Lets have a friendly discussion about the Rules of the Road

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by KJThomas

Vessels under oars are no longer covered specifically in the latest rule revisions. Formerly as "mechanically propelled vessels" the were in the same group as powerboats. Sensible as a kayak is maneuverable in all wind conditions, like a powerboat.
The latest rules have muddied the waters by changing the definition to a "power driven vessel", which obviously excludes kayaks, row boats etc.
The authorities, in New Zealand, and I suspect elsewhere, now lump them in with sailing vessels. Which doesn't make sense. What tack is a kayak on? Here because a Maritime NZ luminary wanted launches to give way, to his rowing dinghy in the marina.

So Horsepower counts but Manpower does not..???

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DMCantor

Regardless of the ColRegs, I think obeying the "rule of mass tonnage" is prudent. We're out for pleasure, the guys and gals in the big boats are working. No need to make things harder for them, and far safer to keep wide.

Absolutely right -- BUT, provided that you do so before a risk of collision arises.


Once a risk of collision exists, you are obligated to obey the Rules and stand on for a certain amount of time, if you are the stand on vessel. This is an obligation, not a privilege. Following the "Rule of Gross Tonnage", and "common sense", and so forth, is great, but NOT indeed as a substitute for following the Rules, once they apply.

[KJThomas]

Originally Posted by Snore

That’s a BIG negatory skipper. The simplest example is a sailing vessel in a channel being overtaken by a vessel constrained by draft is a give way vessel.

Practical example a sailboat rleaving Gov cut Miami is never standon to the cargo ship passing it.

The overtaken rule is within the same “class” of vessel (constrained, restricted, etc) and below (sail vs power) it does not apply to vessels above in the pecking order (sail vs NUC or constrained).

Big negatory to you. Do not impede rules do not override the steering and sailing rules, "When risk of collision exists", under the rules. Many jurisdictions have local laws where you " must give way to". However these are NOT part of the colregs.

[KJThomas]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So Horsepower counts but Manpower does not..???

[KJThomas]

Originally Posted by morribabes

I don't have extensive deep water sailing experience, mainly a coastal sailor, but have always treated the colregs as advisory, in that I will always act as if the other guy hasn't seen me, or is having a bad day. I'm on my boat to have fun, and see no advantage in shouting the odds with anybody else who might be struggling to make a deadline, or a living. I can take the time to stay out of his way, whoever he is.

And. Under the rule requiring "good seamanship, which overrides ALL the others, you are fine.


Only wish all recreational boaties are as considerate.



However make sure you make it obvious well before "risk of collision" exists, or you can confuse the other feller.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I doubt that anyone here has any difficulty with the term "notwithstanding".


It is absolute true and obvious from the plain language of the Rules that the application of Rule 9 does not eliminate the obligation of the ship to obey Rule 13.


However, you have made a logical error to think that this means that Rule 13 "trumps" Rule 9, or that Rule 9 is "subordinated" to Rule 13. This is simply not true.


Rule 8(ii):


"A vessel required not to impede [the sailboat in the given example] the passage or safe passage of another vessel [the ship] is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the Rules of this part."


It means that the obligation to not impede (Rule 9) continues in full force and effect even though the other vessel is obligated to give way according to, for example, Rule 13.


Neither Rule is subordinated to the other, neither Rule trumps the other.


The logical problem is this: We all agree, that notwithstanding Rule 9, a ship going down a narrow channel is obligated by Rule 13 to not run down the yacht from behind. That means -- Rule 13 is NOT TRUMPED by Rule 9.


Rule 13 not being trumped by Rule 9, does not indeed mean that Rule 9 is trumped by Rule 13. Nowhere does it say that only one rule at a time can apply, a "notwithstanding" here does not mean that Rule 9 does not apply. It means that Rule 13 applies "notwithstanding" Rule 9 -- without regard to Rule 9, but that does not take anything away from the simultaneous effect of Rule 9.



If you have access to a copy of Cockcroft's A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, there is a good discussion there. I found this point to be very confusing, and I corresponded with Cockcroft himself about this before his death.

Snore appears to have misunderstood the term Notwithstanding as used in Rule 13, which misunderstanding is what I was clarifying. Snore perceived that overtaking was subordinated to Rules 4 through 18 which it is explicitly not.

Aide me in better understanding. Question for ya.

If the situation is that subject matters of Rule 13 and say Rule 9 simultaneously apply, i.e., overtaking in a narrow channel which rule prevails. The overtaken boat is by the nature of relative velocity impeding the overtaking boat? Imagine one of those "I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain!" moments aboard your being overtaken yacht as another vessel is bearing down on you. Something's got to give for the Pauli Exclusion Principle to be upheld. One can't have it both ways.

I have been in channels were there is room for only one vessel at a time, or where there is only room for two to pass and there is one vessel coming head on, traveling to the starboard side of the channel and passing to port of the oncoming vessel. I can think of a really narrow entrance to a marina that I infrequently visit and sure as heck hope to not meet someone motoring the other way or trying to enter simultaneously.

If challenged I guess the non-sunken boat prevails. Tonnage counts.

Tonnage certainly prevailed when my mom was taking lessons to sail at the U.S. Navy base on Alameda Island in the Bay Area. She was sailing a tiny El Toro next to the U.S.S. Enterprise aircraft carrier that was docked. Two young sailors aboard the Big E shouted down from the upper deck repeatedly yelling Look Out Lady, Look Out. She became terribly flustered looking all about trying to see what it was she should be LOOKING OUT for and all the while getting closer and closer to the midship hull of the Big E. The non-moving Big E looking like as protective of a spot as any could be at the moment when she couldn't figure what it was she was being warned to Look Out for. She was kneeling in the El Toro and lost her balance tumbled onto her back and proceeded to go headlong into the side of the aircraft carrier. Barely a minute passes, there is much commotion heard far above her as she tries to get the El Toro sorted out so as to sail away from the side of the ship she was blown against and then she hears the emergency klaxon go off aboard the Big E sounding a collision alarm with then much greater commotion arising from above and a lot of faces emerging peering over the side trying to see what had collided with their huge vessel. Someone in the chain of command decided a dock side collision drill was a good thing to run, or they were not able to glean the true requisite nature of the reported collision and thus simply decided to prepare the ship for the worst until the situation could be more fully assessed. For sure it enlivened the day of the skeleton crew that remained aboard at port and likely the contractors and suppliers that may have been on board. Being a good spirit and an officer's wife, my mom took the entire event in humor and even stride and I recall her telling our gathered family at dinner time what special thing had happened during her day. Not many sailors have the opportunity to collide with a might warship and fewer yet live to survive to tell the fun story. She made a habit of sailing ever closer to the Big E before tacking away during her follow on classes, the El Toro disappearing from view under the sloped side of the ship from those that were observing the class. All in good fun. I don't think the US Navy allows small recreational boats get close to the hulls of their ships anymore, likely fearing a Cole like incident. As a young kid, I frequently requested tours of the navy ships and submarines that docked at Alameda, often the tours would take a few hours as the seaman rather enjoyed touring the boat as it was an escape from their regular shore duties. I even got to meet the senior officers of the Big E when the Officer of the Deck heard that my mom had run into the ship and he wanted me to relay the fun story to his commanders.

We used to dock our Sea Scout ship a WWII AVR [SSS Revenge] a mere feet between its bow and the Navy's ships at the Oakland Naval Supply Station, one could reach out and sometimes touch the bow of the comparatively huge ships when we docked. There being just enough room to squeeze our 63 foot boat between the bow of the docked supply ship along side a floating dock and the shore end of the pier. Tight but convenient and inexpensive [free] quarters. The navy personnel would often request a tour of the AVR when the Sea Scouts were present. The AVR was leased from the navy for something like a dollar a year but with the caveat that the navy could recall the ship if needed. And I recall the navy provided for the maintenance parts and upgrades, which were really just hand me downs from equipment the navy had from other vessels. We did get called out by the USCG to aid them from time to time because the AVR had massive power and shallow draft and could pull loose a boat that had run aground in the Bay and it was good practice and skill enhancement for Sea Scouts to learn how to drag a boat from the muck.

[KJThomas]

Originally Posted by Snore

Some of the posts here simply display a lack of experience on larger vessels. A small sailboat bucking a tide - with engine and sails- sometimes has a speed of 4-5 kts. With a slower SOG.

A large vessel being impacted by the same quartering or beam winds in a tight channel cannot be expected to do 4-5 knots SOG. Since the sailboat is under 20 meters, if it sails inside the marks it would be impeding the large vessel.

If it is a cruise ship you will be ORDERED out of the channel for security reasons. Same thing when a sub is coming in to Kings Bay(?) GA. They will order you out of the channel. Feel free to argue with the escort boats that have an automatic weapon mounted on the bow!

Anyone with actual experience, knows that these channels are generally 35-50 feet deep and that if you take the marks on the “wrong side” there is still over 30 feet.

Anyone who expects rule 13 to give them any relief is simply wrong.

The are correct. The larger vessel still has to obey rule 13, if risk of collision exists. The smaller vessel has the duty not to force the vessel, "which can only navigate in the narrow channel" into that situation. Not to impede. However if "risk of collision is there, rule 13, applies.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by KJThomas

"Shall not impede" is frequently misunderstood. It means you shall not force another vessel, such as one "constrained by her draft" into a situation where she has to take "action to avoid collision" under the steering and sailing rules.

Explain that to Captain Gandulf.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Snore

That’s a BIG negatory skipper. The simplest example is a sailing vessel in a channel being overtaken by a vessel constrained by draft is a give way vessel.

Practical example a sailboat leaving Gov cut Miami is never standon to the cargo ship passing it.

The overtaken rule is within the same “class” of vessel (constrained, restricted, etc) and below (sail vs power) it does not apply to vessels above in the pecking order (sail vs NUC or constrained).

There is no such thing as Constrained by Draft under the Inland Rules. It is only defined in the International Rules.

[Captain Graham]

Originally Posted by David M

There is no such thing as Constrained by Draft under the Inland Rules. It is only defined in the International Rules.

You are correct. Rule 28 Vessels Constrained by Their Draft, is only an international rules.

I would cut him a break, we have all quickly typed something and later realized me should has worded it differently.

[Captain Graham]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Explain that to Captain Gandulf.

LOL very funny.

[Captain Graham]

Originally Posted by Captain Graham

I think we are discussed the Overtaken part of the Rules to death.

Lets move on to another part of the rules.

What vessels are considered Restricted in their Ability to Maneuver?
In General is means a vessel that is working and because of the nature of the work cannot maneuver away from the work area.
Examples are laying cable, dredging, servicing a buoy, etc.

Normal Towing is not considered RAM, it is considered just a power boat.

The rule (Rule 3) does give the Towing Vessel the ability to claim RAM privileges if his work severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

What nobody wants to discuss RAM vessels and Towing?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Snore appears to have misunderstood the term Notwithstanding as used in Rule 13, which misunderstanding is what I was clarifying. Snore perceived that overtaking was subordinated to Rules 4 through 18 which it is explicitly not.

Aide me in better understanding. Question for ya.

If the situation is that subject matters of Rule 13 and say Rule 9 simultaneously apply, i.e., overtaking in a narrow channel which rule prevails. The overtaken boat is by the nature of relative velocity impeding the overtaking boat? Imagine one of those "I'm Givin' Her All She's Got, Captain!" moments aboard your being overtaken yacht as another vessel is bearing down on you. Something's got to give for the Pauli Exclusion Principle to be upheld. One can't have it both ways. . . .

What does the Pauli Exclusion Principle have to do with anything? There is nothing in logic, and certainly nothing in the Rules, which prevents both Rule 9 and Rule 13 from applying simultaneously, and indeed they clearly do apply simultaneously. The ship must not run down the yacht -- crash stop, desperate maneuver around, whatever. Rule 13. The yacht must not impede the ship. Get the heck back out of the channel. Each vessel has its own obligations, and the obligations of one, does not reduce in the least the obligations of the other. There is no Pauli Exclusion Principle in the COLREGS.



The key to understanding this is to understand that one vessel having some kind of obligation, does not create any kind of privilege in the other vessel whatsoever. Just because the ship is obligated to follow Rule 13 does not give you any right to merrily continue on your way and consider it HIS problem. You have your own obligation under Rule 9.


There is no contradiction.


Now the contradiction is different -- and that is the obligation of the yacht to stand on. How can you stand on and not impede at the same time? This seemed absurd to me and that was the subject of my correspondence with the great Cockcroft some years ago.


But it's true -- not only are you obligated to get the heck back out of the channel, you are obligated to stand on. The key is that the obligation to stand on is limited to that phase of the encounter where the ship can manage the whole thing itself and you have no reasonable doubts about it. In practice, that phase may last one second, since the fact of being in a narrow channel itself creates doubt that the ship can manage by itself.



So just fork off out of the channel, like you should have done in the first place, but if you do find yourself in a situation where the ship is maneuvering and needs you to hold still, don't forget that technically you are obligated to stand on.

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by Snore

If you are going to say I am wrong, please do your homework! The cited text specifically calls Rule B. Did you read it? Here is a link https://www.starpath.com/navrules/COLREGS_Part_B.pdf

Only a fool would impede a large vessel on Gov Cut or any other tight channel.

Are you really a marine service provider? Do you really have a license? This is the second time you have authoritatively posted misinformation!

That's not real friendly buddy. I have to say I side with the other guy on this one as well. I AM a marine service provider, whatever that means. There is no wording anywhere in Colregs about rule 13 only applying to the class of vessel above you in the hierarchy.

There is however mention in rule 2 that "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply
with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required
by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the
case." THAT is the rule I would quote when arguing that your overtaken sailboat should stay out of the way of the VCBD.

COLREGS are meant as a baseline and are up for interpretation. That said rule 13 states that "a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I
and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. " Seems pretty straightforward to me Snore.

It is worth noting that the Rule 12 is in Part B section II and therefore the overtaking rule should not apply to sailboats interacting with each other. This doubly contradicts what you say so I'd say it is you who needs to do your homework.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

That's not real friendly buddy. I have to say I side with the other guy on this one as well. I AM a marine service provider, whatever that means. There is no wording anywhere in Colregs about rule 13 only applying to the class of vessel above you in the hierarchy.

There is however mention in rule 2 that "Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,
master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply
with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required
by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the
case." THAT is the rule I would quote when arguing that your overtaken sailboat should stay out of the way of the VCBD.

COLREGS are meant as a baseline and are up for interpretation. That said rule 13 states that "a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I
and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. " Seems pretty straightforward to me Snore.

It is worth noting that the Rule 12 is in Part B section II and therefore the overtaking rule should not apply to sailboats interacting with each other. This doubly contradicts what you say so I'd say it is you who needs to do your homework.

No buddy- it wasn’t friendly, perhaps hanging out on Sailing Anarchy where folks have thicker skin has made me less politically correct.

As someone who regularly sails Tampa Bay on my boat and doing charters I have heard pilots advising vessels the ship is CBD, speaking them and instructing them to move. On deliveries I have heard the same in Gov Cut and countless other channels. You and others are stating that all these pilots and in some cases the USCG or USN escort vessels are not complying with COLREGS. I am saying that they are fully compliant with COLREGS.

Please feel free to say how I am wrong.