When Do COLREGS Begin to Apply?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point of this question is not "when do the colregs start to apply?", because clearly the rules about keeping a lookout, proceeding at safe speed, showing appropriate lights and shapes etc do apply all the time, whether there is anyone close enough to see them or not.

I presume it is "When do the steering and sailing rules kick in?" -- i.e. if I am likely to be the stand-on vessel in a potential collision situation, at what stage do I have to shoulder that responsibility?
...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good question - certainly took long enough to get a decent answer. Well said. Unfortunately you haven't answered the question, that is: "is it when the risk of collision exists or is it just before the risk exists?" It's an inprecise question too; as you have already pointed out, there are parts of the Steering and Sailing Rules that apply always, such as Lookout and Safe Speed. If we take the question to mean "when does stand on and give way start?" then the answer is "none of the above". While Lord Esher (and Cockcroft and Lameijer) give us a useful rule of thumb, the given ranges are generalities, not written in stone - I think C and L articulate that fact; for instance a vessel slowly overtaking another could be well within the 6 or 8 mile range for several hours, but it would not be incumbent on the stand-on vessel to hold to a course and speed for that entire time. Instead, where these rules come into effect depends upon the circumstances of each individual case.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Excellent book, if you don't my saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite so, I did the proof reading before it was published and I have to agree with you
 
surely this is all the wrong way round. as I see it, the legal arguments dont exist until a collision has happened. prior to that the lawyers are irrelevant..
 
The rules surely apply, as soon as you've dropped your lines attaching the vessel to shore, regardless of whether a collision risk (however that might be considered) exists at that particular time.

According to IRPCS, even singlehanded sailors in the middle of the ocean, have to satisfy the rules & keep a good alround lookout, when the risk of collision with another vessel is low.
 
Referring back to the Korean incident, the ruling was that even a vessell at anchor can take evasive action such as letting go the anchor to move out of the way.Basically if you perceive the possibility of a collision , you must do something. As the Skipper did not do this, he is in jail (I think for the subsequent oil spill).

Report:http://www.sikhnet.com/news/sikh-ship-captain-jailed-over-south-korea-oil-spill
 
[ QUOTE ]
"If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion."


[/ QUOTE ]

Could this be the fly in the oitment, as it were. Two vessels approaching each other, one may believe a risk exists the other may not, so one will be sailing and steering acording to the rules, the other may not.

This situation could be invokes because one skipper is prepared to pass closer to another vessel than the other or because one skipper knows something the other does not - ie that he is about to make a turn or slow down, or has more accurate information on board (AIS,ARPA, MARPA etc).

How would a court treat a case in which one skipper quite justifiably, was steering according to the rules and another, to his mind equally justifiably, was not. Even if the two ships themselves did not collide, there could be unforseen outcomes, such as one ship running aground, or interfering with the passage of a third ship etc. Stranger things have happened (qv the ferry off Dover)
 
[ QUOTE ]
"You sight a vessel 12 Miles away and at that distance, the bearing is steady. Does risk of collison exist?"

The answer is "No - not at that distance".

[/ QUOTE ]

But I think you left out a serious item though - having done Aural exams as well on these issues - you would be failed if you just said No. You must qualify it by adding - I would continue to take bearings to ascertain if steady bearing continues to exist and therefore risk of collision.(Or words to that effect). And anyway at 12miles you would not have taken many bearings as it's still at long range, for a lot of vessels near enough horizon distance so saying steady bearing is a bit academic ? Your HoE would be in region of 100 ft .... Super tanker bridge ht.

So in fact it's a potential to Risk of Collision.

And typical RIN to argue over such matters ! Somebody must have had a Pinkers too many and decided to sort a problem that doesn't really exist !!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You sight a vessel 12 Miles away and at that distance, the bearing is steady. Does risk of collison exist?"

The answer is "No - not at that distance".

[/ QUOTE ]

But I think you left out a serious item though - having done Aural exams as well on these issues - you would be failed if you just said No. You must qualify it by adding - I would continue to take bearings to ascertain if steady bearing continues to exist and therefore risk of collision.(Or words to that effect). And anyway at 12miles you would not have taken many bearings as it's still at long range, for a lot of vessels near enough horizon distance so saying steady bearing is a bit academic ? Your HoE would be in region of 100 ft .... Super tanker bridge ht.

So in fact it's a potential to Risk of Collision.

And typical RIN to argue over such matters ! Somebody must have had a Pinkers too many and decided to sort a problem that doesn't really exist !!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know - couldn't agree with you more - I just didn't want to have a page and half post in trying to get down all the why's and wherefores etc. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"You sight a vessel 12 Miles away and at that distance, the bearing is steady. Does risk of collison exist?"

The answer is "No - not at that distance".

[/ QUOTE ]

But I think you left out a serious item though - having done Aural exams as well on these issues - you would be failed if you just said No. You must qualify it by adding - I would continue to take bearings to ascertain if steady bearing continues to exist and therefore risk of collision.(Or words to that effect). And anyway at 12miles you would not have taken many bearings as it's still at long range, for a lot of vessels near enough horizon distance so saying steady bearing is a bit academic ? Your HoE would be in region of 100 ft .... Super tanker bridge ht.

So in fact it's a potential to Risk of Collision.

And typical RIN to argue over such matters ! Somebody must have had a Pinkers too many and decided to sort a problem that doesn't really exist !!

[/ QUOTE ]

Having taught Colregs to mariners, I detect the authentic voice of the Master Mariner here. You pass! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion."


[/ QUOTE ]

Could this be the fly in the oitment, as it were. Two vessels approaching each other, one may believe a risk exists the other may not, so one will be sailing and steering acording to the rules, the other may not.

This situation could be invokes because one skipper is prepared to pass closer to another vessel than the other or because one skipper knows something the other does not - ie that he is about to make a turn or slow down, or has more accurate information on board (AIS,ARPA, MARPA etc).

How would a court treat a case in which one skipper quite justifiably, was steering according to the rules and another, to his mind equally justifiably, was not. Even if the two ships themselves did not collide, there could be unforseen outcomes, such as one ship running aground, or interfering with the passage of a third ship etc. Stranger things have happened (qv the ferry off Dover)

[/ QUOTE ]

James, this has come before the Courts quite often. See eg the ATLANTIC EMPRESS and AEGEAN CAPTAIN - a 1970's case where two VLCCs collided in the Atlantic - one was in rain and was unaware of the other. same problem occurred in a collision between two capesize bulkers in the South China Sea about ten years ago. Nasty one that - no witnesses from the laden ship as 170,000 tions of iron ore takes you down instantly.

The answer is that the Court won't find that both OOWs were being reasonable - the track record is that the Court is more likely to do the opposite and find both ships to blame for failing to keep a proper lookout by all available means...

After all, since a collision resulted, the risk of it must have existed... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
I think the daftest collision was between the Vega OBO's of E. African coast - I was working for the company that manned them as well ! Our company had the job also of lightering the loaded vessel.

Story goes that they were in good viz. One was loaded coming down and sister ship was light going up ...

3rd mates on watch each ship ... see each other, decide to get a bit closer and have a chinwag on the VHF ... Loaded vessel ended up with one of her anchors embedded into the stbd side aft of the lighter vessel.

Bit embarrassing that ... sister ships and all that.

But back to blame - I cannot think of any collision at sea that has had 100% blame attached to single vessel. All the ones I read were all apportioned to both in varying degrees. Mainly because I think the IRPCS (lets get rid of ColRegs name as that is a misleading term really), clearly states that if the action of give way vessel alone is not sufficient, then the stand on vessel should take such action necessary to try avoid collision (never was any good with parrot fashion quotes !).

I have to also say that sadly I know of more than one incident where official outcome was extremely unfair and in fact the cause was improperly stated for 'reasons'. Not only collision but also fire on board where people I knew lost lives. But that's another matter.
 
See also the Bethlehem Steel sister VLCCs VENOIL & VENPET off South Africa in 1978 - sister ships one laden one light passing each other - interaction - BANG!

But lest we British get too pleased with ourselves - the very same thing happened to two P&O passenger ships in the Red Sea in the 1930's!
 
[ QUOTE ]
See also the Bethlehem Steel sister VLCCs VENOIL & VENPET off South Africa in 1978 - sister ships one laden one light passing each other - interaction - BANG!

But lest we British get too pleased with ourselves - the very same thing happened to two P&O passenger ships in the Red Sea in the 1930's!

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh Hum ... actually silly me - got the Vega sisters mixed up with the Ven sisters !! We also had the OBO's Vega Seal etc. on our books ! It was long while ago, but think it was the Venoil that had the anchor stuck in the side and the other had to be lightened off. Maybe other way round ... My outfit was not only manning them, but they were on term charter to us as well !
Our Company kept a low profile for a while after that ...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919213,00.html

Please note that the article is 'hollywood' read as it's not entirely accurate ! Shall we say it sold copy.

My company was not Gulf Oil as reported in the article.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The rules surely apply, as soon as you've dropped your lines attaching the vessel to shore, regardless of whether a collision risk (however that might be considered) exists at that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that we'd established that the question wasn't about when Colregs/IRPCS take effect, but rather when are two vessels, to whom risk of collision will or does exist, bound by their requirements to stand on or give way?
 
I am going to try to tread very carefully here...and will be very intersted by anything that Calamity and Refueller have to say on this subject.

I am paraphasing something I wrote in Lloyds List years ago:

Here goes:

The first collision regulations for powered vessels meeting did not include the concept of a "stand on" vessel - both ships were obliged to give way.

The vessels that need one vessel to "stand on" when meeting are sailing vessels when close hauled, for obvious reasons, but for some reason this concept "infected" the rules for power driven vessels.

This is the single commonest cause of collisions between ships.

There is a school of thought amongst seamen who think about these things that we should revise the 72 IRPCC fundamentally, and replace the rules for vessels in sight of one another with the rules for vessels that detect each other by other means.

In effect, this abolishes the stand on rule for power driven vessels, and acknowledges the fact that almost all ships today detect one another by radar.

I think there is a good case for the IMO to look very hard at this.

However, there is a body of professional opinion that disagrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top