Evans Starzinger's article in BoatUS Magazine

[kefroeschner]

On the abusive language and general demeanour -- there is a web forum for professional captains. The general character of the discourse there is crude, juvenile, accusatory, derogatory, ... After a day of perusing the outpourings of these, whom I used to have unmitigated, if distant, admiration for, I came away wondering if I'd ever feel safe cruising seas that their like was abound on.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by kefroeschner

On the abusive language and general demeanour -- there is a web forum for professional captains. The general character of the discourse there is crude, juvenile, accusatory, derogatory, ... After a day of perusing the outpourings of these, whom I used to have unmitigated, if distant, admiration for, I came away wondering if I'd ever feel safe cruising seas that their like was abound on.

I think I know which web forum you refer to, is it mainly one used by US mariners?

Another forum used by ships captains is found here
Forums

Its not a general free for all type of forum, but lots of useful info

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ Yes

I am aware of the "not impede" vs "give way" distinction. However the article is/was intended for a beginner audience and I did not want to confuse the readers with the 'not impede' concept.

Regarding your old debate . . . personally, I act as if, "if they felt they had to maneuver, then I have impeded them", as that is the more conservative (with regards to my vessel risk) of the various interpretation. But I don't know if that is the "correct" interpretation.

I was, and still am, gobsmacked that vessel was swearing a blue streak at me on VHF (13 I think). I was as polite and respectful as I could possibly be. The officer on the radio had good English so I always presumed it was an American pilot. My personal opinion was that he was 'going too fast for the conditions', or more accurately too fast for his skill/comfort level in those conditions. I also suspect his theoretical knowledge of the colregs was comprehensive, but he had had a bad day already and was just frustrated that I ended up where I was and that he had to maneuver slightly off his preprogramed track.

I have argued , with I beleive learned references. That the key issue in " impeding" as defined in the COLREGS is the issue of sea-room. Merely causing the " not to be impeded" vessel to manoeuvre or change speed cannot in reference to the COLREGS to regarded in itself as impeding

Note that US inland waters have a " get out of the way " clause in this regard. That's entirely different and under that forcing a change in course or speed could clearly be regarded as impeding

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I've come to the conclusion that AIS is now a safety issue v. a convenience, mostly because the big commercial guys are now used to it and don't watch as carefully for folks that aren't lit up on their screen. They also don't seem as responsive to VHF calls by description and location.

+1. The exclusively use ships names themselves I find now getting a response to " ship at position x y" very difficult

Dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I have argued , with I beleive learned references. That the key issue in " impeding" as defined in the COLREGS is the issue of sea-room. Merely causing the " not to be impeded" vessel to manoeuvre or change speed cannot in reference to the COLREGS to regarded in itself as impeding

Note that US inland waters have a " get out of the way " clause in this regard. That's entirely different and under that forcing a change in course or speed could clearly be regarded as impeding

Dave

Dave, out of curiosity what "get out of the way" clause are you referring to (can you cite a rule number and paragraph, or quote it). I just took a quick look and rule 10 looks identical for international vs Inland but I could certainly have missed something.

If you argue that the 'vessel not to be impeded' can be made to change course and speed (by the "not to impede vessel") . . . then what in fact is left . . . what action do you believe the "not to impede vessel" is NOT allowed to force on the "not to be impeded vessel"? All that seems to be left is to force it aground (or other manifestly unsafe navigation) - if so then I would have thought that amply covered elsewhere in the rules?

[Lodesman]

I think he was referring to "right of way"; it's in rule 9:

9.a.(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(i) and Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel operating in narrow channels or fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I think he was referring to "right of way"; it's in rule 9:

Indeed I was. , a right of way is much much onerous on the impeding vessel. Essentially as I said its a get out of the way clause.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Dave, out of curiosity what "get out of the way" clause are you referring to (can you cite a rule number and paragraph, or quote it). I just took a quick look and rule 10 looks identical for international vs Inland but I could certainly have missed something.

If you argue that the 'vessel not to be impeded' can be made to change course and speed (by the "not to impede vessel") . . . then what in fact is left . . . what action do you believe the "not to impede vessel" is NOT allowed to force on the "not to be impeded vessel"? All that seems to be left is to force it aground (or other manifestly unsafe navigation) - if so then I would have thought that amply covered elsewhere in the rules?

COLREGS 8 (f) is I think clear enough as is Cockcroft and farwell. The key definition is if an impede situation exists, such as a narrow channel, fairway or TSS lane , then the not to impede vessel must not cause a situation, where the other vessel , the potentially impeded vessel, in applying the steering rules ( as is explicitly required to do ) is put in or might be put in a position where it had not enough sea room to complete the manoeuvre.

I have argued that a small vessel proceeding up a deep sea TSS lane, cannot , short of being a hooligan, cause an impeding situation. The sea room almost always exists for the larger vessel to correctly apply the steering/ over taking rules and hence is not impeded.

The COLREGS are explicit on this , the potentially impeded , and " impeding " vessel are not exempted from the steering rules etc. hence a power vessel meeting a sailing vessel in a TSS , must apply the normal give way , avoid or stand on as appropriate. The only modification is that the sailing vessel must not act so as potentially cause a collision by limiting the other vessels sea room. For example If such an avoiding action forced the power vessel out of the TSS, there would be a good arguments it was impeded.

Dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The key definition is if an impede situation exists, such as a narrow channel, fairway or TSS lane , then the not to impede vessel must not cause a situation, where the other vessel , the potentially impeded vessel, in applying the steering rules ( as is explicitly required to do ) is put in or might be put in a position where it had not enough sea room to complete the manoeuvre.

But, if so, why add the "not impede" language in rule 10? If the TSS is "roomy" (has searoom) you are saying "impeding can not happen" and if the TSS is a narrow Channel it is already covered.

You are suggesting that our small pleasure sail boats don't need to give any special consideration to the TSS in the western San Fran bay (which is deep enough) or the English Channel, and should just follow the 'basic' (stand on/give way) colregs with regard to ships there, and should not worry about impeding because they "can not" according to you. That seems a bit odd.

Specifically, you are suggesting if I am crossing a Wide TSS, and am the stb vessel to that lane of ships, I don't need to wait for a gap. I can just cross and have them all maneuver to avoid me. I would have thought that was what that clause in 10. was trying to prevent . . . That they wanted slow vessels to look for a gap so as not to impede the lane of ships. So when crossing a TSS, do you not wait for a gap when are the stb vessel?

Having the impede language in rule 10 would seem (to me) to be there for situations other than narrow channels/lack of sea room. Otherwise why specifically include the words there (rule 10) at all, and also why specifically not include the "sea room" language.

[sabray]

What I found improved with AIS. I call out a approaching vessel by name. No uncertain location. It is vessel to vessel. Very courteous and we usually go 2 whistles . On occasion the larger vessel has altered course and I agree to fall off as well.
Prior to ais I damn near got mowed over. Missed a big friggin ship silent coming down on me late at night., first mistake I didn't train the crew well. They should have been checking with full 360 check. The radio was on scan for 13 and 16 but the output was down below. Very hard to hear.
Installed ais reciever and most important set up the VHF so it's heard at the helm. Near 30 years on the water and I never encountered rude commercial traffic. In that occasion they might very well have been rude but I missed it and it would have been deserved.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

But, if so, why add the "not impede" language in rule 10? If the TSS is "roomy" (has searoom) you are saying "impeding can not happen" and if the TSS is a narrow Channel it is already covered.

Not all TSS lanes are especially wide - it could be possible to impede in narrow lanes, or at choke points. Even in wide lanes, the onus would remain on the sail/small vessel to avoid navigating in such a way that it might "pinch" the large vessel - ie. forcing him close to the edges of the lane. But if you're a single sailboat crossing in the middle of a mile-wide lane, I can see no way that you could be considered to be impeding a large vessel; however a regatta of sailboats lined up across the lane would be 'impeding.'

If you were to equate "not impede" with "stay out of the way", then why include "not impede" in the rules at all? Why wouldn't they just say fishing vessels, sailing vessels and vessels <20m shall stay out of the way of vessels constrained by a narrow channel, following a traffic lane, or constrained by draught, in the same manner as the rest of rule 18?

[estarzinger]

^^ I can debate both sides of this argument and I don't know which is correct.

When a term is not specifically defined common English definition applies, and the dictionary definition of impede, "to interfere with or slow the progress of", would seem (to me) to support the "get out of their way" interpretation rather than the "sea room" interpretation. But the language is ambiguous.

Interestingly in "the real world" it must not come up very often, otherwise it would have been clarified.

Since I can see both sides of this, and don't know which is right, I don't feel much need to defend either position. I was just pointing out to goboating that there was a valid and defendable alternative position. I think the only thing that could usefully further the discussion is a directly on point authoritative statement.

I certaintly believe that when crossing a TSS, a slow pleasure craft, even when stand-on, should aim for (and potentially wait for) a gap between the ships, rather than just sailing ahead and forcing them to maneuver.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I was just pointing out to goboating that there was a valid and defendable alternative position.

I certaintly believe that when crossing a TSS, a slow pleasure craft, even when stand-on, should aim for (and potentially wait for) a gap between the ships, rather than just sailing ahead and forcing them to maneuver.

I completely agree with looking both ways and waiting for the speeding traffic to pass before stepping onto the street. I agree also that there is an alternative position, but I contend it is not defendable. Colregs is too vague and certainly could benefit from a black and white definition of "impede" being included in the next revision, but I think logically it is easy to see that "not impede" cannot be equated to "give way" nor "stay out of the way."

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

But, if so, why add the "not impede" language in rule 10? If the TSS is "roomy" (has searoom) you are saying "impeding can not happen" and if the TSS is a narrow Channel it is already covered.

You are suggesting that our small pleasure sail boats don't need to give any special consideration to the TSS in the western San Fran bay (which is deep enough) or the English Channel, and should just follow the 'basic' (stand on/give way) colregs with regard to ships there, and should not worry about impeding because they "can not" according to you. That seems a bit odd.

Specifically, you are suggesting if I am crossing a Wide TSS, and am the stb vessel to that lane of ships, I don't need to wait for a gap. I can just cross and have them all maneuver to avoid me. I would have thought that was what that clause in 10. was trying to prevent . . . That they wanted slow vessels to look for a gap so as not to impede the lane of ships. So when crossing a TSS, do you not wait for a gap when are the stb vessel?

Having the impede language in rule 10 would seem (to me) to be there for situations other than narrow channels/lack of sea room. Otherwise why specifically include the words there (rule 10) at all, and also why specifically not include the "sea room" language.

You may have missed the correspondence from the head of CNIS which monitors the Dover straits , he mentioned impede is very loosely defined and asserted yachts of course have the right to proceed up TSS lanes.

Both Cockcroft and farewel speak of sea room in 8 ( f) as the defining issue and where impede is mentioned first. They go on to say that its definition. Is then carried in rule 10 where no further explanation of impede is forthcoming.

The rules of TSS are clear the steering rules must be applied irrespective , hence when crossing b the TSS those rules apply ( note the std rule is only for power vessels ) the ships ARE clearly obliged to keep out of your way. However the impede rule in 10 as defined on rule 8 applied means you shouldn't force them out of the Chanel or into another collision

Cockcroft is very clear that impede is not simply not forcing course or speed changes he justifies this by clearly referencing the rules that requirement both vessels to observe the steering rules.


All I am saying is that impede is not so defined anywhere in the COLREGS , except in 8 (f) which was specifically added in 1987 to try and address such confusion.

Small yachts wait for gaps because its prudent to do so. However unless forcing a course or speed change could potentially cause a large vessel to run out of sea room, there is no obligation on the yacht to act so.

Dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I completely agree with looking both ways and waiting for the speeding traffic to pass before stepping onto the street. I agree also that there is an alternative position, but I contend it is not defendable. Colregs is too vague and certainly could benefit from a black and white definition of "impede" being included in the next revision, but I think logically it is easy to see that "not impede" cannot be equated to "give way" nor "stay out of the way."

I agree with that. Specifically that "not impede" must mean something other than "give way".

Since it is not defined, the most natural meaning to apply would be "do not cause to slow or hinder". That is different than "give way" and practically speaking would imply giving the ships greater time and room (than normal) to allow them to make smaller corrections to avoid collision situations (so as to not slow or hinder them). That IMHO works logically, and follows the legal precedent of using common English definition, when a term is not specifically defined.

I am not saying I know that to be right. Just that it is a logically consistent understanding, and fits the rule 10 application just a little bit better (IMHO) than the "Searoom" interpretation.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You may have missed the correspondence from the head of CNIS which monitors the Dover straits , he mentioned impede is very loosely defined and asserted yachts of course have the right to proceed up TSS lanes.

Yes, we all agree "impede" is "loosely defined". The fact that it has not been clarified suggests it is treated more as a "desire" than applied in any rigorous fashion. And we all agree that Yachts have the right to proceed up TSS lanes. Neither of those points is in question.

The rules of TSS are clear the steering rules must be applied irrespective , hence when crossing b the TSS those rules apply ( note the std rule is only for power vessels ) the ships ARE clearly obliged to keep out of your way.

Yes, we (here) all agreed that the steering rules come into effect in a collision situation.

Although, I would comment that my guess is that 99% of the yachties who even know about rule 10, do not understand this and believe (incorrectly) rule 10 obliges them to give way in all collision situations in a TSS.

However the impede rule in 10 as defined on rule 8 applied means you shouldn't force them out of the Chanel or into another collision.

We all agree that 'not impede' suggests you can't force them in to a collision. I agree with the 'out of the channel', but that seems to conflict with your pure 'sea room' definition of "impede", if/when there is safe sea room outside the channel (as there sometimes is).

Cockcroft is very clear that impede is not simply not forcing course or speed changes he justifies this by clearly referencing the rules that requirement both vessels to observe the steering rules.

Yes, again, I agree, small course changes are allowed by the "not slow or hinder" alternative. The question is whether "not impede" allows you (if you are stand on in the steering rules) to take a course that will bring you right across the bow of a ship and force him to make large corrections which significantly slow or hinder him. One interpretation says yes and the other says no.

However unless forcing a course or speed change could potentially cause a large vessel to run out of sea room, there is no obligation on the yacht to act so.

Well, that's the very 'pure' 'searoom' definition. Above you suggest you can't force the ship out of the lane even if there is safe searoom out there, so even you don't seem to completely agree with the 'pure' 'searoom' definition. And my point is there is an alternative logically consistent definition which allows forcing small (than normal) course and speed changes but prohibits forcing large (slowing and hindering) changes.

And again, I don't know the answer. I see two possibilities, and am not "defending" either.