chord with you. So, it is surprising to me that the adhere so passionately (obdurately) to a narrow interpretation of the the maritime 'highway code'.

If I remarked that "safe driving is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual drivers and cannot be assured by strict adherence to the Highway Code", I would anticipate your agreement. Why is it so different to remark, in the maritime context, that "safe navigation is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual helmsmen and cannot be assured by strict adherence to Colregs"?

 

[MapisM]

Why is it so different to remark, in the maritime context, that "safe navigation is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs of individual helmsmen and cannot be assured by strict adherence to Colregs"?

Very nicely put - in layman’s terms, so to speak.
I'm also curious about that!