Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The lack of a "100% tied down definition of impede" is a very serious flaw in the Rules, in my opinion.

Evans, I have been following with interest your conversation with Dave and Lodesman on this issue. I had exactly the same logical problems you had with this "not impeding" business. My first reaction is that there is no way that you can stand on and not impede at the same time, and that therefore, logically, you must give way, if it comes to that. Lodesman, in our conversation a couple of years ago, stubbornly proved that this was a naive and incorrect interpretation of the Rules, and I am grateful to him for enlightening me.

So what I take from my reading over the last couple of years and listening to knowledgeable guys like Dave and Lodesman is that the authorities will in fact tell you something like what Dave has laid out above. The only thing I would quibble with in Dave's interpretation is that he makes it sound much clearer and much more cut and dried, than it is or possibly could be.

In my opinion, it is a fantasy to imagine that we can always, or even usually judge whether or not a vessel privileged by our obligation to "not impede" has enough sea room to maneuver and give way, so that we can stand on properly. Without a radar overlay on a chart plotter -- which the Rules do not assume we have -- it is pretty hard to judge this, even in a broad TSS (Is there another vessel hidden behind the privileged MV? There was an actual collision caused by something like this recently.). I think all this is a dangerous abstraction which does nothing to help mariners in real situations. Standing on under a mistaken judgement about another vessel's sea room could be very dangerous. And confusion about who is supposed to be doing what is precisely what the Rules are designed to prevent - this confusion is what causes collisions.

And in a Rule 9 narrow channel situation, how could this be applied at all? There is no sea room, by definition.

In my opinion, the Rules, having created this obligation to "not impede", should be crystal clear as to what that means and how that obligation interacts with other obligations under the steering & sailing rules. In my opinion, not impeding should mean, basically, stay the f**k out of the way -- stay well clear prior to any risk of collision arising. And if you don't manage to stay the f**k out of the way, for whatever reason, and a risk of collision does arise, activating the other steering & sailing rules, then it should be made clear who does what -- should you forget about "not impeding" and go over into regular collision avoidance mode? Or should you give way? So that the other vessel should be standing on, despite what might otherwise be required by the Rules? Either of these situations would be better than what we apparently have now.

I prefer the latter variant -- not impeding smoothly transitions to giving way, and the obligation to "not impede and then give way" trumps all the other rules. Maybe there should even be a sound signal meaning "In case it is not clear to you, I am navigating in a narrow channel and am unable to safely navigate outside of it. I claim Rule 9. Beware, because I will not give way to you." This would overcome any possible confusion ("narrow" is also not define ).

One might object -- what about overtaking? You really want a big MV bearing down on a small vessel to stand on just because the small vessel is supposed to be "not impeding"? I don't know -- maybe. It works that way in Special Navigation Zones like the extremely busy Thorne Channel in the Solent. Small vessels and sailing vessels are even supposed to observe a moving exclusion zone around large vessels navigating in the Zone, and it works fine. The MV is allowed to maneuver anyway in case he has reason to be believe that the small vessel is not taking adequate action.

Where I live, following rule 9 is a slam-dunk as the water around the merchant channel is plenty deep enough. There could be no justification for a leisure boater staying in the channel, much less doing that and then expecting a big freighter to give way (only by slowing up) -- even if under sail power.

The rules are clear, and there are very good interpretations of the rules in print and on line that sensible people can read.

[Rakuflames]

I was so concerned over all this VAST attention to my sailing, being told I was a danger, etc. that I actually talked to a Coastie. He actually said that staying away from the big boats to begin with was a perfectly acceptable strategy -- as long as I could tolerate a five minute delay. I said that was what beer was invented for, to turn annoying delays into delightful leisure moments.

Then I asked him, suppose I looked around to see a big boat bearing down on me, was it ok to turn 90 degrees and avoid a collision?

He said what I expected him to say -- that it is the obligation of every boater to IGNORE who is stand on and who is give way if one thinks there is a danger of collision, but to make a CLEAR move so it's obvious what one's intentions are.

Just to be certain, I asked him whether a 90º turn would be clear enough, and he said that he could not answer for every captain on the water in the entire world, but that it would be clear to him.

All in all he did not seem to think I was a reckless fool who should not be on the water.

All responses will be cheerfully ignored. Hearing from the Coast Guard was good enough for me.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I was so concerned over all this VAST attention to my sailing, being told I was a danger, etc. that I actually talked to a Coastie. He actually said that staying away from the big boats to begin with was a perfectly acceptable strategy -- as long as I could tolerate a five minute delay. I said that was what beer was invented for, to turn annoying delays into delightful leisure moments.

Then I asked him, suppose I looked around to see a big boat bearing down on me, was it ok to turn 90 degrees and avoid a collision?

He said what I expected him to say -- that it is the obligation of every boater to IGNORE who is stand on and who is give way if one thinks there is a danger of collision, but to make a CLEAR move so it's obvious what one's intentions are.

Just to be certain, I asked him whether a 90º turn would be clear enough, and he said that he could not answer for every captain on the water in the entire world, but that it would be clear to him.

All in all he did not seem to think I was a reckless fool who should not be on the water.

All responses will be cheerfully ignored. Hearing from the Coast Guard was good enough for me.

Does a lot of yacht sailing , does your coastie friend. ??? Skilled at collision avoidance in a 6-7 knot craft , I presume ?

There are " experts" and then state paid " experts"

Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Does a lot of yacht sailing , does your coastie friend. ??? Skilled at collision avoidance in a 6-7 knot craft , I presume ?

There are " experts" and then state paid " experts"

Dave

He's not a friend, but he is a leisure boater. But since I have also managed to miss many a freighter or just plain very fast power boater, I believe that he is fully capable of avoiding collisions.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

He's not a friend, but he is a leisure boater. But since I have also managed to miss many a freighter or just plain very fast power boater, I believe that he is fully capable of avoiding collisions.

You're absolutely right Rakuflames, you listen to the coastie , full on . Now where were we.....

Dave

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You're absolutely right Rakuflames, you listen to the coastie , full on . Now where were we.....

Dave

LOL.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

All responses will be cheerfully ignored. Hearing from the Coast Guard was good enough for me.

Sure, don't worry about it Raku

In Tampa Bay you're not really going to ever have any real Colregs situations anyway. Just stay out of the way, which is pretty easy to do in places like that because big ships can only follow the channels and you have shallow water for miles out to sea. You'll be fine. I reckon in your case Rule 9 is mostly applicable anyway, which means you are supposed to be "not impeding" in any case.

Just don't assume that this is all there is to collision avoidance, or try to push such an idea on others -- that is, do not try to make a general rule out of your own very narrow experience. And be aware that you are not prepared to deal with traffic in open water. Collision avoidance is actually a very complex and interesting subject. You would profit greatly from some instruction. Good luck.

[Rakuflames]

PS, Dockhead. Once you got past your put-down, your first three words were "In Tampa Bay..."

I could count on one hand the number of times I have sailed in Tampa Bay.

That's a perfect example of assumptions.

[Rakuflames]

Sorry, the rest of my answer disappeared:

All of your assumptions were wrong, not just those first three words. If YOU think a sailboat can't get out of the way by sailing off 90º then you need to review your algebra, and aparently rather badly. IMO the person who is a danger out there is the person who can't come up with a Plan B to avoid a collision.

Please stop telling me what to "not assume" until you stop making assumptions yourself. Thanks.

[transmitterdan]

As my feeble understanding of common law goes, any poorly defined term must be defined by a court. Then a jury can apply that definition to a set of facts to render a verdict. Surely the definition of "impede" has been sorted out by the various court systems by now. Among all the legal beagles here with access to the world's databases of court opinions maybe someone could find a court approved definition of "impede".

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

If YOU think a sailboat can't get out of the way by sailing off 90º then you need to review your algebra, and aparently rather badly.

I don't think anyone wants to start all over again with this, which was done to death a few weeks ago.

Several different people went to a lot of trouble to explain to you why "just sailing off 90 degrees" will not get you out of trouble in many, probably most potential collision situations, which is why (a) that is not the way you are taught in any formal training program; (b) that is not what the rules say.

You chose not to absorb a single iota of what at least two professional ships' captains, a former senior Coast Guard officer, and a whole host of highly experienced sailors have tried to explain to you. That's your business and your loss. I don't think any of them will want to go through the whole exercise again; certainly I will not.

[monte]

Sounds like you both have a similar understanding of the COLREGS.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by monte

Sounds like you both have a similar understanding of the COLREGS.

I viewed it as a more neutral response than a boss asking his underlings whether or not he was right.

[psneeld]

I'm just as much Coastie as whoever the new "expert is" and I fully agree with the rest of the pros and highly experienced people in this forum...

goboatingnow's post that stated this sums it up pretty well.....

"What's clear in all this , is that yachts need to realise they are full participants in the COLREGS. In fact they are provided with enormous lee-way and courtesy by the rules.

Dave"

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by psneeld

I'm just as much Coastie as whoever the new "expert is" and I fully agree with the rest of the pros and highly experienced people in this forum...

goboatingnow's post that stated this sums it up pretty well.....

"What's clear in all this , is that yachts need to realise they are full participants in the COLREGS. In fact they are provided with enormous lee-way and courtesy by the rules.

Dave"

The COLREGS were not written to favor any group over another, so there's no "enormous leeway," although courtesy goes a very long way. The rules are written to minimize the risk of collisions as much as regulations can. I certainly know leisure boaters who have no idea who really has to do what, and I hear "right of way" all the time. Just yesterday I heard someone assuming that sailboats "always" have the "right of way."

As long as we continue to decline to require operator's licenses for leisure boating, there will be all sorts of levels of ignorance. But let's not confuse that with pecking people's posts apart, and out of context, as a form of personal puffery.

In fact if there's an accident there is no "leeway" for anyone. The rules will be applied impartially and as precisely as the powers that be can manage.