Big Ship Little Boat, who Gives way

[estarzinger]

It would seem to me that the USCG interpretation is authoritative. I cannot see it worth our time debating whether the USCG is "right". This comes from their colreg HQ group. I would suggest they know the fine points of the rules and all the possible sources on interpretation better than any of us here. In a collision course case they would be the final expert testimony.

It is certainly possible that a European authority may have a different interpretation, and I would be curious if someone would ask the question of the MCA.

But short of that I figure we now have a very clear stated and very authoritative answer.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I don't see a contradiction. The big vessel may have been impeded by a small vessel. When the big vessel has to alter course or speed then the stand-on vessel may indeed be the small craft.

I stand corrected. A "not to impede" vessel cannot become the stand-on vessel when a possible collision situation arises. Thus it is possible that both vessels could become "give way". Still I don't see this as a contradiction.

I agree with Evans that the authoritative voice has spoken.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It would seem to me that the USCG interpretation is authoritative. I cannot see it worth our time debating whether the USCG is "right". This comes from their colreg HQ group. I would suggest they know the fine points of the rules and all the possible sources on interpretation better than any of us here. In a collision course case they would be the final expert testimony.

It is certainly possible that a European authority may have a different interpretation, and I would be curious if someone would ask the question of the MCA.

But short of that I figure we now have a very clear stated and very authoritative answer.

The CG interpretation corresponds exactly with what I currently think is the best interpretation of this knotty concept ("currently" because my thinking has changed a lot as I've learned so much from reading and thinking and listening to you guys).

However, I don't think it should stop discussion. I don't think that's the only possible interpretation, and may well not be the best.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It is certainly possible that a European authority may have a different interpretation, and I would be curious if someone would ask the question of the MCA.

I'll see what I can do for you tomorrow, hopefully will have some time while we wait for our jack up tow to attempt to pull its port leg out if the mud and allow us to get underway.

I'll see what I can get out of them, if time allows, will call them tomorrow.

I have been attempting to follow the debate on a UK forum concerning the Solent collision mentioned earlier (and have now lost the will to live), but a couple of folks made references to changes in certain harbour Local Notice to Mariners (based on Rule 9)
In the case of Rule 9 and the the requirement to not impede, they seem to have a different interpretation.
See

Queen's Harbour Master - Portsmouth - Local Notice to Mariners

Note the insistence that vessels wishing to be privileged in a channel must display the appropriate lights and shapes.

[Lodesman]

If collision results, the vessel's breach of her duty not to impede will be a basis for allocating fault for the collision".

Kind of ignores the whole part where the vessel that is not to be impeded is required to follow the steering and sailing rules when risk of collision results. Surely if a collision results, that should be part of the basis for allocating fault. If fact it says that in Farwell's treatise on rule 9 (attached)

I've also attached Farwell's discussion on rule 8 - herein lies the contradiction, in various parts Farwell says the impeding vessel should stand on; in other parts both vessels give way.

[Lodesman]

I should have added that Farwell doesn't get too much into the "impede" rule in the rule 10 discussion, but refers to the IMO guidance. Hmmm, I see where they say that all the other rules apply (particularly rules 11-18), they don't say "except for rule 17."

[nigel1]

Just spent 20 minutes on the phone with the MCA's Safety of Navigation section.

Their view is that each case should be looked at on its own merits.
To start with, you cannot expect every situation can be covered by a 30 page booklet.

I put forward a couple of cases
Sailing vessel attempting to cross the Dover TSS, with a close quarters situation developing with 4 ships abreast of each other.

The sailing vessel should navigate to avoid impeding the vessels following the lane

Second case, a sailing vessel crossing the TSS off Carmel Head, Anglesey, there is one PDV following the lane, and a close quarters situation is developing.
His (MCA) opinion was that the normal sailing and steering rules would apply, and that the PDV should give way to the sailing vessel. The lane is 2 mile wide, deep, with deep water outside the lane and in the TSZ. The sailing vessel is not impeding the safe passage of the PDV.

The above was a personnel opinion, as such, the MCA do not have a hard and fast rule on this.

[carstenb]

I find it interesting that apparently the Brits and the Americans may have differing interpretations of this.

I'll try the Danish Maritime Authority. They are on holiday so I won't get an answer before earliest monday

[El Pinguino]

If you check this link , the UK Annual Notices to Mariners 17, you will see there are IMO TSS and 'national' TSS. http://www.ukho.gov.uk/productsandse...nnualnm/17.pdf

Most of the 'national' ones are in harbour approaches where there is a very good chance a yacht will 'impede the safe passage' of a ship.

I think some are taking the word 'impede' in isolation where in fact Rule 10 says 'impede the safe passage'.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

If you check this link , the UK Annual Notices to Mariners 17, you will see there are IMO TSS and 'national' TSS. http://www.ukho.gov.uk/productsandse...nnualnm/17.pdf

Most of the 'national' ones are in harbour approaches where there is a very good chance a yacht will 'impede the safe passage' of a ship.

I think some are taking the word 'impede' in isolation where in fact Rule 10 says 'impede the safe passage'.

That's a good point. I notice they only say "safe passage" in 10(j) and 18(d); all the other mentions of not impede omit the "safe." I find it most curious that 10(i) says that fishing vessels shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a lane.

The most pertinent part from the UK NTM:

4. While vessels using the traffic lanes in schemes adopted by IMO must, in particular, comply with Rule 10 of the International Collision Regulations, they are not thereby given any right of way over crossing vessels; the other Steering and Sailing Rules still apply in all respects, particularly if risk of collision is involved.

[carstenb]

I've spent some time reading through my Danish copy of the Colregs including Commentary. The Commentary is interesting. I'll quote and you need to realize I'm completely bilingual Danish/english - English/danish, so the translation should be good enough.

"The regulations in (i) and (j) regarding that a ship, engaged in fishing, a ship under 20 m in length or a sailing ship may not impede the safe passage of a ship within a TSZ, shall be upheld by such ships (fishing, under 20 M , sailing ships), in a timely manner, that is to say, before danger of collision is perceived, through its maneuver show, that it will respect and move away from the other ship's course."

"If there is a danger of collision, the normal rules of steering and sailing shall have effect"

This is quite interesting. The Commentary says that in such a situation, the normal rules of overtaking are no longer i force. The sailboat must give way to the engine powered ship - despite the fact that the sailboat is being overtaken. Unless, there is danger of a collision - then the normal rules take effect. So they want to have it both ways. But I believe Evans answer from the USCG is correct. The above is taken from the IMO Commented Colregs, 9th edition

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I've spent some time reading through my Danish copy of the Colregs including Commentary. The Commentary is interesting. I'll quote and you need to realize I'm completely bilingual Danish/english - English/danish, so the translation should be good enough.

"The regulations in (i) and (j) regarding that a ship, engaged in fishing, a ship under 20 m in length or a sailing ship may not impede the safe passage of a ship within a TSZ, shall be upheld by such ships (fishing, under 20 M , sailing ships), in a timely manner, that is to say, before danger of collision is perceived, through its maneuver show, that it will respect and move away from the other ship's course."

"If there is a danger of collision, the normal rules of steering and sailing shall have effect"

This is quite interesting. The Commentary says that in such a situation, the normal rules of overtaking are no longer i force. The sailboat must give way to the engine powered ship - despite the fact that the sailboat is being overtaken. Unless, there is danger of a collision - then the normal rules take effect. So they want to have it both ways. But I believe Evans answer from the USCG is correct. The above is taken from the IMO Commented Colregs, 9th edition

Wow, what a mess.

So it really looks like there is no harmony, no rhyme, no reason, between the various possible interpretations.

[El Pinguino]

Meanwhile ANM 17 offers this '4. While vessels using the traffic lanes in schemes adopted by IMO must, in particular, comply with Rule 10 of the International Collision Regulations, they are not thereby given any right of way over crossing vessels; the other Steering and Sailing Rules still apply in all respects, particularly if risk of collision is involved.'

Note that it says IMO TSS.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Meanwhile ANM 17 offers this '4. While vessels using the traffic lanes in schemes adopted by IMO must, in particular, comply with Rule 10 of the International Collision Regulations, they are not thereby given any right of way over crossing vessels; the other Steering and Sailing Rules still apply in all respects, particularly if risk of collision is involved.'

Note that it says IMO TSS.

There's no right of way anywhere in the Colregs. In just one Inland Rule, as far as I know.

In any case, this is uncontroversial -- Rule 8(f)(iii) says specifically:

"A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this Part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision."


The big question which no one can answer is whether or not both vessels are supposed to be giving way once a risk of collision exists, or whether the vessel which was supposed to be not impeding then goes over into standing on.

Both of these situations result in a certain absurdity.

[avb3]

I almost dare not say it, but giving the various interpretations we seem to be seeing, when discussing sailing vessels under 20 meters, apparently the law of tonnage does apply.

Dockhead is there some case law in various jurisdictions that you may have access to that could provide more information?

I am assuming that in civil cases precedence does apply in different jurisdictions, although I may be wrong on that.