Who was the give way vessel?

[VicS]

I understand that with laser sailing (and we are talking mainsail) that a boat can have main out on port or starboard side regardless of side the wind is coming from (when running) and that the give way rule (in yacht racing rules) relates to the side the sail is on. Not the wind direction. Is this a conflict with Col regs or have i got it wrong? olewill

The Colregs refer to the side the wind is on. They qualify this by saying for the purpose of the regs that is deemed to be the side opposite the mainsail. This does not help greatly in the situation under discussion where the main is not set.

 

[john_morris_uk]

The OP says that "my genoa was poled out to port and my main was down". Doesn't that automatically mean he was on starboard tack or does the fact that he is on poled-out foresail mean that this is a more complex issue than I'm thinking, presumably as the wind could have been blowing from the port side if the genoa was poled out far enough. Would this then mean that he was on port tack even though the sail was in the starboard tack position?

As you can tell, I've never thought about this before.

Richard

Although we talk of tack, Rule 12 doesn't.



So technically it surely doesn't matter which side he has the Genny poled out ?

The seaman like answer is to imagine yourself in the place of the skipper of the other vessel. All he can see is the Genoa poled out to port and there would be no way he can tell you have port side wind. So it would be reasonable for him to conclude that you are on starboard and to act accordingly. I would be pretty sure any court investigating an incident resulting from something like this would agree with his interpretation too.

I understand that with laser sailing (and we are talking mainsail) that a boat can have main out on port or starboard side regardless of side the wind is coming from (when running) and that the give way rule (in yacht racing rules) relates to the side the sail is on. Not the wind direction. Is this a conflict with Col regs or have i got it wrong? olewill

The Colregs refer to the side the wind is on. They qualify this by saying for the purpose of the regs that is deemed to be the side opposite the mainsail. This does not help greatly in the situation under discussion where the main is not set.

The confusion above is resolved by VicS's partial quoting of the actual rule. The wording actually says:

(b) For the purposes of this rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite to that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried.

It's slight double think but it's perfectly possible to be sailing by the lee with the wind on the port side and the main to port and still be on starboard tack. I appreciate that the rule starts by referring to which side the wind is blowing from, but it qualifies thus by then defining that by "which side the main fore and aft sail is positioned". This actually makes sense as it removes any doubt when looking at another boat. You don't have to try and guess which way the wind is blowing across the other boat. You just look to see which side his mainsail is sitting.

I'm going to assume that in the absence of a mainsail the Genoa will provide the answer but it's a discussion point.

All IMHO.

 

[ex-Gladys]

The confusion above is resolved by VicS's partial quoting of the actual rule. The wording actually says:



It's slight double think but it's perfectly possible to be sailing by the lee with the wind on the port side and the main to port and still be on starboard tack. I appreciate that the rule starts by referring to which side the wind is blowing from, but it qualifies thus by then defining that by "which side the main fore and aft sail is positioned". This actually makes sense as it removes any doubt when looking at another boat. You don't have to try and guess which way the wind is blowing across the other boat. You just look to see which side his mainsail is sitting.

I'm going to assume that in the absence of a mainsail the Genoa will provide the answer but it's a discussion point.

All IMHO.

To confuse people, it was a "party trick" of Hobie 17 sailors in light airs to hold the boom out, and reverse the airflow over the main, sailing backwards.......

I'll get me coat...

 

[sarabande]

one of the problem of Colregs is that there does not seem to be a library of case history to explain these casuistric points. OK, Lots of racing decisions, but no records of case-by-case examples from real life, only theoretical diagrams.

I suppose it would be fun and rewarding to write a program to explain Colregs. Input type of boat, direction of wind, other geospatial/navigational features such as narrow channel, and then see what answers the logic of the regulations produces.

I wonder if there is a situation where Colregs does not give a clear answer (and yes I know about duty to avoid.) ?

 

[bitbaltic]

It's slight double think but it's perfectly possible to be sailing by the lee with the wind on the port side and the main to port and still be on starboard tack. ...... You don't have to try and guess which way the wind is blowing across the other boat. You just look to see which side his mainsail is sitting.

I'm going to assume that in the absence of a mainsail the Genoa will provide the answer but it's a discussion point.

Agree. At the risk of repeating myself the critical question is a) what tack does it look like you are on to the other boat, and b) what indications you are giving him that you are actually on some other tack than the one it looks like. In this case the answers are a) starboard and b) none, and whatever the actual wording of the rules is- and I agree in this instance they don't exactly cover it- I think a skipper would be foolish to stand on semantics. The spirit of the rules is clearly that your windward side is that opposite your principal driving sail, and it makes sense to work to that.

 

[john_morris_uk]

one of the problem of Colregs is that there does not seem to be a library of case history to explain these casuistric points. OK, Lots of racing decisions, but no records of case-by-case examples from real life, only theoretical diagrams.

I suppose it would be fun and rewarding to write a program to explain Colregs. Input type of boat, direction of wind, other geospatial/navigational features such as narrow channel, and then see what answers the logic of the regulations produces.

I wonder if there is a situation where Colregs does not give a clear answer (and yes I know about duty to avoid.) ?

But I suggest you've answered your own question. Ultimately there's a duty to avoid and if you as skipper are in any doubt, clear and unambiguous alterations of course and/or speed makes it clear to the other vessel. (Avoiding altering course to port when you are in a power driven vessel also helps...)

 

[lw395]

The colregs are not tied to bermudan rig.
They have to work with square sails, sailboards(?), twizzle rigs, just a bloody great spinnaker, or some sort of DDWFTTW fan.... (would that count as driven by machinery?)

There is a significant possiblilty that the OP was stand-on vessel, and that's if, when the two vessels came in sight of each other, the boat beating was on port tack.

The major difference between colregs and RRS is that in racing rules you can change course and become the stand on vessel. Not so in colregs, if you start off as keep clear, you are keep clear vessel until you are finally past and clear.
It's all very clear out at sea on steady courses, not IMHO quite so easy in the Solent with 50 boats milling about.
The racing rules are much clearer IMHO!

 

[john_morris_uk]

The colregs are not tied to bermudan rig.
They have to work with square sails, sailboards(?), twizzle rigs, just a bloody great spinnaker, or some sort of DDWFTTW fan.... (would that count as driven by machinery?)

There is a significant possiblilty that the OP was stand-on vessel, and that's if, when the two vessels came in sight of each other, the boat beating was on port tack.

The major difference between colregs and RRS is that in racing rules you can change course and become the stand on vessel. Not so in colregs, if you start off as keep clear, you are keep clear vessel until you are finally past and clear.
It's all very clear out at sea on steady courses, not IMHO quite so easy in the Solent with 50 boats milling about.
The racing rules are much clearer IMHO!

Perhaps you might explain under what circumstances under IRPCS the OP might have been stand on vessel?

PS IRPCS always take precedence over the racing rules. (See race instructions for any race.)

 

[bedouin]

There is a significant possiblilty that the OP was stand-on vessel, and that's if, when the two vessels came in sight of each other, the boat beating was on port tack.

Not quite, Colregs applies when risk of collision exists, not when boars are in sight of each other.

If the boat were originally on port tack then at that time there would have been no risk of collision, so Colregs would not apply. It would have been the act of tacking onto Starboard that could have caused the close quarters situation.

It is an interesting issue but I think provided the leeward boat tacked at a reasonable distance from the OP then he would still have been stand on.

 

[KREW2]

Why the OP thought he was the stand on vessel .............. but since he has explained that I don't understand why you don't understand

Judging by all the response it is not cut and dried.
I must have missed the post where he explained why he thought he was stand on.
Of course there may have been other circumstances that the OP has not mentioned.

 

[lw395]

Perhaps you might explain under what circumstances under IRPCS the OP might have been stand on vessel?

PS IRPCS always take precedence over the racing rules. (See race instructions for any race.)

As I said, if the yacht beating was on port two minutes before the OP's narrative begins, and we deem the OP to be on starboard the whole time, the OP would have initially been stand on and would have remained so.

However another moot point is whether a 'poled out genoa' counts as a fore and aft sail. A genoa is normally poled out to windward. I think the implication of the RRS definitions of sails means anything set on an outrigger is not 'fore and aft'. I don't think colregs define such things directly?

I'm well aware of the supremacy of colregs over RRS when not everyone was racing, just trying to point out that RSS 'tactics' don't work with colregs, and that colregs don't IMHO cater for dynamic situations as clearly as RRS. Or multi-boat situations come to that.

 

[Lucky Duck]

PS IRPCS always take precedence over the racing rules. (See race instructions for any race.)

Not between two boats racing they don't, even if they are in different races!

 

[RichardS]

A genoa is normally poled out to windward.

I'm not sure that's correct when the main is not being used as in the OP's case ..... and when the main is being used we're not interested in which side the genoa is poled out.

Richard

 

[john_morris_uk]

Not between two boats racing they don't, even if they are in different races!

I think you'll find that legally they do...

The racing rules are only there for the purposes of the race and not for collision avoidance. (a joke in some racing fleets...)

I seem to recall that every regatta I've taken part in, (and I've taken part in numerous Cowes and Cork weeks as well as local ones) have had some caveat in the race instructions that said IRPCS must be obeyed, whether racing or not.

 

[flaming]

I think you'll find that legally they do...

The racing rules are only there for the purposes of the race and not for collision avoidance. (a joke in some racing fleets...)

I seem to recall that every regatta I've taken part in, (and I've taken part in numerous Cowes and Cork weeks as well as local ones) have had some caveat in the race instructions that said IRPCS must be obeyed, whether racing or not.

Sorry John, but that's incorrect.

It has been well established through case law that RRS are the rules that apply when a racing boat meets another racing boat, even should the incident end up in a civil or criminal court. Given that there are specific things that are allowed under RRS (i.e. luffing an overtaking boat) that would be contrary to the IRPCS then this has to be so.

When a racing boat meets a non racing boat IRPCS will apply, which is exactly what the caveat (which is mentioned in the preamble to part 2 of the racing rules) is implying.

 

[john_morris_uk]

As I said, if the yacht beating was on port two minutes before the OP's narrative begins, and we deem the OP to be on starboard the whole time, the OP would have initially been stand on and would have remained so.

However another moot point is whether a 'poled out genoa' counts as a fore and aft sail. A genoa is normally poled out to windward. I think the implication of the RRS definitions of sails means anything set on an outrigger is not 'fore and aft'. I don't think colregs define such things directly?

I'm well aware of the supremacy of colregs over RRS when not everyone was racing, just trying to point out that RSS 'tactics' don't work with colregs, and that colregs don't IMHO cater for dynamic situations as clearly as RRS. Or multi-boat situations come to that.

If you don't think that IRPCS cater adequately for dynamic situations then I humbly suggest you are not applying them properly.

Two minutes is a red herring. Who is obliged to do what depends on the situation, size of vessel and manoeuvrability etc etc.

There's a caveat in the rules that says if you start off as the give way vessel, your actions can't make you become a stand on vessel.

The rules also say that if you are unsure you give way.

The OP admits they were both on the same tack. He was the windward vessel (wind from dead astern) and therefore the give way vessel. QED

 

[john_morris_uk]

Sorry John, but that's incorrect.

It has been well established through case law that RRS are the rules that apply when a racing boat meets another racing boat, even should the incident end up in a civil or criminal court. Given that there are specific things that are allowed under RRS (i.e. luffing an overtaking boat) that would be contrary to the IRPCS then this has to be so.

When a racing boat meets a non racing boat IRPCS will apply, which is exactly what the caveat (which is mentioned in the preamble to part 2 of the racing rules) is implying.

My apologies, I was getting confused and should have been referring to when racing boats meet other boats.

 

[lw395]

....

There's a caveat in the rules that says if you start off as the give way vessel, your actions can't make you become a stand on vessel.

...

What is the wording of that exactly?

All I am saying is that as someone with a working knowledge of both sets of rules, RRS seems much clearer in very many situations.
Particularly in terms of acquiring RoW/stand-on status.
And when two boats have to inter-act to keep clear of a third.

 

[flaming]

All I am saying is that as someone with a working knowledge of both sets of rules, RRS seems much clearer in very many situations.

I used to think that. But I think the key realisation about why they differ, and the effect that has on how they work in practice is simply the expected priorities of the boats.

When racing the expected priority of every boat is to finish in the shortest time possible. It is also expected that the boats are trying to get to the same place, and follow the same course. This makes the drafters of the RRS think very carefully about close quarters situations, and design rules that can be followed very clearly whilst not requiring anyone to slow down.

When cruising or trading or fishing or otherwise on the sea, the expected priority is simply not to hit anything. Getting somewhere is a secondary consideration. In order to comply with that objective slowing down is a good option, as is making a turn that takes you away from your destination.

The type of close quarters situations that occupy large parts of the RRS are simply not covered by the IRPCS simply because to get into that sort of situation when not racing you would have to be a lunatic.

So in practice I think this works pretty well, with only one real area of contention.

We racers get a set of rules very clearly drafted to indicate exactly who has ROW (and that concept in itself!) and the restrictions on ROW boats in tight mark roundings, multi boat scenarios, room at obstructions and all the rest.

Meanwhile the IRPCS very clearly spell out the give way vessel in any situation, then allow the skippers on the spot a reasonable amount of leeway in how that is effected. BUT it all stems from the assumption that sailing 2 boats less than a boat length apart and then making a 90 degree turn in the same place is simply not something a reasonable person would want to do whilst bound by those rules.

The only area of contention in my experience is when a Give Way racer meets a Stand On cruiser. The racer (as he is trying very hard to get to his destination as quickly as possible) will want to take the course of action that cost him the least time. This of course is something the racer does dozens of times in the average race, where the other boat is also racing, and the expected clearance is "miss". The cruiser doesn't give a hoot about the racer's priority, and wants a reasonable separation between the boats.

 

[lw395]

...
..

The type of close quarters situations that occupy large parts of the RRS are simply not covered by the IRPCS simply because to get into that sort of situation when not racing you would have to be a lunatic.
.....

There seem to be quite a few lunatics 'not racing' in the Solent at times!