Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 25-06-2008, 15:39   #91
Senior Cruiser
 
44'cruisingcat's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,459
Images: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
The reason 44CC used the quote marks around "right of way" is likely because he is using the term colloquially and he is aware that there is no such thing in the colregs. Rule 18 describes the relationship between power-driven vessels and sailing vessels; there are no references to tonnage. Power normally gives way to sail, except where rules 9, 10 and 13 apply. In this case "power" does not include fishing, NUC, RAM or CBD.
Exactly. Thanks for that. I actually though my post made it clear that I DID NOT automatically assume I had right of way.

But some people are too busy looking for a fight to actually read the post.....
__________________

__________________
44'cruisingcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 15:48   #92
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by exfishnz View Post
The "Admiralty publications" is a good point, so is the cost (will look into this further).
Another option is the US Enroute Sailing Directions - I checked, and those marvellous folks at NIMA have them available for free download: Maritime Safety Information

Unfortunately I checked pub 127, and couldn't find any mention of the NZ Navigation Safety Rules. Of course NIMA solicits corrections or additions for future editions, if someone wants to send it to them.
__________________

__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 15:50   #93
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSY Man View Post
The Rules of the Road requires a constant look out, but these solo sailing fools are a constant danger to themselfs, their rescuers and other mariners.
Why didn't the Kiwis arrest him aftet they rescued him...

I totally understand where you're coming from wheels, Its the above quotes that bug me.
__________________
=====
Fair Winds and
Following seas,
Adam Yuret
s/v Estrella
Magellan 36' Ketch
www.sailestrella.com
AdamY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 15:57   #94
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2008
Boat: Designing a global explorer (full keel & steel)
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat View Post
some people are too busy looking for a fight
I'm sorry, are you in reference to yourself??? (re: the mono threads )
__________________
exfishnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 16:25   #95
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by exfishnz View Post
Another thought.

As one should always call "Harbour Control" when entering a foreign port, perhaps the onus would be on them to notify you of any rules outside of standard ColRegs? Is this a reasonable assumption? Or is it prudent not to assume anything?

This one has really piqued my curiousity. The NZ colregs make absolutely no mention of the Navigation Safety Rules or the 500 ton rule, which essentially subverts rule 22.18 (which follows the convention of IRPCS Rule 18). If I sail into a harbour I can tell by lights or shapes if a vessel is constrained by draught or restricted in manoeuvrability, but how do I tell the difference between a vessel that's 490 g. tons and one that's 510? Also within the colregs, where a vessel required not to impede gets into a close-quarters situation with a vessel not to be impeded the relevant steering and sailing rule takes effect, even though the requirement to not impede remains. In NZ, these are two separate sets of rules that conflict; so which one takes precedence? What's even more curious is that the NZ colregs seem to have omitted the rule 1(b) allowance for the operation of special harbour rules, that exists in the IRPCS. I'm not spoiling for a fight and I don't question the NZ authorities' rights to create such rules, but am curious if this 500-ton rule has ever been tested in court?
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 16:30   #96
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colombo
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Well unless the master intends to swim to the rescue, or drop off his passengers and crew in the middle of the oggin, we're going to have to assume they will be going along for the ride. Now it's unlikely a master would ask paying passengers to help, but I can't see any master saying to his crew "relax, I'll take care of this by myself."
As I said - They are not necessarily obliged to take part in rescue efforts. I think most of us experienced with the sea can anticipate many opportunities where crew may not be under any obligation to assist.

For example, if an incapacitated victim was to be recovered by crew working from a cargo net in heavy seas some or all might quite reasonably decide not to participate even though that is the method of assistance the master considers is the safest.

Another, if a rescue necessitates the launching of a sea boat in heavy seas, again within the judgement of the master as to being safe to do so, some or all members of the crew might quite reasonably decide not to take part.

Of course, under these circumstances and this being the 21st century, a master would always ask for volunteers (assuming non military, perhaps) but should he not get any then the master can no longer assist and would have to abandon the rescue. He would not swim to the rescue or take care of it himself as you seem to consider as being the only alternative left to him.

In that it is also relevant that for some flags workplace health and safety on board is administered by the same government office as those things on land, so does not come under maritime legislation (NZ is one such country). It may be helpful for you to understand what is being said to reflect on the rights of shore side workers in refusing to perform work (and indeed their responsibilities to not do so and to report matters they consider improper) and apply that to the sea.

I anticipate that under some countries flags it is possible that paying passengers are indeed under some obligation to assist if they consider that it is both safe and they have the ability to do so. That being for those countries that have legislation that does not allow persons to stand aside and not provide assistance to a distressed person at least on land eg from illness or accident, without reason (France, as far as I understand, has such legislation). But I would not expect they would be considered as being remiss if they decided to not take part in rescues such as I outline above - but it might be if a paying passenger was a doctor and refused to provide medical help to a recovered victim (an unlikely circumstance but I just state it by way of example).
__________________
MidLandOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 16:52   #97
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colombo
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
In NZ, these are two separate sets of rules that conflict; so which one takes precedence?
They do not conflict. The Navigation Rules (Part 91) add the requirement for lesser vessels to give way to >= 500 gross tonnage vessels within harbour areas, they do not contradict or conflict. If that harbour rule was included in the Collision Prevention rule (Part 22) then NZ flagged vessels would be required to obey that rule in any harbour of the world where the harbour limits were charted, unless, of course, Part 22 went to the added complication and beyond its scope by qualifying the relevant clause as "just applying in NZ" which would not be appropriate rule writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
I'm not spoiling for a fight and I don't question the NZ authorities' rights to create such rules, but am curious if this 500-ton rule has ever been tested in court?
Yes. And there has never been any question of it failing as far as I know, the legislation is very clear.
__________________
MidLandOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 18:07   #98
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidLandOne View Post
They do not conflict. The Navigation Rules (Part 91) add the requirement for lesser vessels to give way to >= 500 gross tonnage vessels within harbour areas, they do not contradict or conflict.
How can you say they don't conflict - one rule says a power driven vessel >= 500 tons has to keep out of the way of a sailboat, and other rule says the sailboat has to stay out of the way of the power driven vessel >= 500 tons.

Quote:
If that harbour rule was included in the Collision Prevention rule (Part 22) then NZ flagged vessels would be required to obey that rule in any harbour of the world where the harbour limits were charted, unless, of course, Part 22 went to the added complication and beyond its scope by qualifying the relevant clause as "just applying in NZ" which would not be appropriate rule writing.
Why not? It works fine in both Canadian colregs and the US Inland rules. In fact we have a subset of rules specific to the waters of the Great Lakes.

Quote:
Yes. And there has never been any question of it failing as far as I know, the legislation is very clear.
Has anyone been charged with breaking the 500-ton rule? If so, has anyone used rule 18 as a defence? What was the judgment?
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 18:11   #99
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 249
I don't know that people take a morbid delight in others' misfortunes. Few people would not understand the import of losing one's boat if not worse especially having spent 3 years building it.
They may well take an interest in the knowledge that it could happen to them but they would prefer to avoid it.
While many will undertake quite ambitious projects eg circumnavigations and succeed with a modicum of luck and learning as they go, some are not so lucky and others reconsider their plans after some experience.
In this case the person had quite ambitious plans to circumnavigate around the horns in a 21' but strong and well designed boat. Timing because of an expiring visa meant he left a few weeks after launching on a major initial trip NZ to Hawaii. Although he had had various boats his offshore experience may have been limited, in that his site refers to US west coast trip to Mexico on a Westsail which would be somewhat easier than his proposed trip in likely gale conditions.
The man had had his sailing ambitions for most of his life. However I wonder if the reality of the effects of being tossed around in a small boat in storms, alone and sleep deprived and probably with restricted ability to cook, is the other aspect to be considered in such plans.
His is not the only one to go awry in such conditions in very recent times. It is not surprising that it is of interest to others even if the precise details are not known, although he has written an acount to be published.
__________________
chris_gee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 20:04   #100
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colombo
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
How can you say they don't conflict - one rule says a power driven vessel >= 500 tons has to keep out of the way of a sailboat, and other rule says the sailboat has to stay out of the way of the power driven vessel >= 500 tons.
Well, as no doubt you know, Part 22 makes no reference to 500 gross tonnage and Part 91 makes no reference to power giving way to sail so I assume that you are just talking about the general case of what could occur. I fail to see the difficulty of interpretation and you are the only person I have come across that has been confused by it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Why not? It works fine in both Canadian colregs and the US Inland rules. In fact we have a subset of rules specific to the waters of the Great Lakes.
Rightly or wrongly NZ has chosen to take another approach as to how it structures its overall maritime legislation with respect to the division of its parts. I'm afraid that you will have to take it as it is but if you remain unhappy and confused over its interpretation I suggest that you raise your concerns with the NZ Government Ministry of Transport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Has anyone been charged with breaking the 500-ton rule? If so, has anyone used rule 18 as a defence? What was the judgment?
I have already answered the first question.

For the second not so far as I am aware, but I think it is fair to say that I do not read the transcripts of nor attended to hear what was claimed as a part of a defence in every maritime case in NZ. My experience is that the defence will throw up everything they can think of if only to muddy the waters, including the nonsensical. Given that the nonsensical is often brought up it is possible that the situation you suggest may have been claimed as a defence, but I have no idea if it has.

But I'm afraid, being honest, that your continuing confusion and cogitations have left me bemused. Perhaps you are just a troll but I have given you the advantage of my assuming that you are not, however all good assumptions get tired. Others have said privately that what I have been saying makes sense to them and that is all that matters to me, so I'll leave you to the complexity of your cogitations.
__________________
MidLandOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 20:20   #101
Registered User
 
Ambiance's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Crown Harbor, Alameda, CA
Boat: Jeanneau 36i
Posts: 12
Images: 2
You salty dogs sure have some horrible grammar Nonetheless, I think that we are all so drawn to stories like this because most of us can learn something from the mistakes of our fellow sailors ... although, running in to an island seems to indicate complete incompetence on the part of the captain.
__________________
Ambiance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 21:16   #102
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambiance View Post
You salty dogs sure have some horrible grammar Nonetheless, I think that we are all so drawn to stories like this because most of us can learn something from the mistakes of our fellow sailors ... although, running in to an island seems to indicate complete incompetence on the part of the captain.
Easy with the grammar critiques, lest you bring attention to your poor use of punctuation; your use of the ellipsis is erroneous and the comma is extraneous.
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2008, 23:00   #103
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidLandOne View Post
so I assume that you are just talking about the general case of what could occur.
You were able to make that leap of logic, eh?

Quote:
I fail to see the difficulty of interpretation and you are the only person I have come across that has been confused by it.
Just from this thread, it is obvious that I am not the only one to see where there could be confusion. I wouldn't call it a "general case" - it is a specific case, but hardly one that would seem far-fetched. A visiting yacht under sail meets a commercial power-driven ship in NZ waters; which vessel gives way is entirely dependent upon which side of the harbour demarcation line they happen to be - a line which could be miles out to sea. It's also dependent on which side of 500 tons, that the commercial vessel tips the scales - something that the master of the yacht has to determine just by looking at the other vessel. But according to you, following the New Zealand Collision Regulations is "nonsensical".

I don't know you, or what you do. You make plenty of veiled references, that would suggest you might be able to add some knowledge and/or experience to an earnest discussion. When I asked about actual cases, you replied with a curt "yes", but perhaps you could give us the benefit of your wisdom by citing a specific case or two. Perhaps you could provide a link where we could read court transcripts, or accident-investigation summaries.

Quote:
Rightly or wrongly NZ has chosen to take another approach as to how it structures its overall maritime legislation with respect to the division of its parts. I'm afraid that you will have to take it as it is but if you remain unhappy and confused over its interpretation I suggest that you raise your concerns with the NZ Government Ministry of Transport.
I have no problem with NZ enacting whatever rules they want; I do have a problem with your assertion that adding a "within NZ waters" clause to the colregs would "not be appropriate rule writing." I gave you two specific examples where colregs are written that way, and I can provide more if you wish.

Quote:
But I'm afraid, being honest, that your continuing confusion and cogitations have left me bemused. Perhaps you are just a troll but I have given you the advantage of my assuming that you are not, however all good assumptions get tired. Others have said privately that what I have been saying makes sense to them and that is all that matters to me, so I'll leave you to the complexity of your cogitations.
If in doubt, call me a "troll". Nice!
What others say privately to you matters even less to me, than what you say - if they don't have the guts to post their opinions in the public fora, why should I give a wet rat's arse what they think? But, if the groupthink works for your little clique, then bully for you.
Tell you what - bemuse no further. Ignore my posts, and I'll ignore yours. Have a nice life.
__________________
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2008, 00:33   #104
Senior Cruiser
 
Alan Wheeler's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marlborough Sounds. New Zealand
Boat: Hartley Tahitian 45ft. Leisure Lady
Posts: 8,038
Images: 102
OK easy there Lodesman.
Midlandone has not stated his "qualification" to comment on this possibly for good reason. That is his and for that matter, anyones right. I happen to know his "qualification", however I will not state it without his permission in case he prefer it not known. But I can confirm for you that he is very well qualified to speak on NZ Maritime Law.
__________________
Wheels

For God so loved the world..........He didn't send a committee.
Alan Wheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2008, 00:44   #105
Moderator Emeritus
 
Ex-Calif's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Boat: Maxi 77 - Relax Lah!
Posts: 11,514
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by exfishnz View Post
Now, if there's a particular rule (500 ton or otherwise) that we're not aware of & its not noted on the chart - then how do we know about it & make sure we don't breach it?

A buddy of mine likes to use the term, "There is right and then there is Dead right."

Sailing Vessel - Crunch!

Magistrate - Didn't you know >500 ton vessels have right of way here in Kiwiland?
Sailing Vessel - "Of course your honor but I swear he didn't look a pound over 499..."

Asserting your rights over a boat that takes 5 miles to stop and has a turning radius of, what, 10 miles or so is pretty sporty stuff...
__________________

__________________
Relax Lah! is For Sale <--- Click
Click--> Custom CF Google Search or CF Rules
You're gonna need a bigger boat... - Martin Brody
Ex-Calif is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open 60 sailboat hits whale in artemis transat. WHALE DAMAGE sailingaway Monohull Sailboats 5 26-05-2008 16:12
Is the term "Yachtie" derogatory? David M Off Topic Forum 61 04-03-2008 05:19
Sailing Yacht 'Scarf' Wrecks on Rocks in Lake Worth Inlet on Way to Bahamas Ram Cruising News & Events 19 06-01-2008 21:42
Ship Hits Ice Off Antarctica TaoJones Health, Safety & Related Gear 22 27-11-2007 00:11
Olaf' Hits Samoa - Threatens Cook Islands GordMay Pacific & South China Sea 3 17-02-2005 12:21



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.